5 comments about An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963.

1. An extremely informative book. I came away from the book having only a little respect for Kennedy as a man or politician.
   
   1) He accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book that was almost entirely ghostwritten for him.
   
   2) His daddy helped him cheat to win in elections and primaries.
   
   3) His primary accomplishment as a Senator was keeping the seat warm for the next guy.
   
   4) He, like at least one other President, lied about or withheld the truth about significant medical/physical problems.
   
   5) He appointed his brother to post of Attorney General even though RFK was completely unqualified.
   
   6) He treated his wife with blankfaced disrespect (openly philandering) in public and private.
   
   7) He was primarily responsible for the Bay of Pigs fiasco which made him look weak and emboldened Cuba and the USSR, thus leading to the Cuban Missle Crisis which he handled surprisingly well.
   
   8) He dragged his feet on Civil Rights because he was afraid of losing the support of Southern Democrats. (MLK Jr. said JFK's assassination was the best thing to happen to the Civil Rights movement)
   
   9) He freely admitted his first year as President was a miserable failure.
   
   10) He stepped up involvement in Vietnam without actually dealing with the problem. This forced Johnson and Nixon to make strategically terrible, morally insupportable and after-the-fact decisions.
   
   He was good looking and well spoken. Even his fiercest detractors admit he gave a great speech. He had a beautiful and cultured wife and adorable kids (Camelot). He was intelligent and erudite. He did his duty in WW2. As the President, he meant well but was inexperienced, naive & hopelessly out of his depth in high level cut-throat politics and completely lacking in moral courage. He did at least listen to the Civil Rights leaders and proposed bare minimum legistation. He got the space program off the ground (so to speak). He started the Peace Corp. He stared down the bombastic Khrushchev and the belligerent Castro. He encouraged Americans toward volunteerism and thinking of America 1st and themselves 2nd. All in all, a failed half-presidency with a few points of light redeemed by his martyrdom and subsequent mythology.



2. Robert Dallek is a gifted historian. He is also a complete historian, because he writes extremely well. I wonder if he has ever won the Parkman Prize, because his apparent meticulous research is consumed by the reader with such ease. Of course, because it is Dr. Dallek, I have but one complaint. In the young, Kennedy years, prior to the presidency, the biography feels intimate -- as if we were talking to someone who was right in the house growing up with him -- almost if we were like Lem Billings. But when we get to the presidency there is a bit of opinionating that oftimes goes from historian to editorializing. For example, when speaking of the Berlin Crisis, Dr. Dallek opines that it is best that JFK was running the show because RFK, being a hothead, might have gotten us involved in a nuclear exchange. Other than that minor, minor complaint, (because he is probably right on his opinionating), I think Dallek is great. So is his new title about Nixon, (and Kissinger,too.)
   
   Joe Nichols



3. Thought that the book was an adequate one volume account of the life of JFK. The author talked alot about JFK's medical problems, more than I would have liked. He could have written a chapter about the medical problems JFK had with his stomach and back and about how the Kennedy's covered up those ailments during the run for the presidency and during the presidency.
   
   But overall I thought that it was a very good book and would recommend to anyone who is reading their first Biography of Kennedy.



4. I very much enjoyed this biography of JFK. It is very well written and exactly what you want in a biography. It has a very detailed account of his entire life, from birth, through school and his travels, and on to his time as President.
   
   My only criticism is that for those of you who were not alive at the time of JFK (like me), you can get lost in many of the pages surrounding his Presidency. The author's accounts are so detailed, that I often found myself turning back in the book to refresh my memory about the many names and places that are referenced.
   
   Other than that, I highly recommend this book. The accounts of his young life (the privilege, the travels, the women) are fantastically interesting. The accounts of his many illnesses were also well done, and news to me.
   
   If you are like me and a big fan of biographies that start from the beginning and tell the whole story chronologically without leaving out a single detail, then this book is for you.



5. Well packed and arrived in a timely fashion. Everything as expected. A pleasure to do business with.

5 comments about American Legacy: The Story of John and Caroline Kennedy.

1. I'm answering my own question by saying, "I don't know." I certainly enjoyed the time I spent on this book. I admired Jackie's dedication to her children, and to teaching them how to deal with their with their legacy. It was neat to see each sibling's unique personality unfold. But I'm not sure if I enjoyed it because John and Caroline are such compelling figures, or because Heyman did a good job. He waffles so much -- in the Schlossberg marriage, either Ed or Caroline is aloof, and either Ed or Caroline is friendly. Carolyn Bessette was either highly demonstrative, or she wasn't. And the passages about JFK Jr's sexual experimentation (which either did or didn't happen) seemed to come out of left field. So while I enjoyed this book, I can't honestly recommend it.



2. 
   the Billy Way interview about John & Carolyn's marriage let me
   
   question everything. Billy Way died eleven years ago.



3. C. David Heymann, John Hankey.
   Both have written about JFK Jr. Now why has Heymann's item come out now? So soon after Hankey's? After so many words written about the Kennedy's?
   
   Perhaps for the same reason Gerald Posner wrote "Case Closed", assuring us that JFK Sr. was killed by LHO, and nobody else? Heymann wants this case closed, too. Good and closed. He'll accuse the quite responsible JFK Jr. of abusing alcohol, as well as being a bad pilot, if that is what it takes.
   
   John Hankey's DVD, The Assassination of JFK Jr. was promoted on Amazon with the following words I couldn't express better, "Overwhelming, jaw-dropping evidence of foul play in the death of John Kennedy Jr., all based on official government documents:"
   
   Heymann barks on cue. Why the heavy handed affirmation of John Jr.'s culpability in the downing of his plane? Even bringing up "alcohol" something no one else has done? This author is some sort of friend? The testimony is very strong that irresponsible behavior was uncharacteristic of John (no--I'm no JFK Jr. fan; I just hate liars and smearers). Publishing companies are carefully chosen by the powers of today, and then they choose their authors carefully. Posner admitted he wrote "Case Closed" because that was the point of view desired by the publishing company who hired him.
   From all accounts, John Jr. was extremely careful, never flew without a flight instructor, and had let the FAA know his plane was approaching. When it did not land in a few minutes, the FAA was bound by law to IMMEDIATELY start a search. They did not do so for an incredible 15 HOURS. Even the Kennedy family could not get them to search until they finally placed a call to the Coast Guard who then called the FAA, who then directed a search many miles away from where the plane went down...
   and that, boys and girls, is only the beginning and it's all on record. As usual, they trust that the public will be a: indifferent, b: forgetful of original news reports, c: gullible, d: fearful of repercussions should they question the officially sanctioned story.
   Even a hard-boiled detective would jerk up and take notice; yet a supposed "sympathetic biographer", Heymann, ignores this glaring misdeed and even invents (?) a new fault for John Jr. of which, he speculates, the departed one may be guilty. How low can we go? The past few years have been instructive on that question, in many different areas of public discourse. But back to John Jr.
   Beware anything Heymann writes. As far as his hauling out the many stories we already know, the only reason this man wrote this book is to get the bloodhounds away from the culprits, who are very, very powerful.
   
   Oh that word, that word--conspiracy--that word which means to "breath together". Dear readers, do you really think there are no plotters of coups and murders who do not "breath together"? JFK Jr. was never the brainiest, but, hey, with what we've got in the Office now, brains are not what it takes. JFK Jr. could have beaten hands down, anyone they put against him. Can't have that, when you're getting ready to do the great take over. Smart or average, JFK Jr. wanted to get to the bottom of certain political crimes, and had published in his magazine, an interview with the mother of the man who killed Rabin in 1995. She said her son was a "manuchurian candidate" and the assassination had been allowed to happen--an inside job, so to speak. JFK Jr. also wanted to get to the bottom of who killed his father. And they couldn't have that, could they?
   btw, check out Hankey on the JFK Sr. murder.



4. this was five hundred pages or so of more than i ever wanted to know about the kennedy family. in my humble opinion, they talked that poor family to death. no one can come out looking good under that kind of scrutiny.



5. This book is really all about mostly the White House years and them growing up. I liked it and it does portray Jackie again as a loyal,decent,honest person who without her help JFK would never have become President. I really believe Jackie is who put the Kennedy's on the map. Sure people knew who they were, the family had been in politics for years, but Jackie (like Diana, Princess of Wales) breathed new life into the family.

5 comments about Lindbergh.

1. I've read parts of this book, and from what I can tell, it is similar to other biographies of deceased controversial figures in which the biographer works too closely with the family of the subject to be objective. In reality, there were three points to Lindbergh's life that everybody should know who wants to know about him. This book covers the first two points well and glosses over the third.
   
   1) Aviation Pioneer: He did much more than become the first person to fly the Atlantic solo nonstop. He was a talented aeronautical engineer, a tireless advocate of air power in defense circles, and an explorer who risked his life again and again to chart new air routes for the world to follow.
   2) Son Kidnapped and Murdered: However, Lindbergh's initial fame had a tragic downside. He was the most famous man in the world for a while, and Time Magazine created its "Man of the Year" award for him. But renown brought disaster on his family when his son was kidnapped - apparently for a ransom, which was paid - and then murdered. This was known as the "Crime of the Century" at the time, and was not eclipsed by any other crime until the JFK assassination in 1963.
   3) Anti-WWII Activist: Lindbergh and his wife travelled to Nazi Germany in the thirties, ostensibly as tourists, but covertly to gather information on the Nazi air force, the Luftwaffe. Luftwaffe chief Hermann Goering tricked Lindbergh into reporting back that the Nazis had a tremendous advantage in air power by flying the same planes over his head and around in circles to make them appear more numerous. Also on the this trip, he accepted a medal from Hitler's government. Upon his return, Lindbergh became the most famous figure in the movement we now know as "isolationist," which was mottled with anti-Semitic and Anglophobic prejudices. He wrote a number of articles and gave speeches in which he criticized - fairly or unfairly - supporters of America entering the war, most specifically Jewish groups and FDR's government, as selfish and more concerned with the welfare of their demographic group than that of the U.S. This created a tremendous backlash against Lindbergh, who was widely pereived as "defeatist" and, for many, openly pro-Nazi. After this backlash, Lindberg's star fell and never rose again, and this was because of his own political naivete in perceiving the fascist movement as nothing more than a reaction and counterbalance to Soviet communist power.
   
   Berg's book does not deal adequately with this third point, merely presenting basic facts without exploring deeper motives and intentions that, for someone like Lindbergh, were often readily apparent through his statements and actions. I do not mean to endorse the case that this book errs in not presenting Lindbergh as a potential fascist dictator, as Phillip Roth has recently done in novel form, but simply that Berg's book seems to ignore the reality that Lindbergh was an anti-Semite, that he openly espoused fascism as a suitable form of government for Germany, and that the amount of bad publicity his enemies and even neutral observers marshaled against him effectively ended his importance in American history during and after the war.
   
   And if you want proof of how far his star fell, consider the facts I listed above about his pre-war fame, and then count the number of full-length Lindbergh biographies of any modest stature that have been produced. Aprroximately one, this one, and this one simply fails to acknowledge the reality of the magnitude of his fall from celebrity into obscurity over the WWII intervention issue.
   
   Then do an Amazon search for "Howard Hughes," Lindbergh's only competition for aviation fame in his heyday, and see what you get. There are many, many biographies of Hughes, and almost all of them are openly muck-raking works, but still far superior in quality to Berg's book. The fact that this one got a Pulitzer is clearly indicative that that literary honor has become meaningless in the real world, almost as meaningless as Lindbergh became to history after he vacationed in Nazi Germany.



2. ~Lindbergh~ is an astute an well-written biography by acclaimed writer A. Scott Berg. Berg captures the life of this most fascinating character. What unfolds is an amazing tale of the aviator turned adventurer turned statesmen turned war hero.
   
   Aviator Charles Lindbergh, gained acclaim for the first solo, non-stop transatlantic flight across Long Island, New York to Paris, France in 1927 in the famed "Spirit of St. Louis." Not long after, he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. At the time, Lindbergh was seen as a man of seemingly impeccable character. He became an American hero overnight.
   
   A. Scott Berg casts light on Charles' complex marriage to Anne Morrow Lindbergh, the daughter of the famed J.P. Morgan investment banker. His marriage had its ups and downs due to his indiscretions, and it was not a fairy-tale marriage by any stretch of the imagination. Though, public perception certainly believed the marriage as a storybook romance in 1927. Berg also illustrates how tragedy hit the Lindbergh family and the whole nation in 1932 with sensitivity.
   
   Lindbergh, being an acclaimed aviator, was invited to Germany in the 1930s, where he subsequently received a medal. It was an opportunity that intrigued him, for the Germans were renowned for their innovation in aeronautics. With the approval of Nazi chieftains Hermann Goering and Ernst Udet, Lindbergh was permitted to inspect and tour German Luftwaffe facilities, and view some of their latest innovations such as the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Junkers Ju 88. He became enamored of German aviation technology not coincidentally thereafter. He believed that German aviation was superior to that of the Americans and British. Why? Probably, because it was. His trip to Germany, however, soon soiled his reputation, particularly after 1939, despite the fact that Lindbergh returned the commendation awarded by the German government. When misguided historians like Max Wallace present Lindbergh as a Nazi sycophant, he conveniently forgets, either out of ignorance or obfuscation, that Lindbergh came to Germany at the urgent request of the U.S. military attaché at the American embassy in Berlin. The military attaché was charged with learning everything possible about Germany's new warplanes. In other words, Lindbergh was covertly providing U.S. intelligence, and playing off of his reputation as an aviator of international fame to gain a warm reception by the Germans. He might not have brought back stolen 1:6 scale airplane models from the hangar offices and secret James Bond snapshot pictures, but he was doing his country a service nonetheless.
   
   His political odyssey took some strange turns, and it put him at the helm of the American First Committee which pressed the case for keeping the United States neutral and out of World War II with Germany. While his patriotism and motives have been brought into question, Berg gives us a few reasons not to question Lindbergh's sincerity. When the war began, Lindbergh was quick to uphold his honor, and be a part of the Army Air Corps unofficially. Unfortunately, being the bitter partisan, President FDR, stripped him of his opportunity to fly in dress ranks, and he flew unofficially as a contractor. But Lindbergh earned much success dogfighting against Japanese over the Pacific. He was denied his deserved commendations because of politics.
   
   This book is a marvelous journey into the life of aviator Charles Lindbergh. Berg sculptures a sensitive and astutely written account of the life of this acclaimed American. If read, in tandem with Lindbergh's on autobiographical journal "The Spirit of St. Louis," one can certainly get a fascinating picture of his life. The superb prose is matched by the fascinating insights of the author who had direct access to the Lindbergh family's personal archives.



3. This book is extremely readable, which is why everyone gives it 5 stars. But it fails to mention the fact that Lindbergh fathered at least 3 illegitimate children in Germany in the late 50's-60's. In 2003, 3 German siblings took a DNA test vs. one of Lindbergh's legitimate grandchildren and paternity was proved. Lindbergh kept their mother as a '2d family,' and he possibly fathered others. This book was extremely well-researched, so I can't see how Scott Berg can continue to sell this book without an update that talks about this.



4. If you want the most complete look at the life of Charles Lindbergh,then read this book.There are many glowing reviews on [...],about this book.Yet,the section about the famous kidnapping is NOT the full story.You are just getting a good historical account of Colonel Lindbergh,however,from an outsider looking in.I have yet to read a Lindbergh biography that comes as close as to the truth as this book does.Scott Berg did not research enough about the kidnapping,and as well as millions of other biographical book-readers.They just accepted the Bruno Hauptmann guilty verdict. World War Two is long over.And the Anti-German hysteria is mostly forgotten,by modern Americans. Lindbergh accepted Hauptmann's guilt because Bruno was a former Berlin communist,who helped kidnapp the Berlin burgermeister's infant son.And for ransom.When Hauptmann jumped off the 'Friedrich der Grosse',he swam to shore.He married Anna Schuffeler,who worked at Frederiksen's Bakery.Hauptmann invested heavily in the stock market,during the 1920s.And reaped the benefits,of the easy profits.Then Wall Street laid on egg,and Hauptmann's goose was cooked.Hauptmann's business partner ,Isidore Fish,also lost everything.These former left-wing radikals turned American capitalists may have discussed Lindbergh's fortune. Fish may have hatched the plan to kidnapp America's number one eaglet,the Lindbergh Baby. Fish died of TB ,a short time after the March 1st,1932 kidnapping.Hauptmann alone faced the electric chair.His only guilt was that of association with Isidore Fish.Updated-12.Jan.2007.=If the decomposed child's remains had a DNA link to Charles Lindbergh,there may be some truth, to the corpse being an illegitimate child of his.Elizabeth Morrow was believed to be a jealous sister-in-law of his.Did they have an unwanted child that Colonel Lindbergh sadly refused to accept?Lindbergh did have three German children from a secret affair.The mistress was a Bavarian milliner. If Dr.Bill Bass of the Knoxville 'Body Farm', does not have any DNA proof,then he is a "Quack".The story thickens.+Updated=June/10/2007 There is another guy that has been claiming he is the real Charles Jr.His website is 'Charleslindberghjr.com' and he was on the coasttocoastam.com show.He may be the real deal and Harold Olson may be the real son of Charles Sr. and Elizabeth Morrow.The direct Lindbergh children,Jon and Reeve, have refused to do DNA testing for him.The story continues.



5. Excellent. I enjoyed this book because of the ease of reading it. It was very informative and interesting.

5 comments about Stephen Sondheim: A life.

1. I bought this for my boyfriend, a huge Stephen Sondheim fan, who has already read planty about Sondheim's works and life. He could not put this book down. I have not read it myself, but when he can't put a book down, I know I picked out something good!



2. If you want to learn about Sondheim's life in detail, this is the most thorough account. Although there are books that are mostly about his work in which you can also find biographical information, this is the first and (thus far) only biography. That's the only reason why I'm giving three stars to this generally shoddy book.

   What's wrong? First, there is an astounding number of factual errors.

   In addition to the outright errors, Secrest also makes many misleading, imprecise, or incomplete statements. Loose ends and chronological confusions abound.

   Some of the people Secrest quotes also make statements that are factually incorrect, and neither she nor her editors (who must take a good share of the blame) caught these mistakes. All of this suggests that she knows little about musical theatre in general or Sondheim's work in particular. She actually gets major plot details of Sondheim's shows wrong. Unbelievable.

   There are also numerous places where she makes statements that contradict what she writes elsewhere.

   All these problems seriously call into question how much of the material here that isn't public knowledge can be trusted. You end up wondering how someone who is so clearly unqualified persuaded the people at Knopf to give her this assignment, much less how she got Sondheim to cooperate. She must talk well, but she certainly doesn't write well.

   Which brings us to the final problem: She isn't a very good writer.

   Still, if you want a Sondheim bio, this is it. Since Secrest had access to Sondheim and to many of his friends and associates, I'm sure that some of what she writes is accurate. But if you read this, you should just realize that a good deal of what is here is unquestionably wrong.




3. Secrest has written a book on Sondheim that skims the surface and gives a broad overview. It rarely has insights, however, except a few "anaylses" of the musicals themselves that often border on the ludicrous (such as how many references to S&M there are in his works). There are misspellings of people's names, wrong dates, and some confused plot descriptions as well. But most of all, she seems too polite and distanced from her subject, offering facts but not insight or exploration. I'm not asking for National Enquirer-style dirt, but there is more on the inner-workings and intrigue of such works as "Merrily" in Craig Zadan's "Sondheim & Company," which unfortuantely is out of print, I believe. Furthermore, Secrest is often a confusing writer. She switches pronouns without always making it clear who is now doing the talking, or includes an out-of-context quote without explaining its meaning or context. She also repeats herself in several spots, making me think she revised one segment while forgetting what she had written just a page later or earlier. In short, this book needed an editor, as well as a more probing and insightful author. Most biographies suffer from excessive speculation. This one has just the opposite flaw.



4. The prospective purchaser of "Stephen Sondheim: A Life" is likely to be misled by this remark: "people seem to be missing the point--this isn't a critical biography, but a personal one". In fact, until she undertook to write it, the author of this book had no personal or professional relationship with its subject whatsoever. It is a thing anyone sufficiently motivated could throw together, and I can't in good conscience recommend it. I can and do recommend Craig Zadan's "Sondheim & Company", and for those interested in musical theatre in general, Richard Rodgers's "Musical Stages" and Alan Jay Lerner's "The Street Where I Live".



5. Meryle Secrest presents a balanced, authoritative, comprehensive view of Sondheim. Secrest does "get" Sondheim: the man, the composer, the lyricist. She also "gets" his musicals, both as chronicler and as listener. Virtually all Sondheim screenplays, plays, musicals, and individual songs are intelligently discussed. Extensive and intimate interviews with Sondheim provide the basis, but alternative outlooks from his principle collaborators, associates, friends, and enemies also appear. (Insights of his peers are not present since Sondheim has no peers.) The book carries an inside, but not reverent feel. Sondheim's troubled relationship with his mother leading to extensive therapy, his difficulty in coming to grips with his homosexuality, and his periods of self doubt and perceived failure are sensitively covered. Secrest does not hesitate to call attention to perceived shortcomings, but her undisguised love and admiration for her subject continually shine through. The book is geared toward an audience with a serious interest in Broadway musicals with emphasis on beauty and meaning in lyrics. Secrest does footnote her interviews and references meticulously, but I would also have enjoyed a discography and a listing of his songs by musical as elements of an appendix. I especially enjoyed the insight on Leonard Bernstein.

5 comments about Island of Saints: A Story of the One Principle That Frees the Human Spirit.

1. When I picked up this book, I had no idea what it was about. I only knew it was written by one of my favorite authors, Andy Andrews. I found this to be a little different from Andrews' other books, but like the others, ISLAND OF SAINTS did not disappoint me.
   
   This is a true account of Andrews' own personal discovery of some WWII memorabilia that just didn't seem to belong when Andy had found it. His curiosity sent him searching for clues as to how and why these items ended up buried on his little Gulf coast island property. What he uncovered was a riveting true story that promotes valuable lessons of forgiveness along the way.
   
   The story does take a while to develop. Several times I wondered just where the story was going and it was not until about half way into the book that things really began to take shape. The subject is one I have long been fascinated with, and that is the German activity along the east and gulf coasts during WWII. The fact that we hear so little about this aspect of the war makes one wonder just how many prominent citizens were a part of the effort to supply the Nazis.
   
   The underlying message here is learning how to forgive. In this vain, there are some very profound observations here, as one would expect from Andrews, although they do come quite late in the book. Overall, this is a wonderful true story that includes some valuable life's lessons.
   
   I do feel obligated to point out a flaw. At the conclusion of chapter 10, Joseph and Helen are having a conversation in which Joseph describes the rise and fall of democracy, attributed to Professor Alexander Tyler of Scotland in 1787. The trouble is, even though the description of the self-destruction of any democracy is, I believe completely accurate, study has shown there is no record to indicate that this notion originated with Professor Tyler.



2. This was my first Andy Andrews book. I picked it up in a Christian bookstore off the discount book shelf and assumed it was a book with a religious message.
   
   While it does contain a good message and I appreciate it even more because I see the "principle" as one that Christ taught, it falls somewhat flat. The fact that this "principle" is biblical doesn't excuse the fact that the characters end up being a bit too much of the "self-help" variety. True love works wonders and can teach us this "principle" because God modeled it for us, and the story is very effective in explaining why it is so helpful for all involved. This story is very much about good ethics and morals, but is also too humanist in it's approach to be considered profound or even remarkable.
   
   The story is believeable, while the character development is bit light. The historical element was interesting and pretty accurate, I believe. This is the kind of book I'd recommend to a light reader as beach or vacation fare so that, if they don't get around to reading it, it won't seem like they've missed out on a life changing lesson.
   
   I was surprised that the book includes instructions for obtaining a study guide and a video. That's a bit presumptuous on the part of the publisher I think. This is not ground shaking stuff and any study group based on this book might do better to wean themselves off Dr.Phil and Oprah for a more lasting benefit.
   
   Read (and believe) your Bibles and you'll get a much deeper and meaningful explanation of this "principle".



3. .
   ....But is it?
   
   Andy is an amazing storyteller, and this book is proof positive of his skill.
   
   Pulled from the little known theater of World War II, the American Gulf Coast, Andy weaves fact and fiction into a story about two people on opposite sides of the war, but on the same side of the heart...



4. It is like Andy Andrews is standing there telling you the story. And it is an amazing story! If you want and need a good book, choose this one. You will never be sorry!



5. I loved the book. Andy Andrews does a wonderful job retelling a true story while he teaches eternal truths. Awesome!

5 comments about General James Longstreet: The Confederacy's Most Controversial Soldier.

1. From Bull Run to Appomattox: He saw it all
   Simply the best biography on the South's most controversial General: James Longsteet. Jeffry Wert does an outstanding job of analyzing both the complex nature of General Longstreet and his interesting interpersonal relationships with his family, subordinates, and fellow Confederate leaders. General Longstreet had several petty character flaws and engaged at times in questionable quarrelsome conduct, but he was also a brilliant military tactician and strategist, and loyal subordinate. Always seeking advancement, he was an outstanding brigade, division, and corps commander. A defensive tactician by nature, General Longstreet would not hesitate to attack and destroy the enemy if conditions warranted it: As he displayed at the Second battle of Manassas, Chickamauga, and The Wilderness. His sense of the battlefield, and the ebb and flow of the battle was superb and resulted in General Lee seeking out his counsel throughout the War. Unfortunately, his attempt at command at the army level was less than satisfactory as graphically demonstrated during the Knoxville Campaign. Unlike Lee or Grant, Longstreet became too bogged down in the minutiae of command and failed to understand the broader picture of leadership at the army command level. His petty nature and partiality of certain subordinates led to bickering and dissention within his corps and army level commands. His handling of these problems were at times too simplistic and harsh highlighting his only major leadership flaw.
   Despite that trait, General Longstreet was an outstanding general who Lee depended on for advice and combat leadership. Overall his men loved him and his commanders admired him.
   Of particular note was Mr. Wert's historical analysis of the ill fated Knoxville Campaign of late 1864, and General Longstreet's controversial life after the Civil War. Also noteworthy was Longstreet's early military career before the Civil War and his interesting and sometimes sad family life.
   I heartily recommend this in depth biography of the South's best corps commander and most controversial soldier. Mr. Wert does an outstanding job of analyzing Longstreet the complex man as well as superb military leader. He pulls no punches in describing a man wrapped in glory warts and all. A must read for anyone interested in more than a superficial examination of America's most terrible war.
   Note: I have had the distinct privilege of attending several of Mr. Wert's highly informative Civil War tours. He is an extremely knowledgeable historian and a very personable tour guide who brings the battlefield alive. I highly recommend participating in one of his informative tours.



2. This is a very readable, informative, and balanced biography of one of the ten or so most important generals of the Civil War and the one who perhaps was in the thick of battle more often than any other. Longstreet also is of particular interest because for so long he was the principal scapegoat for many Southern adherents to the Lost Cause mythology. Indeed, this book represents a major step in the historical reassessment of Longstreet.
   
   The book is a true biography, covering Longstreet's life from cradle to grave. For such a general biography of a military figure, the descriptions of battles and tactics are handled adroitly, being detailed and readily comprehensible to the general reader (as opposed to the military specialist). The author and/or publisher are to be commended and thanked for including a dozen maps or diagrams of battles, which are extremely helpful in understanding the narrative. Also of particular interest are the discussions of the relationship between Longstreet and Robert E. Lee and their at times radically differing approaches to waging war.
   
   I rather doubt that this book will be on the shopping list of anyone who is not already a Civil War buff or those looking for a responsible biography of Longstreet. But it can easily be recommended to either of those groups, and if someone else should pick it up for whatever reason, they will, I think, be rewarded and discover in James Longstreet a great general and a fascinating American, flawed (like us all) but nonetheless admirable.



3. ....but not much else. General Braxton Bragg was, and is, the South's most controversial soldier. With that out of the way....
   
   .....to the subject. This is an absolutely superb study of a man who was a genius far ahead of his time. Another author once wrote an article speculating as to which Civil War General, were he to rise from the dead and get a shave, would have the shortest "learning curve" to become a General in the modern Army; his answer was James Longstreet, and he may very well be right [my own answer was Bragg...there I go again]. Both men were 20th century Generals trying to fight the last 18th. century war; naturally, there were some problems.
   
   James Longstreet was born in South Carolina of a Georgia family, but he was certainly not of the old Southern aristocracy in the way Lee, Johnston, Polk, and others were. The original family name was Langestraet, and they were Dutch from New Jersey who moved to Georgia. Longstreet went to West Point and then commenced a career of one boring assignment after another, in an Army where promotion only came when somebody died. The war in Mexico proved he was a real soldier, but afterwards he was a lowly paymaster in Texas.
   
   When the war came, he went South just because his state did. Had his family stayed in New Jersey, Lee would have had a very tough opponent, instead of his "Old War Horse". Longstreet commanded the First Corps thru the whole war, except for his detached service in Suffolk that kept him out of Chancellorsville, and the months after Gettysburg when he was in Tennessee. Severely wounded in The Wilderness, he returned, and was with Lee at the end.
   
   Longstreet was loved by his troops; he fought on the defensive, never wasting his men's lives. He could march, and charge, as well as Jackson when necessary, but preferred to let the enemy make the mistakes. Further, he was "human", sharing the vices of his troops, unlike Lee and Jackson. At Second Manassas and Antietam he proved his greatness, and at Fredericksburg came his finest hour as wave after wave of Blue troops bravely, but foolishly, charged up Mayre's Heights.
   
   Gettysburg...THAT is where most discussions of James Longstreet begin and end. He and Lee had different ideas as to how [and whether] to fight the battle, and Lee was the boss. Longstreet [and Hood] wanted to move to the right, get between Meade and Washington, and hold on the defensive. Lee wanted to fight the enemy where he was. Who was right? God knows that what we did didn't work, but we forget that it dern near did. Lee took the blame; as commander, that was proper. Dick Ewell's lethargy and Jeb Stuart's independent brashness weren't noted at the time, though they contributed massively to the Confederate defeat. Generations of Southerners have blamed Longstreet for Gettysburg, but that didn't start till well after the war, and the causes were political, not military. I guess my own opinion of who was right is obvious, but I yet maintain that Robert E. Lee was the greatest soldier that ever lived.
   
   After the war, Longstreet was a cotton merchant in New Orleans, and did well until he wrote a letter in 1867 essentially stating that the South needed to build a bridge and get over it; for this, he remained an outcast the rest of his life. Dr. Freeman stated that after the war, if a man "became a Republican or consorted with Negroes", those sins would never be forgiven. Longstreet was reduced to living on Republican political appointments. [Billy Mahone likewise became an apostate, but at least he became rich; Beauregard said nothing; he simply got over the bridge to wealth. But Beauregard was always different]. Longstreet wrote his memoirs, but did it badly, and made his cause worse.
   
   This is a superb book that does a wonderful job defending a man who, in a just world, would need no defense...I've saved the best till last...the opening two pages of the book, describing General Longstreet's appearance at the dedication of the Lee statue on Monument Avenue in Richmond in 1890, is the very finest piece of historical writing I have ever read, anytime, anywhere. Period. The other Generals saw James Longstreet as an apostate, but his old troops knew what made a leader, and loved him for it.



4. I like how the book goes into detail on General Lee and the problems of being a Staff Officer under a "Demagod". General Longstreet's request for a flanking movement, if greated by General Lee, could have changed the course of the war.



5. Historians since 1865 have blamed General James Longstreet for the Confederacy losing the Battle at Gettysburg. This book places the blame on Robert E Lee, which after reading this book as well as other books recently, I would tend to agree with that assumption. The writer seems to be a Longstreet fan though, and seems to add to Longstreet's capability as a General, while placing the blame for several Confederate losses on General Stonewall Jackson which I do not agree with at all. In essence, the writer's purpose of the book is to clear Longstreet's name at the expense of Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson, as well as other Generals that Longstreet came in contact with during the Civil War. Unfortunately the author feels that is the only way to clear Longstreet's name.

5 comments about Franklin Delano Roosevelt (The American Presidents).

1. The New Deal, Social Security, World War II. FDR was the greatest president of the 20th century. He was a polio victim with braces on his legs. Perhaps America needed such a leader to get it through the Depression and the war with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. We have seen the video of FDR addressing Congress following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor: "December 7, 1941, a day which will live in infamy!" Americans volunteered for military service in droves. They fought the Japs island by island. Army engineers built the Alaska Highway, stretching 1500 miles from Dawson Creek, Canada to Fairbanks. After Pearl Harbor, the fear was that Japan might take Alaska. Japan bombed the two western-most Aleutian Islands. Roosevelt was president the same years Adolph Hitler was in power in Germany, 1933-45. Roosevelt and his staunch ally, Winston Churchill, proved tougher than Hitler. Roosevelt was elected 4 times as there was no two-term limit. Roosevelt's archrival, Hitler, was born in 1889 in the Austrian town of Braunau. In his youth, Hitler wanted to be an artist. He lived and struggled in Vienna. It was there that he came to hate Jews and Communists. He believed in an Aryan master race. He fought against Britain in World War I. He joined the Nazi Party and went to prison after a failed coup. Hitler dictated Mein Kampf (My Struggles) to Rudolf Hess in prison. After his release, he reorganized the Nazi Party and surrounded himself with men like Himmler, Goebbels and Goering. Hitler became German chancellor in 1933. World War II began when Germany invaded Poland in 1939. Germany occupied France, bombed London and attacked Russia. The United States entered the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Americans landed at Normandy Beach on the coast of France on D-Day, June 6, 1944, and drove the Germans back. They met their Russian allies, who poured in from the east to crush the Nazis. Hitler and his companion, Eva Braun, committed suicide. It came to light that 6 million Jews had been exterminated in what is now called the Holocaust. America helped to rebuild Europe with the Marshall plan. Donald Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" became a suburb of the U.S. in light of the Soviet threat. The time has come the United States to put itself first. If the U.S is going to police the world, the world must pay for that protection. Police cannot work for free. Government is about war and money. Too often, it is a gang of thugs terrorizing its own people. Government should exist to serve. Its best form is democratic, not totalitarian, neither fascist nor Communist. Government needs to foster education, promote arts and sciences and care for the aged and disabled. It must encourage agriculture and facilitate transportation and communication.



2. avoid books where the author's personality and florid prose obscure the subject. besides, what precisely does jenkins have against short sentences and one-dollar words?



3. The late Roy Jenkins, in assessing Roosevelt, rates him in the top three of all American Presidents, along with Washington and Lincoln. Whether you like FDR or whether you are one of his critics, it is hard to dispute Jenkins' conclusion. Jenkins believes that had FDR not run for a third term, he would have been one of the better, near great Presidents, but that it took WWII to make him the icon he became. Jenkins fails to point out that FDR did not create any appreciable number of private sector jobs prior to WWII and that, in fact, unemployment was almost as high as it was eight years earlier, when he took office. The reason may be that Jenkins had been a Labour Party member of the House of Commons, accordingly, his world view was that of a government interventionist. However, I ultimately agree that nontheless, FDR was, at least, a better than average President during the depression years, due to the great optimism that he conveyed.
   
   I believe that Jenkins is correct, that FDR became one of the greatest Presidents due to the war. He led the United States in a great mobilization effort. Certainly, responding to events can make one great and FDR's optimistic leadership during the war made him great. This does not mean that he is beyond criticism, and Jenkins offers very little of that. Again, as a Labour party menmber, he would not have been as staunchly anticommunist as a Conservative, such as Churchill or later, Thatcher. Therefore, he spares FDR of any criticism for Yalta. His view is that since the USSR already occupied Poland, there was nothing to give away.
   
   I must contrast this book with another book in the American Presidents series, Tom Wicker's biography of Eisenhower. Wicker could find almost nothing Ike did as President that did not deserve criticism. Jenkins, on the other hand, finds little, in FDR, to criticise. An example is his absolving FDR from any real criticism for not taking in more Jewish refugees during the holocaust.
   
   This series of books constitues short biographies, thus it is not possible for the authors to be comprehensive. However, Jenkins covers a lot of ground. He gives a lot of coverage to FDR's career prior to his presidency. This is something Wicker failed to do, in his biography of Eisenhower, regarding Eisenhower's prepresidential career. Still, there was much Jenkins could not cover. For example, FDR went to great legnths to hide his disability. In a television documentary, it was revealed that he always would hang on to the arm of either a secret service agent or one of his sons and, by pretty much thrusting his hips forward, would give the illusion of walking. The legnths FDR went to are certainly fascinating but, I recognize that this book was too short to cover it in depth.
   
   Perhaps this biography was a little too adoring. The fact that there is much to criticise does not detract from the fact, that ultimately, FDR was indeed one of the truly great Presidents. Still, Jenkins covers a lot of material and I highly recommend this short biography.



4. This is a very good brief introduction to Roosevelt, and I highly recommend it to anyone wanting a brief understanding of Roosevelt. It is very easy to read and suitable for high school students. Being written by a man from Britain, it also shows how the world views FDR - as one of the most important leaders in world history.
   
   You will not acquire a thorough understanding of FDR by reading this book. For that I would suggest the huge "Champion of Freedom" by Conrad Black.
   
   In response to Mister Syzek, my understanding the post-war settlement is that Stalin broke violated the Yalta agreement, which was quite favorable to the west. FDR achieved most of what he wanted, including the stipulation that Eastern Europe was to have elections. But Stalin broke his promises and controlled Poland despite the agreements that FDR was able to extract from Stalan. FDR got the deal in writing. Stalin did not abide by it.
   
   Stalin was determined to control Poland no matter what, so Poland was firmly in his grip, despite what the actual terms of the agreement said. Staling went so far as to say that it was "a matter of life or death."
   
   Franklin Roosevelt was a geopolitical realist, and the reality is that the Soviet armies controlled Eastern Europe and Poland, and the USSR would be willing to fight - and win - to stay. The American people had no enthusiasm for yet another world war againt Russia. They wanted their soldiers home. Maybe you should ask the American people why they were not willing to suffer 5 million killed for Poland. You see, in America you must deal with these pesky things called voters and democracy.
   
   To complicate the matter, the Soviet Union took the brunt of the war (17 million dead), and Stalin was rigidly determined to secure a buffer between Mother Russia and Western Europe. Stalin would not have budged on his goal.
   
   So what Roosevelt obtained from Stalin was the best he could obtain - firm promises from Stalin to hold elections. It was Stalin who broke his promises. That made the Soviet Union look like the bad guy.
   
   Truman then waged the Cold War (without the millions of dead from a hot war) leading to an eventual liberation of Eastern Europe. It's no surprise that Reagan was a huge fan of Roosevelt, voted for him four times, and attended his third inauguration (a moving event for Reagan). Reagan then brought an end to the Cold War without firing a shot.
   
   You may be able to criticize Truman for not liberating Eastern Europe while American had a monopoly on the atomic bomb... or Eisenhower. After all, USSR staged a coup in Czechoslovakia and then staged a brutal crushing of the revolt in Hunguary in which tens of thousands were killed. Clearly this was in violation of the agreement that FDR was able to extract from Stalin. It was the USSR that broke the agreement. FDR did not sell out anyone.
   
   Then again, maybe the path Truman took was wise. Maybe waging a long-term cold against USSR was better than a violent real war. Maybe FDR realized that no European-based power has ever conquered Russia. Remember Napolean? Remember Hitler? Could even USA have defeated USSR in 1945? Maybe Roosevelt would have done things differently. We will never know because he died.
   
   As this book says, FDR was clearly moving to a get-tough posture against USSR. Indeed, FDR moved closer to one of his advisors who was anti-USSR. I suggest you read this book.
   
   At the same time, Roosevelt was an idealist in the Wilsonian tradition when realistic. He believed in the free determination of free people, but he was also realistic. For example, he essentially pushed for an end to world colonialism in his design for the post-war world. Churchill opposed this but he could do nothing about it. The British empire was too weak.
   
   By the way, Poland was not even a country at the start of World War One and was viewed by some in a similar way to the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Should American have gone to war over the Baltic States?
   
   This fine little book is a fine introduction to Roosevelt. It is the best brief book on Roosevelt. Read it if you want an easy introduction to FDR.
   
   If you want a more detailed study of Roosevelt's foreign policy then read Robert Dallek's Bancroft Prize-winning "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy." My essay here pales in comparison. Or read Conrad Black's "Champion of Freedom."



5. Roy Jenkins, the prolific biographer of British Prime Ministers Gladstone and Churchill (as well as American President Harry Truman), died early last year, before this slim biography of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was completed. But even in its flawed state (it was completed by Richard E. Neustadt), this is an impressive book by an author of great knowledge and erudition that illuminates in intriguingly quirky ways the epochal life of its subject.

   Jenkins was an Englishman active in Labour politics for half a century, and his is a very British take on Roosevelt's life, which both works and doesn't work to Jenkins' advantage. It is always problematic when an author is not of the same nationality as the person he's writing about (William Manchester's still-to-be-completed biography of Churchill, for example, was much criticized by the British). Where Jenkins gains in giving us a new perspective on a oft-told tale, he sometimes loses in dragging in references to the subjects of his previous books (an occupational hazard of the prolific biographer) or comparing some American political situation to its British equivalent when the comparison is tenuous at best.

   Some of his more British asides are lost on the average American reader (as when he opines that the style and appearance of Groton, the prep school that Roosevelt attended, supposedly an imitation of Eton, "were much more like Cheltenham's or Marlborough's"). Also, because the author died before he had the chance to read proof, the text is not as precise as it might have been had the author lived longer (there is at least one sentence that defeats my attempt to make sense of it grammatically - it starts on the 19th line of page 73 and begins with the words "In consequence...").

   These reservations aside, I am impressed with Jenkins' ability to take a long and complicated life and condense it into the brief span of this American Presidents series, while still making it comprehensible. The shelves of libraries groan under the weight of the F.D.R. biographies out there, but if you're looking for a concise life that tells the story of the 32nd President from a unique point of view, you might want to try this book before tackling one of the heftier volumes.

5 comments about Means of Ascent (The Years of Lyndon Johnson, Volume 2).

1. Means of Ascent traces Johnson's career from a rather lackluster legislator (i.e. in passing national legislation) in the U.S. House of Representatives, to his all or nothing gamble on the 1948 Texas U.S. Senate race. In between these years, we learn of Johnson's "war service", his wife's role in her husband's congressional office, their business dealings with a radio station in Austin, and other events. All of this is integral to Johnson's story and his political ambitions. As Caro discussed, these were not Johnson's happiest years as he seemed unsatisfied with his position in Congress and his perceived lack of power.
   
   Caro introduces us to another key political figure in this book, Coke R. Stevenson. This was the man referred to as "Mr. Texas". Caro's portrayal of Stevenson offers a stunning contrast to the portrayal of Johnson. Coke Stevenson's life journey seemed to be the stuff of legends. He was a self-educated man who lived the outdoors. He reluctantly joined the world of Texas politics to get what he saw as a job that needed to be done done. He served as a state legislator, speaker of the house, lieutenant governor and governor. Stevenson seemed to represent what Texans liked most about their state and themselves. His popularity was perhaps unrivaled by any other state political figure. Perhaps Caro's portrayal of Stevenson is a bit too laudatory, but if Caro's task is to set the differences between Johnson and Stevenson in terms of their character traits, their personalities, their politics, etc., then he has succeeded brilliantly.
   
   Once again, the Johnson that emerges in the heat of another major campaign is the same tireless, unstoppable man who will go to any and all lengths to win, as seen in Caro's other books. During the 1948 Democratic Primary, Johnson even utilized a new mode of transportation, the helicopter, for his campaign stops. Stevenson, in contrast, simply drove to different towns and county courthouse squares to meet and greet people, with little press attention. Stevenson, according to Caro, trusted that Texans already knew his record and where he stood and therefore he didn't have to respond to Johnson's attacks.
   
   But once again, the nasty side of politics evinced itself. Large amounts of special interest money were used in the campaign, especially on Johnson's behalf. Votes were bought, especially from ethnic voting blocs from border counties where political bosses like George Parr reigned supreme. Additional voter fraud issues like stuffing of ballot boxes and the likes would come to light as well.
   
   Many people, even in Johnson's inner circle, knew the hurdles they faced in defeating the popular Stevenson, a man regarded as unbeatable. In the end, Johnson would win by 87 votes, made possible no doubt by the hundreds if not more than hundreds of votes added to ballot boxes such as in the infamous Precinct 13 of Jim Wells County, and probably from other counties too. Parr's right hand man Luis Salas confessed this later and even said that Stevenson votes had been counted as Johnson votes.
   
   Stevenson didn't give in without a fight. A Federal District Court judge took up the case and things began to appear bleak for Johnson's electoral "victory". Johnson's men, however, proved skillful in their legal maneuvering to halt the judge's order to open the disputed ballot boxes from Precinct 13 and possibly from other areas. With the assistance of Abe Fortas, they secured a hearing in front of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who decided in favor of the Johnson team to stop the opening of ballot boxes. This decision ended the dispute and Johnson became the Democratic nominee and eventual winner in the fall election.
   
   Johnson had indeed staked everything on this senate race and had won. But though he won the battle, it seems almost irrefutable that his victory was tainted by real voter fraud. Caro's treatment of both Johnson and Stevenson has earned some criticism. The portrait of Johnson that emerges is not flattering. Johnson certainly had some undesirable traits, but the nature of the politics and corruption seen at that time also contributed to the unflattering picture that is presented here, though they were often connected to his campaign. Stevenson is portrayed as a rock solid character who seemingly possessed very few flaws, though Caro did briefly touch on part of his record as governor of Texas, especially concerning the lynching of a black man during his tenure, as well as other elements of Stevenson's very conservative philosophy. Whether the character portrayals of either one of or of both is totally fair and accurate, is not for me to say, but I think Caro has done his homework and his evaluations seem solid in many ways.
   
   Caro excels in presenting the human dimensions to his narrative, especially in the quest for power. The thrill of the campaign also comes to life. If you're a political junkie, you'll love this book. Overall, a great reading experience and great insights into Lyndon Johnson's life and times.



2. The second in Caro's amazingly detailed, trenchant, fascinating, truthful, insightful and heartless multi-volume portrait of Johnson. What did anyone -- even Lyndon Johnson -- ever do to deserve a biographer like this? Not that I fault Caro: His tenacious and scrupulously accurate determination that the truth be told is journalistic history at its highest level of professionalism. But under, or alongside, the chicanery, the narcissism, the shameless expediency of his subject's persona there also was a charisma, a thoroughly human drive to assert himself and make an imprint on an indifferent universe that also is breathtaking, and the sheer wonder and humanity of Johnson is not given enough due. But enough of the cavil, because this book is a supreme accomplishment, of research, writing and psychological insight. It is fascinating to see Johnson's vast inflation of his military "career," and the way he continued to lie about it to people who knew he was lying, and who he knew knew he was lying. And the account of the stealing of the 1948 Senate race is so gripping, so suspenseful even though one knows the outcome before the book is opened, that it defies the effort to put the book down. I had read the book in fits and starts until about page 210, then picked it up at about 9:30 p.m., and could not stop until I finished, at 2:15 a.m. This book will be richly rewarding for anyone interested in the 1940s, and/or in contemporary American politics.



3. I recently read the second volume of Robert A. Caro's magisterial biography of LBJ, entitled MEANS OF ASCENT, and from that book I learned to loathe one man, Lyndon Johnson, whose signal accomplishments in civil rights and social justice are difficult to reconcile with his profound character flaws; to admire another, Coke Stephenson, who, for all the baggage of racism and reactionary ideology that came along with his frontier conservatism was, by all accounts, an outstanding, even heroic human being; and to hold in the very warmest regard one woman, Lady Bird Johnson, who, in spite of her paralyzing shyness and the outrageous abuse heaped upon her by her husband, was not only steadfast in her love and loyalty, but also took infinite pains to remake herself, agonizingly, into a successful businesswoman, canny politician, eloquent speaker, pioneering conservationist, important philanthropist, and accomplished public figure of the very first rank.



4. This book begins where Path to Power left off. It does give a quick recap so you can pick up here if you did not want to read the first one (although I recommend reading it as it is spectacular). The lies of Johnson's military service are almost too much to believe. His desire to retain elected office and achieve his goals remain unmatched as ever before. This book yet again shows how Johnson would lie and cheat his way to power. The Texas politics are truly among the most disturbing that you can see anywhere. The corruption is rampant and with an election where Johnson wins by only 87 votes the corruption was rampant. The race for the senate seat against governor Coke Stevenson who was one of the more principled Texas politicians is famous in Texas history. This book is wonderful at recounting that event as well as giving further insight into Johnson. Caro's writing is superb and the desire to find out what happens next is unmatched in other biographies. This is a must read for anyone interested in political history, biographies, or politics.



5. This biography of LBJ, the second in a series written by Caro, covers briefly the humiliating early years in Johnson's life when his father was reduced to poverty, his college years, his time as a young congressman, and spotlights the infamous 1948 Senate race. The book also contrasts the life of Johnson's opponent in the 1948 Senate race, the venerated former Governor of Texas, Coke Stevenson.
   
   Caro tries to show Johnson's naked political ambition throughout the book. Johnson could not stand just being one of a crowd, he had to lead the crowd and dominate his followers. He also shows how, once LBJ obtained power in the Congress, Johnson used it to his own benefit and the benefit of his supporters. Principal among these was the powerful Texas lawyer Ed Clark and the Texas construction and oil pipeline company, now a subsidiary of Halliburton, Brown & Root. Johnson did not use the office to benefit the people of Texas or for reasons one might commonly associate with Congressmen; in nearly twelve years as in the Congress, he introduced seven bills total. Two were passed and these affected his district only. In his first eleven years he delivered a mere ten speeches to the House of Representatives.
   
   When it became clear to Johnson he was going to lose a political race, he resorted to other than honest means to win. Caro tells how the 1948 Senate race was not an anomaly, rather Johnson had been stuffing ballot boxes his entire political life. It did not matter how small the race or how paltry the office. Johnson stuffed ballots even to win Student Council elections at college and the "Little Congress" elections, a social club of political aides. What was important was winning at any cost and furthering his political ambition.
   
   Also included in the biography is how Johnson came to own KTBC, a radio station in Austin, how the station was used by businessman and others to buy favors Johnson after they bought advertising slots on the station, and how awfully he treated the employees of the station. When confronted in public about these matters, Johnson would always claim that the station was owned by his wife and that he had no part in the ownership and operation of it. Caro shows that like most other things that Johnson claimed, this was a lie.
   
   I highly enjoyed reading this book. The lust for power Caro describes gives credit to allegations (by other authors) that Johnson was involved in the death of JFK.

5 comments about John Adams: The American Presidents Series.

1. Excellent read. A new appreciation for John Adams' contribution to the founding. Once again, Jefferson comes out as the original "conniving politician."



2. John Adams (1735 --1826) was rescued from relative obsurity by David McCullough's popular and accessible biography. Engaging as it is, McCullough's work has little on the thought and writings of John Adams and on the impact of his thinking on American government and on Adams's own presidency. John Patrick Diggins's short biography, written as part of the American Presidents series, helps remedy this lack. It provides a deeper picture of an American political philosopher and president. Diggins is a distinguished professor of American history at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He has written widely on American intellectual history, including books on Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, pragmatism, and the American left.
   
   Adams was born to a family of modest means in Massachusetts. Following graduation from Harvard, he became a lawyer and married Abigail Smith. Adams early became involved in the Revolutionary movement and served in the Continental Congress. During the Revolutionary War, Adams was abroad where he made vital contributions to the war effort in France and Holland. He helped draft the treaty by which the United States secured its independence. Adams served restlessly as Washington's vice-president and then became the second president in a close election against Thomas Jefferson, who became vice-president. After his narrow defeat by Jefferson for reelection in 1800, Adams retired to his home in Quincy.
   
   More important than these external events, Adams was a writer and a thinker who wrote works in support of American independence in the 1770s and books expounding his political philosophy and his understanding of American constitutionalism in the late 1780s and continuing early into his tenure as vice-president. Adams continued his writings in his long retirement, particularly in a wonderful series of letters he exchanged with his former rival, Jefferson.
   
   Diggins gives a good overview of a complex body of thought. Adams was opposed to the French Revolution and to writers such as Thomas Paine whose works helped to spearhead the American Revolution. Adams developed a philosophy based upon the unreliable and depraved nature of the human heart and its ambitions for power, wealth and success. He argued that a diverse government structured to allow for the wealthy classes and the common people, headed by a strong executive, would be the best way to restrain human greed and folly and to channel these traits for the common good. He objected to the French Revolution for its levelling tendencies -- for its attempt to obliterate distinctions, which Adams thought, were ingrained in the human desire to compete and excel, and which could not be artifically supressed. Adams also objected to the French Revolution because it was not properly succeeded with a solid institutional form of government. The American Revolution, which unlike the French revolution, was not based upon classes within the United States, and the American Constitution, with its separation of powers and strong executive were, for Adams, the antithesis of the French Revolution.
   
   During his presidency, Adams was excoriated by his fellow-Federalist Alexander Hamilton, who found Adams too weak and vacillating and by Thomas Jefferson, who attacked what he claimed were aristocratic and monarchical tendencies in Adams. Yet Adams worked carefully and delicately to avoid a war with France, the most significant accomplishment of his presidency. He established a tax system and pardoned a group of protesters who had been found guilty of treason by opposing it. Adams strengthened the military and left the budget with a surplus at the conclusion of his presidency. During his presidency, Congress enacted, and Adams enforced, the Alien and Sedition Acts, which Diggins somewhat downplays in his account.
   
   In 1800, under attack from both Hamilton and Jefferson, Adams came in a close third to Jefferson and Burr in the presidential race. Jefferson prevailed in the House of Representatives when Hamilton lent his influence and support. This hotly contested and little-known election marked a watershed in American politics as it marked a peaceful transition from Adams to a leader and a party with a far different stated political agenda. The American era of party politics, based upon images, perceptions, and the pursuit of power, had begun.
   
   Diggins is not afraid to state his own positions, and he shows a marked sympathy for John Adams over his rival, Jefferson. He sees Adams as a unique example of a president who tried to govern based upon principle rather than party or power. Together with Lincoln, Jefferson, Madison, and perhaps Theodore Roosevelt and Wilson, Diggins places Adams in a small group of American presidents who demonstrated intellectual leadership and accomplishment prior to and in the Executive Office.
   
   For Diggins, Adams's strengths as a thinker, together with his curmudgeonly disposition, led to the weaknesses of his presidency. He writes (p. 174) "At times the sin of pride cursed the Adams presidency. He often preferred to work alone, rarely sharing his thoughts or seeking the input of others as we was making up his mind. ... Adams was one of America's most solitary presidents, and the isolation of the mind, while healthy for poetry or phiosophy, is fatal in the sphere of politics.... politics dwells in the present, in bargains and distortions, naneuvers and manipulations, and other strategies of exigency that had no appeal to a thinker better at analyzing power than dealing with people."
   
   Diggins has written a thoughtful introduction to a thinker and president who remains incompletely understood. This short book should inspire reflection on Adams and on the nature of the political system which he helped bequeath to us.
   
   Robin Friedman



3. This isn't much of a biography. It gives just a quick history of Mr. Adams early life. It mainly focuses on his political and philosophical career and his feuds with Jefferson and Hamilton. It does a good job of reviewing his term as second president and the policies and precedents he initiated. This book may be a stepping stone to a more comprehensive analysis of Mr. Adams's personal and political life.



4. It hasn't been hard to notice that John Adams's reputation has been undergoing a serious rehabilitation in recent years. Joseph Ellis in particular has been dedicated to revising our understandings of both Adams and his nemesis/friend Thomas Jefferson. In his PASSIONATE SAGE: THE CHARACTER AND LEGACY OF JOHN ADAMS, FOUNDING BROTHERS: THE REVOLUTIONARY GENERATION, and AMERICAN SPHINX: THE CHARACTER OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, Ellis has been challenging a long established scenario in which the arch conservative John Adams was pitted against the populist liberal Thomas Jefferson for the political destiny of America, and the hero Jefferson triumphed over the mildly villainous Adams. Ellis has been questioning whether any part of this scenario makes any sense, whether Adams is at all a villain, and whether Jefferson is nearly as heroic. He has done this not by asserting the virtues of conservativism, but whether Adams has been correctly understood at all, both by his contemporaries and by subsequent generations. This reevaluation of Adams was continued by the spectacular and unanticipated mega-bestseller by David McCullough of 2001. This process of reassessment is clearly carried forward by John Patrick Diggins. For the record, I find the rehabilitation of Adams by these and other writers to be both welcome and highly convincing.
   
   For two hundred years, our view of Adams came very much through the lenses of his critics and opponents. The truism that history is written from the standpoint of the victors is perhaps truer of Adams than any other major political figure in United States history. Adams was said to be a closet monarchist, a favorer of aristocracy. In the face of this criticism, Adams explicitly challenged Jefferson to point to a single passage in any of his writings that endorses monarchy or aristocracy. In fact, if one reads extensively in Adams works, as argued by Ellis, Diggins, and McCullough, one finds instead a powerful and subtle critique of the dangers of the development and influence of an economic elite, placing him at the opposite extreme of Alexander Hamilton, whose ideal of government came very close to the espousal of plutocracy. Adams did hope for the emergence of natural elites, but this was based on ability and character, not on wealth. Contained in the reassessment of Adams is implied a questioning of whether Adams is the arch conservative he is often portrayed as being. The case for Adams's conservativism is based largely on his belief in monarchism, his favoring aristocracy, his support for a bicameral Congress, his looking to the past for guidance, and his opposition to the French Revolution. As these authors have shown, Adams transparently did not favor monarchy or the growth of an aristocratic class and a bicameral legislature in the United States has not resulted in the Senate being a sort of House of Lords. Today many leftist historians have found grounds for critiquing the French Revolution, and a host of leftist political figures have found inspiration for their beliefs in the past (not least Karl Marx, who was a student of the Greeks and Romans). Furthermore, Adams was hardly a passionate capitalist, and was suspicious of a life devoted to the acquisition of wealth. In fact, if you compare Adams and Jefferson to that modern conservative icon Ronald Reagan, it is hard to find many issues that Adams would not differ sharply on from Reagan, while one can see a number of points of contact between Adams and Reagan. Diggins, in fact, finds numerous points of contact between Adams's political writings and many French radical writers of the late 20th century. I will say that as a leftist myself, I find much to love in Adams's thought. I share his fear of the negative effects that economic elites have on the democratic process, his belief in the need for a strong central government to protect citizens from the pernicious influence of greed (Adams would understand my fear of deregulation), and his instincts that government rather than less or no government is a better safeguard of individual liberty. Diggins rightly states that the American president who would most closely incarnate Adams's principles would be Teddy Roosevelt, who envisioned government as the means of breaking trusts and promoting economic justice.
   
   Of all the books in the Schlesinger series on the American presidents, this is probably the one that I found most provocative intellectually. It is a dense, rich book, in large part because Diggins focuses more on the thought of Adams than his life. Diggins is more intent on explaining Adams ideas than the various events in his life. In one sense this is a weakness as a biography, but because his discussion of Adams's ideas is so clear and interesting, it more than makes up for the lack of biographical detail. I do regret some of the sketchiness of the biographical narrative. For instance, he doesn't' deal in any detail on how Adams became either vice president or president. This contrasts sharply with the rather deep discussion of Adams's ideas. This is in line with Diggins's role as apologist for Adams. On the purely historical side, most of Diggins's effort is put into dispelling the myth that the election of 1800 represented the defeat of Federalism by Republicanism (that's Jeffersonian Republicanism, not what we associate today with the GOP). I personally found this section less interesting that the sections dealing with Adams's thought.
   
   I would strongly encourage anyone reading this volume to consider picking up the new volume THE PORTABLE JOHN ADAMS, edited by Diggins. I completely agree with Diggins that Adams's writings are more interesting than his presidency, and that he may be the most unjustly neglected political writer in American history. This new volume contains a wide ranging collection of his writings, not merely from his theoretical writings, but his diaries and letters as well.



5. To start with and to avoid disappointment for those looking for something other than what this is, some of the trade reviews are just plain wrong: this is not a biography focusing on Adams childhood and youth. In fact, it isn't really a biography at all. What it is is a short, to the point but nevertheless fairly deep analysis of Adams' political thought with a particular emphasis on the politics of his presidential administration. It is written from a very positive view point (one shared by David McCullough) and from a view point that is quite hostile to Thomas Jefferson. As such it is an invaluable read for anyone interested in the development of presidential politics in America as well as anyone seeking the "rest of the story" regarding Adams, Jefferson, and their relationship.

5 comments about Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History.

1. The subtitle of this book is "An Intimate History", which gives ample warning that it focuses on the personal Jefferson. This book is fine if you primarily want to know about Jefferson's relationships with women; his wife, daughters and probable paramours Maria Cosway and Sally Hemings. Much of the book is focused on whether or not Sally Hemings was his concubine and if she bore him several children. Professor Brodie contends this was the case. Unfortunately, the recent DNA tests (performed well after this book was written) of decedents of Sally Hemings' sons are not conclusive. They show that Eston Hemings was a progeny of Jefferson, or one of his relatives. The 19th century Jefferson family lore was that he was fathered by one of Jefferson's nephews, which is supported by the DNA finding, but it also supports the possibility that Jefferson himself was the father, so it does not solve the mystery. If you care about such things, or in Jefferson's possible illicit relationship with the married Maria Cosway, then this is the book for you. However, if you primarily want a book about Jefferson; the author of the Declaration of Independence, the Secretary of State, the Vice President and the President, then this is definitely not the book for you.
   
   In my opinion, professor Brodie goes overboard in analyzing the motivations for Jefferson's actions and her interpretation of these actions is sometimes maddening. When there is evidence supporting a contention, even when it is at best very ambiguous, she touts it as proof. This is all well and good, but when the evidence is missing she surmises that this also supports her contention because it was "obviously" destroyed by Jefferson, someone in his family or a previous biographer anxious to defend Jefferson's reputation. Furthermore, everything seems to be viewed through the prism of his relationship with Sally Hemings and his positions on slavery.
   
   Another distressing aspect of this book is the lack of any attempt to discuss contemporaneous historical events that Jefferson was not intimately involved with. For instance, there were three seminal events of George Washington's presidency and they mentioned only in passing, or not at all. Hamilton's economic policies are discussed in only one paragraph, the Whisky Rebellion is allotted only one sentence and the Citizen Genet affair is not even mentioned. The first two events are important for a Jefferson biography because they were important causes for his hatred of Hamilton and because they contrast his view of what the US should be with that of Hamilton. The citizen Genet affair was a forerunner of the conflict with France during his vice presidency. (His vice presidency under John Adams is only discussed in the briefest manner). The citizen Genet affair was also an important forerunner for the conflict with France that occurred during his presidency, which is fortunately covered in more detail.
   
   If you want the soap opera aspects of Jefferson's life then you may like this book, but if you want an in-depth discussion of his life and the important events historical events surrounding it, you should look elsewhere.



2. When this book came out in 1974, there was hell to pay...for the first time, a respected historian gave credence in print to the Tom and Sally stories. Mrs. Brodie tried to prevent Dumas Malone and Merrill Peterson from reviewing it, but both blasted away. Of course, this was really very old news; the rumors started as campaign dirt though a drunken fable spun by James Callender, who was no historian, and was far from respected. Mrs. Brodie gave us "An Intimate History", looking at Mr. Jefferson as a real person, rather than as simply a skilled writer of great ideas. Of course, she also more than covered the ideas and accomplishments, and did it very well. Still, the unique focus is on the five "loves" of Jefferson's life....
   
   [1] Rebecca Burwell---a youthful infatuation, of which nothing ever came. Actually, nothing ever started...she is important as the mother-in-law of John Marshall.
   
   [2] Betsey Walker---if true, this is FAR worse than Sally. If true. Betsey was the wife of a good friend of Jefferson, and, her husband was away in the Army...a double betrayal. Problem is, there is no real evidence. When the story came out 30 years after the "fact", it was more campaign dirt. Light Horse Harry Lee publicized it to get at his political enemy, Mr. Jefferson; of course, Callender was happy to vomit whatever garbage he could find. Mr. Walker never left his wife; negative evidence, I know, but still evidence. Light Horse Harry was a bum, and his son Black Horse Harry was worse; Robert E. Lee spent his life atoning for the bad character of his Dad and his older half-brother. The worthlessness of a man doesn't make everything he says a lie, but we do need to look carefully...
   
   [3] Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson, known as Patty---the young widow who became Tom's wife, suffered ill health, and died far too young, leaving him two [originally, three] daughters to raise. Whatever Jefferson did, or did not, do before, or after, Patty, there has NEVER been the slightest hint of infidelity during the marriage.
   
   [4] Maria Cosway---artist, wife of an artist, whom Jefferson met while he was Minister to France. Sorry, Tom; guilty as charged on this one. The affair was far too open, the written evidence is far too authentic, to deny..."My head and my heart"....
   
   [5] Sally Hemings---mulatto slave who met Jefferson in Paris when she traveled as maid to Jefferson's daughter. Described as "mighty near white", she was part of Jefferson's inheritance, AND, was Patty's half-sister. If Jefferson had an affair with Sally, he had to be Houdini to be undetected, and stupid to think he could be; Monticello is not that big, and Jefferson was NOT stupid. Yes, Sally had children by a white man; there were plenty around. IF the stories about present day blacks having the Jefferson DNA marker are true {IF}, there were other sources, like Tom's dimwitted brother, 5 nephews, and a cousin...Jefferson's two nephews, the sons of Dabney Carr, also lived at Monticello; they could not have provided the Y-chromosome, but there is evidence of one, or both, being involved with Sally.
   
   Thomas Jefferson was the greatest collection of talents one can imagine...attorney...architect...botanist...author...great horseman; in many ways, the "Father of our Country". He is also a mass of contradictions...a slave owner who hated slavery [so were Washington, Marshall, Patrick Henry, George Wythe]...apostle of fiscal responsibility who lived his last 50 years flat broke...athiest who "swore on the altar of God" [he was NOT really an athiest]...effective attorney who couldn't speak well in public...opponent of big government who bought Louisiana and greatly expanded the federal bureaucracy...the list goes on. And, what does "All men are created equal" REALLY mean?
   
   To answer my own question in the header...Who Cares? There are far more important things about Thomas Jefferson than whether he produced mulatto kids with a servant; plenty of white southern politicians, from George Wythe to Strom Thurmond did, but, with Tom, the evidence is VERY thin. One can quote Jefferson to prove anything; those who would attack him have plenty without Sally; those who would praise have plenty even with Sally.
   
   Mr. Jefferson wrote the two most important documents in the English language, and founded a great university. He will be studied, and argued about, unto eternity. Everybody needs to read at least one biography of him, though you don't need to go to the extent I have. If you're looking for a one volume study, this would be a fair choice. I usually recommend Joseph Ellis' "American Sphinx", or Willard Sterne Randall's book, but you could do worse than this; it's readable, even if her conclusions are questionable. Merrill Peterson's "Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation" is fabulous, but is over 1000 pages. Dumas Malone's six volumes are definitive, but six volumes....



3. First of all I must concede that I was unable to finish this book - it just wasn't interesting enough and the prospect of a new Harry Potter novel was more than enough enticement to put it aside in favor of something that didn't pretend to be anything but fiction. The premise - a history about Jefferson's thoughts and what made him tick - certainly sounded like it would be interesting. Instead, I was amazed at how often she used phrases like "from this we can infer..." or "based on this we must conclude..." In fact, it would appear that the whole book is nothing more than speculations about what was going on in his mind based on what he did or didn't say or write or his choice of words. And only slightly less irritating is that Ms. Brodie (who apparently enjoyed creating controversy) seems obsessed with Jefferson's sexual life. Early on she dismisses it as only natural that he had human appetites and almost unworthy of comment, but then goes on to guess and speculate as to why he was attracted to Sally Hemmings and others and the nature of their relationships. Honestly, I thought the book looked like a serious history about Jefferson, and I was really just looking to learn more about him, but I'll have to look elsewhere.



4. Over the years, I have read much on the Sphinx. But this book was the first that actually believed he was human and not a god and took great pains to put a human face to the man. Given that he guarded his legacy and shaped it during his lifetime, we will never know the real man. But at least someone is trying to show us that he was human and had all the strengths and weakness of a man. For that, and only that, this book is invaluable. For those who only take interest in him because of the Hemmings controversy, you are missing out on so much. The political intrigue alone is worth reading this book.



5. Dr. Brodie's biography on Thomas Jefferson is a wondrous piece of work, balancing both the personal and public lives of this remarkable man:
   Writer of the Declaration of Independence, author of "Notes on the State of Virginia" and the "Constitution for Virginia", minister to France, war Governor of Virginia, Secretary of State under Washignton, Vice-President under John Adams, two term President of the United States, aquisition of the Louisiana Purchase, founder of the University of Virginia, horticulturist, architect and so much more. He spoke his mind and he spoke it for the people: "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
   Without a doubt, Jefferson's private life was controversial and Brodie brings this to light. Although his personal life story reads like a soap opera, we see how both the personal and public worlds, at times, influence each other. Brodie unfolds his relationships with such women as Betsey Walker, Maria Cosway and the slave Sally Hemings, along with delving into his enemies and friends in public circles.
   A lengthy but fascinating read and thanks to Dr. Brodie's tenacious research efforts, the reader gains a deep understanding into the life of this extaordinary man.