Missouri Books

This is an interesting work on William Clark, of Lewis and Clark fame. Touched on only briefly in most histories, Clark was quite an enigmatic person who figured prominently in early American and early Missouri frontier history. The subtitle, Shaping of the West, is quite appropriate as Clark, as Indian Agent for Missouri, negotiated numerous treaties with the Osage, Missouri, Fox, Sac, Winnebago and other contemporary Indian tribes.

Landon Jones does not spend too much time on the epic, 1803-1806 transcontinental exploration, choosing instead to focus on the other aspects of Clark's life. Brother of General George Rogers Clark, William is intimately connected in the Trans Appalachian West's Indian wars with the Shawnee and various other Lake Country, Northwest Indian tribes which culminated in the Battle of Fallen Timbers. This start sets the tone for the rest of his life which was spent fighting, evaluating, negotiating and moving Indians as America's frontiers rapidly moved across the Eastern and Midwestern United States.

For 50 years Clark and his family are directly involved in the early stages of America's Manifest Destiny, in the sweep of American history from colonial Virginia to the conquest of the West. No one played a larger part in that accomplishment than William Clark.

Book came in timly manner as described. Would buy again.

Reads like a Time or People magazine story -- both politically correct and boring.

What impresses immediately about this biography is the fact that it's a FULL biography and is not just concerned with the famed Lewis & Clark Expedition (only one of the ten chapters deals with it). Clark was born in 1770 (one of his older brothers was George Rogers Clark, the "hero of Vincennes" during the Revolutionary War), and took part in the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794 (it was on this campaign that he first met Meriwether Lewis). Resigning his commission from militia duty two years later, he retired to the family farm in Kentucky (near present-day Louisville). It was here that Lewis contacted Clark in 1803 proposing co-leadership roles in the expedition to the Pacific Ocean. Clark was the chief mapmaker on the journey, and also was preferred over Lewis as the one to negotiate with the Indians.

After the successful completion of this extraordinary exploring venture, Clark was named the principal Indian agent at St. Louis. He established Ft. Osage on the Missouri River and began dealing with Native American concerns, building a reputation as a fair, friendly, and compassionate (for his day) agent. He was present at Prairie du Chien during the late 1820s to help conclude major treaties with various tribes. He died in St. Louis in 1838.

Clark has been praised often as a brave and able explorer, and a successful Indian agent. He was human, though, and there were dark sides to Clark as well, which Jones is willing to point out. Once when he had "trouble" with one of his slaves, he paid a man 50 cents to whip him. Tens of thousands of Native Americans were forcibly removed from their lands while he was Indian agent, most notably the Cherokees, who were made to walk to Oklahoma from their lands in the southeastern US along what became know as the "Trail of Tears" because of the death and misery endured along it. Heroes, like everyone else, are not cut from a single cloth, and whether the reader thinks of Clark as a hero at all, Jones provides a balanced and fair account of Clark's life on which to decide.

I highly recommend this book. William Clark is presented as a highly capable and effective leader. He comes across as a strong and determined soldier, an amazing traveler and explorer, and a friendly man. But his prejudices (like nearly everyone of his generation) against African and Native Americans are described in striking detail.

Lewis and Clark's Voyage of Discovery is only briefly described, and other books have told the full account of this story. Instead Jones concentrates the first half of the book on Clark's developmental years including his military service in various Indian conflicts prior to the expedition and his other preparation just growing up in the wilderness (I grew up in Kentucky, and Jones does a great job talking about Harrodsburg, Locust Grove, and Louisville). A sidelight story of his brother George Rogers Clark's campaigns against the Indians and his later struggles with managing the Northwest and with alcohol and poverty is fascinating. The last half of the book is informative and profoundly disturbing. Holding various administrative positions in Missouri, Clark was often the most powerful man in the West. He was responsible for the US's management of Indian affairs, and Clark signed more than 35 treaties with these tribes. There is a sameness to the ethnic cleansing that Clark helped perpetrate.

Jones kept me engaged throughout the book. Clark doesn't come off as a deep thinker or a complex man. Instead he is a creature of his times, and white Americans were extremely effective in our cruelty as we took control of the West . At times Clark rises above the rest - his treatment of Sacagawea and her son - but at times he is a cold hearted bastard - his relationship with his famous slave York.

Clark lived a long and full life. One particularly enjoyable (and very well done feature of this book) is Jones' willingness to digress as he discusses the many people whose life Clark touches . The list is long and I appreciated these brief descriptions of de Tocqueville, Anthony Wayne, Thomas Hart Benton, Lafayette, William Henry Harrison, Black Hawn, Tecumseh, and many others.

Mr.Ned Wakefield teaches Jessica and Elizabeth,his twin daughters,a secret language called Ithig(The ..word?..ithig is placed between syllables).The two do their best to keep the language a secret but their friends start acting like brats,feeling hapless that the secret will not be shared with them.Soon,the language is all around school!!Uh-oh!

This book was pretty good.

I've seen better but it comes in pretty well

When Mr.Wakefield gets home from work,he teaches the twins Ithing[I don't understand it,myself] They are using it at Guidio's Pizza Palace,when Caroline Pierce walks in and wants to know what they are talking about.Mr.Wakefield informs her it is family matters.Jessica talks Ithing all over school and makes Lila[The Spoiled Brat of the Unicorns] cross. She is having a party and invites everyone,except the twins. Jessica spills Ithing,after Elizabeth and Jessica promised Mr.Wakefield not to tell the secret langauge.Even the new teacher picks it up.

In "Keeping Secrets", the Wakefield twins learn a secret new language called Ithig, which is similar to pig Latin, except the word "ithig" is placed between the syllables of each word, lithigike thithigis. It sounds pretty complicated, but Elizabeth and Jessica pick up on it within minutes--even featherbrained Jessica.

Elizabeth and Jessica promise to keep it a secret with their father as a fun game, but their loyalty is tried when the girls' best friends (Amy Sutton and Lila Fowler) demand to know their secret or else. The reaction to the twins' secrecy is a little over dramatic and immature, but then again this is middle school.

Lila even refuses to invite the twins to a big star-studded party unless they tell her everything. Jessica, of course, is the first to break her promise. Soon everybody at Sweet Valley Middle School starts talking "Ithig", mainly as a way to confuse their new teacher Ms. McDonald.

"Keeping Secrets" certainly isn't the best Sweet Valley Twins book I've read so far, but if you're into secret languages, you might like this one.

It looks like two books with the same title are being reviewed here, "The Orphan Train" and "Sweet Valley Twins." I'm going to review the Sweet Valley Twins book. In this story, Jessica and Elizabeth learn an artificial code language called "ithig." They promise to keep it a secret and not teach it to anyone, but they eventually bend and teach the whole school. Now the whole school knows the "ithig" language, and they plan to play a trick on a new teacher. And as always, Elizabeth comes to the rescue. I think it's a fun book to read, but it's not one of the best in the Sweet Valley Twins series. The story isn't very realistic, and the kids seem to catch on to the new language much too quickly. But it's fun, so I'll give it 3 stars.

This is a good book about a hotel owner, Justine Bryers, who was raped and had a son with a red mark on his face that was very angry and out for revenge against her. Her son was a real "snake." She was becoming paralyzed and people came to help her. I found it to be very interesting and it held my attention.

I really enjoyed this sweet romance from DG. In this story there is a lot going on.

Jill Jones is called a wildcat by the oilmen of Rainwater. This comes from her dumping water on a man who was tracking gunk onto her freshly washed porch of the hotel. Jill comes to Rainwater to help her Aunt whose health is failing. When her brother finds that she is in this wild western town all by herself he sends their close family friend Thad to watch out for her.

This is where a lot of the romance starts but there is also a murderer among them, long held secrets etc... to mention a few things. There is more than one romance happening in this story. I really enjoyed the development of the characters etc...

I only discovered Dorothy Garlock books about a month ago, and have already read four. I've been hitting used book stores for more! This book is set in a oil boom town with Jill sent there to take care of an ill Aunt. I like these books because they are an easy read with twist and turns and of course a spunky romace. I have family from the areas she writes about and can envision them as young vibrant people with hopes and dreams, it makes me want to research my family history more. A great read!

Typical Dorothy Garlock. Once I pick up a book by her I don't stop reading till the book is finished. Even though most of her story lines are similar, she adds just right amount of a twist to make it different. A good read for a lazy day.

The book had somewhat of a predictable plot, but it was an enjoyable book to read. It consists of love and mystery. At times it will make you laugh and then make you cry. I really enjoyed reading this book and would recommend it.

This book is an okay book to read. It starts off kinda slow but begins to get better as you read it. Mark Twain is a very good author and knows how to write a book, but this isn't one of his best books. I really liked his other book Huckleberry Fin. that was a fun book to read, cause i could picture really well what was going on with the two boys. But this book is still a good book to read if you are bored or if you need a book to read over the summer, but it would not be a book that I would choose to read again.

I think this book was the best book for reading counts because the characters are funny and some of them get into alot of trouble. I like the way the author writes the story. He makes the characters sound interesting and the situations that they are in don't sound boring. I think if people don't like to read as mush as other people do, they will enjoy this book. In this story, there is a boy named Tom Sawyer , who gets really gullable people to do his work for him. He also gets himself into alot of trouble. For example, Tom and his friends went to an island and they decided not to return home. Their family was getting worried and they were searching for them all over the town. Soon they asumed that they were dead. On the day of the funeral they returned, and of course, they got into alot of trouble. I reccomend this book because it is exciting and adventerous. You will really like this book!

Excellent adventure story for readers of all ages. Mark Twain hits it right on the head of what child experiences as he matures into his teenage years.

It being the Fourth of July, or Small Explosives Day as I call it (training kids early to think bombs are fun can pay off with trillions of tax dollars, no questions asked), I am reminded of my favorite American, Mr. Sam Clemens.
I remember it was a hot July day, I was five or six and happily wandering the local library, and I saw an old copy of Tom Sawyer on a shelf. I'd heard of it, saw the cover of a kid with a slingshot in his back pocket, and said, "This is for me!"
I have never looked back.
Huck Finn is a deeper book, no doubt, dealing with deeper issues, while TS is all about the joys and pains of being a kid, and especially the joys of being a smart little rebel. No other book ever made America seem more appealing to me.
Twain understands what this country was meant to be, could be, should be, might be. He knows what kids are about, and how much smarter than adults they can be. From Tom Sawyer to Letters From The Earth rises and falls an arc that few artists of any nation can touch. Twain knows that this is the best and the worst country on earth, full of truly good-hearted if misinformed people who would love to trust their leaders if they could.
Above all, Twain lets us laugh at ourselves while seeing our foibles in the light of day.
There's a game where you pick three figures in history you'd like to have dinner with. I always used to choose Christ, Buddha, and Shakespeare. Thinking about it now, I might have to go with Twain at the head of the table.
Alas, to be betwixt Twain and Shakespeare...o, to lean back and listen. And laugh.
Thank you, Mr. Clemens. You will always be the real Uncle Sam.

This is simply one of the most mystifying tales that I have laid eyes upon, making the long story worthy of its five star rating. This historical fiction has everything I'd look for in a book and so much more. Mark Twain has included action, mystery, romance, and even comedy. "Tom Sawyer" is on par with the work of Homer's Iliad and the Odyssey, and deserves it place in history. The vivid descriptions in the story make the characters seem real, and makes the back hills of Missouri come alive. The plot never gets dull, and it even gets more exciting as the story goes on. The book is told through the eyes of a child, increasing the interest of the book. Everything seems filled with danger, and every odd and end is a treasure to behold. If you want a story that will enchant your every emotion, and makes you feel like you were just a child, pick up "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" by Mark Twain. You won't be disappointed.
-Jason

Written by the adopted grandson of Laura Ingalls Wilder this book chronicles a year in the life of young Rose Wilder. After their long pilgrimage east from the prairie, the family has survived their first year in the Ozarks, on lthier new place which they name Rocky Ridge Farm. In this 3rd book in the RR series Rose is almost nine, coping with conflicting loyalties to girlfriends (country versus town girls) and feeling the faint stirrings of jealousy. Throughout extremes of weather the Wilders offer a solid foundation of faith and charity toward their less fortunate neighbors. Continuing the girlhood mishaps of Laura's own life in the Little House books Rose amuses and entertains readers while learning valuable lessons about life, for human interaction is similar
regardless of geographic environment. Tenderly cared for by her devoted parents, nurtured in faith, hope and compassion she will surely blossom as gloriously as the young apple orchard they cherish.

In the Land of the Big Red Apple is a GREAT book! Rose begins to adjust to her new home in Missouri at Rocky Ridge Farm. She gets a new donkey named Spookendyke for her ninth birthday, a huge ice storm hits, she gets to celebrate her first real Christmas in the Ozarks, and her parents bulid a new house.

In the Land of the Big Red Apple is adventurous and suspenseful. Rose and her Mama and Papa moved to Missouri and left her Grandma, Grandpa, Aunt Mary, Aunt Carry, and Aunt Grace in De Smet because of a drought. Rose's best friend was Alva. Alva hated town girls. Rose's Papa had a hired hand. His name was Abe. Abe lived in a rented shack with his little brother Swiny. Abe and Swiny's mother and father had died. They met Abe when Papa caught Swiny stealing some of Mama's eggs. The next morning Abe came by to apologize. Then they harvested the last harvest. Then Mama and Rose baked and cooked for Thanksgiving. They invited the Coolys over for supper. The last thing Mama put on their plates was three kernels of corn to remind them of the Pilgrims. Then they said grace. After they ate Rose told Paul and George about a cave, but she wasn't allowed to go in it. Paul said, "They wouldn't know if we do so let's go." They went inside the cave and got really muddy. They got in big trouble when they got back. It was time to go back to school. Rose saw Blanche, her school friend. Rose's Papa came and picked Rose up from school. Papa said, "Why Rose you're lips are blue and you're shivering." When Rose got home he said, "Go sit by the fire." Soon it was Rose's birthday! Mama kept looking out the window but wouldn't let Rose. When it was time for chores her Mama wouldn't let her do her chores. When Papa came inside he said, "Go outside and have a look." There was a donkey outside with a new saddle! A little while after Rose's birthday was a terrible ice storm! It was hard getting around. You had to put cloth on your shoes. Their orchard barely made it. Abe was sparking with Effie, Alva's older sitter. Then Abe asked Effie if she would marry him. Will Effie marry Abe? I recommend this book, because it shows you what it was like when Rose was a little girl compared to now.

I love THE LAURA INGALLS YEARS and the ROSE YEARS. In the later ROSE books, Rose is a little more fiesty and romantical...it builds up as the series goes along, so this is more for pre-teens and teens later on. Otherwise it is very wholesome and fun; Rose is interesting, and has many ideas about the world! I have all the LAURA YEARS books except THE FIRST FOUR YEARS and all the ROSE books except ON THE BANKS OF THE BAYOU (my fave) and BACHELOR GIRL (haven't read that yet).
...

I found this entire series of books to be disappointing. The writing was average but what really bothered me most is how the stories lacked the sweet innocence of the original series. On doing some research I discovered that parts of the books were based on Rose's diaries. Unfortunately, she was not a happy soul and these books suffer from her same pessimism. The listed author for this book (MacBride) died before the last few books were published. The books were still published under his name and HarperCollins claimed that he wrote the manuscript before dying yet one of the last books in this series contains several chapters (almost verbatim) from a story that Rose wrote herself for an adult audience. The story is totally out of character with the series. Rose and her friend sneak out for several nights to meet a traveling salesman. He eventually makes a pass at her...

This series is okay as light reading for adolescents but if you are looking for a piece of americana, and/or a wholesome book for your child or self this is not the best choice. It grossly fails to live up to the original series of books. The Caroline series is a better choice.

Philip Slater puts forth with vehemence and passion his opinions on the trends of hyperconsumerism and overindependence that are driving rifts between the people of our nation and diverting much-needed resources from instituations designed to create health and well-being. His observations about how middle-class Americans are alienating themselves by placing far too much emphasis on material possessions, individualistic thought ("I am different from all of you"), and an economy that is powerfully rooted in the need to simply consume and produce goods rather than increase the quality of life are interesting, though a bit dated, and still hold much relevance to the current situation today. Still, the phenomena he rages against are nothing new to the conscientious among us, and there are many other views on the problems of loneliness and hyperconsumerism that prey on us. Slater makes powerful points, and he clearly has a deep desire to see change and the end of the injustices that characterize our century, but I found his writing style and thought process to be scattered and far too extremist to inspire me. His book seemed less of an empirical analysis of the problems facing our nation and what we can do to solve them and more of an emotional rant about what he personally feels is wrong and where he feels we all went wrong. Nothing bad about that, it's just he seems so angry and hurt about it all that he didn't come close to capturing me (though the chapter about Vietnam and the last chapter were coming close). It was a good book, but there are far better books written by far more inspirational people. Carl Rogers ("On Becoming a Person") was a psychologist who spoke beautifully and wisely for the healing of the isolation and misunderstandings in our relationships with each other. Barbara Marx Hubbard ("Conscious Evolution: Awakening the Power of Our Social Potential") writes convincingly and with an uplifting sense of hope about the problems we face as a people and a culture and what we can do in the coming decades to move in the direction that Philip Slater longed for. Both these authors, and many others, rationally describe problems we all face, then offer warm and well though-out advice about what we can all do. Slater seems like something of a ranter, and reading his book only depressed me. But hey, read the book, then move on. Good luck!

If you are an American living in the United States you need to buy this book. It was written about the 20th century but applies now more than ever. It makes you ask yourself why you use technology to distance yourself from people when you should be getting closer. That may sound hippie-ish, but ask yourslef if you've ever said in your job "I only work here." to another person who had a problem. If you have, you need to realize that democracy doesn't come from goods. It starts from people. It'll knock your socks off. If you aren't American you'll probably want it to see what a sorry state we're in, but with "Californication" theories, you might not be too far off.

This book has made such a dramatic impact with the vast wealth of insight, truth and relevance that I immediately obtained a copy of Earthwalk and am reading this now - and this book is quite profound. Mr. Slater is an example of the best that a human being can be.

Today there is so much cultural revisionism and retooling of the facts surrounding the clash between the predominating mainstream material culture and the youthful counterculture that one often mutters in disgust at the kind of garish, superficial nonsense being promulgated by the popular media to the effect that the sixties generation was just about sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Just fun and games, folks; nothing but fun and games. There is hardly a mention of the very serious, well-thought-through criticisms of materialism, racism, and greed that were so essential to the beginning of the conflict in the sixties. While no one who was there will deny each of these elements (the media's holy trinity of sex, drugs and rock & roll) contributed to the general cultural atmosphere of openness and emotional experimentation and intoxication, it can hardly be truthfully described so simply or in such reductionist terms. The sixties generation, and the counterculture they devised, was first and foremost an intellectual, philosophical, and even spiritual tirade against the manifestly bankrupt morals, ideas, and lifestyles of the dominant society. One of the predominating characteristics of the counterculture was its sense of moral outrage at the ethics, policies, and blatant racism in the public domain. Slater details how and why the two cultures clashed, and what the likely results would be. Unlike his younger admirers, Slater understood the power of the dominant culture, and just how perilous the position of the counterculture was growing to be. In this sense, he anticipated the kinds of events like the shootings at Kent State and in the Deep South that began the reaction and denouement of the counterculture. To read this book is to take a step back into the maelstrom that whirled around us in the sixties, and to see the nature of contemporary society in an even clearer light than is possible without it. Remember, like Theodore Roszak's book 'The Making of a Counterculture', this book was written and published even as the struggle between the mainstream society and the rebellious college students and activists was raging. There are few books that give one so clear and realistic a look at the nature of the relationship and conflict that almost tore this society apart thirty years ago; this is one of them.

Slater brings about some interesting takes on issues which, at the time the book was originally published, seemed earth-shattering. The really amazing thing is, though there is some dated quotes and observations, his views hold up after several decades. He looks outside of the liberal and conservative viewpoints ands finds somethings which could easily help our society.

This is a very good book about a legend of the game. It is a very good read and provides a lot of insight on how Sisler was perceived by many of his peers. My only problem with the book is the author mistakenly saying that Roberto Clemente was from the Dominican Republic. A glaring mistake like this makes me wonder what other facts might be wrong.

George Sisler, the subject of Rick Huhn's book, "The Sizzler," is yet another of the classic ballplayers of the early 20th century, admired during his career, acknowledged for his achievements during and after his career, slowly forgotten over the years and without a biography until recently. Huhn has stepped in to correct that oversight in Sisler's case, and it is a welcome addition to the baseball greats section of the library.

George Sisler, as Huhn stressed, was not a colorful player: he kept a low profile and let his playing do the talking. There were few incidents in his life where he made waves: signing a professional contract while underage, and the resulting fight for his services helping to lead to the end of the National Commission; his tenure as manager of the St. Louis Browns, his transfer to the Senators in the late 1920s; his sinus infection and the resulting difficulties with Browns management in 1923; but most importantly, his hitting and fielding with the Browns during his greatest years. His record for hits in a season was untouched for 84 years, and his two years with averages over .400 are impressive, even for the time in which he played. He finished second to Ruth in home runs one year, and his Runs Created between 1915 and 1922 surpassed Ruth by over 100. That he was not exactly the same player after sitting out 1923 is a disappointment, but he was certainly honored in his time, named by Ty Cobb in his all-time team as first baseman.

Huhn has provided us with a fine biography of a deserving player, a stand-out performer in his time, and all time.

One other thing: It has been noted that Bill James, author and Society of American Baseball Research member, wrote in his 2001 Historical Baseball Abstract that Sisler is "perhaps the most over-rated player in baseball history." (p. 441) Mr. James is entitled to his opinion; it's his book and he can interpret the statistics in any way he cares to. I've been a SABR member for over 25 years and am familiar with Mr. James' work, and it is quite safe to say that I do not agree with him a good half the time, this being one of those times. If you look back at his 1985 Historical Baseball Abstract, you'll find that he said "George Sisler is probably the only player other than Gehrig who can reasonably be considered the greatest first baseman ever in terms of peak value . . . Sisler was a different type of player, he didn't have the home run pop, but he hit for a higher average, was faster and a better defensive player than Gehrig, and the comparison between the two is not easy." (p. 346)

So what happened? Sisler's statistics didn't change in the 16 years between books; the 1920s didn't change, either. Most of the guys who seemingly leap-frogged over him in performance were done playing before 1985. Mr. James explains on page of the 2001 book that in rereading the 1985 book there are a lot of things that he didn't like. As I said, it's his book and he writes what he wants, but that doesn't mean I'm buying what he's pushing on me. In terms of perspective of the times, Sisler was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1939, in the year of the inauguration of the Hall of Fame, as was Gehrig. A number of guys who jumped ahead of him on the list of top first basemen won't get in the Hall except with a ticket. If this makes Mr. James an over-rated writer, well, I won't say that he is or isn't. But you can make up your mind whether the old Bill James is also the new Bill James, and which one you want to believe.

This last moron to post a review bashed Sisler saying that he is overrated, mostly noted because he hardly hit home runs. I didn't think one had to hit home runs in order to be a Hall of Famer. It's obvious he wasn't a slugger - but just look at this: Twice he was second in the AL in long balls and five times he was in the top 10; on six occasions he was in the top 5 in slugging percentage. Seven times he was top 10 in RBI, four times the steals champ. Let's throw in an MVP for good measure. The list goes on reflecting Sisler's above-average speed and outstanding hitting ability (over 200 hits in 6 different seasons, very easily could have been 8).

Don't allow the lack of Sisler power numbers deter you from reading this book.

I hope Huhn did not spend much time on this project.

George Sisler had a .340 career batting average, and that sounds impressive to the few baseball fans who still think batting average is a major statistic. But for the rest of us, Sisler is either--as the preeminent living baseball historian, Bill James, calls him--the most overrated player in baseball history, or, as I call him, the second most overrated player in baseball history, behind Roberto Clemente.

The two men had the same problem. They racked up very high batting averages for their eras, and thus superficially appeared to be great hitters, but they almost never walked. Thus, their career ON-BASE PERCENTAGES, of which "batting average" is but a portion, were mediocre. And neither one of them hit home runs, though Sisler was especially egregious in this respect.

He played in one of baseball's greatest launching pads ever, Sportsman's Park, where it was: 310 down the right field line, 322 to straightaway right, and 351 to deepest right center. And he played there with the super-live ball of the 1920's, before they put the screen up in that part of the park. He also got to play as a visitor in Cleveland's League Park and NY's Yankee Stadium, when they were generous to left-handed hitters, as well as nearly three full seasons as a visitor in the outrageous Baker Bowl in Philly, the century's greatest launching pad.

Do you know how many HR's the guy hit in his career? Try 102.

So this guy is not "baseball's forgotten great." This guy is deservedly forgotten, because sophisticated baseball fans have come to realize he wasn't great. All those years in Sportsman's Park, and he never once hit 20 HR's. All those gaudy batting averages, and his career on-base percentage was lower than those of Fred McGriff, Alvin Davis, Gene Tenace, Elmer Valo, Jack Clark and many scores of other guys who hit nowhere near .300, let alone .340.

Finally, I'm aware of Sisler's mid-career injury, and the huge decline in his stats which flowed from it. He was a vastly better player before that than afterward, and without it, he may have been truly great. But so what? Anyone remember Don Mattingly? I remember thinking he was going to replace Lou Gehrig as the greatest 1B of all time. And I wasn't alone. His back injury ruined him, and if he still makes the Hall, it will be only because he was a Yankee. These things happen, and they don't make Sisler something he was not. (And Sisler was just as terrible about taking walks before the injury as after.)

Next time, Mr. Huhn, write about a "forgotten great" who truly was great. This book was a waste of your time, and is a waste of any reader's time.

Jim F.

In response to "J.F. Baseball history nut, music fan", I think the point of Sisler's talent has been missed. I won't go so far as to call Mr. J.F, etc. a moron, but he has certainly missed the boat on some things.

J.F, et. al. tosses around some players who were "better" than Sisler. Let's pick one and compare their stats. How about Jack Clark? True, Sisler didn't walk very much, but he also didn't strike out very much. How many times did he strike out? Try 327 times, in approximately 8200 AB. How many times did Jack Clark strike out? Try 1441 in approximately 6800 AB. ('Nuf said.) Interestingly, Clark and Sisler have an identical OBP, of .379, and Clark has a slightly higher slugging number -- about 10 points higher. Looking at those two stats, they appear somewhat equal, but look at the hit totals: Sisler, 2812; Clark 1826. You see, Sisler wasn't "taking" walks because he was too busy actually getting hits! So, Clark has a thousand fewer hits, and struck out about a thousand more times. Even taking into consideration the ~800 more walks Clark had, I would still rather have Sisler on my team.

PLUS, Sisler scored about 100 more runs than Clark -- on fewer walks, home runs, and in fewer seasons played. This could be because Sisler also stole about 300 more bases than Clark did, or maybe that he hit about 100 more doubles than Clark. Or, maybe, that Clark was a big, dopey power hitter who could do little more than swat the ball a pretty fair distance when he was lucky enough to hit it at all. In essence, this means that while Clark had bigger power numbers, and leads Sisler in the sexy stats of modern baseball analysis, he really wasn't a better player. Not even close. To understand statistics you have to analyze things for yourself and deduce what they really mean -- don't rely on the percentage stats at the end of the row.

This is such a silly comparison, I don't even know why I'm continuing to waste my time on it. I'm not even mentioning Sisler's fielding prowess, and all the ancedotal evidence for his greatness. (Do you think the most "overrated player ever" would have been the first firstbaseman elected to the Hall of Fame? Think about it.)

I could go on, but I think I'm done.

Finally, read the book. It may not be the best piece of baseball writing ever, but don't let J.F.&Company's ridiculous critique hold you back.

Mary Todd was a professor of history at Concordia University in River Forest, Illinois and a life-long member of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod. This book is part history, part theological argumen in favor of women's ordination. Therefore, I will critique each aspect.

I found Todd's treatment of the LCMS interesting and well-written yet lacking in professional integrity. While her facts and dates are correct, her frequent editorial analysis of persons and events alerts the reader to an abnormal amount of "spin." Throughout the historical sections, Todd employs left-handed compliments and ad hominum attacks on certain figures, while treating others very sympathetically. For example, CFW Walther consistantly characterized as a Stephan-flunkie who talks big but lacks clear judgment; J.A.O Preus was a manipulative politician who refused to listen to sound reason. Meanwhile, those who challenge authority, Scripture, or advance the cause of women are--like Russell Prohl and the Seminary's "most moderate" (228) professors--sympathetic characters.

Furthermore, Todd's presentation of the various doctrinal arguments is weak. When she presents a view she agrees with (against Scriptural inerrancy, for women's ordination, etc.), she either presents them as self-evident or relies on brief references to "the Gospel" or socio-cultural equality. While she uses much ink to present opposing arguments, she focuses more on the arguments' political impact and never really treats them seriously. It never seems to occur to her that people might actually believe that an inerrant Bible prohibits women's ordination and that these people take this belief seriously. In all, the author is too emotionally invested in the subject matter for a reader to trust her historical analysis.

As a theologian, Todd fares much worse. Her theology is one based on a subjective reading of the Bible as opposed to a belief that theology is objective--not coming from within a person or culture, but from an unchanging God. As such, Todd is guilty of doing the very thing she accuses others of doing: beginning with a theological idea (women should be ordained), then creating a theological method that supports this idea. Her "support" ranges from insightful critiques of LCMS doctrine (e.g. an evolving theology of the ministry) to down-right silly arguments (e.g. implying that Martin Luther and CFW Walther never really believed in Scriptural inerrancy or a male-only priesthood). Most distrubing are her positions that Scripture is neither fixed nor inerrant (allowing whatever a particular reader wants it to say); that amorphous words like culture should dictate theology and practice; that the Gospel has destroyed ALL worldly differences between everyone; and that one should be ordained if he/she "feels a call" regardless of personal qualifications as specified by Scripture (inerrant or otherwise).

In all, I cannot recommend "Authority Vested." While I am willing to hear arguments on the role of women in the Church, the Ministry, and authority, I am not willing to hear such arguments from authors who subscribe to an "ends justify the means" approach. Todd sacrifices the doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy, the reputations of fellow Church members, and sound argument because she believes her end is just. I disagree and cannot recommend this book.

If you are in the LCMS and interested in your synod's history and current mindest, you will find this a great read, even if you disagree with some of the author's premises or conclusions.
It will be all the more worthwhile to read if you are curious about the role of women and men as leaders in the synod.

As the question of women's ordination in any denomination is typically a milemarker as to where the group is heading doctrinally, socially (ethically and politically), and liturgically, it is no big shock to see the issue causing such torment among both "conservatives" and "liberals" in the LCMS.

While I do not quite agree with the author's understanding of the priesthood, the very fact that she has wrestled with the issues and can present a reasoned defense laeds me to give the book four stars.

A final plus about the book: it has an incredible bibliography, which is used exhaustively throughout the text.

Other books that may be of interest on the question of authority and ministry are: "Priestesses in the Church" by C.S. Lewis found in his "God in the Dock"; of course Manfred Hauke's monumental "Women in the Priesthood?" is essential reading. WHile he is Roman Catholic, much of his theology could be used in the LCMS context (and is); "The Church and Women" with contributions by Von Balthasar, Kasper, Ratzinger; "God or Goddess" by Hauke; "Deaconesses" by Martimort; "Women in the Early Church" by Clark; "Women in the Church" by Louis Bouyer; "What Paul really Said About Women" by Bristow; "Women and the Priesthood" by Peter Kreeft and Alice von Hildebrand. These books are almost all oppossed to the ordination of women to the priesthood, but they are both scholarly, often rather neutral (not always!), and charitable.

For an Eastern Orthodox response to the question: "The Female Diaconate:An Historical Perspective" by Gvosdev; "Feminism in Christianity: An Orthodox Response" by Belonick; "Women in the Priesthood" ed. by Thomas Hopko; "Discerning the Signs of the Times" by Behr-Sigel.

For some thoughtful arguments that support "theologies of women's ordination" see: "Discerning the Signs of the Times" by Elizabeth Behr-Sigel; "Women at the Altar" by Lavina Bryne; Bristow's aforementioned book has an interesting chapter on the leadership of women in the New Testament. In my opinion he is sloppy in some of his exegesis (or should I say isogesis?) but it is worth the read if for nothing else but to understnad his approach, which is representative of the priestess position.

Enjoy!

Mary Todd has written the history of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod that I never knew (despite being born and raised in a Missouri Synod church). She is an engaging storyteller and an exhaustive researcher, which is a rare combination, and her book sheds much light on issues of authority within the LCMS institution.

The current struggles of the synod, for example those between the "Conservative" and the "Confessionalist" clergy factions (there are not really any moderates in the synod clergy -- only conservative and more-conservative-than-conservative), could have been taken out of the synod's history of a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago. (This book was published in 2000, well before those debacles, which shows Dr. Todd's considerable insight.)

A few reviewers have criticized Todd's theology, which is odd, since this is a history book, not a theology book, and Todd never claims otherwise. I found her to be fair-minded, even-handed, and generous in her treatment of all sides of the issues she explores.

Mary Todd is a professor of history at Concordia University in River Forest, Illinois, and a "feminist" by Missouri Synod standards. Martin Marty, in the book's Forward, wrote that she is "a partisan for ordination of women" in the LCMS (xii).

Nevertheless, Mary Todd does have some valid points in her book. Her contention that the LCMS--even in the beginning with Martin Stephan (Missouri Synod's only Bishop!) and Walther has never adequately defined its concept of ministry. We see this unclarity expressed in the old intersynodical conference days, when the LCMS, WELS, and ELS were all in fellowship, yet the WELS began having quite a different understanding on what the ministry is with the Wauwatosan theologians: Hoenecke, Schaller, and Koehler. Because Missouri could never define its concept of ministry with one clear voice, such differences did not lead to any conference splits.

Despite some of Mary Todd's "feminist" views, her book is still enjoyable. Her detailed description of the behind-the-scenes machinations that led to LCMS adopting women's suffrage at its 1969 convention is quite fascinating. To get a complete behind-the-scenes picture, a reader also may want to find "A Layman's Guide to Woman Suffrage in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod" by James Hoke, 1998, Morris Publishing.

Unfortunately, Mary Todd also hopes that the same gradual acceptance of women's suffrage (and she goes over the gradual changes intra-synod wide in her book) will lead to the ordination of women pastors. Culturally, none of us would have problems with such a move; those of us, however, who hold to the scriptural position of women not having spiritual authority over men will disagree with her position.

In short, her book is noteworthy--if only for its historical value. However, her theology is not biblical, nor in line with LCMS's understanding of Scripture. Thus, this book gets a weak recommendation: the good in the book is too interesting to ignore. Besides, the book also contains an including Walther's 1875 theses on church and ministry, the 1945 Chicago Statement, and a thorough bibliography.

Todd's brilliant exploration of the shifting locus of authority in the LCMS reveals the causes of many of the Synod's troubling features -- inluding its separatism, its triumphalism, and its refusal to honor the calls and contributions of women. Her grasp on the Synod's history is firm, but her book is particularly valuable for getting at the heart of LCMS life in a way only a perceptive insider can. Authority Vested is feminist history at its best -- seeking to tell authentically the stories of all people, especially the marginalized. She speaks strong words against the Synod's "conformity to the fundamentalist Americanizing of Christianity."

But like most good insider accounts, Todd also reveals what is worthwhile and unique in the Synod's history. Though I find her continued struggle for the rights of women in the LCMS inspiring and courageous, I am no longer surprised at her tenacity. She is a loyal daughter of the Synod, and deeply critical of it precisely for that reason. I only wish the book had been published a bit later -- I'm curious to know how she believes the election of moderate Gerald Kieschnick to the presidency of the Synod in 2001 (and again in 2004) fits into her narrative of LCMS authority. Certainly 2007's convention will reveal just how significant any shifts toward a moderate position really are.

Highly recommended, but especially so for those with a connection to "our beloved Synod" (even those who, like me, have left it).

I bought this book when I saw the case and its author featured on a cable TV show. I believe it was American Justice. Bill McClellan has given us a good true crime story here.

What aggravated me was the fact that no one seemed to think there was anything wrong with Ed Post knocking his wife, Julie, around ("Putting a woman in her place????" PUH-leese - shame Julie didn't respond with a frying pan or a lamp!).

The fact that Post skipped out of the funeral home and put the moves on another woman in front of his own daughter made me SO glad that he didn't get away with his crime.

Then there was the victim's father, Hollis Thigpen, who apparently had nothing but contempt for Vietnam veterans, even as his own son displayed the emotional and psychological scars from that debacle. Like many people my age, I vehemently opposed that war but never have I disparaged the people who fought.

Mr. Thigpen should try telling those who've lost brothers, husbands, sons, etc. in Vietnam that it was just a "scratch scrimmage"!

All in all, a good read. I don't understand how a previous reviewer could have called it "tedious."

This book pretty much starts in the middle and stays there. Ed Post and his wife Julie are at a convention in St. Louis. He gets up at 6:25 AM to go jogging, wakes her up because he "knows" she will want to have breakfast with him, and runs her bath. When he comes back, she's dead in the tub.

I have no doubt at all that he murdered her. Many reasons:

The shower curtain was INSIDE the tub. No woman is going to leave a shower curtain inside a tub when she takes a bath, and any man who regularly (as Post claimed to do) runs a bath for his wife would have the common sense not to either. And as the book says, what woman wants to take a tub bath in a hotel - who's been sitting in that tub? She's going to take a shower. What woman wants to take a bath at 6:30 AM in a hotel anyway?

Plus, he first said that the water was not hot enough for her when she first tried it, and he had to add more hot water. Later, he told another detective that she said the water was just perfect when she tried it the first time. He tells someone else that the temperature of the water was "tepid" like she always wanted it. Apparently he had no idea what tepid is, or maybe he realized tht when they found her 30 minutes later, the water was already cold, which it wouldn't be if it had been HOT.

Why would she grab the towel ring anyway? If she's getting into the tub full of water, she would be squatting down and if she fell, it would be on her behind into the water. Who is going to stand up in a tub full of water? You're going to let the water out, then stand up.

The bruises found after her body had been disinterred. Water in the tub retarded bruising. Bruises were found on her eye, and the back of her neck (among numerous other places). Since these parts of the body are indented, not to mention on opposite sides, it's a little hard to claim she hit both sides in the tub or the floor. One Medical Examiner's claim that the bruising was from the removal of her bones shows how stupid he is. If your blood isn't cirulating, it isn't going to rush to the surface when it perceives an injury. Your body can't perceive an injury if you're dead. Ed Post beat her, then held her face down in the water to finish her off.

Witnesses: He'd beaten her before. He'd beaten at least one of his daughters. He visited prositutes.

Evidence: He owed a LOT of money. Wife was insured for $700,000 (recent addition of $300,000). Same day he borrowed $2,000. Also owed her parents $15,000. Many other debts. Not a guy who can afford this insurance.

The author doesn't go much into the background of either Ed or Julie. Julie is portrayed as a horrible woman who criticized everyone she worked with, and was nicely put, "difficult" to work with. Ed was a big talker who liked to exaggerate his military service, show off how much money he could spend, brag about his "very important" marriage, and very well-respected insurance agent. One of the detectives claimed he knew Ed was guilty because of his extremely tiny feet - in his experience men with tiny feet were the perpatrators.

The writing is rather vague at times. The author talks about a grand jury being convened, and questions they ask. Then mentions that the grand jury fell apart. No mention of a later grand jury...suddenly, Post is indicted - but there's no mention of an arrest or bail. He's just indicted and waiting for his trial. Speaking of the trial, what the heck was wrong with the prosecutor? He let all the witnesses get off without saying anything. It's a wonder the jury had the brains to convict this guy. And as for his first lawyer, Ralph Whalen (a former prosecutor), he knew full well his client was guilty. He should be ashamed.

At least his daughters and his brother finally woke up and smelled the murderer.

He did it, it's obvious. And as far as true crime goes, this isn't one of the best. Definately not a page turner.

I just finished reading this book and I have to say, that although I'm pretty sure he killed his wife, I don't think the state had much evidence. They kept referring to him drawing his wife's bathwater. What is so bizarre about that? My husband draws my bathwater for me more than I do! I hope to heck that if I ever fall and hurt myself in the bathtub, people don't blame my husband if he says he drew my bathwater! The only trouble I had with his innocence is the amount of bruising she suffered in the "fall". But otherwise, if it weren't for that, I would have to say I'm not sure he did it.

Reading of crimes such as this, I cannot help but to wonder how many people get away with murders but disguising them as accidents. It is a chilling thought and this story was very well written.

Comparisions are inevitable. But that doesn't diminish the excellence of this whole-life biography by Robert Farrell. He does take a different tack. It is not quite as personal or intimate as McCollough. I might even venture that it is a bit more scholarly. David McCollough write for the masses & is the best writer/historian we have.
Farrell digresses, sometimes at length. He discusses animal husbandry & crop rotation during Truman's farm years, the economic & banking system during Harry's haberdashery years & the blizzard of agencies & crooked cronies that populated them during his second term as president.
I must confess I did read McCollough's but listened to the unabridged audio version of Farrell's book, which admittedly is easier. Still, I found McCollough's marginally more entertaining. Obviously both men liked & respected Truman. Farrell might be a little more critical. Two faults stood out to me. Truman was thin-skinned & touchy on some subjects. His bitter relationship with Eisenhower was a a good example. They both acted very immaturely for men of such stature. Farrell did not tell the story of Truman's threat to punch a reviewer in the nose for a bad review of his daughter's recital, except in passing. He had a habit of writing scathing letters to someone who displeased him, even his wife. Then he would not mail it. Some of these letters survived in his papers. He didn't have much use for Churchill until much later when both men were out of office. The other shortcomming could have been a virtue & that is loyalty which he carried to ridiculous extremes. He developed a blind spot for anyone that was ever a friend, a member of his army unit, (he was the captain), a mason (he was a past master), or was affiliated with the Pendergast machine. They all got a lifetime pass. This came back to bite him in several minor scandals & charges of cronyism in his second term. None of these dust-ups touched him, with one exception. While in the Senate he had his wife Bess on the payroll, until it was discovered. They needed the extra income. He was extremely bright & a quick study, an honest politician, with integrity & character. He revered & honored the office of the President. He separated the office from the person who happened to occupy it. Mr. Farrell brings this all up very well. He has written other books on aspects of Truman's life as well as "The Dying President, FDR" which I will check out. This work is not a second rate biography merely a close second place.

In "Harry S Truman", Robert Ferrell gives the reader an introduction to this ordinary Missourian who lived such an extraordinary life. The reader is treated to an overview of this extraordinary life from childhood through the farm, the army, courtship and marriage, fatherhood, politics and retirement. Ferrell has managed to keep the book moving apace while providing sufficient detail to satisfy the readers curiosity.

An obvious fan of Truman, Ferrell does not hide his hero's faults or short falls while discussing his accomplishments. Truman's days as County Judge and his relationship with Boss Pendergast show a man who maintained his principles while taking advantage of a few opportunities, both political and financial, which may have been a bit on the shady side. I would think that a story centered in Jackson County politics could get boring really fast, but in this book even that stays interesting. He depicts of the marriage of Bess and Harry as a true love match which overcame interference from Bess' mother and periods of separation when Harry was in Washington. His election to and service in the Senate make for an interesting prelude to the Presidency.

The White House years, naturally, get the heaviest attention. Truman's relationships with and opinions of FDR, George Marshall, Dean Atcheson, Eisenhower and MacArthur, Churchill, Nixon and others too many to mention give the book a greater breadth than is found in many biographies. The leading issues of those years, including the Atomic bomb, the end of World War II, relations with the Soviet Union, labor unrest, the economy, the Berlin Airlift, the Korean War and Sen. McCarthy are all shown from the White House perspective. The reader is given an insight into Truman's loves, likes, beliefs and hatreds. The narration of the 1948 election, both the nomination and election segments, are fascinating reading. Truman was left with plenty of scores to even, baggage which could have impaired his performance, had he allowed it.

Questions I have long entertained include "Why Truman?", "Was he better than people said?" and "How Well Did He Perform?" This book provided some answers but some questions remain unanswered. Why out of 300 Democratic governors and members of Congress did the Democratic Party select Truman for vice-president to an obviously dying FDR? That one remains a mystery. I now believe that he did a very good job for someone with his limitations, but that he was limited by his time and world view. Maybe as he said, there were a million Americans who were better qualified to be president than he was, but he had the job and did the best he could. That is the conclusion with which this book left me. Read, think about it yourself, and enjoy!

Harry did not want to be President and was not tied to corrupt political influences as President. This book misses the essence of Harry Truman badly. I suggest reading Harry's own books to understand Harry, at least this author knew Harry intimately.

This was required reading for a graduate course in American history. In this engaging biography, Robert H. Ferrell, who has authored and edited eight previous books on Truman, does an admirable job of presenting the life and presidency of Harry S. Truman. Although one can detect Ferrell's admiration for Truman, one senses from the extensive notes, bibliography, and research conducted at the Truman Library as well as his willingness to criticize Truman for his mistakes, that Ferrell has written a very balanced biography of Truman. Ferrell's book is a good introductory biography of Truman's whole life; the first eight chapters are devoted to his life prior to his ascendancy to the presidency in 1945 after the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. One gets the sense that Truman was the last president of an earlier and simpler time in America. He was the last president who was not a college graduate nor was he well--off financially. Ferrell's biography captures the essence of what type of a man Truman was and what history and his fellow citizens perceived him as.
"A plain-speaking, straight-talking, ordinary fellow (people thought) who did what he saw as his duty without turning his obligation into opportunity for personal gain" (179). Ferrell also exposed Truman's flaws such as being overprotective and too loyal to friends that had done wrong. Often he took it as a personal affront when anyone differed with him.
Ferrell presents a few experiences from Truman's early years that formed his character. From farming, Truman gained a work ethic that served him well throughout his life. His experience as an artillery captain and battery commander during WWI was instrumental in proving to himself and others that he was a very capable and caring leader of men. This experience was instrumental in putting him on the path of a political life. His experience as a failed haberdasher and bank speculator in the 1920's caused Truman to be a fiscal conservative the rest of his life and a good steward of the government's money. In addition, he learned about and came to understand and respect ethnic minorities, such as Catholics and Jews, from his Army and haberdashery experiences. Thus, Ferrell astutely proved that understanding Truman's early life experiences are instrumental if one wants to properly analyze Truman's decision-making process in the domestic and foreign policy arena.
"The Buck Stops Here" placard on Truman's desk has become legendary in presidential history. One of his secretaries of state, Dean Acheson, admired Truman for capably understanding the complexities of a situation and his willingness to make a hard decision without vacillating. Truman was adept at gathering all of the facts in a timely manner, listening to people's opinions and turning the options over in his mind, and then when he arrived at what he thought was the correct decision, he made it and stuck to his guns. Truman wound up making many important decisions that have affected America to this day such as, using nuclear weapons against Japan to end WWII, integrating the military in 1948, recognizing the state of Israel, creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and involving American military forces in the Korean war.
One of the first, most momentous, and most often debated decisions that Truman had to make as President was whether to use two atomic bombs against Japan to hasten the end of WWII. Ferrell and other historians have made a very convincing argument to support Truman's decision-making process to use nuclear weapons to end the war. The Japanese military, who effectively controlled their government, were fanatics in their prosecution of the war. The Japanese people had suffered through numerous fire bombings of their cities in the months leading up to the end of the war, in which hundreds of thousands of their citizens were killed. In addition, the military had lost many battles and virtually all of its island holdings in the Pacific, and yet the government was strengthening its homeland forces and preparing for invasion instead of seriously considering surrender. Ferrell, relying on information gathered by Edward J. Drea, who wrote about the American military intelligence estimate gathered in July of 1945 mainly through the deciphering of Japanese radio traffic, showed that up to 600,000 Japanese were being prepared to fight in the event of an American invasion. Even this estimate turned out to be too low, since after the war American intelligence learned that the Japanese actually had some 900,000 prepared to fight against the invasion. American military estimates of the cost of life in the event of an invasion of the Japanese home islands were at best sketchy, and many historians who have written against the use of atomic weapons have used the unreliability of the estimates as one of their examples why Truman was wrong to use the nuclear option. However, Thomas B. Allen and Norman Polmar in their book, Codename Downfall, which detailed the plan to invade Japan, wrote that Truman was presented with an estimate that showed that there could be 238,000 American casualties and possibly the same number of Japanese casualties. This information coupled with the very real evidence of how tenaciously the Japanese people had fought was no myth, and convinced Truman that dropping the bombs on Japan to end the war was the right decision. One only had to look at the horrific casualty figures for American battles on Iwo Jima and Okinawa to name a few in order to understand just how fiercely the Japanese were capable of fighting. Ferrell aptly showed that Truman's decision has come under criticism throughout the years partly because of how he had stridently defended it and was so dismissive of the critics of his decision. "The president's critics, one suspects, were ready to accuse him because they did not admire other things he did or approved. They were critical because of his well-known decisiveness, which sometimes seemed offhanded" (214).
Truman, almost by necessity and circumstance, was forced to alter America's foreign policy of isolationism to one of internationalism. Truman realized the Korean War left him in a predicament. If he did not defend South Korea in the wake of North Korea's attack, he then would acquiescence to the Communist North Koreans, and ultimately the Russians. By not defending South Korea, American prestige in Asia and the world would undoubtedly would be tarnished. Yet, if he did attack, he risked a world war with the Chinese and the Russians, and ultimately a nuclear war. In light of the Truman doctrine, and America's stance on communism, Truman decided to defend South Korea. It was a widely unpopular war, which ended in a stalemate. Yet, Ferrell entertains a notion that America did not become the world superpower after WW II, but rather during the Korean War because America intervened to defend a non-communist nation, in essence, America became the police and protection force for weaker non-communist countries in the face of communist aggression. Many historians would agree that the year 1945 and the history after irreversibly changed the world. The cold war, America's role in world affairs, and the question of nuclear weapons all contributed.
Truman initially set about reorganizing the bureaucracy, conducting a complete overhaul of cabinet and staff. In addition to creating the Budget Bureau and the National Security Council, he created the Council of Economic Advisers, which he staffed it with both conservatives and liberals and regarded it as an advisory committee. Ferrell positively describes Truman's intellect, honesty, and integrity throughout the book but one of the places where it shines most brightly is in his civil rights efforts, which is rarely given the credit it deserves in historical accounts. Ferrell examines possible reasons behind Truman's change of heart on civil rights and concludes that much of his perspective came from his principled sense of fairness and his belief that the duty of the office of the President was to represent all Americans. The Truman-appointed Civil Rights Commission presented a frank report, entitled To Secure These Rights, with a ten-point agenda of civil rights reforms. Lacking congressional support, he turned to the power of executive orders to start the desegregation of the armed forces.
His second administration was marred by scandals, including the Hoey Investigation, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, and the Bureau of Internal Revenue illegal activity, for which the president was criticized for failing to take appropriate action. Another one of Truman's domestic challenges, which cost him politically, was labor strikes. To avoid a steelworker strike, Truman invoked what he believed to be the inherent powers of the president to seize control of the mills and was rebuffed by the Supreme Court. As the 1952 election loomed, Truman bristled that the emerging Democratic candidate, Adlai Stevenson, was distancing himself from Truman's administration. Although they reconciled and Truman even assisted with campaign speeches, it was to little avail. Eisenhower won 55 percent of the popular vote and Truman finished out his lame duck presidency.
In his post-presidency years, Truman returned to Independence and his quiet life. He solicited donations to build a presidential library, which he donated to the federal government, a convention which later presidents have followed. Likewise, he refused endorsements and placement in corporate payrolls because he believed that accepting financial opportunities would diminish the integrity of the office of President. As a result, Harry and Bess Truman lived out the remainder of their lives without the safety of financial savings. He established a precise daily routine at his library, which included writing copious amount of letters and receiving many visitors. Ever the politician, he remained connected with Washington life and accepted invitations to the White House in both the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. In his final years, bothered with health problems, he took refuge in music and books. He died the day after Christmas, 1972 and was buried at his presidential library in Independence, with all the pomp and circumstance fitting a former President.

Thus, Ferrell does a very convincing job of making one believe just how important and interesting it is to study Truman, especially since he was so very different from the presidents who had come before and after him.
Recommended reading for anyone interested in American history, foreign policy, Cold War history.

Poor Ferrell. Did anyone realize there was a second scholarly biography of Truman published in the 90s? Ferrell presents a different Harry Truman than David McCullough. His Truman is less romantic and less the accidental president. Where McCullough seems to put Truman on a pedestal, Ferrell presents a more realistic view. McCullough captures much of Truman's day-to-day thoughts and actions through his letters to Bess and Margaret, which obviously provides much greater insight into the President's personality, while Ferrell captured them through the comments and diaries of staff and contemporaries. While still portraying him as an honest and very capable (and underrated) president, he does not shy away from discussing his missteps and weaknesses.

I think a perfect example of the juxtaposition of the two authors is how each describes how the Marshall Plan got its name. McCullough says Truman wanted to give General Marshall credit for his ideas; Ferrell says Truman knew a bill called the "Truman Plan" would never make it past the Republicans in Congress. Both statements are probably true, but each author has a different emphasis.

Ferrell provides good analysis on world and national events happening around Truman with some interesting digressions and observations, such as with Stalin, Korea and its aftermath, McArthur, etc.. In fact, it becomes more of a history book than a biography of Truman. Because of this emphasis, the reader does not discover the real Truman, what drove him, his intimate thoughts and fears, etc. Bess, Margaret, and Mama Truman are bit players in this bio, although there were core to Truman.

Truman's 1948 election win was indeed result of a miraculous 11th hour great burst of energy by the incumbent president, but Ferrell does not shrink from showing Truman as the typical politician, slinging a little mud and showing partisanship against the 80th Congress, which he lambasted publicly and complemented privately (they passed the "Truman doctrine" and were as good with New Deal legislation as their predecessors and successors).

Despite his reserved countenance and mousy presentation, Truman was his own man. He stood up to Pendergast, FDR, labor, big business, domineering cabinet members, and McArthur. He was the true moderate ... while busting the miners and railroad union strikes, threatening to draft them to stop the strike, he also fought "Big Steel" and vetoed Taft-Hartley. Ferrell sets straight Truman's record on civil rights giving it the credit it never really received. Truman was the true vote-your-conscience legislator. Ferrell closes with the last couple of years of the second administration, which were ripe with scandal, although not the result of improprieties from Truman himself.

If one can only read one Truman bio (and has the time to digest), read McCullough's tome. That author obviously reveres Truman, but is still a balanced account, and is more comprehensive and personal. That recommendation does not, however, discredit Ferrell, especially if one is more interested in the United States under Harry Truman than Truman the man.