5 comments about Honor's Voice: The Transformation of Abraham Lincoln.

1. Honor's Voice is terrific in two respects: both for its insights into Lincoln and for its insights into effective communication. I recommend it to anyone who uses words for a living, and for anyone who wants a fascinating, insightful look into how Lincoln crafted some of the most important speeches in our nation's history.



2. This book staggered me. Its careful research is combined with acute observations by author Wilson, on topics ranging from a fateful wrestling match that made Lincoln's reputation in a frontier village to Lincoln's bewilderment when courting Mary Todd. Wilson here produced one of the finest volumes ever to appear in the crowded field of Lincoln books. For anyone interested in how Lincoln's pre-presidential years shaped his conduct in the White House, Honor's Voice will be rewarding. It is one of the most significant Lincoln biographies I have ever read.



3. This is one of the most astonishing books I have ever read. I love history and yet this portrait of Abraham Lincoln is so much more. Had he been a Blacksmith, he would have been a hero. This was a man, a real man - no the greatest of men...who could not dissemble, lie, cheat, even when it came to marrying a woman that he knew (after they became engaged) would risk ruining his very life. He entered into a promise...and he would not go back on it. Of course, in those times, Breach of Promise (please read Anne Perry's book on this), was a serious offense against a woman's honor. But Lincoln carried this same integrity into everything he did no matter how difficult or huge - like the Civil War. I would hope that any student of American history would not miss out on this very important Masterpiece. As the cliche goes, if we do not learn from our own history, we are doomed (you know the rest....).



4. The reason this shouldn't be the first Lincoln book you read is that the author presupposes that the reader already has a basic command of Lincoln's life story. This book really speaks to those who are familiar with the various bits of Lincoln lore that permeate our culture: his wrestling match with Jack Armstrong, his courtship of Ann Rutledge, his off-and-on-again relationship with Mary Todd, and various accounts of his bookishness, his depression, and his early flirtations with agonisticism, among others.
   
   Having said that, I like this book more than any of the standard Lincoln biographies I own (I have the Thomas, Donald, and Sandburg bios.) The very best thing to read, of course, is Lincoln himself (his collected speeches and writings), but of the biographies written by others, this may be my favorite.
   
   The author dissects several of Lincoln's often-told formative experiences. In one example, he will explore the story of the wrestling match with Jack Armstrong, and ask:
   
   -- When is the earliest surviving account of the story, and what is the source?
   -- How has the story evolved over the years?
   -- How true is it? What does the evidence show?
   -- What is the significance of the story?
   
   For those who don't know the Jack Armstrong story, it is basically as follows: Lincoln was getting harassed by a gang of toughs in his town, and to deal with it, he challenged their leader, Jack Armstrong, to a wrestling match. The match was widely anticipated and witnessed, and Lincoln had the better of Armstrong. Afterwards, Armstrong restrained his allies, saying that Lincoln had won fair and square, and afterwards, he was a loyal friend to Lincoln, as were his associates.
   
   Like so many stories in the Lincoln canon, it's become a parable. It is a lesson about courage and forthrightness and insisting on fair play. In Lincoln's case, it also fills out the legend about his own physical strength, and how he became popular in his home town.
   
   Wilson's book analyzes many such stories. The anecdotes have varying degrees of truth, though on balance, most of the standard Lincoln tales do appear to be based in fact, even if they have become embellished over the years.
   
   You will like this book if you already enjoy the history of Lincoln, and if you like a little skeptical scientific inquiry thrown into your reading material. The reader is asked to travel along with the author as he gets to the bottom of the various issues surrounding Lincoln, and it's an enjoyable journey.
   
   I personally feel that this book is much more pleasant than as a mere exercise in critical history. I found that the dissection of these stories brought Lincoln much more fully to life for me. You get a much more multi-faceted view of the man because you aren't really relying on one author's perspective, as tends to be the case in other Lincoln biographies.
   
   It's an unusual work of history, and not the first Lincoln book to read, but it truly is outstanding. Highly recommended.



5. Teachers in criminal justice classes, I am told, often stage mock crimes in their classrooms. In the middle of a lecture, for example, a bandit will barge in, threaten the students, and make off with the professor's wallet. The students, at first shocked but then relieved when told that it was a staged event, are then asked to describe the event. What did the suspect look like? How tall was he? What color hair did he have? What was he wearing? What did he say? Invariably, there are multiple answers to those questions. People saw different things. No one version of what occurred is totally accurate.

   Wilson's book confronts that perennial problem of human perception. Though his 'transformation of Lincoln' plows familiar ground - how one solitary, unschooled backwoods man transformed himself into a national, albeit polarizing figure, through willpower, endurance, ambition, guts, and brains - his careful forensic method, as judge and jury of a multitude of competing facts and interpretations, makes this book a compelling tale, as much about how history is written as it is about how Lincoln evolved.

   And this is why I disagree with the reviews that describe this book as long-winded, tough-sledding and over-detailed. In Honor's Voice, Wilson provides a valuable glimpse into the historian's bag of tricks. Wilson takes each of the iconic moments of Lincoln's life - his storied wresting match with Jack Armstrong, his self-education, his disastrous romance with Ann Rutledge - and peels apart the layers, examining the historical record as closely as possible, evaluating the claims of eyewitnesses and second-hand sources, and holding each up to scrutiny before making any assertions; and even then, he is admirably cautious. Wilson presents a lot of quotes, exactly as written, from contemporaries who witnessed, or claimed to have witnessed, crucial events in Lincoln's life, and asks: Is this the truth? Who could have benefit from enhancing the truth? Who was really there? What about the quote lends it authenticity, or falsity? Yes, the narrative covers the same event numerous times, but this is the price one pays of exactness. Like the criminal justice students who have competing recollections of a recent event, not one of Lincoln's contemporaries knows the whole truth. But taken together, one gets a more clear picture of what might have happened.

   The risk, of course, is boredom and the frustration of dealing with multiple sources of the same event; but the reward is a new appreciation of Lincoln the man, as well as the historian's challenge of teasing out the facts in an era long since vanished.

5 comments about Billy the Kid: A Short and Violent Life.

1. In 1988, 'Young Guns' was released in theatres and followed by it's sequel 'Young Guns 2: Blaze of Glory" in 1990. The popularity of these films gave birth to a re-newed interest in the story of Billy the Kid. Despite all the factual errors throughout the movies, they remained popular. Meanwhile, 1989 saw the made-for-tv movie "Gore Vidal's Billy the Kid" starring Val Kilmer as the Kid. This version was a bit more historical in its telling of the legend. Unfortunately, many people seem to think that the 'Young Guns' versions are the truth and will pass off their "expertise" to other people based on these, admittedly entertaining movies.
   
   In 1991, however, Robert Utley put forth the book "Billy the Kid: A short and violent life", in my opinion, to help disclaim all the accepted myths about the young Henry McCarty aka Henry/William Antrim aka William Bonney aka Billy the Kid. Utley is a well-researched southwest historian, focusing on the Lincoln County War and inevitably, Billy the Kid. This book is pretty simple in its layout, giving a nicely done and researched biography on the outlaw Kid. Utley gives straight facts, pieced together from old newspapers, books, and three other Billy-specialists that are generally regard as THE authorities on Billy the Kid. When finishing the book, you can't help but realize just how wrong many of the movies are, especially the two Young Guns movies. The story is a bit dry in places, but then, if not for the growing myths and greatly exaggerated stories of the Kid, he never would have been of any consequence in the history books. The Lincoln County War would have ended the same and about the only real influence the Kid had was to make Pat Garrett slightly better known.
   
   The most telling bit of this biography is dispelling the myth of the Kid's death toll. Popular myth says 21 people were killed by the Kid when in reality, he can only solely by attributed with four kills. He had a hand in 5 others but nowhere can it be proved that the Kid made the killing shot. And lastly was James Carlyle who was shot by his own posse after a random gunshot sounded out which may or maynot have come from Billy. Being generous, thats only 10 deaths that he MIGHT have had a hand in.
   
   Overall, this is a well done research biography by a respected western historian who bypasses the enflamed stories of the Kid and presents the truth as best he can. Excellent footnotes and references are included. Whether professional or just have a mild interest, this text should be in any western historian's library.



2. Mr. Utley is one of the leading Billy the Kid and Lincoln County War historians and authors. In this book, he tends to lean toward accepting ideas from some of the earlier authors without further research. This book has a lot of information on Billy, some factual and some very doubtful. It does give some idea of how Billy became a fearless outlaw and is well worth reading. The reader will come away with a little better understanding of Billy's predicament and the reasons why he probably turned outlaw..



3. An understanding of Billy the Kid's life is greatly enhanced with a study of the Lincoln County War, and Robert Utley's knowledge of the Lincoln Couty War is unsurpassed, (see his other book, "High Noon in Lincoln.") Utley's genius is his ability to bring these complicated historical moments to life, and weave the thread of a person's life through the moment. With this information you can better understand Billy the Kid's thought process, and the details of the jail breaks and shootings become more meaningful. Robert Utley is the most scholarly of all outlaw historians, and this book reveals his ability to bring his knowledge home to the rest of us.



4. You have to wonder sometimes why some people become legends. What was it about the Kid that attracted so much attention, especially at the time of his death? A very short time after he was shot to death by Pat Garrett, newspaper accounts flashed around the country about the demise of the great "desperado" and five dime-novel "biographies" appeared, getting most of the facts wrong but creating a "hero." Life is strange.
   
   The Kid was born Henry McCarty in NYC (!) in 1859. He began being called Billy after his mother married William Antrim in 1873 in Santa Fe. (At times he also assumed the name Bonney, but no one knows why.) He gained a reputation early for escaping arrest; one time he escaped custody within hours after being arrested for horse stealing, and another time he escaped out of jail by crawling up the chimney. He escaped again in 1877 (aged 18) after being jailed for killing an army blacksmith at Fort Grant. He was in Lincoln County, NM, at the outbreak of the so-called Lincoln County War. He was involved or at least present during many of the violent incidents that plagued Lincoln County in 1878, and was wounded twice.
   
   Deep in trouble by now and getting deeper, he was wanted for a number of crimes, some of which he did not commit. Governor Lew Wallace offered him immunity for testimony in one killing, but the Kid saw a double-cross and escaped. He added cattle rustling to his criminal activities, which brought the enmity of local ranchers down upon him. Pat Garrett was elected sheriff in Lincoln County with the special task of bringing the Kid in. He was captured in December 1880 and brought to trial in Mesilla in March 1881; he was charged with murder, found guilty, and sentenced to hang in May. While in jail in Lincoln he killed the two guards and escaped; for three months Garrett tracked him down, finding and shooting him in a ranch house at Fort Sumner, NM. The Kid was 21 years old. Then the legend exploded onto the scene.
   
   They say he shot a man at age 12 (false); that he killed lawyer Billy Chapman (innocent); that he led the Regulators during the Lincoln County War (false); that he was a deadly shot (probably good, but not extraordinary). It's true that he killed at least four men. He loved to laugh and was a big hit with the senoritas (despite his buck teeth). He spoke Spanish fluently. He was an excellent monte dealer. He was "slim, muscular, wiry, and erect, weighing 135 pounds and standing 5'7" tall; he had deep blue eyes and wavy brown hair. He fancied wearing a Mexican sombrero." Chances are good (I think) if it weren't for the dime-novelists he would forgotten today.
   
   But he's not forgotten and Utley's account of his life (and legend) is magnificent. Definitive is the word for it, replacing Maurice Fulton's HISTORY OF THE LINCOLN COUNTY WAR as the best work on the Kid. (It wasn't until the last few months of his life that he was known as Billy the Kid.) Utley's scholarship is renown in the Western field; his series of books on the military history of the West is likewise definitive. If you're interested in the Kid and want to learn all there is to know about him (fact and fiction), this is the book to get. Highly recommended.



5. I became curious about William Bonney, AKA Billy the Kid, when I first saw the movie Young Guns starring Emilio Estevez. I loved the movie but wanted to know how much of the story was Hollywood hype and how much of it was history.

   Accordingly I found Utley's book on Billy the Kid and found, to my satisfaction, that not only was much of the Young Guns story was accurate but that the life of Billy the Kid was as interesting and complex as any to be found in the annals of the Old West.

   The debate rages on as to whether young Billy was a poor, misunderstood folk hero or whether he was an ignorant, bloodthirsty miscreant who needs to be vilified and forgotten. Utley's well-researched and well-written book takes a multi-faceted approach to considering the complex history of young man who, despite is very short life and his even briefer career, continue to spark the imagination over a century after his death.

5 comments about My Father, My President: A Personal Account of the Life of George H. W. Bush.

1. With the 2008 presidential elections coming up, I took it upon myself to learn about our future president ("Living History") and VP ("Dreams of my Father") and past ones. I just finished reading "My Father, My President". It's a candid "inside" look into the life of a former president. Talk about an absolutely wonderful book abt George HW Bush! "41" strikes me as a fun, loving, intelligent, family oriented stateman with emphasis on duty, honor, family and faith. In plain words, a good citizen worthy of admiration! (Need I mention I am a Democrat!)
   From his days as a WWII veteran to his brief work career at the UN, to his successful career as a director at the USLO, CIA, then later as a Chairman for the NRC then later as the head of state, it is extremely difficult not to fall in love with GHWB! His wit, charm and affection is just simply contagious... "41" is brilliant! I hope people will get a chance to read it and enjoy it as much as I did. God only knows how much we need more genuine heroes like him.



2. Learned many things about George H W Bush that I never knew. Very enjoyable book and easy to read.



3. This book provides more insight into the essential goodness of George H.W. Bush. Aside from the facts and figures of his early career, vice-presidency and Presidency, the book gives us a fascinating look at how someone so prominent can still adhere to the Golden Rule. I found the stories told by Secret Service agents and staff about his common courtesy, concern and humor to be the most interesting. He never felt he was better or more important than anyone else, although I think history will ultimately say otherwise.



4. What a wonderful tribute to her father! This is a great read and gives us an insight into what makes this man tick.



5. This was a very informative book. It is refreshing to hear good things about such public figures. Mr. Bush is thought of in endearing ways by many people and loved dearly by his family.

5 comments about Tom Horn: Blood on the Moon : Dark History of the Murderous Cattle Detective.

1. Introduced to the epic of Tom Horn by the excellent western movie starring Steve McQueen, I wanted to find a book and read more about the history of a man who, on the one hand, seemed a ruthless killer and on the other seemed the unfortunate dupe of the big business of the day--the cattle barons.

   Tom Horn: Blood on the Moon: The Dark History of the Murderous Cattle Detective fit the bill marvelously. I came away with what I believe is an accurate history of the hapless Tom Horn and, more interestingly, names of several interesting characters who contributed to the demise of arguably a great American hero.

   Key among these characters was Joe LeFors, the very same detective and lawman who made life miserable for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Named Joe Bell in the movie, LeFors methods were, shall we say, "creative."

   We are tempted to believe that political scandals, scapegoats and other applicable cloak and dagger are primarily of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Read Tom Horn: Blood on the Moon... and find out the rest of the story.




2. Although this book seems to contain a well documented, and at times, interesting account of Tom Horn and the Nickell murder, its about as much fun to read as a treatise on the history of linear-regression analysis. Mr. Carlson's poorly constructed syntax and meandering story lines makes this book a "plodding" experience.



3. An exceptional documentary dealing with one of Wyoming's most notorious citizens, one that reads like a novel. Although much has been written about Tom Horn, Chip Carlson has done an excellent job of presenting new facts and information furthing adding to the controversey over Horn's guilt in the murder of young Willie Nickell.



4. Chip Carlson has established himself as the most prolific and knowledgeable Tom Horn buff since Dean Krakel, and his work is extraordinarily readable. To understand a true American (choose your own term) outlaw, rogue, bounty hunter, lawman, Westerner ... whatever ... pick up Carlson's work, which is full of the grittiness that haunts the legend of Horn.



5. The best word I can think of to describe this book is FANTASTIC.Chip Carlson has written another masterpiece on the subject.
   To me just about every chapter leaves you craving more information, and thats what a good book should do.His indepth research is amazing on how he has put it into a format for persons interested in this period of western history.
   I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants more insight into the times trials and tribulations of 1890's Wyoming.

5 comments about Life is Just What You Make It: My Story So Far.

1. I found that this was an excellent account of Donny Osmond's memoirs of his life and of his enccounters with social anxiety. I recommend this to anyone who is a Donny Osmond fan.



2. As a life long Osmond fan, I was captivated by this book. Donny really put himself out there, the book was honest, written with feeling,I really understood the grown up Donny and felt the fear he must have felt when he was going through his Social Phobia. I am glad that he wrote it the way he did. People get the wrong impressions and they run with them. I feel that fans and the entertainment industry let Donny down. Everyone wanted the gorgeous teen aged boy, he grew to be a handsome man, a loving husband, a good father and a fantastic artist. This book gave you a true picture of who Donny is and that above all he is human just like the rest of us. I have even read this book again because it was very interesting. We see the glamour and the fun part of being famous, but it has its nightmares and is very hard work. What I admire about Donny the most is that he hasn't let success change who he is, he could have done something drastic to be in the front pages amd he has chosen not to. As of this date he is married to Debbie for 30 years now, how many celebrities can say that.



3. Am not a big reader but loved to hear how Just like others Donny has not had a perfect life, A must for all Donny fans and those who just want a insight into his life.



4. LIFE IS JUST WHAT YOU MAKE IT: MY STORY SO FARas I read donny's book, i couldnt help but feel partly responsible for Donny's downfall from super stardom. I was devastated to learn of Donny's marriage to Debbie and felt so betrayed by him that i put my Osmond albums and posters away and turned my back on him for what I vowed would be forever. It made me sad to read how hard it was for him to go from being on top of the world to a has been at the age of 21. And a broke has been as well. At times through out the book, i felt Donny was feeling sorry for himself but then, thats understandable too. Something I was absolutely delighted to read about was the family home. I always pictured the Osmond clan all living in one big giant mansion. As each brother got married, he'd just move his wife in. Well that wasnt quite right. they bought an entire apartment building and knocked out some walls to accomadate them. I also was touched by the story Donny wrote about briefly about the relationship between his mother and Elvis Presley. I am glad i read this book. although i dont listen to or care for his music anymore, I do, from time to time see him on TV and will watch. I was very disappointed in him when i saw him insult Rosie Odonnel about her weight. Totally rude and uncalled for. He explains in his book that he thought her words of praise and love for him was her way of mocking him and he lashed out. I don't buy it. He said too it was a joke. Ask any fat person if they've ever heard a fat joke that was funny. I lost alot of respect for Donny that day. However i was amused at Rosie. She over exaggerated his comment and for weeks, every guest she had on her show, she'd ask them if they saw the show where donny called her a big fat pig. Guess he picked the wrong fat girl to pick on. I would definately recommend this book to Donny fans.



5. I truly enjoyed reading this book as it showed a side of Donny that I assumed existed but didn't believe until I read his book. The book is honest, truthful and forward about his life, family and how he got where he is now. Eye opening in a lot of personal stories. I got a sense that his father was more of a disciplinarian than was let on and this affected Donny more than we knew. If you really want to know more about Donny and what makes him tick, read this book. I read it in 2 days.

5 comments about A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan.

1. There isn't much of substance that I can add to the many excellent reviews already posted here. But perhaps I can provide some comments in minimalist fashion that can get this important book into the hands of "a wider audience." I think there is much we 21st century Americans can learn from William Jennings Bryan. I will divide my comments into two sections: the first dealing with the literary value of the book and the second noting things we can learn from Bryan's life.
   
   The Book -
   1. The organization and pacing is excellent. Nine of the twelve chapters are divided into discreet time periods that correspond to the various political episodes of his life, which was largely defined by his participation in the political life of America. The other three chapters - his early years, his career on the Chautauqua public speaking circuit, and the response of his political admirers - work very well, never losing the focus of the book, politics and evangelical Christianity.
   
   2. This is a good read. The level of diction and writing style is just right for a popular audience. Best of all, Kazin does not "get in the way" of his subject, Bryan. Some academics seem to want to display ALL their knowledge, whether it fits into the narrative or not (are you listening, Joseph Ellis?), but Kazin resists the temptation. I am quite certain that Kazin knows a lot more about Bryan and his times, but, thank God, he is keeping it to himself. I read a lot of history and biography and this effort would have to be in my top 10% in terms of its literary value.
   
   William Jennings Bryan -
   1. He is a very important figure for the history of the Democratic Party, but I am not sure why, even after reading this biography. Certainly, he was an important figure in the Democratic Party during an era when they transformed themselves from the conservative laissez-faire era of Grover Cleveland into the liberal activist times of FDR. If you can overlook his racism and support of prohibition (more on that below), almost all of his positions would be cheered by 21st century liberals. Was Bryan responsible for helping the party make this remarkable transition, or was he simply in the "right place at the right time", fortuitously carried along by other leaders or social forces beyond his control? In either case, he is far more important in the making of modern America than historians have heretofore recognized.
   
   2. He is important for evangelicals who want to be engaged in politics(Self-disclosure: I am an evangelical who is vitally interested in American politics). I think he lived an exemplary life, one that other evangelicals could emulate, but what does that look like for me? It seems to me that 19th century evangelicals generally favored an activist government, working for reforms like abolition, temperance, education, care of the mentally ill, etc, yet that seemed to die after Bryan left the scene. The social gospel seemed to suck them into a new paradigm of seeking "salvation" only in this world and ignoring the next. They turned formerly evangelical denominations - Presbyterian, Methodist, American Baptist, Evangelical Lutheran, etc. into sects that seemed to downplay Christ's gospel for the social gospel. Personally, I am disappointed in their religious direction, yet I am also disappointed in the path taken by those who stayed "true" to evangelical principals. They largely abandoned politics until the abortion controversy of the 1970s and since then, have all too often been used by economic conservatives for purely electoral purposes. I think there is a "third way", in which one defends the gospel in spiritual matters, yet also sets an independent course in political matters, all the while using scriptures as the guide to best "love your neighbor."
   
   3. He is important for today's Democrats. He was obviously deeply committed to many issues that 21st century Dems feel are important, yet he came at these concerns from a Christians perspective. Can Dems allow this type of person to have an important place at their "table"? I'm not talking about phony rhetoric. That will not work because it will be obvious that it is not sincere. I am talking about being serious about making people of faith feel welcome in the Democrat Party. For example, could a Pro-Life Democrat ever be allowed by party bosses to run for President? Not in the past, but perhaps in the future. Secularists and secularism has controlled the party for many, many years. I feel it hurts the party very much in "fly-over" land.
   
   4. A word about his racism and silence about the KKK. Indefensible in our day, but in his? Wilson was certainly racist, and did much to deepen Jim Crow. Why is he given a pass? (For that matter, why is Sen. Robert Byrd of West Va., former KKK organizer, given a pass on his embarrassing past?)Most people were very racist in Bryan's times, including most of the Democratic Party. So why is he singled out for censure? I think a lot has to do with his evangelical identity, and his role in the Scopes trial. Some secularists loathe evangelicals and, I think, have trouble thinking in a balanced way about someone like Bryan. Take a look at the ridiculous review of this book by Publishers Weekly on this site. How does someone read this book and produce that review?



2. If you want to know more about William Jennings Bryan, this is the book for you.
   
   Very well done!



3. Why read a book about a politician who lost the US presidential election three times in a row, and was a white racist to boot?
   
   More than just retelling an American history story, Kazin's masterpiece of US political history does an excellent job of bringing back to life a political scene that has long since passed and mostly forgotten. I burned through this book in one sitting.
   There has not been a WJB biography of this magnitude for quite some time.
   
   Kazin himself in the introduction admits mixed feelings about his protagonist, and there are certainly warts to Bryan's character seen through our 21st century lens. He does an excellent job pointing these issues out, despite the title of the book that makes Bryan sound like a saint. He wasn't - he profited impressively from his public speaking, and like many of his party, was a racist.
   
   What makes Bryan's life worth studying is one sees the start of the 20th century Democratic party in terms of their economic issues. Additionally, one also sees echoes of Bryan's religious bent to politics in modern politics today (think: what recent presidents have invoked the name of God repeatedly, and managed to win overwhelming majorities in rural areas? hmm). No wonder many politicians like him, at least pieces of him...



4. William Jennings Bryan is somewhat of an enigmatic figure in American history. Many of his contempories saw him as a dangerous radical while today he is often seen as a fundamentalist reactionary. How in the world can one man be thought of in such vastly differing ways? In this book Michael Kazin has attempted to answer this question and at the same time he has gone a long way toward clearing the reputation of this great man.
   
   To be sure, Bryan had his flaws and Kazin does not try to gloss over them at all. As a product of his time Bryan was not a friend of African-Americans but how many politicians of his time were? Bryan was also had a terrible problem ever admitting that he was wrong as did his fellow progressive Woodrow Wilson and both men ran into trouble because of it. Still though, when one looks at his entire career Bryan looms as a very large presence in the history of the reform movements of early twentieth century America.
   
   Of course the biggest thing that Bryan is remembered and reviled for is the famous Monkey Trail in Dayton Tennessee. It is all too easy to look at this episode and see a reactionary rather than a progressive thinker but even on the issue of Darwinism this book shows that in some ways Bryan was very much ahead of his time. Bryan critics often fail to mention that many of the early proponents of Darwinism used Darwin's theory to justify eugenics, which is the idea of taking the weakest people out of society so that only the strongest genes will be passed on. Bryan foresaw the serious implications of this idea and it was one of the key reasons that he fought Darwinism so fervently. It was almost as if Bryan could already see Hitler and Stalin with their death camps and this aspect of Bryan's stance on this issue should never be forgotten.
   
   Mr. Kazin has with this book given us the most balanced biography of William Jennings Bryan that I have ever come across. His close association with race bating bigots like Ben Tillman and Tom Watson is not the least bit whitewashed but then again neither are his accomplishments. This book shows us the Bryan who had his warts but who also fought long and bitter fights to gain equal rights for women, to see that free enterprise run amuck would not trample the rights of the average wage earner, and who is as responsible as anybody for the adoption current Federal Reserve System. People all over America owe Bryan a debt of gratitude every time they get their Social Security check and every time that they go to the bank feeling secure because their money is insured. Yes, this author points out Bryan's flaws but he also takes pains to remind the reader of all the positive good that Bryan did and he does so in a very pleasing way. There is not in fact a single boring page in this book. The author's arguments are clear and well defended, his writing style and research are superb and most importantly he has taken up this project with an open mind and because of this he has turned out what I consider the authoritative biography of William Jennings Bryan.



5. I think this book is a must read for everyone. The author goes over the top to try and make this vile; hateful man a hero. I think people should read this book because it could effectively be a mirror to those who think no one else can see their true identities. Bryan's time was many years ago in America but the mere fact that people of today still try and sugar coat who and what he was; speaks volumes of today's America.
   
   I think this book is an accidental education. Only a moron could buy into the author's attempt to make this man a hero...a "Godly" one at that.

5 comments about Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator.

1. Thoroughly researched and excellently written, this book is a great read.
   
   It gives a distinct picture of Joe McCarthy, and also educates the reader about the events occurring.
   
   GRADE: A++



2. An excellent book and invaluable for understanding this pivotal cold war episode - the rise and fall of Senator Joseph McCarthy.
   
   McCarthy, on the heels of the Hiss Case in late 1949, started asking, loudly and publicly, what the administration knew about Communists in the State Department and other sensitive places, and what it was doing about it. For the next four years, and particularly after gaining the chair of a Senate investigation subcommittee, McCarthy bore down on this issue, attracting millions of followers who believed in his mission, but also making enemies among the intelligentsia, among elites threatened by McCarthy's populist style, among liberals who saw Communists as ideological allies. McCarthy's own missteps, and those of aide Roy Cohn, helped bring down his career and blacken his name. But only in recent decades has newly declassified intelligence information shown he was more or less on the right track.
   
   It is important to remember the context of the times. The Soviets had ended any illusions about democracy in Eastern Europe. China had fallen to Mao. Manhattan Project spies had given the Russians the atomic bomb and in 1949 they detonated their first. The Korean War began in 1950. Communism was seeking to establish its influence in the developing world. The Cold War was heating up, the U.S. seemed to be losing, but meanwhile the Truman administration didn't seem to want to know about potential traitors in their midst.
   
   Some of the best chapters here focus on historical context rather than McCarthy himself. Herman recreates the Popular Front days of the 1930s, when Communists successfully infiltrated many liberal organizations or duped liberals into joining Communist front groups. In the "Who Lost China?" debate, Communist-influenced diplomats tweaked U.S. policy to finish Chaing on Mao's behalf. And Herman renders a fine consideration of McCarthy's effect on politics between then and now, including the death and rebirth of conservatism, the death of the liberal establishment with the Vietnam War, and the Popular Front's rebirth as the New Left.
   
   History reads quite differently from the liberal conventional wisdom when the then-secret Venona Decrypts or only-recently-availaible KGB files are factored in. Virtually no one McCarthy exposed was innocent. Today's conventional wisdom mistakenly regards Communist ties then as no more than an expression of dissent, a sympathy for the underdog. The CW fails to recognize that it was a lifelong commitment - more like being in the Mafia or a religious cult - where one swore fealty to a foreign and hostile power, created discord to destabilize one's own society, and sometimes aided spies and traitors.
   
   Herman does not spare McCarthy's faults - his drinking, his judgment-impairing mania, his too-trusting reliance upon Cohn. He shows how McCarthy destroyed himself, such as his fit of pique during the televised Army vs. McCarthy hearings, where he reneged on a deal not to expose the Communist-front involvement of one of opposition counsel Joseph Welch's aides.
   
   Those close to him knew the youngest senator was not the best person for this job. He was too raw, too impulsive and too unschooled in Washington's ways. But the way he saw it, no one else was doing it and the job needed to be done.
   
   McCarthy became undeservedly vilified. No one went to jail because of him. He didn't kill anyone. Unlike dissidents in Communist states, those questioned by him were protected by due process of law and had legal counsel. McCarthy was performing quintessential Congressional oversight - shining the bright light of publicity on dark spots within the administration, to influence change through the bringing of social pressure. McCarthy often held closed hearings, when the publicity of open hearings would have helped him more, to protect witnesses or those they testified about from being smeared. His questioning style was tough but typical of a courtroom. And the government really did have Communists buried in its bowels, often with access to sensitive information, with an administration too often unwilling to act.
   
   Herman highlights some amazing ironies of McCarthyism:
   
   --The truest single victim of "McCarthyist attacks", someone railroaded and hounded to death in sham hearings, was McCarthy himself. Liberal journalists with little regard for the truth smeared him, and frequently.
   
   --The executive privilege so loathed by liberals when Nixon claimed it during Watergate, was pioneered by Eisenhower expressly to stonewall McCarthy. That marked the beginning of "the imperial presidency" and decline of Congessional oversight which liberals particularly often decry - sentiments with which McCarthy himself actually agreed.
   
   --Bobby Kennedy's well-received Congressional investigations of the Mafia and labor racketeering in the late 1950s used the identical tactics he had learned working for McCarthy, and for which McCarthy was condemned.
   
   --The Kennedys were not only McCarthy allies, but refused to go along with the rest of Congress in abjuring him. John Kennedy scheduled surgery so that he would not be present for the vote to censure McCarthy, while Bobby discreetly attended McCarthy's funeral in Wisconsin.
   
   --The New Left, born in 1962, was explicitly an attempt to revive Communist activity in the United States, minus the Soviet ties. The biggest purveyors of the "paranoid style" in American politics, a term often tied to McCarthy, has actually been the left, with its dark vision of a world dominated by a malign U.S. government and its all-powerful corporate allies.
   
   This book is one of the major sources for Ann Coulter's bestselling "Treason". Coulter's polemics rouse her base but may alienate even the undecided. Herman's evenhanded tone and treatment of the subject matter, though, do credit to his work, which lends a measure of vindication to McCarthy's short but searing political career. He continues to be vilified today, through movies such as "Good Night and Good Luck". Hollywood wants to keep history's spotlight on McCarthyism, but you get the idea that's mostly to keep us from looking where our attention belongs - on what McCarthy sought to expose.



3. Professor Herman does a great job in clarifying the real story of the so-called McCarthy era. Most books and movies rehash the same tired line: innocent Americans were persecuted by witch-hunting Congressional investigators. Herman shows that was not the case. As he points out, no one was deprived of legal counsel or of their Fifth Amendment rights. The McCarthy era was far more benign than the administrations of Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson, where Americans were jailed by the thousands for speaking out against the government.
   
   Herman makes a vital point: McCarthy was concerned only with investigating Communist subversions among government employees. He had nothing to do with the Hollywood investigations. Herman makes an even more important point, one that is the heart of his book. There was a massive infestation of Communists in the government. The Truman state department did a horrible job doing background checks on government employees. McCarthyism was not, as most historians have said, a withchunt against innocent liberals. There was a legitimate problem with Communist subversion, and McCarthy was destroyed for trying to do something about it.
   
   Herman freely admits McCarthy made errors of judgment. He also points out McCarthy was often right. I wish more Americans would read this book. What people think they know just isn't so.



4. "Received wisdom" places Senator Joseph R.McCarthy(1908-1957)only a few notches below the likes of Hitler and Stalin in the pantheon of great political villains of the twentieth century.The fabled "visiting Martian" might find this hard to understand.While Stalin,Hitler and co waded thru the blood of the millions of victims of their tyranny,Senator McCarthy never killed anyone,never started any wars,never even had anyone put in jail! He did once drunkenly assault columnist Drew Pearson in a tender spot though! The Martian would doubtless have his amazement compounded by the knowledge that McCarthy spent his career opposing communism,a despotic totalitarian political system,responsible for countless deaths and vicious oppression across the world,setting himself against those in his own country who sought to serve the interests of foreign communist regimes and who eagerly wished to overturn the US political system in favor of the communist one.
   This biography by Arthur Herman,seeks to explain the "how and why" of Joe McCarthy,the man,his career,the political context in which he operated,and the Senator's legacy.This is a broadly sympathetic picture of the the Senator and his "crusade".The only similar pro-McCarthy biographies before Herman which I am aware of,are those by Joe's friends and colleagues-William F.Buckley and Brent Bozell(1954)and Roy Cohn(1968).Biographers who have tended to "have the floor" on McCarthy,are Richard Rovere(1959)and heavyweight writer Thomas C.Reeves(1982).The latters biography has probably been seen as the "standard" one up to now(admirers of the Reeves take on McCarthy might not be so pleased about his later demolition job biography of liberal icon Jack Kennedy!)
   Herman has the advantage in having access to intelligence material de-classified in the US(especially the "Venona" documents),and the Soviet archives opened after the fall of communism.This allows a much fairer assessment of the period,and McCarthy's career,grounded in solid research.
   Here we see that the so-called "Red scare" of the 40's and 50's,far from being based in unjustified hysterical paranoia,exploited by seedy political operators like McCarthy,Jenner,McCarran and co,was a response to a subversive threat which was all too real.Soviet spies and agents of influence-many directly in league with Russian intelligence, were working within the heart of the American political and cultural establishment,secretly promoting communism at home and overseas.It was indeed "a conspiracy so immense"(McCarthy's words),which had seen,for example,the widespread entry of communist agents into highly influential positions within Roosevelt's Democratic administration,often with access to classified material which they passed on to Moscow.Stalin was allowed to swallow up large chunks of "liberated" Europe,China fell to Mao and communist North Korea invaded the capitalist South-all this seemingly with US acquiescence.Those,such a Whittaker Chambers(a former communist agent),who had warned the authorities what was happening in their midst,were largely ignored or ridiculed by a complacent administration and a "liberal"leaning press.It was only when the revelations surfaced about Alger Hiss,that a reluctant establishment was forced to at least look seriously at the issue.However it was generally the "outsiders"-poiitical mavericks like Richard Nixon and J.Parnell Thomas of The Un-American Activities Committee(HUAC) and Senators like McCarthy and William E.Jenner-who forced the issue to the forefront of politics.Many of the political and media elite found men like McCarthy "vulgar"-rowdy and unsympathetic.Unlike(say)the Soviet agent from Harvard,Alger Hiss,who they initially championed,farm boy Joe McCarthy was not "one of them".
   The idea of a reign of terror by "redhunters" is seen to be a misleading exaggeration-in fact it was often more "respectable" and acceptable in many circles to be opposed to the likes of McCarthy than be for him-there was massive hostility in much of the press,and among the political and legal elite(though Joe did,of course have his cheerleaders too-notably in the Hearst papers and among veterans groups).The CBS TV network could still run a breathtakingly unbalanced attack on McCarthy by Ed Murrow on "See it now"(mythologized by Hollywood at the moment in "Goodnight and good luck"),at the height of "McCarthyism"(this term itself-significantly-was coined by McCarthy's target,the academic Owen Lattimore-a State Department advisor on China,who did much to promote the cause of the murderous maniac Mao and his communists in the United States)
   Herman does not shrink from identifying McCarthy's faults and failings-he was a heavy drinker(it killed him),had a volatile temper,often didn't do adequate research,exaggerated,lied(which politician has not?),was a publicity hound who loved to be in the headlines,and was prone to serious errors of judgement(the biggest being over his blind faith in the Chief Counsel to his Senate Committee,Roy M.Cohn-this directly led to his downfall).But we are given a portrait here far removed from the one dimensional ogre of legend-McCarthy was basically kindly,he didn't tend to hold grudges(Drew Pearson excepted!),even when it came to his biggest political enemies like Secretary of State Dean Acheson(meeting Acheson in an elevator,McCarthy shot out his hand saying "Hi Dean!"-Acheson,coldly furious,stiffly ignored Joe,a reaction which left the Senator genuinely puzzled).His methods could be clumsy and his manner harsh(though no more than other government investigators in other areas),yet he was often right about his targets.In this context,Herman looks carefully at some of McCarthy's best known "victims" like George C. Marshall(so insouciant in allowing pro-communist advisors to guide him into effectively handing millions of Chinese to Mao),Owen Lattimore,Irving Peress and Annie Lee Moss.Even the notorious 1954 Army case(known as the "Army-McCarthy hearings")-which would destroy him politically and eventually personally-shows McCarthy was quite justified in launching his probe into Army "leaks",and came to grief thanks to his unreliable subordinates(especially Roy Cohn),his unfortunate television image and style(in contrast to his slippery unctious adversary,Army counsel Joseph Welch)and because he had taken on the massed ranks of a jittery political establishment(Democrat and Republican-including President Eisenhower),which finally decided to unite against him.
   McCarthy's last years were a miserable record of political oblivion,heroic boozing(he became a hopeless alcoholic)and poor health.Ignored by the press(which was especially hard to take)and fair weather friends-only a few stuck by him such as Bill Jenner,Roy Cohn and notably Bobby Kennedy(who briefly worked for Joe and liked him)-McCarthy died of liver disease,still in his 40's.Yet when he passed away,even his inveterate enemy and victim Drew Pearson expressed genuine regret.



5. I have never read a biography of Joe McCarthy. Most of what I have always heard about him and his career has been quite negative (i.e. the blacklists, "commie" trials etc.) To be sure, Joseph McCarthy could not have been the only man involved in the blacklisting and destruction of so many reputations of politicians, artists, scientists etc. We would be giving McCarthy the man way too much credit (and from the book, it is clear that he was not all that capable.)
   
   However, the book never looks at anything in McCarthy's career (beyond his work in the commitees investigating alleged members of the communist party or communist sympathizers.) As a man who was a senator (and supposedly working on behalf of his contituents in Wisconsin) one would think that there would be more. Mr. Herman does not discuss this. I would have liked to know what Joe McCarthy did, as a seator, for the people in the state of Wisconsin!!
   
   In my opinion, Mr. Herman's book is a defense of Joe McCarthy, period. He does not write as an impartial observer, using the many primary and secondary sources as a historian should. There were many times in the course of the book where Mr. Herman seems to rant and interject his own subjective views about McCarthy or his era (i.e. page 90), rather than letting the evidence and his sources speak for themselves. In this way, the writing was disappointing.
   
   Did I learn about Joe McCarthy and his era? Absolutely. However, Mr. Herman seems more desperate about getting his own conservative agenda across than writing a true and balanced history of that time.

5 comments about Was Jefferson Davis Right?.

1. History has not been kind to Jefferson Davis. This is especially true now with the current wave of politically correct motivated attacks on him. The Kennedy brothers seek to rectify this by placing him under a mock trial charged with treason against the United States government. Incidentally, Davis repeatly asked for this trial which the U.S. government refused based on recommendation of their legal counsel.
   Most Davis critics know very little about him. An excellent biography introduces him to the reader. The Kennedy's present the questioning and motives of his federal accusers and offer a stalwart defense in his behalf. Decide for yourself if he was guilty or innocent of treason.
   Also, included in addendum are informative documents relative to the period and subject.
   When Jefferson Davis died in 1889 the South mourned. Thousands upon thousands of people of all races and walks of life attended his funeral and processions. The South still loved and respected their president.



2. This book provides a defense of the southern cause. Slavery was a sympton of the civil war, but not it's direct cause. Although the book's intention is to defend Jefferson Davis and the CSA, it does provide some very thought provoking information concerning Abraham Lincoln, the origins of today's Republican party and an authorative central government. It is a worthwhile read for anyone looking to find the second edge to the sword. There is much more to America's bloodiest war, and most of it are skeleton's buried deep in the closet of Abraham Lincoln and the heroism associated with his deeds.



3. I found this book interesting. I'm an amateur historian with great interest on the Civil War and the leaders from both sides. I originally bought this book looking for more information on the Biographay and beliefs of Jefferson Davis. It does provide some insight into who he was but REMEMBER WHEN READING the authors' state that it is a defense of Jefferson Davis and what he stood for. Therefore this book definately has a slant toward defending and sugar coating who Jefferson Davis was.

   The book is a defense of State Rights (and decentralized government) as opposed to a strong centralized government. Wether you support one idea or the other this book is definately worth reading to get a different point of view.

   For historical reading on Jefferson Davis read his own writings and speeches from his life and service to the United States and then the Confederate States.




4. This book is: 1. A book that opens up bringing Jeff Davis to life telling us of his lifes joys and sorrows. His adventures and his sufferings. His victories and his defeats. 2. It vindicates Davis's character and faith shrugging off the lies told about him as well as John Edsmoe vindicates the Founding Fathers in "Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of our Founding Fathers" 3. It provides some solid Constitutional points Davis and his countrymen made about states rights and secession. Davis was definatly NOT a traitor. 4. It shows the reader that the issue of slavery was not as cut and dry as television and movies would have us believe. Not everyone who owned slaves was a cruel barbaric beast. And just because the Abolitionists were called abolitionists does not mean they were interested in the well being of black people. In fact they, like the Environmentalists and Anti-Smoking crowd today, were just using the issue as a vehicle to gain control wealth and power. A great book



5. "Some of the statements seem particularly misguided, for example, the assertion the the Bill or Rights applies only to Federal actions, not state actions!" (I know what you are thinking, this is not my typo, it belongs to Mr. Connelly.) Mr. Connelly, I am writing to inform you "the the Bill or Rights" did originally apply to Federal actions only. It was not until the previous century and the latter part of the one before it did this change. The blame for this can be placed on an activist U.S. Supreme Court of the time.

   Now that this is out of the way, I can say that this is an excellent book for anyone who is Pro-South. I myself found it very pleasing to read and I feel that others will to. It is full of interesting facts that you just can not find in other books. The Kennedy brothers have, as they have done before, written a great book.

2 comments about Spies and Spymasters of the Civil War.

1. This is a great all-round reference to the world of Civil War espionage. It has an almost encyclopedia-type approach, giving the names of every known spy, both male and female, and on both sides of the war. It profiles their tactics, equipment, motives, and, for many, their fates, and tells real-life stories of dashing heroics and close escapes.
   
   In short, if you want to read about the spies and espionage of the Civil War, this is your book.



2. If you want an excellent look at the cloak and dagger world of spying, during the American Civil War,then this is a great start.If you're a history buff on warfare,then this book will not disappoint you.I enjoy reading about military history and the social actions leading to the declarations of war.Battle areas are interestingly called 'theatres'.And i'm always fascinated by the inter-play of the opposing armies and the power-brokers behind the scenes.If you have a keen sense of European social history,you will be intrigued by this look at the American internecine war of the 19th century.For those who want a complete understanding of current American political diplomatic strategies,domestic and foreign,you have to understand the American Civil War.

5 comments about Letters from the Dust Bowl.

1. This book is best read quickly, if not at a sitting, then over a weekend. In that way Henderson's prose gets its power, and it will take you from youthful optimism to euphoria, then to despair, and then to a sort of middle ground in which she makes peace with herself and the land. She's at her best when she describes her mental and verbal battles with intolerant churchmen: she just couldn't buy into the vengeful God of the itinerant evangelists of the time, and she was not shy about expressing her opinions. This book will make the Great Plains and Dust Bowl come alive, not as a scholarly, "objective" tome, but as a woman's journey of the heart. A very nice read.



2. This is trying. The personal letters presented in the book convey a manner with which Caroline uses to overcome life stresses that come with homesteading a difficult land in a fickle environment. The Hendersons live quite alone in No Mans Land. The welfare of the Henderson family depends strictly on their ability to manifest a steady resource of food substances for nutrition and for trade. The letters from Caroline Henderson are written in a very flowery style that worked well in the early half of the 20th century. Digesting the text isn't easy if you've become adapted to the pace of life today.
   
   However, the reader is treated to an infinite barrel of wisdom. Certainly, Caroline had to deal with much more in her life than overcoming writing styles, so it helps knowing this just to get through the book. It is easy to miss what is really going on here. Homesteading requires a harvest of food for nutrition and another harvest of food for the soul. The book talks very little about dust storms. More is spoken of the planted gladiolas, the harvest, the songs of birds, and of Christmas. Letters are torn up in frustration, and rewritten to be positive. Each response to a letter opens with words of thanks for encouragement offered.
   
   This little book is terrific - the kind of book that changes lives. If you enjoyed Victor E. Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" you might also love this. Though not analytical and direct as Frankl, it quietly relates shared personal values. In contrast to Frankl, Henderson lives very much in freedom, but within the shackles of her environoment.



3. Caroline Henderson's letters are historic and illustrative and heart-wrenching. You get to know this truly remarkable person and how life was in this era through her writings and see the progress from youth and hope and optimism to age and despair. Losing her at the end of the book was like losing a dear grandmother. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in studying The Great Depression and The Dust Bowl. I read it as a companion to "The Worst Hard Time" by Timothy Egan.



4. Deftly edited for contemporary readers by Alvin O. Turner, Letters From The Dust Bowl is a collection of letters and published materials written by Caroline Henderson (1877-1965), a woman who lived through the Oklahoma Dust Bowl and the Great Depression. Her articles on the Dust Bowl first began appearing in "Atlantic Monthly" in 1931, drawing the woes of American farmers into the public eye. Her correspondence and articles, which date from 1908 to 1966, offers insight into the daily struggle to put food on the table, and her descriptions of the dust storms that covered the Plains are unforgettable. Enhanced with a biographical essay and precise annotations supplementing this extraordinary compilation, Letters From The Dust Bowl is highly recommended for students of 20th Century American History.



5. Alvin Turner likes to quip that "Letters from the Dustbowl" is the "best written book" that the University of Oklahoma Press will publish this year. Indeed, Caroline Henderson, the author of the columns and letters it contains, may be the most quoted authority on the social aspects of the dustbowl. Her views on Oklahoma farm life were disseminated across the country both in her columns for "Ladies' World," and her "Letters from the Dustbowl," were published in "Atlantic Monthly." In selecting material for this book, Turner told me that he had twice as many columns and letters than would fit. Alvin Turner is the Dean of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences at East Central University in Ada, Oklahoma.

   Caroline Henderson moved to a farm near Eva, Oklahoma, in 1907. During the next six decades, she and her husband, Will, endured the hardship of depressions and the dustbowl on their farm, with really only one bumper crop to show for their labors. Turner's overall introduction, as well as his introduction to each section, does well to place Henderson's life in context. She had great dreams for her life, both as a literate woman and as a farmer but by the end of her life, she is disillusioned and considers herself a failure.

   Most of Henderson's farming experience demonstrates that dreams can save a person from an otherwise mean life. In 1917 she wrote, "The fact that we cannot see the end does not relieve us of our obligation to push forward, to gain every inch we can in humanity's forward march." As a young farm wife, she met challenges with inventiveness, and hardship with strong will. Even as crops withered and neighbors moved away, she finds beauty in flowers and friendship in animals. However, too many failed crops and dried-up dreams took their toll on Henderson's optimism. In 1952, she wrote in a letter to her daughter, "Every day seems to bring some new sorrow in these last years of fruitless effort and disappointment." With dreams dashed, Henderson loses all sense of proportion and she reads each setback as catastrophe.

   "Letters from the Dust Bowl" is as heartbreaking as it is inspirational. Al Turner is right; it's a very well written book.