5 comments about Madam Secretary: A Biography of Madeleine Albright.

1. I bought this book by mistake. Its title was the same and the cover is almost the same as the real thing ie Madeleine Albright's autobiography. The author is clearly a fan, so much so that it is full of saccharine platitudes and name dropping. I'll be looking more closely next time - particularly at anything published by St Martin's Griffin or authored by an uncritical Mr Blood.
   
   Kate Owen



2. I agree with the other reviewers. I, too, was looking forward to a critical and well-argued review of Albright's career. Instead, this book is page upon page of thin fawning and simplistic worship. Just for fun, I tried to find one single paragraph critical of Albright in the chapter on her relationship with Powell. I couldn't find one.

   Where was the editor when this book was being written? Why was this author chosen to write this biography? Surely there must be credible authors able to recount a far more analytical and balanced story than Thomas Blood.




3. The fact that this book even got published makes my head smart with incredulity; there is no political objectivity or critical analysis to be found anywhere on the printed pages nor is there any scholarly, in-depth research on the life of our country's first woman Secretary of State. In the author's eyes, if one can call him that, Madeline Albright is the goddess of the State Department, and that's that. This book is astounding in that it is so terrible; it is nothing but shoddy work -- a meandering diatribe that resembles a poorly written fifth grade book report. To say more would be a waste of space and time...



4. I work "inside the beltway" and Mr. Blood's book should be praised for its attempt to put Secretary Albright on a pedastal. The media today takes great pleasure in tearing down the character of politicians, atheletes, etc. But this book cannot be taken seriously; it is too one-sided in its portrayal of Ms. Albright and the issues Mr. Blood writes about are too "cut and dried" by his account. Shame on him - with his experiences in Washington he should know such issues are imbued with plots, subplots, and unknown factors. Mr. Blood's experience as a lobbyist comes through in his writing, as he could no doubt convince Americans that Washington DC has cool, dry summers. I wish Mr. Blood better luck in his future attempts.



5. Political biographies have more than there share of critics .Everyone thinks they could do a better job than that of the person holding office. Blood did a good job of showing the history of Madeline Albright and what she was bringing to the table. It was refreshing to 'not see' the usual bashing of a Washington Woman who Blood himself called "tough-as-nails." The only biographies most people think are "balanced' are those that tear apart the subjects accomplishments. After reading this book I felt positive and hopeful for other women in politics and passed it along to my daughter, a political science major at Harvard.(she also enjoyed it.)

No comments about Truman Tapes.

5 comments about Bobby Fischer: Profile of a Prodigy (Revised Edition).

1. Nearly everyone who has some decent experiance with chess has heard about Bobby Fischer and his mysterious behavior. He is one of the best chess players in history and I bought the book recently to get more insight into his character and mind. The book has about 400 pages and a little more than a half consists of his biography from childhood up to 1972 Fischer-Spassky Championship and the other part is 80 selected Fischer games with very good annotations and turnament results.
   
   The biography in itself consists very little of Fischer's personal life, and majority of it are various turnament events and how well Fischer did at them. I think it's well worth reading for people who have interest in Bobby Fischer, and would like to immitate his career to some extent.
   
   The part that has put biggest imprint on my memory is when the author (Bobby's early chess advisor) and Bobby went to meet one of the NYC bussinesmen who offered to fund Bobby's travel to a turnament. 'Tis what happened: after a short conversation the bussinessman added:
   
   "[...] 'However there's just one thing I'd like you to do. If I put up the money and send you to this turnament, and when you win and are interviewed by the press, or anybody, I want you to say: 'I couldn't have won this turnament without the help of Sam Blanker."'
   Bobby was on his feet immediately, seeming to have grown years in a moment. 'I can do that', he said evenly. 'If I win a turnament, I win it by myself. I do the playing. Nobody helps me. I win the turnament myself, with my own talent.'" Bobby rejected the offer for one particular reason.
   
   This gives a lot of insight into Fischer's mind.
   
   The pluses and minuses:
   1. Pluses: The book was written in a very simplistic form without input of unnecessary words and information which makes it quick and pleasant to read. I read entire book in 3 days and I don't regret it. The attached annotated games and turnament results are a very good idea for people who are interested in Fischer's chess style (if it can be called a style) besides his biography.
   
   2. Minuses: There's one huge problem with the book which to some extant destroys the postive impressions with the book. I took a way 2 points for this. The author over and over again rationalizes Fischer's behavior in a positive manner which might not be true and tries to impose on the reader the idea of Fischer being the greatest and most rightous genius on the planet. This happens especially in conclusion, of which I read only 2 pages as I couldn't cope with its "Fischer worshipping tone". I advise anyone who reads the book to simply not care so much about those parts.



2. 3.5 stars
   
   It is just so hard to review this autobiography, completed at the height of Fischer's triumph, knowing what was to come. Though not meant to be ironic, the author's comments about Bobby having finally found his place atop the chess world cannot but seem ironic now.
   
   That aside, and it is not wholly the author's fault, the book is neither as much as a puff piece as the earlier version was, to my mind at least, nor was it as penetrating as it could have been. It comes across as a sterile recounting of Fischer's career with little mention of a personal life, or wondering about the lack of one.
   
   Though not penetrating and mentioning the seeds of behaviors that even then would have been known to Fischer's friends before they fully blossomed before the entire world the book is not full of praise for Bobby either. The recountings of his continued dropping out of tournaments, his altercation with Benko do not cast Fischer in the kindest light.
   
   The author does seem to be softening, and explaining and excusing, these events but he is enough of a scholar that he leaves them reasonably unvarnished for the reader to make their own decisions.
   
   Interesting, but now incomplete, reading to see the rocky and troubled rise of the solo chess prodigy Bobby Fischer.



3. Frank Brady's "Profile of a Prodigy" is a frustrating combination of good and bad. The good first: Brady gives fascinating behind-the-scenes information that I'd read nowhere else, giving you the sense that you are there. The bad: the book is riddled with mistakes, stuff you wouldn't find in a High School newspaper! Dates and misstatements of facts, too numerous to mention. And some chessic misjudgements too, like when Brady says, speaking of the 1972 Title Match, that Fischer varied his opening repertoire to an English Opening in Game 8 from the QGD of Game 6. But it wasn't Fischer who varied; he played 1.c4 in both games. It was Spassky's reply in game 8 that changed the opening. The book would've benefitted from a good editor, one who knows how to play chess. But despite all this, I'd still recommend the book. It's a fascinating read.
   Bob Hunt, Hillsborough, N.J.



4. I bought the first edition of this book by mail order when I was about 16, and devoured it eagerly. In those days world-class chess was relentlessly dominated by the USSR, challenged mainly by other Eastern Europeans and the occasional American like Reshevsky, Evans and the Byrne brothers. Boris Spassky was soon to play "iron Tigran" Petrosian for the world title, and the only wild card seemed to be a crazy teenage genius from New York who could beat anyone at all on his day. Frank Brady's writing captured the sheer excitement of it all. For instance, in a great tournament with most of the best players in the world, Mikhail Tal expected Petrosian to crush the upstart Fischer, "but when Bobby beat the USSR champion the crowd roared".
   
   Brady's style is journalistic, but it fits his subject quite well. This much expanded edition takes Fischer's story all the way to winning the world championship, which is probably a logical place to stop. (Fischer stopped playing chess at that point, so the rest of his life has been lived in a very different world). The book is full of interesting facts that you could not read about anywhere else, and until a professional biographer turns his attention to Fischer - which may never happen, because he is about the least cooperative subject imaginable - it will remain the last word.
   
   The games section is a different story. Only a narrow cross section are given, with notes by Brady that reveal his lack of expertise. They are only there for completeness' sake, and should be read as an extension of the biography. If you want to understand Fischer's chess, read his Collected Games, his own "My 60 Memorable Games" (which is itself very limited in scope, though superb in depth), or Elie Agur's brilliant "Bobby Fischer: His Approach to Chess".



5. Fischer was a genius, no question about that. This book is a good buy for the price: you get a (weak) biography of a great player, 8 pages of pictures, and 90 (poorly) annotated games for less than US$15.00! Altogether not a bad deal. However, I take issue with the author. Because he was a friend of Fischer's he did not want to ruin his relationship with him by revealing Fischer's odd character traits, as many other reviewers have noticed. Worst, the author wants you to believe Fischer was a good boy, the American self made sportsman who increased the popularity of the game while fighting for better playing conditions and higher appearance fees, which would ultimately benefit chess professionals as a whole. This might be true. However, it is also true that Fischer left chess players as a whole with an undeletable image: that of nerds, eccentrics and the like. All in all I think his contribution to the image of chess was negative, not positive. Upon reading the book it struck me that Spassky allowed himself to play that fatidic match in Iceland. Fischer did not show up at the date and time they had originally agreed. Spassky gave in to Fischer's absurd demands, falling pray to Fischer's psychological warfare. He should have walked away and kept his title, period. Since he did not the rest is history. At the end of the day the character of a World Champion is seem not when he wins a world championship match but rather when he loses it. Fischer, unlike Spassky, Karpov, and Kasparov never showed up to defend his title. This will be his sad legacy.

5 comments about Not for Ourselves Alone: The Story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony.

1. This was a wonderful and engaging read. Not only were you given a clear picture of both Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, but the book cites numerous powerful men and women who were active in the suffrage movement. This book is like a small taste of women's history that leaves you yearning for more. However, I wouldn't overlook this book just because it is not extremely specific, it is very helpful in getting a feel for the suffrage movement as a whole.



2. This book fills a glaring need in history books. Not many people know more about Susan B. Anthony than she was one the dollar coin. This book corrects that oversight, and then some. Not only does the book give a balanced and well thought out look at Anthony and Stanton, the reader is also introduced to many, many other women who worked so hard for women rights.
   I especially liked that the book didn't shy away from some of these women's more controversial stands, such as taking on the black person's cause.
   All in all, a very good book.



3. This book provides insight and history on the struggle that women went through to get the right to vote. It includes all kinds of interesting background and perspectives. It was a real eye opener for me and I'm giving it as a gift to all the young women I know.



4. This book was an eye opener for me. Every woman should read this book to understand the fight for our right to vote. These women devoted their lives to something they knew they would never even see in their live time! Its a story of courage and strength. It's makes one feel proud to be a woman.



5. This book is richly woven with details that dive into the true characters of these two beautiful souls. The book gives a truly amazing account of not only Elizabeth Cady Stanton & Susan B. Anthony, but dives into their lives and characters. The reader obtains a true understanding of these women's motivations, techniques, skills, and contributions, in a brilliant biography with great quotes, accounts, photographs, and special archives directly from the time period of Susan & Elizabeth, relating to their work. Ken Burns & Geoffrey C. Ward have made quite an accomplishment with this extraordinary account.

5 comments about Short of the Glory: The Fall and Redemption of Edward F. Prichard Jr..

1. Who would of thought that here in the third millennium we would still take time to read about Ed Prichard, whose life story will be linked through eternity with a third rate felony-and a blundering, ham-handed felony at that? Prichard is dead more than 20 years now, as are almost all those who loved and hated him. He never held public office-indeed, more generally, never came close to fulfilling the promise of his admirers. Why would anyone care?
   
   To this question, it is possible to give an uncharitable reply. Kentucky, one might say, is a place with more past than future. To dwell on a footnote may be read as saying: we almost amounted to something, we could have been a contender.
   
   And yet, and yet. And yet we have the testimony of the best and the brightest that Prich himself was the best and the brightest; if not as an actor, perhaps as a thinker and certainly as a talker.. Indeed, I had the privilege to observe Prich in what might be called his rehabilitation phase: the early 60s when his friends were trying to ease him back from obloquy and exile onto the political stage. I will add my testimony to those of legions who swore that Prichard in full spate was simply the greatest three-ring oratorical circus of which a simple country boy might dream, his whooshes of insight keeping easy company with his flashes of savage wit. No wonder he won the affection of Felix Frankfurter, of Phil Graham, of-good heavens, is this true?-of Sir Isaiah Berlin.
   
   Indeed: Berlin was once his roommate and like so many was stunned and horrified when Prich was convicted by a Kentucky jury The details are there Tracy Campbell's account, along with a great deal else one may have remembered or forgotten about the politics of Kentucky in the last Century. Campbell tells it all earnestly and unflinchingly, and a strangely compelling story it remains.
   
   Is there a larger context for Prich's story? Probably not a great one, but by a stretch, you could fit it into more general story of the history of the New Deal. It was here, after all, that Prich occupied center stage: as the brilliant young scamp who enchanted Felix Frankfurter, and who put himself at the elbow of Robert Jackson, of Fred Vinson, of Jimmie Byrnes (although both Jackson and Byrnes stayed aloof, and even Vinson saw Prich's limits). One can, at least with caution, take Prich as a kind of symbol for what was right and wrong with those years: the brilliance, the optimism, the energy, together with an overlarge dose of self-admiration, bordering on downright narcissism. Prich was, after all, as dazzling as they say he was. But he was an appalling abuser of friendship, a serial shirker of duties, and at best no more than a mediocre husband and father. Even after he started taking fees from the strip miners, he never really paid his taxes. Indeed, one of the remarkable parts of the Prich story is the way so many people were taken in by him-not merely by his skills at rhetoric and dialectic (which were indisputable) but by the notion that these virtues somehow translated into political gravitas.
   
   Campbell does a conscientious job of surveying the evidence surrounding Prichard's pivotal bout with ballot-stuffing in 1948. Laudably, he hesitates to draw any grand conclusions. I will indulge myself a bit more. Prich came back to Kentucky touted as the next governor, senator, president-offices to which (says Campbell), absent his "lapse" he "would certainly" have risen. But by Campell's own testimony, this is nonsense. Campbell himself says that Prich "had not the ambition or the personality for such posts." Quite right: probably nobody knew this better than Prich himself. His friends saw him as the next Roosevelt; he knew he was closer to Peter Pan. By sticking his hand in a ballot box, he relieved himself of all these impositions: he may have left his friends bewildered and disappointed, but he gave himself the freedom to remain forever young.



2. Edward F. Prichard, Jr.'s life makes for high drama; this excellent biography makes for engrossing and informative reading. "Prich" was yet another of the terribly bright Frankfurter students at Harvard Law School in the late 1930's who gravitated to Washington, first as a Supreme Court clerk to Frankfurter, and later with involvement in New Deal and wartime public service. The Greek chorus appears when Prichard returns to his home state of Kentucky to practice law. The book superbly recounts his conviction in connection with a 1948 vote-tampering scandal, his incarceration, and his eventual return to the practice of law and a role as respected educational reformer in Kentucky. Unfortunately, serious illness inflicted near blindness and other frailties which ultimately caused an early death at the age of 69. The reader can only sit back and wonder as to why one with such unlimited promise and talents chose the course he did. Nonetheless, as the book traces Prich's life, it provides an fascinating perspective on Harvard Law, Frankfurter, the wartime FDR administration, the early presidency of Truman, and the rise of the super lawyer-lobbyists such as Thomas Corcoran. One's time is well invested in reading this volume.



3. Ed Prichard was called "the brightest of our generation" by no less than Katherine Graham. He was Felix Frankfurer's first law clerk, and served ably and brilliantly in the Roosevelt and Truman administrations.

   Then came 1948. In Texas, Lyndon Johnson won a Senatorial election, as the saying goes, by the votes of 49 dead Mexicans. That same year, Prichard helped stuff ballot boxes in his home county, Bourbon County, Kentucky, for a forgettable Senate candidate who had the election locked up anyway. But, hounded by J. Edgar Hoover for his "socialist" views (such as championing civil rights for blacks and an eight hour work day, with a decent minimum wage), Prichard, not Johnson, went to prison and was disbarred.

   This short, but imminently well researched book is his story, recounting all his sparkling brilliance, the arrogance that helped bring him down, and his ultimate redemption as the father of the education reform movement in Kentucky. This is an elegantly written and masterfully documented history from a first rate young historian. The biggest revelation is the story of J. Edgar Hoover's targeting of Prichard, which was gleaned from declassified documents, and never previously reported.

   If this book teaches us that we are all flawed, it also teaches that we are all capable of redemption. This is one of the finest biographies I have ever read.




4. This book tells well of a brilliant student, high in the ranks of his class at harvard Law, law clerk to Justice Frankfurter, holding responsible positions in the Government in wartime Washington, who by an unbelievably reckless and stupid act destroyed his career, then , after years of struggle redeemed himself before his death in 1984. This is a most worthwhile read for anyone interested in the law or in Kentucky politics,or in the shakers and movers in Washington in the 1940s.



5. In this accessible, informative biography, Campbell presents the tragic story of one of the brightest stars on the 20th century American political scene. A man of acknowledged genius, fragile ego, and an almost childlike attitude, Prichard was seen by many as the most gifted and promising of the new generation of liberal politicians that arose out of the New Deal. Though his hopes for political office were ended by J. Edgar Hoover's irrational vendetta against him, Campbell makes it clear that the person who ultimately brought about Prichard's downfall was Prichard himself. This is an excellent book about the lofty heights and tragic depths that a man could sink to, and I highly recommend it to any history buff or political wonk.

5 comments about The Presidency of Abraham Lincoln (American Presidency Series).

1. When a good friend died his wife gave me his collection of books on the Civil War. Over the years, I have ebayed most of them, but some how, I could not bring myself to auction this book off. During a recent move, as I was packing my library, I toss this book aside to read. Wow! What a good read. Although written ten years ago, this book is strangely appropriate for our times.
   
   Lincoln has taken a hit from the politically correct revisionist historians on two accounts: First because of his early stance on resolving the race issue (colonization), and secondly because of the limited reach of the Emancipation Proclamation (freeing only slaves in the states in active rebellion against the Union). For these reasons, modern revisionist judge Lincoln according to modern liberal standards and find him guilty of racism. Unfortunately, history is not that simple. People, at least intelligent people as Lincoln certainly was, have complex and evolving views of the critical issues of their day. Lincoln certainly did not have the hindsight that today's historians do. He was a man of his time who struggled with the issues and whose changing views on race made him a great man. It is to Paludan's credit that he refuses to give simple answers to explain the life and views of a very complex man. He shows us a complex even contradictory personality.
   
   Especially pertinent to the current news is Paludan's analysis of Lincoln and the Supreme Court. Lincoln believed that ultimate authority in the issues before the nation was the political process, not the Supreme Court (i.e., the Dred Scott decision). Social policy was not the realm of the court, but of the congress. Lincoln saw the court having authority only on parties to the suit and perhaps as a precedent in parallel cases. But "upon vital questions affecting the whole people" American citizens could not "resign their government into the hands of judges." The same issue faces us today. The fundamental question we are facing is the same Lincoln faced: Is the role of the court to adjudicate constitutional issues or to decide social policy?
   
   Vital to Lincoln's perception of the role of the Supreme Court was his view of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. He saw the Declaration as the promise and the Constitution as the incomplete fulfillment of that promise. The inclusion of slavery into the Constitution was a political necessity to form the union (six slave states would not enter the union without it). Thus Dread Scott was the wrong decision, immoral as it were, even if the constitution included slavery. Why? Because the promise was given in the Declaration of Independence that all men were created equal. Hum . . . funny thing, when today's conservatives cite the Declaration of Independence in defense of a theistic basis for our nation, liberals are quick to point out that the Declaration is not a legal document and that the Constitution, as the ultimate authority, does not mention God at all. Just a thought.
   
   
   Ok, I can't help it. I have to talk about the anti-war Democrats of Lincoln's day. Paludan points out again and again that the Democrats of Lincoln's day kept up a constant litany that the war could not be won, that it would bankrupt the county, and that civil liberties were threatened. The peace activist of that day saw nothing but failure and thought that recognizing that failure made better sense than perpetuating it. Um. . . sounds familiar doesn't it. I guess some things never change.
   
   Well, I guess I said enough. This was a great book. I could hardly put it down. Good thing I did not ebay it.



2. Like one of the previous reviewers, I too have been a previous student of Professor Paluden at the University of Kansas. I count him as one of the instructors that have fueled a passion in me to study the civil war period. Unlike the previous reviewer, I have had the benefit of having read this book before offering an opinion. Prof. Paluden offers an extremely well researched account of the civil war presidency of Lincoln. This work includes statistics and facts you simply cannot get from documentaries or other accounts. He correctly paints Lincoln as a master politician and cuts through the mythology of the man. Was Lincoln morally opposed to slavery...yes. Was he willing to run on an abolitionist platform?? Hell no, not and get elected during that time period. Paluden's real gift is painting a picture of the period and making folks realize just how important politics was in the 19th Century to all Americans (80-90% voter turnout). Unlike the previous reviewer, I have never noted the negative side of Prof. Paluden. He does have an ego, but, like has been said of his subject "no great man was ever modest". Thanks for a wonderful book professor. (Jayhawk Class of 1995).



3. As the title indicates, this is not a biography of Abraham Lincoln. It is, instead, a narrow, but detailed and incisive study of Lincoln's exercise of executive power between his election in 1860 and his assassination in 1865. This is important because, as author Philip Shaw Paludan explains: "No president had larger challenges than Abraham Lincoln." And Paludan proceeds to state the obvious, that Lincoln was "responsible for two enormous accomplishments that are part of folk legend as well as fact. He saved the Union and he freed the slaves." No other president did so much in so little time, and Paludan explains why. As a result, within its limited confines, this book is excellent!

   Paludan demonstrates in the chapter entitled "Assembling the Cast: Winter 1860-61," that Lincoln, as president-elect, was a shrewd politician. According to Paludan: "Lincoln could be effective only if he unified the six-year-old Republican party," so one of his first appointments was "his strongest party rival," William Seward, Senator from New York, as secretary of state. As political payback for delivering Pennsylvania to the Republicans in 1860, Lincoln was obliged to appoint the notoriously-corrupt Simon Cameron Secretary of War. To counter that stench, Lincoln named as his secretary of the navy Connecticut newspaper editor Gideon Welles, who "had a glowing reputation for honesty." Within a year, Cameron also proved to be incompetent, and, in 1862, Lincoln replaced him with Edwin Stanton, who proved to be not only a man of great integrity but a very capable manager as well. It proved to be one of the most talented cabinets in American history, although Paludan makes clear that its operations were not always harmonious, most notably during the "cabinet crisis" of December 1862.

   With most of the executive departments in capable hands, Lincoln "involved himself actively in matters of strategy," claiming "`war power' authority to use his office to the limits." Lincoln's focus on military affairs was essential because the Civil War generally went badly for the Union for the first year. Paludan ably demonstrates that even while Lincoln struggled to find generals who had both the talents and temperament to be successful, the Union was "forging the resources of war," which eventually proved decisive. Gen. George McClellan was a brilliant military administrator but proved much too cautious in the field, appalled by the "mangled corpses and the poor suffering wounded. Lincoln eventually lost confidence in McClellan, and he had to be replaced. One of McClellan's eventual successors, Gen. George Meade, won the great victory at Gettysburg in July 1863, but the Union did fully gain the initiative in the field until Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, who won an equally great victory at Vicksburg, Mississippi almost on the same day, was appointed general in chief in March 1864.

   Lincoln's original war aim was merely to restore the Union. But the costs, human and material, of the war's first two years, made eradication of slavery a necessity. Following the battle of Antietam in September 1862, which was a "tactical draw but a strategic victory" for the Union, Lincoln announced the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. The issue then became: What was to be done with the former slaves? In December, Lincoln proposed a constitutional amendment for the federal government to pay to colonize any blacks who wished to emigrate, but blacks "rejected it, abolitionists had condemned it," and this "doubtful solution" was beyond the practical realities of the time. Even while the war continued to rage, the prospective problems of reconstruction never were far from Lincoln's mind, and, according to Paludan, this difficult issue increasingly divided the president from radical Republicans.

   Paludan writes that, while the radicals favored confiscation of land which had prospered from slave labor, Lincoln believed in "peaceful, gradual, compensated emancipation." Lincoln opposed the harsh remedy of confiscation and believed that the Constitution permitted him to free the slaves only "in places where war was being made." The Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 potentially freed 3 million slaves but did not mention colonization or compensated emancipation. Nevertheless, the emancipation issue proved controversial. Solidly Republican New England remained largely committed to the war, but, according to Paludan: "Especially in the regions of the Middle West settled from the South and in cities where job competition existed between the races, people resented the idea of fighting in order to free blacks."

   Equally controversial was the Emancipation Proclamation's "arming of black freedom fighters." According to Paludan, "Lincoln and his party clearly were committed to Union and to emancipation and to the belief that the two were linked indissolubly by the need for black soldiers." Almost 180,000 black troops were serving in Union armies by the end of the war. Lincoln was very conscious of the importance of maintaining the national moral, and, in Paludan's view, northern whites increasingly recognized the benefits of having black soldiers defend the Union.

   According to Paludan, the Union's victory was in large part a result of Lincoln's "devotion to and mastery of the political-constitutional institutions of his time." Some Civil War buffs and many general readers are likely to find this book rather dry because it focuses on the science of politics. But, as Paludan writes, the preservation of the Union "was achieved chiefly through an extraordinary outreach of national authority." This book is an exceptionally thoughtful account of the exercise of executive power during the most serious crisis in American history.




4. This is not a bad book, and in fact offers a solid description and assessment of the Lincoln Administration.

   Paludan describes the working of Lincoln's government well, including the personalities and major policy issues they faced. He does a good job in explaining the manueverings between Salmon P. Chase and Lincoln for dominance of the Administration and later for the 1864 Repbulican Party nomination. Also described thoroughly is Lincoln's Louisianna reconstruction plan, which gives a pretty plausible map to what reconstruction could have looked like had Booth not intervened.

   I found the writing average. While the book explains the subject well enough, the prose is more workmanlike. It didn't reach the level of engrossing style other chronicler's of Lincoln and his government have.

   Overall, not bad.




5. Well, first of all, I must tell everyone that I probably have a negative bias towards this book's author. The best thing I can say of this book is that curling up with it is much more pleasant than being in the same county as the author and his enormous ego. His scholarship in the book is a lot sounder than his verbal musings in the classroom, many of which are non-sensical and poorly thought-out, and his modern political musings which are often inappropiate and non-germane. One of my fondest memories is of him being made a fool of by a freshman student when he lectured for an hour on why a funeral home is called a "home". In typical PS Paludan fashion, he constructed an elaborate 19th century socio-historical explanation for what was easily explained by the student. They are called "funeral homes" because they were in caretaker's houses! Yes, Philly has a way of making the simple hard. This man almost ruined me on the study of history. I obviously would never buy this book, as I wouldn't want to see a penny go to this conceited egotist. I had this guy for a course 2 years ago and the mention of his name still makes my blood boil.

No comments about 'Ware Sherman: A Journal of Three Months' Personal Experience in the Last Days of the Confederacy.

4 comments about Lee's Last Major General: Bryan Grimes Of North Carolina.

1. I can't really add much to what has already been said by Cousin John. Dr. Allen has brought from the backgound to the forefront a true Son of the South and hero of America.



2. The book, as has been noted above is excellent - about an excellent man who really wanted to be nothing but a farmer. From his position of wealth and prestige he could have accepted a high rank in the Confederate Army. Being a practical and honest man who would have no truck with losing men because of his inexperience, he chose to take a lower rank (Major) so he could learn from a West Point trained Army Officer. When Harrell Allen wrote this book he relied upon a publisher that was not up to the task of publishing a book - one that did a terrible job in setting the print and then proof reading his work. There are lots of mispellings and transposed illustration labels - for example mixing up the label of the picture of Bryan Grimes and his brother William in their 20's. Some chapters clearly got proof read, others clearly did not. It is a shame the publisher, in doing such a poor job of the mechanics of publishing this book have somehow reflected poor credit on Mr. Allen's excellent work. Despite the awkward typos' this is a wonderful book about the life and times of an honest man who honestly believed he was serving his country and did a damned good job of it.



3. This is a great biography of one of the South's best fighting generals. Bryan Grimes was the last person Lee recommended for appointment to the rank of Major General and thus the title of the book.
   Bryan Grimes was born into a wealthy plantation family in North Carolina in 1828. He was educated at the University of North Carolina and had little military experience before the war. But he rose from lower officer ranks to general's rank during the course of the war. He had six horses shot out from under him as he led his men across the fields of battle; yet he was never seriously hurt during the war. He participated in many of the major battles in Virginia.
   The author was assisted in writing this book by what he describes as a "treasure trove" of letters written by Grimes and written to him during the war, which are located at various archives in North Carolina. This primary source material gives the book a sense of immediatecy when describing Grimes's life during this period.
   The book has many interesting anecdotes such as the time Grimes's soldiers recovered some bags of Yankee mail. Included were some letters written by Gen. George A. Custer to his wife and from his wife to him. Gen. Grimes in a letter to his wife, described Gen. Custer's letters as being "vulgar beyond all conversation" and those from Gen. Custer's wife as letters that "would make any honest woman blush".
   Another interesting anecdote describes Gen Grimes's return to North Carolina after Lee's surrender. Passing through scenes of destruction of civilian property, Gen Grimes and his companions came across an old man who was by the ruins of his home. The Yankees had destroyed his home, scattered and destroyed its contents, shot his yearling, his mule colt and even his dog! Is it any wonder that people in the South hated people from the North for generations?
   Strangely, after surviving the war, Gen. Grimes was murdered in 1880. The author describes his murder, the surrounding circumstances and its aftermath in great detail, including the trials of the accused. This book will be the best source for information on Gen. Grimes's murder for years to come.
   The author obviously liked and understood his subject. This is one of the best biographies of a Confederate general that I have ever read. This book is well worth the full five stars and I recommend it highly.



4. I had heard about this new biography and picked it up at a local book store. The author did a great job with this book, and finally someone has taken the time to present an excellent and fresh new history of General Grimes. So many books today say the same thing about the same officers. This book is based on hundreds of family letters, and so is very personal and exciting reading. It also has some great photos and detailed maps that are really good. There are a few typos in the book, but so what. I would rather read something new and original than the same old Pickett's Charge re-hash. Thanks to both the author and publisher for making this book available! I highly recommend it.

1 comments about Wide Ruins: Memories from a Navajo Trading Post.

1. "Wide Ruins" is a wonderful reading experience on an interesting topic. Sallie Wagner weaves a personal tale of her experiences as the trader at Wide Ruins, Arizona, in the 1940's. Her story progresses quickly and she seems to provide enough detail of her experiences without lingering too long on any one topic. She vividly describes the role of the trading post and of the traders. The trading post was a general store, a pawn shop, and a safety deposit box. The traders were resourceful businessmen who could conduct business without any actual money trading hands. They were esteemed residents who helped the Navajo people survive a difficult time in America's history.

   This memoir is a significant piece of literature because it was written by one who actually lived in a world that few non-Navajos ever get to see. She decribes the Navajo people and the Navajo culture in a way that makes their time and place real. It is not an academic study by a distant scholar of the culture. It is a personal account of a world that no longer exists, and as such, it is a treasure. I would also recommend "Navajo Trader" by Cladwell Richardson in addition to "Wide Ruins".

No comments about Thirty Years A Slave From Bondage To Freedom The Institution Of Slavery As Seen On The Plantation And In The Home Of The Planter: Autobiography Of Louis Hughes.