5 comments about Empire Statesman: The Rise and Redemption of Al Smith.

1. In his short 1958 study of Al Smith, Oscar Handlin noted that "[t]he written word did not come as easily to Al Smith as the spoken word." Because of this, there it no great body of correspondence or private papers for Smith biographers to consult, ultimately hampering any effort to understand "the Happy Warrior." In this respect, Robert Slayton's book stands as a major achievement. Having conducted extensive archival research and interviewed the children and grandchildren of many of the key figures, he presents what is the most thoroughly researched work on Smith that we are likely to have, and easily the most definitive one currently available.
   
   Slayton uses this material to present a compelling interpretive portrait of his subject. Tracing his idealistic, even naive view of America to his upbringing, Slayton argues that Smith never grew beyond viewing the world through the prism of the lower East Side. This was not a problem in the context of New York state politics, where he rode the crest of a wave of change in the state, one which brought him into the governor's office as the first holder representing the urban immigrants who were to plan an increasingly important role in politics during the twentieth century. When Smith ventured onto the national stage in 1928, however, his naivete about America's essential decency and tolerance crashed up against the prejudices of an America still dominated culturally by rural Protestant values. Slayton sees Smith's defeat as a decisive event transforming his character, leaving a streak of bitterness that only grew as he saw Franklin Roosevelt - a man he dismissed as his political junior - capture the prize that Smith would never obtain.
   
   Yet for all of its strengths of research and analysis, Slayton's book suffers is in its writing. Throughout much of the book Slayton peppers his text with unnecessary slang, and at points such as when he is discussing Tammany or Smith's old neighborhood he adopts a more casual, colloquial tone. The effort jars with the more readable narrative of the rest of the text, appearing as if he were attempting to evoke the conversational style with which Smith was most comfortable. Instead of appearing atmospheric and creative, however, it comes across as amateurish and ham-handed, hobbling rather than helping the rest of the work.
   
   These compositional gaffes can distract from the overall quality of this book. Slayton as provided a biography of Smith filled with insight into his character and his times. It is a book, however, that doesn't quite embody the legendary nature of this political figure, who dominated Democratic politics in the 1920s and who heralded many of the changes that America would undergo. Until the book that can capture this is written, Slayton's biography is the best work available for anyone seeking to understand this fascinating individual.



2. Growing up in New York, it was hard to avoid the name Alfred E. Smith. The huge housing development on the Lower East Side is just one structure that bears his name. But it wasn't until I had read Leon Stein's "Traingle Fire" (for a college paper), when I learned something about the man himself. Later, as another reviewer mentioned, Al Smith was highlighted in the Ric Burns "New York" documentary. Intrigued, I picked up Christopher Finan's "Happy Warrior", which was a very good introduction. However, Professor Robert Slayton's "Empire Statesman: The Rise and Redemption of Al Smith" has completed the picture for me.
   
   Slayton painstakingly examines the complex relationships between Smith and many of the players in his political spectrum, especially FDR. How this contrasts with the simple but deep relationships he had with friends and family is astounding. One of Professor Slayton's main theses--that Smith embodied the best qualities of turn-of-the century immigrant New York--is smoothly argued. For New York, Smith was the right man at the right time. But then Slayton switches gears, with convincing authority, that Smith was the wrong man at wrong time for 1928 America. It is a devestating irony, and grippingly described.
   
   I found the final sections about Smith's reconciliation with FDR and America extremely moving. The entire "Finale" section, including the deaths and funerals of Smith's wife, Katie, and then Smith himself, had me choking back the tears. Finally, there is Professor Slayton's reminder of the legacy that Al Smith left behind, both for New York City and the nation. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.
   
   Rocco Dormarunno
   Author of The Five Points



3. The election of John F. Kennedy to the presidency occurred when I was in the seventh grade of my local parochial school. In the Catholic/Democratic atmosphere of East Buffalo, and probably in Tim Russert's South Buffalo as well, the resulting ascendancy of a Catholic to the White House was a vindication. We knew that a Catholic had run once before; in fact, he had been governor of our own state. The popular wisdom of the Catholic grass roots held that the first intrepid candidate had lost because he was a Catholic, and a lot of America did not like Catholics. It did not occur to a seventh grader that people vote for lots of reasons, and that this was true in 1928 as in 1960.
   
   Alfred E. Smith, a man of no small accomplishment, lost miserably to Herbert Hoover in a 1928 presidential election that added little to the American character. It may be true that his Catholicism was a major factor in his defeat, but biographer Robert A. Slayton provides a balanced study of Smith that gives reason to pause. We see early in this work that Smith [particularly when compared to Hoover] suffered from major deficiencies in his political upbringing that affected his judgment and contributed to a naiveté about the nature of the American electorate.
   
   Born in 1873 in New York's infamous Fourth Ward, there was no way that young Smith would not be baptized into the two religions of his neighborhood: the Roman Catholic Church and Tammany Hall. At his local St. James Parish he received his elementary school education from the Christian Brothers. It is doubtful that he absorbed any particularly subversive tendencies of church and state at St. James. Catholic schools of the time were a laborious financial undertaking for Catholic bishops of the day, who considered them a necessary refuge against the virulent anti-Catholic attitudes of many public school curriculums. What Smith certainly absorbed from his Catholic upbringing was New York's multiculturalism, a phenomenon not understood and generally feared in the predominantly agricultural and Protestant Middle America.
   
   Tammany Hall, one of America's most notorious yet beneficent Democratic political machines, would also demonstrate in Smith's day that same ability to adapt to cultural diversity despite its Irish heritage. Tammany was the incarnation of Tip O'Neill's dictum that "all politics is local." Slayton has no argument with this philosophy except to note that it is notorious bad presidential politics. Thus from the formative years Smith emerges as the Catholic/Tammany wounded duck.
   
   But Smith postponed his inevitable denouement for a long time. For much of his life his personality, loyalty, affability and attention to detail, not to mention his "made man" status with the Tammany war horses, were enough to see him through his political climb. Despite its size and stature, New York State government was Byzantine and unwieldy. The legislature itself was a purgatory for a man without some kind of particular agenda, and Smith found his in the very organization of state government. With little to do, he became that body's best studied member and probably the best informed of the lot; he had something of Bob Taft's feel for the paper of legislation but with a much more extroverted personality. His counsel became cherished and his respect among his peers flourished.
   
   And, he was lucky, though it is also true that men can make their own luck through hard work. On March 25, 1911 a fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Company Fire in New York killed 146 workers. The dimensions of this tragedy and the accompanying neglect of worker safety made labor reform a statewide issue, allowing Smith to conduct emotional public hearings throughout the state. This exposure, and his public advocacy for a popular issue, put him into the New York State governor's mansion in 1919. With the invaluable help of Belle Moskowitz, Frances Perkins, and Robert Moses, among others, Smith continued his program of reform of the state constitution and generally pleased voters enough to maintain office more often than not in the dreadful decade of 1920's national Democratic defeats.
   
   When William McAdoo declined to seek the presidential nomination in 1928, Governor Smith was virtually unopposed within his party. Suffice to say that once he stepped onto the national stage, however, all of his assets of many years became liabilities. His New York bonhomie, his Catholicism, his parochial accent, and his enjoyment of spirits in the age of the Volstead Act doomed his campaign from the start. He was running against the extremely popular Coolidge legacy, against a candidate who knew how to avoid mistakes. To borrow a metaphor from this century, the "red states" were really red, and there were many more of them in 1928.
   
   Having said that, there is no denying that the 1928 campaign set the twentieth century low water mark for bigotry and ugliness. Slayton points out that the KKK of the 1920's was primarily an anti-Catholic movement; Jim Crow laws made Negro intimidation relatively unnecessary at the time. Catholicism was understood as a foreign invasion of lower class degenerates who drank excessively and usurped the jobs of present American citizens. The Democratic ticket was seen as an endorsement of this demographic shift, and voters turned upon the top of the ticket with a particular vehemence. Smith's parochialism had not prepared him for this, and the intensity of feeling against him, along with the size of the defeat, seems to have left psychological scars that remained with Smith for the rest of his life.
   
   After this grueling ordeal, it galled Smith all the more that the perceived savior of his party was a man he considered a political lightweight, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. As long as FDR lived, Smith would never get his electoral revenge. Coupled with the debacle of managing the day's tallest white elephant, the new Empire State Building, Smith's "redemption" makes only a cameo appearance in this work.



4. The book does a very nice job of describing one of the more important, but forgotten, figures in US political history. Smith's role as governor of New York and the various groundbreaking reforms he introduced, his mentorship of various figures from FDR to Robert Moses, and of course being the first Catholic to run for President would be enough to rank him right up there with some of the more widely written about icons of America. When you consider two of his top four advisers were women (this is the 1920's, mind you), his role in building the nation's tallest building at the time, his emergence as a spokesperson for the immigrant masses who became a political force during his era (and the subsequent, seismic shift this caused in the nation's political landscape - he was the first Democrat to lose the Solid South since the Civil War), his being one of the first politicians to speak out against Hitler, and that he did all this without even attending high school, Al not only deserves a high quality biography but perhaps a major motion picture as well. John Cusack in the lead!

   The book is occasionally "cheerleady" - superlatives come landing out of left field in the midst of other, more traditional descriptions of events. It is, however, critical and frank in other areas of Smiths career, so it reads in a balanced fashion overall. It is a great read and one that should be read by anyone interested in the US political landscape and how it got to what it is today.




5. there is a largely-forgotten statue of al smith on the lower east side at the corner of monroe & catherine streets, but i like to think of the empire state building as the true monument to al smith. at the time perhaps the building was a financial failure, but it was simultaneously a symbol of hope even during the depression when it was being built. only a man like al smith had the vision to help create a monument of such optimism during such bleak times - but more importantly, he did so with the intention of providing a symbol of hope to his fellow nyers. (a symbol, i might add, that has renewed importance in post-9/11 ny.)

   i appreciate & love the fact that reading lists in nyc have been expanded to include the writings & histories of all the races & creeds & cultures that have come to nyc. but as a white, working-class, catholic nyer, i have noticed a real lack of identity awareness or cultural heritage. this biography of al smith fills that void: by presenting al smith and his beliefs, it not only describes the immigrant experience of catholics at the turn of the century, but shows too how great men like al smith were key in helping the various catholic immigrant groups (irish, italian, polish, etc) to become mainstream, integrated americans in this formerly predominantly-protestant country. the anti-catholic impulse in america is largely forgotten, & in fact it is also forgotten that there was a time when white catholic americans were certainly not considered part of the white ruling class.

   in addition, i love the fact that al smith's life & legacy point to another subculture: the progressive catholics. this term is not an oxymoron; at one point in american history, catholics were on the frontlines of many progessive agendas. this book provides an insight into a church that might have been.

   i strongly recommend this book to anyone interested in american history or politics, but moreso to anyone who wants to examine the relationship of ny to the rest of america or how the aspects of class and religion (& not just race) influenced the poltical and cultural climate of america in the 20th century.

   al smith was a hero of the working class, a hero of immigrant groups, a hero for catholics, for liberals, for new deal democrats, and ultimately for all americans. it is a shame that most people - even nyers - don't even know his name. this book is a huge step toward remedying that tragedy.

   very highly recommended!

4 comments about The Autobiography Of Calvin Coolidge.

1. Who would think about reading a book about Calvin Coolidge? I'd like to report though that it was a wonderful experience to read about a humble, self-effacing man with a legendarily dry sense of humor,in marked contrast to some of today's self-serving politicians.
   
   Coolidge tells of his boyhood,his warm relationship with his mother, father,sister and stepmother,how he was sworn in by candlelight,about his political life,but most importantly the book is a true model of character and values which can serve as a fine example for anyone,particularly for those entering political life. It would also be an excellent resource for character and values courses for elementary and high school students.
   
   Coolidge isn't known as a great president, but his interpretation was that the role of making laws was the function of Congress,not requiring presidential initiation. Since FDR of course, the President has taken on a far more active role in setting policy. Coolidge's great contribtion to history was not his presidency, but his embodiment of character and values. He also helped restore the dignity of the office after the Harding scandals, much as Ford and Carter did after Nixon.
   
   His autobiography and his character motivated me to create a website about his life,quotes,humor and his truly charming, way ahead of her time wife Grace Coolidge: www.calvincoolidge.us. I also wrote a two hour one man show of his life and performed it twice. It all started with his humble book.
   
   A visit to his family homestead where he took the candlelight oath, and also where he and his wife and sons are buried,is in Plymouth Notch, Vermont,one of New England's prettiest spots in the Fall. But I digress, as they say. The book is excellent.



2. To the extent that most Americans remember Calvin Coolidge, it is for a series of amusing anecdotes concerning his economy with words. That characterization is only partly true. Few people know that Coolidge was one of the last presidents who wrote his own speeches and that he held regular press conferences without a press secretary running interference for him. Coolidge, the son of a general store owner in rural Vermont, was immensely popular and could have easily been renominated had he chosen to run in 1928. There was even a movement to draft Coolidge to accept the nomination in 1932. He declined and his successor, Herbert Hoover, was renominated and defeated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
   
   Coolidge had a syndicated newspaper column following his retirement from party politics and he produced a highly readable autobiography that is candid and simple in its approach. Coolidge possessed a sense of humor and he did not take himself too seriously. This brief book should not be dismissed by anyone interested in America during the Twenties. Coolidge's reputation suffered, somewhat unfairly, at the hands of the New Deal historians who sought to promote Roosevelt by denigrating his predecessors. Coolidge was neglected as a historical figure until Ronald Reagan sought to rehabilitate his boyhood hero.
   
   Coolidge is buried in Plymouth Notch, close to the same country cross roads store in which he was born and sworn into office by his own father following the sudden death of President Warren G. Harding.



3. "The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge" is a fabulous autobiography. Calvin Coolidge was a good man and a good writer, and in his autobiography, Cooidge talks about growing up, his career in law and politics, his family, and everything anybody would want to learn about President Coolidge. People who are interested in becoming President should read Calvin Coolidge's autobiography: Coolidge shared with his readers some duties of the President and what seeking a third term can do to you. How a President is elected has changed since Coolidge's time, but Coolidge became President because of the death of his sucessor, Warren G. Harding. Even though Coolidge shared his opinion, anybody in the White House because of the death of their sucessor should take Coolidge's opinion. Calvin Coolidge was a good man, and there are lessons everyone could benefit from by reading his autobiography.



4. President Calvin Coolidge was a good man and great President who deserves to remembered for more than his reticence. Read here the life story of the President who grew up learning that hard work and a thoughtful outlook are the keys to success. He cut taxes four times and vetoed agricultural subsidies twice. He was unusually tolerant of minorities for his time. The story of President Coolidge is one that deserves to be read. Conservatives and libertarians will find his story especially appropriate for their children.

4 comments about The Life of Francis Marion.

1. Sean Busick has done us all a wonderful service by bringing back to print William Gilmore Simms's Life of Marion. It's a classic work of historical narrative suitable for most readers. Not only does Simms provide a interesting account of the life of one of early America's most courageous figures, he captures the complicated and often turbulent world of Revolutionary South Carolina.



2. Few "giants" of the American Revolution have deserved more attention and praise than Francis Marion. Unfortunately, Marion, the brilliant general and statesman, has not received the attention he rightfully deserves. Simms classic biography is a remedy to this predicament, and Dr. Busick's erudite introduction to this new edition allows for an even fuller understanding of a true American hero and his contribution to American social and political life. Reading Simms on Marion, guided by Busick's careful and terse introduction, we can recover the military genius and personal affability of the man Tarleton called the "old fox."
   
   H. Lee Cheek, Jr., Ph.D.
   Chair, Social Sciences; and Professor of Political Science, Brewton-Parker College, Mt. Vernon, Georgia
   www.drleecheek.com
   Author of _Calhoun and Popular Rule_ (University of Missouri Press, 2001 and 2004).



3. I wanted to read a contemporary book about General Marion. This is an interesting book but was written in 1844. It is undoubtedly accurate but I found it difficult to read for a nonhistorian.



4. This is well written Narrative of the life of a real hero and his participation in the revolutionary war

5 comments about Thomas Paine: Apostle of Freedom.

1. Jack Fruchtman has done a fine job of giving us a total picture of Paine, warts and all. This is an intelligent, balanced and humane treatment of the life of a complex man who tends to be either demonized or deified by those who write about him. Highly recommended.



2. One of the most enjoyable biographies I've ever read. This book is meticulously researched and well written. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to understand the ideas and the spirit of one of the most important figures of the American Revolution.



3. When asked to name the Founding Fathers of America, most people will name Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin. Those who have read a book or two on the early America may also say Adams, Hamilton, and Madison.

   I bet that very few people would name Thomas Paine. That is unfortunate and would be fixed quickly if this book were more widely read.

   "Thomas Paine: Apostle of Freedom" devotes little time to Paine's early years, focusing mainly on his life after arriving in America a few years before Independence.

   Before reading this fine biography, I had not given Thomas Paine much thought beyond being the author of "Common Sense". I now realize the many roles he played in both the American and French revolutions and in furthering the cause of freedom and liberty in an age of monarchy.

   Also check out:

   - "Tom Paine and Revolutionary America" by Eric Foner
   - "46 Pages: Tom Paine, Common Sense, and the Turning Point to Independence" by Scott Liell
   - "Tom Paine: A Political Life" by John Keane

   Highly Recommended!




4. In the hierarchy of founding fathers, Thomas Paine is not in the top echelon, but he is significant. His principal contribution was Common Sense, a pamphlet that spurred the independence movement in the early days of the Revolution.

   One of the themes that seemed to run through Paine's life was a commitment to ideology that often had negative effects. While he was a man who backed his words with actions, he did it at a cost: he had few lifelong relationships, he was often broke and he even spent a year in jail, with the threat of execution constantly hanging over him. In the conflict between idealism and practicality, Paine favored the former.

   Fruchtman's biography does a good job in describing this important historical figure. At times slow (I feel because there are points in Paine's life that aren't very interesting), it is overall a good, educational read. It makes me feel that if Paine had exercised a little bit more common sense in his own life, he might have been even a greater man.




5. The American Revolution's roots in the British which many people thought was 'betrayed' by parliament when it restored the monarchy, the roots of common British and American democratic ideals emerging from the dissenting religions and their notions of justice and equality (it's said that British socialism has more Methodism than Marx in it), the frustrations and ideals of British republicans who invested so much of their hope in the American colonies (not then 'United') shows that even in the l8th century (and presumably before and since) there is a community of men and women who, irrespective of nationality, place justice and liberty above all other human aspirations. What we learn from this book was that Tom Paine wasn't just a great British radical, a great founding father of the American Revolution, an active member of the revolutionary French Tribunal -- he was a critic of all unearned or abused authority wherever he saw it -- from George III to George Washington -- and that he foresaw a world in which every soul enjoyed the same rights and liberties. It was his internationalism, his understanding of the drawbacks as well as the virtues of populist democracy, that made him so relevant to modern readers. You can be sure that Tom Paine would have been at the Seattle demonstrations and would have no doubt been considerably more eloquent in his criticisms of international big business than anyone alive today! He speaks to us as clearly and as authoritatively as he spoke to his first readers -- who made his work best-sellers in America, Britain and France -- and this is the first book I have read which does its great subject the justice he deserves. He shouldn't just have a statue in Washington -- he should have one in London and Paris. It is his ideas of common liberty and justice which unite people around the world, perhaps even more now than in his own day. Read this book and you will understand how valuable democracy is and how hard it was to win, how hard it remains to keep it vital and uncorrupted. Everyone interested in modern politics should read this book.

No comments about New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America.

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

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



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



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

5 comments about Lincoln and Whitman: Parallel Lives in Civil War Washington.

1. The only problem I had with the book was the author's obsession with Whitman's so-called "personal" life. I can't say the H word since xena keeps deleting my comments, but take it from me, Walt was NOT what Epstein seems to think he was. When Carpenter and Wilde tried to corner him about it, he was absolutely AGHAST that anyone would do that, let alone think HE would ever be so depraved. Whitman was America's only conscious poet. Lincoln was America's only conscious president. You can't get there having a corrupt soul.



2. Daniel Mark Epstein succeeds at what seems simple, but in truth is a daunting task: combining the literary and the historical in a moving, evocative narrative. The book gracefully moves between and across the lives of Lincoln and Whitman, with a cathartic spirit uniting the stories of both men. Epstein makes no claims that the spiritual union was, in reality, anything more than a parallel, largely reliant on the troubled times (and Whitman's obsession...or coincidence). There is a somewhat amplified mysticism surrounding Lincoln and Whitman as "characters" in this historical narrative, but such characterization errs more often on the positive than it does otherwise. The parallels between the lives of both men are compelling, revealing, and informative, and the ending is truly poignant. Civil War Washington also comes alive with a mapmaker's eye and a storyteller's gift for detail. Wonderful!



3. Epstein hits the ground running in this extraordinary blend of dramatic storytelling and lit crit, and he never lets up until the final page. Everyone has always known that Whitman was influenced by Lincoln, but it has been a matter of heated controversy for many years as to whether Lincoln was or was not influenced by "Leaves of Grass." Epstein proves this beyond any reasonable doubt in the first thirty pages, as he introduces us into the gritty atmosphere of Lincoln's law office in the 1850s. He follows the two men to Washington, D.C. during the Civil War, and his capturing of their two characters and their struggles, as their paths cross and shadow one another during that intense period, is a literary and historical tour de force. One of my favorite books about the Civil War.
   
   Bernard Northrop
   Providence, R.I.



4. The PW reviewer might have been a little careless in political characterization, but I think that this book does soften Whitman's views, and muddle Lincoln's, to try to put them both in the same place. The analysis of the poetry might be fine, but the political analysis isn't. The portrait of Chase, and the descriptions of the "radical Republicans", is one-sided. Mary Todd Lincoln is bad and horrible, and somehow that is conflated with her sympathy for the slaves & for a war against slavery. (Whitman only had lovely relationships, apparently). Also, it is true that there are little irritating errors, the "relationship" between Howells & Whitman in 1860 being a clear one.



5. I thought that this book was very moving, and successfully portrays two men who completely embody the Civil War. The title of the book is very appropriate, because the number of instances in which Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln's lives crossed is quite interesting. Lincoln was one of the greatest presidents who was responsible for emancipating those under slavery. Whitman was one of the greatest poets of all time, and had a huge amount of respect towards Abraham Lincoln.
   
   I found it very interesting that Lincoln and Whitman had never officially met, yet they had both listened or read eachother's words at very crucial times in each of their own lives. Both had so much complete and utmost respect for the other person, and that is clearly seen from the moment that Lincoln reads Whitman's famous book of poems, "Leaves of Grass," until Whitman composed the famous elegy after Lincoln was assasinated.
   
   Both of these men had the same vision of democracy,and Epstein did a great job showing the effect that the war had on these two men. I didn't know that Whitman had volunteered at a hospital during the war, and learning what a huge impact the wounded soldiers had on Whitman and his writing was very interesting. The book also showed the huge toll that the Civil War had on Lincoln, especially when families and loved ones were torn apart because of the war.
   
   I loved how Epstein showed the increasing amount of honor that Whitman had for Lincoln after he was assasinated. His poem, "O Captain, My Captain," is a prime example of just how much admiration that Whitman had for the beloved president. In fact, my favorite part of this book came in the last chapter of the book over twenty years after Lincoln had died. Whitman gave a final speech on Lincoln at Madison Square Theater in front of such people as Mark Twain.
   
   Epstein does a great job of showing the incredible amount of passion that both Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln had for life. Both men lived by eachother's words and had an amazing amount of respect for one another, it definitely makes me wish that they would have gotten the chance to know each other personally.

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.

1 comments about Antonin Scalia's Jurisprudence: Text And Tradition.

1. Accomplished scholar Prof. Ralph Rossum has penned a well-crafted book analyzing the legal opinions and writings of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The result is a solid read about how Justice Scalia views the role of a judge and how he sees himself. At least, Rossum gives his own take on how Justice Scalia sees himself. Obviously, the only person who truly knows how he sees himself is Justice Scalia.
   
   One of the two most interesting chapters is Chapter 2: "Text and Tradition." It summarizes Justice Scalia's textualist approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation. In short, when deciding a given case, the plain meaning of the words contained in statutes or constitution provisions matters. Where the plain text is unclear, a jurist should consult the tradition behind the text to understand what the words mean to those who adopted it. The original understanding of the text rather than any original or even secret intent should be controlling. Justice Scalia's approach is tied to an emphasis upon the democratic decision-making process as the basis for legitimate exercise of governmental authority. Not judicial adventurism and second-guessing of democratic decision-making evidenced by statutes and constitutional provisions.
   
   This book is not lengthy. Nor is it written at a highly technical level. So although Rossum indicates on pg. 37 that Justice Scalia "simply has not developed a well-thought-out understanding of the principles of democracy," Rossum does not elaborate much on the point. One will just have to consult law review articles and the like for more in that regard.
   
   The other chapter making for the most interesting reading is Chapter 3: "Constitutional Structure and Separation of Powers." This portion transitions nicely from the previous chapter and underscores the importance that governmental structure plays in Justice Scalia's views of the constitution. During his SCOTUS confirmation hearings, then-Judge Scalia testified that our division of federal power into three branches with a system of checks and balances has been crucial to the defense of our liberties. Rossum proceeds to analyze important separation of powers opinions written by Justice Scalia, including his infamous, lone-ranger dissent in Morrison v. Olsen (1988) concerning the Ethics in Government Act's provision for an independent counsel. At issue was the constitutionality of vesting the independent counsel of executive power despite its detachment from the President. Also important is Rossum's analysis of Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Printz v. United States (1997). The case is typically known as an anti-commandeering decision, but Rossum highlights the separation of powers rationale that Justice Scalia includes in the opinion.
   
   Later chapters deal with Justice Scalia's approach to substantive individual rights and to individual procedural rights. Justice Scalia's textualist emphasis is to prevent "backsliding" or erosion of important freedoms by judicial re-interpretation of democratically-adopted protections.
   
   Some familiarity with Justice Scalia's opinions or his book, A Matter of Interpretation, makes Rossum's book more worthwhile. But it is not essential. One need not be a lawyer to follow Rossum's overview. Nor need one even agree with Justice Scalia's approach to law or decisions in the cases discussed in the book to benefit from reading this book. The book has a sympathetic tone towards its subject, but it is not an advocacy publication. Rossum even insists while Justice Scalia is remarkably consistent in his jurisprudence that he is nonetheless inconsistent in a few areas of law (e.g., state sovereign immunity.)
   
   Rossum set out to describe the jurisprudence of perhaps the most interesting and discussed jurist on SCOTUS today. The author succeeds and the product is an accessible, informative, and interesting read.

1 comments about The Memoirs of Lt. Henry Timberlake: The Story of a Soldier, Adventurer, and Emissary to the Cherokees, 1756-1765.

1. I was amazed at the life of Mr. Timblake. If you wished to get insight into the Pre Revolution Era life, then Read this Book.