No comments about William W. Warren: The Life, Letters, and Times of an Ojibwe Leader (American Indian Lives).

5 comments about Mrs. Robert E. Lee: The Lady of Arlington.

1. In this outstanding biography, Mr. Perry introduces the reader to Mary Custis Lee, the great-granddaughter of Martha Washington and the wife of Robert E. Lee. She was a well-educated, strong, loving, caring woman, who, during the Civil War, lost her home, kept her family together, and supported her husband. Through his extensive research, Mr. Perry has been able to disprove many of the rumors and myths about Mrs. Lee. Once you start this book,you won't be able to put it down. It is a must read for anyone who is interested in the personal stories of this critical time in American history. Bob and Cherie Allen-Authors A "Guest" of the Confederacy The Civil War Letters and Diaries of Alonzo M. Keeler, Captain, Company B, Twenty-second Michigan Infantry



2. THE BOOK WAS VERY WELL WRITTEN.MADE ME THINK I WAS LIVING IN THE TIME. I COULD NOT LAY THE BOOK DOWN,I EVEN GOT ON THE ARLINGTON SITE AND LOOKED AT SOME GREAT PICTURES OF ARLINGTON AS I WAS READING THE BOOK AND THIS MADE THE BOOK ALL THE MORE INTERESTING. GREAT AUTHOR.



3. I read this book in three days as it was very well written, but did not, in my opinion give a very favorable view of Mary Lee. It portrayed her as self-centered, and like her father, more obsessed with the Washington connection than with the Lee connection. It pictures him as madly in love with her, I just cannot figure out why? I think it is very telling that none of their daughters chose to marry. Already a huge fan of his, the book only reinforced my good opinion of him.



4. This books give the reader a facinating insight into a woman who is too often over looked in history. It is the story of a woman, who's family members were on the front lines of America's early history, and who was a loving and supportive wife to the famous Robert E. Lee. History is full of stories of his life, especially during the Civil War, but the reader of this book will find that his wife was courageous in her own right, and worthy of historical note.
   After reading this wonderful book, I found two other books which were just and wonderful and insightful about the Lee Family. They were "Growing up in the 1850's", the jouranl of Agnes Lee, and "The Lee Girls".



5. I always find it interesting to read about famous people's lives, but especially about the people who have been behind the scenes so to speak and little is told about them. That is why I found this book so interesting. Robert E. Lee is well known as the civil war general who surrendered and the war ended, of course, but to read more about his wife and get an insight to his family life made it hard to put the book down. There are some basic history rehashed somewhat in this book, but over all I found the book very personable and engaging in letting me know something about this woman whom I had never really heard of before. It also will show readers that no matter how famous a person may be, all people have their troubles and sorrows- and a lot of how life turns out to affect you depends on your reaction to what has happened in one's life. If you enjoy anything about the Civil War, this book would be a definite must !

No comments about John Lewis in the Lead: A Story of the Civil Rights Movement.

5 comments about Because He Could.

1. The style is smart and at times engaging, but between the lines you can tell this guy is plain jelous of his ex boss, obviously he lacks everything that makes the other so charismatic. He resents that he did not receive the recognition HE thinks he should have received. It is the ex wife ranting about his ex, who left her for another. I suspect he has a man crush on Bill.



2. This man...Mr. Morris has so many skeletons in his closet, he shouldn't be throwing stones. The Clintons were his employers. He found writing a book about them would bring him wealth. It will be interesting to see if he will switch parties again when the Democrats are back in control. I don't put too much credence on most of the things he says and those I believe is a "so what?" Don't waste your money. Too bad he had to turn traitor on people who trusted him.



3. Dick Morris clearly outlines why Bill Clinton was such a horrible president and such a characterless person. Clinton put our nation at risk and I just wish more people who think he was a genius would read this book.



4. Dick Morris, political analyst and advisor under president Bill Clinton, offers a inside look at what the President left out of his very large autobiography that shared nothing on how he made policy decisions. And from what is shared in this book, I can now understand why. Mr. Morris was someone who worked very close with Bill Clinton on a daily basis for years. He reveals both his strength and weaknesses, so the book reads as if it is objective, but I am sure the Clintons do not like it. Mr. Morris leads us through all of the omissions from the President's own entertaining, yet self-serving book.
   
   It explains some of why the Clinton's lied when there was no political or legal reason for doing so. And how vicious they run a campaign, even when they have no personal stake in the race themselves in order to eliminate possible future competition. We also learn of a truly empathetic man who always had a scapegoat handy for when things went wrong. Which makes me wonder how much empathy he really has? But he also shares with us the good the man did while in office, even if it was an idea of an advisor, it takes a President to push an agenda.
   
   I know that Mr. Morris is a political animal himself. But this book is must reading if you read "My Life" in order to get a balanced view of the man who was President. This is also required reading in order get the definition of what is 'is', so that you can understand the inconsistencies of the Presidents book. This book is a very fast read.



5. Dick Morris critizes Bill Clinton because he didn't know then what we know now. Of course he didn't. None of us knew then what we know now. Sure it would have been nice to take care of Osama bin Laden then. I wish we could have done that. But who knew? I liked Dick Morris before, and I read one of his book. I thought of him as a smart guy. I'm disappointed that he turned against Clinton. I'd like to know the story behind that.

5 comments about The Man Who Would Be King: The First American in Afghanistan.

1. In Rudyard Kipling's The Man Who Would Be King, a young adventurer named Daniel Dravot penetrates feudal Afghanistan disguised as a cleric. In this nonfiction account with a similar title, MacIntyre, a columnist for The Times of London, tells the story of the real life adventurer who may have been Kipling's inspiration. He describes the life and adventures of Josiah Harlan (1799-1871), a young Quaker from Chester County, Pennsylvania, who set sail for China in 1822, telling his fiancée that they would marry when he returned. Upon reaching Calcutta, Harlan received a letter announcing that she was marrying another man. He resolved never to return home.
   
   So began his adventures. After a failed stint in the Indian army--an action for which the Quakers excommunicated him--Harlan met Shujah al-Mulk (1792-1842), an Afghan king exiled to India in 1809 after just six years on the throne. Harlan offered a deal: he would raise an army, subdue Kabul, and restore the kingdom. In exchange, he would become vizier, the equivalent of prime minister. The deal struck, Harlan began recruiting native troops, using the U.S. flag as his own. In 1827, he and his army began their long march. But he soon had second thoughts about his army's loyalty. He picked a trusted team, paid severance to the others, and launched his Plan B: dressed as a dervish, he made his way to Kabul, arriving in 1828 just as an epidemic of cholera ravaged the city. Years passed and Harlan changed his allegiance to Shujah's rival, King Dost Muhammad Khan (1793-1863), to whom he became aide-de-camp. This Afghan king granted Harlan's wish for power. The itinerant Pennsylvania Quaker and stilted lover became prince of Ghor, today a province in central Afghanistan.
   
   Harlan's story is riveting. MacIntyre describes his adventures, disillusionments, and eventual return to the United States as the only Afghan general to serve in the U.S. Civil War.
   
   Harlan was not alone in his adventures. In the nineteenth century, a handful of men made dangerous journeys through Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Tibet. Not all survived. Author Peter Hopkirk has chronicled their stories.[1] But it is rare that so much new material surfaces in one book, and for this MacIntyre deserves special credit. After learning of this curious American from cursory references and footnotes in old travelogues gathering dust in the British Library, MacIntyre made it his mission to uncover the saga of this historical Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern. His quest took him to Punjab and Pennsylvania, Kabul and California. He scoured through the official records of the Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Lahore and poured over the intelligence archives of imperial India, whose agents were suspicious of Harlan's plots and schemes. Finally, in a Chester County museum, MacIntyre found a long-lost manuscript replete with love letters and sketches. Explanations of historical and cultural context weave together in his fluid prose. The result is impressive and well-worth reading.
   
   Note
   
   1. See for example, Great Game (London: Murray, 1990); On Secret Service East of Constantinople (London: Murray, 1994); Trespassers on the Roof of the World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)
   
   Michael Rubin
   Middle East Quarterly
   Fall 2006



2. A fascinating read in every respect. Macintyre is a fluid writer and the book is a real page turner. Apart from vivid details of the remarkable adventures of the first American in Afghanistan; the intrigues, machinations and sheer depravity of virtually all the players in the great game are in plain sight. The book also provides rare insights - via Josiah Harlan's prism - of British mendacity, misrule and astounding arrogance. Harlan's account of British shenanigans may have a tinge of exaggeration owing to his eventual deep hatred of the Empire and many of its emissaries but the substance of Harlan's writings can be corroborrated in other accounts such as the Great Hedge of India by Roy Moxham (another British author) and in more substantive form with relevant data in Angus Maddison's The World Economy. Macintyre deserves considerable praise for presenting the unvarnished truth, albeit through Harlan's pen, about the largely negative legacy of the British Empire. It is a shame that Harlan's story, despite this wonderful book, remains largely unknown both in the US and the East.



3. Most people who pick up this book will already have read some of the travelogues of the "mad dogs and Englishmen" who wandered through Central Asia in the 19th and early 20th century: Burnaby and Nazaroff's memoirs, as well as any of Peter Hopkirk's books on the era.
   
   But here we have a real fish out of water story, and a fascinating one at that: an American Quaker leading, or joining, armies through Afghanistan and elsewhere in the name of, variously: the sitting ruler of Afghanistan, the deposed predecessor, his Sikh neighbor, the British Empire, and arguably himself as "Prince of Ghor."
   
   The tale is fascinating because it's so poorly-known, despite the fact that Kipling's fiction, which I understand to be inspired by Harlan and other adventurers of the time, is so well-known.
   
   Undoubtedly, Harlan's own financial misfortune and quiet death contributed to the obscurity of the narrative, but Macintyre does a great job of weaving the scraps together, and keeping the story's pace. An interesting read, and a bit of history which has earned its place in Central Asian lore.



4. Considering all that's happening in Afghanistan today, this is a timely and fascinating story of an American who travled there in the early 1800's. Fast paced book that's hard to put down and it gives a glimpse into early 1800's life in a country that most people still don't understand today.



5. If you enjoy history, especially military history, then you will enjoy this book. Written in much the same style as Byron Falwell's "Armies of the Raj," this amazingly true yarn about a Quaker who becomes, if not a king, the Prince of Ghor will keep you wondering just what is going to happen next. I absolutely enjoyed the book. My only negative comment is that the later years of his life are glossed over rather quickly, but, that is understandable since the last years were no where near as exciting as the first 40. I would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys history or biographies. Enjoy.

5 comments about The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter's Journey Beyond the White House.

1. I was reminded of Pete Seger's classic song while reading this book. Douglas Brinkley offers a fascinating examination into Jimmy Carter's post-presidential achievements, showing the many reasons why Carter should have long before been considered for a Nobel Peace Prize. The former president has been a tireless promoter of peace around the world, whether it is election-monitoring in Nicaragua, two-track diplomacy between Israel and Palestine, or fighting diseases in sub-Saharan Africa. The man had long been an international symbol of peace, extolling all the positive aspects of Christian goodwill, before finally earning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. One is simply left awestruck by the width and breadth of his accomplishments through the Carter Center, Habitat for Humanity and many other organizations he either created or promoted in the 20+ years since he left office.
   
   Brinkley takes Carter up to 1998, a time that offered much hope in finally establishing a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. The Middle East had long been Carter's most personal interest, having formed a heart-felt friendship with Anwar Sadat during the famous Camp David Accords. I was surprised to learn that it was Carter who made Arafat a player in the Peace Process, by reaching out to him and bringing him to the table when the first Bush administration had virtually ignored teh Palestinian leader. Clinton deserved a lot of credit for the lengthy peace talks between Israel and the Palestine Authority but it was Carter who did much of the groundwork in bringing these talks about.
   
   The chapters revolve around specific achievements and Carter's relationships with the various presidential administrations that followed his. It was interesting to read that Carter established such a close bond with Gerald Ford, who joined him on numerous international projects and even a few domestic projects, although the two often didn't see eye to eye on political matters. Brinkley notes how Carter was never able to break through Reagan's teflon exterior, but had a good working relationship with the Bush administration until the fallout over the Persian Gulf War, which Carter refused to accept. He and Clinton managed to form a good working relationship despite the many differences in their personalities. Clinton stole a number of pages from the Carter playbook, relied on many of his same advisors, but ended up tripping over himself on many occasions because he refused to take Carter's advice.
   
   Many view Carter's administration as a failure, but Brinkley notes the framework that was laid during that time, and how Jimmy Carter followed through on many of the initiatives he set in those four short years. Most impressive are his achievements in world health, spearheading efforts to rid the world of small pox, guineau worm and other maladies that needed his clout to get the money necessary for their eradication. Most important was Carter's political will, which seemed undaunted despite the setback he suffered in losing the 1980 election to his nemesis, Ronald Reagan.
   
   I think anyone with an interest in Jimmy Carter will greatly appreciate this book as it puts his many accomplishments in perspective and illustrates how he earned the respect of many persons across political and international boundaries, even begrudging respect from such persons as George Bush, George Schultz and Henry Kissinger. You may not agree with everything Carter has done, but his integrity is unimpeachable.



2. Only made it thru the first few chapters, but he describes Ford as someone who sent 18 men to their death for political gain. He describes Reagan as an unprincipled and deeply immoral man, and suggests the Cold War was won because Reagan followed Carter's policies. He largely endorses the idea that Reagan's team conspired with Iran to keep the hostages until Carter was out of office. He repeats without disclaimer Carter's claim that he could have won re-election if he had been willing to bomb Iran (apparently, we Americans are a bunch of bloodthirsty idiots who would have supported such an action).
   
   Given Brinkley's unbridled venom for any Republican, it is going to be hard to believe any of the rest of the book.
   
   ---Edit: although I cannot change my star rating to 3, I found Brinkley's fawning reassuring - it meant the duplicitous and arrogant behavior of Carter perhaps unwittingly revealed in the book to be the result of Carter's nature and not biographer bias. If this is the sort of book an unabashed supporter of Carter writes, then one wonders what a truly unbiased account will someday say. Overall, the best of the books on Carter I've read so far - as my own review shows, Carter is difficult to view objectively.



3. This is a biography of Jimmy Carter from the time he lost the election to Ronald Reagan in 1980 to 1997. Brinkley attempts to show how Carter, though no longer a resident of the White House, took much of the Presidency with him in terms of what interested him and the power he still might wield in having an influence on world affairs. Carter got very involved in trying to help resolve conflicts around the world, from Panama and Haiti to North Korea and Bosnia. So focused on peace (and some might say the ever-elusive Nobel Peace Prize), Carter often could be a fly in the ointment of US policy, driving presidents (especially Clinton) up the wall. Carter is a micromanager, needing to know every detail. He is also a tireless worker, especially for what he perceives to be just causes. He has always put his faith above all other things, and might rank as the most decent public official Washington has seen in a long time, or can expect to see again. Brinkley is totally pro-Carter in all respects, though he is willing to point out how and where Carter got himself into trouble along the way. An interesting book about an interesting man.



4. Jimmy Carter is usually considered a mediocre president at best, totally incompetent at worst. Nothing could be further from the truth. This book lists his presidential successes and goes on to show how they led to his influential post-presidential activities. We now can see Jimmy Carter for what he truly is, a human rights champion and a shining example to us all.



5. Regardless of how one feels about Jimmy Carter the fact is that he has become one of the most admired men in the United States and one of the most beloved Americans in the world. He left office after being voted out in a landslide and with some of the worst poll numbers in history. Now, his poll numbers are very high and any time a conservation turns to Carter someone will almost certainly say that they think Carter is the best ex-President we have ever had or the most moral man to have been in the White House in years and years. This turn around occurred in less than twenty years, and that the turn around occurred is a fact not open to question. The real question is; how and why did it happen?

   That's the question Douglas Brinkley attempts to answer with this book. Brinkley basically starts with Carter's 1980 defeat and follows Carter's career for the next twenty years. On this journey the reader will meet Jimmy Carter the Baptist missionary, the Habitat carpenter, the lay physician out to heal the world, and the ex-President who refuses to profit from his former office but is at the same time a tireless fund raiser for his Carter Center. We also get to see the tireless diplomat who is willing to put himself in great personal danger to try and secure a peaceful resolution to conflicts around the world. This is truly a man who takes to heart his faith and the teachings of Jesus Christ. On the other hand we also see a somewhat darker side of the former peanut farmer. We see an ego as big as all outdoors, a tendency to grandstand, a self-righteous zealot, and a serious stubborn streak. The reader will also find a great clue in Carter's post presidency to the failure of his administration. The aforementioned faults of course did not help his presidential efforts but it may well have been his inability to prioritize that lead to his political downfall. It seems that Carter will give small details and events the same attention he gives to massive undertakings without taking into account the real importance of the event. One can easily see how a President with this trait would very quickly become bogged down and accomplish very little.

   Brinkley does an excellent job of telling this remarkable story. He had access to both President and Mrs. Carter along with their papers and also did many interviews with their fellow workers and friends. Interestingly, many of the people who had worked with Carter on some of his projects critiqued some of the draft chapters and pointed out mistakes. Make no mistake, most of these people are Carter intimates but steadfast Republican James Baker is also among those who offered both insights and critiques. The writing style that is found in this book is generally easy to read although the narrative does seem to drag in places. The biggest fault I could find in this book is the printing. I read the paperback version and the printing is tiny. I suppose that in discussing Jimmy Carter, Biblical type print is understandable but it still hurts the eyes. Still, this book is well worth the effort so break out the bifocals and enjoy.

5 comments about General John Buford: A Military Biography.

1. This is a nice, solid military biography. It was very readable, and I was happy to see it had a strong thesis (Buford was "a true dragoon). I came away from the book admiring Buford a great deal. True, there could have been more information in here, but isn't further information one of the purposes of an appendix?
   
   I highly recommend this book to U.S. Civil War buffs and anyone interested in learning about someone who achieve success without playing many political games.



2. as the author complains by lack of personal source material. Buford died during the war, had no surviving children, didn't write any kind of memoirs etc... Longacre did a solid job of discussing the union cavalry command but many aspects of the book like sections on Gettysburg and West Point seemed rushed. Certainly many other commanders had nice things to say about Buford unfortunately Longacre only found 1 or 2 of them.



3. John Buford is perhaps best known for his aggressive actions on the first day of the Battle of Gettysburg. However, he merits more consideration than for one day's worth of sound generalship. This book does a good, solid job of introducing readers to General Buford.
   
   Although born in Kentucky, he later moved to what was to become Rock Island, Illinois. In the late 1840s, he entered West Point and graduated in good standing. Some of those whom he came into contact with at "The Point" included Ambrose Burnside, George Stoneman, George Steuart, William Jones, John Tidball, and Hugh Ewing (William Tecumseh Sherman's foster brother). In the "old Army," he was a trooper, including serving in "Bleeding Kansas" and into the Valley of the Saints, as the United States aimed to chastise the Mormons.
   
   As the Civil War began, Buford was assigned to administration, although he wanted to be "in the saddle" as an active cavalry officer. After considerable frustration, he earned an active command. He did good service before Second Manassas/Bull Run, trying to alert General Pope of Longstreet's advance through Thoroughfare Pass, threatening Pope's flank. Alas! The significant intelligence never found its way to the right people. Indeed, this illustrates one of Buford's strength--gathering and passing on crisp intelligence (one function of the cavalry was to serve as "the eyes" of the army). However, later, he was consigned once more to administrative work.
   
   When Joe Hooker became commander of the Army of the Potomac, Buford's luck changed again, as he was given an active command. After the debacle at Chancellorsville, General Robert E. Lee began his raid northward. Here, Buford played a key role. First, in gathering intelligence. Second, for his role at Brandy Station, when his cavalry put great pressure on one wing of JEB Stuart's cavalry, beginning to tarnish the reputation of the irrepressible Stuart's command.
   
   Then, on to Gettysburg, where he arrived on June 30, assessed the land and the military features around the village, and decided to make a fight of it, fully realizing that his two cavalry brigades were facing Early's corps moving south toward Gettysburg from Carlisle and York and Hill's corps moving east along the Chambersburg Pike. As everyone knows, he held long enough for John Reynolds Union First and O. O. Howard's 11th Corps to arrive and join the battle.
   
   After, Buford continued his good work, although he would face reverses as he pursued Lee's retreating army. Once the Army of the Potomac re-entered Virginia, he continued to play a role. However, illness cut short his career.
   
   All in all, a useful biography of a figure who deserves to be better known. Indeed, the author originally refused the offer to write this book, because he did not think that there was enough information to do a competent biography. Readers ought to be appreciative that Longacre's assessment was wrong.



4. Edward Longacre's "General John Buford" is good summary of General Buford's career. It is written in straight forward language and is therefore an easy read. Anyone who has a strong interest in the American Civil War probably is familiar with Gen. Buford through such works as the book "Killer Angels" and the movie "Gettysburg". Longacre's book provides much desired pre-civil war and civil war background information. He does interpolate a certain amount of descriptive coloring, but as an attempt to get a feel for the subjective qualities of the man this is not necessarily a bad thing. One could always hope for more detail and information, but Longacre does an admirable job with the available resources.



5. Yes, thank goodness for the movie, Gettysburg since without that movie, this fine and very needed biography on General John Buford may never been written or published. The movie brought forward General Buford's finest day as a soldier and this biography bring forward the real man behind the Hollywood image.
   
   Its appears that writing a biography on Buford may have been a problem due to lack of first hand material. Its appears that Buford was not a writer or many of it did not survived. But what comes out from Longacre's book is story of a decent and highly motivated man who took the long road to Gettysburg. His premature death probably robbed him of greater Civil War fame since he have proved to be one of the best cavalry commanders within the Army of the Potomac by the time Gettysburg came about. What he could have done if he lived would be one of the great "what if" of Civil War trivia.
   
   Longacre's book is bit short on Buford's early life, lacking material would be my guess on this short coming. But the author was successful in bring out Buford's early military career, thus doing justice the subtitle of this book, "Military Biography".
   
   Only part I am not sure on Longacre's account was his take on where Buford and General John Reynold's initially met on that first day of Gettysburg. Most well known and movie take would be at the Lutheran Seminary Cupola where that most quote "The Devil's to Pay" came out. Although the actual words may be questioned, I don't exactly buy the author's contention that the first meeting came about in the town of Gettysburg. Why would Buford be there, away from a crucial battle? This was based on civilian eye witnesses, of course the same type of civilians even today who can't tell the difference between a new born 2nd LT and a three star general!!
   
   Other then that, this book proves to be quite readable, nicely researched and quite informative on the life of John Buford. This is the only biographical material I have read on Buford outside of that booklet I brought at Gettysburg back in 1995 written by Michael Phipps and John S. Peterson titled "The Devil's To Pay".

5 comments about Hemingway: A Life Without Consequences.

1. Another book about Hemingway? Amazingly, perhaps, this is the best one yet. Papa with all his flaws and all his gifts, X-rayed, dissected, analyzed, and left with his compromised humanity intact as an awesome, if not a sympathetic, character. What I came away with from this rivetting biography is an appreciation of Hemingway the Artist. We already knew that he was a great writer, and a mythic figure, created at least halfway by himself. Mr. Mellows shows that typewriters and words were only the most obvious media that Hemingway used, and that from the time he left home, and probably before, he was using the people who showed up in his life as ruthlessly as he used language. Hemingway's greatest contribution to writing may be the savage way he trimmed style and excess from sentences until they were as spare as could be, leaving the pure idea without any affected embellishment whatever. He did the same thing with the people in his life, wives included, reworking them to fit his narratives, and discarding them when they either failed to conform, or worse, did something by word or deed that bruised his insanely touchy feelings. Sexual ambiguity is everywhere in Hemingway's life, and he himself put it there by embracing a macho pole of identity while containing all the while certain feminine charcteristics such as extreme sensitivity and receptivity. He needed these qualities to be the artist he was, but he eschewed them in his active daily life. No wonder he shot himself. Read this book.



2. THIS BOOK COVERS NOT ONLY HEMINGWAY BUT MOST OF THE AMERICAN AND BRITISH WRITERS OF THE TIME. AFTER READING IT I LEARNED TO DESPISE HIM AS A PERSON BUT RESPECT HIS WORKS EVEN MORE. A MUST FOR HEMINGWAY FANS.



3. I enjoyed this work. The author did give a different slant to Hemingway the man, and indeed, the works of Hemingway. I cannot say for a second that I agreed with the author much over 25 percent of the time, but hey, Mellow has his opinion, I have mine. I did feel that Mellow beat the "gay" thing into the ground (as like in "Who Cares?") and did feel that the author did not have a good grasp of the works of his subject, i.e. Hemingway and his writing. Again though, it was nice getting another opinion and did leave me with some food for thought. This in no way compares with the work of Carlos Baker and his ilk, but, again, gives us just another view...always a nice thing. I do hope though, that the reader of this work reads some other biographies on Hemingway and do hope they actually read some of Hemingways work. On the other hand, I am a big Hemingway fan and my view, I am sure, is a bit slanted.



4. I was quite disappointed with this book. The author divides his time between 1) relating events of Hem's life (ok), 2) attacking Hem's character and endlessly trying to prove he was gay (?), and 3) attempts at 'literary criticism' of Hem's work (bad).

   Almost from the outset, I got the feeling James Mellow didn't understand much about Hemingway's stories. His criticisms seemed trite or misguided. But when I got to page 521 I was quite sure he understood very little indeed. Summarizing For Whom The Bell Tolls, he writes, "Robert Jordan, on the last night before the dynamiting of the bridge, is forced to write his letter to General Golz suggesting that the attack be called off because of Pablo's treachery and the destruction of El Sordo's guerrilla band." Evidently Mr. Mellow didn't read the part where Jordan observes the enemy's massive defensive buildup just prior to the 'surprise offensive', which would render the offensive useless and costly. We're talking about a major troop movement with thousands of pieces of equipment, where El Sordo's band figures little, and it is beyond me to understand how this understanding of the situation could be lost on the critic / biographer.

   I was glad to read the basic outline of Hemingway's life story, but didn't care for the sermonizing judgements of Hem's lifestyle and weak criticisms of his work.




5. I'm a huge Hemingway fan. Both in terms of his life - which was truly one of the more interesting and fascinating lives of any author I can think of - and his writing.
   In my opinion, this book ranks #2 in Hemingway bios, behing the very detailed and fantastic series (5 books, I believe) on Hemingway that Michael Reynolds has written.

   Since Reynolds' series is so thorough, I was a little hesitant to read the Mellow book. However, I was very pleasantly surprised to find a lot of info that Reynolds chose to leave out of his books. Nothing major...but some interesting tidbits nonetheless. It sort of filled in the cracks for me.

   I would agree with a previous poster that Mellow seemed to blow right over some of the details about Hemingway's relationships with his wives....Pauline, in particular. It seemed to me that he didn't give sufficient attention to the breakup of his marriage to her....it just gets rushed through, and then Pauline vanishes with little mention of her again. In fact, the whole final part of the book felt a little rushed. It seemed like the post-WWII years were covered very quickly in the book.

   In general though, I enjoyed this bio very much. I would recommend it to anyone interested in learning more about Hemingway. Many of the older ones on him have been exposed as containing numerous major factual errors....probably Hemingway's fault as much the author(s). Mellow's is the best one-book treatment of Hemingway I have read. If you have time, check out Reynolds' series....which is the king of the heap, in my opinion.
   But if you want it all in one book, go with this one.

5 comments about FDR: The War President, 1940-1943: A History.

1. To the layman, FDR's name is associated with Pearl Harbour dilemma and the consequential entry of USA into WWII.
   We have read the memoirs of Winston Churchill and seen impassioned appeals (some were even desperate) by the Allied player (France's Reynaud and England's WC) to the American President to interfere. Yet the appeals never effectively addressed the American public opinion.
   The French never understood how FDR could be a `leader' in his country and at the same time stood powerless to make decisions.
   The French, in the bloody and crowded events that encroached them in first half of 1940, could not fully appreciate the American System.
   But the British did.
   The public opinion in the USA, during 1939 and 1940, was one that when the allied had an edge in any battle against the Germans `so what, you see anyway they can win without us (USA)' when Germany was winning, the thinking was `Okay, since it's all over we better stay out, there is nothing we can do anymore'.
   American public opinion was divided and pacifists regarded the French appeals to `come to their rescue', emotionally hysterical. The French must have known how far was FDR bound by the congressional limits that formulated USA foreign policies.
   FDR could not have possibly made his decision apart from the American system, based on personal whims, notably when re-elections were due. FDR was bound to make American voters to see how far he was not missing any opportunity-however small- to prevent an all-out war.
   We should remember that before the war FDR had asked the Congress to approve his request for arms embargo to any country in a condition of `aggression' and the Congress refused unless the embargo applied to all countries concerned.
   Many American felt the Nazi had been forced to fight a war they never wanted.
   British propaganda machines were able to convince a big chuck of the public opinion in the USA that the Nazi had actually betrayed the Versailles Treaty (Post WWI). Wall Street and money mongers were also supporting this thesis. When Germany signed non-belligerent pact with USSR, many pacifists in America claimed that the war between the Europeans was imperialist in nature and urged FDR not to enter forcibly into it. FDR was even accused by the very few American Communists that he was indeed planning to do this.
   Although the French wanted them to come sooner than later, Churchill was convinced that in the end America would go to war, and he knew how far FDR depended on the public opinions at home.
   In his memoirs WC recounted that Lord Lothian (British Ambassador to USA) saw FDR and discussed `among other things, the danger facing America if a) some part of the British fleet fell to the Germans hand in the event of Nazi victory and 2) what are the chances of USA `being at war with Hitler' 3) FDR reiterated that `much depended not only on American Public Opinion but also on whether before that time dictators had taken some action which compelled the USA to go to war in self-defence' 4) only Congress could make commitments to war.
   
   Was FDR aware of the Japanese attack (`sudden attack' as the world was led to believe at all times) before it happened?
   Or had someone held from him the intelligence, which was then available that an air strike was forthcoming?
   
   Pearl harbour was the real casus belli that justified to the American public opinion the urgency of their country to enter the war, after all this was the highly coveted compelling opportunity for USA to fight in self-defence.
   
   When will historians be able to access the documents to sort out this inscrutable mystery?
   
   It may remain a mystery though because the worst thing for any leader is to hurt the intelligent minds of his people.



2. I purchased this book in the hopes of finding insight into FDR's disability. This huge volume discusses everything and includes about one page total (if that) about it, providing a look into how FDR did and did not discuss his disability. Interesting how the history books and buffs don't talk about it much, but disappointing also so I only gave it 3. If you're a history buff and reading it to find out about the politics of the day and such, you would like it more.



3. This last of five great volumes continues to look at Roosevelt and his times from the progressive Left. Davis was a liberal New Dealer (with the AAA) and he surveys FDR's third term with a view to what might-have-been through the eyes of one of many who welcomed a more fundamental shift from "selfish materialism" to "selfless ideology" in America. What better perspective to measure this century's greatest Democrat?

   Ignore Michael Lind's NY Times review -- except to get a taste of the reactionary manifesto FDR was up against; he simply trashes Davis's liberalism with a neo-con, op-ed spin piece on commies and big business, and concludes the book to be historical fiction. And why the accusation of "calumny" when Davis posits psychology as one of several possible explanations for FDR's inaction to the final solution? Only last year did we learn of John McCloy's discussion with an irate President about bombing Auschwitz ("Why, the idea! I won't have anything to do with it. We'll be accused of participating in this horrible business."), which was insight kept secret for forty years. With such precious little information about the motives of an aging, instinctive President who was always reluctant to espouse the ideological over the pragmatic, why is it unethical to suppose that he "may" have felt the politics of rescue to be personally overwhelming?

   Don't let one review deter you from a great history and a great story. From the Grand Alliance to Pearl Harbor to Casablanca and the Darlan Deal, the book presents a magnificent frieze. I give it four stars only because, alas, it ends prematurely.




4. Although Davis' book runs 757 pages, it only covers about 4 years real time. If you take the plunge, you will learn much about FDR, the War, and Davis (the author). I have read many books about the military conduct of WWII, from all sides. This was my first book about Great Leaders, Diplomacy, and World War strategy from the "Top." Most of this was new to me and most of the main points in the book don't show Roosevelt in a favorable light. Here are some of the big sins Davis reveals:

   1. FDR was clearly deceptive in his 1940 Campaign. He promised American mothers that he would keep us out of the War but he was already anxious to get us into the European War.

   2. FDR sold out most of his liberal principles in fighting the War. For instance, he placed industrialists in top positions, he put republicans in the cabinet, looked the other way when large firms ignored labor laws during the war, refused to embrace Henry Wallace's "Century of the Common Man." etc. Worst of all, large firms made money on their contracts! There is a long list
   of FDRs actions that show that the FDR's approach to the War effectively ended the New Deal program.

   3. There was much more tension between Americans and English than I realized. As far as military strategy, the Americans wanted to attack the Germans directly, ASAP, whereas the English
   preferred to attack the Germans indirecty, sometime later....
   The English were afraid of the Germans, who had just recently kicked them out of France, Greece, North Africa, etc. At one point in 1942, General Marshall was ready to jettison the English approach, the Torch invasion, and shift US resources to the Pacific. Roosevelt agreed to English strategies....

   4. FDR thought he could charm Stalin, "uncle joe." What a colossal miscalculation of Stalin's character.

   5. FDR did not worry much about civil liberties, authorizing the "evacuation" of the West Coast Japanese, letting the FBI run rampant with wire-tapping, etc.

   6. FDR was an unprincipled man, devious, back-stabbing, disloyal to people who had backed him for decades, such as Hillman, and Farley. Davis claims FDR could turn his emotions on and off to serve practical requirements. He could not be trusted.

   7. And the final, greatest sin; FDR knew much about the Holocaust by 1942 and he refused to shout it from the rooftops.
   FDR was not anti-semitic, but he did not want his legion of enemies to label it "A War to Save Jews" because FDR knew that many American (voters) were anti-semitic.........

   Somehow, Davis is willing to look past all these sins to
   claim that FDR still deserves to be classified as a great president. Apparently FDRs unwavering focus on winning the War can offset even the largest sins.I'm not so sure.

   As for Davis, his absolute hatred for capitalism and big business is reiterated on every other page. He also puts forth
   a vague theory about technology and human welfare that readers can safely ignore. Davis prefers some kind of socialist state.

   All in all, it made me curious to read more about FDR.




5. It's a shame that Professor Davis did not live to complete his massive biography of FDR. But what he left is a most thoughtful and provocative account of how Roosevelt steered a reluctant country into a war it had to wage. Davis is skeptical of FDR's management of the war effort -- the president's compulsive manipulation of his staff, his over-reliance on self-interested industrialists for war production, and, above all, the woeful lack of response to the Holocaust. But Professor Davis is not a revisionist -- he makes it clear that the Americans had to fight World War II to stop Nazi-fascism and preserve Western civilization, and that no one else on the American scene could have taken the country in that direction. In "The War President," Professor Davis builds on the strengths of his previous volumes with his enlightening commentary on the impact of modernity and technology on presidential leadership. And he adds to his sketches of the figures who played a role in FDR's life -- Churchill, Harry Hopkins, Wendell Willkie and many others. I hated to see the book end, but the final scene is very poignant, with the President spending a New Year's Eve watching the film Casablanca as he is sending Americans to fight in North Africa.

3 comments about Don Benito Wilson: From Mountain Man to Mayor Los Angeles 1841 to 1878.

1. A key player in Los Angeles History, very informative book with enough human interest to keep those of us who are more interested in people's stories than just dates and facts, interested.



2. Benjamin Wilson lead an astonishing life, and was the perfect man to arrive in Mexican California. Though he is largely known today only through the eponomous "Mt. Wilson", he created much of what we now see in Southern California. This book is a spectacular vista into that world, and on one of the men who shaped it.
   
   Having to leave home as a teen, he became both a merchant and a mountain man, learning both commerce and the trapping skills of the Indians. Fleeing Santa Fe at age 30, he arrived in California with the first overland settlers in 1841. Intending to become a merchant in China, he failed (thrice) to make the boat from San Francisco, and instead bought a ranch near the San Gabriel mission - owning what we now call Riverside, California.
   
   His adventures do not merely parallel the development of California; largely, they MAKE the development of California. He spanned both the Mexican and American eras, in marriage, politics, agriculture, commerce, railroads, Indian affairs, and especially real estate.
   
   Though never taking Mexican citizenship, he married the daughter of a local don, became alcalde of the Riverside area, and finally joined the last Mexican government of Los Angeles. He was elected the first clerk of the new American Los Angeles, and its second mayor. As a state senator, he represented ALL of Southern California -- only a few thousand people.
   
   The state was unbelieveably tiny. Many of the few hundred that voted in his elections in Los Angeles were drunks and Indians, rounded up the night before and paid (liquor or coin) to vote (as many times as possible). The center of the state popultion was *north* of San Francisco, as men poured in to the state to mine gold, and the few ranchers of Southern California raised the cattle to feed them.
   
   On the land that B. J. Wilson owned, one million people now live. He created the first "gated community" in California -- when he fenced in the ranch that we now call Beverly Hills. He made much of what is now Pasadena, Altadena, and San Marino, both establishing the his vineyard at the foot of Lake Avenue, and dividing and developing his property for both Huntington (San Marino, Huntington Library) and for the Hoosiers (Pasadena). His real estate hands were in San Pedro (with Banning, owning the landing, developing the railroad, providing the US Army barracks), the Ballona marshlands (Marina del Rey), and downtown LA (especially the 12 acre site on the central plaza where Union Station now is). The road he cut up "Wilson's Mountain" for timber has later led to hotels, a major astronomical observatory complex, and to the home of nearly all Los Angeles's TV broadcast antennae.
   
   His legacy is largely California itself, as his son failed into suicide, and the son-in-law to whom he turned over his vineyard lacked Wilson's imagination and vision. His one famous descedent was his grandson, Gen. George S. Patton, a man who shaped twentieth century events with the same gusto his grandfather had in the nineteenth.
   
   Wilson's true legacy was the bussling city he helped create, developing it from dusty backwater adobe to thriving market town, atwitter with telegraph lines and railroads.
   
   This book is not so much a single, chronological, narrative story as it is a collection of vignettes, anecdotes, and short stories about all the aspects of Wilson's life, with chapters on his mountain days, politics, the vineyard, Pasadena, San Pedro, the Mexican-American War, properties, railroads, etc. The material was extensively researched, from both first- and second-hand sources, and extensively footnoted. (Much of the research was done at the Huntington Library, just east of where Wilson's vineyard ranch-house stood.) This will be, for the twenty-first century, the definitive biography of a creator of nineteenth century California.



3. This is a beautifully crafted narrative which describes the struggles associated with California's coming of age through the lens of one of its first mayors. Don Benito lived a colorful life, and the author presents it in a series of vignettes and carefully researched anecdotes. By providing context to Don Benito's personal story, the author presents a concise history of California, from the first Spanish settlers and their missions up to references to modern L.A., and how it was shaped by the movers and shakers of the 19th century. Although it is hard to put down, you can pick it up again, easily, without fear of losing your place in the story, since the chapters are short and self-contained. The writing is clear and compact, and it is a fascinating historical document. This is the perfect book for anyone who loves a good story.