3 comments about Finding Jefferson: A Lost Letter, a Remarkable Discovery, and the First Amendment in an Age of Terrorism.

1. ....and that's a hell of a thing for a conservative Republican to say. I've always liked his style, even when I disagree. This short, but profoundly great, book gives his views of the First Amendment, filtered thru the metaphorical lens of a short letter written by Mr. Jefferson in 1801. Despite profound differences, Mr. Dershowitz and I share some things in common: [1] We are both pack-rats [2] We both revere Thomas Jefferson [3] We both love America. But then, he's a Red Sox fan, and I'm a Yankee fan......and, while we agree about the First Amendment, I suspect that we might part company over the Second...
   
   Alan Dershowitz found the letter in question in a rare book store a couple of years ago...it deals with Mr. Jefferson's disagreement with the views of Reverend Stanley Griswold, who advocated limitation on the freedom of speech. Jefferson decried limits, prefering to await "the first overt act". Well and good, but Jefferson did not face weapons of mass destruction [though he did have to deal with Islamic criminals]. The book deals point by point with Mr. Jefferson's arguments, with Dershowitz playing "Devil's Advocate". Dershowitz then branches into specific examples of how Jefferson dealt with problems in his own day. [I may add one slight point of disagreement; Dershowitz states that the Aaron Burr treason case of 1807 brings no credit to Jefferson...well, neither was it John Marshall's shining moment...Burr should probably have been acquitted on the merits, but Marshall still ran it as a rigged trial for political purposes]. He ends with his own views of the First Amendment...no limitation of free speech by the government. Period. I am fairly sure he would support me in the arguments I had with school authorities over my son's right to wear a Confederate flag T-shirt {I won}. But, nobody questions my Confederate flag tie at work...strange.
   
   This is one of the greatest books I have ever read. EVER. It reveals a human side of both Jefferson and Dershowitz that is engaging. Brilliant people are still people. And, this is a good place to give my own theory of what made Jefferson tick, though it's probably way off base...he was a man not bothered by contradictions. Mr. Dershowitz defended the idiots in Skokie; it bothered him [still does], but he made himself do the right thing; [I think] Jefferson would have done the same, and never worried about it a bit. If you want to spend an afternoon really understanding the First Amendment, this book is for you. I can't recommend it highly enough!!!!



2. Alan Dershowitz and Thomas Jefferson were collectors. Dershowitz, inter alia, collects antiquities. He loves objects with aesthetic and historical significance. Dershowitz travels to flea markets and book stores seeking treasure. Much of the focus of his legal activities has centered on the line between speech and act.
   
   The greatest acquisition of the author's career as a collector came from the Argosy Bookstore. It is a Jefferson letter about freedom of religion, (and of speech and ideas). The letter had been passed down through generations of the Boardman family who reside in New Milford, Connecticut. The historian Charles Beard learned of the letter's existence in 1926 and quoted from it. In turn, the sentence appeared in several important legal decisions.
   
   The letter was sold to the Argosy in 2006. Alan Dershowitz's daughter believes he has become obsessed with Jefferson. (He has now bought a number of books and souvenirs pertaining to Jefferson.) Through his letters a person is able to get into Jefferson's head the author asserts. John Adams hoped that Jefferson's letters would be published. Jefferson pardoned persons convicted of violations of the Alien and Sedition Acts when he became President.
   
   This book is of great interest to lawyers and to historians of ideas.



3. Saturday Night:
   I received Finding Jefferson as a gift today from my sister-in-law Linda. Thank you Linda, I loved it. I read the book today, I thought about it today, and I wrote these comments today.
   I have always thought of myself as a Free-Speech Absolutist. I still want to call myself that but here are my thoughts - inspired by Jefferson and Dershowitz.
   1) An anonymous man on a soapbox in the middle of a public park is the perfect symbol of what "free speech" seems to suggest. Why? Because, no matter what he says, people who choose to listen to him are under no obligation to believe him or to be swayed by him. They are as free to listen as he is to speak. In any event, he will most likely be thought a crackpot for speaking in public to a crowd that may or may not form.
   On the other hand, the speech of your military superior, your gang leader, or your boss at work is not JUST speech. The relationship between unequals in a formal hierarchy is not just speech. Coercion is a necessary part of this kind of speech, the result of discourse among unequals. If your CO or your boss tells you what to do, your refusal to obey may have serious consequences. For example, a neo-Nazi speaking in front of a crowd of onlookers who are totally free to listen or not is exercising his right to free-speech, even if he advocates mayhem. On the other hand, the same speaker speaking to his lieutenants and his subordinates and advocating mayhem is conspiring to commit crimes and ought (perhaps) to be accountable even before the commission of any crimes. In sum, speech between unrelated equals is always free and ought always to be protected; speech between members of a group with a pecking order may be coercive and ought not to be entitled to protection as free speech. (vs. Jefferson & Dershowitz)
   2) Not all speech consists of IDEAS. a) Some speech is opinion or taste, which of right ought always to be free. b) Some speech is factual, or not. PERHAPS the propagation of some kinds of untruths among a closed group ought to be actionable: should society allow the teaching of blatant falsehoods? Should the teaching of 2+2=5 be allowed to be taught in a religious school? Should the denial of the Holocaust be permitted under the law? I don't have an answer to this, but it is worth examination. Teaching falsehoods as the truth is not the same as propagating an idea or an opinion or a political preference. c) Some speech is directive: do this! Is the command of your leader merely a case of "self-expression"? I think not. d) And some speech, masquerading as IDEA, is just emotional vomit. Again, the fellow on the soapbox in a park ought to be free to tell lies and to urge insurrection; the leader of a gang or a religious group perhaps ought to be constrained not to tell utter falsehoods or urge insurrection to his ignorant followers. In other words, directive speech from a superior to a subordinate ought not to be protected, because it is not really speech at all.
   3) Religious speech ought always to be free (PERHAPS excepting outright falsehoods); but speech turned into action is no longer speech. The fact that much religious speech is ridiculous is no reason to deny it protection.
   4) Imams directing their obedient flock to kill the infidels are conspiring to incite to murder or treason. When your spiritual leader tells you what to do, you exercise your freedom to refuse to do it on pain of eternal damnation. This is the same as being told what to do by your CO or your boss, but more so. It is not free speech because the speaker's listeners are not free to ignore it; it ought not to be protected, as it is NOT JUST speech. When a speaker thinks his words are law, his speech is not just speech. Many Catholics are pro-choice, despite the Pope and their own priest. When listeners are truly free to disobey, speakers ought to be free to say what they will. (vs. Dershowitz & Jefferson)
   5) The free marketplace of ideas is just as free as the economic marketplace is free. Neither is free! There are areas in this country where all the news is filtered by one corporate owner with a significant political agenda to push. Or many big owners with similar agendas. Not to mention the fact that many Americans are so closed-minded that alternative ideas will not be listened to and cannot be heard. The speech of such monopolistic speakers must be seen not as free as in a market of multiple viewpoints. In other words, some kind of regulation is called for in this case. (vs. Jefferson)
   6) It seems to me that Islam has real cause to be angry with the West. Just as black and red men have real cause to be upset with white European Americans. We should sit down and air our grievances openly. Well, no, we should sit down and listen to them air their grievances with us; WE should just shut up and listen for a change. However, insulting Muhammad is within our most narrow definition of protected speech; the freedom to insult the Prophet is protected, and that freedom is not negotiable. Neither is a new Muslim Empire spread by force negotiable. But we would do well to listen. For a change.

5 comments about Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President.

1. I hate George Bush almost as much as I hate my ex wife, venereal disease, child rapists, Nazis, litterers, termites, cancer, real estate agents, collection agents, rich people, stupid people, dishonest people, and graffiti "artists". I always have since the first moment I ever saw him. I could tell this was a spoilt, rich brat that would never be asked to do anything at all difficult, yet would have all. My god, I cannot believe he became president. But of course, he had more than just a little bit of help. (thanks to Choicepoint, Diebold, and the US Surpremely stupid court - "but, if they have the recount and it shows more voters preferred Gore, it will be difficult for Bush to retain the presidency" - Scalia)
   
   Anyway, I love to read anything that confirms my biases, just as everyone else who is a lazy reader/thinker (I am not always lazy, but I am sometimes). I did not find that to be the case for this book. I found that I was starting to like "W" as I read it. I was very surprised. He is a human, after all. This is not a book for the bush haters.
   
   I would love to see a movie, or maybe a made for TV mini-series about the Bushes. People need to know in a way that will make them care and understand how we let this guy get away with everything, short of murder (that is if you exclude murder-by-proxy of millions of the poor and dark skinned, here and abroad). The financial stuff is really compelling. How did he invest $200K in the Texas Rangers, and take out $130M? Was that not really just a bribe? Just how stupid do you think we all are? How about his double insider trading with Harkin Oil? He scooped all the insiders by knowing that daddie was going to start his war and that the oil leases would be valuless, out he sold, not even any of the other insiders knew about. Man, you and I would be in prison still if we pulled those things off. Raiding the University of Texas trust for $400M. That is classic. A great crook to have working for you. To bad, he is not nor did he ever work for anyone except his own trifling self and his elite circle. America? Hah! Well, it is all clear to everyone now. Let's not make this mistake again.
   
   Enough of that, this book will improve your opinion of Bush, no matter what you think. You will be surprised. Well written, we researched, well balanced. Now, where did I put my Molly Ivins book?



2. I was impressed with the fact that this book reported positives as well as negatives. Although the forward was over the top, the actual book is pretty balanced and believable. A documentary about the author (who later committed suicide)quoted him as saying that Karl Rove was his major source. The fact that they managed to get this book not just taken off the market, but burned (!) shows the power of the machine that originally got Bush elected. Long may they stew.



3. This book caused a big controversey when it was released. Neo-cons said it was a smear job, but strangely enough mainstream type liberals didn't over do it with their enthusiasm and Bush bashing when this came out. The original publisher ended up balking at releasing it. The author was smeared, attacked and after a while turned up dead under very shady circumstances. Knowing what I know about the Bush families history I expected a lot more because after reading this I was shocked at how LITTLE dirt there was on Bush in this. You really get nothing more than Bush was a mediocre student, he had a drinking problem for several years, he MIGHT have went awol from the National Guard and he MIGHT have done a lot coke. There was so much that was left out of this that I don't even know where to begin.
   
   Overall this book is worth checking out from the library and reading but I wouldn't buy it. Webster Tarpleys book about Poppy Bush and American Dynasty by Kevin Phillips would be better choices if your researching the Bush crime family.



4. This Book is great, I am very much into politics and I find that this book kept me on the edge of my seat. The Amount of coruption that this family has is astonishing. To think that someone of George W. Bush's stature can be our leader leaves hope to just about anyone. In the book it explains that President Bush's Grandfather had connections to Nazi camps and I find that to be awful. The book is well written and contains some valuable information about President Bush. Read it for yourself You won't be disappointed.



5. To my great surprise, this was not at all the "Bush bashing book" I expected and had been forewarned it would be. Hatfield is (was) a very mature professional, who carefully backed up all of his facts, and appeared to have no personal animus towards GW (as say a Molly Ivins does). He lets the facts fall where they may, and when they fell, we see a rather unflattering picture of our 43rd President.
   
   I for one do not care whether the President used cocaine or abused alcohol at some point in his life. Nor do I care that Mr. Hatfield was an ex-con and drug addict. I do care whether the law treats him and the President the same as anyone else who commits a crime, and whether or not he (or the President) is a solid respectable human being willing to carry his weight as a private citizen and as a patriot.
   
   As best we can tell, the evidence is that the jury is still out on this question about our President. There is a consensus among writers that the young Bush was headed down a path to self-destruction, one that would have undoubtedly consumed a less "fortunate son" -- especially if he had been one of color.
   
   Now, it seems that GW is trying to "live down" his past, as we all have to do to some extent. But he squandered so much of his own personal and intellectual development during his hell raising years, that he has no resources left to draw on as President and thus has had to fall back heavily on his staff to rescue him. So now, he is "winging it," and it is excruciatingly painful to watch; and our nation is paying a heavy price for his "youthful indiscretions."
   
   Hatfield's rendition of Bush's lacksidasical approach to life as a young man, foretold what he would be like as a president. In my view, this is one of the most important benefits and the greatest value of the book. And if one thinks about it, its prescience is in fact the best evidence of its solidity and honesty.
   
   The subtexts of this book are many. One is that taking the shortcut down the path of privilege is no panacea even if you are white and privileged in racist America. For sure, privilege has many advantages, but it has some very distinct disadvantages too. As is the case in nations with monarchies, if you walk down the path of royalty, then you carry the responsibilities and expectations that go with being a royal.
   
   Unlike his father, GW's flaws are all on display for everyone to see. He has nowhere to hide and Hatfield called his life just as it is being played out. Sorry Hatfield had to be "committed to suicide" for being honest in democratic America.
   
   Five stars.

5 comments about Patriotic Treason: John Brown and the Soul of America.

1. A balanced biography of a complex man, "Patriotic Treason", is both scholarly and involving. A rich, anecdote-laden text, it easily moves between chronicling the life of abolitionist John Brown and describing the larger tapestry of American life in the 1850s.
   
   The book is chockful of dramatic scenes and thematic discussions, including- as pointed out in the other Amazon reviews of this book- the question of whether it's acceptable and perhaps even a moral obligation to sometimes break the law in favor of a greater good. Mr. Carton covers the question well, quoting leading figures of the time who address that very question in response to Mr. Brown's well-publicized actions.
   
   The book is sobering at times, and not just for the expected reasons (like being reminded again of how terribly slaves were treated or how much widespread support there was for slavery in this supposed land of liberty). No, what I found surprising is that among whites who didn't like slavery and even among outright abolitionists, there was very little use or affection for blacks. Most just wanted them deported or resettled somewhere else, where they wouldn't compete for American jobs or mingle with the more "refined" white race.
   
   John Brown, on the other hand, actively befriended blacks all his life, had them over to his house for dinner with his family (unprecedented!), humbly solicited advice from his black friends on a variety of matters, and regularly interacted with blacks in all kinds of other "normal" ways. For John Brown, abolition wasn't just the right answer to an academic question or a detached moral opinion that had little to do with one's daily life. John Brown lived his anti-slavery views because he lived side by side with blacks every day. Whatever excesses Mr. Brown may or may not have undertaken later when he put his anti-slavery views into action, that fact scored points with me.
   
   If you check out my other Amazon reviews, you'll see that I don't read a lot of biographies or memoirs, but every now and then I dive into one. I'm really glad "Patriotic Treason" grabbed my attention. It illuminates a shameful part of U.S. history and again debunks the tired mantra among many that we need to return to the values of our historical past. No, many of those "values" should stay in the past where they belong. It was a dark, evil time in many ways, and John Brown played a huge part in helping this country move beyond it.



2. And...written by a Texan, too! Every detail of Brown's life is told here, from his humble beginnings to his single-handed start of the Civil War. Worth the 15 hours unabridged.



3. John Brown's attempt to free slaves by sparking a national uprising through the assault on the Harpers Ferry in October 1859 was a complete and utter failure when measured by how quickly they were thwarted, how many of Brown's men died in the attempt or by execution. Yet, his communications during his trial and from prison galvanized the hardest of abolitionists in the north (including the Transcendentalists such as Emerson and Thoreau) and the secessionists in the south. More than a few people believe it was the reaction to this raid that set events in process that led to the ferocious bloodshed of the Civil War less than eighteen months later.
   
   Was Brown a madman acting in a crazed spasm or emotion? That judgment has changed radically in the near century and a half since his execution. Immediately afterward, the largest popular reaction was negative because it was lawless and was an assault on the Federal Government. Some of the most extreme abolitionists did hold him up as a kind of messianic figure. When I was in high school, he was regarded as someone hardly worth mentioning. He was clearly crazed and criminal to boot. In the past decade several books and documentaries have taken another look and come to a much more favorable view of Brown. Some even see him much as the Transcendentalists talked about him right after he was hanged.
   
   Evan Carton focuses more on the life of Brown and only gets into the societal issues in a couple of places. He does a fine job in keeping the life Brown lived front and center rather than letting it stand for whatever his supporters or detractors would have it be. Carton trusts the reader enough to let him decide for himself. This is quite important for the modern reader who likely knows little about Brown because of the issues his life raises for our own time. Is a private choice to violence ever justified? Certainly slavery was a great evil. Was Brown justified? Would or could slavery have been eradicated in the United States as it was elsewhere in the European Empires without war?
   
   If you answer that slavery was so evil that Brown was justified how do you say that someone who is trying to prevent millions of abortions is wrong? Or someone who wants to retain affirmative action? Or whatever else drives their personal conscience to extreme action? If you say that Brown was not justified, how do you avoid the guilt of slavery? Weren't the millions of souls in bondage worth fighting for? Should they have been left as chattel property for another decade or two or another century until things could work themselves out?
   
   I guess my own view is a cheat on the question. I do not condone private violence and believe that those who blow up abortion clinics or violently attack Federal installations actually help their opponents more than their cause. Brown was so fervent and articulate that his passion moved a great many people. If he had stepped forward more as a Frederick Douglass and engaged in demonstrations he would have probably accomplished more. But you can justly come to different conclusions than mine.
   
   Brown was a man of great integrity to the point of rigidity. As a businessman his personal sense of what was right led him to drive customers away. He wouldn't sell leather until it was cured to his level of satisfaction even if the customer wanted it as it was. When he was selling wool, his own classifications mattered more to him than what his customers wanted to buy and what those he was an agent for wanted to sell. When he and his family were caught up in the Kansas War, he was clearly justified in protecting those who opposed letting the Missourian slave advocates run roughshod over the territorial government. The Missourians committed many atrocities and Brown was the man who taught the victims that they could stand up to their oppressors. Still, attacking and murdering people in the homes and hacking them to death with a sword still shocks us.
   
   Brown was not an unfeeling man dispensing justice as if he were God. He was a man of deep passion who also knew pain and personal loss. Many of his children died in infancy or youth. He knew poverty and want. There is a tremendously moving scene when Brown is found flat on his Dianthe's, his first wife, grave crying in agony. And his last visit with his second wife especially when she has to leave him is also quite moving. Brown did what he did because he knew (that personal conviction problem again) that he was on God's work and was doing what God wanted him to do. And this despite the deep personal loss the mission brought him.
   
   I recommend this book because I like the way Carton focuses on the life and leaves most of the commentary to you and because Brown's life raises issues that resonate in our time. The author does get in to the larger national issues in chapter 10 and in the aftermath of the execution in chapter thirteen. In the epilogue he shares a few of his own views that you might or might not accept. I also recommend it because one can never know too much about the Civil War and its origins. It was a cataclysm whose shockwaves still resonate underneath almost everything in our present national life.
   
   There are some very good pictures in the book, but the one flaw I hope they correct in a subsequent edition is to provide a listing of the illustrations and their page numbers. Now you see them mixed in the text as you read, but if you want to find them later it becomes somewhat of a hunting game.



4. This is an excellent, thoroughly researched and referenced book by Evan Carton which is also a very gripping read. Even though the outcome is known, the book is hard to put down. But while the style is nearly novelistic, it is solidly factual. I read this book because I wanted to understand if the usual myths about Brown were correct - if he was indeed a madman. Carton shows him to be a deeply religious and principled man, and one whose reasoning was consistent with his values and with his understanding of the enormous injustice of slavery in nineteenth century America. Brown was an extremely effective fighter against the murderous "border ruffians" from Missouri who attempted to terrrorize free state settlers in Kansas. These Missourian slaveholders and their agents drove free-soil settlers away, burning and looting their settlements such as Lawrence, Kansas, fixing elections, and occasionally killing free-soil setlers, and bragging to "shoot, burn, and hang" abolitionsts, not believing the abolitionists or the free soil settlers(who often weren't abolitionists) would dare to fight back. Initially, they didn't. Brown did, with a very small force, and the reader may find his actions quite shocking. On some occasions his small force routed or captured gangs of the border ruffians who outnumbered them substantially. Brown's desire to accelerate the end of slavery, which he clearly saw as a odious blotch on the ideals which founded his country, led him eventually to more decisive action. Carton provides a clarification for his thought processes through his letters, meetings with sponsors and other associates, and the recollections of survivors after the raid on Harpers Ferry, and convinces that Brown's reasoning was sound, although it certainly was radical. Both before and after the raid, Carton shows us the Brown was confident of the positive effects of the raid even if it were a military failure. Ultimately, it was the notion of the slaveholders that they could indefinitely extend their profitable institution that proved to be madness.



5. This is the first book that I've read about John Brown and I'm glad that I waited. Brown's story is a simply amazing one and Carton is the master of every detail. He writes very well, is excellent at telling a story, and, most significantly for me, he is well-versed in the historical period. He has deep knowledge about pre-Civil-War politics, intellectual life and social relations. And he integrates what he knows brilliantly into John Brown's story. Brown emerges as more than the leader of the raid at Harper's Ferry; in this book we come to understand his Christianity, his early life, his family, his values and most particularly his relations with black people, which were perhaps without precedent in America. The book is very moving, though quietly so: Carton doesn't shy away from being critical of John Brown, but eventually his esteem for Brown comes through and it's tough not to be sympathetic. The book was a great pleasure and I felt that I learned a lot from it about race relations past--and present, too.

5 comments about I May Not Get There with You: The True Martin Luther King, Jr.

1. I find it very refreshing when a product of multiculturalism throws a wrench in the system and violently turns against his masters. In this provocative (though unsurprisingly silenced) work of pop scholarship college diversity program poster-child and hip hop "expert" Eric Dyson sets to work on deconstructing the white-washed image of Martin Luther King, Jr. that the American left has successfully promoted without opposition for the past four decades.
   
   But wait a minute, Martin Luther King Jr. was an American patriot, someone who was deeply devoted to the ideals of its Founding Fathers and simply wanted to tinker with a few of the more archaic aspects of American society (Jim Crow) so that everyone could at least have a fair shot at the American Dream. I must admit that up until a few months ago I was captured (more like poisoned) by this ridiculous myth, probably more so than most even. The story of King's life seemed so inspiring, who wouldn't want to believe in it?
   
   Turns out pretty much everything taught about MLK in public schools are at best half truths and all of the most hideous aspects of his life go completely unmentioned. As Dyson tells us, the truly radical aspects of King's ideology - such as his close association with the American Communist Party - are silenced specifically to keep African Americans in check. Undoubtedly, but these facts are suppressed specifically to keep suspicious whites in a state of unthinking, unquestioning silence as much as anyone else. Dyson didn't have to dig very much to uncover this information, even King's closest associates and biggest financial backers were Communists.
   
   Dyson also quotes some of King's most damaging speeches and interviews on economics that leave little doubt about what King's larger social and economic objectives actually were. "Oh, gee willickers!," the multiculturalist will scream, tearing the hair from his head, "You've got it all wrong - King only promoted the positive aspects of Communism." Well that all depends on just what you think the "positive" aspects of Communism really are. Let's see, King patently endorsed the redistribution of wealth, destruction of the military, labor's seizure of private business, abolition of private property...oh but don't worry, no Gulags!
   
   Predictably the trail of putrid scandal doesn't end there. In what has become a recurring theme amongst American leftists King possessed a voracious and positively uncontrollable appetite for cheap prostitutes. The point in mentioning this type of degenerate behavior at all is so Dyson can tie King's participation in the Civil Rights movement to the anti-objectivity counter-revolution that occurred subsequently thereafter. Here as well King was quite an active critic of the military (not JUST Vietnam), did interviews with pornographic magazines, generally did everything in his power to undermine sensible restraints wherever they existed, and ensured that a whole generation was indoctrinated into loving themselves and living for themselves only. Most important in all of these activities by King were the rumblings of what would later become known as "Affirmative Action."
   
   Dyson of course supports this development unconditionally and who could blame him, he is where he is precisely because King and his predecessors (backed by the Federal Government) were able to intimidate employers, agencies, and universities into adopting certain "hiring policies" favorable to African Americans. Noticably missing however in this book is elaboration on King's despicable intellectual dishonesty and theft (60% of his doctoral thesis at Boston University was stolen from another student) of other people's work throughout the entirety of his career.
   
   The story of "Dr." King is not an entirely uncommon one for political figures and needless to say his story is hardly inspiring. Indeed, it's typical even for the most violent political leaders to take a relatively egalitarian approach in the beginning, only to shed this facade once they start gathering steam in favor of uncompromising authoritarianism. Vladimir Lenin was an outspoken critic of the Czar and railed against the regime for its suppression of political speech, exploitation of the working class, and persecution of ethnic and religious minorities. Well, we all know how that turned out. I seriously doubt that Martin Luther King, Jr. was any different. Just as another reviewer pointed out, if he were alive today I'm sure he'd be right there with Al Sharpton and Jesse falsely accusing random college students of rape, petitioning to get O.J. Simpson reduced bail, and doing anything he possibly could to exacerbate whatever racial tensions still exist in this country.
   
   Why Dyson thinks this new version of King is great for black folks is anyone's guess, frankly I don't care. I'm just glad I don't have to listen to this hippy nonsense anymore and for that I am thankful.



2. I agree with Dr. King's message of harmony and peace. At the same time I can appreciate Dyson's exposure of aspects of King's personal life that most authors do not address (an obvious exception is "And the Walls Came Tumbling Down"). In a very real sense it leads to questioning Dr. King's sincerity in asking others to value the character of a person and not the color of their skin. Dr. King was an admirable figure in American history; I wouldn't go as far as the author in saying he might be the most important American ever; that's a bit over the top. I've read a lot on the subject; this book is worth reading.



3. I have always been fascinated with Dr. King as one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century. I love the work that Dr. Dyson did in writing this book, because he is authentic in talking about Dr. King the man - strengths, weaknesses and all - while exposing the myths about him. Being African-American, I can understand why many within our community woud want to scold Dr. Dyson for exposing Dr. King's dirty laundry. I, however, consider it not only essential, but relevant that we talk about the true humanity of our leaders (espcially one as esteemed as Dr. King) to avoid the danger of us elevating them as idols. It is a great reminder that God uses people (albeit flawed people) for magnificent works in a fallen world. This is a great book that I highly recommed!!



4. I picked up this book expecting a fresh approach and analysis of Dr. King apart from the obligatory images we're force-fed each new year. Instead, I was disappointed to find that Michael Eric Dyson made heavy use of speculation with the intent to scandalize more than to inform and enlighten. One such example includes Dyson conveying the idea that Dr. King may have engaged in orgies with many different women along with his right-hand man Ralph Abernathy. He then goes on to infer that there was talk of King and Abernathy engaging in sexual acts with each other! The author had no commentary to either support or dispel this "theory" making Dyson's retelling of the alleged incident totally irresponsible and even libelous. He just dropped the information, true or untrue, in the reader's lap to do with as the reader pleased. To that end, it is my opinion that Dyson's intent in writing this book was in no way honorable or truth-seeking, rather it was a means to convey his baseless ideas to anyone who would listen. I'm reminded of something my grandmother and mother would always say to me, "an empty wagon makes the loudest noise." Michael Eric Dyson makes a lot of noise in this book but totally lacks substance. This was an expensive tabloid.



5. This book was not what I expected, but enjoyed regardless. I particularly liked his idea of banning the 'I Have a Dream' speech from public media. The stories about his philandering were a bit shocking to me, but I have never read any biography of King before, so I wasn't prepared. The ocassional tangents might irk some, but understand Dyson has to take some risks and expand on ideas to make the book worth his time. Realize the civil right movement is not over. Dialogue needs to continue in written forms such as this book to make progress.
   - logan square yuppie

5 comments about Margaret Wise Brown: Awakened by the Moon.

1. I used this book for my report on Margaret Brown. It was helpful, but theres a lot to read.



2. This is one of my favorite books in the genre of literary biography. I found the details to be fascinating and Wise's life to be quite bohemian and a fascinating study. For me, it WAS a page turner and worthy of anyone's time. In fact, I chose to use it as the basis for an hour long presentation for various book clubs. Everyone was familiar with GoodNight Moon and enjoyed hearing about Wise's life. I heartily recommend this book. It's just that good.



3. The bizarre bohemian-preppy life of Margaret Wise Brown captured by Leonard Marcus in "Awakened by the Moon" is an excellent enjoyable read comparable to Andrew Wilson's "Beautiful Shadow" biography of Patricia Highsmith. The only flaw is Marcus did not interview Albert Clark, the chief beneficiary of Brown's will and the inheritor of the royalties of "Goodnight Moon."
   
   This is a highly detailed book, and so it is more "by a writer, for writers" than a general or curious audience.



4. It's no small task to create an enchanting picture of an adored figure in children's literature. Unfortunately, Leonard Marcus was not up to the challenge. The biography is too linear, too literal, and written too much like a graduate school study. Still, the segment about her studies at Bank Street College of Education (I'm a grad) was interesting, as was the description of her evolving sense of child development as it affected her story crafting.



5. Thoughtfully written biography of an intriguing woman author. All the "interesting" details present without dropping into lurid. Many would consider this a "dry" reading book, but in the context of that specific time in US history she really broke ground, both professionally and personally.

5 comments about A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy.

1. One thing needs to be cleared up right away: Joe McCarthy "never uncovered a Communist."
   
   Because McCarthyism was so devastating to rightwing anticommunism, giving a sour taste among decent people for half a century, there has been a deliberate (and often successful) attempt to rewrite history. In this version, McCarthy may have been crude and abrasive but he accomplished good work for the cause of freedom.
   
   As David Oshinsky lays out in endless detail in "A Conspiracy So Immense," there was nothing good about McCarthyism and little good about McCarthy except perhaps his charm. This was lost on many but reported powerfully by some who were strong political enemies.
   
   Oshinsky asserts, I think correctly, that his is not an ax-grinding history, and he certainly finds fault often enough with McCarthy's enemies, both political, journalistic and academic. He gives McCarthy credit where he can, which is not often.
   
   He portrays McCarthy as a man outside society, a natural: "He was so primitive, so cynical, so devoid of commitment to any goal but personal success, that few opponents had the will or stomach to fight him on his own terms." Or perhaps few Americans were as indecent as Joe McCarthy.
   
   That quotation comes from the introduction. Later, much later Oshinsky decides that McCarthy's anticommunism was genuine and not just, as so many charged, a cynical manipulation of an issue to get power, attention and money.
   
   This judgment must be heavily qualified. It's doubtful McCarthy knew anything about communism, and he definitely knew nothing about Americanism. That he was convinced that communism was evil means little; plenty, maybe almost all, of his opponents got that, too.
   
   Catholicism is key to McCarthy. Oshinsky says he was a ritual, not a moralistic Catholic. As long as he attended Mass and made his Easter duty, he had fulfilled the requirements of faith. Even priests who supported him are quoted as saying that McCarthy paid no attention to doctrine.
   
   This is an extremely important point and one where Oshinsky, in my opinion, errs. It has long been asserted that McCarthy was led to anticommunism by the Catholic clergy, and a dinner meeting is even said to have been the occasion that he was informed how he could use the issue to shore up his sagging political base after almost four years of undistinguished residence in the Senate.
   
   Oshinsky is skeptical about this meeting, for which there is no reliable testimony. However, a host of circumstantial evidence supports the idea that the American Catholic church recruited McCarthy.
   
   First, as anybody who attended Mass in the early `50s (as I did) knows, the church was desperate to launch a counterattack in eastern Europe and for that it needed some standard bearer in the U.S. government. McCarthy was it.
   
   Second, McCarthy's preferred companions of an evening were floozies and grifters. He did not regularly, or even irregularly, socialize with priests. To imagine that a singular long meeting with two priests and a fanatical Catholic layman was devoted to chatting about Notre Dame football is beyond belief.
   
   Third, Catholics stuck to McCarthy long past the time that he was becoming a political liability in most other sectors of American life. (That his loudest and longest cheerleaders -- still cheering in 2008, in fact -- were the bigoted Catholic William F. Buckley Jr. and his brother-in-law Brent Bozell tells us much.)
   
   Oshinsky does a good job of recreating how crazy the McCarthy era was, even though he hardly mentions the concurrent Red scares that went along with it -- Robert Oppenheimer's security investigations get a single footnote, for example. I well remember how fearful people became when McCarthy's name came up.
   
   Oshinsky gives Dwight Eisenhower a lot of credit for bringing McCarthy down, second only to McCarthy's own flaws. But the fact that a president as popular as Ike had to do so sneakily, and that it took almost the first half of his first term to get it done, shows just how powerful the fear was.
   
   Oshinsky's admiration for Ike's skill in maneuvering McCarthy out of power is tempered by his disdain for Ike's refusal to confront him early and in the open.
   
   McCarthy lived at a burnout pace, and "A Conspiracy So Immense" overwhelms with detail. There were so many scandals. Nevertheless, the last 200 pages rush past as all the threads are spun together into a rope that finally hangs the evildoer.
   
   Only an opera librettist would have countenanced the coincidences that really happened around McCarthy. He had so many attacks going on simultaneously, and they all blew up on a single day, March 9, 1954. The Washington Post required no fewer than 12 stories, plus editorials and cartoons to keep up with Joe that day.
   
   He was elemental, a force of nature. But, Oshinsky says, he was never a threat to subvert the government. Unlike a Hitler (whom he resembled), he had no larger goal. He did not even have an antisubversive plan to throttle the commies with. He seemed to care only to expose them, presumably thus causing righteousness to prevail.
   
   This silly idea he probably came to instinctively, but it is also another hint that Catholic puppeteers were pulling his strings. It was firmly believed by the church that Russian communism was barely sustaining itself and even a slight push would knock it down. That is why the prospect of war in eastern Europe did not appall the Sheens and Spellmans (or, at a humbler level, my parish priest, Father Shea).
   
   Three incidents, out of hundreds, stand out in this life.
   
   One is McCarthy's bewilderment after the famous dressing down he got from Joe Welch on national television, when Welch stared him down and asked whether he had "at last no decency." After it was over, McCarthy is pictured asking in bewilderment, "What did I do? What did I do?"
   
   Even worse, but less famous because there is no film of it, was his treatment of a poor (and by the time McCarthy was through with her, jobless) black woman named Annie Lee Moss. Oshinsky reports that the steely Sen. John McClellan "seemed almost in tears" as he watched McCarthy's humiliation of this innocent woman. It made me cry.
   
   The last image is of McCarthy, out of power, weeping on the sidewalk after being thrown out of a Republican dinner. McCarthy, Oshinsky believes, wanted to be liked, but would rather have been hated than ignored. During the last three years of his short life, he was ignored and, with any other subject, the picture of him sobbing in loneliness might raise a sympathetic tremor.
   
   Not this man. His was no Greek tragedy. McCarthy's story was black and then blacker.
   
   In the end, Oshinsky says, McCarthy's strength and weakness was his "outrageous independence." If so many people had not been injured so badly, it would almost be funny: A man claiming to be fighting for all he was worth (nothing, as it turned out) to save society who was never part of that society himself.
   
   



2. I think the evidence is pretty clear at this point that McCarthy was right on target with his accusations. Its amazing to me that liberals still cling to this "McCarthyism" myth. It just didn't exist. There was no repression of ordinary Americans in the 50s. Didn't happen. Sure, some people in government lost their jobs. But they were communists who then got other jobs selling insureance or whatever. Its not like they were sent to the gulag or anything.



3. Oshinsky gives the most complete review of McCarthy's life of any historian. He tries to appraise McCarthy's controveries and does not take part in the vicious name calling of a Ricahrd Rovere. However he comes from a liberal perspective and to get a fair appraisal from a conservative historian - read Hermann's McCarthy.
   
   Since Venona has been released Oshinshy should have rewritten this book and not reissued the book he wrote in 1982.The events of 9/11 can give us an analogy.
   
   Imagine if a professor advised the state department that the Taliban was the best hope for Afghanistan and that bin Ladin was just an agrarian reformer. Imagine if military secrets as the H bomb was given to Iran and that key government officials belonged to Islamist groups. Imagine if a senator would look at the aspects of that ? Would he be called intolerate of other religions ?
   
   Owen lattimore urged that Mao was an Agrarian reformer. Mao killed millions. Larrimore made millions of bucks on his 'brilliant" observations. Oshinsky shouldn't defend this man. Klaus Fuchs, Rosenbergs, Hall etc gave the bomb to Russia. Hiss helped shape our foreign policy and even gave Russia three votes in the General Assembly.
   
   So balance is really needed. McCarthy was a patriotic man who used bad means to an end. But his enemies sometimes used worse methods as Oshinsky demonstrates in the Joseph Rauh case and Eisenhower's minions forging letters.
   
   McCarthy was brought down by Roy Cohn wanting favorable treatment for a possible lover- David Schine but curiously Oshinsky does not update the book with Cohn's sexuality and this would be an important insight.
   
   In short this was a brilliant book for 1982 but the newer revelations as Venona , Cohn etc demands an update for this book



4. A book of politics, and the craving for power that drives some people to do almost anything to get that power. The broad outlines of the story are well known. Joe McCarthy grandstanding in front of the microphones accusing all kinds of people of being communists. Never presenting any evidence he was able to ruin the lives of many Americans just to gain his own satisfaction.
   
   Now reviled, these times really need to be viewed in the light of the times, and again now that we have learned more about those times. His accusations appear to have been unfounded. But this was the time of the Rosenberg executions. This was the time of the House UnAmerican Activities Commission (HUAC).
   
   As we have learned since with the release of the Venona documents, the Rosenbergs were guilty (well there's some question about Ethel). The activities of HUAC harmed a lot of people, especially in Hollywood, but did it really make us safer? It also appears that there were a lot of communists in our Government. But there is no indication that McCarthy really knew that.
   
   This is an accurate story of McCarthy's rapid rise, and his rapid fall.



5. Oshinsky lays out the McCarthy record in straight-forward, unbiased terms.
   
   Joe McCarthy was a deeply disturbed individual, who, having stumbled into a Senate Seat, went asking his friends for a good campaign "hook" to get reelected. They suggested communism.
   
   Over the next five years, McCarthy accused, literally, thousands of Americans of being Soviet agents. Not once did he produce evidence that any of those accused were, in fact, working on behalf of communism. He accused the leadership of the U.S. Army of communism because it insisted on drafting G. David Schine, "friend" of McCarthy's associate Roy Cohn. Anyone who publicly criticized what McCarthy was doing was accused as well. Anyone who so much as supported progressive causes was labled as unpatriotic. In 2005, does that sound familiar?
   
   It was inevitable that the Republican noise machine would eventually try to rehabilitate the record of one of the most disgraceful persons in American history. For the real facts on this living nightmare of a man, read this book.

5 comments about Billy, Alfred, and General Motors: The Story of Two Unique Men, a Legendary Company, and a Remarkable Time in American History.

1. This is a pretty good book, and gives basic knowledge about how GM was formed. This is one of the few books on the market that you can talk about when someone is purchasing a car, and the history of the company is different than I had expected. The book focused most of the attention on Billy Durant, instead of Alfred Sloan, which in turn made the title more interesting. It is a good story about how one mans drive can change the world as we know it, and it can also ruin him. I would recommend this book to a friend or relitive. But it gets a bit hard to hang in there for the last chapter or so (at least I thought so).



2. Billy Durant, what a man, not only a visionary with amazing ablities, but one who believe in the worth of the common man.
   
   Where would Nash, Chevrolet, the Dodges , Chrysler , the Leland's, the DuPont's and yes Sloan, who was disloyal and stabbed him in the back without Billy Durant?
   
   This book proves the established fact of business, that bankers, both direct and investment, stock sellers and so call money people can't built anything for all their money.
   
   A great book on American business.
   
   JRP



3. In this book you'll find eccentrics, misfits and geniuses who made and lost fortunes, founded and lost companies, gained brief fame and were eventually forgotten by just about everyone except automotive industry historians. Although the book purports to focus on Billy Durant, Alfred Sloan and General Motors, its scope is actually much wider, since the evolution of the automobile industry exemplifies the evolution of U.S. industries in general. We recommend this lively, readable saga to history buffs and managers. It is a highly instructive take on the parallels between boom and bust in the car industry of the 1910s and in the high-tech industry of the 1990s.



4. In a week when the Nissan-Renault partnership has made a suggestion of parterning with or buying out or merging with General Motors, this book makes a timely read.
   
   Here is the story of the men who founded the company, Sloan and Durant. They were big dreamers, held a vision of the future, and seemed to have a basic understanding of where their company and the automobile industry was going.
   
   I don't know who's in charge at GM now, but it appears that they aren't managing the company to the standard that such an icon of business should be held. Quite likely they are financial people, very knowledgable in making the company profitable this quarter (that's 'this quarter' a few years ago), but ignoring things like fuel efficiency to keep building SUVs (great profits for 'this quarter').
   
   In their day Durant and Sloan managed through a whole series of problems. It's interesting to think about how they might have handled today's problems. The book presents a view of a time when perhaps management could make changes, when the company, the union, and the economy was different.



5. Are the other reviewers here reading the same book I am, or are they friends of the author? The poor quality of this book is too glaring to avoid. An honest reader has to wonder if it is self-published. (OK, AMACOM appears not to be a vanity press, but a Scribners it ain't.)
   
   Pelfrey is sometimes good at narrative, but after doing his cut-and-paste work, did he bother to read the finished product? We are ceaselessly flailed with redundant information. How many times do we need to know that Alfred Sloan's memoir was ghostwritten by a committee of 20? How many times do we need to know of Billy Durant's mother's Mayflower connection? How many times do we need to be told that Durant was a strong supporter of Prohibition and the Eighteenth Amendment? How many times do we need it driven home that Billy Durant was mercurial and that Alfred Sloan was stolid? How many times do we need reminding that General Motors became the greatest enterprise in corporate history? All of this is repeated as if for the first time. And all of this in the first 30 pages!
   
   Is this just sloppy or non-existent editing, or is it padding? For no apparent reason, where we would expect a series of sentences heading paragraphs, we are given a bulleted list. Since when does a book that "reads like a novel" have bulleted lists?
   
   I keep hoping that the repetition will taper off, that I'll no longer be subjected to gratuitously sensationalistic passages like, "Raised by a socialite divorcee in an era when single mothers were scorned," or awkward transitions like "...Durant was high on the list of Flint's most elegible bachelors. He married Clara Pitt...." I hope the story of Durant's first job, in his family's lumberyard, which Pelfrey (or rather the source he quotes) begins in intimate detail, will be rescued from the oblivion to which it's assigned a paragraph later. But I won't hold my breath.
   
   I suggest that, instead of heeding the misleading reviews here, you catch the author's talk on BookTv. It tells you everything the book does, but mercifully only once.

5 comments about Beautiful Jim Key: The Lost History of a Horse and a Man Who Changed the World.

1. This story of a good man who made a good life for himself, his family and his animals, built from circumstances that were to say the least, less than the best, is a case study in human nature.
   
   I cannot help but contrast Dr. Key with Michael Vic. Key was a man born into slavery and from that experience, chose to treat all life with respect. He and his horse became a catalyst for the change in public sentiment that came as a result of his goodness toward animals and activity the American Humane Movement. Michael Vic who, when also given a life of plenty, choose the opposite path. It seems to be a sad commentary.
   
   I must heartily endorse the book. It is a good story and a good read.



2. I found this story an interesting story about race relations and progress in teaching society about kindness to animals at the turn of the 19-20th century -- after I got through the heavy emphasis on commercialsim. However, the heavy thread of commercialism that ran throughout was very off-putting to me -- probably it was a big thread in the author's source materials. She tried to present the story with the exploitation of Jim Key's talents as a key to acceptance of kindness of animals in our society as a main theme -- but I saw that as more of a side benefit of the humans' desire to become wealthy -- a "gimmick" used to further the commercialization of Jim Key. To me altruism truly exists only where the primaries are not attempting to gain anything for themselves, whether that be money, reputation, or praise. Hence this story is about commercialization, not altruism. Now it is true that Bill Key highly valued kindness to animals and that he was uncompromising about the right of Jim Key to enjoy the wealth too -- and that was a great and unusual characteristic at that time (and probably still is today) -- but it does not change the fact that commercialization seems to me to be the main theme of the story. In fact the author seems to make more points about the promoter's innovative commercializations than she does about the progress of teaching kindness to animals.



3. Both Jim Key and Dr. Key were beautiful! What a lovely story...even better because it's true. Mim Rivas' research is extensive and detailed. It's good that a documentary is in the works...so that others will know the story...and perhaps read the book.



4. I am a longtime horse and animal lover, as well as a person with active interests in the humane movement. I was so excited to hear about this book--especially since I live in middle Tennessee and have been to Shelbyville numerous times and had never heard of Jim Key or the humans surrounding him.
   
   However, I finished reading the book tonight and was left feeling terribly frustrated. The book was confusingly written--at times it seemed more like a stream-of-consciousness narration than a compilation or unearthing of a historical story. The author's lack of attention to timelines made it difficult to follow--a less interested reader would probably have put it down early on. In addition, there was such obvious and annoying bias towards A.R. Rogers and his odd behavior after Dr. Key passed--the flowery adjectives used to describe him are less fit for anything resembling history but more for one of the pamphlets he'd have written! Those are just a few of the flaws of this book, sadly obscuring a wonderful and unknown history.
   
   I'm no great author, but I do love reading and good writing. This book was a terrible disappointment. That said--it is an amazing story that other reviewers have summed up nicely, and that alone garners the 2 stars.



5. There are those who have horses, then there are those who love and live with them. This book will truely touch the heart of those whos' horses are part of the family, and not just an object to be sold when no longer usefull. Me and my wife have aquired 12 horses who are perfectly healthy, but other people tossed away as used cars. We have seen that even though they are not as intelligent as Jim Key they do possess the ability to think and act unlike what most give credit for. This story made me cry as well as smile and just admire this magnificant horse. Its so true today we need another Jim Key as animal abuse still runs rampit in our society, but thanks to him and his influence, many, many animals are spared and saved by our human societies of today. I also found the history of William Key very fascinating, bringing your mind insync with the way those lived back then and how both the man and his horse faced the same obsticles in early american society on two differant levels. This book is sure to open ones mind not only to the feelings and wellfare of our animals, but even those feelings of our fellow human beings, no matter what race or color they may be as horses of all colors can get along in a herd, maybe we should be learning from these so called "stupid animal" as so many portray them. I have since then payed a visit to the Jim Key memorial as I needed to see for myself, to be closer in body as the book took me there already in mind. I thank the author for her hard work and research for such a book which is already affecting us once again, even to the point that Breyer has released a Jim Key model and I only hope to see this story maybe taken further into a full length movie or film, another true story which will surely equal if not surpass that of our other famous equines who have etched thier names in the making and history of our own race.

5 comments about Father, Son & Co.: My Life at IBM and Beyond.

1. This is a brilliant autobiography from one of the most talented business figures in last century. This book is unique for two reasons: (1) seldom had an author who had had experienced so much and accomplished so much; (2) his keen observation of human natures - expressed in a self-deprecating and humorous manner.
   
   In the end, you could tell Watson Jr. afterall was very self-assured of himself - at least toward the last phase of his life. Otherwise, it would be hard to explain how he would be willing to be vulnerable and reveal so much - about his own psyche, his family feud and IBM in general.
   
   This is a highly readable autobiography - highly recommended.



2. Indeed a truly heart-warming, rivetting story. One of the best - possibly the best - bios that I have ever read. This is a story about IBM, the big blue corporate monolith. Yet in its core, this is really the story of a Son, a father and the relationship between them. Once into the pages of the book, you will soon realise that IBM is just a necessary but incidental backdrop to a father-son relationship..It's a book that talks of a strict yet loving father, and a son working his way up to gain his father's approval and affection. A very humane tale, devoid of any overt management jargon or mantra that seems to be the norm in most bios by business leaders, it is a surprise that nobody has thought of making a movie out of this story.
   
   Touching. Warmly recommend to everyone.



3. This is not a story that I had really expected to enjoy; I found this book in a hostel in Europe, and with nothing in English to read I gladly snapped it up. Father, Son & Co wound up being a very interesting and enjoyable book, and even though it is more than 15 years old now, it still gives tremendous insights into the rise of IBM and the evolution of the computer. Within two generations of the Watson family, business advanced from the Robber Barons of the 19th century to the big corporations of the 20th, and during this same period the computer advanced from punch-card machines into the electronic machines we use today. It is hard to look at a PC and see a direct connection to horse-and-buggy days, but that is the story Thomas Watson and Peter Petre tell.
   
   A huge swath of American history is encompassed within this book; major events are witnessed and lived out by Watson and his family. But Watson also shows how family relationships have changed over the last hundred years by comparing his relationship with his father and siblings to those of his own children. Those older among us empathize with Watson completely-we took for granted, even thrived, within familial relationships that probably would not be tolerated today. But Watson also shows how primogeniture aids the affluent whether the offspring are gifted or not. To his credit, Watson admits this and does not set himself up as any more special than anyone else. He (and curiously his father as well) is rare in American business: he is a liberal and believes he owes something to his country. Would that this sentiment was felt more widely in the higher levels of business, government, and society.



4. It is always interesting to read what sons have to write about their fathers. Thomas J. Watson Jr.'s book is no exception to this rule. Although in many ways the book is a business biography, the relationship between the two men creeps in between the lines (almost more than you could imagine that the author had intended it to). Watson Jr. was clearly influenced by his iconic father, both for better and for worse. The book is a lot about how that influence (and the escape from that influence) shaped the company that is IBM today.
   
   Obviously the company has gone through many changes since this book has written-- Gerstner, downsizing, eBusiness, Business Consulting Services, etc. But still, it is remarkable how much of the culture is recognizable back to the very earliest days.
   
   I have a special interest in the subject matter, so it is hard for me to say how fascinating someone without an IBM attachment would find the book. If you do have that special interest in IBM history, however, it is an interesting book and well executed.



5. Although not exactly riveting, this book does provide an interesting and readable history of IBM from the view of Thomas Watson Jr. who took over control of IBM after his father, Thomas Watson Sr.. Although much has happened to IBM since then (the job cuts, the internet boom, etc.), this is a fascinating glimpse at the evolution of big blue and the culture it once had.

   The Watsons did not start IBM but they did oversee its growth into "Big Blue". Some of the anecdotes are quite memorable, the strict sales "uniform" (including sock suspenders), the refining and gentrifiying of the sales staff & executives, Thomas Sr. teaching his son to clean-up the bathroom on the train, the high-flyer told to forgo his tenant problems by Watson Sr.. It seems all tycoons and corporations have some skeletons in their cupboards and IBM is no exception. According to the book, Thomas Sr. and other senior executives at IBM started a business buying up old IBM equipment so prevent a second-hand market developing that would eat into IBM's market. It almost landed the Thomas Sr. and his colleagues in prison. Watson Sr. spent a great deal of time developing himself and his people to become refined, gentlemen with values and priorities. In these sad days of scum CEOs & executives, duplicitous companies, corrupt accountants & lawyers and valueless company "books" (Enron, WorldComm, Tyco, Merrill-Lynch, Arthur-Anderson, Martha Stewart,...) the incident may seem like grist to the mill but at that time it must have been a huge blow to the man and the company. A decent book if you have an interest in IBM or the history of the computer business.

5 comments about Rutherford B. Hayes.

1. The Bush-Gore election 0f 2000 is one of four disputed presidential elections in United States history, together with the 1800 contest among Jefferson, Burr and John Adams and the 1824 election which featured four candidates, John Quincy Adams, Jackson, Clay, and Crawford. But the most controversial of America's disputed presidential elections remains that of 1876 in which the Republican Rutherford B. Hayes was determined to be the winner over the Democrat Samuel Tilden even though Tilden won the popular vote.
   
   Hans Trefousse, Distinguished Professor of History at Brooklyn College and a specialist in the Reconstruction Era, has written an informative short biography of Rutherford B. Hayes, the victor of 1876, as part of the American Presidents series. For readers interested in acquiring basic knowledge of one of our lesser known presidents,this biography is a good source.
   
   Rutherford B. Hayes (1822 -- 1893) attended Kenyon College and Harvard Law School. He enlisted in the Army at the outset of the Civil War and served with great distinction, rising to the rank of Major General. Hayes was elected twice to the House of Representatives and served three terms as the Governor of Ohio. In 1876, Hayes became a dark horse nominee for the presidency as a compromise candidate of a Republican Party torn by factionalism.
   
   The disputed presidential contest of 1876 came to dominate Hayes's career and his presidency. The electoral votes of three Southern states, Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana were sharply contested. Ultimately, a Commission appointed by Congress voted 8-7 along party lines to award the election to Hayes. The dispute over the election involved, among other issues, the votes of African Americans during Recounstuction. The votes of many counties that allegedly had supported Tilden were discounted because African Americans had been denied their right to vote by fraud and violence. The Hayes-Tilden election remains the most controversial election in our history, and scholars still are divided about whether the decision in favor of Hayes was proper.
   
   Hayes was placed in an extraordinarily difficult position as president with the Democrats calling for his impeachment and referring to Hayes as "his fraudulency" and the divided Republican Party offering tepid support to him at best. The immediate result of Hayes's election was the end of Reconstruction as the Army was removed from the South. Trefousse points out that this result would have likely happened in any event. Ironically, Hayes also withdrew support from Republican governors in South Carolina and Louisiana -- two states that were critical to his election. The end of Reconstruction which followed the disputed election and the segregation, Jim Crow, and discrimination which were to follow is the most remembered and unfortunate aspect of Hayes's presidency.
   
   Hayes himself was an honest, educated person with an excellent ability to get along with people, including those whose views differed from his own, and a good compromiser. He also had considerable independence and a progressive tendencies. He worked towards reform of the Civil Service System to base hiring decisions for lower-level positions on merit, supported education, and tried to protect African American voting rights. In the last two years of his presidency, he repeatedly vetoed attempts by the Democratically -controlled Congress to remove Federal officials and military personnel from polling places in the South -- on grounds that this removal would violate the voting rights of African Americans. Hayes pursued a moderate policy towards the American Indians and, in one of his finest acts, issued an apology to the Ponca Tribe for injusticies it had suffered during his Administration.
   
   While the 1876 election clouded his entire presidency, Hayes kept his promise to serve only one term. His presidency conciliated the nation which had been deeply divided by his election, and he governed in an honest scandal-free manner in contrast to the administration of his predecessor. Probably as a result of Hayes's substantial efforts in unifying the country, Tilden was denied the Democratic presidential nomination in 1880, and the election again went to the Republican candidate, James Garfield.
   
   Trefousse sees Hayes as a healer and a compromiser following his disputed election. Trefousee concludes: "aware of the tenuous nature of his election, he knew how to bridge over various disputes and thus heal the serious differences between factions, sections, and parties. ... His significance, then, lies in his ability to overcome factionalism and exercise power in such a way that the dubious nature of his election could eventually be forgotten." (p. 150) These were valuable accomplishments for his time. Hayes is not among the greatest of American presidents, but the manner in which he handled his disputed presidency remains worth remembering.
   
   Robin Friedman



2. Rutherford B. Hayes has always ended up in the middle of presidential ratings, and Hans L. Trefousse's taut biography of our nineteenth president would not move him up or down that list. Trefousse does a good job in assessing President Hayes as a man and as an administrator, though "comprehensive" is not a word used to describe the biographies in this American Presidents' series.
   
   The remarkable ascendency of Hayes to the presidency after the disputed election of 1876 has parallels to the election of 2000, but Trefousse (with an apparent dig at George W. Bush) elevates Hayes by suggesting that Hayes tried to bring together various warring factions while Bush did not. It's a good reflection. Hayes's stellar service during the Civil War, in which the future president was wounded more than once, is covered in great detail by the author. (Because of the quiet nature of the four years Hayes spent in the White House, this book needed some "fleshing out"). We know that Hayes was honest and his administration was largely beneficial to the country. I view his term as something akin to Gerald Ford's...a transitional time where the country needed healing. In fact Hayes's biggest accomplishment was the removal of Federal troops from the South, meaning an end to Reconstruction. That is the chief legacy of the Hayes administration. The president was also big on civil service reform, taken to higher limits by Chester Arthur a few years later. It's a fascinating reminder that Indian affairs still took up some of the President's time, but what is one of the more notable aspects of this book is how often and how much President Hayes traveled while in office and in retirement. He was the first president to visit the West Coast, for example.
   
   Rutherford B. Hayes served adequately and he should be remembered for a solid four years in office, if not much more. There certainly have been worse presidents but Trefousse justifiably gives Hayes credit for some accomplishments and I recommend this book as a good introduction to our nineteenth president.



3. I am currently reading a biography of every President. This is the first time I have selected one of the short biographies from the American President series. These biographies are very short, this particular one being 150 pages of text, made even shorter by the relatively small amount of text on each page - I would estimate roughly 2/3 the length of text compared to an "average" book. It is certainly more than manageable to read this book in one sitting.
   
   I was somewhat disappointed by the brevity of the book, which was even more pronounced than I expected. I will, however, review the book based upon its intention, and it was certainly not intended to be a comprehensive biography. The book does manage to present a full biographical sketch of Hayes with an acceptable overview of the issues in his Presidency. Trefousse's writing is straightforward although quite dry and he is overly concerned with comparing the 1876 and 2000 elections in an unsuccessful attempt to give the book a modern connection. Trefousse seems to approach his subject with about the same enthusiasm as a high school history student writing a term paper. The biggest shortcoming of the book however is not the lack of information but its inability to give the reader a true sense of Rutherford B. Hayes, the man.
   
   Ultimately, this book is barely satisfactory and I believe many readers will desire the more in depth biographies of either Ari Higenboom or Harry Barnard - I know I will probably go back and read one of these at some point. This book does, however, fill a need for a modern short biography of our 19th President and is recommendable in that capacity.



4. Despite what some have said of old Rutherford, he probably wasn't our worst president. In fact, if he had been elected in 2000, his compromising approach would have went a long way in meeting the opposition. As it was, his contested election was in 1876, and it polarized the country again between North and South. However, his compromising attitute healed the wounds of the Civil War and Reconstruction. This was at the expense of black civil rights.
   
   I thought the author Trefousse did a good job of detailing Hayes life. Some of the previous reviewers might not be able to distinguish the subject from the author, but I believe Trefousse did a good job of summarizing his subject. The author comes to the same conclusion I have come to. The 1876 election was a flawed election where Democrats disenfranchised the black population in the South and then screamed bloody cheating to those contesting the South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida ballots. Rutherford was not Rutherfraud, but an honest politician trying to make a difference.
   
   An OK read on our 19th President.



5. This book does a good job of outlining President Hayes life but it falls short in other areas. It does not give a sense of the country and how Hayes affected it. It suffers from being far too brief and does not even hit all of the highlights in his life. For those who want to get a sense of the president that is about all this can be used for. If you are looking for something that gives you information on the corrupt bargain or the start of the Gilded Age this book falls short.