1 comments about Mary Boykin Chesnut: A Biography (Southern Biography Series).

1. This is the best biography of Chesnut to date. Muhlenfeld draws from all of Chesnut's writing, not just her famous Civil War diaries, to build a picture of a woman and a writer.

5 comments about When Trumpets Call: Theodore Roosevelt After the White House.

1. For TR lovers any TR book is a treasure. Here the author focuses on the post White House years: 1909-1920 when TR, out of power, tried mightly to regain it. It sad and tragic tale of a great man driven to retrieve the glory days. At times, it reads like a history book, proper, on target but overly detailed. The author constantly uses words most of us have never seen, don't understand would not use even if we knew what they meant. What's missing is the unique personality of the man; you turn each page hoping to find him but alas... For TR buffs, it's probably a must read but for those of us who have read Edmund Morris' two volumes of TR's life, it's a waiting game for the long-promised Morris Vol. III. TR as cartoon is not always a pretty picture.



2. I have been in a recent reading funk lately. Starting books and not finishing them so one thing can be said of Patricia O'Toole's book is that it held my interest till the end. In fact it was the last section entitled Precipice that was the most poignant. Unlike the all time great book RIVER OF DOUBT by Candice Millard, which is a five star page turner of a read about Roosevelt life threatening river journey in Brazil, O'Toole's book focuses more on the political than personal or adventurous side of Teddy. For example the River of Doubt expedition takes up only 10 pages in O'Toole's book. So the big picture narrative of O'Toole makes for great companion book for RIVER OF DOUBT readers where she paints a portrait of a political man dealing with his inability to accept his loss of power. I came a way with the clear impression that Teddy Roosevelt was one of the founding members of the modern progressive movement that is now the bases of the modern Democratic Party. The issues and values ring as true today as they did 90 years ago. Roosevelt must have been an outsized personality who filled a room with his presence and ambition. Unique, strong, with the understanding to see what ruin corporate capitalism can lead to if unregulated. And all the while he was an unapologetic imperialist. The book is a fascinating charmer as I imagine the real life Teddy was. I think you will respond favorably WHEN TRUMPETS CALL.



3. This highly readable book focuses exclusively on Teddy's post-presidential decade, a decade that the author postulates that TR never really settled into the ex-presidency. It's great writing material - it's difficult to make a flavorless biography of any of TR's decades of life. In the flavor of recent biographies of US presidents long past, TR here is portrayed as a brilliant person with firm convictions, yet also a deeply flawed man, who craves being the ultimate man of action and his actions having impact. As his life draws to a close, his actions matter on the US and world stage less and less, but he craved the personal power more and more (he was STILL thinking about running for president in 1920 when he died!)
   
   In regards to O'Toole's approach to the subject, I believe it to be even-handed, factual, and a fairly smooth flow. I had a little difficulty getting myself absorbed into this book, being a tad choppy in the beginning, but once I did I was hooked. Occasionally the concentration of events is a bit strange -for instance, the discussion of TR's initial Africa safari is covered more than extensively, but TR's trip to Brazil (that almost kills him!) gets a mere few pages. However, in a more positive light, the trajectory of TR's relationship with the Taft presidency is covered nicely, which really shows what makes TR tick - he ultimately could not stand and just watch his chosen successor make decisions differently than he would have.
   
   In conclusion I recommend this book for those interested in this period of US history, as it throws a different perspective on a much-respected president than that is seen from Mount Rushmore - I ended up still admiring TR, but became more knowledgeable about his deficiencies.



4. Ms. O'Toole has written a very readable biography of TR's last ten years. I was not ready for her highly critical look at TR. It took some getting used to. Her criticisms, at times, seem to be a bit of a reach. Her pacing and spacing of what she chooses to spend time on seems suspect. She devotes 5 pages to his trip down the River of Doubt and she devotes 5 pages to the libel trial. The book is well written but I eagerly await Morris' third volume.



5. I really cannot understand why I bought this book. I wrongly thought it was a book written by Theodore Roosevelt. It was not. The title is taken from a quote by Roosevelt and sort of wrongly suggests to the unsuspecting buyer that he wrote it. That was my first mistake.
   
   The second mistake was to continue reading when the author clearly demonstrated early and consistently throughout the book that she has some sort of problem with Roosevelt, leadership in general, and power in particular. I suspect the author has very little experience in public life or any sort of life and death situations or work where one has to put their life on the line. To treat the assassination attempt on Roosevelt's life as a an opportunity for egoism, self aggrandizement and shameless opportunism is itself shameful and a disgrace.
   
   I think it very shortsighted and weak to read back into history values and norms that we hold today, but that were not yet appreciated or embraced by previous generations such as Roosevelt's hunting or his initial stand on suffrage (his hunting was consistent with the understanding of the times, yet he was the first president that made significant strides toward conservation and the development of national parks, and his view toward suffrage, first considering women's work not in the realm of politics, but then understanding the issue from a deeper vantage point, that women as well as blacks, deserve a full measure of the law, changed his position, embraced and supported the suffrage movement).
   
   Finally, I guess what irks me the most about this book is all the little comments about Roosevelt's motives and character. Its really bad when a little person tries to explain away the character and motives of a much bigger person, they simply do not have an accurate frame of reference to make a proper study;
   
   Little people should not write about great people.

5 comments about From Manassas to Appomattox: General James Longstreet.

1. and much else. However I found Longstreet's style dry bordering on the mind-numbing. That said, I have always been in the camp that didn't hold Longstreet to blame for the problems of the second and even the third day at Gettysburg. Lee delegated too much authority and seemed lazy during those few crucial days to survey the ground (if he had I believe he would have concured with JL). Also Gettysburg was one of those times when a great army had a few bad days starting with the location of the battle, the quality of the ANV commanders first on the scene (poor), lack of intelligence, overconfidence etc... If JL had been in Ewell's position on the first day there wouldn't have been a second or a third day. Finally, if JL had been allowed to take over for the disaster that was Braxton Bragg, the battle for Tennesse may have ended very differently.



2. From Manassas to Appomattox by James Longstreet is an excellent example of a Post-bellum memoir, and it is written in clear and dignified voice. The memoir is of course the account of the actions of General James Longstreet, CSA during the American Civil War, his thoughts on various events, and recollections of his command and various individuals whose names are household words to the Civil War historian. As a person with only a passing interest in the American Civil War, I read this book for its purely biographical information, in other words, to get a feel for James Longstreet, who appears to be the underdog of Confederate commanders. I found the book easy to read, though at times I felt mired down in the military minutiae that fills most of the pages, but quickly recovered by small personal tidbits interspersed therein. I also enjoyed reading about his relationship with Robert E. Lee, and the way Longstreet handled himself in a very blunt, upfront manner. I would recommend this book to anyone who wanted to read a fine example of memoir writing from the period, Civil War buffs (who of course have undoubtedly already enjoyed this book), and to researchers wanting insight to the major battles of the American Civil War.



3. Longstreet was subjected to criticism for his performance at Gettysburg as well as Lee, Longstreet survived and wrote his memoirs to be read and he made it a focus of the book to justify his actions and put the blame on others. Lee never wrote his memoirs, probably to his credit. At the end of the war Lee was of the opinion that it is over and needs to be put in the past. That is not to say that he did not blame Longstreet and others for the mishap at Gettysburg, he just never voiced his opinion. It was not in the man's nature. The character of his main critic also has to be questioned, Jubal Early was renowned for being hotheaded and alienating other people. he was referred to by Lee as "My bad old man."
   
   It cannot be criticized of his work that the piece centers on himself, they are his memoirs about the war. It also cannot be critisized that he did not cover extensively his post-war years because the book is not called Manassas to Reconstruction. It has to be taken as what it is, a valuable insight into a man who was there when it all happened and a study into the man who understood trench warfare before its true advent.



4. General James Longstreet, who has been unjustly accused and slandered for over a century, gives a factual account of the war and its effect on the South. He also gives invaluable biographical information on his early life and career, particularly the Mexican War, which has been overlooked by historians. A must-read for serious students of the War and for anyone else looking for accounts of a soldiering life in the nineteenth century. Also recommend Jeffrey Werts' James Longstreet: Lee's Most Controversial Soldier



5. General James Longstreet, who has been unjustly accused and slandered for over a century, gives a factual account of the war and its effect on the South. He also gives invaluable biographical information on his early life and career, particularly the Mexican War, which has been overlooked by historians. A must-read for serious students of the War and for anyone else looking for accounts of a soldiering life in the nineteenth century.

5 comments about Kit Carson's Autobiography (Bison Book).

1. This is an interesting read for a history buff.
   Written by a friend from Carson's oral reminiscenses.



2. Excellent read Milo Milton Quaife did a nice job on filling many facts, the only problem I had was with Mr. Carson wish he would of writtn more. Good read on airline flight.



3. Kit Carson was everywhere and did just about everything. I must agree with other reviewers and Milo Milton Quaife in his introduction, that because of Carson's nature, the book seems somewhat curtailed of descriptive events. What may have taken a few months to happen, Kit says it all in a paragraph. That aside, he came out west at the age of sixteen to become a mountain man. As time went by he was involved with trapping adventures, expeditions with Fremont, the Mexican War and as an Indian agent. Maybe it was a sign of the times, but Carson certainly does not hesitate to boast about how many Indians he killed during his day to day adventures. This may have been brought about by his upbringing as a young child. The settlers in his part of Missouri where he was living at the time had to "fort" themselves against the activities of hostile Indians. This may have carried on into adulthood. Nevertheless, this was a good book on an extraordinary and remarkable man of the early American west.



4. Kit Carson was a man of few words in life and in his own autobiography. It is unfortunate that such a dynamic individual didn't write down more! Quaife does a terrific job with the notes. Explaining everything that Carson failed to include. This is a common problem as, for example, Kit Carson will say something to the effect: Fought indians today, and Quaife will fill in all of the details about what tribe, how many, who was killed or wounded in both parties, etc. I am fascinated by how much detail is known of Carson's time. Very readable, my only complaint was that it was too short! The editor has included a nicely laid out index. I found the book well worth the purchase price! BTW, for those of you looking for information on William F. Drannon, he is not mentioned anywhere in Carson's autobiography.



5. Disclaimer: Kit Carson is my first cousin, five times removed! And that's why I read this book.

   It took a while to sink in, but the compelling feature about Kit's autobiography is the editing. There are extensive footnotes throughout that put Kit's text in historical perspective, point out errors in his memory, and round out the story.

   He describes his 16-year life as a Mountain Man in almost monosyllabic terms. In other words, he compresses a whole year into a single paragraph. A short paragraph!

   But it gets better when he has something to say about his scouting and Indian relations roles.

   Why does it explain it all? Because I have this wanderlust locked up inside me, and I've always wondered where it came from!

4 comments about Cardozo.

1. Professor Kaufman worked on this impressive biography of Benjamin Nathan Cardozo for over 35 years. There were times when one began to wonder if it would ever appear. Well, it did and it was worth the wait. This is a long book, running some 700 pages including notes. At times, it seems almost too detailed--but it is a wonderful resource for anyone interested in Cardozo, the development of American law, and the Supreme Court. Kaufman strikes a nice balance between BNC's private and public lives, his 18 year service on the New York Court of Appeals and his 5 or so terms on the Supreme Court, the biographical details one expects and the legal doctrines and opinions that he authored. Along the way, the author covers BNC's significant books; his involvement with the ALI; his work in developing key contract and tort concepts on the Court of Appeals; his long period as Chief Judge there; and his methods of working and drafting opinions while on the New York court.
   
   It is generally conceded that Cardozo's greatest contributions to the development of American law occurred on the CA and not during his service on the Supreme Court--he was the master common law judge rather than constitutional expert. So Kaufman devotes around 300 pages to Cardozo's service on that court. By contrast, around 100 pages are devoted to the Supreme Court and BNC's period in Washington. In fact, BNC does not get appointed until page 455. Cardozo found the Supremes a much less collegial body than the NY Court, in part because the justices were still doing the bulk of their work at home. Cardozo's views of state regulatory power and taxation, national regulatory power, court packing, and some civil liberties cases (such as Palko) are well addressed. Cardozo must have found it difficult to deal with colleagues such as Justice McReynolds and the other "four horsemen," but nonetheless he opposed FDR's court packing scheme.
   
   While Richard Polenberg's "World of Benjamin Cardozo" (also published by Harvard University Press) is itself a fine contribution, this is the most exhaustive study of Cardozo that we are likely ever to see. It is a masterful work, but one that requires persistence to get through. It is the book that BNC deserves.



2. Andrew Kaufman has written an engrossing account of the life of Benjamin Cardozo, a judicial hero of the first third of the century. This book should prove especially useful for first-year law students, who read many of Cardozo's most important decisions in their contracts and torts classes. But even non-lawyers with an interest in the legal system will find it highly readable and informative.



3. Professor Kaufman presents his subject, first, as a man, establishing the personal background that shaped Cardozo's work as a judge. Kaufman then offers an insightful examination of the judicial work of Judge and Justice Cardozo, analyzing the development and maturation of Cardozo's thinking regarding the many legal principles which have become mainstays of American jurisprudence. The biography is well suited to lawyer and non-lawyer, and provides an extraordinary social history of the shaping of the American common law that governs our lives and liability today. This biography is a must-read primer for all soon-to-be law students, who will find in it an invaluable guide to the principles they are preparing to study. Professor Kaufman's honest analysis of the talents and faults of his subject is much to be commended.



4. This is a book for laypeople and lawyers, rare in judicial biography. It is written in a clear and lucid prose, eschewing much of the current academic jargon. The author's years of work include many interviews with people now dead (and thus unavailable!), providing invaluable insights and perspectives into Cardozo's life and judicial influence. This work will be interesting to social historians, as well, for its treatment of the Nathan and Cardozo families' experiences in an evolving America.

3 comments about The White House Physician: A History from Washington to George W. Bush.

1. Terrific! This is a thoroughly researched body of work. It contains great insights into the development of American medicine, and I highly recommend it to those interested in American and presidential history. Furthermore, its examination of legal, political, and moral issues make it a must-read for those in the medical profession.



2. 
   
   Ludwig Deppisch is a medical doctor who has an interest in medical history, and out of that interest he has given us a book that sets out the fascinating story of the doctors who, from the time of the founding of the republic up through the modern era, have served as physicians to the Presidents. This story is doubly fascinating because it not only traces the historical progress of medicine through time but it also reveals how medical practices, sometimes in conjunction with political subterfuge, can impact the presidency itself.
   
   The first part of the book, which covers the practices of the best doctors of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries - the doctors who treated Presidents - exposes the shortcomings of the medical profession in those years, even as medicine itself was becoming more professional. Thomas Jefferson wrote about his friend doctor Benjamin Rush, a greatly influential figure, that the doctor had "done much harm" with the practice of bleeding patients to treat illness. Indeed, calling on the aid of a doctor did not guarantee a cure; just the opposite could be the case. President James Garfield, who lived in a somewhat more advanced medical period, when shot by an assassin had his wound examined by doctors with hands so dirty that, according to the author, the doctors themselves likely caused his fatal infection. Still, a physically tough old President like Andrew Jackson could have a bullet removed from a dueling wound years after the duel and emerge much improved from the surgery.
   
   But it is as the story moves toward the twentieth century, while medical knowledge seems to be progressing, that we see another compelling issue begin to emerge, and that is how political and medical subterfuge can be employed to deceive the citizenry about what is going on in the health of a President. Grover Cleveland had a secret operation, for example, on board a private yacht, to remove a cancerous growth in his mouth. In the event the operation was a success and the public never became aware of what had taken place. Woodrow Wilson, however, had a stroke of such massive proportions that he probably should have left office but he did not. His physician was complicit in keeping Wilson isolated and the public misinformed about his true condition. FDR's health was so badly failing at the end of his third term that he should never have run for a fourth. But we were in the midst of war. His actual medical state was concealed and the reelected President died a short time into his last term. President Eisenhower had a series of serious medical problems which were interpreted to the public through rose tinted glasses. Never the less, Ike was popular, he completed two terms, and what Americans were told about the President's health likely gave them the reassurance most of them were looking for. Finally, it should be noted that JFK deliberately misrepresented his awful health facts to the American people throughout his political career with the audacity of Harry Houdini making an impossible escape. We might admire the audacity, but was it the right thing to do?
   
   The author also raises some related and interesting issues about using psychiatry as a tool both for evaluating the mental fitness of a President and as a mode of treatment. Hindsight suggests it might have been useful to know more about the mental health and psychological makeup of Richard Nixon before he was elected. But would it have been possible, we wonder, to get an objective and non political pre-election evaluation of Nixon's personality? By the same token, Senator Thomas Eagleton was forced off the Democratic ticket as a Vice Presidential candidate in 1972 when it was revealed he had been treated for serious depression. Was this action appropriate? And how would the American people react if they learned that a President was undergoing current psychiatric treatment? These are worthwhile questions to ponder.
   
   All of this leads us to note that there is some useful discussion in this book about the place of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment when it comes to dealing with the ramifications of any severe medical impairment of a President. And while this constitutional amendment was specifically passed to provide guidelines should a crisis occur, we have unfortunately seen, as in the shooting of President Reagan, that when a crisis does occur key officials can still be caught flatfooted in the immediate aftermath as to what to say and do. Moreover, the question of whether a President is medically fit to continue in office places the White House Physician squarely in the cross hairs of decision making. Thus, relevant officials in any new administration need to discuss and understand all of the protocols to be followed and all of the attendant constitutional and medical implications well in advance of any medical emergency. Deception of the public will probably no longer be tolerated as it has been in the past.
   
   Lastly we should note that, like a good novel, this tale contains some rich characters, strong personalities like Dr. Cary Grayson, Wilson's physician, who can color the story and influence the plot. And we see the potential for conflict when there are many doctors involved in treatment, a few of whom may have large egos. Kennedy had a wide range of treating doctors and his titular head physician, Dr. Travell, was shunted aside while the President received secret and controversial treatments from Max Jacobson, the Manhattan doctor known as "Doctor Feelgood" because of the injections he gave the rich and famous, injections that contained amphetamines and steroids.
   
   All in all, it would be fair to sum up that the author has given us a book that is not only rich in scholarship, but one that tells a tale which is fascinating on its own merits. Moreover, this is a book that is a significant resource of information for any doctors or officials who are newly being called to serve in an administration and who might have to grapple with a replay of history sometime in the future. For them it might be essential reading; for the rest of us it is just a darn good read.
   
   G. F. Shirley



3. This is a well crafted, researched and comprehensive treatise, yet it is an entertaining and fluid "read". I did not expect that the topic could be presented in such an interesting and entertaining manner. The book succeeded in educating me not only in the specifics of the various actors, but in the evolution of the roles and responsibilities of the President's physicians. I had assumed that the provision of medical care to the President had been static over the decades; it was fascinating to learn just how much and how recently it has changed. This book not only deals with presidential physicians, the evolution of presidential medical care (including political overlap), but also provides fascinating insights into presidential history.

5 comments about The Kennedy Men: Three Generations Of Sex, Scandal And Secrets: Three Generations of Sex, Scandal and Secrets.

1. At least "Kennedy Men: Three Generations of Sex, Scandal and Secrets" never pretends to be anything but what it is: a collection of tabloid reports and gleeful gossip. The entire book has very little point except: Kennedy men are scum who break the law and treat women like dirt. But those who have ever gotten a dirty little thrill from tabloids will enjoy this easy read.

   It begins with the calculating patriarch Joseph Kennedy, whose many affairs were a source of inspiration to his sons. In this book are the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, the Good Friday rape case, Marilyn Monroe's mysterious death, drugs and alcoholism, divorce and adultery, the Mary Jo Kopechne tragedy, and dozens of other tragedies and mishaps.

   Thankfully Bly doesn't buy into the sentimental goo about a family curse; in this book, it becomes evident that most of the Kennedy tragedies are, if not caused by their own actions, then nothing more than that -- accidents and tragedies. And it becomes quite evident that they did cause a lot of their own problems, such as Chappaquiddick.

   With a title like "Three Generations of Sex, Scandal and Secrets," obviously as many extramarital affairs as possible are going to be gone over again. Joseph Kennedy's affairs start it off, and Bly happily retells JFK's affairs with Monroe, Inga Arvad, Angie Dickinson, Gene Tierney, and Judith Campbell Exner. While Ted Kennedy is usually a side-player in such books, he's roasted without mercy with plenty about his conquests as well -- including one humiliating anecdote where he takes a drunken prostitute to a party, where she wets an antique sofa. The next generation isn't spared as well: While most of them seem relatively okay, David Kennedy's drug addiction and Joe II's car crash and turbulent lifestyle are aired out. The most vivid of the third-generation Kennedy stories is the William Kennedy rape case. And even "John-John" doesn't get off too easily: His more flamboyant and famous girlfriends, like Madonna and Sharon Stone, are presented as well.

   The entire book is written in bite-sized semi-chapters, giving the further impression of tabloid journalism. But the writing style is brisk and pleasant, never getting bogged for too long in any one area unless it's really important. There's a good array of photographs, at least half of which are onetime girlfriends of the various Kennedy men. (Look no further for one of the worst Madonna pictures I've ever seen)

   Usually tabloid books are disguised with dignified covers and titles. But "Three Generations of Sex, Scandal and Secrets" is unashamed of what it is, which makes it a guilty pleasure worth the read.




2. This book is essentially a collection of gossip about the three generations of the Kennedy men, starting with patriarch Joe Kennedy Sr and concluding in the present day (well, 1996). If you enjoy gossipy reads (as I do) then you'll enjoy this book.

   The only problem I had was the sections devoted to John Kennedy were shorter than I would have liked. But there are dozens of bios on JFK out there, and this book wasn't entirely about him.

   Reading this book, it seems like Teddy & the third generation's recklessness with drugs and women are what ended Joe Kennedy, Sr's dream of a family legacy.




3. "Thank God for the Kennedys. Without them, a lot of bad writers would be waiting tables." I heard this line on a recent rerun of Law & Order and it immediately made me think about Nellie Bly's The Kennedy Men, one of the more superflous books claiming to give us the dirt on America's prodigal sons. Basically, what Bly has done is compiled a collection of facts culled from other, better Kennedy books and recorded them in the breathless prose of a tabloid reporter. There's nothing new within this book and, despite Bly's claims to the contrary, no valuable or new insight to be gained from what is basically a list of other people's dirty laundry.



4. Nellie Bly details the peccadilloes of the Kennedy men from the 1900's to the 1990's. We get the lowdown on Gloria Swanson, Marilyn Monroe, Judith Campbell, Chappaquiddick, Joe II's jeep accident that left a young woman paralyzed, the drug use and the arrests of the third generation men, and so on. Joe Kennedy Sr. told his sons "If there's a piece of cake on your plate, take it". You have to admire the women that stuck it out with these guys. A good read for those interested in the Kennedys.



5. While plenty of us already know the tale of this clan, this book is still a rather entertaining read. There are plenty of classic anecdotes about the ongoings of these men, especially Joe, Sr., JFK, Bobby and the rather pitiful Teddy, as portrayed in parts. It is often quite candid, if not humourous, however, does tend to fall into ruts at times. Overall, it's a good book with which to pass an otherwise boring weekend.

3 comments about The Lees of Virginia: Seven Generations of an American Family.

1. This book is a fascinating look at a famous and influential family in a time and place I happen to find among the most interesting in all American history: Virginia from its founding until 1870. Within a few decades of the founding of Jamestown in 1607, the first Lee arrived in the Tidewater. For the next three centuries, more or less, the Lees were at or near the center of Virginia's -- and later America's -- history. For readers familiar only with Robert E. Lee, it may come as a shock to realize just how important his family was before and during the Revolution. But even for those for whom that's not a surprise, Paul Nagel's work is still richly rewarding.
   
   That's because "The Lees of Virginia" isn't really a composite biography of each individual member of the vast Lee family. Many of them do receive pretty thorough portraits, of course. But Nagel's main purpose is to chart the connections and relationships within the family, and to explore the influence of the family *as a* family.
   
   In so doing, he paints a fascinating picture of how characteristics and traits passed from generation to generation -- and how, just as importantly, subsequent generations learned from, and tried to do things differently than, their forebears. Perhaps the most interesting contrast here is between the erratic and debt-ridden "Light-Horse Harry" Lee and his son Robert Edward. R.E. Lee, in this analysis, comes across, frankly, as something of a moralistic prig, and one who more or less chained his daughters to their invalid mother's bedside. Nowadays, it's not uncommon to say about someone, "Well, he came from a messed-up family." I have more appreciation for Robert E. Lee's greatness, as well as his human failings, for seeing that he, too, came from a messed-up family.
   
   If I do have a complaint about this book, it might be that ending the narrative at R.E. Lee's death in 1870 seems a little arbitrary. Certainly, General Lee could be seen as the last truly great or influential member of the family. But as Nagel himself mentions, the General's sons and nephews continued to play relatively important roles in the history of Virginia, including service in Congress and as governor of the Commonwealth. Families wax and wane in their influence, as Nagel's book on the Adamses also proved. But I would have been willing to follow Nagel's reporting for another generation or two, just to see what happened.
   
   That aside, though, this is a fine book about an interesting family in interesting times. There are several members of the family I hope to find out more about -- especially Francis Lightfoot Lee, signer of the Declaration of Independence, whose relatively reclusive personality -- at least as contrasted to his more attention-seeking brothers -- was especially intriguing to me. I've always thought one sign of a good book is how much it makes you want to explore related topics, and "The Lees of Virginia" delivers in that regard too.



2. "The Lees" tells the story of a remarkable American family from its establishment in Virginia to General Robert E. Lee. It gives us a glimpse into their lives and the stages on which they played.

   One theme which runs through the book was that this family had many failures. Although there were shining lights, such as Richard Henry Lee and Robert E. Lee, the more typical Lee was R.E. Lee's father, Gen. Lighthorse Harry Lee, who squandered his wealth, spent time in debtor's prison and ended his life in flight from his creditors.

   The two leading figures of the family are Richard Henry Lee and Robert E. Lee.

   Richard Henry was one of the leaders of the call for American Independence. As the sponsor of the Independence Resolution, he would have been a natural for the Committee to draft the Declaration. His opponents in the Virginia delegation blocked his appointment, insisting on the conservative Benjamin Harrison. Less conservative delegates blocked Harrison, with Thomas Jefferson being the compromise choice. Oh, how history could have been different! Richard Henry had a long and, on the balance, distinguished career during which he led the "Lee Party" consisting of himself, his brothers and other Lee relatives.

   The coverage of Robert E. Lee amounts to a biography lite, with an emphasis on his involvement in family matters. There are better sources to learn about him.

   Much of the book consists of quotations from letters and the provisions of wills of many people who would have never been mentioned in a book had they not been related to Richard Henry Lee and Robert E. Lee. This makes portions of the book rather boring.

   I picked up two ideas which emerged from this book. One is the tremendous importance of inheritance for the Lees. This may have been exaggerated because wills are documents which survive, but many people's destiny seems to have been dependent on the inheritance of a farm or a plantation. The other is that it seems that, but for a few government positions, few of them ever aspired to any job other than to manage their farms. This may reflect the nature of the economy and may also reflect the social limitations on their class.

   Overall this book has some merit. One could read biographies of Richard Henry Lee and Robert E. Lee and forget the rest, but then the reader would miss the story of how this family worked together over the centuries. Make you own choice.




3. This was a very enlightning book about the Lees history. Some very fascinating stories about the lees and their roots

5 comments about President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination.

1. The purpose of any book review is to give the reader enough information to decide if they want to invest the time and money in reading the book in its entirety. Richard Reeves, a distinguished former reporter for "The New York Times," has tackled a difficult subject in writing a biography of a politician who still engenders strong emotions in people of a positive and negative nature. You need not share Ronald Reagan's politics (Reeves does not), to find this an interesting and enjoyable read.
   
   From the subtitle, Reeves makes his interpretation clear. Reagan was not "a tired old man we elected king," but rather a bold, dynamic politician who left behind a strong and powerful legacy. This book is revisionist in that it challenges the idea that Reagan was often "absent without leave" while in office. Reeves has done a good job of developing Reagan's voice, using notes, letters, and other records that the President left behind. Much of what he uses is new.
   
   Reagan was, according to Reeves, a big idea man. He thought up new ideas and left the details to others. In comparison, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill thought up big, creative ideas and had a good sense of strategy, but also liked to interject himself into the implementation of these ideas. Jimmy Carter, who was at the White House just before Reagan, had little vision and tended to interject himself into the implementation of policy even when he had a limited understanding of the topic. Reagan was often faulted in office for being detached from his job--like when no one on his staff woke him up to inform him of a dog fight between U.S. and Libyan fighter planes--but given the number of issues that one address in the Oval Office, his interest in the big picture looks pretty sound to Reeves.
   
   This book has its limits, though. This is not a full-fledged biography. Reeves looks just at the presidential years. Readers wanting to know about Reagan's background will be disappointed. Reflecting his training as a political reporter, Reeves shows a preference for the political process rather than policy. He skips some of the weightier issue that Presidents address like international finance, commerce, and trade policy. These topics get at best only superficial coverage. Reeves does focuses on tax and budget issues, which were of great interest to Reagan. Like many Presidents, Reagan often had enormous influence on areas that were of little personal interest to him and by ignoring these topics, Reeves does not do full justice to his subject.
   
   Still, as a first draft of history, this ain't too bad.



2. Historian Richard Reeves, who has made a literary career exploring the White House years of many of the more recent occupants of the Oval Office wrote last year's best selling non-fiction book `President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination,' a biographical examination of America's 40th president.
   
   This work on Reagan's time in Washington is Reeves' eleventh book and his third biography of a chief executive's tenure solely in the White House. He previously wrote about the presidential reign of Richard Nixon and John Kennedy. He is currently the Senior Lecturer at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California and a syndicated columnist whose column has appeared in more than 100 newspapers since 1979.
   
   Reeves published his first book, `A Ford, not a Lincoln' in 1975. His tome `President Kennedy: Profile of Power' is considered the authoritative work on the 35th president and won several national awards including being named the Best Non-Fiction Book of 1993 by Time Magazine and Book of the Year by the Washington Monthly.
   
   Twenty-six years after Ronald Reagan became president and changed the course of America, Reeves has written a surprising and revealing portrait of one of the most important leaders of the twentieth century. As he did in his bestselling books `President Kennedy: Profile of Power' and `President Nixon: Alone in the White House,' Reeves used newly declassified documents and hundreds of interviews to show a president at work day by day, sometimes minute by minute over the 40th president's two terms by selecting certain highlights in his eight years in office.
   
   'President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination' is the story
   of an accomplished politician, a bold, sometimes reckless leader, a gambler of what he believed to be right, a man who imagined an American past and an American future and made them real.
   
   Reagan is revealed to be a man of ideas who changed the world for better or worse with his own vision of good and right, a leader who understood that words are often more important than deeds in dealing with others, whether they be aides, the public, politicians with opposing viewpoints or world leaders. Reeves shows a man who understood how to be the president, who realized that the job is not to manage the government but to lead the nation. Reeves writes that in many ways, especially in the conservative movement of today a quarter of a century later, Reagan is still leading the charge.
   
   As his vice president, George H. W. Bush, said after Reagan was shot in an assassination attempt and hospitalized in March, 1981, "We will act as if he were here."
   
   Reeves shows Reagan to be a heroic figure if not always a hero. He did not destroy communism, as his champions claim, but knew it would self-destruct and hastened the collapse by the build-up of America's military might in the 1980's. He believed the Soviet Union was evil and had contempt for the established American policies of containment and détente that was advocated by his many contemporaries and prior presidential officeholders. Asked about his own Cold War strategy, he answered, "We win. They lose!"
   
   Like one of his own personal heroes, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Reagan became larger than life. But as Roosevelt became an icon central to American liberalism, Reagan was the nucleus holding together American conservatism. He is the only president whose name became a political creed, a noun not an adjective: `Reaganism.'
   
   Reeves claims through his liberal bias that Reagan's ideas were so old they seemed new. He preached individualism that many found to be inspiring yet also cruel. He dumbed-down America, brilliantly blending fact and fiction, transforming political debate into emotion-driven entertainment. He recklessly mortgaged America with uncontrolled military spending, less taxation, and more debt.
   
   In focusing on the key moments of the Reagan presidency, Reeves recounts the amazing resiliency of Reagan as the real `comeback kid,' long before the term was used on Bill Clinton. Here is a seventy-year-old man coming back from a near-fatal gunshot wound, from cancer, from the worst recession in American history. Then, in personal despair as his administration was shredded by the lying and secrets of hidden wars and double-dealing, he was able to forge one of history's amazing relationships with the leader of `the Evil Empire.' That story is told for the first time using the transcripts of the Reagan-Gorbachev meetings, the climax of an epic story, as if he were here to tell us in how own unique style.
   
   After Dwight Eisenhower's two full terms, we had five presidents in a row who didn't complete eight years in office until Reagan did so twenty-eight years later. Now we're going to have two chief executives in a row who will have served two terms. Is this now considered to be a new trend started again by Reagan or a continuance of what once was the norm of presidential politics that was maintained by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and others in the course of American history?



3. I have to admit that I was not a fan of President Reagan's during his presidency. In my own words, I thought that "the Iran-Contra affair was the biggest threat to our democracy since Nixon trying to hold on to the presidency after Watergate". I have since changed my mind, at least on President Reagan, and even on Oliver North, who I have had the pleasure of meeting at a book signing.
   
   I have to admit that I find Reeves' rehashing of the Reagan years enlightening in that I had forgotten so much of what had gone on, and it was interesting to read some of the behind the scenes details, although I had to wonder where some of the information came from. There were times when Reeves just could not avoid the backhanded remark, which was irritating at times. I also felt that he was struggling when he had to say something that might be construed as positive about Reagan. Be that as it may, it wasn't a bad read if you take into account the writer's view.
   
   Ronald Reagan certainly had his flaws. Everyone does. Great people are not always great people behind closed doors. This does not diminish the fact that they rose to the occasion when it presented itself, and one way or the other made the right decision. After reading Reeves' book, I came to the conclusion that the United States would be a much lesser county without Ronald Reagan.
   
   Reeves' book also convinced me that we need a great leader, much like Ronald Reagan, again. We need a leader who not only has the courage to make the tough, unpopular, decisions, but who can also communicate their beliefs in such a way that inspires the Nation, and the world, to do great things.
   
   If you can filter the author's bias, then I would recommend the book. The advantage of the author's bias is that what may have been glossed over, ignored, or buried under the apologetics of a completely pro-Reagan author, comes out in the raw with maybe some opinionated remarks. The reader can then weed out the remarks and come to their own conclusion.



4. Richard Reeves frequently lets his personal liberal bias get in the way of recognizing Reagan's greatness as a leader. He makes many insinuations that Reagan is lazy. Reeves has difficulty recognizing that Reagan had a plan to rebuild the United States from the Carter negatives to the Reagan positives. Still, in all, the biography of his presidency allows the Regan personality and magnetism to shine through Reeves' negativism.



5. I'm not sure what book some of the reviewers here are reading, but it cannot be the same tome. Some claim this book is contemptuous towards Reagan, but I cannot detect a hint of that so-called "contempt" in this book, and this is coming from someone who believes that Reagan was the best President of the past fifty years, though obviously that is not saying much. Rather, what I see is a revealing, fair account of Reagan and his legacy. Certainly, many sections of the book do not give Reagan as much credit as I feel he deserves, but that is the great beauty of an unbiased biography, rather than an overly sycophantic or critical one - you get to see Reagan not as a God, but as the wrinkled, tired and yet majestic lion in winter that he really was. In all honesty, the book is so scrupulously fair to Reagan that though there were times when I believed the author was a closet conservative and still other times when I thought he must be a flaming liberal, those moments were so fleeting as to be mere flashes of consciousness - now here, now gone. In the capacity of being balanced, Mr. Reeves' biography is an enviable achievement. My one complaint is that the biography only covers Reagan's presidency, without his earlier years as context, but perhaps that is to desire too much of a good thing. Ultimately, whether you like Reagan or not, you will find something to enjoy in this book, though you may also find yourself occasionally shifting uncomfortably in your seat as the reality of his Presidency gently intrudes on your mind.

5 comments about The Truth About Jesse James.

1. An interesting and well researched Jessie James alternate history. Ms Duke cites her sources and lays her cards on the table....... I beleive she proves her case. A must read for James scholars, Knights of the Golden Circle researchers and outlaw hunters...... What a story!!!!!



2. A few copies of this book appeared with different cover and a different title. The earlier title was Jesse James History Mystery: Did He Fake His Death. Perhaps a more fitting title for this book would be Betty Duke in Wonderland. In this volume Duke takes us through the looking glass and down the rabbit hole. She uses a lot of smoke and mirrors. Duke would have us believe that Robert James, the father of Frank and Jesse James, did not die in California in 1850 as history relates. Instead he faked his death, acquired a new wife and began a second career as a Methodist (not Baptist) minister. Robert James becomes the father of the real James L. Courtney and then the real James L. Courtney morphs into someone named Haun.
   
   Jesse James, of course, was not shot and killed by Bob Ford on April 3, 1882, and the real Jesse James morphs into James L. Courtney, the great grandfather of the author. Jesse James did not marry his cousin Zee Mims, but Zee married a cousin of Jesse's Wood Hite. Wood Hite, according to Duke, is the man who is really buried in James' grave in Mount Olivet Cemetery in Clay County, Missouri.
   
   If this is not too confusing for you to follow, don't worry there is still a lot more smoke, mirrors, magic lanterns, secret societies, and coded diaries that are sure to disorient you. Quantrell (her spelling, not mine) did not die in Kentucky at the end of the Civil War, and "Bloody Bill" Anderson was not killed in Ray County, Missouri on October 26, 1864. Both men survived, took new identities, and had long careers in Texas and elsewhere. There is much, much more of this sort of mania in the book, including large doses of the Knights of the Golden Circle, myths, treasure tales, etc., etc., etc.
   
   Not only is this book bad history, but it is bad writing as well. Duke has apparently never made the acquaintance of The Chicago Manuel of Style, or any similar guide for writers. Her punctuation, footnotes, bibliography, grammar, organization, etc. leave much to be desired. A large number of her footnotes cite various internet sources, many of dubious validity. Very few of her footnotes for books give page numbers, and for newspapers she often only cites the year, but not the month and day. She cites at least one work of fiction as if it is a valid reference for historical matters, and several of the books listed in her bibliography are totally unreliable.
   
   Much of the material in the book is not the work of Betty Duke. She quotes pages and pages of other people's work. Some of this she says she has permission to use, but she is totally mum on the subject of permission in other cases. Some of the writers that are quoted at length may want to take issue with Duke about this. It is also interesting to speculate about how the five living great grandchildren of the outlaw Jesse James will feel about Betty's claim that she is also the great granddaughter of Jesse James.
   
   In summary, this book will likely be remembered as a burr (the size of a giant tumbleweed) under the saddle of the history of the Old West. This book has been repudiated by The James Preservation Trust,which preserves the family history of the Jesse James family, and this book has been reviewed unfavorably in The James-Younger Gang Journal, by noted historian and book critic Nancy B. Samuelson, author of The Dalton Gang Story, and by the Wild West History Association of professional historians.



3. someone should have proof read book before it went to print.and the more i read the more i beleave the auther is grasping at straws that her g-grandfather is jesse james.



4. Following many years of exhaustive research, Betty Duke's book now gives us the real story of Jesse James. This book details so much evidence regarding the events in the life of Jesse James, after the supposed "assassination" in Missouri, that the history books may need to be re-written. We find him to be much alive, living in Texas, raising a family, and then leaving clues for those after him, regarding his true identity. This book will cause the reader to re-think what he has been told regarding the life of Jesse, the preacher's son from a little town in Missouri. Perhaps, the reader will even be inclined, like myself, to dig into his own family's history. I highly recommend this book to all history buffs, and those who want to want to blaze the trail in search of the real Jesse James.



5. One word... WOW! Would I recommend this book? YES! History buffs or just Jesse James enthuses will be in for a treat! Betty Dorsett Duke's "Jesse James Lived & Died In Texas" convinced me back in 1998 that Jesse James didn't die in 1882, (I was a skeptic before) but her new book, "The Truth About Jesse James", should convince everyone, even if you are skeptic like I once was! Like the title, it is the TRUTH! From the beginning to the end I could hardly wait to turn the page to see what was going to happen next -- it's defiantly a GOOD read and will be timeless book.
   
   Many things impressed me with this book, I learned a lot of historical information about Jesse James, before his so-called passing which was defiantly a treat. I expected to be drawn right into the day he was supposedly shot. The research the author put into this book! Wow! Working at a community college, I see and edit history papers for peers all the time, this book would definitely be considered an "A" paper. Why? Betty Duke's research is very well done by the way it is presented and most of all you don't get bored, things stay interesting. I was very pleased with the citations, credits and how she used them properly. I wish more people would write like this.
   
   One thing that caught my attention after I read the book was a letter written by Emett Hoctor to Betty Duke, the author about this book. Mr. Hoctor was the man that pioneered the search for the truth about Jesse James through DNA testing back in 1995. Mr. Hoctor had chosen Professor Starr to head the project, and from his letter to the author he was obviously disappointed in Starr's work. The letter Mr. Hoctor wrote can be read by the public on the author's Web site: http://www.jessejamesintexas.com/emmett_hoctor_review.jpg
   
   In conclusion, I highly recommend this book to everyone interested in the TRUTH about Jesse James and his life. This book captures it all and if you are wondering if Jesse lived on after 1882 or died this book will seal the deal. I personally, feel comfortable now about what happened to Jesse James and I feel everyone will feel this way too after reading this book!