The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower: The Presidency: Keeping the Peace (The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower)

Book Description

Completing a monumental project that began with publication of The War Years in 1970, this final set of volumes of The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower contains 1,783 documents drawn from Eisenhower's second term as president from 20 January 1957 to 20 January 1961. In these years Eisenhower worked hard to hold the focus of American national politics on the two major objectives he had set for his presidency in 1952: to sustain the policy of containment without precipitating a war with the Soviet Union and to reduce the role of the federal government in U.S. domestic affairs. In both cases, events at home and abroad intruded -- diverting attention to immediate problems, endangering the peace, and forcing the White House to devote most of its leadership to the crises of the day.

As president during this tense period, Eisenhower maintained an extensive and revealing correspondence with prominent individuals as well as with personal friends. These letters, together with the occasional entries made in his diary, shed considerable light upon the major national concerns of the 1950s. The volumes also include private and secret correspondence previously unavailable to scholars. Some of these items have been only recently declassified, and many appear here in print for the first time. Taken as a whole, the Eisenhower papers from 1957-61 provide firm documentary evidence of the manner in which Eisenhower dealt with the complex internal and external problems faced by all of our modern political leaders.

Average customer rating:

Too much detail clouds the main issues

The Presidency of John Quincy Adams
Mary W. M. Hargreaves
Manufacturer: University Press of Kansas
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Americas | History | Subjects | Books

Constitutions | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

ASIN: 0700602720

Book Description

Historians have not been generous in judging the presidency of John Quincy Adams. Those who have most conspicuously upheld Adams's fame have, at the same time, virtually ignored his service in the White House. Critics, on the other hand, have described his administration as a failure, founded upon "bargain and corruption" and marked by exclusion of the United States from the British West Indian trade, the ineffectiveness of its efforts to promote strong Pan-American relationships, and the enactment of the "tariff of abominations." Some analysts have even argued that it generated the sectionalism which terminated the "Era of Good Feelings."

Mary Hargreaves contends, instead, that the basic effort of Adams's presidency was to harmonize divergent sectional interests. To ignore the Adams administration's commitment to nationalism, she argues, is to overlook a fundamental stage in the establishment of the federal government as guardian of the general interest.

The volume contains new information on the development of United States commercial policy, the nation's early relationships with Latin America, and difficulties of local and regional adjustment to the growth of the national economy. It will be of keen interest to all students of the economic and political history of the early national period.

This book is part of the American Presidency Series.

Customer Reviews:

Too much detail clouds the main issues.......2002-05-12

There have been two instances of a father and son both achieving the presidency of the United States and there is a common characteristic. In each case one of the two had a distinguished history of public service that would indicate excellent preparation for the rigors of being president. However, both of those men served only one term, voted down amid lackluster support even among those who were their natural political allies.
George Bush senior was a combat aviator in world war two, served in congress, was head of the CIA and was vice president for eight years. And yet, his presidency is generally considered to have been more of a caretaker administration than anything else. He came dangerously close to coming in third in the election where he was defeated by Bill Clinton. John Quincy Adams served his nation well as an ambassador to Europe during some of the most troubling early years of the nation. A distinguished public figure in many other ways, it certainly appeared that he was well prepared for the presidency. However, his administration was also rather lackluster and it too has the appearance of a caretaker government.
Despite the relative lack of major events during the four years of the John Quincy Adams administration, Hargreaves manages to fill 323 pages. This attention to excruciating detail makes the book difficult to read and it is by far the least interesting of the eight books in the American presidency series that I have read. To put this into perspective, the eight years of the Andrew Jackson presidency are summarized in 277 pages and the four years of the Van Buren administration in 211. Detailed explanations of minor legislative debates and the personal relationships between the principles are presented to the point that they just become tedious.
All of this in unfortunate, because John Quincy Adams was a very interesting man who tried to uphold the principles of democracy as he saw them. The problem of course was that the nation was changing. He was the last president with roots to the old statesman/gentleman mold of men that created the nation and the constitution. Adams was constantly fighting the populist movement of Andrew Jackson, with the appeal to the masses that was so different from the presidential politics that had come before. This point is mentioned in the book, but unfortunately all the detail tends to bury it.
The presidency of John Quincy Adams marks a turning point in the history of the United States. After him, presidents were elected by political campaigns with mass appeal rather than the collective will of a relatively small number of people. Furthermore, they were no longer chosen from a group of aristocratic gentleman, as rough hewn self-made men were now viable candidates. This point is made in the book, but not as well as it should and certainly not as precisely as it could have been.

Average customer rating:

What We Needed to Know in 2002.
The Bush Doctrine and the Future of Democracy
Disappointing On Many Levels...Even When You Agree With Him
What A Long Slide from Camelot
Good for history novices

War and the American Presidency
Arthur M. Schlesinger
Manufacturer: W. W. Norton
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Iraq | Middle East | History | Subjects | Books

General | Current Events | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Public Policy | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

U.S. | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

ASIN: 0393327698

Book Description

"Historical reflections that deftly challenge the political and ideological foundations of President Bush's foreign policy."—Charles A. Kupchan, New York Times

In a book that brings a magisterial command of history to the most urgent of contemporary questions, two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., explores the war in Iraq, the presidency, and the future of democracy. Describing unilateralism as "the oldest doctrine in American history," Schlesinger nevertheless warns of the dangers posed by the fatal turn in U.S. policy from deterrence and containment to preventive war. He writes powerfully about George W. Bush's expansion of presidential power, reminding us nevertheless of our country's distinguished legacy of patriotism through dissent in wartime. And in a new chapter written especially for the paperback edition, he examines the historical role of religion in American politics as a background for an assessment of Bush's faith-based presidency.

Customer Reviews:

What We Needed to Know in 2002........2006-11-17

"In 1998, Donald Rumsfeld, [Paul] Wolfowitz, [Richard] Perle were among the eighteen signers of an open letter to President Clinton arguing that regime change in Iraq 'needs to become the aim of American foreign policy'." This quote from world-respected author and one-man political think tank, Arthur Schesinger shows that these individuals were looking for an excuse that 9/11 gave them, to invade Iraq. They began beating the tocsins of war shortly after to create their vision of a middle eastern democracy under a pax americana.

Arthur Schlesinger points out in detail how the Bush administration pressured the CIA for raw intelligence from which they would make an interpretation, how the reasons for invading Iraq kept changing, and how the White House kept contradicting previous statements. The reader can only come to the conclusion that the Bush Doctrine is an utter failure, the invasion of Iraq was not to fight terrorism but to satisfy a right-wing vision, that we were lied to about an association between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden, that we lied to about WMD. Even after this collaboration and weapons failed to materialize, Schlesinger states "the Bush administration is left with liberation, which it had once deemed an insufficient justification for putting American lives at risk."

I found the first three chapters captivating, but I gave this four stars because of a need to keep a dictionary by my side. The author's vocabulary far exceeds mine, and those of fewer words may find this annoying or challenging. I was also annoyed by the author's use of French without translation: "Nous Sommes Tous Americains." (We are all Americans.) In some places, I had to stop and absorb his insight--a more worthwhile pursuit.

But, if you are looking for a powerful and persuasive argument against our government and its actions, Arthur Schlesinger gives it to you. Read it, and soak it up. Finally, remember the words of George Bush:

"There was no viable exit strategy....Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish."

That was from George Herbert Walker Bush (41)!

The Bush Doctrine and the Future of Democracy.......2006-07-06

Arthur Schlesinger is a writer and historian who has authored many books and served some time in government. He is a Pulitzer Prize winning author and a person who has earned respect over the years for his insight into government, history, and the important issues of the day.

In this book, Schlesinger spends most of his time talking about the decision to go to war against Iraq and its long term effects on the American people and the democratic way of life. Some of the book's analysis deals with war in general terms but the author spends the bulk of his time talking about the Iraqi conflict and the Bush administration's approach to war. Everyone already knows about the phony "weapons of mass destruction" charge and how it was used to justify the invasion. Schlesinger is a critic of this decision but he actually gives credit to Bush in one respect: He doesn't necessarily think that Bush made up the story. Rather, he thinks the decision was based on faulty information that should have been recognized as faulty but was accepted in its entirety. Bush and his administration were anxious to go after Saddam so they were willing to quickly accept anything that would justify moving the U.S. closer to war. Lost in all of this, of course, was the pursuit of the real enemy: Osama Bin Laden. Bush and his cabinet dismissed the hunt for Osama as soon as they found a reason to go after Iraq.

Even though this book is primarily written about the decision to go to war and how the approach to war has changed over the years, there is also a good deal of talk about democracy in general and how the Bush administration's policies will affect democracy in the future. Schlesinger accurately states that democracy, capitalism, property rights, and personal freedom all go hand in hand and that many of these components of freedom are being diminished gradually by the Bush administration. He also states that the trends in recent history show that the twentieth century ended with more democratic societies than at any other time in the past. But rather than serve as a cause for celebration, this increase in Democratic societies will continue to be tested. Democracy still faces many challenges from different factions who want their idealism forced on the rest of the world. Among these, Schlesinger seems most worried about the problems with religious fundamentalism and extremism. These are, indeed, great threats to democracy not just in Islamic lands but also here in the USA as fundamentalists of various Christian stripes try to blend their interpretation of religion into the law of the land.

Another area of concern that is covered in this book is that of the Electoral College and the election of 2000. Schlesinger, like many other Americans, doesn't want to see the same situation occur where the people's choice- the candidate with the greatest popular vote- didn't win the election. This has now happened four times in America's relatively short history and some type of reform needs to take place to ensure it doesn't happen again. Rather than simply advocate the elimination of the Electoral College and a direct election by popular vote, Schlesinger offers some different alternatives to the problem, some of which I had never heard before.

The Electoral College reform offers some good, original thought but other than this, most of what is contained in "War and the American Presidency" is old news and it's the type of analysis that I have read dozens of times by dozens of different authors. Schlesinger writes well and he expresses himself in a humble yet intelligent way, showing respect to everyone- even those with whom he disagrees. But there is little material in this book that hasn't already been covered by other authors.

This book offers some good reading, even if it does rank low on the originality scale. It is a quick read and because it is so brief (only 141 pages not counting the index- short enough that I read it in one day), it reads like a university lecture. The dialogue in this book seems like it came directly from a lecture series and while this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it means that the book offers too little depth to be taken as seriously as it should be.

"War and the American Presidency" isn't really long enough to be completely effective. But it does offer some good reading material and some persuasive conclusions. For these reasons, I'm going to give this book a marginal recommendation and a rating of three stars. It could have been much better with more attention to detail and about twice as many pages. But it is still ok and it does offer some good, respectful criticism of the Bush administration and its misguided approach to foreign policy.

Disappointing On Many Levels...Even When You Agree With Him.......2005-12-30

If he had not been the author of The Imperial Presidency, you wouldn't be reading so many reviews of Arthur Schlesinger's latest work. The technique of identifying recurrent historical patterns in the nature of Presidential power and comparing them to the current office-holder worked extremely well in Schlesinger's classic discussion of how White House resources triumphed over hostile Congresses under Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. It is neither well-executed nor particularly effective in Schlesinger's analysis of George W. Bush's manipulation of a basically compliant Congress to pursue a unilateralist foreign policy. As other reviewers note, there is little that is particularly innovative in the Bush administration's actions in Iraq other than the scale of the intervention (compared to Johnson in the Dominican Republic, Reagan's abortive effort in Lebanon and more successful invasion of Grenada, etc.). What is different is the extent of the miscalculation, both of the enemy and of world reaction. In his three chapters on foreign policy, Schlesinger hardly touches upon these issues, but instead launches into a passionate defense of the success of multilateralism in addressing previous conflicts and problems. In fact, the author never really explains why US multilateralist belief in the efficacy of alliances ever became transformed into unilateralism. At the same time, former congressman Lee Hamilton performed superior historical analysis in his recent work, A Creative Tension, in addressing the systemic issues that influence the balance between congressional and White House influence in times of conflict.

Schlesinger's criticism of Attorney General John Ashbrook's attacks on civil liberties in the name of national security and his diatribe against the electoral college, which occupy about a third of the work, are neither original nor timely. In fact, a good argument can be made that the electoral college in 2000 did exactly what it was supposed to do...prevented the election from reflecting the interests of urban and ethnic coastal minorities at the expense of the suburban, small town, and rural majorities. The fact that so many Americans voted against their personal interests for a President who could be characterized as shallow in thought and elitist in sympathy is unfortunate and even tragic,..but that's democracy.

What A Long Slide from Camelot.......2005-08-25

Succinct, sensible, scholarly not sneering...if only George II had chosen the likes of Mr. Schlesigner for his advisors instead of the neocon nincompoops who've set in motion the waning of our military & economic power, influence, and prestige. The accident of history that gave us a president with no sense of history along with a messianic mission has done more damage to our country than the communists of past or the terrorists of present.

This book cries out to be read by every thoughtful, reflective, informed American. So much for any sales in Crawford, even though it's only 7 chapters and 150 pages...perhaps if W. could read a chapter a week he'd finish while still on vacation!

Good for history novices.......2005-01-31

Admittedly, my education in the area of American history is somewhat lacking--so my review is going to be a bit less critical than the others, simply for lack of much to compare it to. However, I can say that Schlesinger's writing style is witty, academic yet unprententious, with an almost lyrical flow to it--it's not dry reading though the subject matter is.
If you don't know much about American history beyond the major events or what has occurred over the past 60 years, you will learn things about American politics that you won't hear discussed on any talk show, news program or in the editorial section of the newspaper. For example, Schlesinger points out that the "unilateralism" favored by the Bush administration is nothing new to American history--in fact, the more internationally involved stance maintained during the Cold War was an anomaly. This is a crucial point that is almost never brought up in debates about current events; most people argue that the administration's standpoint is an egregious break with "American" foreign policy.
As for the author's personal political viewpoint, I think Schlesinger is quite honest about where he stands (liberal), but I don't think this is a problem. He is frank with the reader about his own beliefs; I think it's better he do this than pretend to have none at all, which is virtually impossible for any historian to do (though, obviously, there are more or less blatant ways of doing so). All historical accounts or analyses are filtered through an author's individual lens. I don't think the book suffers at all because of this.
There were a few times that the focus of the book seemed to be a bit all over the place, but generally I feel I learned a lot by reading it. I would definitely recommend this to anyone who doesn't read a lot of history normally but who is curious nonetheless. Schlesinger is a great writer and is easy to get into--additionally, the text is quite short for a history book, so this also makes it ideal for a beginner.

The Presidency of James Madison (American Presidency Series)

Average customer rating:

An account of a nation becoming an international power

The Presidency of James Madison (American Presidency Series)
Robert Allen Rutland
Manufacturer: University Press of Kansas
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Biographies & Memoirs | Subjects | Books

General | Americas | History | Subjects | Books

War of 1812 | Military | History | Subjects | Books

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Federal Government | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0700604650

Book Description

Henry Adams portrayed James Madison as a weak president who lacked both decisiveness and administrative skills. For a century, most historians accepted Adams's assessment.

In this study of the fourth presidency distinguished historian Robert Rutland paints a more complicated portrait. Rutland, former editor-in-chief of the Madison Papers, sees Madison as a bookish, practical statesman who worked furiously to avoid conflicts in his cabinet and in Congress. When he finally realized England would not be swayed by economic pressure, he boldly led the nation into a second war for independence that allowed the United States to emerge with a renewed sense of dignity and purpose.

Rutland's lively narrative covers all major events of the Madison administration, including the War of 1812 and the push for national expansion. It provides a fresh interpretation not only of the contribution of Madison's presidency, but also of the "master builder of the Constitution" himself. Madison emerges neither as the weakling painted by Henry Adams nor as a demigod, but rather as a man who attempted to be the president envisioned at the Constitutional Convention and who achieved his highest priority, to strengthen the Union.

This book is part of the American Presidency Series.

Customer Reviews:

An account of a nation becoming an international power.......2001-09-30

Writing after the fact, historians often conclude that a war was preventable. This is generally false, as the dispassionate writer is removed from the context of the times. The war in 1812 between the United States and Great Britain has often been viewed as a pointless, forgettable war, yet in fact it had enormous consequences. The war was the defining moment of the Madison presidency and a significant break from the policy of the previous Jefferson and early Madison administrations. In describing the war, Rutland is masterful in describing the context and emotions of the times, the combination of which caused a war that was inevitable.
At the time, the Napoleonic wars were raging on the European continent and both Britain and France sought to wring every advantage they could out of what they considered an upstart nation. For years, Jefferson and Madison tried every tactic they could short of war in an attempt to delay a call to arms. Finally, national pride won out over all other factors and the war began. Madisonýs conduct of the war was not nearly as effective as it could have been, and yet the tie was all that was needed. James Monroe, the successor to Madison, enunciated what is now known as the Monroe doctrine, which warned all nations to avoid colonization efforts in the Western Hemisphere. With little American sea power to back it up, it was the first example of cooperation between Britain and the United States, as the enforcement was due to the power of the British navy. It is doubtful that this could have happened without the war.
The ways in which Rutland places the war in the context of power struggles in Europe and in the United States is masterful, as he describes how fragmented the United States was in those years. It is also possible to see the seeds of an eventual split and internal war, not over the issue of slavery, but over commercial and social differences.
In so many ways, Madisonýs best years were behind him when he became president. And yet, his handling of the war of 1812 was most likely the best that could have been done, as he sought to defend a fractious nation against an old foe who afterward became a staunch ally. For that reason alone, his administration should be considered a success and this book is the most realistic appraisal of his years in the White House that I have ever seen.

The Presidency of Abraham Lincoln (American Presidency Series)

Average customer rating:

Some things never change
The Finest Historical Account of Lincoln's Presidency
Lincoln: The "Extraordinary Outreach of National Authority"
Workmanlike Assessment of Lincoln Administration
A fair effort...but hardly my fave Lincoln book

The Presidency of Abraham Lincoln (American Presidency Series)
Phillip Shaw Paludan
Manufacturer: University of Kansas Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Biographies & Memoirs | Subjects | Books

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Reference | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Federal Government | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0700607455

Book Description

Abraham Lincoln's life and work have inspired more books than any other historical figure except Jesus and Shakespeare and attracted some of America's most renowned writers. But few know him as well as Phillip Paludan, one of our nation's foremost authorities on Lincoln and the Civil War.

In this long-awaited study, Paludan offers us Lincoln in whole-a complex, even contradictory personality who found greatness without seeking it and who felt deeply troubled about what he perceived as his failings as a president and person.

Opinion has been divided about the real Lincoln. A conservative. A liberal. The great emancipator. A Union preservationist at all cost. But Paludan's Lincoln is both a constitutionalist and a liberal egalitarian who ultimately saw his efforts to preserve the Union and free the slaves as inseparably linked.

Lincoln, Paludan contends, proved himself a truly great leader in a highly combustible situation. True, he was no saint and could rule with political expediency and a heavy hand. But no other president faced such awesome challenges, and none showed better how the nation could meet them and move toward "a more perfect union."

Filled with new insights and fresh interpretations, Paludan's study presents a genuinely new and compelling portrait of a president and nation at war. It will change the way we look at such things as Lincoln's evolving reconstruction plans, his civil liberties restrictions, and his handling of foreign affairs and enlarge our understanding of the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural, which linked the president's personal feelings with the needs of the nation. It is essential reading for anyone interested in Lincoln, the presidency, and the Civil War.

This book is part of the American Presidency Series.

Customer Reviews:

Some things never change.......2005-08-11

When a good friend died his wife gave me his collection of books on the Civil War. Over the years, I have ebayed most of them, but some how, I could not bring myself to auction this book off. During a recent move, as I was packing my library, I toss this book aside to read. Wow! What a good read. Although written ten years ago, this book is strangely appropriate for our times.

Lincoln has taken a hit from the politically correct revisionist historians on two accounts: First because of his early stance on resolving the race issue (colonization), and secondly because of the limited reach of the Emancipation Proclamation (freeing only slaves in the states in active rebellion against the Union). For these reasons, modern revisionist judge Lincoln according to modern liberal standards and find him guilty of racism. Unfortunately, history is not that simple. People, at least intelligent people as Lincoln certainly was, have complex and evolving views of the critical issues of their day. Lincoln certainly did not have the hindsight that today's historians do. He was a man of his time who struggled with the issues and whose changing views on race made him a great man. It is to Paludan's credit that he refuses to give simple answers to explain the life and views of a very complex man. He shows us a complex even contradictory personality.

Especially pertinent to the current news is Paludan's analysis of Lincoln and the Supreme Court. Lincoln believed that ultimate authority in the issues before the nation was the political process, not the Supreme Court (i.e., the Dred Scott decision). Social policy was not the realm of the court, but of the congress. Lincoln saw the court having authority only on parties to the suit and perhaps as a precedent in parallel cases. But "upon vital questions affecting the whole people" American citizens could not "resign their government into the hands of judges." The same issue faces us today. The fundamental question we are facing is the same Lincoln faced: Is the role of the court to adjudicate constitutional issues or to decide social policy?

Vital to Lincoln's perception of the role of the Supreme Court was his view of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. He saw the Declaration as the promise and the Constitution as the incomplete fulfillment of that promise. The inclusion of slavery into the Constitution was a political necessity to form the union (six slave states would not enter the union without it). Thus Dread Scott was the wrong decision, immoral as it were, even if the constitution included slavery. Why? Because the promise was given in the Declaration of Independence that all men were created equal. Hum . . . funny thing, when today's conservatives cite the Declaration of Independence in defense of a theistic basis for our nation, liberals are quick to point out that the Declaration is not a legal document and that the Constitution, as the ultimate authority, does not mention God at all. Just a thought.

Ok, I can't help it. I have to talk about the anti-war Democrats of Lincoln's day. Paludan points out again and again that the Democrats of Lincoln's day kept up a constant litany that the war could not be won, that it would bankrupt the county, and that civil liberties were threatened. The peace activist of that day saw nothing but failure and thought that recognizing that failure made better sense than perpetuating it. Um. . . sounds familiar doesn't it. I guess some things never change.

Well, I guess I said enough. This was a great book. I could hardly put it down. Good thing I did not ebay it.

The Finest Historical Account of Lincoln's Presidency.......2003-01-10

Like one of the previous reviewers, I too have been a previous student of Professor Paluden at the University of Kansas. I count him as one of the instructors that have fueled a passion in me to study the civil war period. Unlike the previous reviewer, I have had the benefit of having read this book before offering an opinion. Prof. Paluden offers an extremely well researched account of the civil war presidency of Lincoln. This work includes statistics and facts you simply cannot get from documentaries or other accounts. He correctly paints Lincoln as a master politician and cuts through the mythology of the man. Was Lincoln morally opposed to slavery...yes. Was he willing to run on an abolitionist platform?? Hell no, not and get elected during that time period. Paluden's real gift is painting a picture of the period and making folks realize just how important politics was in the 19th Century to all Americans (80-90% voter turnout). Unlike the previous reviewer, I have never noted the negative side of Prof. Paluden. He does have an ego, but, like has been said of his subject "no great man was ever modest". Thanks for a wonderful book professor. (Jayhawk Class of 1995).

Lincoln: The "Extraordinary Outreach of National Authority".......2001-07-07

As the title indicates, this is not a biography of Abraham Lincoln. It is, instead, a narrow, but detailed and incisive study of Lincoln's exercise of executive power between his election in 1860 and his assassination in 1865. This is important because, as author Philip Shaw Paludan explains: "No president had larger challenges than Abraham Lincoln." And Paludan proceeds to state the obvious, that Lincoln was "responsible for two enormous accomplishments that are part of folk legend as well as fact. He saved the Union and he freed the slaves." No other president did so much in so little time, and Paludan explains why. As a result, within its limited confines, this book is excellent!

Paludan demonstrates in the chapter entitled "Assembling the Cast: Winter 1860-61," that Lincoln, as president-elect, was a shrewd politician. According to Paludan: "Lincoln could be effective only if he unified the six-year-old Republican party," so one of his first appointments was "his strongest party rival," William Seward, Senator from New York, as secretary of state. As political payback for delivering Pennsylvania to the Republicans in 1860, Lincoln was obliged to appoint the notoriously-corrupt Simon Cameron Secretary of War. To counter that stench, Lincoln named as his secretary of the navy Connecticut newspaper editor Gideon Welles, who "had a glowing reputation for honesty." Within a year, Cameron also proved to be incompetent, and, in 1862, Lincoln replaced him with Edwin Stanton, who proved to be not only a man of great integrity but a very capable manager as well. It proved to be one of the most talented cabinets in American history, although Paludan makes clear that its operations were not always harmonious, most notably during the "cabinet crisis" of December 1862.

With most of the executive departments in capable hands, Lincoln "involved himself actively in matters of strategy," claiming "`war power' authority to use his office to the limits." Lincoln's focus on military affairs was essential because the Civil War generally went badly for the Union for the first year. Paludan ably demonstrates that even while Lincoln struggled to find generals who had both the talents and temperament to be successful, the Union was "forging the resources of war," which eventually proved decisive. Gen. George McClellan was a brilliant military administrator but proved much too cautious in the field, appalled by the "mangled corpses and the poor suffering wounded. Lincoln eventually lost confidence in McClellan, and he had to be replaced. One of McClellan's eventual successors, Gen. George Meade, won the great victory at Gettysburg in July 1863, but the Union did fully gain the initiative in the field until Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, who won an equally great victory at Vicksburg, Mississippi almost on the same day, was appointed general in chief in March 1864.

Lincoln's original war aim was merely to restore the Union. But the costs, human and material, of the war's first two years, made eradication of slavery a necessity. Following the battle of Antietam in September 1862, which was a "tactical draw but a strategic victory" for the Union, Lincoln announced the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. The issue then became: What was to be done with the former slaves? In December, Lincoln proposed a constitutional amendment for the federal government to pay to colonize any blacks who wished to emigrate, but blacks "rejected it, abolitionists had condemned it," and this "doubtful solution" was beyond the practical realities of the time. Even while the war continued to rage, the prospective problems of reconstruction never were far from Lincoln's mind, and, according to Paludan, this difficult issue increasingly divided the president from radical Republicans.

Paludan writes that, while the radicals favored confiscation of land which had prospered from slave labor, Lincoln believed in "peaceful, gradual, compensated emancipation." Lincoln opposed the harsh remedy of confiscation and believed that the Constitution permitted him to free the slaves only "in places where war was being made." The Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 potentially freed 3 million slaves but did not mention colonization or compensated emancipation. Nevertheless, the emancipation issue proved controversial. Solidly Republican New England remained largely committed to the war, but, according to Paludan: "Especially in the regions of the Middle West settled from the South and in cities where job competition existed between the races, people resented the idea of fighting in order to free blacks."

Equally controversial was the Emancipation Proclamation's "arming of black freedom fighters." According to Paludan, "Lincoln and his party clearly were committed to Union and to emancipation and to the belief that the two were linked indissolubly by the need for black soldiers." Almost 180,000 black troops were serving in Union armies by the end of the war. Lincoln was very conscious of the importance of maintaining the national moral, and, in Paludan's view, northern whites increasingly recognized the benefits of having black soldiers defend the Union.

According to Paludan, the Union's victory was in large part a result of Lincoln's "devotion to and mastery of the political-constitutional institutions of his time." Some Civil War buffs and many general readers are likely to find this book rather dry because it focuses on the science of politics. But, as Paludan writes, the preservation of the Union "was achieved chiefly through an extraordinary outreach of national authority." This book is an exceptionally thoughtful account of the exercise of executive power during the most serious crisis in American history.

Workmanlike Assessment of Lincoln Administration.......2001-02-02

This is not a bad book, and in fact offers a solid description and assessment of the Lincoln Administration.

Paludan describes the working of Lincoln's government well, including the personalities and major policy issues they faced. He does a good job in explaining the manueverings between Salmon P. Chase and Lincoln for dominance of the Administration and later for the 1864 Repbulican Party nomination. Also described thoroughly is Lincoln's Louisianna reconstruction plan, which gives a pretty plausible map to what reconstruction could have looked like had Booth not intervened.

I found the writing average. While the book explains the subject well enough, the prose is more workmanlike. It didn't reach the level of engrossing style other chronicler's of Lincoln and his government have.

Overall, not bad.

A fair effort...but hardly my fave Lincoln book.......2000-12-05

Well, first of all, I must tell everyone that I probably have a negative bias towards this book's author. The best thing I can say of this book is that curling up with it is much more pleasant than being in the same county as the author and his enormous ego. His scholarship in the book is a lot sounder than his verbal musings in the classroom, many of which are non-sensical and poorly thought-out, and his modern political musings which are often inappropiate and non-germane. One of my fondest memories is of him being made a fool of by a freshman student when he lectured for an hour on why a funeral home is called a "home". In typical PS Paludan fashion, he constructed an elaborate 19th century socio-historical explanation for what was easily explained by the student. They are called "funeral homes" because they were in caretaker's houses! Yes, Philly has a way of making the simple hard. This man almost ruined me on the study of history. I obviously would never buy this book, as I wouldn't want to see a penny go to this conceited egotist. I had this guy for a course 2 years ago and the mention of his name still makes my blood boil.

Reelecting Lincoln: The Battle for the 1864 Presidency

Average customer rating:

Once Upon a Time, there was a President...
The Union was at stake - nothing less
Reelecting Lincoln: The Battle for the 1864 Presidency
1864: A Tale of One City
1864 and 2004 - The Parallels

Reelecting Lincoln: The Battle for the 1864 Presidency
Jack Waugh
Manufacturer: Crown
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

Elections | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

ASIN: 0517597667
Release Date: 1998-01-20

Amazon.com

The election of 1864, conducted as the Civil War raged, was perhaps the most significant presidential election ever. Abraham Lincoln, revered by many but also savaged by a partisan press and a contentious Congress, faced an opponent of complex and sometimes puzzling motives, General George McClellan. It's no exaggeration to say that the outcome of the election would not only influence the outcome of the war, but that it would affect the future direction of the U.S. John C. Waugh's Reelecting Lincoln, which reads like a novel filled with remarkable characters, provides a lucid narrative of the events.

Book Description

Reelecting Lincoln: The Battle for the 1864 Presidency tells the dramatic story of perhaps the most critical election campaign in American history. Taking place in the midst of the Civil War, this election would determine the very future of the nation. Would the country be unified or permanently divided? Would slavery continue?

Weaving corroborative detail and rich anecdotal material into a fast-paced narrative, John C. Waugh succeeds in placing this pivotal election in its proper context while evoking its rich human drama. In these pages, the men and women who figured in this epic campaign emerge in bold relief, with all their strengths, weaknesses, and idiosyncrasies. The result is a page-turner that also happens to be a true story.

The best historical writing is the kind that makes the past come alive. Waugh, a former newspaper correspondent, proves that history need not be dry: he uses his journalistic skills to infuse the pages with the sights, sounds, and atmosphere of those times. Drawing from an extensive array of sources, including published and unpublished reminiscences, memoirs, autobiographies, letters, newspapers, and periodicals, he clearly evokes the drama and uncertainty of that fateful year with all the immediacy of a political reporter covering a national presidential election today.

Customer Reviews:

Once Upon a Time, there was a President..........2006-06-14

(original version posted July 28, 2000)
As his narrative style demonstrates, author John Waugh is a great storyteller; his vivid descriptions of the many players involved in the campaign of 1864 are details usually found in a work of historical fiction. But this is not a novel. It is a well-researched, very readable history that illustrates Abraham Lincoln's political skill and the importance of his re-election in determining the fate of the union. What quickly becomes apparent is Lincoln's skill in successfully juggling the interests of opponents both inside and outside his party. While other politicians may have been more dedicated to the immediate abolition of slavery, one quickly understands that Lincoln's overriding goal was the end of the war and the restoration of the union. Waugh's work suggests that Lincoln's personality, and perhaps more importantly, moderate ideology, were pivotal in attaining that goal.

The book does a thorough job of showcasing Lincoln's many opponents as well as illustrating the President's own doubts about getting re-elected. Still, after finishing the book, I never really got the sense that Lincoln's re-election was ever really in serious jeopardy. After all, the subject of the book is the "BATTLE for the 1864 presidency." Granted, we have the advantage of knowing the outcome, and, for Lincoln, the threat of defeat was indeed real. But many of the quotes of the doomsday prognosticators seemed more like wishful thinking from Lincoln-hating politicians who could never attain the numbers to give him a more serious challenge. When one removes the book's microscope on Lincoln's political opponents, the big picture would seem to suggest that the people of the north were loyal to the President all along. Knowing nothing of the history of this election, one might be led to think that the author was trying to manufacture some drama (I doubt this to be the case). In any event, keeping some healthy perspective can't hurt.

I recommend this book--it's a fun read that is well-written and very accessible. Another simple reminder that I took away from Reelecting Lincoln was that our heroes and legends with the monuments and their faces on dollars were ordinary fallible politicians once-- with friends and enemies alike.

The Union was at stake - nothing less.......2006-05-28

The premise of John Waugh's book "Reelecting Lincoln" is that the election of 1864 was one of the most critical, if not the singularly most important, election in the history of the United States. Waugh argues that had Lincoln lost to McClellan in the general election, the Confederate states probably would have been reunited, but at the cost of enduring slavery for many more years.

Waugh has given us a fast paced tale of the election year of 1864 in his book. He introduces us to the candidates (and would-be candidates) for the office of President of the United States, including Abraham Lincoln (who, of course, needed no introduction), George McClellan, John Fremont, and Samuel Chase. By providing a brief biographical sketch of the minor players and extended coverage of the major players, we see why Waugh claims that the Union was at stake in this pivotal election.

By drawing on primary and secondary sources, Waugh gives the reader a feel for what was occuring at the time and how crucial these months were. In my opinion, too much material was drawn from secondary sources and not quite enough from primary sources, but it was still a fascinating book. This book ranks high on my list of 19th century American Political History works, and I would recommend it to anyone that wants an understanding of the people and a flavor of the times leading up to this pivotal decision.

Reelecting Lincoln: The Battle for the 1864 Presidency.......2004-10-25

I personally liked the book from a purely historical standpoint. It was a bit dry in parts and a bit too flowery in others but from the view of a person of the era watching the event I found it fascinating. I would have liked a few more maps and a few more pictures but ya can't have everything. I loved the personal descriptions of each of the main characters. Without actual movies or sounds of the day it made me visualize how Lincoln walked and talked, I could picture how Grant talked and walked, etc., etc. This may not be much to some but it puts flesh and bone on historical figures and makes them more human, rather than pages in a history book.

1864: A Tale of One City.......2004-09-18

John C. Waugh's book is billed as an account of the 20th election campaign of the United States, between Union (Republican) candidate and incumbent President Abraham Lincoln and Democrat George B McClellan. But in truth, it is a narrative of the politics of 1864 in Washington, with the election playing a central, but not supreme, role.

'Reelecting Lincoln' thus tells the tale of the numerous political clashes that took place that year. It occasionally moves away from the Capital, reporting events in the Eastern Front, in Chicago convention, or even in Richmond, but the focus is clearly on the politics in Washington.

Waugh uses the terms 'cover' and 'report' to describe what he does in this book, arguing that he treats the election of 1864 as if it was a current day election. Indeed, the best thing about Waugh's book is that it demonstrated the messiness and doubt that affected the people at the time. Wild schemes to replace Lincoln as President, to nominate Grant, Chase or Benjamin Butler, or to change the party tickets, were all in the air. Waugh gives the audience a good sense of Washington's confusion in 1864 - without opinion polls, with on and off communication with the rest of the country, and with a war that seems to go good and bad unexpectedly, 1864 seemed much less certain then it does in retrospect.

Although Waugh's book is very readable, I would hesitate calling any book well written if it contained lines such as "Her beautiful head rested upon perhaps the most perfectly swanlike neck in the country" (p. 42). Waugh has an irritating tendency to describe, in great detail, the physical appearance of virtually every character he introduces, never mind how minor he or she is to the account. These descriptions slow the book down considerably - he spends the better part of three pages describing Abraham Lincoln (pp. 76-78).

Perhaps because Waugh is a journalist and not a historian, his approach to the questions of historiography is somewhat naïve. Waugh says that "it really happened that way" (p. x) but of course it's more complicated then that - the problems of selection and emphasis are inherent in any account. For example, the most important cause for Lincoln's victory in the election were the Northern military triumphs late in the summer - but Waugh dedicated only 4 pages to describe them (pp. 295-8). When describing the relations between Lincoln and the Radicals, Waugh seems to lean against the currently accepted interpretation, which emphasizes the agreement between Lincoln and the Radicals in face of Democratic, and especially copperhead, opposition.

Unforgivable is the absence of maps, especially given the long account of Jubal Early's ultimately pointless raid on Washington (chapter 18). The description of the Wilderness campaign would also have benefited from a map.

'Reelecting Lincoln' was the first narrative history I've read of the 1864 political situation in Washington, barring James McPherson's classic "Battle Cry of Freedom". As a narrative of those times, it gets the job done - but I can't recommend it to a more general audience

1864 and 2004 - The Parallels .......2004-08-05

In 1864 Abraham Lincoln was facing re-election, and the prospects of defeat were so great that Lincoln actually penned a note to his cabinet urging cooperation with the incoming Democratic administration, should he lose.

Lincoln was a wartime President and his nation had grown weary of fighting and had begun questioning the motives of the war. There had been Draft Riots on the streets of New York only the year before. The war itself was not going well for the North, and the fighting had grinded down to a stalemate along the Rappahanock River in Virginia, and in the mountains of Northern Georgia.Many were beginning to believe that Robert E. Lee was invincible. There were many in the North, especially the Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandingham, who urged "peace at any price" - including Southern Independence and a repeal of the Emancipation Proclamation.

There were pressures for Lincoln to remove his loyal Vice President, Hannibal Hamlin, and replace him with a "War Democrat" - which he did.

And the Democrats on a solid Anti-War platform chose the war hero turned peace advocate Major General George McClellan as their Presidential candidate, with the anti-war George Pendleton as his running mate.

Sound Familiar???

How Lincoln turned it all around, captured the hearts and minds of the nation (with a little help from Union victories at Mobile Bay, Atlanta, and the Shenandoah Valley), and how people were convinced that George McClellan, who ironically did not like the platform he ran on, was not the right choice for the nation, is the basis of John Waugh's excellent, readable and dramatic book. He takes you to the cabinet meetings, the conventions, the behind-the-scenes machinations of the Lincoln supporters, John C. Fremont, McClellan and the Democrats, and even what the press was reporting (and it wasn't favorably inclined towards Abraham Lincoln).

The parallels between 1864 and 2004 are pretty eeery. But if that alone piques your curiosity, what you will find in this book is solid History. The bargain hardcover is no longer available, but a new trade paperback edition has just been released - and just in time for the 2004 election!

The Presidency of Herbert C. Hoover (American Presidency Series)

Average customer rating:

A Good Look at Hoover and His Tenure
This Hoover Didn't Sweep All Before Him

The Presidency of Herbert C. Hoover (American Presidency Series)
Martin L. Fausold
Manufacturer: University Press of Kansas
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Americas | History | Subjects | Books

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

All Titles | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books

Nonfiction | Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007 | Stores | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0700603581

Book Description

Few presidents have been subjected to such a wide range of interpretation as has Herbert Hoover, from hero to villain, from genius to naïf. Fausold meets the daunting challenge of assessing the Hoover presidency by focusing on the to most basic questions: first, whether the Hoover presidency advanced the country toward the goals outlined in his Inaugural Address--justice, ordered liberty, equality of opportunity, individual initiative, freedom of opinion, integrity in government, peace, growth of religious spirit, and strengthening of the home--and, second, whether Hoover attacked the causes of the depression--international, cyclical, sectoral, fiscal, and monetary.

Making use of extensive primary sources beyond the Hoover Library, Fausold argues that Herbert Hoover was what Walter Lippmann said a president should be, "a custodian of a nation's ideals," and that Hoover fought the causes of the depression with vigor and imagination. Nevertheless, on election day in 1932, Hoover was turned out of office in a landslide, carrying only six eastern states.

From his defeat of Alfred E. Smith in 1928 to his trouncing by FDR four years later, Hoover's presidential years are detailed here: the stock-market crash, which happened eight months after Hoover took office; the ever-deepening depression; tariff legislation; Hoover's farm policy and foreign policy; and his pursuit of the twin goals of prosperity and freedom. This volume discusses in detail the relationship of the Hoover presidency to capital and labor, showing that Hoover's farm policies provide the best illustration of his corporatist formulas. Fausold reverses simplistic conclusions about the Stimson Doctrine, arguing that Hoover's Quaker pacifism, the Great Depression, and the forcefulness of Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson affected Hoover's foreign policy far less than has been presumed. Finally, Fausold details the disastrous events of the 1932 reelection campaign, punctuated by the march of the Bonus Army on Washington and culminating in Hoover's decisive defeat.

Fausold views the Hoover presidency as the logical transition from progressivism to the New Deal, calling it both the last of the old and the first of the new presidencies. The important question about Hoover, Fausold argues, is not why the people refused to reelect him, but why the reversal of his nation's image of him was so overwhelming and has been so long-lasting. Despite three arguments in defense of the administration--that its goals and antidepression efforts were in many respects without precedent; that it was surely as much a failure of American capital as of presidential leadership; and that probably no American elected in 1928 could have survived the nation's greatest depression--Fausold points to two factors that were paramount in spelling the misfortunes of Hoover's presidency: his unalterable commitment to ordered freedom as a canopy for solutions to the depression, and his firm rejection of any kind of an accommodation with the New Deal.

This book is part of the American Presidency Series.

Customer Reviews:

A Good Look at Hoover and His Tenure.......2004-02-19

Part of what makes the University Press of Kansas' American Presidency Series anything remotely of interest or importance is their adherence to the topic at hand: the presidency. Herbert Hoover has a long and storied pre-White House career and that story has some relevance and bearing on his four years in Washington but it is a topic of focus for a different book.

Martin Fausold points out that Hoover's four years as president speak volumes about the future course of the United States after March 1933 when Franklin Roosevelt took office. Hoover did not inherit the United States when it was on the verge of collapse nor was it at a peak. Black Tuesday, as Fausold illuminates, was a major turning point in the course of many levels of American movement: economic; social; cultural, and more. Most of this book is a detailed chronicle of the efforts Hoover used to extinguish the conflagration started by the October 1929 crash. Readers will note how small it seems to discuss a stock market crash caused by a drop of 375 or so points when in 2003, we have seen drops of two hundred points in a single day without much fervor or panic. Nonetheless, Fausold explains that the crash wa snot simply a one day event but a series of events throughout various sectors of the market that led to a mass sell off of stocks on Black Tuesday.

Most interestlingly, however, Fausold explains that FDR, as early as 1929, made efforts to have his contentions known and demanded an audience with Hoover and policy officials. Fausold also destroys other authors' criticism of Hoover as a silent critic of the Federal Reserve system that practically fathered the stock market crash by pointing out that Hoover moved behind the scenes to inch toward reform because he did not want to destroy public confidence in the banking system. Revelations such as these make this work essential for anyone studying the Hoover presidency or with even a remote interest in any issue relating to Hoover, including the stock market crash.

This Hoover Didn't Sweep All Before Him.......2002-04-02

As with most books in the American Presidency Series the format is rigidly adhered to. A minor insight into the formative years of this Quaker before rapidly focusing on the important, shaping events of his four-year tenure that became his ill-fated legacy. Curiously though, this is one President who has a shallow, apolitical background in the respect he didn't serve his time in Congress or even gubernatorial positions. He lived on his reputation gleaned from his time in previous administrations. The book devotes adequate time to this part of Hoover's political career and necessarily so. Without it the reader would possibly fail to understand how Hoover's future actions were shaped by these experiences. Yet while it becomes apparent to the reader why Hoover failed in the time of his biggest crisis, the Depression, the empathy is lacking. Hindsight is a wonderful thing though and it is easy to be wise after the event. But whilst lacking this sense of empathy, the book remains true to its principle of objectivity, merely stating the facts, leaving the reader with a great deal of scope to formulate their own opinions on Hoover. Sadly, despite the books attempts to be kind, this is one President who has constantly failed to be viewed favourably over the course of time. This in itself is testimony to the sentiment Hoovervilles have in the minds of people. One criticism of the book is that it quickly makes it way through the four years leaving the impression that his tenure was quite fruitless but this I believe does the man an injustice, but this a subjective opinion. The actions of all presidencies live on long after the people and the author does try to convey this impression that despite the uneventfulness of these four years purely from a political perspective, The Depression being anything but a minor footnote in history, it seems a futile attempt. The more the reader progresses the greater the sense of helplessness and despair one feels for this genial person who was trying to do the best he could in the face of insurmountable odds. But overall the author does a good job. It is necessary for any historical book to have a sense of unbias because the material should be thought provoking. The beauty of history is that one can never be wrong. How people perceive history is always going to be different. In this respect the author's limitations are caused by the source of their work, Hoover himself. The sense is that Hoover was an uninspiring character even at the height of his success, serving under predecessors. With this limitation I think the book is well structured. Yet, despite certain ineptitude humans have a forgiving streak. Even for the weakest, nee blandest of characters, people are always curious as to how somebody functioned, what made them tick. In this I think they believe they can find answers as to why they don't possess the greatness of other President's. Sometimes it is merely circumstance. What would people of thought of Hoover if he had been in Lincoln's position and altered the course of history for the better? This is all hypothetical conjecture. Was he merely unlucky to be in charge at a time when the world was financially about to crumble? Even a truly great man, skilled in the art of oratory may have been treated, and in this respect I think FDR may have been viewed favourable because certain problems weren't construed as being of his own making. But that is another story. I think to read Hoover is fascinating though because there is more to the man than being the one in charge at the time of The Depression and he would not be the first president people would think of. But he has still held a very unique position in terms of world history and politics.

Average customer rating:

Hayes as an able administrator and honorable man
This book provides a new interpretation on Hayes.

The Presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes
Ari Hoogenboom
Manufacturer: University Press of Kansas
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

General | Americas | History | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0700603387

Book Description

Mark Twain, who captured the essence of the Gilded Age, predicted that, in time, the "real and substantial greatness" of the Hayes presidency would cause it to "stand out against the horizon of history in its true proportions." This volume, an assessment of all significant aspects of the Hayes administration, may bring about just such a reappraisal. It is am important reevaluation of the administration that officially ended the Reconstruction era.

Hoogenboom covers all issues, decisions, and developments of consequence during the Hayes presidency--from the withdrawal of troops from Louisiana and South Carolina that signaled the end of Reconstruction, through the Great Strike of 1877--the most violent general strike in American history--to the Nez Perce War and the removal of the Poncas to the Indian Territory.

Hayes began his term with a vast segment of the population convinced that he had been elected by fraud. The election returns of four states were disputed in his race against Democrat Samuel J. Tilden; when a special commission awarded all disputed returns to Hayes, many indignant citizens concluded that he was not legally entitled to reside in the White House. In addition to that sever handicap, Hayes faced a hostile Congress, controversy over the last remaining Republican governments in the South, urgent demands for civil service reform, and severe economic depression.

Hoogenboom credits Hayes with being a patient reformer, principled but practical, cautious yet courageous. He vetoed popular legislation that would expand the currency and exclude Chinese laborers from the migrants allowed into the United States. He defeated congressional attempts to force him to make appointments. He vetoed appropriation bills that would destroy laws enforcing voting rights under the Fourteenth ad Fifteenth amendments. He did not attempt the impossible task of reforming the entire civil service, but supported the merit system in the New York Customhouse and Post Office and achieved excellent results. His restrained, legalistic response to the Great Strike saved lives and property. In foreign affairs, he took positions that anticipated both the Open Door with respect to China and the Theodore Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. Against great odds, Hayes defended the prerogatives of his office and enhanced its power and prestige.

This new interpretation contradicts the widely held view that Hayes was an inept politician and an ineffective leader. It was Hayes's character and personality, Hoogenboom argues, that set his presidency apart in the Gilded Age. His honesty and decency echoed the pristine values of the early American Republic, while his attempts to rally support by emphasizing issues and policies--rather than by relying on political organization--anticipated the style of twentieth-century presidents.

This book is part of the American Presidency Series.

Customer Reviews:

Hayes as an able administrator and honorable man.......2004-11-04

Rutherford B. Hayes' victory in the presidential election of 1876 was fraught with irregularities. In the end, he received 185 electoral votes to 184 for Samuel Tilden. After the initial election, Tilden had 184, Hayes 165 and the remaining 20 were disputed. To settle the dispute, a commission with fifteen members was appointed. Four were judges, 2 Democratic and 2 Republican, there were five Democratic and five Republican members of Congress and one additional judge that was supposed to be an independent. However, independent judge David Davis, who was slated to be the fifteenth member, could not serve and was replaced by Republican judge Joseph Bradley. By a series of eight-to-seven votes, all twenty disputed votes, and the presidency, were awarded to Hayes. As a consequence of the maneuvering that put him in the White House, Hayes was constantly referred to as "his fraudulency."
However, as Hoogenboom explains very well, the manipulations that ended with the Hayes victory involved a great deal of compromise. At the time he took office, federal troops still occupied several southern states, maintaining carpetbagger Republican governments that protected the voting rights of the recently freed black population. In exchange for Democratic acquiescence to his assumption of the Presidency, Hayes agreed to end the occupations. Hayes was concerned about black rights and extracted a hollow promise from the Democrats that they would not interfere with the voting rights of blacks. Once the troops were removed, the Democrats took over from the Republican governments and initiated the process of segregation.
Hayes was an able administrator and had the best of intentions in his attempts to aid the plight of blacks. However, the white leadership of the South was largely unrepentant and everyone wanted the conflict to finally be over. Therefore, while things did not go the way Hayes wanted in the South, what happened was probably inevitable. He was also a transitional figure, as the American economy was emerging from depression and the industrial revolution was about to explode. During his term, labor organizations were forming and the first major strike took place. Unlike other figures in power, Hayes at least had some empathy for the workers and worked only to keep the peace. He was very precise in staying within constitutional bounds and avoided taking sides as much as possible. As the author is careful to point out, Hayes did not break the strike. His role in ending it is limited to the consequences of his actions in maintaining the public order.
Hayes was also a transitional figure in terms of American foreign involvement. He is the last president to keep their focus within the borders of the United States and less than twenty pages are devoted to foreign affairs. All future presidents were forced by circumstances to pay a great deal of attention to the rest of the world. His involvement in the treatment of Native Americans was similar to what happened with southern blacks. His intentions were good and humane, however the circumstances prevented him from making a significant positive impact.
Hayes is often portrayed as an aloof and inept president, which is not the case. As Hoogenboom does an excellent job of explaining, Hayes was an honorable man who was pressed by circumstances to make compromises that he found distasteful. In reading this history of those times, I was convinced that Hayes did the best that anyone could have done, given the circumstances.

This book provides a new interpretation on Hayes........1998-12-02

This book is told from and unbiased standpoint. The author does an excellent job ofjust giving the facts and not letting his opinion or anyone else's get in the way. The best example of this is in the first two chapters which talks about his campaign and then the disputed election, where to sum it up quickly, Hayes did not have the popular majority and won by 1 electoral vote. The book supplies me quotes and historical references from both Republican and Democrats and then gets into of the details of the election. So before I know all the details I already have evidence from both sides. Once one gets to the details it is simply facts no opinions. Hoogenboom does an extraordinary job giving facts and references from the time period and making and unbiased point of view. That is tolled form all sides and does not just concentrate on Hayes' side. The book remarkably managed to take and unbiased stance and still attack the widely held belief that Hayes was and ineffective leader and an inept politician. The author bring an entire new perspective on how to view Hayes. According to the American Presidency Series this book is supposed to present historians and the general public with interesting, scholarly assessments of Hayes' administration. Yet I found this book to be geared to the historians and the scholarly. The book is obviously being written for someone with good amount of intelligence. After reading this book one gains an entire new respect for the 19th President of the United States, Rutherford B. Hayes. END

Average customer rating:

Insightful, Balanced Analysis of Jefferson's Presidency
A brilliant example of what history should be
A reality check on Jefferson the statesman
Wonderful History of Jefferson Admin
A breathtaking treatment of the Jefferson presidency

The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson
Forrest McDonald
Manufacturer: University Press of Kansas
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Biographies & Memoirs | Subjects | Books

Presidents & Heads of State | Leaders & Notable People | Biographies & Memoirs | Subjects | Books

Constitutions | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Practical Politics | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

General | Americas | History | Subjects | Books
Similar Items:

ASIN: 0700603301

Book Description

Thomas Jefferson occupies a special niche in the hagiology of American Founding Fathers. His name is invoked for a staggering range of causes; statists and libertarians, nationalists and States' righters, conservatives and radicals all claim his blessing. In this book, Forrest McDonald examines Jefferson's performance as the nation's leader, evaluating his ability as a policy-maker, administrator, and diplomat.

He delineates, carefully and sympathetically, the Jeffersonian ideology and the agrarian ideal that underlay it; he traces the steps by which the ideology was transformed into a program of action; and he concludes that the interplay between the ideology and the action accounted both for the unparalleled success of Jefferson's first term in office, and for the unmitigated failure of the second term.

Jefferson as president was a man whose ideological commitments prevented him from reversing calamitous policy stances, a man who could be ruthless in suppressing civil rights when it was politically expedient, a man who was rarely, in the conventional sense of the word, a Jeffersonian. McDonald's portrait reveals him to be at once greater, simpler, and more complexly human than the mere "apostle of liberty" or "spokesman for democracy" that his adulators have relegated him to being.

This book is part of the American Presidency Series.

Customer Reviews:

Insightful, Balanced Analysis of Jefferson's Presidency.......2004-12-30

McDonald analyzes Jefferson's presidency, discussing the early successes in stopping Federalism, as well as the limitations to the changes that Jefferson and the Republicans could achieve. He discusses the failures of his presidency, notably the embargo of all trade, in a fair manner. Finally, he provides an interesting analysis of the motivations and sources of Republican policy and places Jeffersonianism in its historical context in a much clearer way than I have ever read before.

The book is well-written, although perhaps on the short side. It also contains almost nothing about Jefferson's life before or after the presidency--it really is a history of his presidency.

A brilliant example of what history should be.......2002-05-05

McDonald is not only a great scholar, he is a storyteller without peer. He presents the Jeffersonian presidency in an objective and even-handed manner, highlighting both the successes and the tragic shortcomings of the Jefferson administration. Despite Jefferson's reputation today as a civil libertarian and a champion of liberty, McDonald shows how his heavy-handed tactics and his disregard for the Constitution led to disaster both at home and abroad. Despite ushering in the Republican Revolution of 1800, by 1808 Jefferson had lost control of the party he helped create and found himself at the mercy of John Randolph and his ilk in the House. McDonald never attacks Jefferson, however; he simply tells the rather sad story of a man consistently unable to meet the challenges with which he was faced. Another masterpiece from America's foremost historian.

A reality check on Jefferson the statesman.......2001-09-21

Due to his primary authorship of the American Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson is widely viewed as a strong civil libertarian. The words of the Declaration and the American constitution speak so strongly about the limitations that government has when dealing with the citizens that they are just as valid over 200 years after they were written. He was also the primary individual around which the fledgling Republican party coalesced. In fact, McDonald commonly refers to the party as the Jeffersonian Republicans.
Less well known is the manner whereby the Jefferson administration callously ignored those rights so clearly stated in those magnificent documents. People were arrested for their political persuasion and he attempted to have Federal judges removed simply because he was unhappy with their Federalist philosophy. This really was a sad time in history, as it was the first case where a president openly interpreted the law as it suited him. In my opinion, the clear statement of these actions of Jefferson while president is what makes this book. Since the Louisiana Purchase was the greatest event in the United States between independence and the war between the states, it tends to overshadow many of the other things that Jefferson did during his presidency.
Jefferson's wholesale destruction of the American military left the country defenseless when it was being drawn into the wars between Napoleonic France and Great Britain. The consequences of these errors were monumental to the new country and his diplomatic mistakes contributed to a senseless conflict between the United States and Great Britain that served no useful purpose and could easily have destroyed the United States. Once again, McDonald is right on the mark in explaining what Jefferson did.
Thomas Jefferson is often held up to mythic proportions as a champion of liberty and as an early statesman. In this volume, he is described as he truly was, a man who professed liberty for all, but practiced it only when it suited him. This is a superb account of what he did while president.

Wonderful History of Jefferson Admin.......2000-11-13

Forrest McDonald has produced a succinct, penetrating and fascinating history of Thomas Jefferson's Administration.

This book is part of the Univ. of Kansas' history of the presidency series and the second effort from McDonald (he wrote a wonderful history of Washington's Administration). This book is about the policies, international relations, politics and style of America's third chief executive. Running at less than 200 pages, McDonald manages to be both thorough and interesting in his telling of this period.

Jefferson and his Administration produced wonderful contradictions. His party espoused a "Republican" philosophy that basically wanted to liberate Americans from Hamilton's financial system and Adam's heavy handedness as witnessed by the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Jefferson's early term saw him implement much of his program. As McDonald points out, few if any other Presidents have had their way so successfully with Congress. Jefferson also added greatly to the US through the Louisianna Purchase, despite his concerns with the Constitutionality of the aquisition.

Jefferson and his Administration reached rough shoals in foreign affairs. Blinded by anti-British sentiment, the Administration prooved less than adroit at negotiating the position between Napolean and England. America was buffetted by this struggle and it reverberated back on our domestic situation. Suddenly, Jefferson's first term accomplishments became liabilities and were revealed as short sighted. The scheduled reduction of America's debt through the slashing of the Navy budget left us without the ability to challenge foreign powers. The abolition of Hamilton's system of internal revenues that left us entirely dependent upon tarriffs and thereby upon the grace of the British (who had the ability to determine how much trade our country could enjoy)for government revenue.

In the most surprising irony, Jefferson -- who had decried Adams and his anti-liberal legislation (Alien and Sedition Acts) would go much farther than Adams in restricting liberties and in executive arrogance through his Embargo Acts and various executive orders designed to limit trade with the European powers.

This is a fascinating story well told. Besides the policies, McDonald gives insight as to how Jefferson governed, his relations with Congress and the Judiciary as well as the toll of the office on the man himself. A good book.

A breathtaking treatment of the Jefferson presidency.......1999-11-01

McDonald wrenches Jefferson out of the prism of 20th century admirers and detractors to see him in his own time. He interprets the first term as a stunning success: to wit, Jefferson set about the dismantling of government over the lives of the Republic's citizens. For one brief shining moment the ideals of the Revolution reached their pinnacle. It was not, alas and inevitably, destined to last. McDonald charts the decline and fall that was Jefferson's second term. Both brilliant and unorthodox, this book is exciting to read and confirms my belief that books that can interpret the past only through current day perspectives are more about the present than the past. This book is about the past and makes no apologies for it, and takes its place among Jeffersonian books by Henry Adams, Dumas Malone, and Joseph Ellis as a classic treatment of our classic President.

The Use of Force After the Cold War (Foreign Relations and the Presidency)

Average customer rating:

The Use of Force After the Cold War (Foreign Relations and the Presidency)

Manufacturer: Texas A&M University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

20th Century | World | History | Subjects | Books

Military Science | History | Subjects | Books

General | Americas | History | Subjects | Books

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Federal Government | Government | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

ASIN: 1585443034

Books:

Books Index

Books Home

Recommended Books