4 comments about Here At The New Yorker.

1. Gill's HERE AT THE NEW YORKER is good, not great. The unquestioned value of the book is the detailed look at William Shaun, the legendary editor at the height of magazine's glory. The precision and exactness of Shaun in reading in every line and demanding excellence without fail speaks of standards that seemingly belong to a bygone age.



2. The New Yorker magazine is an acquired taste. It does have plenty of advertisements but the founding and the development of this timeless magazine over the first 50 years since it's inception in February 1921 is an historical and amazing accomplishment. To know the New Yorker, you must learn to love the New Yorker. We look forward to those Letters from Paris, London, Rome, Warsaw, Cologne, Cracow, Naples, Milan whenever we can since many of us don't get to go there often enough. Contributors have become literary phenomenon's like J.D. Salinger, Charles Addams, Janet "Genet" Flanner, E.B. White, James Thurber, William Shawn, John Updike, Harold W. Ross, Robert Benchley, Truman Capote, Dorothy Parker, Brendan Gill, and many more to mention. Brenda Gill's book is a testament to his devotion and adoration of the New Yorker when magazines were major reading source of enlightenment, entertainment, and information all rolled into one.



3. It was interesting to read about the writers and editors who helped make The New Yorker a magazine of such distinction. I bought this book during that whole rage of last year when "Gone: The Last Days of The New Yorker" was all over the place. In the time since I read this book, I resubscribed to the magazine. Periodically, I read glimpses of the magazine's former glory in its pages. I don't think I could read "Gone," though. Even though I know The New Yorker is not as good as it once was, that doesn't mean I have to take a broom handle to it. That's why I found "Here at The New Yorker" great, pricisely because of its balance.



4. Having just read the new "About Town The New Yorker and the World it Made" I felt compelled to go back and reread Brendan Gill's memoirs of his days working for Harold Ross and William Shawn.

   Some critic called "Here at the New Yorker" "wonderful entertainment". That is wrong--this book does not entertain it probes. Granted there are some funny anecdotes and glances of writers like Scott Fitzgerald. But the book has a darker more serious side as well.

   I imagine that Brendan Gill has made many enemies with his book. He talked about Editor Harold Ross's racism and William Shawn's phobias. Of many he writers he either praises them or he says they did not produce much legible writing at all.

   But these dark character portraits are wonderfully written and penetrate deep. After reading Gill I think I can more carefully size up my peers. This one is a drunk never-do-well. That one works all day to keep away from his wife. Brendan Gill has the novelist's eye for detail.

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

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



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



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



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



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

5 comments about Antietam: The Soldiers' Battle.

1. In "Antietam: The Soldiers' Battle," author John Michael Priest tells the story of the American Civil War's bloodiest day using a compilation of eyewitness accounts. The book also includes no less than 72 sketch maps of the battle. Between the plentiful maps and the chronologically-arranged accounts, the reader can easily follow the ebb and flow of the battle.
   
   The book contains surprises, such as a mention of Gen. Robert E. Lee harassing Confederate stragglers, the soldiers' nearly universal dislike of shelling and occasional acts of cowardice or outrageous bravery. It's astonishing how close together opposing units were when they fired at one another. The author claims that Confederate defenders of the Bloody Lane fired at Max Weber's Union brigade at a range of 60 feet!
   
   My favorite vignette concerns the half-crazed Swedish commander of the 20th New York Regiment, Col. Von Vegesack. When a Maine colonel helpfully suggested that the 20th's colors be lowered because they were drawing too much Rebel fire, Vegesack ranted, "Let them wave. They are our glory."
   
   While many historians write about Antietam in broad strokes, this book gets into the details. For example, every student of the battle knows that Gen. John Sedgwick's Union division got ambushed and cut to pieces in the West Woods. Priest's book shows exactly how this disaster unfolded and where each unit was positioned. Most historians criticize the clumsy commitment of Col. William Irwin's VI Corps Union brigade. Yet, this unit -- which included the 20th NY -- defeated a Confederate thrust that threatened to retake Bloody Lane.
   
   It's easy for armchair strategists to say that the Union commanders should have done this or the Rebel commanders should have done that. But, the general impression from reading this book is how difficult it must have been to impose any sort of control on a large battle like Antietam. This book should serve as a handy and useful reference for students of the battle.



2. I can't say enough good things about this book. Prior to visiting the Antietam battlefield, I read Sear's Landscape Turned Red to get an overview. But then after seeing the battlefield I was eager to read more. Priest's book was just what I wanted. It is a compilation of first person accounts that puts you right in the middle of the action. You'll feel the shells and bullets flying all around. I've now read this book at least ten times, learning and understanding more with each read. I've also recently revisited the battlefield to help me put everything together.



3. Terrific book. Unique in its approach of using first person accounts to describe in detail one of the most horrific fights of the ACW. Priest puts you in the thick of the action. Contains numerous great maps as well.
   
   I would highly recommend this book to anyone who enjoys military history, and consider it one of the best written on the Civil War.



4. John Michael Priest " Antietam: The Soldier's Battle" is like deja vu. The Minnie balls are fast and thick and the double canister cut down your men. Of the 226 men you led into the cornfield (1st Texas) that warm day of 17th of Sept 1862, only 40 men came out.
   This book reads just like you were there. AWESOME and highly reccomended. The research is impressive and for those looking for who shot whom up on one of the most bloodiest days of the war, this book is it.
   My research was also in to try to identify what battery fired the U.S. 12lb Sperical Shot recovered at Sharpsburg Pike near the prison at Antietam that I own.



5. I agree with a previous reviewer that Priest's book works best with a general Antietam book like Sears's. My approach to understanding Antietam was to (1) read Sears's Landscape Turned Red; (2) visit the battlefield (this is key to understanding the numerous references in Priest's book to "Mumma's swale," "the high ground 600 yards south of the Dunker Church," etc.--with a mental picture everything fits together better); (3) buy a topographic battlefield map, such as the one by Trailhead Graphics (for sale at the Battlefield's Visitor Center); and (4) read this book. My only criticism of the maps is the lack of a small-scale "finder" map that shows the battlefield and the area around Sharpsburg. As for the author's large-scale "handdrawn" maps, I found them very useful, and they are placed well, usually never more than a page or two from the action they refer to (I read the original 1992 edition, so I'm not sure if the maps are placed as well in this 1994 edition from a different publisher). As for the text, it's wonderful: well edited and even well indexed. The emphasis on the more "minor" actions on September 17, 1862 that a more general book would breeze over or ignore because of space limitations is appreciated.

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

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



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



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



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

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




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

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

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

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

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

   very highly recommended!

5 comments about Generals in Gray Lives of the Confederate Commander.

1. Like its companion volume Generals in Blue, Generals in Gray is an important resource for both the Civil War buff and the serious historian (which is not to say that the two can't be one and the same!). In this volume, which was actually written before Generals in Blue, author Ezra Warner has written the biographies and rustled up the photos of all the general officers confirmed by the Confederate Congress, and a handful of those who weren't for one reason or another.
   
   There were 425 men who served as Confederate generals. Nearly one-fourth of them died in the war. Boy generals, men promoted before they reached the age of 30, were plentiful, and nearly half of them were killed on the battlefield. Looking at their photographs, one can scarcely fathom the experiences they endured at such young ages. They look like college lads.
   
   Several of the generals profiled by Warner especially stand out for me. There's William Flank Perry, for example, the philosopher-general, who enlisted as a private in 1862 and was commissioned a brigadier in the war's final months. After the war, he taught philosophy at Ogden College in Kentucky until the turn of the century. There's Alexander Reynolds, who at war's end entered the service of the Khedive of Egypt, and so must've known the tragic Federal General Charles Pomeroy Stone, of Ball's Bluff infamy, who did so as well. There's General John McCausland, who with his huge handlebar moustache and heavy eyebrows looks for all the world like Yosemite Sam of cartoon fame. And there's the boy general Thomas Benton Smith, a youngster whose fate breaks my heart. After he and most of his brigade surrendered during the Battle of Nashville, a Federal colonel tried literally to beat Smith's brains out. His brain exposed, in a coma, Smith was expected to die. But he somehow survived, only to spend the rest of his life, some 48 years, in an insane asylum.



2. .....but this one sure is. The Civil War is still a current event for many of us. For four long years, both sides were carried by their armies, and led by their Generals. Now, lots of us know about Lee and Jackson, but there were a total of 425 Confederate Generals over the course of the war, and some even I've never heard of. Of these, 299 were serving as General Officers at the end. A total of 77 were killed in battle; the rest died of natural causes, resigned, got fired, etc., etc.
   
   They're ALL here, at least the ones that we can't argue about whether they were really a General. [There are others about whom we can argue, for various reasons--a separate book has come out in recent years...see "More Generals in Gray"]. While Lee has has more biographies than I can count, and many have at least one, for most of these guys, this is all we've got. Here we get pictures, pre and, where appropriate, post war careers, grave sites, and a study of just what the man accomplished [or didn't]. Robert E. Lee gets three and a half pages, but all get a good write-up.
   
   They were a varied lot: six General Lees, six Jacksons, eight each of Smith and Walker. Professional soldiers, lawyers, politicians, even three preachers [Polk and Pendleton, you know; read this and find the third]. Some were heroic, some were drunks, a few were both. Some brilliant, some inept, one or two both. The post war lots of the survivors were as various as the men; poverty and wealth, glory and apostasy, and all points in between. Trivia: Who was the ONLY Confederate General born in Texas? Who was the last living Conferderate General? ONE man answers BOTH questions. [OK, I'll give it to you...Judge Felix Huston Robertson of Waco died April 20, 1928]. The very first American Indian to wear General's stars AND the last General to surrender...he's here, in all his glory.
   
   I can go on all day. The late Ezra Warner, Illinois native and California investment counsellor, published this in 1959...it needs to stay in print forever. While I've had this, and the companion "Generals in Blue", for years, only recently has a trade paperback made it readily available, and affordable. A "thank you" to the publisher, and a huge, everlasting, "THANK YOU" to Mr. Warner.



3. This book is a must for any Civil War buff. Learn the good, bad and the ugly about all general officers of the army of the CSA. I keep this book, and its companion, Generals in Blue, handy when I am reading historical accounts of battles of the Civil War. How often, while you are reading, have you yearned to get additional information on a particular general? These books are perfect to provide more information, when you want it.



4. I remember first reading Generals in Gray as a teenager and have often referred back to the book over the years.

   Warner gives a synopsis of each general , usually containing the following information:

   1. Birthplace and birthdate.
   2. Pre-Civil War life.
   3. Battles served in, promotions, woundings, death (if applicable).
   4. Postwar career (if he survived the war).
   5. Death and place burial.
   6. Brief mention of the general's competency (or lack thereof).
   7. Relationships with other generals (superior, subordinate).

   I have often found the book to be extremely helpful when reading a book on a particular Civil War battle. Doing so helps me to better understand the general when studying a particular battle.

   Whether you have a serious interest in the Civil War or a novice, I highly recommend the book as an excellent reference!




5. Warner does an excellent job in giving short biographies on all 425 Confederate generals, including a picture of each general. An excellent reference guide and a must have for your Civil War library.

5 comments about Wolf of the Deep: Raphael Semmes and the Notorious Confederate Raider CSS Alabama.

1. Stephen Fox (who, I assume, is either a Yankee or has Yankee sympathies) has written a superb, sympathetic and pretty well true (I have read with interest the review by O.J. Semmes and I respect it) thriller based on the exploits of Captain Raphael Semmes (O.J. Semmes's great great grandfather) and that of his principal and most important command, the C.S.S. Alabama, the extraordinary Confederate raider that wrought havoc amongst Yankee shipping during the War for Southern Independence. It's the sort of book that's almost impossible to put down as, though one knows how the ship's story ends - sunk off Cherbourg, France, by the U.S.S. Kearsarge, on Sunday, the 19th of June, 1864 - the Alabama's creation at Liverpool and her career at sea makes for endless fascination, as does the life of Captain Semmes himself. For this Britisher, however, one of the most interesting aspects of the book is the careful cataloguing of the Confederacy's many supporters who were 'over here,' some of whom I knew of but about some of whom I knew next to nothing. Any present-day supporter of the cause of the Confederate States of America should remember with pleasure the parts played on 'our' side of 'the pond' by such as (in alphabetical order) James Dunwoody Bulloch (an uncle of Theodore Roosevelt), William Ewart Gladstone, M.P., Henry Hotze, the Laird ship-building brothers of Liverpool, William Schaw Lindsay, M.P., Senator James Murray Mason, Matthew Fontaine Maury, Senator John Slidell, James Spence, and, of course, the Revd. Francis William Tremlett and his sister, Louisa. These fine folk played their parts in the great drama and I am proud of all of them, British and American, but it was Semmes and his ship that nearly turned the tide of history and, despite losing the last battle, had lasting effects on both Great Britain and the United States. Read this well-written book: you'll love it like I did!



2. Raphael Semmes is/was my great great grandfather. It is a matter of pride, if of no other significance, that I share a birth date of September 27th with him. An appreciable amount of my 78 years has been consumed in correcting error and wrongful expressions relative to Raphael Semmes, often by authors who borrowed liberally from his memoirs. For example the use of the words "notorious" instead of "famous"; the term "pirate" by authors better deserving the term; "rebel" by persons purporting to be historians. Fox appears, at times, to have used the philosophy of no proof to the contrary in his conclusions, especially his conjecture that one of Semmes's children had been born out of wedlock. This musing was based upon his time at sea and the unlikelihood of a 10 month pregnancy. Had one read all the error in the advertising of the book, this would come as no surprise. Semmes's character is best described in the words of Warren F. Spencer who wrote a factual book about Semmes during the Mexican War and the War between the States: "One other person inspired me to complete this writing:Raphael Semmes. His personality comes through all of his writings; his strong intellect constantly challenged me. I have learned from him the meaning of honor and the value of sacrificing one's self for the sake of one's convictions. My travel through Raphael Semmes's life has, in the sunset of my career, given me a new meaning to this period of my own existence. And for that, I thank Raphael Semmes". Spencer provided an accurate recounting of the life of a good man. The value of Spencer's thoughtful approach is well expressed through words of John Paul II: "People have always needed models to imitate, and that need is all the greater today, amid such a welter of confusing and conflicting ideas".



3. This book is an outstanding account of the little known actions of the Confederate Nany during the war between the states. The book is very well written and offers a "Southern Perspective" of Captain Semmes actions during this tragic time. I found the book riviting and highly recommend it to history buffs.



4. ~Wolf of the Deep: Raphael Semmes and the Notorious Confederate Raider CSS Alabama~ is a fluid and captivating tale of the Confederate Raider helmed by the Confederate Admiral Raphael Semmes. This book, in particular, focuses on his almost two-year stint as captain of the infamous Confederate privateer, the Alabama.
   
   In 1860, the Union strategist Winfield Scott devised a shrewd plan to strangle southern commerce with a naval blockade. The Confederates answered by building up their tiny Navy, though they never really could effectively counter the formidable power of New England shipbuilders. The South lacked the shipyards and iron foundries to build great ships, and had to turn to England for naval implements of war. One such ship was the CSS Alabama that set sail from Birkenhead, England in 1862 after being built by John Laird Sons and Company.
   
   At the onset of the war, Semmes was first placed in command of CSS Sumter. That tour would last six short months. He raided commercial shipping while eluding pursuing Union warships. In January 1862, the Sumter required a major overhaul. Semmes attempted to have her repaired at Gibraltar, but the arrival of U.S. warships ended her career, and Semmes narrowly escaped to England, where he was promoted to captain. There he acquired a sizable commercial vessel. He then went to the Portuguese island of Madeira in the Atlantic and had that vessel converted into a formidable warship that became world-famous as CSS Alabama.
   
   The CSS Alabama was a screw sloop-of-war built for the Confederate States Navy at Birkenhead, England in 1862. At capacity, it had a crew of some 145 officers and sailors. All told, the Alabama sunk 62 vessels, mostly merchant ships. Its captain was the illustrious Raphael Semmes. Stephen Fox gives a nice background to Semmes' life leading up to the war. Semmes had spent his early years in the U.S. Navy, and was married to an northern woman. A native of Maryland, Semmes practiced law in Alabama. When Alabama seceded in 1861, he served the Confederacy as a blockade runner and had great success raiding Union merchant vessels in the Caribbean and Atlantic. Playing cat-and-mouse games in the vast gulf of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, the Alabama preyed upon Union commercial shipping. The ship bounced around ports from the Caribbean to England to the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa.
   
   On 11 June 1864, Alabama arrived in Cherbourg, France. There Semmes requested permission to dock and overhaul his ship. Pursuing the raider, the American sloop-of-war USS Kearsarge lied in wait. Eventually the two met, and though the Alabama fired more shots at the Kearsarge, the Union ship plowed a deadly shot at a section of the Alabama's waterline sending the ship hurling to the bottom. The Union ship received the vacating crew of the Alabama.
   
   All things considered, this is an intriguing and fascinating account of Raphael Semmes and the notorious Confederate Raider CSS Alabama. The book is engaging and it has some nice pictures and illustrations, which enliven the narrative.



5. first off...it bugs me to no end that official and customer reviews refer to both Semmes and the CSS Alabama as "privateers." The Alabama was a ship built and comissioned in England by the Confederate States of America, and Semmes, her captain, was a Confederate Naval Officer. What she did, and did quite well, was commercial raiding, which was to destroy the enemy's commerce whenever possible. The Union ships did the same when they found Confederate blockade runners, and one can say they were performing the nautical version of what Sherman and others were doing on land.
   
   That said, this is one outstanding book. I'm not partial to historical biographies, and even less to military ones, but I tore through this one in two days. Military, political, and sexual intrigue--a real flair for characterization---Fox has all of the ingredients for an old-fashioned potboiler--and this is all a true account of an overlooked Civil War navy commander of whom little was thought until late in his career.
   
   Semmes and the Alabama are both fascinating characters--but the supporting roles of the crew--and those that love them--and those that plot aginst them--and the exotic ports of call the lovely Lady Alabama finds herself in and her many harrowing escapes until her final battle--all make for a book you can't put down.
   
   Most historical tomes by Brown history professors aren't devoured like the latest beach novel. For me, this one was, but it was a far more satisfying experience.

3 comments about I Rode With Jeb Stuart: The Life And Campaigns Of Major General J. E. B. Stuart.

1. I feel this is a great book for anyone intrested in learning more about this great person. He was not just a General but a caring, warm and compassionate person.



2. It is often more interesting to read what those who have been there have to say than what we think they said. Thus is the case with this book. It may not have every fact correct, but it is what the author McClellen remembered. As with "Co. Aych" and "All For the Union," their perception of the smaller picture of the War than the overall history that is fascinating.



3. More than McClellan's memoir, this is an early Stuart biography, and later biographies such as Davies' and Thomas' rely heavily upon it. McClellan became Stuart's AG in May '63, but his account starts with Stuart's youth.

   This is a vital account in showing exactly what Stuart's cavalry did during the war: scouting, raiding, screening movements, fighting rearguard actions, gathering information, etc. One thing I didn't know was that Stuart's horse artillery, often under the command of the general himself and sometimes with regular batteries added, would take up a flank position during infantry battles and fire into the Federal ranks. The perpetual, obviously exhausting, activity of the cavalry also becomes obvious.

   McClellan was present for the Gettysburg campaign, and his account is invaluable for this somewhat controversial issue. His writing becomes more personal at this point, and he recounts several anecdotes of interest. He continues his detailed recounting of ANV cavalry activity until Stuart's death; McClellan was present at the deathbed and ends his book there. This should be required reading for anyone interested in the cavalry.

1 comments about Grace Livingston Hill Story.

1. I had read many books by Grace Livingston Hill even as a very young person as my mother has a number of her titles. This biography of GLH gave me a better understanding of how they came about. The backgrounds of several are provided in this excellent reference in the course of the telling of her life. If you are looking for a biography of a Christian woman, don't overlook this one. If you are already a GLH reader, this will add much to your appreciation of her works.

5 comments about Since You Went Away: World War II Letters from American Women on the Home Front.

1. Compiling 400 letters, Litoff and Smith give readers a very personal look at what World War II was life for American women at home. Reading them is an almost vouyeristic experience, as these women share their thoughts, struggles, personal victories and tragedies.
   
   The book is divided topcially rather than chronologically, giving the reader an opportunity to focus in on one aspect of the war. For example, "I Took a War Job" focuses exclusively on the liberating and empowering experience women felt in working in the defense industry (and making a man's wages.) The most touching and strongest chapter, "The Price of Victory" dealt with the loss of a loved one - husbands, brothers, lovers. The letters are from all social classes, races and parts of the country, providing a representative view, and speaking to the commonality of experiences. It is a remarkable resource, a fantastic read, and a rich collection of primary documents. For the professioal historian, I highly recommend it. For the lay reader, it is as insightful as it is fascinating. Recommended.



2. The letters in this book are divided into categories such as war brides, working women on the homefront, newlyweds separated by war, why we fought, the price of war and having a loved one away for so long, and courtship by mail. There's also one chapter that consists entirely of photos and photocopies of postcards, advertisements for things like V-mail and writing to servicemen overseas, posters, drawings, and newsletters. Although many of the concerns and experiences are similar, no two stories are exactly alike. We get a wide range of people, such as newlywed wives who had to cope with pregnancy and raising young children while husbands were away, wives who lost their husbands and often kept writing because they didn't know of their deaths right away, a family in a Japanese-American internment camp, a couple who went from friendly correspondence to a nationally-known breakup and angry feud to finally lovebirds again and a happily and long-married couple, a Quaker couple dealing with the husband being in prison due to his pacifist beliefs and refusal to serve in the military, wartime shortages on the homefront, and the often hard life many farmers faced during these years. The one thing all of these female letter-writers had in common, though, was that they were dealing with the absence of husbands, sons, brothers, fathers, and male friends.
   
   However, this book didn't pique my interest quite as much as it could have due to there being just so many different excerpts; even with the longer sections, there just wasn't as much opportunity to really draw the reader in and make him or her fully connect with these longago letter-writers, the way there could have been had there been more longer excerpts (even with fewer letter-writers represented overall), with some shorter excerpts mixed in along the way. Although this is a problem with all such anthologies; as great as the material is, one can tend to feel that it's still not the full complete picture, particularly when the editors haven't included all of their letters and have even edited the length of some of them. It makes one wish one could read all of these letters written by these interesting people instead of just these relatively short samples. Still, all things considered, this is a relatively minor complaint, certainly nothing that should dissuade one from reading this fascinating book.



3. I study all kinds of stuff from the WW2 homefront. I really liked this book. It's an easy read, however, you really get to know what it was like for the women who had to stay home during the war. I learned really early in my studies to NOT just listen to what the propoganda tells you. It was not all USO swing dances, troubles finding nylons and writing letters.
   
   The only thing I didn't like about the book is that the letters are edited. I read the book "war letters" before this one and I was spoiled because the letters in that book are unedited and even includes spelling errors, etc but they are exactly how the soldiers wrote their letters. So when I read "since you went away", I was kinda disappointed that the author only gave you what they thought was important in the letter.



4. I'm very interested in the powerful tapestry of the US homefront during WWII. This book provides a wide variety of first hand accounts of what was happening and more importantly how people felt about these events. The power comes from the fact that the words were written at the time rather than as later rememberances tainted by subsequent experiences. The only selectivity is in the letters people chose to save. But I think the authors have done a good job in trying to mitigate this natural bias by drawing from a wide variety of sources.



5. This book of letters is so revealing of that period in time. It lays the emotions of the women left behind during war time right out in the open for all to feel and experience. This book has become a part of my life. I work at a college and when we have a program that needs a reading done I am always called on to read from "my" book of WWII letters from home. I feel like these letters are my children and each one is crying out to be heard and I really do hate to have to pick only a couple to read. This book is that good. I feel that this book should be read by everybody especially young people. I get very good response after my readings and some very emotional responses as well. This is a truly wonderful book and I recommend it to everyone.

5 comments about Sons and Brothers: The Days of Jack and Bobby Kennedy.

1. First of all, let's get it out of the way. I really love the Kennedys. I enjoy most of the books about them and always learn something of each (yes, even the crazy conspiracy books). This book was a little different. I learned a lot. I enjoyed how it was put together. It starts with the 1950's and then takes 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and then Bobby Alone as separate topics. It has stories from their growing years in each as if looking back to show why they were doing what they were doing at that time in their life. I really got in the Bobby Alone section from 1964 to 1968. It showed how Bobby totally changed his views and what he went through in order to come to the conclusion that he needed to run for President. Mr. Mahoney does drag out the New Orleans, Cuban, and Mafia stuff but it's ok. Most nowadays do. I would highly recommend this book to anyone looking for a well rounded book on the Kennedy boys.



2. Richard Mahoney is to be commended for putting together a highly readable and cogent account of the life and times of JFK and RFK, as well as their dealings with the Mafia (that led to the death of JFK). Well done.
   [...]



3. ive read other books on JFK and none of the other books can quite compair to the realism in this book. the things i didnt understand in the first few books where explained more in depth than before and i came to realize that half of the things that kennedy was blammed for after his death were not acctually his fault. for example, vietnam.



4. I was raised in a conservative household and consider myself conservative in many ways (though I'm a registered independent). That said, I am 29 years old and both these men were dead before I was even born. However I have had a fascination with JFK & RFK since I first started studying history and the impact that the changes in the 1960's would have on future America. The picture on the cover is very telling about how different these brothers were -- black and white. What this book is really about is how co-dependent these two men were, with Jack more so upon Bobby. Many disturbing facts have come out about the Kennedy brothers in the last twenty years. Much of it does bother me as a moral and religious person. But that doesn't erase the fact that Jack and Bobby were very intelligent and gifted men and when it is all said and done, their idealism and determination positively impacted our nation's history.



5. this is not a biography,it's a fiction and it's stupid, boring.
   the author was surely drunk when he wrote it.
   this book is a shame to the legacy of the kennedys.
   there are a few photos.
   buy abetter book like: rfk and his times....