5 comments about Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power.

1. Willis's book is interesting when he's relating history, but all too often he diverts from that to attack other historians views, or try to defend his against perceived attacks from others. That gets old after the first few times.



2. With Jefferson on the cover and a provocative title like "Negro President" you'd think the book would be all about Jefferson.........but instead, it's mostly about Timothy Pickering's fight with pro-slavery forces during his time in Congress. Not an unimportant topic by a long shot, but I was expecting Wills to tease out the complexities of Jefferson's mind on the subject of slavery.



3. This book suffers from the common Wills characteristic of rambling. You'll learn about Tim Pickering, Aaron Burr, J.Q. Adams, but I thought the book was about Jefferson. Most of the book isn't about Jefferson at all, except the concluding paragraph of some chapters that try to address the central thesis. There's nothing new about Jefferson in this book. Someone could write a great book about Jefferson's blatant hypocrisy on slavery. Wills certainly didn't do it with this big disappointment.



4. I was required to read this book for a graduate history class and came away enlightened. In response to those who say the book is not about Jefferson, it is. Pickering and Adams are used as lenses through which Wills examines Jefferson (I have read other books like this). This style of writing may be over-the-head of novice readers not accustomed to reading material that is geared towards professional historians.
   
   This book is intended to make the reader reconsider what they think about Jefferson and what they have been taught about the early republic. Wills shows Jefferson as a mere man and not the giant that celebratory (and earlier) literature would have him be. This may be disconcerting to readers that have been taught that the founding fathers were the paragon of society and humanity.
   
   In response to reviewers claiming that Wills misses this or that, you are right, but miss the point. Wills did not intend to discuss every aspect of Jefferson's political career. He was interested in examining Jefferson's defense of slavery in-so-far as slavery gave Jefferson and other Southerners an advantage over Northern politicians.
   
   You might not like what Wills has to say, but it is hard to argue with his argument.



5. This book strikes me as a fairly typical Wills effort. Take a gander at his oeuvre. Is there any public intellectual on the American scene at the moment that casts a wider net? Wills has written about Augustine, Chesterton, Reagan, John Wayne, Jefferson before (see his Inventing America- his study of Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence), Madison, Nixon (Nixon Agonistes contains one of the best explanation of American presidential politics that I have ever read), the role of religion in American politics, conservatism, and the American distrust of government to name just a few topics.. He writes like a prodigy- quickly, sometimes a little sloppily but based on a deep reading of Western culture. I have never read one of his books without copying down a passage or two into my commonplace book (a habit I took up long ago on reading Will's Inventing America). I have also not read any of his recent books without feeling that it was unfinished. He writes quickly and it shows. Some of his work is a little sloppy and needs development. Some of his arguments are brilliant and some are forced.
   Consider this volume. Wills is trying to emphasize some of the ways the three-fifths clause of the original Constitution distorted the workings of antebellum politics.
   The three-fifths clause was not about voting. In spite of some of the reviewers below, slave owners did not get three extra votes for every five slaves. It was about representation. Slaves were included in the population data that determined the number of representatives a state received in the House of Representatives. But they only counted as three people for every five slaves. So if a state contained 100,000 slaves, it would add a total of 60,000 onto the figure used to determine the number of representatives. In 1800, over 91 % of the blacks in America, free or slave, were in the southern states (this figure is from The South as a Conscious Minority by Jesse Carpenter, p.14). Obviously, the three/fifths clause worked to boost Southern representation. It had enough effect, according to Wills and many others, to provide the South with the decisive votes needed to elect Jefferson president, to pass the notorious gag rules of the 1830s, and to force through many of the so-called "compromises" that spread slavery throughout the Old Southwest.
   I agree with Wills, William Freehling, Leonard L. Richards and the others who have been writing about this issue of late. But one weakness of Wills' presentation (as opposed to someone like Freehling in The Road to Disunion) is that Wills fails to bring out one very important point. Even with the three/fifths clause, the South was a minority in the House. The 1800 elections brought as large a proportion of Southerners to the House as they enjoyed in any time in our history. In 1800, the South had 65 Representatives to 77 for the Northern States or 46% of the total (Carpenter, p. 22). Even with the completely unfair boost of the three-fifths clause they still needed northern allies. There were always Northerners or Westerners who had to vote along with the South on ALL the issues that Wills mention. This is perhaps the saddest part of the story of all. The Southern Representatives acted with great unity throughout this period and either found collaborators or were able to bully other Representatives to go along with them. My point is simply that the Slave Power was not just a Southern phenomenon. It was an American phenomenon. Wills does get at this sometimes. I cannot find the quote now but at some point in the book he does mention how many national politicians were willing to compromise with the South in order to further their careers. Even one of the heroes of his tale, J. Q. Adams was guilty of this early in his career.
   If you really want to explore thoroughly the Slave Power in early American history then I suggest Freehling's book over this one.
   That does not mean that you shouldn't read Wills. He clarifies some of the confusion I have always felt about Jefferson as a politician. In many ways, Jefferson was a modern politician. He knew how to work others to his ends while staying behind the curtain (this may be the only way we can compare Dick Cheney to Thomas Jefferson). Jefferson was also so sure that he was right that to oppose him was treasonous. He was in many ways a not very likable man. None of which diminishes his greatness except for those who can admire only saints. Personally, I find that if you allow yourself to provisionally admire sinners that there are a lot more people to admire.
   Wills also shows us Burr in a very different light and makes it clear that in regards to Burr (e.g., Burr's behavior during the 1800 election), that history really has been written by the victors. And while the other reviewers express appreciation for Wills' bringing back Timothy Pickering into history's good graces, I appreciate the way that he tells us the story of J.Q. Adams' struggles against the Slave Power in the House during the 1830s. This is one of the best stories in American history and deserves to be told again and again.
   So, yes, read Wills by all means. He may not be a detail guy but he will give you many great insights and will point in the direction of others like Freehling who are great detail guys. Along the way, you get to spend some time with one of the most interesting thinkers currently writing on the American scene.

4 comments about The Campaigns Of General Nathan Bedford Forrest And Of Forrest's Cavalry.

1. This book delivers more details on the battles than what was available in Jack Hurst's book. It has little about Forrest's personal life (none after the war as it was written in 1866). At close to 700 pages it gets a little too detailed in places but is overall a very good book.



2. I have read many different books written by people that lived in the era of the War Between the States, and this one has to be one of the best that I have read on one of the most audacious leaders that came out of the war on either side. I THOROUGHLY enjoyed reading this book. There were plenty of maps, and since the book was written under the watchful care of Nathan himself from his notes during the war, I believe it is one of the most complete works of this nature. I highly recommend the book to anyone. It is not just another boring read!



3. A meticulous and detailed account of the military operations that Gen. Forrest was involved in, showing the skill he had in combat, and the man that he was. Also provides short insights into many of the men that served under him. At times, I wished there were more (and more detailed) maps, so that I could follow the movements of Forrest's Cavalry and their enemy more precisely. Provides fair treatment of analysis of both sides of the war, as well as some feelings and evidence that dispute some of the myth and legend surrounding Gen. Forrest. I would suggest re-reading the introduction after you finish reading the book, as it works as a good post-commentary. This book is excactly what I was looking for to learn about cavalry operations during the Civil War.



4. The book was written for the most part by a contemporary of General Forrest's, himself a Confederate general. Nathan Bedford Forrest read the proofs, suggested some changes, and approved of the product. It is easily read and gives great insight into this greatest of all cavalry wizards.

5 comments about George Kennan: A Study of Character.

1. This remarkable book is both an act of filial piety and a reference point for future historians: Kennan must be taken seriously, must endure, and must be seen at least as one of the important ships in a small--and not growing-- flotilla of great American statesmen. Lukacs performs a service of recovery amidst the detritus of current American policies, in showing with great subtlety how men of wisdom once took a considered if not pure approach to diplomatic relations, and how the amorphous beast of public opinion, embodied in Congressional representatives more than ever subject to the vicissitudes of polls and "focus groups", influenced and continue to influence--and frustrate--statecraft.
   Kennan represented a rare strain in the American character, a man deeply immersed in European civilization, history, and languages, aware of America's profound European roots, who put the sum of his knowledge to use in addressing deep questions going to the heart of the American experience, teasing out the tensions inherent in the various strands of the American outlook. Remarkably, Kennan's greatest enduring influence came perhaps in the second fifty years of his life through his writings and lectures, a massive outpouring before which even a historian of Lukacs's extraordinary capabilities stands in awe.
   Kennan was remarkably consistent throughout his life in maintaining that America does not represent a Chosen Nation destined to lead mankind from darkness, that, in John Adams's words, "we are friends of liberty all over the world; but we do not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy". If this saying has been too-oft quoted by opponents of the invasion of Iraq who, despite their unqualified support for JFK's abstract principles of intervention, which I have not heard repudiated by a single self-styled liberal, then we must understand it in the context of Kennan's views: he advocated firmness when called for, in responding to the North Korean incursion into South Korea, in providing detailed proposals to create demilitarized and denuclearized zones in Western Europe and to end the partition of Germany, not to say his firmness in standing up to "anti anticommunism" during the witch hunts of Senator McCarthy, while recognizing that communists and their sympathizers had indeed infiltrated the US government to a degree. In short, he did not hesitate to assert American interests nor shrink from recommending the judicious deployment of American military power. While his famous "X" article described a political strategy, he was also aware that the ability to apply force is a necessary, if not sufficient condition of any containment policy.
   As Lukacs makes clear, Kennan recognized the duality running through American politics, itself drawing at its source from the very New England qualities that Kennan professed to admire and of which he himself was partly a product. If his soul and intellect were haunted by an older, deeper Scots and European pessimism, he was also a product of the Middle West, and possessed very American traits, although a progressivist instinct may not have been among these despite his Wisconsin provenance. This grounding led him to be unafraid to criticize excessiveness or the "legalistic moralistic" character of much of American foreign policy. In the current atmosphere of conservative triumphalism where the history of the Cold War is interpreted through the lens of an American "victory", Kennan punctures these reprehensible pretentions by pointing out that, "The suggestion that any American administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous political upheaval, in another great country on another side of the globe is intrinsically silly and childish" (all quotation are drawn from the Lukacs book).
   Amidst the theme and variations of post-war US policy toward the Soviet Union, apparently formed from reading Dr. Benjamin Spock on child-rearing, Kennan saw clearly and consistently that the Soviet Union was not a "fit ally or associate, actual or potential, for [the United States]", a pronouncement he made at the outset of WWII and which he repeated for many years after. Thus, détente, the "Evil Empire", and other variations of US policy had, despite the best efforts of neoconservative writers to lead us to believe otherwise, little impact on a Soviet Union that Kennan recognized early on had, by Stalin's time, fundamentally shifted course from Marxism-Leninism to despotism and lacked the resources or will to endure as a Communist state. Early evidence of this came in the post-war period as the USSR pulled back from Finland and Austria, and demonstrated its weakness through interventions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, among other actions.
   Kennan was equally sceptical of what is now called "global governance", including the formation of the United Nations; viewed the Yalta "Declaration of Liberated Europe" as "deplorable, [a] sham, and useless" (Lukacs's words) because Eastern Europe fell within Russia's sphere of influence; and was highly critical of the "American (and neo-Wilsonian) belief that a new international institution such as the United Nations was of paramount importance" (p. 65). He remained persuaded throughout his lifetime that "national and state interests were and would remain more powerful than any international organization dedicated to assure some kind of unchanging peace". Later, he opposed the expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe, referring to it as a disastrous mistake.
   At the same time, he saw a consistent thread running through the policies of Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush, and Clinton, and continued in the current Bush presidency: a naive liberal interventionist mentality to secure questionable gains, usually at a high cost. It is useful to ponder Kennan's perspective when insisting too acutely on major differences in Democratic and Republican approaches to foreign policy, remembering that restraint, moderation, and measured analysis, all qualities that Kennan exemplified in his life as a practitioner and a historian, do not appear to be embedded in either party's approach to the world.
   As an undergraduate I read the first volume of Kennan's Memoirs in a summer course in diplomatic history, ably taught by Professor Clifford Egan at the University of Houston. Among hundreds of books read in college, the vividness of some of Kennan's prose continued to recur in my mind for years after, despite not having picked up the book since 1973. Lukacs insists throughout his study on Kennan's qualities as a writer as well as his brilliance as an historian and researcher, and Lukacs's own prose is the equal of Kennan's. His concentrated "character study" in fact points the way to further serious research for historians, though this research is not likely to be undertaken as waves of fads sweep through the profession, if not the practice of historical scholarship and writing, obviating the need to "do" history in favour of constructing frameworks and "theories" whose theoretical underpinnings are of the weakest sort.
   Kennan's life and work span the twentieth century, a remarkable life, yet leaving us with a legacy that must be accounted for and drawn upon if America is to achieve its promise. This is not likely to happen, of course, given the midgets who now propose to lead us. They possess the most detailed knowledge of the opinions of voters in each and every county across the country, now represented in a colouring book cartoon of America with red, purple, and blue, yet lack the slightest insight into foreign affairs, history, or the lives of other peoples far away, not to say any mastery of other languages or cultures. More distressingly, they are not unrepresentative of America at this moment in history, when many of the most civilized have put aside judgment in favour of passion, wisdom in favour of ideology. In so doing, our putative and potential leaders and their supporters have no claim upon our loyalties and deserve to be held to the high standard of accountability upon which Kennan insisted. As Kennan might have agreed, the foreign policy questions that are most vital and of most immediate moment are questions about America, not about our enemies and rivals.
   Even with Kennan's constant global travels, capacity for research (and his love of library culture, which he saw as one of America's distinctive contributions to civilization), and seemingly unlimited energy for writing, his lectures, speeches, and even a later role under Kennedy as ambassador to Yugoslavia, he maintained a small farm in Pennsylvania, and regularly sailed the Norwegian fjords around his family's summer home, indulging in his nostalgie du Nord, and his love of the Baltic area. Throughout his life he was accompanied and supported by his Norwegian wife, with whom he celebrated a 70th wedding anniversary before his own passing at the age of one hundred. Even in his 90s he continued to produce books, articles, and memoirs at an astounding rate, and received accolades and recognition that would not have been predicted upon his leaving government service in the 1950s. Yet neither Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, nor neoconservatives attempted to lay claim to him as one of their own, which speaks to the complexity of his intellect and the resistance of his thought to simplification.
   As Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, "The good fortune of America and its power place it under the most grievous temptations to self-adulation". Kennan's work and the exemplary nature of his life both bear close study, but there is no evidence that American leadership is any more prepared now than previously to learn the lessons offered by this distinctive patriot who often acted as Cassandra during America's most self-congratulatory and misguided episodes. Perhaps there will arise among us another such man who will exercise more influence over wise leaders, but I'm not holding my breath.



2. Lukacs styles the book as a study of character but I must say I do not feel I really know much more about Kennan after reading the book. The book is really too short to be of value. I would have liked to see more reflection on matters like the Long Telegram or the X article, but in Luckas treatment it all just glides by. There are very few excerpts from Kennan's writing. Instead there are many grand, sweeping statements about 'magisterial' books and various digressions that seem more about Lukacs than Kennan. At the end of the day that is my main objection. It is almost impossible to get past the pomposity of the writing; you feel stuck in the presence of an insufferable windbag. At one point, Lukacs refers to "The Wise Men" by Evan Thomas and Walter Isaacson as an "acceptable book". "Acceptable"? Doesn't that sound like your professor giving your essay a "B"? It is especially irritating when "The Wise Men" is so vastly superior to Lukacs' book in every way. A disapointment.



3. Lukacs' George Kennan is purpouted to be about the character of the man but rather serves as a very short biography of the man that ensured the defeat of the Soviet Union then any other American president. Many years after Keenan hammered out his containment philosophy, he remained convinced that the essential problem regarding Russia was not communism but instead was the paranoid nature of the Russian state. Look no farther then the so-called head of the Russian Republic now. Unlike, our current administration appointments, George Kennan was curious about the rest of the world and before he wrote anything down contemplated for every eventuality. That Lukacs knew Keenan is the ultimate flaw in the book, because there are several points where the author veers into untrammeled hagiography. But overall, a good introduction to Keenan and the tremendous impact he had on the world.



4. Lukacs views this as a study of a man's character, but it's really more of an overview of Kennan's life. It probably will have limited appeal to people who have read a lot of Kennan's work, particularly his books and collection. It is probably better for someone like me who is familiar with his famous work on "containment" and has read some of Kennan's more recent magazine pieces in the New Yorker and elsewhere. Kennan had a remarkable career that straddled academia and government and his mastery of Russian and German allowed him to get beyond the usual sources of information that fed Cold War debates. He was truly a man of the 20th century who was engaged in the world from the time shortly after WWI through the end of the Cold War.
   
   Lukacs provides the broad outlines of Kennan's life and what he felt to be Kennan's most important books. In that respect, he has written a biography that is likely to stimulate interest in Kennan's longer works, particular those from the middle Cold War era. Lukacs never really describes his relationship to Kennan, although it is clear that they were friends and collegial with respect to topics such as foreign affairs. It may be that this was written too close to Kennan's recent death to provide the distance necessary to fully consider another person's life.
   
   As a character study, the book falls somewhat short and misses obvious connections between experiences and points of view. There is a short description of Kennan's religious journey (from a Presbyterian upbringing to an vaguely described flirtation with Catholicisim and finally adoption of Episcopalianism) without recognizing the essential Calvinism in Kennan's lifelong world view. Kennan was clearly an enthusiast of bourgeois values, in the traditional sense and sympathetic to rather authoritarian, despotic government. He advocated a kind of government by "wise men" that certainly suggests a belief in "a predetermined elect". Ironically, he had the opportunity to see how policy by wise men could be undermined by broad political currents (the Truman years) or could bring about disastrous policies (the JFK years). Lukacs wonders how Kennan would have viewed this philosophy in light of our current government by "wise men" most of whom have come from the conservative "think tank" world, something that Kennan probably would have viewed as an a oxymoron. Kennan's view of the world comes off as lacking holism in important areas. While recognizing that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, even at a political/social level, Kennan seems to have minimized the dynamic nature of societies and the inevitable presence of internal and external forces which propel societies in new directions. Rather he is a humanist of the old school and conservative in the sense of being skeptical of "progress" and intervention. In many cases he proved prescient, as in Vietnam and the execution of the Cold War, but in others such as the rise of fascism, his cautious view of the world was inadequate.
   
   Kennan lived a remarkable life and was able to see a much of the world and play a part in US foreign policy at key points in our recent history. He was a true scholar and one unmoved by constraining or trendy paradigms. His status as an outsider and a public intellectual probably lessened his academic prestige, but his depth and insight make him someone worth revisiting and reading further. As a character study, this book has serious analytic shortcomings. As an affectionate brief biography, it works better and it should stimulate more interest in the life and work of this remarkable man.



5. I knew almost nothing about Kennan before I read this book, but Lukacs got me interested in learning more about Kennan and reading Kennan's books. This is by no means a balanced, objective, or scholarly work - Lukacs very obviously admires Kennan and makes no attempt to hide this. If you want a scholarly analysis of Kennan's life, work, or legacy, this book is not for you. But if you want to read a mostly well-written and interesting biography of a rather major American figure, I recommend it.

4 comments about Benjamin Banneker: Surveyor, Astronomer, Publisher, Patriot.

1. This biopic of Bejamin Banneker (Ben Bey) is very revealing and gives the reader a look inside of Banneker's personal life (even though some of it might be merely educated guess work regarding his intimate relationships). Some conjecture and innuendo is tossed around a bit irresponsibly but overall one of the best if not the best work on Ben Bey. This has to be one of the first books about Ben Bey that mentions his hereditary extraction (Malian & Fulani). I didn't know upon Banneker's expiration his house and most of all his works were burned to ashes by his racist enemies. Depriving the world of a first hand look into his accomplishments. Cerami also explains the close friendship of Ben Bey and Benjamin Franklin in detail. I believe Charles Cerami portrays Ben Bey and his scientific genius better than all the biographies before it.



2. Benjamin Banneker:Surveyor, Astronomer, Publisher, Patriot, by Charles A. Cerami has expanded our knowledge of this renowned 18th century African American. To those familiar with the contributions of blacks to American society, Benjamin Banneker's accomplishments are well known. He was a free black man, son of an African, his grandmother, an indentured servant from England. He built a wooden clock using a pocket watch as a guide. Later on in life, he parlayed his scientific and mathematical skills into the creation of an almanac. He then went on to become an integral part of the team that surveyed the area that was to become the nation's capitol. He wrote letters to Thomas Jefferson critical of the latter's racist views, and even received a response. The author covers this ground well. We are aware of how stunning Banneker's achievements are, given that he was a black man living in a nation where the vast majority of black people toiled in slavery. Even a free black was a degraded, stigmatized creature in white eyes. The author, however, lifts Banneker out of this limiting context to elevate him into the company of truly original thinkers. Thus, Banneker becomes more than a brilliant black man who rose above his station to live the life of the mind, a pursuit which, if he were white, would not have garnered much attention. Banneker made an assertion that no one had made up that point (at least not with his degree of logic). He speculated on the existence of life on other worlds. The author presents an excerpt from Banneker's writings as proof that this humble black farmer was far ahead of his time. Indeed, such a revolutionary thought would not be adopted by scientists as a credible theory until well into the 20th century. Charles Cerami's work is of monumental importance because now we have a new insight into the depth of Benjamin Banneker's intellect. Hopefully, this book will be so widely read that Banneker's role as the man who memorized the plans to Washington, D.C. will not be his ultimate achievement in the popular imagination. Hopefully, scientists, historians and lay enthusiasts will recognize the significance of Banneker's thinking in regard to the possibility of life beyond our precious, little world.



3. Benjamin Banneker:Surveyor, Astronomer, Publisher, Patriot, by Charles A. Cerami has expanded our knowledge of this renowned 18th century African American. To those familiar with the contributions of blacks to American society, Benjamin Banneker's accomplishments are well known. He was a free black man, son of an African, his grandmother, an indentured servant from England. He built a wooden clock using a pocket watch as a guide. Later on in life, he parlayed his scientific and mathematical skills into the creation of an almanac. He then went on to become an integral part of the team that surveyed the area that was to become the nation's capitol. He wrote letters to Thomas Jefferson critical of the latter's racist views, and even received a response. The author covers this ground well. We are aware of how stunning Banneker's achievements are, given that he was a black man living in a nation where the vast majority of black people toiled in slavery. Even a free black was a degraded, stigmatized creature in white eyes. The author, however, lifts Banneker out of this limiting context to elevate him into the company of truly original thinkers. Thus, Banneker becomes more than a brilliant black man who rose above his station to live the life of the mind, a pursuit which, if he were white, would not have garnered much attention. Banneker made an assertion that no one had made up that point (at least not with his degree of logic). He speculated on the existence of life on other worlds. The author presents an excerpt from Banneker's writings as proof that this humble black farmer was far ahead of his time. Indeed, such a revolutionary thought would not be adopted by scientists as a credible theory until well into the 20th century. Charles Cerami's work is of monumental importance because now we have a new insight into the depth of Benjamin Banneker's intellect. Hopefully, this book will be so widely read that Banneker's role as the man who memorized the plans to Washington, D.C. will not be his ultimate achievement in the popular imagination. Hopefully, scientists, historians and lay enthusiasts will recognize the significance of Banneker's thinking in regard to the possibility of life beyond our precious, little world.



4. I can't believe the genius of Benjamin Banneker, the man. I always knew his name through his famous letter to Thomas Jefferson. In the pages of this fascinating biography, I discovered his excellence in so many professions, especially astronomy. His speculations on light and stars were revolutionary and opened the door to modern astronomy. He is a true American hero.

5 comments about Washington's God: Religion, Liberty, and the Father of Our Country.

1. I chose this book because I had been reading some shorter biographies on George Washington and I became interested in the "truth" about his faith. This book hits on some interesting points but the writing style is very choppy (the author constantly goes back and forth in time) and the style of narrative just didn't draw this reader in. David McCullough's epic volume on John Adams - as long and detailed as it is - proves that an author can provide tremendous detail and still keep the reader wanting to turn the page to learn more. Still, for some strong evidence that George Washington was no passive deist, but actually had a compelling Christian faith, one can turn to Washington's God as a good source of information.



2. Novak & daughter make repeated assumptions that are in no way indicated by the historical record, and at most, his and his fellow Christian Revisionist Historian's wishful thinking are the only basis for this tome. To conclude that a man that does not even USE the word Jesus, in one SINGLE instance in ANY of his known documents, or writings, is a Christian, is disingenuous, and has a political, rather than religious overtone. Save your money, would be my advice, and skip this as the pure propaganda that it most certainly is.



3. Was George Washington a deist or a Christian? It is an important question, as Washington was not only the first president but the most respected of all of America's founding fathers.
   
   In their book, "Washington's God," Michael and Jana Novak investigate Washington's public and private life to answer this question. The evidence is mixed:
   
   Toward the view that Washington was a deist: Washington rarely referred to Jesus Christ (although he did write a letter to the Delaware Indians and recommend the religion of Jesus Christ), but instead he preferred the term "Providence," or generic terms like "the Author of our Blessed Religion." Washington regularly refused to take communion at church. When asked point-blank if he believed in Jesus Christ, he would not answer the question. When he died, he did not ask for a minister, and simply said, "'Tis well."
   
   Toward the view that Washington was a Christian: Washington was a member of the Anglican church, which he attended regularly, including overseeing business of his local church. He agreed to be godfather to eight children, something the less religious Thomas Jefferson refused to do. He spoke of "Providence" in Christian terms, not deist terms. A deist believes God is like a watchmaker who makes the world and then is not involved; Washington instead spoke of divine Providence intervening and bringing together the events that led to his victory in the American Revolution. His reluctance to explicitly state his faith in Jesus Christ can be understood as typical for an Anglican who is more reserved about public expressions of faith. Nevertheless, there are reports of him privately praying during the war, and he insisted on having chaplains in the Continental Army. After his death, Martha Washington spoke of it as a Christian death.
   
   On balance, Novak concludes that while he was very private about his faith, George Washington was, indeed, a Christian. He notes that Washington believed in religious liberty and opposed a state church, but Washington supported an accomodationist view of church and state that allows for public expresssions of general faith in the public square, without an endorsement of any particular denomination.



4. The Novaks take on the tough question: Was George Washington a Christian or a Deist? With a thorough approach in an historical context, this work is a must read for anyone looking for this answer or who wants to explore an interesting side of our first President.



5. An outstanding book that shows clearly that the father of our country was a Christian and not the deist that revisionists would have us believe. For anyone interested in what made up the character of George Washington, this book is a must. Washington's own words and the words of those who knew him speak volumes.

No comments about The Papers of Abraham Lincoln, 4-volume set: Legal Documents and Cases.

5 comments about Anne Morrow Lindbergh : Her Life.

1. Susan Hertog's biography of Anne Morrow Lindbergh can in many ways be read as a cautionary tale: Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. The overwhelming impression given by Anne Lindbergh's life is one of unhappiness. It seems clear, in fact, that she had some sort of clinical depressive disorder. She very, very rarely seems happy at any point in the book. On one hand, she was indeed the victim of a domineering husband whose own personality was full of strangeness and distortions. But she also had the opportunity to have many incredible adventures, as well as the wealth to write and live in luxury all over the world, and she seems not to have appreciated any of it. Once you have completed the book, you may want to turn back to the pages of Anne's youth, before her wedding to Lindbergh, and scream at her not to make the mistake of marrying him. She certainly might have been much happier had she married someone else. I found myself torn between pity for her and frustration with the passive stance she adopted throughout her life (and marriage). Anne's was a complex character, and it would have been hard to find a personality LESS suited to that of Lindbergh. But of course they did marry, and Anne's life was what it was, with all its tumult, and though she may have made the wrong choice we are reaping the benefit of it with the chance to read the fascinating cautionary tale of the choices she made as a woman, a wife, and a mother.



2. This book was so insightful. Anne's book "Tending Roses" is one of my favorite books and to read about the author and all that she was going thru at the time was so cool to read. She was quite a lady.



3. This is an very well researched bio of Ann and her family and all of the others players. I was a little put off by the reference to Ann as having had a blue collar life. She was surely from the privileged and wealthy. And having a $1 million wedding gift in 1930's would make her a very rich woman. Ann's life was facinating and her books have endured for more that 75 years. I do believe the author tried way too much to tell us what Ann was trying to say in her books and read more into the subtext than Ann had in mind. Ann's stories can stand on their own and her prose is memorable and appropriate. Some times a great story told well is just that a great story.



4. Susan Hertog takes full advantage of ten audiences with her subject, Anne Morrow Lindbergh. She manages to capture the complexities of Mrs. Lindbergh's character and the contradictions of her marriage to an American icon, Charles Lindbergh. The fact that the Lindbergh family has largely disavowed the book doesn't detract from Ms. Hertog's insights.

   Unfortunately, the lengthy book, published almost 20 years after Charles Lindbergh died in 1974, virtually ends with his death...when Anne Morrow Lindbergh was 68 years old (she lived on until 2002). Almost nothing of Mrs. Lindbergh's life in widowhood is mentioned, which gives the unintended impression that in the final analysis, she was simply Charles Lindbergh's wife, not an accomplished woman deserving of her own biography.

   In fact, the middle-aged Anne Morrow Lindbergh became a role model for working women, albeit she was always too self-effacing to occupy a leadership position in the gender wars.




5. Having read Anne Morrow Lindbergh's diaries, her daughter Reeve's first memoir, Berg's biography of Charles, and Gift from the Sea, I was truly looking forward to this biography. Knowing that the author had interviewed Mrs. Lindbergh, I was expecting new insights into someone who, I believe, was one of the 20th century's most remarkable women. What I found instead was a rehash of all the material I had previously read linked together with lame "psychological insights" and platitudes.

   Another thing that bothered me was her considerable reliance on the published diaries without taking into account that they were edited for publication, and by Charles at that, who saw them as a way to refurbish his public image, using his wife's popularity following the publication of Gift from the Sea.

   In short, there is no depth to this book at all.

5 comments about Sons and Brothers: The Days of Jack and Bobby Kennedy.

1. First of all, let's get it out of the way. I really love the Kennedys. I enjoy most of the books about them and always learn something of each (yes, even the crazy conspiracy books). This book was a little different. I learned a lot. I enjoyed how it was put together. It starts with the 1950's and then takes 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and then Bobby Alone as separate topics. It has stories from their growing years in each as if looking back to show why they were doing what they were doing at that time in their life. I really got in the Bobby Alone section from 1964 to 1968. It showed how Bobby totally changed his views and what he went through in order to come to the conclusion that he needed to run for President. Mr. Mahoney does drag out the New Orleans, Cuban, and Mafia stuff but it's ok. Most nowadays do. I would highly recommend this book to anyone looking for a well rounded book on the Kennedy boys.



2. Richard Mahoney is to be commended for putting together a highly readable and cogent account of the life and times of JFK and RFK, as well as their dealings with the Mafia (that led to the death of JFK). Well done.
   [...]



3. ive read other books on JFK and none of the other books can quite compair to the realism in this book. the things i didnt understand in the first few books where explained more in depth than before and i came to realize that half of the things that kennedy was blammed for after his death were not acctually his fault. for example, vietnam.



4. I was raised in a conservative household and consider myself conservative in many ways (though I'm a registered independent). That said, I am 29 years old and both these men were dead before I was even born. However I have had a fascination with JFK & RFK since I first started studying history and the impact that the changes in the 1960's would have on future America. The picture on the cover is very telling about how different these brothers were -- black and white. What this book is really about is how co-dependent these two men were, with Jack more so upon Bobby. Many disturbing facts have come out about the Kennedy brothers in the last twenty years. Much of it does bother me as a moral and religious person. But that doesn't erase the fact that Jack and Bobby were very intelligent and gifted men and when it is all said and done, their idealism and determination positively impacted our nation's history.



5. this is not a biography,it's a fiction and it's stupid, boring.
   the author was surely drunk when he wrote it.
   this book is a shame to the legacy of the kennedys.
   there are a few photos.
   buy abetter book like: rfk and his times....

5 comments about Where Death and Glory Meet: Colonel Robert Gould Shaw and the 54th Massachusetts Infantry.

1. Every Civil War buff (and many others, too, thanks to the movie "Glory") knows the story of the 54th Massachusetts, the black regiment commanded by the boy-colonel Robert Gould Shaw which attacked the Confederate Fort Wagner in July 1863.
   
   The story of the 54th is memorable for many reasons. The most obvious one--and the one usually focused on--is that Shaw and the 54th displayed extraordinary courage in the assault on Fort Wagner. Another less emotional reason is that the 54th proved to the nation that men of color could and would fight for the end of slavery. This was the shattering of an important color barrier and an important stage in the evolution of the conflict. By war's end, an incredible 74% of free Northern blacks of military age would enlist (p. 50).
   
   But a deeper, more significant reason why the history of the 54th is important--and one, moreover, that's usually missed--is that it invites reflection about the standards by which our culture, then and now, measures "manhood." W.E.B. Du Bois (quoted on p. 123) put it well: "How extraordinary...in the minds of most people...only murder makes men. The slave pleaded; he was humble; he protected the women of the South, and the world ignored him. The slave killed white men; and behold, he was a man." Prior to proving themselves in battle, both the North and the South looked at men of color as bumbling and cowardly half-wits. Except for the minority Abolitionists, most whites considered blacks subhuman, and there seemed little or nothing blacks could do to break through that conviction. But he moment they proved themselves skilled at killing other human beings, they were accepted (even if reluctantly) as "men."
   
   Duncan's Where Death and Glory Meet is a fascinating chapter in the history of how our culture determines manhood. Although a rather detached supporter of abolition, Shaw was skeptical about the fighting abilities of freedmen, and initially declined the command of the 54th. When he did accept, he was painfully aware that the eyes of the nation were on his regiment, and his training of them was relentless. But the 54th measured up by proving itself in battle.
   
   Moreover, Shaw is also representative of the cultural measure of manhood. In his private letters, he expresses great ambivalence about commanding the 54th and almost panicky fear about assaulting Fort Wagner--a task that he (correctly, as it turned out) thought rather hopeless. Just as th But Shaw, fully aware of what was expected of a "man," overcame both doubts and anxiety in order to perform his duty. Just as the ability to kill men made his black soldiers "men," so Shaw's willingness to die in battle also demonstrated his own "manhood," his final maturation from a boy-colonel to a seasoned warrior.
   
   What fascinating under-currents run through the Civil War. Too bad they're so often bypassed in favor of the surface stories of guns and glory. For more on our cultural conflation of manhood with battlefield courage, Margaret Creighton's magisterial The Colors of Courage is highly recommended.



2. HONOR THE MEMORY OF COLONEL ROBERT GOULD SHAW AND THE FIGHTING MASSACHUSETTS 54TH BLACK REGIMENT IN THE CIVIL WAR
   
   COMMENTARY
   
   FEBRUARY IS BLACK HISTORY MONTH
   
   Those familiar with the critical role that the recruitment of black troops into the Union Armies in the American Civil War usually know about the famous Massachusetts 54th Regiment under Colonel Robert Gould Shaw which has received wide attention in book, film and sculpture. Those heroic black fighters and their fallen leader deserve those honors. Glory, indeed.
   
   Although Shaw was hesitate to take command of those troops after suffering wounds at Antietam when he accepted he took full charge of the training and discipline of the regiment. Moreover, as the regiment marched into Boston to cheering crowds before embarking on ships to take them South each trooper knew the score. Any blacks captured (or their white officers, for that matter) were subject to Southern `justice', summary execution. Not one trooper flinched. Arms in hands, they fought bravely at the defeat of Fort Wagner and other Deep South battles, taking many causalities.
   
   I have remarked elsewhere (in a review of William Styron's Confessions of Nat Turner)
   that while the slaves in the South, for a host of reasons, did not insurrect with the intensity or frequency of say Haiti, the other West Indian islands or Brazil that when the time came to show discipline, courage and honor under arms that blacks would prove not inferior to whites. And the history of the Massachusetts 54th is prima facie evidence for that position.
   
   I should also note that the Massachusetts 54th was made up primarily of better educated and skilled freedman and escaped slaves unlike the black troops recruited from the plantations in the Deep South in the 1st and 2nd South Carolina black regiments. Thus, one might have suspected that they would not be up to the rigors of Southern duty. Not so. After reading a number of books on the trials and tribulations of various Union regiments, including the famous Irish Brigade, the story of the 54th compares very favorably with those units.
   
   However, so as not to get carried away with the `liberalism' of the Union political and military commands in granting permission for black recruitment it is necessary to point out some of the retrograde racial attitudes of the time. It took a major propaganda thrust by Frederick Douglass and other revolutionary abolitionists to get Lincoln to even consider arming blacks for their own emancipation. Only after several severe military reversals was permission granted to recruit black troops, although some maverick generals were already using them, particularly General Hunter. As mentioned above there were qualms about the ability of blacks to fight in disciplined units. Moreover, until 1864 black troops were paid less than their white counterparts. The Massachusetts 54th is also rightly famous for refusing pay until that disparity was corrected.
   
   One should also not forget that the North in its own way was as deeply racist as the South (think of the treacherous role of the Southern-sympathying Northern Copperheads and the Irish-led anti-black Draft Riots in New York City, for examples). This reflected itself in the racial attitudes of some commanding officers and enlisted men and well as the general paternalism of even the best white commanding officers, including Colonel Higginson of the 2nd South Carolina. It was further reflected in the disproportionately few blacks that became officers in the Civil War, despite the crying need for officers in those black regiments and elsewhere. Yet, all of these negatives notwithstanding, every modern black liberation fighter takes his or her hat off to the gallant 54th, arms in hand, and its important role in the struggle for black liberation



3. Although Robert Gould Shaw was only 25 years old when he died, leading the 54th Massachusetts Infantry in a futile assault on Fort Wagner, he has become an object of interest in the past dozen years, especially since the release of the movie "Glory," which gave a somewhat fictionalized account of the 54th. This book by Russell Duncan is a good introduction to the life of Shaw, and gives an extensive bibliography for those who want to engage in further reading and research.

   In this book (which is an expanded version of the introduction to Shaw's collected letters that Duncan edited and published in the book "Blue Eyed Child of Fortune") Duncan gives a view of a life that one can truly say was tragically cut short by war. Robert Gould Shaw spent much of his short life trying to find his way and place in the world, something that many of us can identify with immediately. He had difficulty in accepting authority; he could not decide upon a career; he was the only son of well-known abolitionist parents, yet he had grave reservations about the abilities of black people. A "rebel" by nature, he could be rigid and unbending with others. He was dominated by his mother, only truly breaking away from her by marrying a lovely young woman against his mother's wishes. Married to a woman he apparently adored, he also engaged in a flirtation with a schoolmistress in South Carolina after accepting the command of the 54th. Shaw had found his calling in the military: he was brave, and able to inspire confidence within his men, yet he promised his future wife that he would not persue the military as a career once the war was over.

   This book is a good introducation to the brief life of Robert Gould Shaw. It contains some photographs of the Shaw family and Annie Haggarety, Shaw's wife. It also dispells some of the myths about the 54th that were present in the movie "Glory," chief among them the myth that the 54th was made up primarily of unlettered escaped slaves. From reading Duncan's book it appears many were literate freedmen of long standing. Also, the sergeant-major of the 54th was the son of Frederick Douglass, not the middle aged recruit as played by Morgan Freedman in the movie. I would recommend this book for anyone who is interested in the life of Robert Gould Shaw, or the history of the 54th, as a jumping off point for further reading.




4. This book serves as an important source of information regarding the birth of the 54th Massachusetts,black soldiers, politics, Shaw's personal and Civil War life. It is well written and places the reader at the start of northeastern politics and Shaw's upbringing. Shaw leads a pampered life of a wealthy family. He travels the world yet comes back to fight for the Union in the Civil War. His family is influencial in his military promotions and sets his promotion to Colonel with Governer Andrew's backing. Shaw becomes Colonel of the 54th and dares to take a risk at leading the first ever black regiment. His daring tale of being an outcast and a potential political target for his role in getting the 54th ready for battle is courageous and inspiring. The book covers the plights of the 54th in learning drill, military life and battle in chronological fashion. Much is covered in this short yet informative book on Shaw and the 54th. The definate "must read" for anyone looking to get an understanding of how the 54th and Colonel Shaw came together and fought!



5. Where Death And Glory Meet: Colonel Robert Gould Shaw And The 54th Massachusetts Infantry is the fascinating military biography of Civil War Colonel Robert Shaw who commanded an infantry unit composed of Negro soldiers, the North's first Black combat regiment. Russell Duncan presents a poignant portrait of an average young soldier struggling against his mother's indomitable will and thrust unexpectedly into the national limelight. Drawing upon Shaw's letters home before and during the war, Where Death And Glory Meet tells the story of the rebellious son of wealthy Boston abolitionists who never fully reconciled his own racial prejudices, yet went on to lead his black regiment into fierce and bloody battlefield conflicts where they performed with heroic distinction and scotched forever the notion that black soldiers would not or could not fight successfully against the Confederate forces. Where Death And Glory Meet is a superb contribution to Civil War studies and will prove of deep interest to students of Black history.

3 comments about Daily Life in Civil War America (The Greenwood Press Daily Life Through History Series).

1. This book is excellent in its relative lack of bias and in its discussion of the causes of the war. It gives a lot of information on soldier life, which was of limited use to me since I've read Wiley, McPherson, etc. etc. etc. What disappointed me about the book was its limited attention to civilian life and mentalities. Most of the material seemed relevant only to rich people and city folks -- I can't imagine that average 19th century people really used cartes du visite and spoon-warmers. I've been looking for some information on attitudes toward married life and family, and this is one in a long series of books that hasn't contained very much -- there's a little on child-rearing but that's it. There is quite a bit of information on clothing, perhaps aimed toward a reenactor readership. Overall, I'd recommend this, but be aware that it has its limitations.



2. This is an extremly well writen book, about the daily life of the american people during the civil war. As a civil war re-enactor I found this book very informative and a great help in my portrayal of a soldier\cook.



3. This is an extremly well writen book, about the daily life of the american people during the civil war. As a civil war re-enactor I found this book very informative and a great help in my portrayal of a soldier\cook.