5 comments about Quantrill of Missouri: The Making of a Guerrilla Warrior--The Man, the Myth, the Soldier.

1. My wife bought me two new books for Christmas. They are:
   
   Petersen, Paul R -- Quantrill of Missouri : the making of a guerilla warrior : the man, the myth, the soldier; and
   
   O'Flaherty, Daniel -- General Jo Shelby : undefeated rebel.
   
   I just finished reading Petersen's book last night. I had heard a lot about the book before from Missouri Civil War online discussion groups to which I belong. Due to my family history, I have a very personal interest in Quantrill. Events in my life have led me to have a very emotional response to Petersen's book.
   
   Before getting into my personal reaction to the book, I would like to say that it is very well written and very well researched. The only other book I have read about Quantrill was Edward E Leslie's: "The Devil Knows How to Ride : The True Story of William Clarke Quantrill and His Confederate Raiders." If one reads one of these books, it might be a good idea to read the other to get a more balanced view. If you haven't seen "Ride With the Devil", it might be worth your time to watch it.
   
   Petersen gives much more detail then Leslie. He has clearly read many sources and accounts of the career of Captain Quantrill. Quantrill's career is surrounded by controversy. Petersen resolutely takes one side. I tend to believe that no one can ever know "the truth" about Quantrill.
   
   I tend to doubt his claim that he had only been a Jayhawker to get revenge against Jayhawkers who had attacked him and killed his "brother." My view of Quantrill was that he was attracted to the life of a partisan, and the side made little difference. His story makes much more sense if it is seen as a way to gain the trust and confidence of the Bushwhackers he later joined and led. Petersen consistently refers to "Colonel" Quantrill, although that title is very much in question.
   
   One of my reasons for reading this book was to get more information about the lives of my ancestors who lived through the events. My McFerrin and Porter ancestors lived in Cass County, about ten miles east of Harrisonville. The Porter's lived near Dayton, which was burnt by Jennison's Jayhawkers, led by Susan B Anthony's brother, early in The War. The McFerrin's lived on Eight Mile Creek. Three couples of McFerrin and Porter children married each other. They also lived in the area. Samuel Burton McFerrin, on whom my SCV membership is based, served first in the 8th Battalion Missouri Infantry (State Guard). He and his father were at Lone Jack. Burton later served in the 9th Missouri Confederate Infantry, against Banks on the Red River, and against Steele in the Camden Expedition.
   
   My Deay and Vitt ancestors lived about fifty miles away in Eudora, Kansas, about seven miles west of Lawrence. Some of them enlisted in Kansas regiments after Quantrill's raid on Lawrence. During that raid, Quantrill sent a company to Eudora. The farmers in Eudora had heard the sounds of the battle. They were armed when Quantrill's raiders attacked, and turned them away. The children of William H Musick, on whom my SUV membership is based, married into the Deay and Vitt families. Members of William's regiment served under Steele in the Camden Expedition. My great-great-grandmother, Lena Vogel, was born in 1863 in Macon, Missouri, about thirty miles north of Centralia.
   
   Due to these family connections, I have a very personal interest in the events of the Kansas/Missouri War. I received my Master of Divinity degree from Thomas Starr King School for the Ministry in Berkeley, California. This is a Unitarian Universalist seminary. Starr King was a Universalist. He is credited with keeping California in the Union. He was a colleague of Theodore Parker, the Unitarian minister who agitated for war against the South. Parker was a member of "The Secret Six" who raised money for John Brown. My deep personal feelings against Parker may be the main reason I did not pursue a Unitarian ministry.
   
   Unlike Paul Petersen, I cannot make a hero of Quantrill or Bill Anderson. I place these two in the same group with James H Lane, Charles Jennison, and Theodore Parker. These are people who chose War and killing as a way to advance their personal agendas. I do not see any of these as being the "protectors" of either branch of my family. I see them as being the reason that my family's lives were terrorized. I very much blame both Quantrill and Jennison for the fact that my ancestors' homes were burnt to the ground, and that they were forced into exile or concentration camps.



2. If you want to know what William Clarke Quantrill was really like, then this is THE book for you. Petersen really did his homework, questioned all the assumptions closely and paid attention to the answers he got back. This is the story of the War Between the States from the Missouri Point of View. Quantrill is shown for the hero he was instead of the psychopath his detractors have painted him to be (without substantiation, I might add.)



3. The author seems bent on tipping the balance from the negative portrayal of previous biographers such as Connelly to the extreme opposite. Indeed, this weighty tome seems to be not much more than a response to Connelly's biography at the expense of objectivity. William Quantrill may not have been the devil incarnate but he was also no saint. The author seems to put a lot of stock into "God-fearing people" who followed Quantrill as if to impute their righteousness to him - instead of guilt by association it is the equally unjustified righteousness by association. In the end we are given not an historical biography but an idolatrous apologetic of the Confederate guerrilla leader.
   
   As a biography, this portrayal in an attitude of deep reverance for the subject only perpetuates the neo-Confederate myth. The same fault makes it untrustworthy as a political or military history. Perhaps the value is in it's adoption and example of the Confederate apologetic method. Truly the Confederate side of the history has been vilified to an unfair degree outside the context of the times. But countering the vilification with the opposite extreme does not provide balance. It only makes the Confederate side seem ludicrous and makes one question the purpose for their fight altogether rather than explaining the background of the conflict.
   
   The fact that the text seems a response only to anti-Confederate biographers is evidenced further by little mention of more balanced biographies such as _The Devil Knows How to Ride_ by Edward Leslie. I would highly recommend that book for a more balanced approach. I was pleased to find that many of the works of Mr. Donald Hale and Ms. Joanne Eakin are identified as sources since I have found their work very helpful in my own study of the guerrilla war in Missouri. Their research has led them to gather many of the primary and secondary sources into collections for publication into single volumes. It is a labor of love for them that will help current and future researchers immensely in this study.
   
   In contrast to the portrayal given in the text, the photographs and maps provided are first rate and help to place the reader in the context of the time.



4. I have done extensive reading and research on this topic over the last decade and this is the most well researched, complete, and accurate account that exists today. If you are looking for a book that just re-enforces your already preconceived notions - then try something much shorter and less well done. Otherwise I would highly recommend it to those looking for a complete, accurate, and well researched account. It is probably much more of a neutral view than a souther view. Since most of the related history that I have found has been an extreme "slant" on history by Northen side of the war, who got to control how history was recorded, this may appear to be a southern view. If you have researched this topic as much as I have done, it will appear as probably one of the few attempts at accurately recording this most difficult time in the history of the mid-west.



5. From a woman's point of view this book was fascinating reading. Mr. Petersen's book is by far the best book yet written about William Clarke Quantrill. Not only his new insights but his understanding and experience as a combat veteran enables Petersen to give the reader a clear understanding why guerrillas fought so desperately. For the first time a complete account has been compiled written in a clear and easy-to-read style professionally edited and produced by a leading publisher. Reviews by critics who claim their self ascribed knowledge, is immaterial compared to someone who has done years of research and has tangible proof to show for it. Critics who once lamblasted Quantrill's men were labeled as unqualified and irresponsible. Modern reviewers lacking education or credentials are still critical of anything not demonizing Quantrill by showing their bitterness and mean-spiritness in what Petersen has expertly portrayed in his new book. One man with courage makes a majority and I'm glad Petersen had the determination and fortitude to see this work put into print. It should set a new standard for books about the border war in Missouri.

2 comments about Benjamin Franklin: In Search of a Better World.

1. The Ben Franklin Exhibit is at our Museum at the moment and this is its companion book. It is a book with various authors/experts presenting their expertise on Ben through various stages in his life. I found it accurate and interesting as well as an "easy read" - without being simplistic. If you are interested in Ben Franklin and don't want to read a long biography, this is a worth while purchase. For those who know more about Ben, it has good biography as well as photos of artifacts associated with his life.
   
   The artifacts in the exhibit (presented in the book) have been gathered from many sources and probably will never be collected together again - so it is a historical reference as well.



2. I'm always amazed at how revisionist historians, like children who can't wait to tattle, manage to expose the foibles of our founding fathers. One by one, each has had his name or reputation besmirched. A few, John Adams, and George Washington seem to survive the exposure and remain adored by millions. Benjamin Franklin is another founding father who has weathered modern day examination and is still beloved by his countrymen.
   
   Benjamin Franklin: In Search of a Better World will not disappoint the reader and it will not take a cheap shot at a man who lived more than 200 years ago. Organized with chapters like The Life of Benjamin Franklin; Benjamin Franklin, Printer; Benjamin Franklin, Civic Improver; Benjamin Franklin, Pragmatic Visionary: Politician, Diplomat, Statesman, etc, the book will shed new light on to a life that was well lived and well enjoyed.
   
   Well reseached with lavish illustrations and photographs, Benjamin Franklin will be a terrific addition to your personal library.

2 comments about The Five of Hearts: An Intimate Portrait of Henry Adams and His Friends, 1880-1918.

1. This book is good for the story of Henry Adams and Clarence King and John Hay which I became interested in after seeing them frequently mentioned in Theodore Roosevelt biographies, but fans of TR will be troubled by some of the out of place criticisms of him, as in the authors next book "When Trumpets Call" she has a decided animosity towards him, like when she criticizes him for for not "facilitating genius" when being painted by John Singer Sargent like John Hay did, a man of "refined tastes" and about "whining" about time taken from his daily fencing matches. I don't know what her problem is but she clearly doesn't understand TR at all.



2. The republication of this fine 1990 volume in a convenient paper edition can only be a matter of joy to students of Henry Adams. This is one of the first books I read about HA, and it has proven to be also one of the most valuable. The focus of the volume is on five individuals who constituted Adams' inner circle after he moved to Washington and came together around 1880. Those being John Hay, former secretary to Lincoln, and eventually Secretary of State, Clara Hay, Clarence King, a prominent geologist, and Henry and Clover Adams. But these folks are only the beginning, as the author also incorporates into her discussion such individuals as Edith Wharton, Henry James, John LeFarge, H.H. Richardson, several presidents, and of course Augustus Saint-Gaudens who eventually crafted the remarkable memorial to Clover Adams situated in Rock Creek cemetery. Many fine illustrations are incorporated, including a number of photographs taken by Clover. One learns a great deal about how Adams lived, worked, conspired and interacted with prominent and challenging individuals. One's understanding of HA is less then complete unless this book has been savored.

No comments about Giants: The Parallel Lives of Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln.

5 comments about The Last Brother : The Rise and Fall of Teddy Kennedy.

1. This is a great fast reading book about the Kennedys. It gives great insight to a very disfunctional family and also, in some ways to those that were victims of the parents. Beside the family and their ways, the book shows you more than anything the corruption in our politics.Joe McGinnis has done a great job of putting together the facts as told to him with some logical progression. We the people however, let corruption contimue. That is of course my opinion. I also believe we are brainwashed by the media on a daily basis and have been for a long time. Enjoy reading!



2. This is by no means a complete biography of Edward Kennedy. Though the book was written in 1993, it cuts off just after Chappaquiddick.

   Rather, it is a biography of the Kennedy family with stress on Joe, Robert John and especially Ed.

   I really liked the way the author spells out the internal and external conflicts within each of the brothers. And while his stories of Ed Kennedy are quite lurid, he also makes you feel sorry for the man. That is an extraordinary bit of writing and makes the book a great read.




3. I read this book several years ago and loved it. I could not put it down once I started reading it. Author Joe McGinness admits that there are parts of the book where he is writing from the viewpoint of Ted Kennedy, even though he could not get a lot of direct information from him, but I did not hold that against him when I read this book. I learned a lot about the Kennedy family that I was not previously aware of before I read this book.



4. This book is terrible. It is not journalism. It is not fiction. It is the worst of both.



5. I began my reading of this book with a sense of lessened expectations due to the poor reviews McGinniss had received from its release. While moving on I found myself relating rather easily to the stylistic approach he used. Any frequent reader of the Kennedy's knows how difficult it is for authors to obtain any amount of information concerning the "mythical" family. I would find it hard to believe that Joe McGinnis would be the first Kennedy author to take liberties in interpretation of certain aspects. The book my be an even better read if the authors note is read first, as to create an understanding of the approach McGinniss took in this project. While nowhere near the best of Kennedy books it certainly is one that all Kennedy fans should find interesting and insightful.

5 comments about Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President.

1. I met Jimmy Carter in 1991, when he and I were in Zambia at the same time. It is hard to meet a former US Presdient, and ironic to meet him in Africa. I was resident in Kenya at that time, working as a linguist designing language and culture training programs for foreigners coming to work with Christian churches.
   
   I happened to be visiting in Zambia at that time investigating local resources for organizing a language programs for the language of the Lozi people, who live along the Zambezi River in Zambia and surrounding countries. Jimmy was there with staff from his Carter Foundation monitoring the elections of the country for a transition to democracy after a long period under the first president, really a dictator, Kenneth Kaunda.
   
   I was invited to attend a meeting of American missionaries he was scheduled to address. He was a wonderfully unpretentious and personable person, a real person meeting other real persons. He spoke formally and then informally at a general reception with us. After the meeting with the gorup, I had a further opportunity to visit with Jimmy personally. I joined the leader of the mission group that had arranged the meeting to talk informally with President Carter as he sat in the open door of his van, while waiting for the final security checks to be finished by his Secret Service officers before his departure.
   
   In this book Jimmy Carter presents his experiences and memories of his one term in office as President of the United States. He expresses himself in the same personal, unpretentious and humble style he exhibited when speaking to us in person. He writes in an honest and confessional style to present his experiences. He writes not in terms of a catalogue of events, but in personal terms of his thoughts and feelings as the events unfolded.
   
   He starts off with the Iran hostage affair, which was not finally resolved until a few minutes after he had already relinquished his office to Ronald Reagan at the January 20 swearing-in ceremony. It was clear to us who observed this sad situation from an overseas view that the Iranian Revolutionary government had conducted this affair over the last year of the Carter Presidency primarily to undermine the US, but specifically as a slap at President Carter.
   
   This in itself is ironic, because the general reaction to President Carter from overseas, and epecially the "Third World," was that now we had a US president who could be trusted, who tried to meet the rest of the world on its own terms, and who wanted to do what was best for the whole world community -- to do what was right.
   
   Carter expresses the same disappointed concept of the Iran hostage affair. Perhaps the Revolutionary government of Iran had already been given some word from the Reagan Republican campaign that they would get a special under-the-table deal on arms if Carter were defeated. Who knows why they thougth this was the right approach towards America and its conciliatory president?
   
   In this book Carter reveals his approach to personal and international affairs. He wanted to be honest, consistent in his moral consideration for both private and public responsibilities and decisions. This approach to life and relationships was proven in the unprecedented success and acclaim he has been awarded in his post-presidential activities of international diplomacy, peacemaking and counseling to many governments, heads of state and the whole international community. These accomplishments and contributions far outstrip beyond what he do with the restrictions and political hobbles inherent in the jealousies of Washington.
   
   Washington, and indeed much of the country at large, could not understand a leader who never hid his sincere, honest and consistent desire to be a moral person as the leader of the nation. They could not understand the approach that decisions were made on the basis of universal principles of right and wrong, not political advantage.
   
   This book is inspiring, informative, endearing and challenging in its presenting of a goal of personal integrity in all aspects of life, expressed by this great man.



2. Growing up in the 1990s, I was never familiar with President Carter or his specific policies. This book gives a very thorough and honest review of the major policy issues confronting President Carter in the late 1970s. If you think his presidency was a failure, you should at least take time to read about why he acted the way he did. He explains the seemingly endless energy debate in great detail and also what led him to give his infamous "crisis of confidence" speech. He gives a practically minute-by-minute account of the hostage crisis and how he worked (successfully) to win their release without nuclear weaponry or massive bloodshed. His coverage of the 1980 election was somewhat superficial so I suggest those interested in that election look elsewhere. If you are a die-hard Republican intent on bashing President Carter, this book is not for you, but if you are sincerely interested in knowing more about the Carter administration, then by all means buy it. Carter does try to justify his actions, but what presidential memoir doesn't? This is a great book that some of the other reviewers seem not to have read.



3. I am one of those people that has to finish a book once I begin, whether it's great or terrible. I wished I wasn't after the first page of President Carter's memoirs.

   My opinion of Jimmy Carter as a President aside, this book is an exhaustively boring collection of boring anecdotes, embarassing international incidents, and cowardly Presidential acts and statements. I'm too young to remember the Carter Presidency in any detail, but I can only imagine how truly miserable a time that must have been for our nation with the author of these memoirs at the helm.

   I've read many Presidential memoirs and autobiographies, particularly those of the last half century. Interestingly enough, I'd skipped right over Carter's, jumping from Ford to Reagan without much concern. The historical void that doing so created left me feeling better off than having now read "Keeping Faith." No other work authored by a president or past president has left me feeling more insecure at the thought of that man having been the most powerful in the world for a time.




4. Jimmy Carter is like Herbert Hoover in more ways than one. Hoover's memoirs are among the most lucid and insightful that any president has ever written. So are Carter's. Hoover was one of the most intelligent presidents we've ever had. So was Carter. Hoover translated Christian charity into concrete action all his life. So has Carter. But Hoover's presidency was one of the century's worst. Regrettably, so was Carter's.

   The Camp David Accords and the Panama Canal Treaties were his only notable successes. These were grievously outweighed by his failures -- double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates, the ill-considered "crisis of confidence" speech, the fall of Nicaragua to the Sandinistas, and the fall of Iran to medievalist radicals. On this last point, Carter's refusal to let the Shah come to the US to die was motivated by a desire not to offend the Islamic militants who hated him. (Don't take my word for it; read Carter's own explanation in "Keeping Faith.") For all Carter's moral courage, this episode is one of the most despicable examples of moral cowardice in the history of the presidency.

   The message of American weakness was not lost on the rest of the world. Our allies in Europe, doubting America's commitment to them, proposed to base intermediate-range nuclear missiles on their own territory, which led to so much danger in ensuing years. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan. And the Iranians seized the US embassy and held the hostages for 444 days. That they were released at the very moment of Reagan's inauguration was no coincidence.

   Carter's book is not very candid. It lays much heavier emphasis on the few successes than on the areas of weakness and failure, and has a flavor of rationalization and self-justification. And his discussion of his meetings with Reagan during the transition after the election of 1980 is bitter and petty.

   If he could rewrite his memoirs today, I suspect Carter would do it differently. His life since then has been so exemplary that he no longer needs to worry about history's judgment of his failed presidency. For that judgment will be eclipsed by history's judgment of him as a man.




5. Jimmy Carter was a unique individual among recent US Presidents. In the wake of Watergate a man unknown outside of Georgia stunned the pundits by taking both the Democratic Nomination and the Presidency. He brought to the Oval Office a habit he shared with two of his 20th century predecessors, Nixon and Truman - that of writing dailiy entries in a diary. This he maintained, thankfully, throughout his presidency. It is from these entries that his memoirs are constructed.

   The book is refreshingly open and honest abount the man's objectives, triumphs, mistakes and regrets. The problems that Jimmy Carter faced in the White House were tremendous. His solutions were thoughtful and long term. Thus we are left with the perception that Carter was a failure. He did fail in making Americans feel good, and he failed in the image game. He never came across well on television and came across preachy.

   Had Ford won in '76 he too would have faced the same crises, and, perhaps would have managed them as well as did Carter. Ford would have done so with a Washington savy that smacked of competence. Carter won essentially because he lacked such Washington savy - I honestly believe he lost in '80 for the same reason. The This book succeeds where President Carter failed - in communicating his ideas.

   Ironically, The Great Communicator's book fails where Reagan was most successful. 'Keeping Faith' is well written and worth the reading - this cannot be said of Mr. Reagan's memoirs 'An American Life'.

5 comments about Jackie: The Clothes of Camelot.

1. While this book features some interesting facts and pictures, I was very disappointed to find that the author almost completely disregards Jackie's use of accessories. I had hoped to learn about the handbags Jackie used, but despite brief references to her clutches, the only time he talked about them was to wrongly call the Gucci 'Jackie' bag - named after the woman herself - a Hermes tote. He also craftily avoids the subject of her shoes. Disappointing.



2. Having grown up in the 60's, and being a Fashion Major as well as a big fan of Jackie Kennedy I was excited to read this book, and pleasantly surprised with Mulvaney's perspective on Mrs. Kennedy's wardrobe. I own many books on Jackie Kennedy and was particularly impressed with the photos and information presented in this book on this fashion icon. I read this book from cover to cover in one day. The photos are stunning, and images of Mrs. Kennedy through her husband's White House years as well as post years are presented in black and white along with color. If you are a Jackie Kennedy admirer, or a Fashion History buff; this is a phenomenal book to add to your collection...well worth the hardback price anywhere!



3. I absolutely loved this book. Jackie just looks so beautiful. Her fashion sense is remarkable. And she looks so elegant and beautiful. She was simply the greatest.



4. I am not a die-hard Jackie O fan, but I love fashion in general. I have always thought of Jackie O as a fashion icon, and wanted to learn more about her. Until now, I have never seen a book that pictorally does her sense of style justice. However, in this book there are enough photographs both in black and white and in color to satisfy any fashion junkie or Jackie O fan. No matter what the situation, Jackie O was always appropriately and fashionably attired. This book does an excellent job of showing this by portraying her clothing choices through the years and in a variety of categories. This book does not go into great detail about Jackie O as a person or historical figure, I don't think it was written with those objectives in mind, but it should satisfy the fashion cravings of most people. I highly recommend it.



5. Who else, in all the other First Ladies, could have worn all those beautiful clothes with the chic and style Jackie had! Not many I guess. In this beautiful book, there are some never seen before pictures, that demonstrates what elegance in fashion is all about. It will take a long time before we can see that again in the White House. I treasure that book that makes me relive that unique period of refinement and class that once was in the White House, thanks to Jackie!

3 comments about Roger Williams (Lives and Legacies).

1. This is an effective and concise biography. I especially appreciated the author's approach. He could have drawn in a lot of irrelevant material, as authors of biography tend to do, but, to his credit, did not. I enjoyed the writing -- and that, too, is a rare comment on a bio, especially one of a subject from this time. It's not easy reading quotes from the colonial period; the language was so formal. I like that Gaustad "translated" so much of Roger Williams' words. The latter sections of the book were especially interesting. Williams may have influenced Locke -- an interesting tidbit about a noteworthy life.



2. Roger Williams has been dead almost 400 years, yet his lessons and views are as pertinent today as they have ever been. The battles he fought regarding Church and State, the battles for freedom of conscience, mind and religion, are still being fought today, just as heatedly, by parties and groups just as determined. Basic freedoms must be defended--and earned--by each generation. There will always be a place, a much needed place, for Roger Williams in the discourse of United States history and the basic freedoms we take forgranted, yet must defend, every day.
   
   Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin and others may have gotten more "ink," than Roger Williams, but he may be the most important one of them all. If there had been no Roger Williams, there may have been no Frankliln, Jefferson, Washington and Adams, certainly not as we know them. Williams earned for them the right to think,worship and speak on their own.
   
   A good book, easily and quickly read, giving the reader a keen appreciation of the difficulties, trials, tribulations--and the vision--of that day. And it speaks pointedly to the challenges of this day...If the reader wants an understanding and appreciation of Religious Freedom, how we got it, what it means, and why it is essential to the country, then and now, this is the book to read. A Word of Warning: Religious Conversatives of this day may find religious freedom, true religious freedom, dangerous and threatening!!!



3. I met Professor Gaustad in 1988 when I moved to Riverside to pursue an advanced degree in history. He struck me at the time as a dignified careful historian who nonetheless could capture and make real the religious conflicts of centuries past. Gaustad has not lost any of his gifts as this recent book demonstrates. He does a masterful job of presenting the key elements of Roger Williams' life and development. From his conflicts with Cotton Mather and his eventual expulsion from Massachusetts Bay Colony, to his friendship with Native Americans and the founding of Rhode Island, Gaustad presents what we know of William's life in an easy to read narrative. He also includes selections of Williams' works so that modern readers can get a flavor of the writing of this influential founder.
   
   What makes this book so fascinating, however, is that Williams was a real visionary. He alone among the early colonial leaders advocated a complete separation from civil (government) society and religion. A firm believer in the Bible, Williams was skeptical of all attempts to form a genuine "New Testament" church. Only the return of Christ himeself, Williams believed, would truly restore the church of the apostles. Until then Christians could only use the powers of love and persuasion to convince others of their views. Williams adamantly opposed having the state interfere with any religious beliefs, even those which are non-Christian. This was quite a leap for an 17th century thinker.
   
   But if Williams was widely rejected in colonial New England for his views, his distinction between civil society and what he called "soul liberty" eventually became dominant in the United States and later, much of the Western World. Gaustad attributes not only the First Ammendment, but also such modern documents as the Vatican II Declaration of Religious Liberty and the 1978 Indian Religious Freedom Act to Williams' continued influence. All of which points to one of the great ironies of history. America is, as people on the religious right have claimed, a Christian nation. But it is also a nation founded upon a particular view of Christianity, one which expressly prohibited ties between Church and State. And Christianity of all stripes has flourished in precisely this environment. Moreso than any other Western Nation, the United States remains firmly and devoutly Christian. Undoubtedly, the "free market" in religious thought William advocated has produced this spiritual abundance in much the same way that the free market in economics has produced material abundance. Christians everywhere should take note of this.

2 comments about The Garden and Farm Books of Thomas Jefferson.

1. If there were a ten star rating, I would give it to this book! If only all of our Presidents were so committed to the values of home and garden.

   This is a wonderful book, both for Jefferson fans and gardeners. Since I'm both, it is doubly wonderful. You can read Jefferson's records of what he planted when, his observations about all sorts of garden topics, his letters to friends and family about gardening, and see the voluminous records he kept about all things horticultural.




2. Forget About Other Organic Gardening Books! This collection of books and writings by Thomas Jefferson includes decades of his farm records and gardening notes from back when they didn't even have chemical fertilizers, herbiscides, and insecticides yet. He experimented with a huge variety of fruits, vegetables, and fiber plants (including hemp) that he imported from all over the world. He also kept complete ledgers of his slaves, chronicling their births and deaths. He kept records of their production and consumption of linen, wool, blankets, clothing, etcetera. This book is a gold mine of history, gardening tips, livestock records, diary tidbits, photos, diagrams and more.

4 comments about Princess Alice: The Life and Times of Alice Roosevelt Longworth.

1. I read this book about 10 years ago, skimmed it actually at the time, and enjoyed it for its gossipy detail.
   
   I re-read it in the past few days and realize how.....how shall I put this....mean-spirited it is. I believe that this is because of the style of Carol Felsenthal first and foremost.
   
   Now, Alice Roosevelt Longworth was no saint. She was a narcissistic trouble-maker, a beautiful and spirited and intelligent woman who could have done so much more with her life. Instead she delighted in bitterness , and witty and smart thought she was, her character was riddled with anger.
   
   Her childhood was tragic. Her mother died 2 days after her birth. Her father, Theodore Roosevelt, had adored her mother almost to the point of goddess worship. Received opinion is that Alice Lee Roosevelt, mother of the subject of this book, was warm, open and loving. And beautiful (this without the cosmetics that enhance beauty today.) It is interesting to imagine what would have happened if Alice Lee had lived on to parent her daughter in a different way.
   
   So, Alice Lee dies suddenly and unexpectedly two days after baby Alice's bith. What does Theodore Roosevelt do with this little girl who bears an uncanny resemblance to her late mother? Does he cherish her, nurture her, think of her as a connection to her late mother's spirit?
   
   No. He basically shuts her out of his life. He doesn't want to see her and pays scant attention to her. He ships her off to be raised by his sister Bamie, a wonderful woman who loved little Alice dearly and would also have made a good parent, Then he marries Edith Carew, who was a childhood friend of his and whom he had thrown over to marry the idolized Alice Lee. Edith Carew insisted on taking care of Alice, but her parenting was based partly, I think, on punishing this daughter of her rival -- how easy it was for her to pretend to care and then muck up this step-daughter's self-esteem entirely. It's really an ugly story, and it's almost painful to read about Edith Carew Roosevelt's subtle and uncharitable coldness toward the little girl whom she could pretend to care about -- when she was actually effecting a very subtle and uncharitable revenge.
   
   No wonder Alice Roosevelt was messed up.
   
   My problem with Carol Felsenthal's book is that she does not examine fully the reasons for Alice Longworth's troubled, combative personality. She takes a light and almost National-Enquirer type tone and, in the end, makes everyone seem like a cartoon stereotype. Does anyone come out of this book as truly likeable and a good person? Even Eleanor Roosevelt is turned into a buffoon.
   
   I wish someone like Joseph Lash or Edmund Morris would write, or would have written, a bio about Alice. (I think both gentleman have passed away, so I probably should say "I wish someone with their depth and even-handedness had written a bio about Alice.")
   
   I would suggest learning more about the sad ramifications of this woman's life by reading about other members of the Roosevelt family -- Alice is mentioned often.
   
   Does anyone else know of a better-written bio of Alice Roosevelt Longworth? I'm really interested in reading one.



2. A good biography I couldn't help but feel sorry for Alice. Her mother died at birth and there were many examples where her father didn't seem to care about her. Leaving her with her aunt to go out west. The second review gives more examples. A lot of her behavoir and wild antics seemed to steam from a lonely girl looking for attention from her family. No wonder Alice loved all the attention she got at as the president's daughter.



3. In her many years in Washington, Alice Roosevelt Longworth saw and considered all. The biting wit she so happily shared (she had a pillow made that said,"If you have nothing nice to say, sit next to me)
   with friends and, more pointedly, enemies is on view.
   
   It was not a happy life, death seemed too often and too soon to be a companion. Starting with her own Mother at child birth and continuing to include her Father, husband and Daughter. Privately she grieved but publicly she knew she had a responsibility to keep fresh the memory of the deceased.
   
   Never one to not do what wasn't acceptable, she cheerfully tells of being drunk in Japan, plotting to marry Nicholas Longworth, who would become Speaker of the House and writing a colume to rival her distant cousin, Eleanor Roosevelt. (Mrs. Longworth's was more amusing).
   
   As hardcore biography this isn't a gem but as the view of a fascinating life it reveals what we need to know of a famous American. Certainly, her influence and power-which were real-did not extend beyond the beltway of Washington D.C. Too often viewed as a "society lady" by the country at large, (hence the title "Princess Alice")known outside Washington principally for a popular song, "Alice Blue Gown" she was the keeper of that now dead feature of that stimulating, intellectual life, the salon.
   
   What is noted is her great humanity that was never part of her public persona. Reaching out to a pre-married Eleanor (and subsequently being rebuffed and vilified by this same person) or allowing her home to be used as a hostel during a war, was all part of what was a very private person. She had discovered, and the reader can learn a lesson here, that to be very private, you need to be a bit public. Liked or Loathed, all of Washington came to her-if in some cases a bit reluctantly.
   
   Only in one instance did her instincts for the country she truly loved let her down;her involvement, along with Charles Lindbergh, in the abortive movement, America First. It was an episode she regretted, but, as was typical of the Lady, never quite apologized for.
   
   A subject such as Alice Roosevelt Longworth needs a book about them for posterity. She belongs to a group of people that while time will never entirely forget, the personality and importance of her and her times will be diminshed.
   
   It's an easily read book, an enjoyable glance at a character, in a time when character meant something more than a strange person, who in subtle ways had a pleasantly nasty way of influencing people. Enjoy her that way and this book is a good place to make her acquaintance.



4. This is a very readable book that moves you quickly along this biography of Alice, and her family. Page 16 mentions Teddy's attacks of asthma and cholera morbus, and his interest in animal specimens. Could this exposure to arsenic explain his problems? The book says the Roosevelt family was wealthy, but does not say how it was acquired. TR entered politics after his honeymoon, but the book does not tell why (p.25).

   Alice's mother died in childbirth. TR's mother died the same day. Expected happiness was replaced by unexpected sorrow. TR left for the Dakotas where he tried out cattle ranching; he lost most of his fortune in the 1886 drought and the severe winter. He returned to NY and the steady income of a Government job, and married again. Young Alice never knew her mother, but only her stepmother (p.37). Alice grew up lonely with no playmates (p.41). She caught a disease that left one leg shorter than the other. Alice enjoyed her semiannual trip to her Boston grandparents, who spoiled her (p.37). Her stepmother would tell her that her mother was stupid, her father wanted to give her away, and TR proposed to her first and was rejected (p.47)! What a heavy emotional load for an 8 year old! Page 49 tells more about this disfunctional family. Alice was the only female member of an all-boys club where the boys dressed in girls clothes! Alice rejected Christianity and grew up a pagan with no formal education (p.53). Would she be considered an abused child today?

   TR's enemies prevented him from a second term as Governor and shunted him off as Vice President. Then a lone gunman appeared and changed Administration policies. Alice began to socialize with the new-monied "Four Hundred" who disregarded old-money proprieties; TR and Edith held them in "high-minded contempt" (p.57). Alice had an income from her mother's parents. Was her behavior a way to gain attention from her parents (p.66)? Does this explain the rest of her life? There is a lesson here for any parents in a similar situation. Alice wrote "Father doesn't care for me ... as much as he does for the other children" (p.70). Alice was anxious to escape her parents by a marriage, like countless other girls from more humble backgrounds. It was a dynastic marriage: she got a rich heir of a Congressman, he got the President's daughter and a political ally. But change continued like a flowing river.

   Page 113 shows an old political trick. Get some background facts before meeting a new person, then feed it back as a compliment in feigned admiration. It works every time! Page 129 tells how a political deal was made to keep a Bull Moose candidate out of Nick Longworth's district. Page 130 gives another example of Alice's perverse personality. She bragged about having caused her husband's defeat (p.131)! I wonder if her problems were genetic, or caused by her environment? The rest of the book covers the next 60 years of her life.

   Chapters 10 and 11 make it seem that Paulina and the country would have been better off if Alice died in childbirth. What good has she ever done? These portrayals of the members of the Ruling Class will never be printed in your local newspaper.