Book Description

Originally published in six volumes, Sandburg’s Abraham Lincoln was called “the greatest historical biography of our generation.” Sandburg distilled this work into one volume that became the definitive life of Lincoln. Index; photographs.
... Read more

Reviews (2)

In my opinion, the best Lincoln biography...
While Abraham Lincoln is among the most accessible characters in American history, no author has yet equaled Sandburg's triumphant chronicle of Lincoln. Artfully written, engaging, and thoroughly researched, the book is perhaps the most entertaining of all American presidential biographies. Sandburg's mastery of prose yields a coherent, effortlessly read text that develops more dramatically than might be expected from a biography, consistently retaining the reader's interest. Though some may claim that Sandburg's multi-volume account of the life of Lincoln surpasses the one-volume edition, for most readers, this edition is sufficiently thorough. I found it a pleasure to read and reread.

Not the gold standard but an excellent start
More books are published about Lincon than any other public figure and Carl Sandburg's take on America's 16th president is a good place to start your learning on this extraordinary individual. Sandburg's style shows his roots as a poet; the writing is lyrical and captivating. Though it leans towards myth-making, Sandburg doesn't leave out Lincoln's flaws. Other biographies go deeper into Lincoln's psyche or touch on specific chapters from Lincoln's life; however this book is a good start to begin your education on Abraham Lincoln. Find the complete six-volume set if you can. It does a much better job of putting Lincoln's life into the historical context of the 1800s than this abridged volume does. ... Read more

Book Description

Robert Asprey charts Napoleon's thrilling, reckless rise to power in this fast-paced first volume of the definitive biography of the fascinating, enigmatic, and still mysterious tragic conqueror.

Ever since 1821, when he died at age fifty-one on the forlorn and windswept island of St. Helena, Napoleon Bonaparte has been remembered as either demi-god or devil incarnate. In The Rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, the first volume of a two-volume cradle-to-grave biography, Robert Asprey instead treats him as a human being. Asprey tells this fascinating, tragic tale in lush narrative detail. The Rise of Napoleon Bonaparte is an exciting, reckless thrill ride as Asprey charts Napoleon's vertiginous ascent to fame and the height of power. Here is Napoleon as he was-not saint, not sinner, but a man dedicated to and ultimately devoured by his vision of himself, his empire, and his world. ... Read more

Reviews (22)

Asprey rises as top historian with The Rise of Napoleon
Few historians could write this most impressive and thoroughly researched work about Napoleon Bonaparte. Written in a clear and insightful style, Asprey has mined sharp insights, shrewd observations, and new understanding of one of history's greatest (and most complex) leaders, from a gold mine thought long paid out. What readers should gain from this important biography, that is also a political-military-economic history, is that there are distinct doctrines for war, peace, and more importantly, intervention to impose the will of peace, law, and government upon nations which threaten another's security. Asprey accomplishes this by using a very well written and interesting story line that chronicles Napoleon's life in a manner used all too infrequently by other writers of historical lives. It is never dull, often revealing, and thoroughly fascinating. The reader finds the secrets of Napoleon's great abilities by understanding his childhood, his youth spent in bookstores, and his lust for reading and writing. Like Asprey's "War in the Shadows," this book will enlighten, infuriate, and hopefully inform a whole new generation of 21st century historians, members of the armed forces, and business leaders to understand that genius come from knowing, doing, and believing in one's innate abilities. Napoleon Bonaparte certainly understood his and Robert Asprey reveals all in this first of two volumes. The next volume, The Fall of Napoleon, will be eagerly anticipated.

Excellent Book, but Not What I Was Looking For!
This is a beautifully written, excellently researched book on Napoleon Bonaparte's rise to power, from the perspective of his military leadership. Although a great book, packed with military campaign detail, I was looking for more of a Biography of Napoleon's life. I suppose you can argue that his battles were his life, but I wanted more his life, and less battle detail! I still give this five great stars, it deserves it, but let you know that if you are looking for a standard biography and not a military history, this one isn't it. Well done, nonetheless.

A fine introductory biography on Napoleon
I believed that many of the previous reviewers were probably misled into thinking that this biography was something gear toward a higher level. Upon reading this book, I discovered that this book is perfectly geared toward the casual reader and those just coming into the Napoleonic study. The book proves to be well researched in information, very easy to read and equally easy to understand. I basically regards this book as very good introductory biography on Napoleon up to the end of 1805.

To a veteran Napoleonic bluff, this book may not served your purpose outside of reading a relatively objective book on Napoleon's early career. As other reviewers wrote, the book tries to revealed Napoleon the man instead of the Napoleonic concept that often swirled around his life and accomplishments.

So if you are deep into Napoleonic, you can probably skip this this book and the next. If you are just getting into the subject matter, this book and the next would make an excellent introduction to Napoleon's life and career without overwhelming you with information overload.

Asprey's "Rise" Left Me Flat
First off, let me say that I am not an avid reader of biographies. But when a compelling, beautifully written biography like Edmund Morris's "The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt" or Antonia Fraser's "Marie Antoniette" comes along, I devour it with relish. I did not find Robert Asprey's "The Rise of Napoleon" to be that kind of book at all. This is a military history, first and foremost. If you want to know (and can keep track of) every move of every division of every army in which Napoleon ever fought, or fought against, this book is for you. I wanted much more personal information, much more about the inner thoughts of the man and what might have made him tick. Nor does Asprey do much towards explaining the world in which Napoleon lived or the political forces that made him what he is. Honestly, I couldn't finish this first volume, and will certainly not go on to read the second.

General Bonaparte's Reasoning Survives This Marine's Siege
As a veteran of World War II and the Korean War, United State Marine Corps Captain Robert Asprey unintentionally dons rose-colored glasses when examining the military career of Napoleon. Asprey attempts to portray Napoleon Bonaparte the man versus the anti-Christ or demi-god that other authors may have depicted.

Though Asprey reveals Napoleon to be a deeply flawed man, he glosses over much of the reasons on why the General condoned the Jacobin Massacre, the lootings the Army of Italy carried out, or the motivation behind the campaigns against the Turks, Egyptians and Syrians. The canned explanations regarding the campaigns, which was that Napoleon wanted to strike at the British Empire's purse, is not a sound enough reason to invest such a great amount of troops, money and time in Africa and Asia Minor.

Asprey did not pull any punches when discussing Admiral VerHuell's movements against Admiral Nelson and the Royal Navy. Neither Napoleon nor VerHuell had much confidence in their ability for maritime dominance, and Asprey brings this subject out into the light of day. As a Marine, the author probably sees this lack of confidence inexcusable, and impresses upon the reader the importance of having a well-rounded national force.

Each chapter follows a chronological order covering six-month spans starting from the dawn of Napoleon's military career to the victory at Austerlitz. This is an abrupt break for the reader, and we are left without a conclusion, summary or a teaser of what's to come in Asprey's next volume on Napoleon.

For the casually interested, The Rise of Napoleon Bonaparte is a great start to understand this historical giant's life. For the seriously interested, this may not be the best book to find the answers behind this man's way of thinking. ... Read more

Book Description

In this enlightening new look at one of our most successful, most popular, and least understood presidents, bestselling author and former Reagan aide Dinesh D'Souza shows how this "ordinary" man was able to transform the political landscape in a way that made a permanent impact on America and the world. Ronald Reagan is a thoughtful and honest assessment of how this underestimated president became a truly extraordinary leader. ... Read more

Reviews (103)

Get it, read it, love it.
Dinesh D'Souza set out to write the true story of America's fortieth president: why he confounded his critics, why he confounded the learned on both the right and the left, and why he (yes he) won the cold war, saved the economy, and made Americans proud again. This biography spends a little time in Reagan's childhood with an alcoholic father, his radio and Hollywood days, his travels for GE, and finally, his governorship of the nation's largest state, California, defeating the "popular" Pat Brown (Jerry Brown's father). Then D'Souza shows how the Reagan presidency transcended the nay-sayers to be the most successful president since, well probably Lincoln. A great, uplifting book that will make the Reagan-haters squirm but will make those of us who love the man know even more why we do love him so. This book is well-written,entertaining and informative. Get it, read it, love it.

An Extraordinary Book About an Ordinary Man!
D'Souza has a knack for getting straight to the point without boring the reader with meaningless detail and pointless observations. His book is brief yet profound in the way he analyzes Reagan's life and presidency.

The author gives several examples of how Reagan was able to continually outmanuever and win the respect of those who vilified him as a simpleton. For example, D'Souza mentions how reporter Sam Donaldson stated he would actually miss Reagan when he left the office.

Other interesting points D'Souza includes: Reagan's viewpoint of human nature, how he stayed true to his convictions despite severe opposition, eventual conversion from Democrat to Republican, interaction with foreign leaders (Soviet Union, Japan, etc.), fulfilling relationship with Nancy and difficult relationships with his children, involvement with SDI, and US military buildup resulting in the Soviet Union's demise.

All in all, D'Souza's book is an interesting mix of Reagan's politics, relationships, vision, and early life. While some may comment on the book's brevity, who says you have to read a book the size of "War and Peace" to learn something substantive? Sometimes, better things come in smaller packages!

Heartily recommended reading for Reagan supporters and opposers who want to understand and learn more about the man.

Springtime for Reagan Mythology
This book reminds me of the Inspector Clouzeau movies: every time he banged his head he did it deliberately to test the consistency of the material. One shudders to think that kind of miserable country and world this would be had Reagan never been born.

He loved America so much, he fed its children ketchup and called it a vegetable. He was such a great communicator, he couldn't persuade his own children. He admired Thatcher who admired and still admires Pinochet. He fired 11,000 air traffic controllers. He hired James Watt who said that Indian reservations are socialism and ought to be abolished (monogamy is also socialism). He thought the Soviets such a huge threat that he supported the Iran Iraq war, thus weakening two nations and making them candidates for Soviet takeover. He defeated the Soviets but couldn't defeat Iran. Ironically, by supporting free trade, he eroded American sovereignty, because everything else is affected by trade. Capitalism is incompatible with conservatism. But you won't read this in this book. D'Souza has blamed liberals for "reductio ad Hitlerum". He could be blamed for "reductio ad Reaganorum". Everything good comes from one man, and there are no bad, consequences to anything he did.

Cult of personality is a bad idea that has been tried before.

Says more about the author in many ways than about Reagan
Nobody will ever every mistake this for a scholarly, objective account of Reagan, but at least D'Souza has the decency to admit up front that he is no way objective about this particular subject.

As history, it is almost worthless. However, as an examination into the mindset of the conservative movement largely fostered by Reagan, this is a most useful source. You may not come across with a better understanding of Reagan (let's face it, D'Souza is basically preaching to the neoconservative choir), but you may better understand those who came after Reagan. Because of that, the book does have merit (albeit not of the sort the author may have intended) and thus I give it three stars. Just make sure to read the book in its proper context.

Garbage, Garbage, Garbage
If I could put down a zero or negative number, I would. Reagan was a script reader working for right-wing ideologues. Doesn't go into the real Reagan--liar, consenter to Red Communist China, helper to Saddam Hussein and terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden or the Taliban. Readers should go to consortiumnews.com to discover the truth about the "Great Communicator." Nazi supporter, anti-labor, McCarthyite schill. ... Read more

Amazon.com

George VI thought him a "damnable villain," and Neville Chamberlainfound him not quite a gentleman; but, to the rest of the world, Adolf Hitler hascome to personify modern evil to such an extent that his biographers always havefaced an unenviable task. The two more renowned biographies of Hitler--byJoachim C. Fest ( Hitler) and by AlanBullock ( Hitler: A Study inTyranny)--painted a picture of individual tyranny which, in the words ofA.J.P.Taylor, left Hitler guilty and every other German innocent. Decades ofscholarship on German society under the Nazis have made that verdict lookdubious; so, the modern biographer of Hitler must account both for his terriblemindset and his charismatic appeal. In the second and final volume of hismammoth biography of Hitler--which covers the climax of Nazi power, thereclamation of German-speaking Europe, and the horrific unfolding of the finalsolution in Poland and Russia--Ian Kershaw manages to achieve both of thesetasks. Continuing whereHitler: Hubris 1889-1936left off, the epic Hitler: Nemesis 1937-1945 takes the reader from theadulation and hysteria of Hitler's electoral victory in 1936 to the obsessiveand remote "bunker" mentality that enveloped the Führer as OperationBarbarossa (the attack on Russia in 1942) proved the beginning of the end.Chilling, yet objective. A definitive work. --Miles Taylor ... Read more

Reviews (40)

Hitler on the dissecting table
Not surprisingly, this is a splendid follow up to Ian Kershaw's biography of the younger Hitler to 1936. The author has not set out to provide a new thesis, still less a revisionist stance, but provides a meticulously researched account of Hitler's successes followed by his slide into total defeat. He has used recently available source material, especially Goebbels, and livens up his narrative by pertinent statements of ordinary Germans who lived through the second world war. Kershaw's judgments are always sane. We learn that the British escape at Dunkirk was Hitler's military blunder, not some halfbaked attempt to encourage the peacemakers in London. The author is rightly suspicious that the Russians found and performed an autopsy on the Fuhrer's corpse. What comes across strongly in this book is Hitler's obsession with secrecy which probably explains why massacres and atrocities were rarely debated in Hitler's presence. At the end, Hitler was totally obsessed by treason and betrayal. Even Goebbels, it appears, tried to persuade him to make peace with Stalin. The index to the book is excellent and makes specific inquiries that much easier to track down. Some of the lesser known photographs appear to be stills from Die Deutsche Wochenshau. This volume is a thorough and up to date investigation of what made Hitler tick and how and why he ultimately failed to achieve his military goals.

Magisterial, a model biography
The second volume of Kershaw's biography of Hitler cements his reputation as one of the finest historians of modern Germany. Throrough and definitive on every topic, scrupulously and fulsomely annotated, with many brilliant passages, Kershaw's life is not simply the definitive account of a dictator, but of the society that created him and the world he ravaged. Most biographies simply concentrate on the man and elide the background that made him possible. Kershaw's book, by contrast, is superb in noting both the extent to which he influenced Germany and the way larger trends and forces affected his actions.

Particuarly valuable is Kershaw's concept of "working towards the Fuhrer," and the idea of cumulative radicalization. With full acknowledgements to his scholarly mentors and colleagues Martin Broszat and Hans Mommsen, Kershaw notes how Hitler systematically undermined the normal structures of German government. The cabinet did not meet after 1938, the bureaucratic structures lost their authority, and months would go by as Hitler ignored vital issues and instead let competing factions fight it out among themselves. As a result crucial questions like the move towards a war economy in 1937 occurred not by design but as a result of this chaotic regime. The result was that Nazi Germany, apparently the heir to the cruel efficiency of Prussian bureaucracy, had an amazingly flawed bureaucratic regime. The victory of America, Britain and Russia over Italy, Japan and Germany was as much a victory of superior bureaucracy as it was of armies. Kershaw notes how Nazi officials squabbles among themselves and how they spent six months inconclusively debating whether to ban horse racing. Germany did not even try to solve its critical labor shortages by getting rid of domestic servants until the last few months of war, and by then vested interests made sure that it would be largely ineffective.

The consequence was to encourage the most radical groups among the Nazis and those who supported the most vicious alternatives. It was radicals who took the initiative in the anti-Church struggle and it was their momentum which led to Krystallnacht, the ghettoization and Poland, and ultimately the Holocaust. This is not to say that Hitler did not order or encourage the Holocaust. On this issue he was the most radical of the radicals, even if it was Heydrich who was crucial to putting it into practice. "It had consisted of authorizing more than directing." says Kershaw. But his account of how the genocide combined a dialectic of local initiative, central authority and wide government consensus, as we move from the euthanasia program to the first Polish atrocities, to the abandonment of the Madagascar Plan to the Einzatzgruppen and the setting up of the extermination camps, provides an account that makes horrible, yet scholarly impeccable reading.

One area where Hitler did have a large amount of authority was on military strategy, and Kershaw provides a nuanced account of Hitler's skill as a military leader. As a military leader Hitler's intuitiions were no worse than Stalin's and Churchill's. On questions like the reoccupation of the Rhineland, the attack on Czechoslovakia and the successful war against France Hitler was successful despite the opposition of much of the military. In his largest single mistake, the attack on the Soviet Union, the military shared his dangerous over-optimism. What hampered Hitler as a military leader was not so much his flaws but an ideological fanaticism that prevented him from taking other people's advice and from delegating authority. Even worse than this was a hatred of the Soviet Union which led Hitler to start a war that would have been extremely difficult for him to win. After he started losing his belligerent refusals to retreat may have hastened German defeat. But after Stalingrad and definitely after Kursk he could not have possibly have won and the major problem with his military strategy is that any negotiated peace would have required his removal. For obvious reasons this was not an option for Hitler.

And so we go to the final pages as Kershaw details how Germany was bombed into rubble while Hitler continued his Wagnerian rantings. Gradually the area under his control slips away and his followers fall away or are cut off and we see the final pathetic man behind the hideously empty solipsist. Hitler, Kershaw properly reminds us, was not insane. This makes his death at least, somewhat more satisfying.

Nothing new
I read this book hoping for some greater enlightenment about Adolf Hitler, his life, and times. There is nothing new in this book that has not been covered in about a hundred others biographies. I will not go so far as to say this is a "bad" book. That it is certainly not. However, if you are already well read regarding Adolf Hilter you will find nothing new in these pages.

Hitler 1936-1945
This book is not only the definitive biography of Hitler but also an excellent history text of this time period. Few, if any books on Hitler are readable--this one will keep your interest from the first page to the last. The documentation is beyond belief--over 200 pages of footnotes--this is truly the "Bible" on Hitler. Read it--you won't regret it!

"When You Lose, You Lose Alone"
The Fall:

In this second of two volumes, historian Ian Kershaw shows how Hitler after his initial stunning successes in the 1930s finally over-reached himself, became responsible for the deaths of millions of people, and eventually destroyed a country, his movement, and himself.

Again, as in the first volume, the prose is workmanlike, without emotion or flash. The annotations are extensive. The story is cautionary. ... Read more

Book Description

On March 27, 2003, President George W. Bush said, "America has learned a lot about Tony Blair over the last weeks . . . and we’re proud to have him as a friend." Despite the President’s assertion, the average American knows little about Tony Blair except that he remained one of America’s strongest allies in the war on terror and, ultimately, in the war against Iraq. But why? What is Blair’s agenda? Is he just trying to further England’s cause or his own? And how has this man, the youngest British prime minister in centuries, kept strong ties with such fundamentally different presidents as Clinton and Bush?

Philip Stephens—editor of the UK edition of the Financial Times and a man who has known Blair since the beginning of his career—answers for the first time these questions for the American public. Stephens follows the emerging world leader from his boyhood to his leadership of the Labor party and, along the way, exposes his beliefs, his personality, his shortcomings and contradictions, and his role in shaping a new international order. ... Read more

Reviews (6)

a superb portrait of america's best friend
If you want to know why the British prime minister went to war with the US then read this well-written and insightful biography of a great world leader. Stephens produces an elegant account of the personal beliefs, strategic calculations and straightforward loyalty that kept the UK alongside the US in a time of danger. The biography is stylishly-written and full of original material

Intro to British politics for Americans
As author Philip Stephens notes, many Americans who saw British prime minister Tony Blair all buddy-buddy with his close friend and philosophical soulmate Bill Clinton were surprised to see Blair in apparently an equally close relationship with George W. Bush just a few months later. Other Americans may simply have wondered who this man was who became Bush's closest ally in the run-up to war in Iraq and his guest during an address to Congress.

Either way, this biography has many of the answers those Americans may be looking for. While it is not the definitive biography of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair -- and it's obviously too early to measure his impact on UK politics, since he's still in office -- this title is nevertheless a good introduction to this major player on the world stage.

Stephens, a writer for the Financial Times newspaper, has had a great deal of access to Blair over the years, including personal interviews specifically for this book. It's not entirely surprising, therefore, that Stephens takes a generally positive tone with his subject. While he does not downplay Blair's weaknesses, including a number of unattractive personality traits, neither is he heavily critical of the man. He also tends to be light in his coverage of others' criticisms of Blair, except insofar as they have shaped the man himself or had a lasting impact on his political outlook or success in office.

No question that this book is more about personality than politics ... but I hasten to add that I think Stephens has done a fine job in showing how Blair's political words and deeds proceed consistently and logically from his personality and his underlying beliefs. Unlike Clinton, Blair does seem to have a solid set of core principles that transcend mere political expedience. Stephens argues that this in part explains Blair's ability to get along with President Bush on matters of global policy. At the same time, Blair is also a consummate and accomplished politician, who recognizes (again, as Stephens argues) that the British prime minister ultimately has little alternative *except* to do all he can to keep the UK's relationship with the US on solid footing, regardless of who is in the White House.

In short, this title may seem a bit too glossy and superficial to Americans who already have some degree of familiarity with British politics and Tony Blair himself. However, for those who don't, or who seek a quick refresher course, Stephens' book has a lot to argue for it. I consider myself relatively conversant with the UK's politics and government, but still learned a lot from reading this. I think other readers may find themselves reaching the same conclusion.

Tony Blair 101
Found this to provide a well-written insight into the Prime Minister, and as a relatively short read, it's particularly useful for people like myself who have very little understanding of Blair and the British political system. Stevens chronicles Blair's rise to prominence in New Labour, his struggle to establish the party back to prominence, and his ascension to the true throne of Britain. A brilliant politician who made a relatively favorable impression on most Europeans during his first term, the latter half of the book focuses primarily on Blair's struggle in his second term to persuade an increasingly-skeptical nation to follow his convictions about the moral duty of Britain's government and people in the post 9-11 world, particularly with Britain's current role with Iraq, and his personal relationship with President Bush. Although Stevens is a personal friend of Blair, he is able to paint a relatively objective portrait of the Prime Minister, though more weight is given to Blair's positive achievements.

A Decent Enough Biography
It is, of course, far too soon to have any kind of a adequate appraisal of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, but Philip Stephens does a decent enough job at a preliminary evaluation in his new biography. While this is a straightforward, sober narrative, with relatively few Bob Woodward-esque "you-are-in-the-room-as-history-is-being-made" moments, nonetheless it is a lucid, if not always graceful, account of an interesting and complicated politician.

Britain's Labour Party had been out of power for almost two decades when Tony Blair climbed what Benjamin Disraeli once called "the greasy pole" to power. Helped along the way by the sudden death of Labour leader John Smith (whose passing inspires a characteristically purple passage: "The shock of his death was palpable, rippling out from the hushed corridors of Westminster into the nation's living rooms"), Blair became the youngest Prime Minister the nation had seen in more than a century. Taking his cue from Bill Clinton, Blair tried to divest his party of its old leftist baggage (to give just one example, up until the early 90s, according to Hillary Clinton, Labour members addressed each other while speaking at Party Congresses as "Comrades") while keeping what he felt to be the most important of the reforms that Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had made in the 1980s. It was a delicate balancing act, made somewhat simpler by the morass the ruling Conservative Party fell into after they ganged up on and deposed Thatcher in 1990, and it ended with Blair winning a smashing victory in 1997, and, more importantly, a second victory in a general election in 2001, enabling him to remain in office longer than any Labour Prime Minister in British history.

It makes for an interesting story, and Stephens tells it well, if you don't mind some godawful prose ("By the time Tony Blair traveled to Camp David in early September the drumbeat of war had become a discordant din"), and the occasional factual inaccuracy (he refers to Alistair Campbell as "a reformed alcoholic" on page 70 and a "recovered alcoholic" on page 91 when he is neither, since there's no such thing as either a reformed or a recovered alcoholic - there are only recovering alcoholics and dry drunks, like George W. Bush).

The most glaring inaccuracy in the book, oddly enough, comes with his description of the events of September 11th. "The images of the first passenger jet ramming into the twin towers brought horror and puzzlement," Stephens writes. "When the second hit, everything stopped." This is, as anyone who remembers the events of that morning knows, nonsense. There were no images of the first plane ramming into the twin towers on television: not that day, anyway. Only a French documentary crew caught that ghastly image on camera, and it wasn't shown on television for months.

But that whopping mistake aside, his analysis of Blair seems right on the money, and he shows that Blair understands that, as the French give themselves the delusion of continuing to be a world power by opposing whatever the United States does, the British can only delude themselves that they are still players on the world scene by signing on to whatever the United States wants. This, among other reasons, helps to explain why a man who was so chummy with Bill Clinton could turn around and be equally as intimate with George W. Bush. About Bush, however, Blair has an insight that Americans would do well to take into consideration: "Don't listen to the words," Blair once said of the current occupant of the White House. "Watch what he does." That's sound advice, and I hope people listen to it.

So I can cautiously recommend this book. It's slim and awkwardly written, but for what it is, a very tentative account of a statesman whose story is far from over, it's worth a look. Better books about Blair will certainly be written in the future, but until then this one will have to do.

Good Biography - Answers Many Questions
My first book about Blair was "Thirty Days" by Peter Stothard. That book was about a short time period before the Iraq invasion but it got me interested. Also I read Gerry Adam's book "A Farther Shore" and he describes his interaction with Blair. So I was ready to read a Blair biography. I would say this book is good and explains the basics of Blair's career and what makes him tick. So it was good to read but I would say it rates 4 stars. It is not a barn burner or an epic story, but it is a solid job. It is only 250 pages long and skips many things but it covers the basics.

The author Philip Stephens is well qualified to write this book having been a long time journalist and associate editor at the Financial Times. He has known Tony Blair since Blair was a junior Treasury spokesman for Labour Party in the early 1980's and the author has followed Blair's upward career for 20 years keeping in close contact.

One might assume as I did that this might be a flattering or even a fawning portrayal of Tony Blair. But I think it is fair to say that the book is neutral. It is clearly not nasty or overly negative and if the author had that attitude he would never have been able to interview Blair dozens of times as he claims to have done over a twenty-year period.

In short, I was a bit surprised by the book. It is better than I had hoped; it is a solid and well-crafted biography of a complicated person. The author had access to Blair over decades, he has interviewed many of Blair's old friends and associates, and clearly this is an excellent and well researched book by an outstanding journalist. It explains his half Scottish and half Irish roots, his education, his days at Oxford, his first legal job where he met Cherie, his first contacts with Labour, his first seat as an MP, etc. The book manages to touch on all his main career segments and explain how he has progressed step by step, adapting, learning, grasping power, holding onto power, trying to transform his ideas into action, etc. I did find one interesting aspect and that was how he developed his philosophy on supporting Bush. I recently read Zbigniew Brzezinski's book "The Choice" and many of those ideas are similar to Blair. As a result of the war in Kosovo (and Sierra Leone) Blair concluded that other than France and Britain, the EU was essentially helpless in any military conflict and the relation with the US and later Russia was the key to achieving world peace. For that reason he strongly supported US involvement in Kosovo and later backed Bush in Iraq, and continues to support close US-EU ties, and then expanding those ties.

In any case, this is an interesting book and is highly recommend reading as are the other three books that I mentioned..

Jack in Toronto ... Read more

Book Description

Includes several never-before-seen private photos from the Kennedy Family Collection that are being published for the first time. ... Read more

Reviews (4)

The Kennedys: America's Emerald Kings
Just when you thought there was no way to write about theennedys from a new angle, Maier comes up with one. His take is to view the family through the green prism of Ireland and, by extension, to examine their relationship to the Roman Catholic Church. This makes for surprisingly fresh reading. Although many of the stories related here are familiar--Joeennedy's attempts to break into Brahmin society, the impact on the family of daughterathleen's penchant for Protestant men--Maier deepens the account by also bringing up less discussed incidents, such as Congressmanohnennedy's trip to Ireland (andackie's, four years after the assassination) and how both the Catholic faith andFK's Irish heritage played integral parts at the president's funeral. Nor does the story end with the Camelot days.eanennedy Smith, the eighth child in the family, served as ambassador to Ireland, and Bobbyennedy's daughter, Courtney, married Paul Hill, wrongly imprisoned by the police for terrorism. This extremely readable biography not only examines one particular immigrant family but also sheds light on the larger story of Irish Americans from the early twentieth century onward.

Another Side of This Family
Professor Maier has documented a side of the Kennedys that many readers are quite unfamiliar with: their ongoing commitment to their religious heritage. As Maier writes, Americans are more comfortable with Kennedy's as power operators and libertines. The essential Catholic nature of these men and women, however, either bores us or makes us uncomfortable. Some liberals don't appreciate the Kennedys as Catholics because they dislike Catholicism itself. Many conservatives deny that the Kennedy's are Catholic because, for such critics, morality means sexual prudery. Maier is able to strike the proper balance in portraying Joseph, Sr., John F. Kennedy and Edward as committed, believing albeit flawed Catholics. Robert is correctly drawn as the most conventionally devout of the Kennedy males. This should not be a revelation to readers, but in a sense, it is. And the author makes one more very important and routinely ignored point: It is very significant that Americans have been unwilling to nominate (let alone elect) a Roman Catholic to the Presidency since John F. Kennedy, over 40 years ago. This work ranks as one of the best, most carefully-documented and readable of the hundreds of books published about this family.

Entertaining, Informative and Not a Rehash
While this is an excellent history of the Kennedy family, tracing its roots like few histories have done, this book is far more. The author neither shows a bias to adore this large, well-known clan nor does he show a disdain for them. He simply tells the story as it is and leaves the reader to his own conclusions.

The main thrust of the book is the family's dealings with the Catholic church. We learn what many have suspected, that the Kennedy family paid off the churches leaders, providing them with much personal and institutional wealth, for the benefit of various Kennedy family members --- for special treatment and services.

The book covers just about all family members who were helped by the Catholic hierarchy but, of course, it spends more time on JFK who benefited from payments made by his father on his behalf. But it goes on to the more recent affairs including marriage annulments of lesser family members.

While this clan is of much less importance than it once was --- indeed it is of little importance --- this history and the new revelations add a good deal of knowledge for the student of politics and religion and leaves us with a distaste and distrust of both.

Susanna K. Hutcheson
Owner & Executive Copy Director
Powerwriting.com LLC

very interesting!
this new kennedy's book is very great.
there are a lot of picture and the texts are very complete.
you can learn a lot about the kennedys.
it's never boring.
So read it! ... Read more

Book Description

The Bushes are the family nobody really knows, says Kevin Phillips. This popular lack of acquaintance—nurtured by gauzy imagery of Maine summer cottages, gray-haired national grandmothers, July Fourth sparklers, and cowboy boots—has let national politics create a dynasticized presidency that would have horrified America’s founding fathers. They, after all, had led a revolution against a succession of royal Georges.

In this devastating book, onetime Republican strategist Phillips reveals how four generations of Bushes have ascended the ladder of national power since World War One, becoming entrenched within the American establishment—Yale, Wall Street, the Senate, the CIA, the vice presidency, and the presidency—through a recurrent flair for old-boy networking, national security involvement, and political deception. By uncovering relationships and connecting facts with new clarity, Phillips comes to a stunning conclusion: The Bush family has systematically used its financial and social empire—its "aristocracy"—to gain the White House, thereby subverting the very core of American democracy. In their ambition, the Bushes ultimately reinvented themselves with brilliant timing, twisting and turning from silver spoon Yankees to born-again evangelical Texans. As America—and the world—holds its breath for the 2004 presidential election, American Dynasty explains how it happened and what it all means. ... Read more

Reviews (145)

Skeletons in the Bush family closet? Imagine that!
American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush by Kevin Phillips is a bit of a mess. The problem largely results from the fact that Phillips apparently never truly decided what the book was supposed to be: a examination of the Bush 'dynasty', a general historical review of dynastic political families in general or a political hatchet job. It tries to be all three and in fact fails at being any of these things, though there are interesting aspects to all three themes. It's a classic case of missed opportunity all the way around.

The great strength of the book is the historical review of the bases of Bush family wealth and power and how that has translated into a political dynasty of sorts. Are there skeletons in this closet? Of course there are. (As there are in the Kennedy closet, the Roosevelt closet, and so on.) Have the Bushies leveraged their wealth to their economic and political advantage. Again, of course they have'as have others. If there is an issue there'and Phillips makes a strong case that there indeed is an issues here'it's that the Bush dynasty has arisen not for even the incidental goal of providing public service in general but almost entirely as a huge cronyism machine.

Phillips tries to compare the Bush dynasty of other American dynasties without much success. The expected convergences are there and well documented. The aspects of historical accident and contrasting experience are ignored or glossed over. That's bad enough. To worsen the mix, Phillips tries to also do the comparison thing with European dynasties. This is really stretching the purview and the whole historical aspects of the exercise pretty much fall apart.

So what give this book 4 stars? Because, insofar as the actual cataloging of the Bush history and experience go, the book is thorough, thoughtful and highly detailed. It's also a very depressing.

So is this a merely hatchet job? A political gotcha?

Probably not. Phillips is a heavy weight observer of American political history and events. Moreover, he's a very conservative fellow, though no longer a Republican by affiliation. (Apparently the more radical aspects of Republican pandering to the religious right finally got to him and he switched to being an independent.)

In the end each reader has to decide if the Bushies are dedicated public servants or merely well healed hogs feeding at the public trough. On the whole, no matter how you look at it though, this book does not paint a very flattering picture and I'd like to think that is would give pause too all but the most ardent Republican partisans as to the nature of the Bush presidencies.

Thought provoking and nuanced
American Dynasty is a thought-provoking and well-researched book. Unlike the polemical works by Al Franken or Michael Moore (or their conservatives counterparts such as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh etc.), Phillips presents a nuanced and deeply disturbing look at American politics today. Phillips points out that no one, on either the Right or the Left, is completely clean and that our political system has become extremely corrupt and tilted toward special interests. But Phillips (a Republican) reserves his greatest criticism for the Bush family which he says has engaged in a disturbing and deeply consistent pattern of deceit and deception.

Reviewers who charge that Phillips is unfair and that he engages in character assassination against Bush cannot have read this book very closely. Phillips points out similarities in behavior between Bush, Clinton, Johnson, Nixon, Kennedy and Reagan. His point, however, is that the Bush family has engaged in more egregious and more consistent patterns of deceit than these other presidents (he provides specific and very detailed evidence for this). He also acknowledges that dynasties are becoming more common in American politics overall but he argues, and convincingly so, that the Bush family has been more aggressive (and more successful) in building and maintaining a family dynasty than the Kennedys, the Clintons and other political American families.

In general, the book is well-written, although a bit dry. It's not a book which you will read in one sitting. However, the chapter divisions make this an easy book to pick up and put down.

The best chapters were, I think, the chapters on Texas economics and the growth of the Religious Right. The Texas economics chapters is frightening-here is a state and culture which boasts some of America's richest citizens but where there is a reluctance to share or spread the wealth. The results are disastrous-Phillips doggedly demonstrates the impact poor health care, poor schooling and a lack of social services have had on the state of Texas. Reading this one can only hope that Texas does not set a pattern for the rest of the US. The Religious Right chapter was equally chilling.

Overall, the discussion of George H.W. Bush was the most illuminating. Bush created and maintained deeply misleading stories about who he is and what he has accomplished with his life. The myth of the Bush family presents a sharp contrast to the reality.

My one complaint: I wish that there had been a greater discussion of the ties between the Bush family and the Saudis. I appreciate the discussions of the Bush connections to Enron etc. and there was some discussion of the connection between the Saudis and the Bush family but this needs to be discussed in greater detail.

As an historian, I also had some minor quibbles with his discussions of monarchies and their restorations (specifically his discussion of the Stuart Restoration).

Not Bad
book is okay, makes some hasty judgements and then lags a little toward the end, but still pretty good.

Not a campaign "weapon," but good history
The Good: Phillips delves into the history of the Bush clan and details the rise, over several generations, of a family consciously dedicated to the pursuit of wealth and power. His account of the Bushes' often heavily veiled involvement in international investments (especially in the oil industry), the U.S. intelligence establishment, Republican politics, and, more recently, in "evangelical Republicanism," are enlightening as to how wealth and power are developed and maintained in modern America.

The Bad: For those of us who would use this book as a club to help knock George W. Bush out of the White House in November 2004, it is a rather unwieldy weapon. Phillips's evident dislike of the two Presidents Bush is muted and hardly undercuts the evidence he brings forth regarding their financial, political, and intelligence activities over the years. But the story is a very complex one, involving many threads that Phillips tries to weave into a coherent storyline. He doesn't always succeed. If you are looking for a book to present to a pro-Bush friend or relative, as I was, as a very obvious "smoking gun" with which to argue against Dubya's re-election, this just ain't it, despite all the valid, sound information Phillips presents.

The real value of this book, which is why I can rate it so highly and recommend it to anyone, is in demonstrating the way that America's corporate/government establishment really works. There is a strong case to be made that the machinations of this establishment over the past one hundred years, however sinister they may seem to some people, have produced a strong and prosperous United States. But one may also question, as Phillips does, whether the secret dealings of a relative handful of powerful men and families are always in the best interest of either Americans as individuals or of America as democratic society. One has only to consider the current war in Iraq: Our president states that we invaded Iraq, essentially, to defend America's security and freedom by overthrowing an evil dictator; but one is led to believe that, in the mind of George W. Bush and his corporate supporters, "security" means the preservation of their own wealth and power, which means preserving the present U.S. economic structure; and that preservation is directly tied to an uninterrupted flow of oil from the wells of the Mideast to the gasoline tanks and power plants of the United States. They see their own interests as the interests of all Americans.

Could they be right? Think of the disruption in the U.S. economy - in the global economy for that matter - if Mideastern oil supplies were suddenly and substantially diminished. Our society and lifestyle have been built upon cheap gasoline and electricity, provided by fossil fuels. The Bushes and their cronies understand this reality with a depth that most Americans can hardly comprehend. And, as Phillips argues, the average American increasingly seems willing to trust his or her rights (and obligations) of citizenship to an imperialistic U.S. government controlled by political and corporate elites. Many of these elites probably mean well in serving all Americans, but is their dominance in our government and in our economy a sign of a decaying democracy?

What Phillips sees at stake is not just the influence of the Bush family and the re-election of George W., but America's democratic legacy itself. He points out that Democrats, too, have their elites and dynasties (Democrat Averill Harriman -- railroad heir, diplomat and New York governor -- was a close business associate of the Bushes; and if you count Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Kennedy dynasty now encompasses both major political parties). Rumors that Hillary Clinton is determined to seek the White House reinforce Phillips's contention that some Americans, at least, find something comforting in such familial continuity holding the reins of power.

This is not a book that is going to dissuade a fervent Bush supporter from voting for his re-election; a "swing" voter who is willing to take the time to read the book might find it influential. But "American Dynasty" is most definitely a book that will enlighten those with the eyes to see just how the establishment works. The Bushes, for better or worse, are definitely a part of that establishment.

Quibble: Lots of source endnotes (and not just from "Vanity Fair!") but no bibliography.

A good book that could have been a great one
Kevin Phillips is a Republican, and he wants you to see him as a Republican's Republican. And because he loves his party he wrote American Dynasty to warn everyone about George W. Bush. Clearly hailing from the northeastern Rockefeller branch of the GOP, Phillips has no love for the cultural conservatives who are ascendent in turn of the century Republicanism. While this work does refer to GWB's connections and then embracement of the religious conservative wing, Phillips' anger is clearly directed at the Bush family's economic policies. Classic Republicans were the party of small government and free markets, yet Phillips paints the Bushes as purveyors of bloated crony capitalism. And if that phrase makes you think of Teapot Dome, Phillips will describe that 1920s scandal, and contrast it, in great detail, with the far more egregious sins of the second Bush Administration.

With copious historical references, sources, and background, Phillips shows the recurring themes in four generations of the Bush family. Secrecy begins with the rites at Skull & Bones at Yale University; loyalty, rewarding the faithful and ruthlessly punishing those who speak publicly; enrichment through connections in the public sphere. Image matters more than accomplishments, and George W. probably was the wastrel son because he was tormented by how little he accomplished compared to his father George H.W. (who in turn was less learned and thorough than grandfather Prescott).

Phillips also points to the Bush family's dependence on the Walkers, showing why so many Bush sons keep the name alive. It's their money: the Walkers had the cash, the Bushes took advantage of it. Another interesting theme covered is the Bush families incessant avoidance of the term "dynasty" in referring to themselves, and how they push back at journalists who bring it up. And while Phillips goes relatively easy on GWB for his despoilation of the environment (his rage is more toward the corruption than the destruction), he spends an entire chapter plus many more references showing how GWB became a fundamentalist Christian, how he managed his relationship with the Religious Right, and what it means to the rest of the world. Short answer: if this was his base (both in Texas and in the US as a whole, then no one would outdo him in his support).

An odd note mars what is otherwise a scholarly yet passionately angry work: Phillips has just as much rage toward 42nd President Bill Clinton as he does toward the Bushes 41 and 43 (especially 43). Yet he asks the reader to take his condemnation on his say-so, calling him immoral, undignified, or the like. Phillips demonstrates that his disgust with the Bushes is merited, but doesn't show any proof of Clinton's weaknesses, probably because he is contrasting his opinions on Clinton's public sexual outing with the rock-solid proof of GWB's moral depravity (false statements to support profitable wars, plundering the treasury for the super-wealthy, no-bid contracts, and religious opinion elevated over scientific research). Yet curiously, despite the unease that these snappings at Clinton induce, they actually end up supporting Phillips' case against Bush by showing Phillips has no agenda with the Democrats. by Maddi Hausmann Sojourner 30 June 2004 ... Read more

Book Description

Reviews (2)

An intriguing look at an overlooked president
This is a fascinating book. Although it is relatively brief, it paints a detailed portrait of a gilded age - not unlike our own -and of one privileged politician who rose above the spoils system to restore integrity and style to the White House. Karabell's style is breezy and informative, but his narrative is deeply serious, and relevant to students of history, and of the current political factions. For anyone who cares about the true possibility for reform in a system so riven with partisan strife, I urge you to read this book!

Interesting Read, despite Arthur's lack of Importance
Even among the many obscure U.S. presidents of the nineteenth century, Chester Alan Arthur is a forgotten man. His assumption to the presidency was unforeseen and unwanted; his achievements during his term were unremarkable; once that term was over, he graciously and quietly left politics, and died soon afterwards. If he is remembered at all today, it is usually as an unexpected supporter of civil service reform.

Zachary Karabell doesn't challenge the conventional wisdom on Arthur's presidency; he doesn't -- unlike some biographers in this "The American Presidents" series -- try to convince the reader that Arthur was a good or important president. Instead, Karabell seeks to place Arthur in the context of his times and show that -- all things taken into consideration - he was the right man for the presidency.

Arthur's pre-presidential life is fascinating. In many ways he was involved with the late nineteenth century's key political concerns before he ever entered politics. He was the collector of the New York Customhouse throughout most of the 1870s, when it took in a great deal of the federal government's revenue, and when its staff was often criticized for its recruitment policies and collection habits. As a socially-connected New Yorker, he befriended many of the most powerful politicians in the country, including New York Senator Roscoe Conkling.

While controversy was not unknown to Arthur at this point, most agree he handled himself with character and restraint. These qualities, along with his affiliation with the Stalwarts, helped make him an acceptable vice presidential candidate for James Garfield -- even though Arthur's political experience was limited.

After a tight election, Arthur was ready to settle down into a position of little importance. Vice presidents did almost nothing in the nineteenth century, and Arthur had no reason to expect his tenure would be any different. Only after Garfield was shot and injured with a wound that would eventually kill him, did it occur to anyone -- including the vice president -- that Arthur was a heartbeat away from the presidency. What made it worse was that Garfield's assassin wanted Arthur to be president.

Despite his immense grief over Garfield's death, Arthur's fine personal qualities made the transition easier than it might have been. He was not an ambitious man and his gentlemanly dignity in the days and months after Garfield's death helped to set the tone for the rest of his presidency. Rarely did he make headlines, and when he did, he often did so to the detriment of his political future by avoiding strong partisan stands. To the surprise of some in his Republican faction, he came out in support of civil service reform. On immigration and Indian affairs, he was more liberal than most of the country. He began a buildup of the U.S. Navy that would later play a crucial role when in the Spanish-American War.

But these accomplishments of Arthur's were less impressive than they might have been. He was a passive leader, not an active one. If he had an opportunity to follow his conscience, he did so. But rarely did he go out of his way to set policy on the course he believed was correct. As Karabell points out, however, that was what the country wanted in a chief executive at the time. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Brilliant portrayal of TR as man, not legend.
TR's 1913-1914 expedition down the River of Doubt (subsequently renamed Rio Teodoro in his honor, and later Rio Roosevelt) is an astonishing piece of history - one often refered to in passing by other TR biographers, but not often fully explored, as it here. Author Ornig tells an exciting tale well, from the multitudious details of planning and executing a massive exploring expedition in the early 20th century, to vivid portraits of the characters involved. This book would be a wonderful companion for any adventure traveller (or even armchair adventurers).

Best of all, Ornig is no run-of-the-mill TR hagiographer (and there are plenty of them out there), nor is he interested in taking unfair potshots at the great man (plenty of those folks out there, too). Ornig simply relates events as they occured, and doesn't care a whit whether they cast TR in a favorable or unfavorable light: TR was a poor shot (due to his poor eyesight) and became grumpy and embarassed when he missed easy targets. TR was delighted with the impact on his waistline when the expedition was forced to subsist on reduced rations -- and argued against the restoration of full rations even though others were suffering. Do these facts detract from the TR legend, or add to it? I have never been a fan of Marble Men, and found that I loved TR even more after glimpsing some of his human flaws in MY LAST CHANCE TO BE A BOY. No student of TR should be without this volume.

Details one of the great adventures of the 20th century.
Ornig provides the first detailed account of one of the most exciting adventure stories of the 20th century -- Theodore Roosevelt's exploration of the River of Doubt in Brazil's Amazon. The story is more incredible when you think that Roosevelt was a 55-year old former President at the time of the expedition. As we approach the 100th anniversary of Roosevelt's presidency, and as we consider our relationship with the earth, it is worth taking another look at this great outdoorsman. Ornig weaves together the political and diplomatic origins of the expedition and how Roosevelt, his son Kermit, and the rest of the expedition got much more than they bargained for. There's murder, there's drowning (and a question of whether Kermit Roosevelt was accountable), there's frustration, and there's a former President on the brink of death. After you read it, you'll want to read Roosevelt's account, "Through the Brazilian Wilderness." You'll enjoy that one too ... Read more

Reviews (7)

style good; facts awful
The author's style is catchy; reminds me a bit of Fletcher Pratt. But there are errors of fact on almost every page! Save your money.

factual errors
Before buying this book you should read James McPherson's scathing review in the recent issue of The Nation concerning the multitude of factual errors which permeate this book.
Caveat emptor.

Lincoln & Grant - making sense of the civil war
Perret has a knack for putting complex social realities into thoughtful context. He is not a traditional academic or military historian. Instead he writes well and pushes the reader to think new thoughts (and even learn a new word or two). My advice is to make the investment -- which is made easier because the writing is so good. Reading this digestible summary of Lincoln as the main force in the civil war was made even richer for me because I had read Perret's essential bio on U.S. Grant. In this period of nostalgia about World war II and doubts about Iraq, I also recommend that readers search for copies of Perret's "There's a War to be Won" (on WWII's army) and "A nation made by war" (on the important ways our nation's wars have had on US history.

Lincoln's War
While I found the author's style a bit florid for a history and analysis book, I have enjoyed it nonetheless. His analysis of Lincoln's military genus has been describe in a more condensed way then Shelby Foote's "The Civil War", but in doing so brings it to the forefront of the readers attention. Great battles are reduced to a page or two, which may disappoint many readers who love the details of all the various military units and commanders. This book concentrates on how a lawyer from Illinois becomes, in the course of three years, one of the greatest military minds of the 19th century. One note that is bound to create controversy is the statement that U.S. Grant was the greatest general the United States ever produced. The R.E. Lee and T. Jackson fans are sure to be angry for that. I highly recommend buying this book and intend to purchase another as a gift for a dear friend.

Don't be fooled again ...
Reading Geoffrey Perret is like going out with what you think is Jessica Simpson. At first, it all looks good, even immaculate: the snazzy dresser, bright teeth, urbane wit ... and then you begin to delve into what's there ... the empty head, the superficial smile, the sense that you are being conned by yet another effort to separate you from your hard-earned money for some more Civil War fluff. And in this case, you finally discover that it's not Jessica Simpson across the table after all, but some dyed blonde wannabe who's invested a lot of money with her surgeon, dentist, and makeup staff ... as you find out when the foundation peels off and the liposuction gives way. He's a combination of Michael Caine and Hugh Grant, minus any real sparkle, charisma, or brains, and not quite as visually appealing. But if you like that sort of thing, then Perret's the man for you.

Perret's ignorance about Ulysses S. Grant is known to all who are familiar with his book, in which he becomes the author who couldn't write straight (there's a double meaning to this phrase, revealed in his musings about the homoerotic appeal of John Rawlins, whom he likens to James Dean and River Phoenix). Perret's an effete fop who has personal issues to work out (he once wrote about MacArthur's "member" as a little crooked thing). Now he returns to the scene of his previous crime, hopeful that his smooth prose and turn of phrase will entrap those who don't know any better (although his prose fails to sustain that promise). There's nothing, nothing new here, the reviews by non-experts for LJ and PW notwithstanding. My goodness, the poor chap even botched up his description of the Kennedy assassination, although at least it was corrected in the paperback (he had the Kennedys sitting FACING the Connallys -- hello, have we seen the Zapruder film?).

There are better books on Lincoln, and even T. Harry Williams did a better job in the badly dated LINCOLN AND HIS GENERALS. People who are impressed by pseudo-urbane flash (usually those with self-esteem issues) may find Perret an intriguing character, but anyone who suffered through his C-SPAN Booknotes interview knows his work is plagued by some serious problems that can not be smiled away. I imagine he thinks he's Edmund Morris or a good-looking Henry Adams, except that he's already at work on his next fatuous opus. As for this book, you'll come away aware that you've read this all before--except, of course, where it's hilariously wrongheaded--and that you've been snookered. BUYER BEWARE! ... Read more

Amazon.com

Destitute and wracked by throat cancer, Ulysses S. Grant finished writing his Personal Memoirs shortly before his death in 1885. Today their clear prose stands as a model of autobiography. Civil War soldiers are often celebrated for the high literary quality of the letters they sent home from the front lines; Grant's own book is probably the best piece of writing produced by a participant in the War Between the States. Apart from Lincoln, no man deserves more credit for securing the Northern victory than Grant, and this chronicle of campaigns and battles tells how he did it. (The book also made a bundle of money for his family, which had been reeling from the failure of Grant's brokerage firm.) This is not an overview of the entire Civil War; as the North was beating the South on the third day of Gettysburg, for example, Grant was in Mississippi capturing Vicksburg. But it is a great piece of writing, one that can be appreciated even by readers with little interest in military history.--John J. Miller ... Read more

Reviews (28)

Compelling, Humble and Well-Written
Grant's memoirs are a must-read for any serious student of the Civil War. While praise is heaped upon Confederate generals such as Lee and Jackson, Grant's legacy has always been a little more uncertain. His reputation has been associated with allegations of drunkenness, and with an apparent unflinching ability to send men to their slaughter which this book helps to dispel.

Lincoln loved Grant, as he was the first Union commander who seemed willing to fight it out with Lee's army, and who enjoyed any consistent success. When one considers Grant's predecessors at the helm of the Union army, one can understand Lincoln's enthusiasm. You had McClellan, who never read an exaggerated report of the enemy size he didn't believe; "Fighting Joe Hooker", flanked and embarrassed at Chancellorsville; Burnside, who foolishly sent wave after wave of Union soldiers across the Rappahanock to attack an impregnable stone wall at Fredericksburg; and Pope, who was soundly beaten at Manassas. Meanwhile, Grant caught Abe's attention with his successful siege of Vicksburg in the summer of 1863, as Meade was beating Lee at Gettysburg.

Reading Grant's Memoirs is a fascinating experience, as the war, at least that part of it involving Grant, comes to life in the hands of a thoughtful commentator. Grant was obviously there, and he shares informative communications with his inferior officers (such as Sherman) and with the President. Grant sent many men to their doom to be sure, (the Wilderness campaign comes to mind as being especially bloody and ineffective), but overall you get the sense that Grant was respected by his men, who were happy to be marching forward and not backwards after a battle. He restored a sense of pride and accomplishment that was sorely lacking in the Union rank and file. He gave cogent reasons in his memoirs for the actions undertaken, sometimes admitting mistakes in humble fashion, and sometimes explaining why a siege would accomplish the same overall goal without unnecessary bloodshed.

My only regret is that Grant didn't live long enough to write a companion memoir about his presidency, which was clearly outside the scope of this book. Readers who have gotten this far in the Amazon review process are no doubt aware that a broke Grant, stricken with painful throat cancer, wrote out his Memoirs of the Civil War right up until the end of his life to provide financially for his family, finishing the book days before he died. We should all be grateful that he was able to preserve these pages for prosperity, they are truly a model of military memoirs that I consider an extremely rewarding reading experience. When one considers the circumstances in which Grant composed this work, the end result is nothing short of miraculous.

Powerful and Moving
A must read for all Civil War buffs and those even remotely interested in history. The 600+ pages in this book (both volume I and II are included together) articulately spell out the military career of one of the United States' greatest generals. Grant's Memoirs are well-written, thoughtful, insightful, and offer more than a glimpse into the mind of U.S. Grant.

Volume I opens with a heartfelt preface where Grant explains how his diminishing health pushed him to complete this work and "asking no favor but hoping (his remarks) will meet the approval of the reader." They most definitely do. Following the preface, the reader is given a (very) short review of his early childhood, life at West Point, and early Army life. The next one hundred pages are dedicated to the Mexican War followed by his resignation from the military and civilian life in Illinois. The remainder of Volume I and all of Volume II extensively deal with the War Between the States.

I found Volume I (written before Grant realized he was critically ill) to be rich in detail of the various military campaigns (perhaps too detailed) and his ascension through the military ranks, but it is somewhat lacking in personal observations and insights. It even drags at times--but stick with it. The patient reader will not be dissapointed. Volume II hurls the reader into the conflict, reads rapidly, and is rife with Grant's personal observations and insights.

This second volume picks up where the first left off--following Vicksburg to the campaigns in Tennessee to the Battle of the Wilderness to Sherman's March to the Sea to the Battle of Franklin right up to Appomattox and all the events of April and May 1865. These campaigns are told from the commanding general's perspective with great overview and detail. However, what really makes Volume II (and this volume is much more fast paced than the first) special are all the personal observations and insightful (rarely negative and always humble) comments about those Grant served with and against. Grant is thoughtful and displays much about himself as this great book draws to a close. An eloquently written, detailed, first-person account of the Civil War that offers much to those who read it.

I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

Excellent and readable memoirs
Grant here gives a consistently interesting account of his role in many of the major campaigns of the Civil War. His prose is clear and his accounts of battles and strategies quite readable, even to those without particular expertise in military history. He sticks to the story, making few attempts to even scores with his numerous critics in the Army or the press.

One thing that should be noted is that these 'personal memoirs' are in many ways remarkably impersonal. There is only a quite brief account of Grant's youth, and his wife, to whom he was apparently quite devoted, is barely mentioned. Grant tells the story of his career as an officer with increasing levels of responsibility, but says little about himself. Also, the memoirs end with the assassination of Lincoln, and do not at all discuss his presidency.

The edition I read was lacking in maps, which was a serious drawback, however it was a different edition than the one discussed here. Because so much of the book focuses on the tactics of specific campaigns, a good set of maps is a very valuable addition, and would be advisable to check for in any edition you consider reading or buying.

Excellent Reading
I'm not a Civil War or military fan, but I really enjoyed reading these memoires. I expected a very dry book, but General Grant provides a great narrative, slipping in a sly sense of humor at times. My recommendation is that the publishers provide better maps. I needed to use an atlas and detailed maps off the internet.

Old wine in new bottles
I'm a little irritated at the usually terrific Modern Library. They have hatched a new series of volumes on "War", with a general introduction by Caleb Carr. Apparently, however, aside from the slick covers, no attempt was made to provide the reader with any original material, such as maps, appendices, notes or other scholarly material. The edition of Grant's memoirs contains a new, curt, unhelpful introduction by Geoffrey Perret. (Perret offhandedly mentions that Grant's memory diverges from the facts on more than one occasion, but makes no attempt to further elucidate a matter that would obviously be of high interest to the reader.)The maps are old, crabbed and often difficult to follow; the geographically-challenged reader, such as myself, is often obliged to consult a road atlas to follow the Western campaigns. The memoirs themselves are terrific. Grant's plain, homely soldier's style, with dashes of self-deprecation and dry irony, is engrossing reading. ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Politics Politics Politics
The book primarily focuses on Jeferson's political career, namely secretary of state, starting with the formation of the presidency (1788). The book sometimes focuses too much on the political front, and less on Jeferson's personal life and character.

PURE CONTRADICTION