5 comments about Ike: An American Hero.

1. The first 1/3 of the book is spent on the first 45 years or so of Ike's life, which is remarkable for its dullness. He really did nothing of note or of interest until WW2. Then, most of the rest of the book is dedicated to war-years (which is already well-trodden ground). Relatively little space is dedicated to his two terms as President, which I find appalling. Four years at war get almost 500 pages but 8 years as leader of the most powerful country in the history of the world get maybe 50? A very imbalanced treatment, IMO, and very disappointing.
   
   On a lesser note: the habit of the author to drop (un-translated) French and German phrases is pretentious and annoying. The author also makes a few attempts to dabble in psycho-history, which I've never been able to take seriously. Aside from these minor points, the writing is o.k.
   
   I'm sure one wouldn't have to work very hard to find a better treatment of Eisenhower and his work.
   
   Not terrible but not recommended.



2. Once Korda reached 1945 in IKE, it feels like he filed all his research away and said, "Let's wrap this up!" Unfortunately, Ike still had 25 years left in him. Consequently, Korda's biography feels incomplete. Furthermore, for all the space Korda accords to Ike's WWII years, he pays scant attention to the Holocaust. What did Ike know about the Holocaust, about the Final Solution? What was his reaction to the liberation of the concentration camps (Korda mentions Ike's presence at just one, a sub-camp). In light of the preeminence of Holocaust studies in the past 15 years, Korda really could have shed new light with a discussion of Ike and the plight of the Jewish people. Similarly, the creation of Israel receives no mention in this book, even though Ike, as Supreme Commander of the AEF and, later, commander of NATO, would have seen, heard, and possibly opined on "The Palestine Question." In short, if well done, a 900-page offering from Korda would have been more edifying than a 700-page tome.



3. Excellent Presidential Biography that was both appropriately critical and complementary. This book is a must for anyone interested in both the military history as well as the Presidential biography.



4. I've always thought Ike was one of our two greatest generals, the other being Geo. Washington who kept our country together. If one can imagine the egos that Ike had to work with, i.e Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Patton, Montgomery, and even MacCarthur, it would seem that this would be an almost impossible task in itself. But then to be asked to construct and conduct what was perhaps the greatest military endeavor of all time, and to get all of these "egos" to work in harmony, would see to be beyond comprehension. This is probably not a biography in the true sense of the word as Korda treats some things a little superficially, but does cover the war years in great detail. I have no doubt that as history continues Eisenhower will be considered one of the greatest military genius of them all. He not only had to perform militarily, but politically also. He did that. I would certainly recommend this book to any student of history, particulary of World War II.



5. This is top-down history, an example of the "great man" school of historiography. Korda makes clear from the start that he leaves to others the chronicle of the "little people" who did the bleeding and dying. The result is a sort of Masterpiece Theater drama of manners and personalities, as Ike maneuvers to hold together the alliance, and shape the strategy that won the war in the West. The clash of egos between Churchill, DeGaulle, Montgomery, Patton, Tedder, Harris, and Brooke has been told many times before. Korda's re-telling is particularly vivid. He leaves no doubt that Ike's achievement was singular, and decisive.
   
   He gives much attention to the relationship between Ike and Kay Summersby. With careful propriety, he describes their almost-constant companionship, in both work and social settings, in public and in private. He strongly hints--but stops short of avouching--that the liaison was physically intimate as well.
   
   Korda devotes only 60 pages of a 700-page book to the eight years of Ike's presidency. He obviously decided that his treatment here would be be "all or minimal", and he defensibly opted for "minimal". The treatment of Ike's youth and early Army years is much fuller.
   
   The history alone makes the book worthwile, but it has the extra virtue of serving as a lesson in clear writing from the longtime editor-in-chief of Simon and Schuster. Korda writes with unpretention and simplicity. The narration is so silky smooth that you almost forget you are reading. It is a rare writer who can use "indeed" several times in a chapter and not sound stuffy.
   
   The Miss Grundys of the world should also note that this great editor is immune from their pedantic scoldings. He freely uses dashes, semicolons, digressive clauses, and exclamation marks, all without causing a flicker of distraction. He breezes past such non-rules as that as "farther" can only refer to physical distance, and that "between" can only refer to two.

5 comments about Beyond the Hundredth Meridian: John Wesley Powell and the Second Opening of the West.

1. Once upon a time in the West, a man named William Gilpin was blown westward along with an expedition of John Fremont that took him as far as Walla Walla, Wash. In 1846 he fought in the Mexican War. In 1861 he went to Washington, DC, after Abraham Lincoln was elected. Later he became the first territorial governor of Colorado. Once upon a time, Gilpin saw the land beyond the 100th meridian (which runs through the center of Nebraska and Kansas) through a mystical fervor. The semiarid lands were no desert, but a pastoral Canaan. Agriculture would be effortless. All that was needed was the plow break the soil so that rain would naturally follow.
   
   At the same time that Gilpin was convincing the country that the West was a Biblical Paradise, an exploration party headed by John Wesley Powell was camped a few miles from Cheyenne, Wyoming. It was 1868. At this time Powell was not the pioneer that Gilpin was, and he was 34 compared to Gilpin's 55. Powell's interests were always varied. In 1860 his *mollusk* collection won awards at the Illinois State Agricultural Society fair. In 1861, he volunteered to join the army in the Civil War. Within six months he rose through the ranks to become a captain, an expert on *fortifications*. In April of 1862, Powell lost an arm due to a Minie ball at Shiloh. Powell continued through the war. In 1865, Powell began a professorship in *geology* at Wesleyan.
   
   Powell began his exploration of the Green and Colorado rivers on July 6,1869. On August 30, 1869, only six of nine men and two of four boats managed to go all the way through the Grand Canyon to come out near Yuma, Az. The rest of the Colorado had already been explored. In a few short months, John Wesley Powell had gathered enough data to challenge Gilpin's portrayal of the West. For the rest of his life, he would try to convince Congress of what he had learned about the proper way to treat the land beyond the 100th meridian.
   
   Powell's geological and *ethnological* work and his study of Native American *languages* continue today to form the basis for our understanding of these subjects for southern Utah and northern Arizona.



2. I re-read this book and Powell's own "Exploration of the Colorado River and Its Canyons" over the Holidays and have decided that these 2 books are absolutely inseparable. You must read both and I'm glad to see that Amazon offers a special deal for the purchase of these 2 books together. In my opinion, you should read Powell's "Exploration..." first and then read Stegner's book. Stegner's book is very readable but I hesitate to call it an easy read. While you are reading this book, you have to stop now and then to absorb and reflect on the opinions, actions, and counteractions of that particular moment. Everything must be placed in some historical, political, and personal context (3 dimensions which necessitate contemplation by the reader). Stegner does a wonderful job in maintaining the general flow of the text and he supplies an extensive listing of notes for those who want more information and detail. In my opinion, this is a wonderful book about a brilliant man with incredible foresight. Now, it seems that we need a beacon like Powell warning the Easterners about their relentless development of land with no thought or planning on the impact to their water resources and water quality. Most folks in the Eastern U.S. take their water resources for granted. We need a modern day Powell to warn us about the consequences of increased impervious area before its too late.



3. Almost everything that could be done wrong in the development of the modern American West (and not just the Rockies westward, but the High Plains as well) was warned against by Maj. John Wesley Powell, but done anyway by the federal government and various states.
   
   The result? Water crises, fights over water rights, lying, chicanery and stealing in the name of water rights, corporate farms squeezing out small farmers, urban sprawl and smog in the middle of deserts, dust bowls and more, were either forseen or hinted at by Powell.
   
   The 100th meridian of latitude is the U.S.'s "dry line." Areas to the west, generally, before you get to the Pacific Coast, average less than 20 inches of rain a year. Hence the title, and the basis of Powell's warnings.
   
   And, AND, all of that came after this one-armed Civil War veteran led the first navigation of the entire whitewater section of the Colorado, actually starting on the Green River in Wyoming and running all the way down past the Grand Canyon. (Despite some claims otherwise, it seems pretty clear James White did NOT do this.)
   
   It was this trip, in the name of scientific research, that gave Powell his standing to eventually found the Bureau of Ethnography, do further Western research and make some top-notch recommendations for the development of the west.
   
   The reason I didn't five-star this is that I would like to have seen a little more depth to Powell's post-exploration career. Also, a little more personality profile of Powell's struggle with disappointment over the Newlands Act and other repudiation of his ideas would have been nice.
   
   True, Stegner may not be a professional historian, but it would have been nice to see him incorporate this.
   
   To get an idea of what I mean by the end of this critique, please read Donald Worster's "River Running West." Also, Worster provides a bit of corrective to Stegner's occasional near-hagiographical approach to Powell.



4. This is an excellent biography of John Wesley Powell--exlorer, geologist, scientist, writer, and politician.
   Anyone who reads this is sure to increase the amount they know about this historic figure, and about the West in general as the stories of each are inextricably tangled. The book excels at its account of John Wesley Powell's life AFTER his famous trips down the Colorado River, and does a great job of describing Powell's role in the battle against over-populating the West.
   If the book has faults though, they lie in that many of Stegner's sources have since been expounded upon or dismissed entirely, and so the facts in this book aren't entirely current. Also, Stegner dismisses too quickly the merits of the story of James White, a man who very possibly went down the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon two years before Powell did.
   And, it's kind of ridiculous how Stegner criticizes Powell's second expedition's photos as if they were famous works and art: This photo "is marred by too much nondescipt low-water beach in the foreground," and that sort of thing.
   This is a great book for anyone interested in John Wesley Powell or the Colorado River. It's possibly Stegner's best nonfiction work, though "Mormon Country" is good as well.
   For another great account of John Wesley Powell, read "Down the Great Unknown" by Edward Dolnick.
   Or, for a half-decent book about Wallace Stegner's peculiarly white view of the American West, read, "'Why I Can't Read Wallace Stegner' and Other Essays" by Elizabeth Cook-Lynn. That one's kind of interesting.



5. I kept waiting for this book to get boring. It has all the potential to be boring. But it's not. It's an excellent introduction to the history of the West. I learned little tidbits about all sorts of varied subjects - Native American tribes, government, the history of the USGS. Stegner does get a little too wrapped up in the details at a couple points, especially when he gets into all the wrangling in Congress over Powell's various ventures, but in general it's an excellent book.

5 comments about The Greatest Generation.

1. How hard would it have been to compile some couple-page biographies of heroes who served in WW2?



2. I think Tom Brokaw should be applauded for writing this book. A lot of reviewers have commented the contents, which I will not say much.
   
   This is not a book that I can read in one-shot as it is a collate of several stories. Some people have complained about the book for lacking in substance. But, I think the beauty of the book is the "awareness" or appreciation created by these short stories. If people are intersted WWII history, they can always consult their history text books or some of non-fiction books devoted exclusively on the topics. I think the theme of this book is very different from those "well-researched" book. And, I think it will probably reach a wider audience as the book is an easy reading without some details that you will probably not remember after reading them.
   
   So, I will say, for someone who look for poetic writing, go to Shakespear. If someone look for exact facts/figures in WWII, go to their history text book. For those, who want to have a picture what the previous generation, it's a nice starting point.



3. Tom Brokaw did a great job of showing how ordinary people faced with seemingly insurmountable challenges became extraodinary.



4. I doubt that Mr. Brokaw will see this review.
   I bought the book but have not read it because I cannot get past the title.
   I am 85.
   I was a 20 year old, 128# kid out of North Dakota when I joined the Air Corps, the United States Army Air Force in 1942 and after an excellent training I went over to the Mediterrean and flew 94 missions in three different airplanes. I was one of 17 that came back of the 45 that went over.
   
   I do NOT agree that we were "The Greatest Generation". We were an "Ordinary Generation" faced with an "Extraordinary Problem". Yes, we rose to it.
   
   But the implication I get from his title is that the present generation would not and I repudiate that. I think the present generation would do what we did and I think calling us "The Greatest Generation" insults all other generations.
   ----------Maj. Charles E. Dills USAFResRetInvol.-------
   
   I was a thoroughly broke orphan with little to no prospects.
   Using the GI BIll, I got an MS at the George Washington University and a Ph.D. in Physical Organic Chemistry from Harvard University. I got a home 43 years ago from the GIBill and we still live in it. I was well thanked. I dress up at least twice a year and attend local ceremonies to remember the 28 other kids that were not as lucky as I was. I give talks to whomever will listen giving the warts as well as the fun. I don't remember their names but I will never forget what they did.
   I am not a hero. I am an average person that was caught in a certain niche of time.
   [...]



5. I was amazed on how i can personally relate to the characters life story.. eventhough i never went to war or are a veteran.. the living style of back in the days and current life style is so different.. it opens your eyes on how it was and how WE made it.. quality of life has gone down..

5 comments about Passionate Sage: The Character and Legacy of John Adams.

1. Ellis' biography of John Adams, one of the earliest published portraits of the Founding Fathers by the author, is well suited for those who want a shorter, crisper account than the longer ones produced by other biographers (e.g., McCullough). Though it does not include some important material unearthed since its appearance, it honors Adams' essential brilliance and his determinative role in both the success of the American Revolution and the country's endurance while a Federalist president.



2. Ellis again does an excellent job of making public figures who are seemingly lost to history real again. While not as flowery and readable as McCullough's work, I believe Ellis' effort to be more substantive. Following only Adams' post-presidency years, Ellis explores Adams' core political principles and beliefs through the struggles and battles of his sunset years.
   
   Through Adams' fight with long-time friend Mercy Otis Warren over his legacy, to his arguments with Mary Wollstonecraft in the margins of her own books, Ellis is able to show an aging John Adams at his best (or worst): outspoken, irreverent, fiesty, and more often than not, correct. The reader is led through Adams' opinions on government, law, the French Revolution, and more. The curious reader would do well to compare Adams' and Jefferson's opinions of the French revolutionaries, keeping "track of score."
   
   I only wish that Ellis could have written more. This book, while dry at times, will hold the reader's attention and leave them wanting more chapters.
   
   Recommended to the general reader who has already read through a full-length Adams biography.



3. Joseph Ellis has taken upon himself the task of bringing the relatively unknown 2nd President of the United States out of obscurity and making him relevant to today's industrial America. Surprisingly, Ellis finds a way to make this shadowy figure between Washington and Jefferson every bit as memorable and important as his predecessor and successor; no simple task, given that Adams was forcibly shoved from the pantheon of American heroes over a century ago.
   
   Passionate Sage reveals Adams as he would have liked: Contrarian in every respect, an irritating mixture of sanguine and volcanic, pessimistic and hopeful, witty and reserved. More importantly, though, Ellis reveals Adams for the master of political thought that he was. No longer is Adams a footnote between the Great Leader and the Republican - in this slim tome, Ellis finds a way to enlighten readers to Adams' unparalleled contributions to Constitutional and American history. As history has shown, few men did more for the American cause than the underappreciated John Adams, and even fewer living Americans are aware of the monumental accomplishments the Sage of Quincy achieved in his nearly nine decades in America.
   
   Though Passionate Sage falls victim to the dry definitions of a professional academic, these drudging pages do not occur with great frequency. However, the slim size of this volume does seem cluttered with pedantic and tangential discussions that distract from the subject himself - ironically, the same slight Adams suffered in his own time.



4. Great book that I shared with friends at Christmas. John Adams, an extraordinary intellectual who, thanks to Joseph Ellis, history has not forgotten. Fascinating, one that you want to read word for word, slowly.



5. This book by Joseph Ellis covers the post-presidential years of John Adam. It discusses his renewed correspondence with Thomas Jefferson after many years of silence because of partisan politics. It reveals a picture of a brillant but misunderstood founding father who Ellis calls "the voice of the Revolution" and Jefferson "the pen of the Revolution." A well-written and insightful book! A must read especially for those who read McCullouch's book on Adams.

5 comments about Young Men and Fire.

1. Any book that I spend a great deal of time checking maps and names, to see who survived, has hooked me. This did. The horror has caused much thought. Check out the song "Cold Missouri Water"



2. In 1949, sixteen "smokejumpers" were dropped in the remote Gates of the Mountains wilderness in Montana to fight what seemed to be a routine wildfire. Within an hour 13 of them were dead, consumed in a horrific conflagration. MacLean, a college professor and former firefighter himself, became obsessed with the case, and when he retired he spent every summer investigating the tragedy and piecing together what really happened that day in Mann Gulch.
   
   MacLean says that the job of a storyteller is to transform catastrophe into tragedy -- to analyze the series of small screw-ups that lead to disaster and make sense of them. As you go on this journey into the fire with MacLean, you really can't wait to see what he learns next. And when he brings the survivors back to Mann Gulch, he and they discover the limits of what can really be learned and understood in the face of the implacable forces of nature.
   
   MacLean never finished the book. When he died at age 87, his kids recognized the book's quality and had it edited and published. There are some overly literary metaphors from the pen of this former English professor that he might have left out if he had had the chance to look over his own work. This is a really petty matter in the face of the book's overall quality.
   
   In the hands of an ordinary writer and thinker, you might say "Good if you want to know about firefighters," or disasters, or Montana. But this book is so thoughtful about the realities of man as part of nature that it transcends the Mann Gulch tragedy and becomes much more. I'd recommend it to any person of intelligence.
   
   Reviewer: Liz Clare, co-author of "To the Ends of the Earth: The Last Journey of Lewis & Clark"



3. I was fascinated by this riveting story. The second by second race for survival was amazingly documented. The confusion, physical strength, and wisdom displayed by the men involved was inspiring and yet insufficient to ensure their survival. Maclean brings the story to life. His interviews with the survivors shed facts and details that could not have otherwise been included in the book. As a FF who studies FF fatalities and near miss incidents, the book provided thought provoking information. Ultimately, it's a story of survival and death for a group of young men. Definetly worth the time and $.



4. This book was special to us since my husband as a young man lived in Montana near the Mann Gulch Fire. So this book is a "keeper".



5. This true story by the author of A River Runs Through It tells the events surrounding the Mann Gulch Fire in 1949. A good portion focuses on the smokejumpers (paratrooping firefighters)13 out of 16 of which perished in the fire.
   
   In those days, the smokejumping program was very new having been introduced within the past 8 to 10 years. The men had to be between the ages of 18 and 30, single, and in superb physical condition. The main tools they carried were a shovel and something called a Pulaski which is a combination ax and hoe built into one. They utilized these tools to dig fire lines, and fell trees ahead of the fire so as to reduce the amount of fuel and prevent it jumping from one tree to the next.
   
   When dropped from the plane onto the ground by the fire, a foreman would be in charge of the crew as they fought the fire. In the instance of the Mann Gulch fire in Montana, the fire started out as a fairly decent sized fire. It then progressed into what is known as a "blowup." This occurred as a result of a combination of factors such as fuel type, moisture, incline of terrain, and wind.
   
   It quickly got out of control and the crew had to run for their lives. Occasionally, in a blowup a vortex of fire will be formed which will sweep across a vast area burning everything in its path. It looks and functions like a tornado. I recently talked with a man who used to be a farmer and he indicated that when they burned fields to prepare them for future seasons a fire vortex would sometimes occur. He said it was an awesome and amazing sight to behold.
   
   During the blowup it was not possible for the majority of the men to outrun the fire and they perished mainly from suffocation due to lack of oxygen. The foreman saw this happening and created a secondary fire to try to create a burned out place which would provide shelter from the main fire. Unfortunately, amidst the confusion of the fire, the men did not understand the foreman and thought he had gone crazy to be lighting a second fire. He did survive but all but 2 others did not.
   
   A secondary portion of the book analyzes the various components of the fire, what caused it, and some of the science behind fire. Maclean spent around 12 years researching the book, gathering documents, interviewing the 2 remaining survivors and returning to the site of the fire. He was well equipped to tell the story having spent time as a forest fire fighter in his younger years before going on to be a literature professor and writer. The book was masterfully written but slightly meticulous at times. It is the type of story that would make a very dramatic movie if a studio were interested in producing it.

5 comments about The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin.

1. This, without doubt, must be considered as one of the finest and most thorough work done with regards to paying full tribute to the biography of Benjamin Franklin. You may learn many things you didn't know about this remarkable man as well as being refreshed on the things you had partially forgotten since history classes of your school days. He was to be considered a Founding Father of our Country, but his influence began long before the seeds of Revolution began to form, and his bright and steady, surefooted approach to diplomacy without submission or compromise of principals was nothing short of the genius we knew he possessed.
   
   His humble beginnings, which he was never ashamed of, did not hamper him, but rather enriched his understanding of the human condition in his continual search for truth, justice, science extraordinaire; and a philantropic desire to further higher education for youthful successors. Feet of clay, he undoubtedly had, as do we all; but they were lovable feet from start to finish. We have heard it all before about this most famous of our first citizens, but it is well to begin again to pay tribute to him, especially in this age of uncertainty, bizarre political events, the lack of leadership.
   
   Perhaps the most amazing element about Franklin was the apparent lack of ego. He did not do things for personal gain but rather for the overall good of the people, a goal he genuinely seemed to embrace above all else. His sense of humor was also unique for such a man; his penchant for penning controversial ideas under the guise of pen names was nothing short of genius in itself. It was a safety valve attached to a desire to effect change - you tentatively "test the mood" before admitting authorship. Waiting a decade for public opinion to soften is often soon enough if the ideas are sound enough to claim later as your own! Let the seed be sown, to rise not during the winter chill, but later, afterward - when the spring sun warms the soil and brings it to life under more suitable conditions.
   
   Moreover, not only were his covertly penned arguments gems of far-reaching vision, but this most excellent, prudent strategy was developed at the age of.....of....16!
   
   We need him to come again to the service of this country, which will always be his; but I fear there was only one of him made. Thankfully, we were able to have such a man in the right place at the right time, especially at the end of his career, when he was such heartwarming support for our Revolutionists as they "committed with their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor".



2. This book was an excellent review of Revolutionary War history and of a true founding father. The prolific references in this book to primary sources domonstrate what an inspired inventor and early American Benjamin Franklin was.



3. H.W. Brands has created a stunning insight into the life of Benjamin Franklin. It is a classic of our times and should be required reading for anybody interested in how and why America came about. Brands is a scholar of immense quality. In a time when biographies of the founding fathers have become fashionable, Brands stands out as one of the strongest historians around. Not only is he a better writer than the more populist David McCullough, he is a better historian. Brands' analysis is clear, crisp, and powerful. A must read.



4. Books are my best friends. Sometimes I adopt them as relatives. Uncle Ben has occupied a space on my shelf since he was delivered to my home in 2000.



5. An apt title, as the book successfully shows Franklin to have possessed the spirit, work ethic, independence, secularism, tolerance, aptitude and passion that are so quinessentially American (or I should say, allegedly American).
   
   True, the book did drag a bit, and at the least expected times---during the revolution!; I wearied of reading about the subtle seductions and other flirtations between Franklin and his various French hosts' wives. Even more laborious and frustrating was plodding through some of the actual writings themselves---all while conscious of far more riveting exploits occurring elsewhere---namely, the Revolution itself! Still, I was grateful to gain a fresh insight on the war, from the perspective of this unexpected but indispensable, behind-the-scenes hero.
   
   On the whole, I did find the book very enjoyable and interesting. Reading about Franklin's life inspires emulation, however daunting and futile such an undertaking might be.

5 comments about Doc Holliday: The Life and Legend.

1. This is a truly masterful work. I bought it as I was interested in Holliday and the development of the West. What I found was an historical book with much about the society, economics and culture of the mid-19th Century South, as well as the rapid migration to the central and Southwest. Facinating and exceedingly entertaining and informative.



2. I was given this book as a gift. I enjoyed the movie Tombstone back when I was in college, and Doc Holliday certainly is a colorful Western outlaw. So I was really looking forward to reading this book to get the facts behind the legend. While I think the author did an admirable job researching the book, I felt his text was too dry much of the time. I couldn't understand how an author could take an exciting outlaw who interacted with so many famous characters and write out the story in a way that made me picture a monotone college professor speaking. Back in the 1990s I read John Myers Myers biography of Doc Holliday and I remember enjoying it much more. Maybe it wasn't as well researched or documented, but it was definitely more lively.



3. This book arrived on time, and was in as good of condtion as promised..if not better.



4. Excellent research by the author , considering the lack of documented historical records.He certainly captured the spirit of lawlessness that prevailed at the time.



5. This book is simply the best researched of any bio of the enigmatic dentist. Doc Holliday lived a short, almost tragic, life but the author tells the true story of a Southern gentleman whose loyalty and manners are above reproach. This bio is well written in a fantastic story-telling way that keeps moving but leaves nothing out. After reading several books and research papers about Doc Holliday, I can honestly say that this one is the winner. The end notes alone are worth the price of the whole book.

5 comments about The Madness of Mary Lincoln.

1. This was an incredibly well researched work. New material gave the feeling that the reader was part of the rollercoaster life of Mary Lincoln.



2. This is one of the weakest books I have ever read on either of the Lincolns, and comes across largely as a toss-off result of his research on Robert T. Lincoln and his unbelievable (and seemingly wasted) discovery of previously unknown MTL letters. Emerson completely ignores the vast scholarship on Abraham Lincoln's own mental illness, citing the exceptional work "Lincoln's Melancholy," but mentions nothing of his own severe depression. He completely dismisses the well-documented historical fact of women being committed to institutions against their will or need, particularly after being widowed, and there is no gender analysis of the public or medical response to Mary Lincoln's erratic behavior. And even if she were, as Emerson claims, suffering from bipolar disorder, that hardly qualified her as "insane" or requiring hospitalization. Few women could have suffered as many tragic losses as she did - not the least of which was having her husband murdered as he sat beside her - and withstood it with complete strength and equanimity.
   Worst of all seems to be the zero-sum value judgment Emerson seems to need to draw in order to redeem the negative reputation of R.T. Lincoln as a son - there is no nuance in either character's behavior; M.T. Lincoln is completely nuts and therefore malicious, while R.T. Lincoln is the perfect understanding son trying to do what is best for his mother. Good history rarely ignores so many valuable sources or lacks any degree of nuance. This book unfortunately does both.



3. I found this book to lend key insight into the troubled mind of an often-misunderstood woman. I also found her relationship with Abraham Lincoln to be anything but "normal." She was actually his second choice among her own sisters, and it appears theirs was a relationship fraught with extreme highs and lows, not always attributable solely to her flaws.
   
   Initially a tad (no pun intended) eccentric, the horrors she experienced ultimately served to unravel her. Seeing her husband and children die before her very eyes was simply too much, leading to her confinement in a "home," by her loving son Thomas. As is frequently the case in these matters, she felt that Thomas, a good and worthy man, had betrayed her and spent the remainder of her days vilifying him.
   
   The writing is clear, though a bit plodding at times. An historian's fascination with minutiae sometimes clouds the narrative flow, particularly for the casual reader.
   
   Nevertheless, there is much to learn here, and much to recommend this woman's sad tale.



4. I should say first that my own works on Mary Lincoln were generously referenced by Jason Emerson, with whom I had some correspondence as he prepared his book. My article, "Mary Lincoln's Final Illness: A Medical and Historical Reappraisal" (with co-author the late Robert Feldman, a neurologist)was published in the Journal of the History of Medicine,1999, volume 54, 511-542; also "Mary Lincoln's 'Suicide' Attempt: A Physician Reconsiders the Evidence", published in the Lincoln Herald, 2003. I can make both articles available if you write to me at bertzpoet@yahoo.com.
   
   Feldman and I show quite substantially that Mary Todd Lincoln suffered from a spinal cord degeneration called tabes dorsalis, and that the physicians who examined her in 1882 (commissioned to do so by Congress as it considered her plea for a pension) were experts in that disease. The signs and symptoms of that physical illness were the major pieces of 'evidence' to impute insanity at her trial. As for her delusional state in the run-up to the trial and just after, it is clear that this was a post-traumatic stress reaction to the 10th anniversary of her husband's murder -- it was not the first time that she had other, less severe, 'anniversary' reactions, something she herself recognized.
   
   Although the diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder is interesting, given her high strung and volatile personality with a mania for shopping, it can only be conjecture. Curiously enough with only four months of being in the asylum (truly a rest home for her, no medications or constraint,)in the years following, she showed no more classic manifestations of Bipolar Disorder; in fact, rather mellowed and reconciled with her son.
   
   Emerson's book is splendidly written and a fine contribution to the field of Lincoln studies.
   
   Norbert Hirschhorn MD



5. My suggestion to people interested in the life of Mary Todd Lincoln is to read all available related material, including Jason Emerson's book, and think critically as you do. I think it would be especially unwise to naively accept this book "The Madness of Mary Lincoln" as a true account of her life. While any reader will appreciate the copies of letters of correspondence between Mary Todd Lincoln and other important historical figures in this book's appendix, I believe that readers will be and should be critical of the author's work. This book consists of many contradictions (often within the same paragraph), a parochial attitude (not unlike many of the 19th century individuals being discussed), several assumptions, and too many unsupported arguments. Overall, my rating of "The Madness of Mary Lincoln" is low, because as an anthropologist I believe the author was overtly subjective under the pretence of being unbiased and I found this troubling. The author's language says it all-- from the beginning . . . The "Madness" of Mary Lincoln (emphasis mine). In Emerson's epilogue he emphasizes that it is harmful to dichotomize these historical individuals as either villains or heroes and it is equally unwise to consider any story without it's historical context. I agree with him and am astonished that he did not follow his own advice in this book. Mad In America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and The Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally IllTrauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence--from Domestic Abuse to Political TerrorMadness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason

5 comments about Profiles in Courage.

1. John F. Kennedy makes an excellent contribution to history with this book. It describes the lives of several distinguished Americans who, in the course of history, have shaped the face of the United States. All these biographies are interesting. History becomes very much alive with this book, and Kennedy does an excellent job in showing how men can contribute to the life of a nation. What is even more noteworthy is that that is what he himself did. This new edition of the book has an excellent preface by Caroline Kennedy, herself an eminent legal scholar.



2. It's the 50th anniversary of the publication by John Kennedy of the book `Profiles In Courage' and its subsequent winning the Pulitzer Prize for Biography. The non-fiction political tome features Kennedy's interpretation of eight U.S. Senators who placed the interests of the country and what was morally right regarding some momentous decision over the wishes of their political party and own potential self-advancement to higher office.
   Is there anyone presently in the Senate with presidential aspirations who can offer the same courage and moral convictions to do what's right in the manner the eight figures from history the future 35th president chose to write about to further the public trust at the risk of their own political career?
   Kennedy began the book in 1954 while in his first term as a U.S. Senator but undergoing convalescence from a surgery on his back to relieve stress from the injuries he received in combat during World War Two. There's still debate on how much of the book was actually written by Kennedy or what part was researched and prepared by underlings of his staff. But most experts agree that the senator supervised the editing of the material and selected which of those who were to be profiled.
   The book was positively received and it helped place Kennedy into national prominence. The Massachusetts senator used that notoriety to offer his name as a vice-presidential candidate at the 1956 Democratic Party convention. He then became one of that party's frontrunners for the 1960 presidential election which he ultimately won.
   It's apparent that when JFK served in the Congress he had contempt for the workings of the political patronage system when trying to obtain a consensus to solve the nation's problems as a congressman, then as senator. Most historians agree that he disliked the `good ol' boy' networking that future running mate Lyndon Johnson used as the Senate Majority Leader in making deals to please all sides on a matter and wanted those in that legislative body to take the moral high ground when debating the issues facing the nation to get legislation passed. That's why Kennedy decided to write the book for the next generation of politicians who would come after him to feature those who had taken a courageous stand as an inspiration to the succeeding groups of leaders.
   Kennedy acknowledges the responsibilities felt on any politician, especially one who is a senator, to keep everybody happy. He cites three specific pressures put on all leaders, including himself, to keep everyone satisfied.
   He writes that all senators want to be liked by the voters, they have a desire to be re-elected and feel the enormous pull of special interest groups seeking legislation that is favorable to their specific cause that can adversely affect the tough decisions they must make.
   So who did Kennedy select as standing up for principles and not continuing the status quo that ultimately wrecked their own political aspirations for the betterment of the country?
   They were John Quincy Adams for breaking away from the Federalist Party, Daniel Webster for speaking in favor of the Compromise of 1850 that delayed the start of the Civil War, Thomas Hart Benton for staying in the Democratic Party despite his opposition to slavery and Sam Houston for opposing the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.
   Also included were Edmund G. Ross for voting against the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Lucius Lamar for his attempt to mend ties between the North and South during Reconstruction, George Norris for coming out against arming U.S. merchant ships before the U.S. officially entered World War One and Robert Taft for criticizing the Nuremberg Trials that prosecuted high-level Nazi war leaders under what he considered ex post facto laws that were forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.
   It's obvious the eight senators Kennedy selected decided to make a courageous, yet unpopular choice on an issue to put the interests of the nation and world over their own political aspirations at a time of crisis. How come we don't have any leaders like those eight today?
   The United States Senate is called the last great place for oration and debate as the issues facing the nation and world are discussed by one hundred of the nation's political elite. But can a U.S. Senator be elected from that office today directly to the presidency by taking a potential career-ending stance on today's hot button matters? No one has successfully done so since John Kennedy did in 1960.
   That doesn't bode well for Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John McCain, Barrack Obama and any other potential future candidates from that legislative body as we approach the 2008 presidential election. Many have tried since JFK's triumph and all have failed, the most recent being John Kerry in 2004.
   It's going to be extremely difficult for this current brood of senators, be they male or female; Republican, Democrat or independent; to exhibit the same virtuous characteristics of those Kennedy profiled to get elected as our next president under our current political structure of stalemate government gridlock that forces them to refrain from taking any courageous stand on the issues that need immediate resolution.
   That's a loss for all of us.



3. What President Kennedy shows in this book is a series of examples to all our modern politicians. It's a book to read and keep in mind.



4. Profiles in Courage is a book I have heard of many times but never read, nor browsed. What a shock upon finally picking the book up to discover what a hodge podge of quotes and this's and that's the book is. And now, upon a little research, to discover that there was much debate as to whether Kennedy even wrote the book. At best Profiles in Courage would get a B if turned in as a high school senior thesis paper.
   
   I am not anti Kennedy and actually until reading Profiles in Courage have always held him in high regard. Who of the right age can forget - "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." This making the exposure to Profiles all the more bitter.
   
   I now must admit I have not read the whole book. I don't know if I have the stomach to. I have only read through the Chapter on Daniel Webster and although I am one to read to the end no matter what, I am not sure I can.
   
   The most irksome quality of the book is the incessant quotes pertaining to the definition of words which I suspect were used to lend this missive an air of scholarship. This claim of scholarship is echoed by the dropping of terms here and there, like Gresham's Law. When the discriminating reader encounters such it always invokes the opposite of its intention.
   
   I also object to the major tenet of the book that when someone is elected to public office to represent the views of his constituients it is considered courage to once having reached office to change his stripes and decided to do whatever one wants instead of representing the people who elected him. A better view of courage is to have those that when they find they can no longer do what they were voted in to do, resign from, what Kennedy considered the most prestigious of private clubs, public office, and then do whatever it is that they fell so strongly about. Has this ever happened? I am unsure.
   
   In short, Profiles in Courage, is propaganda supporting a privileged class. If you must go to the library and give it a once over. It is an easy read. But it is certainly advised that you do not financial support this error by purchasing it.



5. Politicians are constantly being accused of compromising their principles when in reality they "are engaged in the fine art of conciliating, balancing and interpreting the forces and factions of public opinion, an art essential to keeping our nation united and enabling our government to function."
   
   If this is true then John F. Kennedy's supported the civil right act because he was carefully orchestrating a decision based on beliefs of the voters, who put him office and kept in office. JFKs support of the civil rights act suggested the voters wanted change and they wanted change to come in the form of more equality and justice for ethnic minors. These voters also wanted more governmental policies and governmental agencies to administer these sweeping changes and solve the social problems burdening the disparate. The government bureaucracies were to be designed with the aim of "ending the vices of racial disproportionate inequality" because the voters believed that government was the Messiah providing deliverance from their Egyptian oppressors.
   
   In the life of a politician, public opinion matters. Politicians must understand the powerful forces of public opinion as it relates too key social issues and correctly interpret, a calculated governmental response. Sometimes a politician will be forced to change his position to align with public opinion; when this happens, media criticism exposes this inconsistency and becomes the self-appointed authority of public condemnation decrying "shame on you"; the politician must press forward and have the courage to align his governmental policies and action inline with public and popular opinion.
   
   Government exists because the people want and value the services and protections that are provided. If government functionality aligns with public opinion then harmony and value is maintained and the people are content and happy with government, otherwise people revolt. The modern fallacy is that government believes they can control by force, but in reality they can only lead by example and do the bidding of the people. For example, Vietnam ended because the people wanted it to end, period. Politicians must market war to the people, but when the people don't want it; the politician must withdraw troops and end the conflict.
   
   "In public life we expect individuals to sacrifice their private interests to permit the national good to progress." Great, remove the special interest groups from Washington that are using money to influence the decisions of the politicians. Often, big money controls politicians by putting him in a "win-win" scenario, "money or money". Money pressure confuses issues by converting the issue into a commodity that can be bought or sold for a price; the buy or selling of opinion directly affects the politician decision-making process. Big money desires directional control of government policies; often this control allows big money to profit from stable margin advantage from these policies. The money-changers should be driven OUT; they corrupted the house with their influences and commerce and the result has become the pollution of public driven governmental policies and transformed into special interest groups governmental policies, the exact opposite of the ideal.
   
   Change can occur. More politicians are beginning to take courage and listen to the letters and voices of the voter and the Senator decides too cast their vote in alignment with the majority voice. "The third source of pressure that discourage political courage in the consciousness, of the Senator...is the pressure of his constituency ... the interest groups, the organized letter writers, the economic blocs and even the average voter." Other wise, the Senator would not be accountable for their decisions and the "mean-end" nexus resulting in the betrayal and confidence of his constituencies and economic blocs and the average voter.
   
   The Senator must be able to balance all the forces and make the decision that will "best advancing his career" and at the same time weight out how much he is willing too sacrifice in the form of personal interests too promote the good of the people. These risks to his career can be a difficult and soul-searching process. However, the bottom-line principle remains, the Senator's primary responsibility is to "represent the views of his state". The Senator must diligent uphold this responsibility and have "faith in the wisdom of the people and their views".
   
   People are not general destructive and malicious in what they want; the wisdom of the crowd is accurate, complex, and important. "The concept of democracy put to little faith in the people." Politician must not embrace that doctrine that the people are ignorant, non educational, and incapable of understanding; instead, the politician must have more faith in the people and their desire to prosper, live virtuous and moral life; and promote the common good. People have faith in their ultimate sense of Justice, faith in their ability to honor courage and respect; skill in making rationale judgments; and faith that in the long run they will act unselfishly for the good of the nation.
   
   "In the day ahead, only the very courageous will be able to take the hard and unpopular decision necessary for our survival in the struggle with a powerful enemy". "Only the courageous will be able to keep alive the spirit of individualism and dissent which gave birth to this nation." God Bless JFK!

5 comments about Ulysses S. Grant : Memoirs and Selected Letters : Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant / Selected Letters, 1839-1865 (Library of America).

1. Well written history is a rare treat, and rarer still is a history by one who lived through it. Grant writes engagingly and humorously and with great humility for a man who achieved so much. That he wrote this in the throes of cancer, finishing it on death's door and yet has no sence of savig himself or self pity is remarkable. It's a pity there is no one like this in the elections.



2. 
   
   
   References to political memoirs often suggest that Grant's memoirs are some of the best ever published. Have worked my way slowly through almost 800 pages of his memoirs, the accolades are deserved. Autobiographies by their nature are bound to be someway self-serving (he makes no reference to his well documented drink problems) and I am sure many historians could pick flaws with some of Grant's recollections, but the book is exceptionally well written and interesting. To my surprise, the author comes across as being compassionate and showing a high degree of empathy for many he fought against during the civil war.
   
   He is very honest in his commentaries and is not afraid to be critical of US policy. The Mexican-American war (1846-1848) was unnecessarily provoked and in his opinion "the war which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger nation against a weaker nation. ... We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that the Mexicans should commence it."
   
   Grant is not shy in admitting that especially in his early military career, he was often frightened and would rather have been somewhere else when the bullets were flying. He is also self-effacing and sometimes humorous about his impact in early combat situations. "My exploit was equal to that of the soldier who boasted that he had cut of the leg of one of the enemy. When asked why he had not cut off his head, he replied: `Someone had done that before.' "
   
   Grant is a very good storyteller and has an excellent eye for detail and description. His contrasting profiles of Generals Taylor and Scott whom he fought under during the Mexican war are models of clarity and painting pictures with words.
   
   His account of the civil war contains numerous interesting anecdotes including one instance when inspecting a picket line which was close to a Confederate picket line. After his picket line called "Turn out the guard for the commanding General," he heard a similar command from the Confederate picket and a reference to General Grant. The Confederate line saluted "which I returned." - Amazing!
   
   Obviously, the bulk of his memoirs relate to the civil war. He suggests that he was of the same mind set as Secretary of State Seward, "that the war would be over in ninety days." Grant is very respectful of many of his former colleagues who fought against him during this war. He has little respect for the "Demagogues who were to old to enter the army ... others who entertained so high an opinion of their own ability that they did not believe they could be spared from the direction of the state of affairs," but who constantly poured oil on the secessionist fire.
   
   He lauds many of his comrades including Generals Sherman and Sheridan. While respecting Secretary of War Stanton, he does not appear to have been a great fan of his style of management. He also writes approvingly of Confederate Generals Longstreet, Lee, Bragg, Joseph Johnston and others, and takes great delight in ridiculing the military genius of Confederate President Jefferson Davis who he obviously despised. Grant writes sensitively of General Lee and the surrender at Appomattox.
   
   The author believes the death of Lincoln was a disaster not just for the North, but for the vanquished South. "He would have proven the best friend the South could have had." Interestingly, Grant makes no reference to the Gettysburg Address and to the best of my recollection only references the Battle of Gettysburg but once. He was otherwise involved in the Battle of Vicksburg at the same time.
   
   I glossed over some of the detailed military and battle descriptions in this book, but overall it is a great read. It is also interesting to note that the book saved Grant's penurious family from a life of poverty. Published by his friend Samuel Clemens, these memoirs became a bestseller after Grant died from throat cancer.



3. U.S. Grant is often said to have been a failure at everything in his life except his marriage, war, and his memoirs. The latter, written as he was dying of throat cancer in 1884-1885, provide a straightforward account of his years in uniform during the Civil War.
   
   Grant passes quickly over his Ohio boyhood and time at the United States Military Academy. His service in the Mexican War and his financial misfortunes out of uniform between the wars get only slightly more coverage. His story really begins with his return to uniform in 1861 as a commander of Illinois volunteers. The narrative follows Grant's campaigns in Missouri, Tennessee, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, his elevation to supreme command of the Union Armies, and the final grinding agony of the war in Virgina. The account ends with the cessation of hostilies in 1865.
   
   Grant's memoirs are remarkable reading for a number of reasons. First, they provide insight into the first-rate military mind of a consistantly successful general. Grant's ability to determine the essentials of a situation and remain focused on them are evident. Second, the memoirs are a classic example of clear, simple, English narrative. Third, they display the considerable modesty of a naturally reserved man, a departure from the egotism often found in the personal memoirs of famous men. Grant himself continues to be something of a mystery to historians; these memoirs do not really lift the veil of his sense of privacy.
   
   The Union Army of the Civil War had more than its fair share of politicians in uniform and politically-minded generals. Grant was not immune to spinning history his way; careful-eyed scholars have found more than a few instances where Grant remembered only part of the story or settled a few scores with old opponents. Nevertheless, Grant's memoirs are a valuable resource for understanding the conduct of the Civil War, not least because Grant became such a key figure in the winning of it.
   
   Grant's memoirs are highly recommended to students of the Civil War, and to scholars seeking to understand the art of war in the midst of rebellion.



4. General Grant's use of the English language is very interesting and informative. Absolutely a pleasure to read.



5. This book is a must-read for any Civil War or American history buff. Grant's writing is consistently clear, elegant, beautiful. He gives an engaging account of his wartime experiences that are accurate to the best of his ability, and he writes with introspection and humility. The personal letters at the end of the volume reveal much about this fascinating man, and are a welcome addition. Please read this one! Another wonderful book in this series is the volume containing Frederick Douglass's autobiographical works.