5 comments about Company Commander: The Classic Infantry Memoir of World War II.

1. Company Commander: The Classic Infantry Memoir of World War II by Charles B. MacDonald. I highly recommend Company Commander: The Classic Infantry Memoir of World War II by Charles B. MacDonald. At just 21 years of age, Captain Charles B. MacDonald first commanded I Company, 3 Battalion 23rd Infantry, 2nd Infantry Division from October 1944 to January 1945 and later G Company, 2 Battalion 23rd Infantry, 2nd Infantry Division from March to May 1945. This memoir was written in 1947 when recollections were still sharp. It resulted in a very detailed account of what it was like to take command of a line infantry company and lead it into battle. The book gives us template for writing a personal military memoir.
   
   It is by far the finest memoir of any junior officer in World War II. Charles MacDonald does a great job of keeping his focus on his own experiences. He does not speculate or waste my time by giving conjecture on the big picture. We only have first hand information from the events of his personal participation. He sticks to what life was like for a junior officer in command of an infantry company, sleepless, hungry, dirty, stressful, and very dangerous. He takes us from the Siegfried Line in the Ardennes, through the Battle of the Bulge, and to the end of the war in the Czechoslovakia.
   
   This book is a must-read for all army officers who seek to command at company-level and it is informative for military historians as well. It is still required reading at West Point and on the company level officer (second lieutenant, first lieutenant, and captain) recommended reading list by the U.S. Army today. Upon this book's publication in 1947, Charles B. MacDonald was invited to join the U.S. Army Center of Military History as a civilian historian, the start of a career during which he wrote three of the official histories of World War II in Europe and supervised the preparation of others. The book is simply the best. Read and reviewed by Jimmie A. Kepler in June 2006.



2. I loved this book. It depicted the toil and drudgery of the WWII combat infantryman. There are no frills in this story, just the day to day experience of being on the spearhead of the Allied push into Germany. It portrayed the feelings and emotions of the men, in a very accurate light. I'm sure that there are people that will read this book and feel that they haven't been entertained. However, this book is not about entertainment. It is about the reality of the men that fought so unselfishly in the Ardennes Forest, and suffered intense hunger, cold (this was one of the coldest winters ever recorded in Europe), anxiety and fears. It also portrays the humor that existed amoung these brothers in arms. It is a great companion to Mac's other history, "A Time for Trumpets." Great, GREAT book! Thanks Mac!



3. An excellent book about the leadership of an army officer during the
   crucial battles that ended WWII in Europe. As an untested officer thrown
   into the Battle of the Bulge he performed magnificently. His mettle was sorly tested,and his humanity shone through. A very,very good read



4. Charles B. MacDonald wrote what it was like for a 21year old to command two infantry companies in WW2. He took notes along the way (I have a page of his notes that survived). They cover the capture of Hombressen in Germany. I also have the original typewriter on which he typed the manuscript of his book. I have trvelled the route he took in 1944/45 and found his descriptions of the various lovcations to be exceedingly accurate in every detail.
   
   Will Cavanagh



5. This book is probably the finest memoir of any junior officer in WW2. Unlike so many war memoirs, MacDonald keeps his focus firmly on his own experiences, and doesn't waste his readers time by speculating on `the big picture' or describing incidents which he didn't personally take part in. He sticks to what life was like for a junior officer in command of an infantry company - disorientating, stressful and very dangerous.
   
   On the strength of this book MacDonald was selected to work on the famous Official History of the US Army in World War Two, and produced two of the best regarded volumes in that definitive series.

No comments about Grant's Lieutenants: From Chattanooga to Appomattox (Modern War Studies).

5 comments about The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty.

1. I read this book through 2 times. It is astounding how many people have lied and cheated to protect our present top man in government and the former family members. I remember seeing Kitty on CNN one time to promote her book and then the Bush people must have gotten through to all other venues of promotion. She was not on any more that I saw. The "people" saw to that!! In fact, she was fired from her job as a result of the book. But no one sued her for libel, because she is so thorough in researching her facts. Prior to this book, I never realized how much bad things happen in politics and coverups. This gal tells it as it is.



2. This should be required reading for Americans of voting age. Well researched and clearly written, the book relies on reliable sources that, for the most part, maintain Kelley's objectivity. Although a reasonably well informed individuaI, I now realize that I have been quite naive regarding political ruthlessness.



3. My expectations were low. I never read a Kitty Kelley book before, so it's clear that her critics had done their work on me. While some sour grapes relatives had their say, the book had far more meat than I expected. There was plenty of written record, and the all so telling sealed and missing records.
   
   Kelley's presentation about the Bush intra-Family, Bush-Yale, Bush-Reagan Bush-Republican Party, relationships etc. provided the glue for putting the missing pieces of the family story together. Now I know why Bush 41 had the succession of unrelated gov. positions before he ran with Reagan. Every family has black sheep and secrets, but within this family, the stories of these relatives and their excommunication from the family are extreme. There is a lot of food for thought on how family dynamics over 3 generations have spurred political ambition.
   
   New to me, was that upon election Bush 41 was worth only $2 million. I thought they were far richer than this. They may be now, Bush 43 made $15 million alone capitalizing on the family name/contacts to get taxpayers to fund his baseball team. Kelley says almost nothing on the family relations with the Saudis.
   
   Kelley tackled 3 generations and did a competent job. There is plenty of unexplored turf for the next biographers.



4. 
   Beneath tons of minutia and irrelevant details that often border on mere salacious family gossip, a clear picture of the Bush family, its code of honor, code of ethics and family dynamics, does eventually emerge. The Bush formula for success consisted mostly of parlaying meager individual talents, an ability to maneuver on the outer edges of morality, a penchant for winning at all costs, and punching the right social tickets, into a coveted entry into the most envied of inner social and economic circles.
   
   According to the author, sucking up to those higher up the social ladder, and giving expression to this sycophancy by exhibiting whenever necessary, a willingness to make deep moral turns in the road, (a theme also repeated in Russell S. Bowen's "Immaculate Deception") became the family's number one business practice and eventually its clearest ethical signature. Sycophancy and questionable business practices not only proved to be the most reliable hook for ascending the proverbial social ladder (well beyond a rung that their talents and family code of ethics alone would have otherwise entitled them to), but also served as a way of consolidating their power and position once they arrived. Kelly argues that this weak moral template continues to work for the Bush family even into the present generation.
   
   Once gaining a foothold somewhere nearer the top of the food chain and having done so literally by hook or crook, the Bushes then perfected the art of holding on to their illicitly gained status: Display all of the outward signs of moral rectitude, while just behind the scenes, engage in the most ruthless of bare-knuckled business and ethical practices. In short, at every turn, demonstrate that you are willing to use up all of the family's moral capital in order to sustain the family's social status.
   
   Tempered by the uncertainty of the depression, and the precariousness inherent in living above ones own intellectual and moral station, the Bushes understandably were always terrified of being discovered as the social and economic frauds they saw themselves as. This palpable inner fear helped shape their worldview, animated family dynamics and contributed to most of the family's deviant behavior, which from time-to-time included alcoholism and latter on some sporadic drug use.
   
   The author implies that the Bushes might still be suffering from a kind of "survivor's guilt" of knowing full well that talent-wise they have never quite measured up to others in their lofty inner circles. Thus most of their lives have been dedicated to self-justification -- proving to themselves that they are deserving of the many unearned and often unethical entitlements they have received.
   
   However, it must be said in passing that compared to the stories of others of this ilk, who like the Bushes, have also clawed and scratched their way to the top of the food chain (the Kennedy's would be another good case in point), there is nothing strikingly out of the ordinary about the Bush family.
   
   Plus, I can think of nothing negative to say about a family that can turn an utter un-redeeming family black sheep into the President of the USA. They must have been doing something right. Amen.
   
   A good read; another classic American story told well: five stars.



5. I'll admit that I did not know what to expect when I encountered this book by Kitty Kelley. I only knew her works by reputation, and her previous subject matter - the Royals, Jackie Onassis, Elizabeth Taylor and Frank Sinatra - struck me as lightweight and gossipy. But I found myself unexpectedly with a few hours to kill and few titles from which to choose. So, I picked up "The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Family," which tells the history of three generations of Bush politicians, Senator Prescott Bush and Bush 41 and Bush 43.
   
   First, let me say that the book is very readable. The only thing that might be a bit difficult is keeping track of the different names, as there are, for example, so many Georges and Prescotts. Kelley does what she can to assist by employing the nicknames used by Bush family itself. Some of them are actually endearing, such as "Poppy." Her prose carries the reader along easily.
   
   Second, let me say that the book was far more substantial than I expected. There was plenty, yes plenty, of politics in it. Kelley brings information together to show coherent patterns, exposing contradictions and lies.
   
   Third, I want to say that the book is, for the most part, fair. Kelley sometimes steps back to admire or acknowledge a deed or two. Prescott is admired for voting to censure Joe McCarthy (an act of political courage, as his constituents may have been pro-Joe). Bush 41 is admired for enlisting on his 18th birthday to fight in World War II (even though his parents were against his fighting in "Rockefeller's War"). Kelley also acknowledges that Bush 41's increase of taxes - and this hurt him badly in the re-election - put the economy in better shape for when Clinton entered office. Bush 43 is acknowledged to believe that he is a sincere Christian (although he rarely attends church). Kelley describes a charming incident, too, when Bush returns some money to a poor woman who contributed to his campaign.
   
   (A parenthetical note: how often do you hear the right-wing media positively acknowledge any deed of those whom they deem liberal? It's very, very rare, and very frustrating.)
   
   Despite these gleams of good, most of the book is negative with respect to the three men. Their talents can be described as mediocre at best, and pitiful at worst. They rarely have empathy for anyone but the Bushes. The lies that they tell - "Pernicious foolery" - expand from one generation to the next. They lie glibly about themselves; they lie viciously about their opponents. They pander to those who will vote for them or contribute to their campaigns. Many of the events have popped up in the media before; it's clear they are not invention. (I admit I was too young for the Prescott incidents.)
   
   A big question is: Why have the Bushes done what they have done? They seem to have mistaken a plaque on the wall for the satisfaction of genuine accomplishment. But they are desperate, almost slavering, to get that plaque on the wall. They lie and pander (to the NRA, for example) in order to get that plaque.
   
   And what's all this about poodles? The poodles are the media (see Kelley's Afterword) admitted to the White House - the poodles who have not done their work and informed the nation. The poodles who, hoping for another doggy biscuit or a chance to sit on the inner sofa, have let so many items go unchallenged. The poodles have hurt the Americans, who, thinking they were being informed appropriately, voted in the Bush-men
   
   Thanks Kelley - for not being a poodle!

5 comments about Sgt. York: His Life, Legend & Legacy : The Remarkable Untold Story of Sergeant Alvin C. York.

1. If you've seen the 1941 film "Sergeant York" with Gary Cooper, then this book is a must read for you. Perry delves into the man, Alvin York, and tells us the rest of the story. Yes, the defining moment of York's life happened in the Argonne Forest in WW1, but he went on to do more. He battled Lindberg, the IRS and more. This book doesn't paint York as faultless by any stretch, but it also is by no means an exposé. Just a keen insight into the complex life of a simple man.
   If you enjoyed Laura Hillenbrand's "Seabiscuit", you will also be moved by this book as well.



2. Alvin York spent 19 months of his 76 years in the United States Army during World War I (WWI) and 20 minutes to an hour in the action which made him America's greatest hero of that war. In writing a book about Alvin York, then, the author had to make a decision. Should he write about those 19 months, about that hour, or about the man's entire life? For any other man, the answer would be fairly simple: write about that hour. For Alvin York, however, the answer is quite different, and this author rightly chose to write the complete story of his life both before, during, and after his heroic military service.
   
   When I began reading the book, however, I didn't realize this, and, as a result, I was somewhat disappointed. It seemed to me that all the action, the interesting stuff, was up front and then the book slowly transitioned into the more mundane story of York's later life. But I persisted and gradually came to realize that that was the way York, himself, would have wanted it. After all, as he said many time throughout his life, "Uncle Sam's Army is not for sale."
   
   I must agree with some of the previous critics that this book is almost too detailed, particularly in the middle chapters, as York, with his third grade education, struggles against entrenched politicians to fulfill his dream of building a Christian school in the Tennessee mountains so the backwoods children could have the education he never had. But if you persist, you will likely come to realize, as I did, that his actions after the war and the manner in which he lived his life are much more heroic than anything he or anyone else did in the Great War or in any other war.
   
   The bottom line is this: Alvin York is much more of a hero than I had ever imagined, and, although this book may at times be a difficult read, I highly recommend it. After all, although he never caught a touchdown pass or hit a ninth inning home run, Sergeant York is one hero whose like will never be seen again (guaranteed).



3. The Sgt York Biography by John Perry is an exhaustive effort to give a representation of the Life of Alvin York in the highest degree of accuracy, and tedious attention to detail in painting the most True to Life version that anyone is likely to come across. If one is interested in what made Alvin C. York Tick, then John Perry's account is your book. If only a general understanding is what is sought, then these pages will be far more than what you may have bargained for. But For Fineness of intricacies which permeated Sgt. York's Life, Read John Perry's version.



4. After reading his life of Mary Custis Lee, which was quite impressive and turned up many unique insights into a tragically misjudged lady, I sought out other books by Tennessee's own and only John Perry. I found a copy of UNSHAKABLE FAITH, but it had mildewed badly and was nearly unreadable. But faith must have led me to a path of light because on a dark shelf in an East Bay bookstore my hand crept down past a row of Elizabeth Peters books, and landed almost by a miracle on this earlier book by Perry.
   
   I knew very little about Alvin York, except that my grandfather, whose name was Alvin, always blamed the remarkable fame of Sgt York on the popularity of this previous unknown name. He said when he went to school there were thirty-four boys in his graduating class called Alvin. John Perry addresses this amazing renown. His exploits in the Argonne Forest became the stuff of legend, and the Gary Cooper biopic in 1941 muffed the facts a bit to give York more of a country background than actually he had. Many members of his extended family were quite erudite, and my grandfather always used to say that one of York's aunts had written the very first home economics textbook in English, predating Boston's Fannie Farmer by some years.
   
   Perry has a sincere way of writing, and the excitement doesn't let down when York comes back home a hero. You see him doing good works in the name of the Lord and, although many politicians and lawmakers were ever ready and anxious to buy up a piece of his ass, hoping to enlist him into one or another misbegotten crackpot scheme. To his credit York paid them no mind and just continued on his humble way. As with his life of Mary Lee, Perry shows how a good writer concentrates on the facts and lets the legend go its own way, like a small boy cutting the string to a kite and waving it goodbye. The truth is, what becomes a myth is something we have no control over, and Perry acknowledges this with good grace and a wry smile.
   
   Highly recommended not only to Tennesseans and to Christians, but to everyone out there interested in a good life story.



5. I'm going to do what the author couldn't seem to do "get to the point" This book was very dry and I hope that Sgt York had a more
   exciting life (other than his war experience) than this book makes it sound. I had a hard time getting through it.

5 comments about Life Stories: Profiles from The New Yorker (Modern Library Paperbacks).

1. 
   I very much enjoy profiles of interesting people and had high hopes for this book, but it's awful. In fact, I gave up on about the fourth tape.
   
   I managed (with great difficulty) to get through part of the article on Richard Pryor but the vulgar language made me stop. Granted, that might be appropriate for a piece about Pryor, but I think it would be possible to write an interesting biographical sketch without it.
   
   The article on Ernest Hemingway was the most boring and meaningless piece of tripe I've ever read. How could ANYONE make Hemingway seem deadly dull? By recounting an almost minute by minute, blow by blow, excursion in New York to buy a coat. What was the author thinking????
   
   The short article on Katharine White was okay, but nothing special and actually more about the writer than her subject.
   
   The article on Mr. Hunter's Grave, which was a 'non celebrity' piece, was overly long and exceedingly dull, with very poor narration.
   
   That's when I decided life is too short to spend listening to books like this. If this is the best The New Yorker can do, it's no wonder I don't subscribe!



2. If you are a fan of biographies but are intimidated by 1,000-page tomes, Life Stories is a great choice. Some say the New Yorker invented the "profile," and though it does seem the magazine was the first to call its biographical pieces by that name (amazing, considering how ubiquitous the term is today), editor David Remnick is quick to assert that they hardly invented the style. What they have done for decades is find the most interesting people and have the best writers provide illumination. Nearly every profile here is profound and nearly every one of them is short enough to read in a single (long) sitting. And while it's a treat to learn intimate details of some of the most famous people of the 20th century, it's the profiles of the lesser-known people that shine: from Joseph Mitchell's encounter with an aging churchman with a penchant for baking to the story of the Chudnovsky brothers, Russian emigres who built a supercomputer in their apartment from salvaged parts. Fantastic reading from start to finish.



3. The writing is beautiful. The story telling is beautiful. The stories are amazing. Five Stars.



4. This is a collection of prime examples of the long gone "profile" piece in The New Yorker magazine. They just don't write 'em like this anymore!
   
   Choose Truman Capote's profile of Marlon Brando, or Lillian Ross' profile of Ernest Hemingway, or any of the 20-some other profiles in this book. You will read some of the best writing about some of the most exciting people in 20th Century history.
   
   Is there a second volume in the works? I hope so!



5. Hemingway, Baryishnikov, and Henry Luce are the subjects of some of my favorite celebrity profiles in this wonderful book. But topping my list is "Man Goes to See a Doctor", the awesome Adam Gopnik's sweet and funny rendering of his shrink. Here's a snippet: "Your problems remind me of" - and here he named one of the heroes of the New York School. "Fortunately, you suffer from neither impotence nor alcoholism. This is in your favor." Highly recommended!

5 comments about American Presidents: Martin Van Buren.

1. This is one of the books in "The American Presidents" series, focusing on Martin Van Buren. The overall series editor, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., speaks of what is at stake with the presidency, in his series introduction (Page xv): "But a system based on the tripartite separation of powers [executive, legislative, and judiciary] has an inherent tendency toward inertia and stalemate. One of the three branches must take the initiative if the system is to move. The executive branch alone is structurally capable of taking that initiative."
   
   In this book, we learn of the presidency of Martin Van Buren, sometimes called the Red Fox of Kinderhook, after his home town. He began in extremely modest circumstances to work his way up to the top position in American politics.
   
   In the process, he masterminded some major political inventions, such as the party caucus, the national presidential nominating convention, the patronage system, a publicity network, and the Democratic Party itself. Obviously, he did not do these things alone, but he was a key figure in the development of a new political structure and framework, far different from that of the early years of the republic. Indeed, as the book points out, he helped p[popularize the term "OK."
   
   The book describes his rise in politics and his clever political machinations. He hitched his wagon to the political star of Andrew Jackson, and that helped propel his rise. He was also a successful elected politicians, from his years in the New York state political scene. There, he helped form the "Albany Regency," one of the earliest stable political organizations.
   
   He was a Democrat, and also favored a more democratic process. Between 1826 and 1828, according to the author, Van Buren began the process of developing a modern political party. It is ironic that as he ascended the political ladder to attain the presidency, he ran into an economic disaster that doomed his presidency. The book discusses that, although there is not the detail one might wish. He did have some successes, but he ended up a one term president (although he tried another run later on--and failed). Then, the later years in his life are discussed.
   
   For a person who wants a quick literate introduction to Martin Van Buren (derided by some as "Van Van the Washed Up Man" after his defeat in the re-election campaign), this ought to do the trick. A good read. . . .
   



2. Widmer does a fine job of presenting a tidy picture of an obscure one-term president, his faults and strengths. By covering his Dutch-American ancestry and character, the reader gains a firm grasp of the individual - and understands what shapes his political wisdom, the motivations behind his party politicking, and the vitriol that his enemies bring to bear. I found the text informative, the style engaging and the theme purposeful.



3. Martin Van Buren, the 8th President, was the first President hailing from New York and the first President of non-English descent. This book briefly covers his life; early years, his rise to political fame, his Presidency and his retirement.
   
   Widmer, does a great job in just 200 pages of giving the reader a sense of who Martin Van Buren was. He also does a great job of making you realize why Martin Van Buren should be remembered and pointing out all the great things he accomplished in the name of democracy, without overselling him and making the reader believe he should go down in history as one of the most important Presidents.
   
   This book is a good read for the regular reader, one who does not normally read non-fiction or biographies. I did not find it too dense and it flowed nicely.



4. Van Buren had a lengthy and complex career, from his rise in New York politics in the early 19th Century to becoming the first ex-President to be seriously considered for a new term in 1844, until his unpopular opposition to annexing Texas led to the upset nomination and victory of James Polk. In a short book of under 200 pages, Widmer can't discuss all of this in detail. He makes a good decision to focus on Van Buren's work as a political organizer and in large part the founder of the Democratic Party, when he brought together the Northern and Southern factions which had supported Andrew Jackson in 1824 to back his successful return in 1828. He obviously covers, but doesn't really emphasize, Van Buren's single term as President, made a failure by an economic collapse that he had nothing to do with.
   
   It is as the founder of the Democratic Party and as Jackson's right hand that Van Buren made his most important contributions to history. Democrats generally prefer to assign this role to the more revered Jefferson, but the parties of his era were such loose and unorganized groupings that they were more factions than real political parties. True national parties, with national conventions and permanent structures date to the era of Jackson, and probably nobody had more to do with creating them than Van Buren.
   
   Also included here are other major events of Jackson's presidency, such as the "war of the Petticoats" and the nullification crisis. It was these controversies that led Jackson to break with John Calhoun, naming Van Buren as his Vice President and natural successor.
   
   Widmer has worked in the White House as a speechwriter for Clinton, and refers to that experience and the Clinton presidency several times. Some reviewers thought that a distraction from the proper subject of the book; I thought it added contemporary interest and showed a continuity of politics across very different eras.
   
   On the whole this book is interesting, readable and informative. It recounts a substantial amount of history in a concise package.



5. If you want a book about the highlights (and only the highlights) of Martin Van Buren's public service career then buy this book.
   
   This book had alot of gaps in it. It kept saying that he was an up and coming star and that he was a political mastermind, but it never once said why he was a star and what manuevers he made to make him a mastermind.
   
   I agree with the other reviewer about Bill Clinton. This was supposed to be a book about the 8th president not the 42nd. I found the constant refrences to Bill Clinton to be out of place. I guess that the author was drawing on his own experience with a president.
   
   The only reason that I bought this book is that it is a short and concise biography of Van Buren. I am trying to read a biography of each of the presidents and did not want to spend alot of time reading a 500-600+ page book on one of the lesser known presidents. I think that the book could have been longer (say about 300 to 350 pages)in order to further detail the career of Van Buren.

5 comments about Secret Lives of the First Ladies: What Your Teachers Never Told You About the Women of the White House.

1. I love how this book and the Secret Lives of the Presidents give us a real look at the personalities of the First Families and what was going on culturally and personally for these folks that have impacted our world. It helps to remind all of us that there never were the "good ol' days". Politics have always been a little messy. These book also help reveal the true brilliance of some of the First Ladies and their husbands. This is what should be taught in our schools. It makes history much more memorable!



2. the book arrived in good condition and in a timely matter. I am a very satisfied customer!!



3. Recently a foreign journalist interviewing George W. Bush asked the President of the United States to turn out his pockets. What an interesting, humanizing thing to ask of the most powerful man on Earth. And exactly the kind of thing that never occurs in the burlesque of today's 24 hour electronic news cycle. The contents of our pockets, those little handy nooks that serve as contingency storage for our day-to-day indispensables, speak wonderful, accessible volumes about us as people. Show me what you have in your pockets and, whether or not I know WHO you are, I get a glimpse what KIND of person you are. In Secret Lives of the First Ladies, Cormac O'Brien has politely turned out the pockets of the spouses of each of our presidents, and it's a neat-o treasure trove he uncovers. His style is neither lewd nor exploitative, though, to be sure, there's plenty of juicy stuff here. His project is a sort of cameo portraiture of some forty seven intriguing and often remarkable women. The only flattery in these portraits is a consistent, entertaining, and often astounding disclosure of each woman's individual humanity. It is tempting to read the book in little chunks (as I did at first) owing to its concise chaptering. However, it's a real pleasure go back and review long stretches, watching how the public appearance of the First Lady has evolved over time while her private role has remained remarkably consistent: she is the president's wife. Which is to say, sometimes she is a loving yet diminutive spousal anchor and sometimes she is a headstrong engine of scandal and outrage. Sometimes she is a fully enfranchised partner in even the weightiest decision-making at the executive mansion, including public policy. That there were first ladies fitting all these descriptions in every era since the founding of the republic, to me, was quite amazing. If you know any married couples, you will find the First Ladies, good and bad, tragic and heroic, satisfyingly and entertainingly familiar. Predictably, a frustrating aspect of The Secret Lives of the First Ladies is the rigid brevity of its entries, particularly in chapters describing women whom one would like to examine more closely. The challenge is to keep track of those First Ladies whose full biographies you now want to find and read. Alas, one has the nagging fear that those biographies won't be as frank and entertaining as these admittedly brief introductions. But, such is the nature of this omnibus beast. O'Brien's prose is a yummy balance of richness and skim-ability with very few false notes. The design and illustration are a constant reassurance that this is a social visit and not a college text. You're here to make friends and there is no requirement to pass a final exam. A pleasure to read cover-to-cover or simply to table hop as you meet these one-of-a-kind ladies. Of its genre, this is an A+.



4. If you like trivia, you'll enjoy this book. If you have only enough time to read short chapters or a few pages at a time, again, you'll like this book. Each chapter, which is about one first lady, is only a few pages in length -- perfect for bedtime reading for tired moms like me. There was enough information about each first lady to pique my interest, and make me want to find more in-depth biographies about many of the women.



5. A very good read! Interesting facts about all the first ladies. It is sure to make you laugh. You will find out things you did not know. Entertaining.

5 comments about Prison Writings: My Life Is My Sun Dance.

1. 
   This book, along with almost 50 fawning reviews, merely illustrates the effectiveness of propaganda in spreading mass ignorance. The reviewers are so sure that Peltier is innocent that the facts don't seem to matter. They would just get in the way, as in Peltier bragging about shooting a man in the head who was begging for his life (heard by four others), as in 15 federal judges affirming the original conviction (not one dissenter), and as in incontrovertible evidence that linked Peltier's rifle to the crime scene. I doubt these people are even aware that six months before he murdered two injured and helpless Federal Agents, Peltier put a gun in AIM member Anna Mae Aquash's mouth while interrogating her about being an informant. AIM leaders later had her executed (gun to the head again) partly because she was one of the four who heard Peltier's boast. Anna Mae knew too much.
   
   Yes, ignorance is truly bliss, but truth can cure ignorance. If you want to discover the truth about what happened that day, read American Indian Mafia.



2. The rhetoric of the other reviews aside, Prison Writings would make for a compelling story had Peltier included some truth to support his allegations surrounding the events of June 26, 1975 on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota.
   
   By way of a brief background, Peltier was represented by capable and experienced counsel and during his trial the jury heard that FBI agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams were following who they thought was another wanted person. They actually followed Peltier and two teenagers who began shooting at the agents who were then trapped and exposed in an open area. Peltier was joined by several others, including Dino Butler and Robert Robideau who also fired on the agents from another direction. Both Coler and Williams were severely wounded and unable to defend themselves. Peltier's jury heard that Peltier, Robideau and Butler went down to the wounded agents and shot them both in the face at point-blank range with a high powered rife. The jury believed the testimony they heard and Peltier was convicted for, among other things, aiding and abetting and sentenced to two consecutive life sentences. He later received an additional seven year consecutive sentence for an armed escape from Lompoc federal penitentiary. (In a separate and earlier trial, Dino Butler and Robert Robideau were acquitted of the murders. However, this review relates specifically to how Peltier portrays the facts surrounding these events in Prison Writings. There is much more to the entire saga.)
   
   It's important to place Prison Writings in its proper chronological context. Prison Writings was published in 1999. An important related book touted by Peltier and the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee (LPDC) that "immortalizes Leonard Peltier," In The Spirit of Crazy Horse (ITSOCH) by Peter Matthiessen was first published in 1983 and in 1992. A film, Incident at Oglala (Incident), narrated by Robert Redford was released in 1992. Collectively, these sources, in addition to the many public statements made by Peltier, Butler and Robideau, demonstrate that Peltier is not only fabricating the history of his own case but knowingly lies about certain events.
   
   There are many more, but for example:
   
   The scene:
   Peltier initially claimed he was in the AIM camp to the south of the Jumping Bull property, heard shots, responded and "I fired off a few shots above their heads, trying not to hit anything (p.125)." And also "I didn't see their agents die, had no hand in it..." (p.127). Yet in a CNN interview in October, 1999 Peltier admitted being there and told interviewer Mark Potter "I don't know, just two people laying there. I mean, the car door--the car door open and stuff."
   
   The alibi:
   For the better part of nearly two decades Peltier had offered only one alibi about who was responsible for the final killing shots to the agents' faces. He claimed that someone they all knew but would not identify (Mr. X), had driven to the reservation that day in a red pickup truck to deliver dynamite and that it was Mr. X who engaged the agents initially and then, once wounded and unable to defend themselves, killed the agents and drove off. In Incident Robideau is filmed pointing to the area where Mr. X murdered the agents and drove off in the red pickup truck. This claim was so far-fetched that not even Peltier's trial lawyers wanted to go near it, but they did their best to create confusion with the jury over the alleged red pickup truck. Matthiessen, although skeptical himself, spent a great deal of time on Mr. X in ITSOCH. However, in a 1995 interview with News from Indian Country, one of the three participants, Dino Butler, publicly said that the Mr. X story was a lie; "Well, there is no Mr. X. There was no man coming to our camp that day bringing dynamite." "To create this lie to show that someone else pulled the trigger." " That is totally false. Totally untrue. That never happened."
   
   It should come as no surprise that Mr. X. and the red pickup are never mentioned in Prison Writings.
   
   Aiding and abetting:
   Peltier tries to convince the reader that the "vague crime of aiding and abetting" (p162) was somehow later added to the charge of murdering the agents. Yet, during one of the many appeals (one dealing with this specific issue in 1993), the appeals court stated that "Peltier's arguments fail because their underlying premises are fatally flawed. (A) the government tried the case on the alternative theories; it asserted that Peltier personally killed the agents at point blank range, but that if he had not done so, then he was equally guilty of the murder as an aider and abettor."
   
   Preplanned assault:
   Peltier lays the groundwork for claiming that according to a document obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, the government "...had been gathering in the area for a preplanned paramilitary assault on the Pine Ridge reservation," (p.129) comprised of "...dozens, maybe hundreds..." (p.127) of law-enforcement personnel. The document (dated April 24, 1975) he refers to (the noted "sanctioned memo") says nothing of the kind and related to the 1973 takeover by AIM of Wounded Knee. Ironically this memo was still being circulated around FBI headquarters in Washington D.C. even after the murders of agents Coler and Williams with a date at the bottom of the memo of August 11, 1975. This memo is not even in the same universe as Peltier claims. This assertion was so outrageous even Matthiessen shied away from it by claiming after all his research that the initial shooting at the agents was spontaneous, neither a pre-planned government event nor premeditated ambush of the two agents. "...if there is another persuasive explanation of the location and position of their cars, I cannot find it." (ITSOCH p.544).
   
   Further, it was well documented that when the agents were first pinned down in the open field, Agent Williams made desperate calls for help and assistance over his FBI radio. These transmissions were overheard by a number of individuals who all confirmed how quickly the shooting started, and ended, and that the nearest agent was about twelve miles away. That FBI agent, Gary Adams, responded with a BIA officer, the first two to even reach close to the scene. They were also shot at and had to back away to Highway 18 and await more assistance. In the meantime, Coler and Williams were murdered and Peltier and the others escaped.
   
   Robideau:
   Robert Robideau who has been assimilated and rejected by the Peltier organization several times over the years has made damning admissions. Robideau stated publicly on numerous occasions, and in emails to this reviewer, that he's the one who actually killed the agents:
   
   "As far as I have ever been concerned the killing of the agents was justified..." "They were shot in the head at close range..." "I have no remorse..." "I am "Mr X" (which is no lie) and I did kill them with honor befitting a warrior, but they died like worms." "I thought I already told you that I killed the agents."
   
   Of course Robideau has the constitutional protection against double-jeopardy, but this reviewer believes he is even too much of a coward to shoot two severely wounded and incapacitated human beings. But whether he killed the agents himself is immaterial; the Peltier jury heard and accepted the testimony that the three older Indians, Robideau, Butler and Peltier went down to the wounded agents and murdered them by shooting them both in the face.
   
   Of course, Prison Writings suggests none of this but hides behind fabrications and outright lies to further the folklore surrounding Peltier and perpetuating The Myth.
   
   What it does do however is firmly establish that Peltier did not remove himself from the scene of the crime.
   
   Prison Writings is self-serving drivel and should not be used to document in any fashion what happened that June day at Pine Ridge. Anyone interested in going beyond The Myth should spend some time reviewing the very detailed appeals that cover every aspect of this case.
   
   [...]



3. After all is said and done, just read the thousands of pages that the U.S. government, through the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's office and court records, was forced to release about this case. It is their own words about their own deliberate withholding of evidence, fabrication of evidence, deliberate perjured testimony and numerous other violations of U.S. law, rules of evidence, and other assorted felonies.



4. Leonard Peltier, United States Prisoner 89637-132, has been imprisoned since 1977 for the deaths of two FBI agents on the Pine Ridge Reservation of the Lakota Indians during the 1973 siege at Wounded Knee, South Dakota. Most likely the scapegoat for the deaths during a blundered surveillance attempt, Peltier has been a cause celeb during the final throws of every president since Jimmy Carter as many supporters - including the U.S. Prosecutor that put him in jail in the first place - come together to call for his parden.
   
   There are other sources for an in-depth understanding of the events that led to his imprisonment such as Peter Mathiesson's *In the Spirit of Crazy Horse* and the Robert Redford film *Incident at Oglala*. But Prison Writings is a must read in any study of not only the Wounded Knee incident, but the American Indian Movement as a whole and native issues throughout the country.
   
   This book weaves Peltier's life as a prisoner in the U.S. prison system with his account of the events of 1973 and his views on the state of affairs for Native Americans as a whole. Peltier's life evolved from an aimless youth on the reservation to a political activist, and at times it seems that his life sentence is a natural extension of this progression - as if his destiny was to suffer for the cause.
   
   When you look at the evidence of all that transpired at Wounded Knee in 1973 and the years that followed, including what happened to other activists such as Annie Mae Aquash, and the now revealed manipulation of evidence by the FBI and the all-out war against Native American activism in the 1970s, Leonard Peltier's *Prison Writings* become somewhat of a manifesto and call for a better future.
   
   >>>>>>><<<<<<<
   
   A Guide to my Book Rating System:
   
   1 star = The wood pulp would have been better utilized as toilet paper.
   2 stars = Don't bother, clean your bathroom instead.
   3 stars = Wasn't a waste of time, but it was time wasted.
   4 stars = Good book, but not life altering.
   5 stars = This book changed my world in at least some small way.



5. This is a true story of an Indian who is in prison
   just because he's an Indian. I real eye opener and
   interesting facts about the Indians here today.

5 comments about Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom.

1. Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion of Freedom
   
   What can you say? It's a thoroughly researched, skillfully wound tale of a man who has no statesman-like comparison in modern American history. I'm an 'Eisenhower Republican' - though, I fear we're a dying breed - however, remark at the leadership and undying dedication to country this magnificently flawed giant of a president consistently demonstrated throughout the course of his illustrious political career.
   
   It's exhaustively researched and fact packed, to be sure - but will nary leave you wanting to leave this bulky work on the nightstand before dozing off. Whether you agree or disagree with FDR's policies or tactics, this book is never tendentious and should appeal to readers across political spectrum and ideologies....the way a masterful biography should, in this humble history junkies mind.
   
   Fans of Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt may want to pick up a separate bio for her life story, as Black certainly does not treat her with kid gloves. However, this book accurately hones in on the key subject - FDR - and Lord Black sticks to his prime subject matter with uncompromising rigdity, a keen focus and honesty.
   
   Bravo. I promise to read more of Mr. Black as a result of this admirable and impressive work.
   
   - Johnny Concannon



2. It took a month to receive my book; I was happy with it once it arrived, but the slowness was a problem.



3. We would be remiss to not credit Washington with defining the parameters of the powers of the Presidency, but for all intent and purposes, as far as impact is concerned, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the greatest President in the nation, including Lincoln. We must remember that history tends to overestimate martyrdom. As good as Lincoln was, he was never tested in a peace time setting.
   Conrad Black has written the definitive and best book on the great FDR, hands down. Far from being a fawning soft sell, "Champion Of Freedom" is very fair, and Black does not hesitate to discuss Roosevelt's shortcomings, as well as his triumphs. It is an incredibly thoughtful read, and the research is amazing.
   Roosevelt could, at times, be calculating, devious and even mean, especially toward political enemies. This was fair game, however, and in a world where deceit and hidden agendas permeate every action, Roosevelt simply was a mile ahead of everybody else and played the politics game better than anybody ever had before, or will again.
   His concern for the working man, the New Deal and landmark programs like the WMA put America to work when there was none to be had. Some lunk headed conservatives claim he stole the work from industry, but that is pure bull. We have Social Security, the Labor Relations Act, and a great park system because of Roosevelt's domestic programs. As far as a wartime president, his foresight and action was almost divinely inspired, and may well have been.
   While critics blame him for Pearl Harbor, Black points out that Roosevelt, who loved the Navy and was Assistant Secretary to the Navy in WWI, would never have deliberately put the men of Pearl Harbor in harm's way as it happened. Rather, he had expected the admirals to be fully prepared for possible attack, and was aghast (albeit privately) at the incompetence shown at Pearl Harbor, which should have been more than able to put up a very good fight against the Japanese attackers. True, he expected war, and knew that the sooner, the better once our armed forces were ready, and that was well underway.
   This is just one revelation of a very complex man who was regarded in Messianic proportions by the populace and by the world at large. Black is a master writer, and truly has created a masterpiece worthy of its subject. For serious history and Roosevelt fans, it's a must have.



4. We gave two copies of this book for Christmas this year. The recipients have had nothing but great things to say.



5. This one was a tough read - 1134 pages and a couple of laps around the world later I finished - but it was definitely worth the time. While not as readable as David McCullough, Conrad Black not only tells the amazing story of FDR, but also puts you right in the middle of this pivotal time in American History. Sometimes vindictive, often underestimated, FDR's ability to lead and leverage public opinion is unmatched by any modern day president. The complicated relationship between Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill was navigated with great expertise. The personalities surrounding him - Eleanor, Teddy Roosevelt's side of the family, Stimson, Smith, MacArthur, Patton, Eisenhower, etc. are cause to hit the Barnes and Noble shop again soon for a few more biographies. If you like American history and biographies, this book comes with my recommendation.

5 comments about 1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and the War They Failed to See.

1. 1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant and The War They Failed to See, Bruce Chadwick , Sourcebooks Inc., 355 pp., notes, bibliography, index, 2008, $24.95
   
   1858 offers clear and concise descriptions of key political and social events that shoved the states into rebellion and resistance. Adventurous and even compelling at times, 1858 moves the reader through twelve months of political and social turmoil. Chadwick explores not the mundane but the exceptional.
   
   Not familiar to most Civil War readers is Jefferson Davis' 1858 visit to Maine in order to recuperate from herpes and build a coalition of Northern Democrats in a bid to establish a presidential candidacy in 1860. The Southern press pilloried him to the point that when he returned he retracted his statements. Ironically, these retractions put him into a position where he would be offered a presidency in 1861, that of the Confederate States of America.
   
   In one six page chapter, Chadwick offers a cogent and balanced description of the Dred Scott Decision, one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court event in U.S. history. His ability to put into place the origins, personalities, issues, and outcomes of this event is exceptional. As a Advance Placement U.S. History test reader, CWL reflected that this chapter would be a fine contribution to student resources.
   
   Though CWL is quite familiar with the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Oberlin Ohio Rescue and John Brown's escape with slaves from Missouri to Canada, Chadwick offers the essentials in a manner that captures the excitement and underscores their place in bringing the states to the brink of rebellion in 1860. After reading 1858, Civil War buffs may have a new appreciation for the events leading to the Secession Winter of 1860-1861. Some readers may need to keep in mind that all soldiers in the ranks had lived through and had argued over the events of 1858.
   
   Though a Pennsylvanian, CWL has not be able to work up any enthusiasm for James Buchanan, 15th president of the United States. Chadwick's 1858 covers the Buchanan presidency in nine chapters that fall between chapters on Davis, Lee, the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Oberlin Rescue, Seward's Irrepressible Conflict speech, and John Brown's rescue of slaves from Missouri. Read consecutively the Buchanan White House chapters make the case for this Northern Democrat holding Southern Democrats' interest higher than his own section and possibly allowing the conflict to become truly irrepressible.
   
   Some quibbles: The subtitle is unclear; nine of 17 chapters deal with the Buchanan White House, two deal with Lincoln and Douglas, and single chapters deal with Lee, Davis, Seward, Sherman, The Dred Scott Decision, John Brown's Raid on Missouri and the Slaveholder's raid on Nicaragua. Mysteriously, U.S. Grant is mentioned only on four pages in the book but is in the subtitle. Buchanan has nine chapters but has no mention in the title at all.
   
   CWL suggests that the subtitle be changed for the paperback edition: 1858--The Year the Civil War Became Inevitable for Davis, Lee, Douglas, Lincoln, Seward, Sherman and John Brown. Or 1858--Blood Before The Civil War's Dawn: The Men Who Pulled the Trigger on the War.
   
   Chadwick assumes the reader has no detailed understanding of the period; 1858 is written for the general audience. For the paperback edition, a chronology for the year should be added as well as a brief chronology of the 1846-1860 era. A list of characters would also be helpful for the general audience. Also, the index needs some attention. The entry--Forney, John--lists 6 pages with three subtopics. John Forney has a whole chapter, Number Nine, pages 135-140 but these pages are not listed under the entry--Forney, John--in the index. Some proofreading needs to be done. Notes 159, 160 and 161 are the same font size as the text font; these note number should be the superscript font size, just like the other 744 notes.



2. I have to admit that I can't quite place this book. I would say on the one hand I was disappointed because while it did a good job of portraying the year 1858 it could have just as easily been 1856 or 1860, both of which would have been more interesting. The book spent a lot of time focusing on personal rivalries to the detriment of painting the national picture. Also certain figures who would rise to prominence in the Civil War were given great exposure yet others were barely mentioned. (Like Grant)
   
   So all in all if you like the period, there are worse reads out there but I still think that James McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom does a much better job at portraying the period.



3. Reads like a novel, but its pure history and gives a perspective on the Civil War which has been lacking. The war wasn't about slavery in the south, but more so about slavery in the new states of the west....



4. Why 1858? I found myself asking that question repeatedly the entire time I was reading this book. What made 1858 THE year to look at in regards to the coming of the Civil War. Author Bruce Chadwick tries (largely unsuccessfully, in my opinion) to argue that 1858 was the year slavery became THE main issue facing the United States and events which occurred in 1858 played a large role in bringing about the war. In his Foreword, Chadwick tells the reader he will attempt to accomplish this by weaving together seven stories of people and events, linking these disparate stories together with looks into James Buchanan's "spectacular failure" as President.
   
   1858 weaves together seven stories all (loosely) tied together by Buchanan's Presidency. These stories are, in no particular order:
   
   1. Jefferson Davis
   2. Robert E. Lee
   3. William T. Sherman
   4. The Oberlin-Wellington Slave Rescue
   5. William H. Seward
   6. John Brown
   7. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates
   
   At first, I was intrigued by the author's decision to abandon a traditional narrative and use what I thought would be an interesting change of pace. The idea works better in theory than in the pages of 1858, however. Stories are broken up into different chapters with little regard for continuity or chronological order. For readers new to the subject, this may very well be misleading as far as a time line of these events goes.
   
   As I stated in my introduction, my main and overriding question while reading the entire book was "Why 1858? What makes this year so special?" Unfortunately, although the author does claim he chose 1858 because it was THE year slavery became the overriding issue facing the United States, he doesn't give nearly enough reason WHY, and thus doesn't really answer my question. In essence, he argues FOR 1858, but he really gives no arguments AGAINST other years. To me, slavery had been THE issue for quite some time. A post concerning the Compromise of 1850 at Elektratig shows that slavery was very much at the forefront of the country's concerns as the 1850s opened, and that the Civil War may well have started a decade earlier had the Compromise of 1850 not happened. I can agree with the Lincoln-Douglas debates and the Oberlin-Wellington Slave rescue as two MAJOR events involving slavery and an acceleration towards war. However, other events outside of this year, especially John Brown's Harpers Ferry Raid in 1859 and obviously the Presidential Election of 1860 were major events which did much to hasten the Civil War. Chadwick does argue that the seeds were sewn for these events in 1858. He stresses that John Brown's raid into Missouri and successful escape with slaves into Canada in 1858 and the Lincoln-Douglas debates led to these other events. That may be true, but the MAIN events happened in years other than 1858. Without belaboring the point too much, I believe you simply cannot make a strong case that 1858 was any more important than many other years in causing the Civil War or having slavery become THE issue facing the country. Chadwick's failure too largely explain WHY or argue against other years only drives home the point for me.
   
   To me, deciding to include William T. Sherman was an odd choice other than to allow the author/publisher to get Ulysses S. Grant's name into the subtitle of the book. Grant is barely mentioned, and Sherman had hardly anything to do with the author's assertion that 1858 was the year slavery became the most important issue in the country. The only reason I can see to include Sherman is to show an example of a Northerner who had no strong feelings towards slavery, much like Robert E. Lee was personally opposed to slavery as a Southerner. In reading the chapters covering Sherman, I was puzzled as to what purpose his antebellum life story served to the narrative as a whole.
   
   The subtitle of the book is especially puzzling to me. U.S. Grant is listed and he is barely mentioned in the book, pretty much only in relation to the Sherman portion of the story. Putting a famous figure into your title or subtitle only to barely mention them isn't going to win points with this reviewer. Another issue I have with the subtitle is "The War They Failed to See." Huh? Lincoln's "House Divided" speech is mentioned. So is Jefferson Davis' ascension in late 1858 as the leader of the Secession Movement. John Brown not only saw war coming, he was determined to start it himself! And lastly, Seward's "Irrepressible Conflict" speech is also stressed. It seems to me these men at least had an inkling that war was at the very least very possible if not imminent if some drastic steps were not taken with regards to slavery. I don't want to pin this on the author at all. Marketing sells books, and the subtitle screams MARKETING from a tall building. Blame the publisher here folks.
   
   If you have lasted this long, you might believe I hated 1858. This is definitely not so. My policy is to get the bad out of the way first and move on to the good. Let's start with the author's style. Bruce Chadwick is definitely a good storyteller. Despite some continuity issues in his narrative choice as mentioned earlier, I read this 300 page book in only two sittings. I could not put it down.
   
   Chadwick's chapters on the gross ineptitude of James Buchanan's Presidency were my favorite portions of the book. Rather than focus on the slavery issue and try to resolve it in some way, Buchanan instead completely ignored slavery when possible and blinded himself to the enormity of the problem the rest of the time. His "Don Quixote-ish schemes", as Chadwick calls them, to annex portions of Central and South America by any means possible while ignoring slavery was just one issue. In addition, Buchanan chose to fight petty feuds with two powerful men, Senator Stephen Douglas and newspaper editor John Forney, and these feuds were disastrous for the Democratic party in the elections of 1858 and the Presidential election of 1860. More than any other man, Buchanan had the power to slow or even prevent radical developments with regards to the slavery situation. Instead, says Chadwick, he did nothing while radicals on both sides led the nation to the brink of war.
   
   I was also pleasantly surprised with the bibliography and notes. Chadwick uses a nice number of endnotes, including 747 in exactly 300 pages of text. He did use quite a few secondary sources, but for what was obviously to me a "pop history" book aimed more at the masses than to deep readers, Chadwick also looked at the papers of many of those involved in the events of the year 1858 and around 90 newspapers published at the time. A serviceable index rounds out the book.
   
   Bruce Chadwick's 1858 sets out to prove that year was the year slavery became THE issue in the United States, but was rather unsuccessful in this regard. His arguments for 1858 as the year were sparse and his arguments against other years were non-existent. The story's continuity suffered somewhat as a result of some conscious choices on the author's part. Despite these flaws, 1858 is an enjoyable read aimed at the masses which I would be happy to recommend to readers new to the subject. Deep readers will find this material covered elsewhere in much greater detail.



5. "1858" is a solid overview of a pivotal year in the run-up to the Civil War. Certainly, this is not an exhaustive treatment, and, as other reviewers have suggested, more in-depth analysis of the year's key personalities and events can be found elsewhere. I agree with previous comments critical of the subtitle. In particular, Grant makes a few fleeting cameos in the narrative, while lengthy chapters are devoted to Seward, Douglas, Sherman and John Brown, all of whom are absent from the subtitle. The book's primary antagonist also escapes mention: James Buchanan. Frequently ranked by historians as our worst president, the flawed and inept Buchanan chose to feud with friends and rivals within his own party and engage in fanciful foreign policy pursuits (like trying to purchase proslavery Cuba) rather than confront the deepening divisions over slavery.
   
   Clearly, this book aims at a mass-market audience. Scholars and aficionados of the period will be disappointed. On the other hand, Average Joe readers like myself will find new information and fresh insights. For example, the friendship between the firebrand abolitionist Seward and the rabidly proslavery Jefferson Davis, or how Buchanan's meddling cost Stephen Douglas the popular vote to Lincoln in their Senate contest, providing Lincoln with the rationale for his subsequent Presidential bid. The anecdote about the slave rescuers in Oberlin, OH was also new to me. For the general reader, "1858" is time well spent.