War and Politics Books

I bought this book for my father, and he loved it. It took him less than a week to finish. If you or a relative are a history buff, I strongly suggest buying this book. Also, they shipped it ASAP, which was wonderful!

During World War II and in the years afterward Stalin and the Soviet Union maintained a very active spy network in both the United States and England. During this time the intellectual liberals in the United States became convinced that the United States Government was on a witch hunt to railroad a series of people into jail.

Perhaps the most famous of these was the case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg who were convicted of espionage and subsequently executed. There have been a number of books published that claim the Government falsified the evidence against them and that they were innocent. Then in the 1990's, the Venona project was declassified and clearly showed that they were indeed spies. Since then the media has been very quiet on the subject.

This book looks at a number of these early trials, discusses what happened and then relates what more recent sources like Venona and the opening of the KGB archives says about the cases.

In spite of this evidence, there are still those who maintain that these people were innocent, see for instance the book 'Secret Judgment: How the U.S. Government Illegally Executed Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.'

This reference work belongs on your bookshelf. Short and factual while heavily documented, in effect a college-level history primer, it recounts and places in context the major espionage trials of the 1940s and 1950s.

It is now estimated there were several hundred Soviet spies in the United States, pilfering government, industrial or military secrets, and occasionally rising high enough in government to influence policy.

Few were successfully prosecuted because counterespionage needs often worked at cross purposes with criminal trials' public disclosure. Cases often hinged on evidence gained from bugs and wiretaps placed without court order, which the FBI could do, and which served counterspy investigations, but which could not be introduced into court. The relatively few convictions have allowed the left to claim over the years that it was all a drummed-up scare over a non-existent problem. This book conclusively proves otherwise.

The authors put these cases - Elizabeth Bentley, Hiss-Chambers, the Rosenbergs and numerous others - into historical and sequential context, including the shifting politics of wartime and postwar and changing criminal laws in areas like wiretapping. They also apply the conclusive evidence emerging publicly only decades later when records were declassified here and abroad.

The authors' fairness is exemplified by their treatment of Manhattan Project research director J. Robert Oppenheimer. Wiretaps showed he wasn't guilty of spying, but aroused government security suspicions both because of his close Communist associations - including his wife and brother - as well as his reticence to investigators once Soviet spying attempts came to light. His shifting stories over the years (mostly to protect his brother, Manhattan Project leader General Leslie Groves concluded) led many to doubt his judgment and suitability, while not necessarily his loyalty.

They also do a great job reconstituting the "Who Lost China?" debate. American Communists in the Treasury Department planted a Chinese Communist agent in Chiang's government, who managed to delay gold transfers to Chiang's government for two or three years. Chinese currency became worthless and public opinion tilted to Mao.

Haynes and Klehr conclude that the problem ended by the 1960s, for various reasons, with the decline of the ideologically motivated spy. Latter-day traitors like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanson did it for money. But the earlier period should be one of great concern for those today who maintain that their opposition to U.S. interests and support for those of foreign enemies should in no way generate questions about their loyalty. Because in the 1930s and 1940s, left ranks were pervaded by traitors. Liberals need to get over their continuing denial.

Read this for graduate American history course. John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr have collaborated and written the definitive book on six of America's espionage trials of the early Cold War era. The historical authority that this book enjoys is due not only to the use of trial transcripts and to primary and secondary sources, but its real authority comes from three sources that have been unavailable to scholars in some instances for over forty years. To draw an accurate picture of the magnitude of espionage conducted in the United States at the behest of the Soviet Union, the authors have used FBI files on the subject which were only made available in the 1980's. In addition, in 1995 the U.S. government made public about 3,000 decoded messages that were sent between Soviet consulates in the U.S. and Moscow from 1943 to 1946. These were messages that U.S. code breakers deciphered under a project named "Venona." Finally, the authors were able to corroborate much of their information from Soviet intelligence officers who defected and gave information to intelligence services in the West, as well as KGB archives that were made available after the collapse of the Soviet Union. All of this information was used by the authors to write, in a very entertaining style, an accurate account of six espionage trials and how they affected American politics for decades.

Besides the factual accounts of the six espionage trials and information on the unlawful activity of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA), in this book the authors illuminated another important lesson, especially for historians. By writing about the conduct, outcome, and historical interpretation of the espionage trials and the "red scare" that swept across the U.S. at the start of the Cold War, the authors astutely showed how historical interpretation of the subject had come full circle in fifty years. Newspaper headlines were replete with reports of Communist spies being ferreted out of government agencies in the late 1940's and early 1950's. Many Americans were riveted by and fearful of two of the more famous cases--the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg atomic spy trial and the Alger Hiss-Whittaker Chambers State Department spy case. Both cases engendered strong reactions from both conservatives who supported the government against the Rosenbergs and supported Chambers against Hiss, and liberals who saw overzealous prosecution by the government especially against Ethel Rosenberg and Hiss. Even after Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed and Hiss was found guilty, public opinion seemed to stay the same until after the Watergate era; a time in which many Americans perceived abuses of power by the American government and doubted the veracity of both the FBI and CIA. In the case of Alger Hiss, he was winning the public's opinion by this time mainly because Richard Nixon, who was instrumental in attacking Hiss in congressional hearings, was discredited by his role in the Watergate cover up and his eventual resignation from the presidency. However, the authors showed how inside of fifty years public opinion came full circle back to recognizing that the Rosenbergs and Hiss were truly Communists who spied on behalf of the Soviets, through the release of the "Venona" messages and information from Soviet intelligence archives released in the 1990's.

Another relevant point that the authors made in their book was in reference to the conduct of the CPUSA. Many Americans came to believe that the CPUSA should have been banned in the U.S. after Senator McCarthy spearheaded the congressional hearings against Americans who were sympathetic to Communism. Although Senator McCarthy would ultimately be accused of conducting a witch-hunt, especially against people in the film industry, the authors prove with the "Venona" messages and Soviet archival documentation that the CPUSA was working at the behest of the Soviet government. The authors conclude their book with an admonition about the CPUSA. "In the late 1940's and early 1950's, the internal threat posed by the American Communist Party, both as a subversive political force and an auxiliary to Soviet espionage, loomed large" (239). Thus, if it were not proper under the constitution to ban the CPUSA, at a minimum, it should have been required to register as an agent of a foreign government.

Another prescient point that the authors made, which is relevant to the current war against terrorism today, was the extraordinary burden the government was under to protect its intelligence-gathering sources while prosecuting espionage cases. Although the government had clear evidence from the "Venona" messages, and illegal FBI wiretap operations that hundreds of Americans were engaged in espionage against the U. S., it was not at liberty to bring most of these traitors to trial. The government was unwilling to divulge the "Venona" source in court, which it would have had to do under the laws at that time to bring others to trial. In addition, illegal wiretaps would obviously be inadmissible in court. The government had to be satisfied that they would be able to interview these people, and if they did not cooperate with the government, they would at least lose their security clearances, resulting in the loss of their government jobs. The authors drew another parallel between the early Cold War era and the conduct of the war against terrorism today. The early Cold War spies were motivated by ideology and not money, just like today's terrorists. They were true believers in the Communist ideology, which is a major reason why so many were unwilling to cooperate with the government by turning over the names of other people they knew were spying for the Soviets in the U.S. Their ideological beliefs made them more dangerous because they were willing to have their lives ruined and go to their graves rather than divulge information. Thus, for all of the aforementioned reasons, Haynes and Klehr's book is a valuable keystone to anyone trying to understand the early Cold War era.

As a graduate student in philosophy and history, I recommended this book for anyone interested in American history, foreign policy, Cold War history.

Needless to say, I was not surprised. This book is of course another in a long line of books exposing Hover, the FBI and our not so pure system.
Albert Einstein was clearly a good man and it is becoming rather apparent that J. Edgar Hoover was not.
When people complain about how their tax dollars are spent, I don't understand why organization like the FBI and the CIA are so defended by so many. Are these people just not informed?
I know that even history is not always accurate or in some cases even rather political and deceptive but so many people can't be lying about Hoover and these secretive organizations of ours.
We are beginning to make the Communists look reasonable. I can hardly believe all this and I just don't see how so many others can be in this state of denial. I don't get it.

Einstein was a troublemaker, the author informs us at the beginning of this book detailing, armed with the 1800 pages of files released by the FOIA, with Hoover's Albert-paranoia in action, aimed at the great scientist, especially in the years of the Red Scare, McCarthyism, and the Cold War. The public image of the greatest scientist of the twentieth century has been carefully manicured, but behind the teddy bear was a determined activist on many fronts, who fell afoul of not only the Nazis, but of the FBI. Einstein's valiant stands on social justice, racism, antisemitism, war, peace, and the Bomb barely enter public consciousness through the layers of the myth. The record of Hoover's manipulations and skullduggeries is almost pathetic in its pickiun character, next also to its bungling and misinformation. It is, for example, discouraging to watch how Einstein is deprived of security clearance, lest a man with such a reputation and global popularity be, we suspect the motive, able to influence or speak out from the inside on the use of the first atom bomb. The portrait left of the reactionary and racist Hoover at the head of a critical institution pursuing this biased and incomprehending agenda is nothing less than appalling. The portrait of Einstein's deep social concerns (read a triffle 'leftist') in action is the real man, please.

The Einstein File by Fred Jerome, quickly dispels the poplar image
of Albert Einstein as an absentminded, head-in-the-clouds-genius.

Though Einstein is arguably the most widely covered, continuing
science story in history and is most noted for his scientific
theories that transformed our view of the universe. This book
chronicles the life of an Einstein that the masses knew nothing
about. An Einstein described as a troublemaker, an agitator, a
fervent pacifist, a socialist, and an open critic of racism.

Einstein arrived in the United States in 1933, the year of
the Nazi's ascent to power in Germany, and became the focus of
J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. And by any means necessary the FBI amassed
a 'file cabinet' of information on him. Fred Jerome stumbled on
documents that addressed Einstein as a Spy and a Kidnap Plotter.
And a dossier where Jerome discovered the political dimension of
Albert Einstein's life and his intense commitment to social justice.

Jerome says when he realized how much had not been told to us about
the life of the 'Man of the Century', he felt as though he had been
robbed. This is not another biography of Einstein, some two hundred
have already been written. It is a window opened by the FBI on the
nature of Einstein's politics, the depth of his public involvement,
and the generosity of his endorsements of organizations he supported.
And it is this activism that made Hoover's Bureau consider Einstein

dangerous. This book reveals information that makes one think the
history we know is sanitized, and what we don't know is at times
appalling. It talks of a 'list' maintained by the FBI on celebrities,
political figures and anyone thought to have affiliatiions with the
Communist Party. It underscores the dangers that can arise, and the
rule of law that exists in times of obsession with national security.
And it creates questions on where the line should be drawn on the issue
of an invasion of privacy. This one will make you take a seat.

Reviewed by aNN Brown

This is a must read book for many reasons. We have allowed J. Edgar Hoover and Joseph McCarthy's abuses of power to slip quietly into fuzzy memory. We have failed to learn from history and are now condemned to repeat it.

Einstein emerges in this book as far more than a smart mathematician. He was a good and wise man. That so much of our government's power was engaged in an effort to discredit him is frightening.

Einstein experienced the Nazi's rise to power first hand. He could see the similarities between their anti-Semitism and our own racism. He had seen the Nazis attack the Communists and quash dissent. Einstein was a long time Pacifist, but he supported the war against the Nazis, even to the point of suggesting to FDR that we develop the Atomic Bomb before Hitler could.

Einstein was never a Communist. He valued his freedom of thought and expression too much. He saw how dangerous narrow nationalism could be and that it could threaten democracy. Einstein and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt were strong supporters of the United Nations and Human Rights. This earned both extensive FBI files, along with Martin Luther King Jr., whose Civil Rights efforts were also seen as a threat by Hoover.

After World War II, Nazis were eagerly embraced as anti-Communists and recruited into the growing "intelligence community". Einstein, an avowed Socialist, was feared to be, if not actually "Red" at least "Pink", and not to be trusted. If he had not been so well known and loved, he would surely have been stripped of his citizenship and deported. Hoover certainly tried. Fortunately for Einstein, there was no real evidence at all against him, just allegations from completely unreliable sources, innuendo and irrational fear.

Today, the flames of irrational fear are again being fanned in our country. Fear is again being used to justify injustice and erode our civil liberties. Everyone should read this book, and take it as a warning.

I read this book in no time. In the good old days of great letter writing, these two protagonists enjoyed a rich and historic friendship. Although sometimes on the opposite sides of issues, the friendship betwen former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and President Harry Truman was a rich and ultimately fascinating exercise in camaraderie and mutual aid.
From reading these fascinating letters, it is obvious that these two old friends actually enjoyed talking and exchanging ideas and opinions.

This book, as edited, weaves a moving and extremely interesting story, reading very much like a good biography.
I highly recommend this book, a good example of history making exciting reading.

He was a farm boy, the descendant of Missouri pioneers. She was a debutante of the New York aristocracy. On April 12th, 1945, her husband and his boss, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, died in office. Mrs. Roosevelt summoned Vice-president Truman to the White House and said, "Harry, the president is dead." "Is there anything I can do for you?" he asked, and Mrs. Roosevelt replied, "Is there anything we can do you? For you are the one in trouble now."

Thus begins a correspondence that will last until their deaths, here collected by editor Steve Neal to give the reader a top-of-the-heap, behind-the-headlines look at the end of World War II, the Marshall Plan, the creation of the state of Israel, public versus private schooling, Eleanor's opinion of the British (not high, wait till you see how she tells Harry to handle Churchill), Harry's opinion of American hate crimes against Japanese Americans (he's damn lucky this letter wasn't released to the public back then), and much more. Eleanor is at first a little patronizing, a little arrogant, and more than a little disingenuous in many protestations of "oh you don't have listen to little old me, but as long as you are..." Harry is at first a little defensive, a little impatient, and more than a little dismissive of Eleanor's opinions, particular of people she wants in office and he doesn't. By his second term, Harry has grown into his new job, Eleanor has grown into hers, and they both grow into what eventually reads like a friendship of sincere mutual respect and even affection.

This book is a compilation of letters exchanged between Harry Truman and Eleanor Roosevelt during Truman's presidency. The book has an easy-to-read style largely because the author adds dialog to explain the situations, events, and results of what the letters mention. By using this dialog-letter combination, a great deal of history is presented in an entertaining manner.

I would highly recommend this book as a followup immediately after reading the biography Truman, by David McCullough. With a little bit of Truman history, not only will you find this book a great source of behind the scenes information, you'll also discover that the letters written by Eleanor Roosevelt are a joy to read. She was truly a gifted writer with the ability to put emotions and thoughts into the written word in a manner that could be described as artistic.

Steve Neal has compiled some 250 letters between Eleanor Roosevelt and Harry Truman when he took office after the death of Franklin Roosevelt. In this small but thoughtful book, Neal combines commentary pertinent to the times or to the letter itself. While they disagreed on many things, he repeatedly asked her to write to him with her thoughts on events of the day, which she did and with great candor. President Truman was the first to call Mrs. Roosevelt "First Lady of the World." I heartily recomment this book to those who wish to know these two great people a bit better.

Any history book by Kevin Starr is worth reading. I'm working my way through all of them. He is the greatest California historian ever!

Kevin Starr's continuing work on the history of California since 1850 continues to impress me and fill me with interesting and useful knowledge about the state. Being a resident of the state, it is relatively easy for me to keep following the thread and the meaning of names and locations. I can imagine this would be somewhat more difficult for readers not as familiar with our state. The story of the waterfront strikes in San Francisco and the farming/migrant/labor issues of the 1930s are very compelling and should be easily understood by readers regardless of where they are from. The issues dealing with our water supply and other water management issues as well as those dealing with large public works within the state, can pose a bigger challenge for those readers.

As with his other volumes, Mr. Starr doesn't just give us straight-ahead, factual history. In my view, he is especially good at giving incidental stories about some of the players involved in a way that keeps the reader more interested. Immediately after finishing the book I went to the internet to find out more about people like photographer Dorothea Lange and the 1939 Golden Gate International Exposition. That is what I ask of books like these: that they teach me about things I don't know much about and that they cause me to follow up and learn more about some of the topics within the book.

One learns reading this particular volume that the current quirkiness of California (governor recalls, liberalism, social diversity) is not something that just developed in the 1970s. We had recall movements back in the 1930s as well and some ugliness comes through regarding racism and discrimination in this state that sometimes thinks so highly of itself in that area. It is truly shameful how we discriminated against all migrant workers, whether of color or the Oakies that came to us from the Dust Bowl. The stories of abuse of power by the police and other government entities were very interesting.

I would love to have every Californian---especially our politicians---read Mr. Starr's work. Most history is slow to read, and this is no exception, but the amounts of knowledge one will get about California, make it worth the while.

This fourth chapter in Starr's "Americans and the California Dream" is the best yet. I was paticularly interested, in what Starr sees as the States battle between the forces of communism and fascism. The text reads like an account of a some great war, following each battle and skirmish throughout the State. I would recommend this work to anyone who is seriously interested in California or Labor history.

I finally got around to reading "The Grapes of Wrath" and was ashamed to realize that the context of the story was all new to me. Right about then, Kevin Starr's book came out and was reviewed in my local paper. He's done a great, steady job of illuminating the rise of the unions and the treatment of the Okies. The only major flaw I found was the lack of a map of California included in the book. I'm from the east coast and found it difficult to keep the place names straight without a ready reference.

"Episodes of the Cuban Revolutionary War, 1956-58" is Ernesto Guevara’s own account of the final 2 years of the revolutionary war that led to the first socialist revolution of the Americas. Ernesto “Che” Guevara, born in Argentina in 1928, became a central leader of the Cuban revolution of 1959. Many people in the United States today know only a romanticized version of this outstanding communist leader through such things as the recent film, “The Motorcycle Diaries.” "Episodes" is an unexaggerated, honest account of how the last years of the Cuban revolutionary war were conducted. This marvelous book tells the real story of how the young, adventurous Ernesto Guevara – whose compassion for and interest in the peoples of Latin America shows even in “The Motorcycle Diaries” – became Che Guevara, the committed, Marxist leader. Full of warmth, eloquence, and, at times, poetic sensibilities, Che’s diaries show us how the Cuban communist leadership was forged in battle; how the revolutionary combatants cemented bonds with peasants in the countryside and with workers in the cities; and how a popular revolutionary government was built on these foundations. This book is a must-read for any revolutionary minded fighter today.

Why does Cuba provide doctors for underdeveloped countries throughout the world-something which far richer countries are unwilling to do? This book by Che shows how Fidel Castro's revolutionary movement has always taken the moral high ground, going back to their triumph over hated dictator Batista. Che documents the reasons for this in these articles, many of which were written as the fighting was going on. He discusses the revolutionaries' respect for the peasants and the way the peasants helped to move the revolutionaries toward a deeper understanding of the class forces involved in the Cuban revolution. This made it possible to integrate many peasants into the revolutionary army. Che describes the care that was taken to treat rank and file enemy soldiers well, especially the wounded. His crystal clear writing style and fine sense of humor are based on a total grasp of the situation. This book includes two superb articles on Che, one by his comrade Fidel Castro and another by the editor, Mary-Alice Waters, as well as valuable notes, glossary, chronology, and index. While amazon may list this book as unavailable from time to time, it is always available from booksfrompathfinder listed under "new and used" at the top of this page.

Che's unique and splendid writting style manifests itself in this excellent book, detailing the myriad battles and episodes of the Cuban Revolution. A must for all!!!

First, a great book! Second, the author is none other than Che Guevara. Third, humorously and eloquently written, Che explains a revolutionary's fight for a better life in Cuba leading up to the victory in 1959! A must read for any Che or Cuba fan!

Glenn Garvin's now classic work is by far the best book ever written on the phenomenon of the Nicaraguan Contras (Chris Dickey's book would be second, in my opinion) - cleared-eyed, cynical, yet sympathetic to this violent, colorful and (yes) idealistic highland peasant army and full of his mordant wit at the folly of often contradictory and confused American policies which, as well intentioned as they can be, can have disastrous and unintended consequences. The irony is that - compared to a debacle like Iraq - the Contra War seems like a masterpiece of politics and war to achieve specific ends. I'll take Mike Lima over Ahmed Chalabi any day.

Garvin's greatest success in "Everybody had his own Gringo" is that he addresses the contra army neither as a puppet creation of the United States nor as Robin Hood-esque freedom fighters glavanting around in the jungle. Written with mordant wit, dead-on in focus and scope, this is an excellent text on the contras. Those looking for a complete history of the Nicaraguan civil war, however, will probably want to look elsewhere.

Glenn Garvin's book is a wonderful and highly readable account of the peasant army which made up the Contras. The author is sympathetic but clear-eyed, and he provides a fascinating account of the motivations of the Contra soldiers and leaders, as well as describing U.S. involvement with the Contras. "Everybody Had His Own Gringo" (a great title!) is a "must-read" for anyone interested in the history of the Nicaraguan civil war and the Contras.

one of the very few books that don't blindly praise the sandinistas. this book and shirley christian's 'nicaragua: revolution in the family' are essential to understanding the civil war in nicaragua.

Philip Berrigan,who beacame {in}famous for being the first Catholic priest jailed ON PRINCIPLE{for his destroying of draft files in Baltimore in 1967},has penned a sort of autobiography. Philip Berrigan has always been a huge burr in the side of everyone in power:religious superiors,wardens, govenment officials{his encounter with Rober McNamara during the war is telling}et,al. He has courage that is beyond my comprehension,continually going forth to non violently protest the ongoing nuclear threat{often by hammering a submarine,or desnt the hollow nose cone od a missle, the pouring blood as a symbol over the objects] For these protest, he has served the majority of the past 30 years in tough penitentaries.What would make this talented handsome intelligent man do such things? The story that he tells, almost mundanely is captivating. Childhood on the Iron range in Minnesota,Stern Irish father and sweet,loving german mother,brood of brothers,athlete,decorated soldier in WWII[they didnt give medals out for laying in foxholes},the he joined the only Roman Catholic order dedicated to serving Black americans, the josephites.{S.S.J} His older brother Daniel,Jesuit priest and famous poet and peace activist,was his role model on this. Throughot the momoir, Phillip Berrigan recounts the good life and hrad times of the next 35 years of his life. His eventual leaving the priesthood, his marriage to Elizabeth McCallister{a former nun , which coused much idiotic tounge wagging back then},his three daughters, his life in Jonah House in Baltimore,Md.{a kind of catholic woker house}, and his dogged, relentless pursuit of the Gospel truth as he sees it. Whether or not one agrees with Berrigan{and in the current climate, thew number of sympathizers must have shruken dramatically}, his almost sisyphusian struggle is admirable. Time alone will decide whethere or not Philip Berrigan has been a prophet or not. What he is is a courageous,honorable man who is willing to put his life, NOT YOURS, on the line for his beliefs. Now that is quite extraordianry.Good book, well written{if almost purposely low-keyed},simply astonishing story.

This book is an autobiography by Phillip Berrigan, a man that hated war and murder by nations and people. He fought for peace and justice but the state continually locked him up in prison for his beliefs. But that did not stop him from spreading the word of the Gospel and being and activist for peace, against war, invuluntary inlistment into the army and nuclear weapons.

What more can be added to the excellent reviews already posted here but to say that Philip Berrigan stands ever, though now posthumously, as the most courageous of Catholics in America, with his Jesuit brother Daniel, and provides us the way to live ever and fully Catholic in our anglo America.

Father Philip earned his sainthood through courageous and direct action for peace and justice, suffering for his Catholic faith within the dank cells of federal prisons. Not for him the country club prisons of the wealthy GOP and Enron offenders, etc., for which much of the present administration seems bound and determined. Father Philip suffered the same fate as our poor who dare to defy the Empire and cry prophetically for peace and economic justice, for social justice, for equal opportunity, for our Faith.

Read this book to learn where Phil came from, in his own words, the strength of his courage and uncompromising Faith conviction. Read this book to discover how Phil lived our Faith to the fullest ("hasta las ultimas consecuencias" as we say untranslatably in Latin America). Read this book to discover the strong example of living the Catholic Faith which we leaves us all to follow, to live as true children of God, working for peace and justice as powerfully and bravely as Jesus of Nazareth at the market stalls dirtying the Temple gates.

Highly recommended for all Catholics, particularly for those of us grown lazy and materially comfortable and thus compromised by the secular powers and dominations from the full exercise of our Faith, a prophetic Faith which compells us to alter those structures which oppress us, as Our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI clearly states repeatedly in the conclusion of his Apostolic Exhortation The Sacrament of Charity: Sacramentum Caritatis, where he writes the Eucharist compells us to action, where he writes we cannot remain on the sidelines in the face of such injustice and oppression, in a world, as His Holiness explicitly exhorts us, in which a tiny percentage of the resources wasted on war would feed our world's hungry and poor.

Read this book and learn to live with courage and truth our Faith to the fullest, in the footsteps of the prohpetic martyr of the Americas Archbishop Romero, in the path to peace and justice forged of Phil Berrigan.

The perfect antidote to Mel Gibson's version of Christian values. Phil Berrigan was a typical product of the depression--family of dirt poor immigrants, went into the army to fight Hitler and do his patriotic duty--but then came home and entered the seminary. His first posting was to inner City Washington DC, where he encountered racism and poverty up close. Rather than just put in his time, and then turn his back, serving out his priesthood in a comfortable middle class white community and give an occasional sermon about poverty, Berrigan engaged the poor children he was working with as brothers in Christ, and asked why.

His quest for answers continued as he was posted in the deep south (Louisiana) in the late 50's, early 60's...Emmett Till through the Freedom Rides. He concluded that racism was a violation of Christ's principle that all men are brothers--and said so.

Forced out of the deep south, he relocated to Baltimore--still a racially divided city, where Blacks were in poverty. As the Vietnam War escalated, Berrigan saw that the racism and poverty he experienced daily were inextricably linked to this country's increasing military industrial complex, and its position of world domination/exploitation.

As a Christian, Berrigan felt he had no choice but to resist this injustice, demand that the world put aside militarism, and treat all of mankind as brothers in Christ. He joined civil rights movements, and the anti-war movement--always maintaining that non-violent resistance was not only the right tactic, but was the only course open to a practicing Christian in America.

He poured blood on draft files, burned them with napalm, and spent six years in high security prisons as a result. While imprisoned, the FBI charged him (along with his brother, Daniel Berrigan and his by then wife, Elizabeth McAllister) with plotting to bomb the White House and kidnap Kissinger himself.

Berrigan freely admitted to discussions about making a citizens arrest of Kissinger for war crimes, but denied all other charges. He was ultimately acquitted of all charges.

For the rest of his life, Phillip Berrigan resisted the military. A founder of the Catholic Ploughshares movement, he consistently sought to beat swords (nuclear weapons) into ploughshares. As he explains at length, he did not expect his actions to cowl the US government into abandoning its nuclear program. Rather, he was acting on his conscience.

Reading his autobiography makes one ashamed of all of the excuses we each make on a daily basis of why we can't act better--too busy, might affect my job, I have kids, and on and on. Berrigan let none of this stop him. He married, raised three kids, and spent most of his adult life in prison, on bail awaiting trial, or on parole.

His courage is magnificent. His dedication to living a life of conscience is inspirational. But above all, Berrigan's version of Christ and Christian duty is one of universal love and respect. If these principles were lived by everyone, we would live in a far better world than that of Mel Gibson and his glorification of pain and violent sacrifice.

Berrigan lived the life (as he put it) of a Catholic attempting to become a Christian. Whatever one's beliefs, Berrigan's was a life worth understanding.

The U.S. Government needs to make this mandatory reading for all intelligence analysts, military, consultants/advisors, and policy makers. We should be using more soft power to combat ideas and maximize that aspect of U.S. power. Dr. Waller gets it all right. I just hope we listen.

Michael Waller has pulled together the kind of thinking that must influence the way free nations deal with militant extremism. Mike tells it like it is and attempts to guide our nation's policy-makers, diplomats, and military towards a new path to understand the conflict in which are now engaged.

Fighting the War of Ideas like a Real War is a stunningly concise and incisive work about the propaganda and public diplomacy side of fighting a "small war." It is written specifically for our current war against Islamic Fascism and is geared towards just scratching the surface of how the US can mobilize its communications resources in a strategy to literally divide and isolate the enemy while winning the hearts and minds of allies and neutrals.

Despite its short size this book is dense with illuminating ideas and challenging new thoughts. My copy is practically entirely hi-lighted (admittedly probably defeating the whole purpose of highlighting) and every page has at least one note written in the margin.

The author argues for a basic strategy and simple actions that the US government -as well as the private sector- can adopt to start fighthing this war on all fronts. He also cogently argues that the US message strategy in this war should generally be shifted from the State Department to a military combatant command. (If you have read Shadow Warriors by Kenneth Timmerman you will probably have even more reason to agree with this assessment.) I will not delve into the authors many points as they should be read in their entirety to be fully understood and appreciated.

However as the author admits this book is not at all comprehensive. It lacked a lot of specifics on how to actually implement his basic strategy. This of course is probably not necessary for the public at large to worry itself about, but will have to be decided by those actually in charge of executing it. As a book about a communications strategy though it also lacks the most key element of any strategy: it doesn't consider how the enemy would react and adapt to our actions on the message front. Again, though, that can be left up to those actually doing the fighting and doesn't detract from the intent and hoped for effect of this boook.

This needs to be widely read by senior US diplomats, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, military public affairs officers and people involved in psychological operations, and then acted upon. The general public will also behoove themselves by reading it as well. Here's to hoping this book is the spark that lights a fire of debate and action geared towards winning the propaganda front of the War on Islamo-fascism.

I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in fighting terrorism and extremism. With so much of the focus these days on the military and political equation in Iraq, Waller provides an important reminder that this is, at the end of the day, a battle over IDEAS, very important ideas. Here's hoping this gets a good read in Washington.

This was the third of three Goebbel War Year diaries that I bought and read. Although not the easiest prose to read -- in part they were not written necessarily to be read but to be perhaps used in a memoir that was destined to never be written -- this and the other two diaries are fascinating books for people fascinated by that era.

This diary ends on 9 April 45. According to the introduction he continued writing through at least 22 April 45 when he and his family moved into the bunker. It would be interesting to read any additional entries through 22 April -- and beyond if available -- as the situation became more hopeless. The book does, however, conclude with an epilogue that included his and his wife's last letters to his stepson, the only member of the Goebbels family to survive the war.

The term "Jekyll and Hyde" was easily applicable to the first diary and not as easily applicable to this diary. However there term is somewhat applicable. The man -- despite the obvious problems at the fronts -- still has hope. Maybe the hope is flickering but he still has hope. He does realize that military victory is now unattainable but maybe if the military can score one or two major successes they can finagle some kind of a negotiated settlement more favorable than "unconditional surrender". This thought appears to be running through the Nazi government during the February - April 45 timeframe covered in the book.

Whereas in the previous two diaries great words are written about great events that resulted in great victories, this time Goebbels write great words about not so great events. The brave German military puts up great resistance to stall an American, or a British, or a Soviet offensive. Nazi forces counterattack and push eight or ten or twelve kilometers. The war is not lost yet! Why are such events important? The longer the war goes on and the more casualties are inflicted upon the enemy maybe the people in the West will grow tired and more conciliatory towards a less than complete defeat of Germany. Or maybe by stretching out the war maybe the Nazis can finagle a separate settlement with the Soviets. Or maybe the western Allies will realize how dangerous the Soviets are -- who are, after all, spreading its Bolshevic tentacles over eastern Europe contrary to previous agreements. Goebbels is hoping that something -- anything -- will happen to preclude what looks like an inevitable defeat.

Reading the book one realizes how little hold the government actually had over the people. Even in the previous diaries there were criticisms of the government that was voiced by the people that Goebbels acknowledged. Of course, in 1945 there was little the government could do. The people were unhappy about the air raids for which the government generally and the Luftwaffe specifically had no answer. Althought Goebbels still disliked several of his counterparts in the government like Foreign Minister Ribbentrop his greatest condemnation falls upon Hermann Goering. He feels Goering's corrupt and inept leadership of the Luftwaffe is the main reason why victory that appeared so close in 1941 is now so far away in 1945. Yet he still writes that even as late as April 1945 if there are major personnel changes in the military and the government National Socialism could still be saved in Germany.

He is not beyond criticizing is Fuehrer. He still thinks Adolf Hitler himself can do no wrong. The problem is that Adolf Hitler has surrounded himself with wrong people and for whatever reasons will not get rid of them. Although Hitler agrees with almost all of Goebbels suggestions for fixing the government Hitler does virtually nothing. Goebbels is frustrated.

It is also interesting how his attitude toward the inferior Slavic Soviet forces has evolved. He is still convinced the Soviet military is -- man for man -- inferior to the German soldier. But the Germans are being overwhelmed by superior numbers and machinery being thrown at them by the Allies. But he is impressed with Stalin. Once upon a time he and others had scorned Stalin for the massive purges of the Soviet military in the late 1930s. At one point in the book he relates reviewing the biographies of the leading Soviet military leaders. The Soviet military leaders were all under the age of 50 and were die-hard Bolshevics who would do anything to win. This was a big reason why the Soviets survived the seemingly hopeless situation in 1941 and why they were winning the war in 1945. In contrast, the German military leaders were old and had no deep political or philosopical ties to National Socialism. If they won the war, great. If not, oh well. Goebbels concludes that maybe Stalin was not so crazy for purging his military and after the war the Nazis should do likewise with their military.

The popular perception of Hitler and his entourage is they were living in an insane fantasy land as the Soviets closed in on Berlin. Unfortunately, the last three weeks of Goebbels life were missing so maybe there was some degree of truth to that perception. But in the book you see a somewhat different view. Yes the war was going bad but he had to grasp at some kind of hope -- whatever that may be. Goebbels recognized that if the end is near it would be a catastrophic defeat. Therefore his only hope was to stretch the war out as long as possible and hope for some miracle. Hitler himself is not so much a ranting, raving lunatic (many of the accounts of Hitler's final days were written by witnesses who were the target of his anger and thus had a reason for depicting his as insane) as a man who is angry with his generals but is resigned to his fate.

As we know, neither Joseph Goebbels nor his Fuehrer survived the war and neither man was able to write their autobiographies explaining why they did what they did. Perhaps the closest thing to a Hitler autobiography would be Mein Kampf that depicted his early life and early political battles through 1924 and his "Table Talks" -- a series of monologues recorded between 1942 and 1944. For his Propaganda Minister these diaries is the closest we can probably hope to find to an autobiography. These "autobiographies" may be distorted but they are distorted in their own words.

In the closing weeks of the European component of WWII, Goebbels's attitude towards the Jews remained unchanged: (April 3, 1945): "The Jews have applied for a seat at the San Francisco Conference. It is characteristic that their main demand is that anti-Semitism be forbidden throughout the world. Typically, having committed the most terrible crimes against mankind, the Jews would now like mankind to be forbidden even to think about them." (p. 305).

However, Jews were not the only scapegoats; nor were they the only ones blamed for starting WWII. On March 18, 1945, Goebbels referred to Poland's losses to, of all things, "...Polish arrogance in August 1939..." and having failed to accept the "...extraordinarily generous [German] proposals at that time..." [Sic!] (p. 165). Goebbels engages in an even more overt blame-the-victim mentality towards Poles when, in his entry of March 30, 1945, he quips about: "...Poland, which began this war anyway..." (p. 274). In addition, on March 26, 1945, Goebbels mentioned "...Poland and Russia, the most primitive countries of Europe." (p. 233).

In other contexts, Goebbels had various scapegoats coming in handy, as summarized by historian Trevor-Roper: "...castigating whole classes, whole groups, whole nations: the miserable bourgeoisie, the generals, the Luftwaffe, the Churches, the Jews, the Swiss, the Swedes." (P. xxx).

It is both sobering and sad to realize that someone of Goebbels's character had a much better grasp of Soviet intentions that did Churchill or Roosevelt. Goebbels even quoted a British newspaper in this regard (March 3, 1945): The Daily Mail just made a truly sensational admission; it says that for two years now I have been the only person to analyze the case of Poland correctly and forecast accurately the way in which England would succumb to the Kremlin. Churchill comes in for criticism of rare severity." (p. 30).

In stark contrast to the appeasing attitude of western politicians towards "Uncle Joe" Stalin, Goebbels commented (March 9, 1945): "In the region which was formerly Poland the Soviets are pursuing their bloody reign of terror undeterred by Anglo-American protests. They take not the smallest notice of Churchill and Roosevelt. A new wave of arrests is sweeping across the country, the victims being mainly the Polish nationalists." (p. 88). Also (March 21, 1945): "The Soviets are going quietly on deporting Poles to the interior of Russia. They take not the smallest notice of the Anglo-Americans." (p. 190).

The situation under which Poles found themselves was obvious to Goebbels: (March 11, 1945): "Stalin is firmly determined--and no one can understand this--to negotiate with no one over the Polish question. How rigidly he has already imposed his will is evident from the fact that Mikolajczyk, the former Polish Minister-in-exile, now proposes to submit to the dictates of the Kremlin. Under protest admittedly, but what value are such protests today? Anyway the only choice for the Poles is either to be exterminated by force or to bow the Kremlin." (p. 100).

Goebbels saw right through the Communist smear campaign directed against non-Communist regimes (March 19, 1945): "It is well known that Communists always call everything fascist that is not Communist and, under the guise of a struggle against fascism, exterminate all forces opposing bolshevization of a country in which they have any influence...According to Pravda, the London Poles are a gang of degenerate landowners rejected by the Polish people. In short, Pravda's general tone is one hardly customary even between enemies, let alone between allies." (p. 172).

On March 22, 1945, Goebbels discussed the Soviet-staged trials, in Bulgaria, of two witnesses who had been present, two years earlier, at the site of the Katyn massacre (p. 206). The two priests were tearfully forced to recant their blame of the Soviets.

Goebbels repeats certain themes throughout this latest set of his diaries. He seems obsessed with the incipient British loss of their worldwide colonial empire, and that regardless of the outcome of the war. He thinks that the new German jets can enjoy a 5:1 kill ratio over the Allied propeller-driven planes, but recognizes that Germany can produce far too few jets to make a realistic impact in the air war. He repeatedly suggests that the Germans should have withdrawn from the Geneva Convention. This would have allowed the Germans to kill Allied POWs in reprisal for the German civilians killed by Allied bombing raids. It also would make the German soldiers fight harder, aware of the fact that the Allies would reciprocally take no prisoners.

Having just been through the Iraq war, some of Goebbels musings resonate peculiarly with some of the more grandiose statements that came out of the end of that particular conflict.

It is very hard to judge Goebbels as a man from these pages. Even given that they were unedited, this was intended to be the record of a Reich that won the war. This is not a private journal in the sense that he was always intending to rewrite it for history-- and presumably he was smart enough to realize that if he was still around to rewrite it for history then the Hitler regime had in some measure made it successfully through the war.

What is interesting for the armchair historian are the places where his real feelings break through the propaganda. Presumably these are the moments that would have been edited out for publication. At times he whines about other nazi officials, at another point he sarcastically remarks that a plan of Hitler's would have been brilliant had it had any chance at all of succeeding.

He was clearly a bright man (if an evil one), and it is interesting to watch his mind work in what were obviously (even to him) the final days.

I didn't really know how to rate this book. As a diary? As history? Should I have rated Trevor-Roper's editing?

So I rated it a "5", but it hardly matters. I don't think anyone will read Goebbel's diary because it's "popular."

My reactions to this book were mixed. I found my opinion of Goebbels as a man and a mind considerably lower after finishing the book. Yes, I knew beforehand that he was a recalcitrant Nazi and mass-murderer. On the other hand, I've read Albert Speer's books, and he always spoke admiringly of Goebbel's intellect. I respect Speer's intellect highly, but I must say that he was wrong about Goebbels. Goebbels in this diary is an ugly, sordid, vicious little man, repeating the same tired mantras again and again, transparently trying to varnish his image for history, and sniping and gossipping about everyone around him. (But then, Speer found himself to be dreadfully wrong about Hitler, too.)

Intellect? I hardly found myself able to discern one in this mess.

Still, I'm glad I read the book. It adds another dimension to my understanding of the Third Reich, and serves as a counterbalance to the other accounts I've read.

But I wouldn't call the experience of reading this book enjoyable.

Americans, specifically the privileged citizens of the U.S., have a wonderful capacity for naive self-congratulation--a collective fantasy that selectively recalls or imagines a burnished history filled with the noblest ideals of democracy, freedom, and equality in response to injustices received, while glossing over the many injustices given. Frederick Douglass understood this all too well in his excoriating Fourth of July speech "The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro" given in 1852. To Douglass, who opened his speech with due praise for the founders of the nation, the promise of the "fathers of the republic" made the then current enslavement of fellow humans all the more appalling, sad, and shameful:

"What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sound of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants brass fronted impudence; your shout of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanks-givings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of the United States, at this very hour."

Professor Colaiaco uses the text of this speech and others by Douglass to explain the oratory, ideas, and history behind the rhetoric. Rather than follow a strict historical narrative, Colaiaco juxtaposes the ideals enshrined by the nation's founders with the rhetoric of Douglass's speeches, fleshing out Douglass's thoughts with biographical, historical, and intellectual context. The book actively relives the struggle to reconcile the lofty ideals of America's founding with the practical realities that both undermined and served those same ideals. That we continue these arguments to this day testifies to both the continuation of injustices and the adaptability of our system of government in addressing them.

Colaiaco's Frederick Douglass and the Fourth of July will undoubtedly attract many readers. Its elegant prose and masterful interweaving of Douglass' powerful July 4th oration (1852) with the events that brought him to the forefront in the fight against slavery make this book a must read for anyone interested in understanding the issues that led to the tragic Civil War.
Colaiaco demonstrates Douglass' consummate rhetorical ability and illuminates the careful thought he gave to arrive at an anti-slavery interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. This book goes beyond Douglass' July 4th oration to illuminate other important speeches of Douglass, including his attack upon the infamous Dred Scott decision (1857) as well as his brilliant 1860 speech on the Constitution as an abolition document.
Having read this book, I can better understand how Douglass compelled America to confront the shameful contradiction of slavery in a nation whose founding documents-- the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution-- professed liberty, justice, and equal rights for all.
Colaiaco's writing talent lies in his ability to make difficult matters accessible even to those who are not American history scholars. Readers will comprehend the power of the spoken word to affect a nation. This book, more than any other I have read, demonstrates the prominence of Frederick Douglass' oratory in arousing the conscience of many against slavery in the years prior to the Civil War. This is the only book I know that analyzes Douglass' July 4th speech, placing it among the greatest speeches in American history.
Kudos to James Colaiaco for writing an excellent book on an important historical period that combines elegant prose and incisive analysis. This book deserves a place among the celebrated works on American history.

James Colaiaco, also author of an important book on Martin Luther King, Jr. has now written an outstanding study of Frederick Douglass.

On July 5, 1852, Frederick Douglass, the former slave and abolitionist, delivered an extraordinary speech in Rochester, N.Y., entitled "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" Douglass' July 4th oration is the greatest abolition speech of the 19th century. With rhetorical brilliance, Douglass compelled the nation to confront what has been called the "American dilemma," the contradiction between slavery and the ideals of liberty and equal rights proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution. This contradiction between ideals and practice tore the nation apart, leading to the Civil War.

James Colaiaco does a masterful job in weaving together a comprehensive analysis of Douglass' speech and important historical context. This book brings to life a brilliant cast of characters, including William Lloyd Garrison, Abraham Lincoln, John C. Calhoun, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Sojourner Truth, and John Brown. Colaiaco's penetrating analysis shows that while Douglass praised America for its liberal ideals, he devoted most of his thirty-page speech to attacking the nation for continuing to allow more than three million black people to live in slavery.

Not only does Colaiaco provide a comprehensive and insightful analysis of Douglass' speech, he also demonstrates how Douglass continued to pursue its major themes in many speeches delivered prior to the Civil War. Among the important speeches the book analyzes is Douglass' condemnation of the 1857 infamous Dred Scott decision, in which the Supreme Court declared that, according to the Constitution, black people were not citizens and did not possess any rights which white people were required to respect. Colaiaco shows how the Dred Scott decision was a stunning defeat for the abolition movement, and aroused a chorus of indignation throughout the North. Abraham expressed the hope that it would be overturned as soon as possible.

Frederick Douglass realized that the Dred Scott decision undermined the message of his 1852 July 4th oration, the contradiction between slavery and America's founding documents. As the nation continued to plummet towards civil war, Douglass delivered a brilliant address in Glasgow, Scotland in 1860. Developing ideas that were rooted in his 1852 July 4th oration, and pursued in many other previous speeches, Douglass challenged the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the controversial position that, despite certain compromises with "slavery" made by the framers in 1787, the Constitution, when read through the ethical lens of its own Preamble, in addition to the Declaration of Independence, is a great abolition document.

Needless to say, the nation failed to heed Douglass' call to abolish slavery. What could not be resolved by rational discourse, had be be resolved by arms. The Civil War, in which some 620,000 Union and Confederate soldiers lost their lives, was a tragedy that Douglass predicted but desperately tried to convince the nation to avert.

This book is ideal for anyone interested in learning how Frederick Douglass, a true American hero, used the power of oratory to defend human rights.

I read this book by James Colaiaco, a Master Teacher of Great Books at New York University, to help me think about the United States's upcoming Independence Day holiday of July 4, 2006. The book did both less than that and more.

Colaiaco's "Frederick Douglass and the Fourth of July Oration" has as its named subject a speech that Douglass (1818 -- 1895) gave in Rochester, New York on July 5, 1852, generally known as "What, to the American Slave, is your 4th of July?" In his speech, Douglass paid tribute to the vision and courage of America's founders in their fight for freedom and for independence from Britian. But equally importantly, he excoriated the America of his day for its toleration of the institution of slavery. Using his great oratorical powers, Douglass lashed out at the hypocrisy that would proclaim that "all men are created equal" with self-evident rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" while enslaving 4,000,000 African Americans. Yet Douglass found a reason for hope as he was convinced that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution offered the path to eliminate slavery.

Colaiaco's book is similar in format to books published in recent years analyzing the speeches of Abraham Lincoln in detail. There have been notable books, for example, devoted to Lincoln's Cooper Union Address, the Second Inaugural Address, and, of course, the Gettysburg Address. Douglass was a grand and learned speaker who had escaped from slavery as a young man and who, as was Lincoln, was largely self-taught. His speeches, together with his three autobiographies, richly reward reading.

Although Colaiaco gives a good account of Douglass's celebrated Fourth of July oration, the book is rather broader in scope than that single speech. It discusses Douglass's development as a thinker beginning the time he spent in slavery and concluding, in general, with the end of the Civil War, even though Douglass lived and wrote for an additional 30 years. Most of the book discusses American Constitutional interpretation and Douglass's changing views of the American Constitution. Thus, Colaiaco points out that, upon escaping slavery, Douglass originally was a follower of the abolititonist William Garrison who wanted nothing to do with the American Constitution because he believed it sanctioned slavery. (Ironically, this understanding of the Constitution was shared by the Southern slaveholders.) Gradually, Douglass became convinced that the Declaration and Constitution themselves were powerful weapons against slavery and that the words of the Constitution could be read to support its abolition. (Abraham Lincoln did not go so far. He issued his Emancipation Proclamation under grounds of military necessary and was troubled about whether it would be sustainable in peace time. The result was the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery.) Douglass thus broke with Garrison and fought for a political end to slavery within the contours of the American political system and its governing documents. This was a bold and creative step to take. Douglass's way of reading a fundamental legal text remains with us, and controversial, today.

By the time he delivered his Fourth of July oration, Douglass had already broken with Garrison. Colaiaco takes the reader through the speech and points out how Douglass believed change could be attained within American constitutionalism. But most of the book uses the July 4 speech as a springboard for consideration of questions of Constitutional interpretation, the reasons for Douglass's change in his view of the Constitution, the Dred Scott decision, Douglass's relationship with John Brown, and the coming of the Civil War. Colaiaco also discusses several additional speeches of Douglass, including a speech he gave in Glasgow, Scotland in March 1860, "The Constitution of the United States: is it pro-slavery or anti-slavery" and a speech he gave in Lincoln Park, Washington, D.C. on April 14, 1876, "Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln". The book concludes with an analysis of Douglass's reading of the Constitution, including these portions which appear to sanction slavery where it existed without actually using the word.

I found the discussion of constitutional interpretation insightful and stimulating, but it took my attention away from Douglass's Fourth of July speech. The speech deserves detailed treatment in a book, but Colaiaco's book, while leading the reader to think that the speech is its main focus, does something good, but a little different.

On a related note, I was also disappointed that the book does not include the rather lengthy text of Douglass's Fourth of July oration. (Colaiaco's text is only about 200 pages long.) Readers interested enough to pursue a treatment of the speech ought to be given the text so that they can read it for themselves as they study the analysis. Douglass prepared an edited, abriged version of the speech and included it in his second autobiography, which is available from the Library of America series. The speech, together with many of Douglass's other works, is also available in Philip Foner's one-volume edition of "Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings" in the Library of Black America series. Those interested in reading Douglass for themselves, particularly the Fourth of July oration, would do well to turn to one of these sources as they read Colaiaco's fine study.

Robin Friedman