Oklahoma Books

I had read other reviews about how this book is such a concise and accurate portrait of the US-Mexican American War but I thought it lopsided. He does describe in great detail the movements, strategies and people surrounding the U.S. Army but beyond this there is not much information. There is not much account of the Mexican side and for the most part the Mexican Army comes across as incompetent. Mexican victories in the war are barely examined. US Army conduct seems to be very civil when in fact there was much contempt for the Mexicans by some and many atrocities and civilian casualties. The US soldiers seem to develop a respect for the Mexicans and their cutlture if one judges from this book, enjoying the many "fandangos" along the way to the next battle. Motivations for the war are only shallowly examined. There is no mention of the valuable ports to be won in California, which Polk had set his eyes on. There is one sentence that refers casually to the San Patricio battalion of deserters who fought for the Mexican Army but there is no discussion as to why they deserted or a look at Army moral. He discusses occasionally lack of discipline in the troops but never the causes, except perhaps weariness. Apaches are described as "killing" and "raiding" but Eisenhower seems to show a great deal of compassion on the next page when a US officer must "subdue" the Apaches and manages to have them "brought to the point where they are willing to sign a peace treaty" as if the Apaches only reservation to peace were their beligerence (Andrew Jackson broke between 80-90 treaties with the Native Americans during his presidency.) In this same passage Eisenhower describes how the US soldiers could only "shudder to think" what the fate of captured women might have been, but upon bringing the Apaches out of the mountains he never tells what their actual fate was. We are left shuddering in our imaginations. And the list goes on. The problem is not so much what Eisenhower tells but what he doesn't tell. He gives a famous quote of Ulysses Grant describing the war as " the most unjust war ever waged by a stronger nation against a weaker" but we never see the war Grant saw. The worst fatalities encountered in this book are the ones suffered by soldiers during battle. There is no record of the inhumanity that this war brought out in both countries. In the end it is simply a matter of a strong country pitted against an unfortunate weaker country, and the U.S. of course is fortunate enough to be the stronger. Injustice is not in this picture and if it is it is glossed over. If half the detail exercised in describing the geography of battle was given to the examination of politics, or to Mexico's understanding of the war and its battles then this would be a wonderful book. If you are interested in precisely where certain battalions and infantries of the US Army where and when then this is a super book. The physical description is detailed (although not particularly interesting) but the deeper issues that describe the real nature and character of war are virtually untouched and only lightly treated.

This book is a must for anyone trying to understand US and Mexican relations today. It is very well reserched yet readable. This period in US history was not one of our finer moments. We are doomed to regret and pay for the actions of our imperialism, in the name of Manifest Destiny, for generations to come.This book helps us understand why we still have a price to pay in 2006.

Interest in the war with Mexico fluctuates from low to none. Most authors simply do not consider this war as anything but a precursor to the American Civil War. These histories focus not on this war but on the junior officers that were important in the next one. This book focuses on the War with Mexico as a stand-alone event and as part of America's history. In doing so, the book is both unique and important. John S. D. Eisenhower is an excellent writer and a respected historian with a number of excellent books to his credit. This is one of his better ones and could be the best overview of this war. It is readable, intelligent and accurate with the right amount of looking forward to 1861.

I think that this is a good book about the yankee-mexican war. It shows the political and military problems in both sides, USA and Mexican, and also writes about personal histories, always interesting. It shows clearly also evident, that it's bad business to be neighbour of United States if your are not strong. The different ways of conduct of United States with England ( in Canada and Oregon problem) and with Mexico shows it clearly. Some things are difficult to believe , by example , that in a fight hand to hand only a yankee died and almost three hundred mexican did. but in general, I think that it's a good book for a first sight of that conquest war.
I remember a film of John Wayne which when he travels to mexican lands and a mexican in a horse come to give him wellcome, John Wayne shoot him and kill. That's the way the yankees ( not americans, because all habitants of America are americans, mexicans too ) did with every country that they can do it, Mexico, Spain ( Puerto Rico, Cuba , Filipinas, etc ), Colombia with Panama Channel, etc.
And it's very curious how this war is hide of United States films . If one see westerns films and about California, it seems a empty land and nobody knows that it was stealed to mexicans. Fortunately the time is changing and every year more and more mexican people live in that States and, who knows ? When United Stated would be not so strong, another countries made him like he did with others.
Anyway a good book that respect both fighters, only I miss a complete map with all the land stealed to Mexico ( almost a third of the country ) that reach Canada.

There have been many war crimes committed by the United States throughout its history, but the war with Mexico in the mid 1840's has been one that is almost completely unknown. It is not mentioned in debates on the ethics of pre-emptive war, nor discussed much at all in the history books (but thankfully this is changing). This book gives the reader a view of the U.S.-Mexico war from the standpoint of a military historian, and does so in a manner that is free from the jingoism that is present in much of contemporary historical analysis of U.S. foreign policy. If one is not an expert in the history of the time, as is the case for this reviewer, one cannot attest to the accuracy of the author's account. However, the author gives references for those readers who need more in-depth coverage. The historical analysis of the U.S.-Mexico war, as is the case for all such analysis of U.S. foreign policy, has become the most important issue of the time. This importance has as its root the need for accurate information, and the dire need for authors who are honest and objective in their analysis. This does not mean that historians must be free from bias, for this is both impossible and in fact deleterious for any kind of analysis. But it does mean that authors must not suppress facts that conflict with their worldviews.

Whatever its historical accuracy, this book is captivating reading, due mostly to the author's writing style and his ability to make the important battles come alive in the reader's imagination. Warfare was more "in your face" at this time, in spite of the use of artillery that at the present time makes conflict more anonymous and therefore the pricking of conscience more rare. And as the author notes, information traveled a lot more slowly from the battlefield to the White House at the time. One can conclude that this gave commanders much more leeway in making battlefield decisions and more freedom in indulging themselves in their own strategic idiosyncrasies.

There are many fascinating facts in this book that may surprise readers new to this time in history. One of these concerns the tension between the United States and Great Britain over the Oregon territory. Another is that the death rate in this war was the greatest of any war in U.S. history. Still another was the actual occupation of Mexico City, and this being done with a surprisingly small number of troops. The jingoism and false patriotism of the time though was similar to what we are now experiencing with the war with Iraq. The Hobsonian "passion of the spectator, the inciter, the backer, but not of the fighter" was in play then as much as it is now, unfortunately.

Zachary Taylor, Winfield Scott, and other commanders who participated in the war are fixtures in history books, to be remembered forever, but the names of the soldiers who served under them are not. The occupation of Mexico City is still celebrated with the Aztec Club, the origin of which is discussed in the book, and whose members still proudly celebrate the heritage and history of the carnage against the citizens of Mexico City. Ulysses S. Grant can be remembered as one of the few leaders of notoriety who opposed the war, and as brought out in the book, he referred to it as "the most unjust war ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation" as "instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies." The historical parallels with today are striking, giving one more reason, beyond pure curiosity, for making this book, and others like it that discuss the U.S.-Mexico war, as being one that should be studied in detail. The author is correct when he says in the introduction that this time should not be "relegated to the attic of memory."

It's definitely a painful story but needed to be told, and Ms Brooks presented a detailed, marvelous manuscript. She told it the way it happened and didn't gloss over the barbarity of the whole situation and covered thoroughly the feelings and sentiments in Utah at the time. John D. Lee took the blame and was executed twenty years later and cleansed the others and the church, neutralizing the ugly massacre so people could move on with their lives, and the Mormons could start working with the US rather than against the federal government. Well worth the time to read and refer to actual documents - very academic and precise, but that I believe makes the book creditible. Good job - not another cover-up.

This book is for anyone interested in Mormon or religious history. Mormonism is not the only religious sect with a dark history.

To be honest, I was hesitant to read "Mountain Meadows Massacre" by Juanita Brooks as she was a life-long mormon and, frankly, I was skeptical that she would treat the slaughter of 120 to 150 innocent souls with anything that even remotely resembled with candor; after all, the cult has an extremely well-established history of censoring and covering up even the most benign (but certainly well deserved) criticisms of their so-called religion. I was also rather puzzled by other authors on the subject who frequently referred to Brook's book and finally decided to find out why. I certainly was not disappointed.

While Brooks' work is now dated (it was originally published in 1950) and later researchers have uncovered additional horrors regarding the brazen butchering of so many people, she actually does an outstanding job of reporting on this horrible tragedy. Considering the amount of research she did, most likely from nearly all of the documentation that was available at the time, she does an extraordinary job in piecing together the details of this infamous blight on American history. Brooks assembled a large number of resources obtained from numerous interviews, newspaper accounts written at the time, court documents, affidavits, and even Congressional records to provide a chilling account of the massacre. At first, I felt that she treated some of those responsible (especially Brigham Young) with kid gloves but as the work progressed, she eventually placed most of the blame where it belonged - I'm rather stunned (as apparently was Brooks) that she was never excommunicated by the cult. Interestingly, she goes so far as to state that she even attempted to interview, as well as tried to schedule an appointment with, David O. McKay, the cult's "president", about the massacre only to be turned away - even though she offered to stay in Salt Lake City indefinitely in order to speak with him.

Interestingly, Brooks also makes no bones about the fact that the only fanatic punished for the atrocity, John D. Lee, was clearly used as a scapegoat for the barbaric behavior of so many other members of the cult that joined him in the carnage of September 11, 1857.

Of course, not all that Brooks wrote is gold. There were times when I felt as if she tried to minimize certain things - she never fully ascribes all of the responsibility that Brigham Young deserves (although there can be no question that he was an evil participant who sacrificed his "adopted son," John D. Lee), she tries to claim that the cult members involved may have been subject to "mob psychology" or "war hysteria" who lead otherwise "ordinary" lives, and that the cult now owns that property and had previously "given their approval" to build a "monument" on the site. Disturbingly, Brooks notes that attempts to turn over even a small portion of Mountain Meadows over to the U.S. Forest service or other Federal agencies have failed. Even now, 150 years later, the cult refuses to turn over the site, refuses to put a cross on the current monument (because the cult is not Christian), and continues to deny reality by accepting responsibility for the massacre. Even Gordon B. Hinckley, their current "president" (i.e., Satan incarnate on Earth) has stated "that which we have done here [at Mountain Meadows] must never be construed as an acknowledgment on the part of the church of any complicity in the occurrences of that fateful and tragic day." Some things never change. . .

It's only too bad that Brooks never gave up her cult - how anyone could continue to support such an evil institution, especially after uncovering so much iniquity, is almost unfathomable.

THIS IS AMERICAN HISTORY IN PRINT!!! A MORMON WROTE THE BOOK, A MORMON COLLECTED INFORMATION FROM RELIABLE SOURCES, INCLUDING THE MORMON TEMPLE ARCHIVES, THE AMERICAN GOVT. ARCHIVES, DIARIES, TESTIMONIES OF TRIALS, OF THE MASSACRE, SO, WHY SHOULDN'T THE STORY BE TOLD TO AMERICAN STUDENTS AT AN EARLY AGE AS PART OF AMERICAN HISTORY? IS IT LESS OF A MASSACRE THAN THE BATTLE WITH THE INDIANS IN WYOMING? OUR SHAME OF AMERICAN SLAVERY IS TAUGHT AND THE UTAH WAR WITH BRIGHAM YOUNG'S THEOCRACY IN UTAH SHOULD BE TAUGHT. THIS BOOK IS A GOOD INTRODUCTION TO THE MORMONISM OF AMERICA. WE KNOW MORMOMISM CHANGES WITH EACH NEW PROPHET, BUT, IF PROPHET SMITH'S REVELATIONS WERE TRUE, THE DOCTRINES AND COVENANTS WOULD REMAIN THE SAME AND NOT CHANGING DRAMATICALLY WITH EACH NEW PROPHET. CHRISTIANITY IS THE SAME YESTERDAY, TODAY AND FOREVER, MORMONSIM IS NOT CHRISTIANITY AND IS EVER CHANGING. GET THIS BOOK FOR REAL INSIGHT TO THIS CULT, "MORMONISM, AMERICAS ISLAM". GOOGLE, BRIGHAM YOUNG'S SERMONS EXCERPTS AND BE SHOCKED. HIS CONFLICTS WITH THE AMERICAN GOVT. SHOULD NO LONGER BE GLOSSED OVER. AT THE SAME TIME, THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE'S DECLARATION, NO LAMANITES, NO DNA FOR ISRAELITES,EVIDENCE OF STEEL SWORDS, CHARIOT WHEELS OR WARS OF THE ANCIENT TRIBES, FOUND IN AMERICA, MEANS THE BOM IS FICTION. AND, THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE IS ALSO A FALSE TRANSLATION OF THE EGYPTIAN PAPYRI. IN OTHER WORDS, EXPOSE THESE BOOKS OF FICTION AND BE DONE WITH IT, ONCE AND FOR ALL. AMAZING JUANITA BROOKS NEVER PITCHED THE BOM AFTER SHE RESEARCHED FOR THIS BOOK! THE BOOK IS SIMPLY WRITTEN AND A MUST READ!!

Before one effectively understands the motives and causes of the Mountain Meadows Massacre - henceforth MMM - one must look at the stormy civil and political conflict that the LDS church generated as it spread. From the unbridled rumors spread by neighbors against Joseph Smith in New York, to the financial fiasco in Kirtland, to the downright slaughter of men, women and children in Missouri - the most infamous being the Haun's Mill Massacre, which left about thirty men, women and children dead - at the hands of state and federal government approval, the Prophet Joseph declaring Nauvoo a theocratic Kingdom in 1844 and Brigham Young following Joseph's footsteps in the theocratic State of Deseret (Utah). Just to name a few. Now, that being said, Ms. Brooks does a fantastic job at showing the final product of these years of political and social conflict. That is, the unfortunate and tragic events that occurred on September 11, 1857. In this book, she details how this long legacy of conditioning - even the Missouri Wildcats claiming that they were ones who killed "old Joe Smith" as they passed through Mormon comminutes just days before the massacre - played a crucial role in the events of September 11, 1857, and how it has afterwards left a long and twisting historical and religious debate and controversy. And in this book Ms. Brooks identifies the cover up that the men of the militia and Brigham Young made to protect their reputation. (I will be the first to admit that Brigham Young was most likely involved in ordering the massacre, though this is still controversial and debatable.)

I would recommend this book to anyone who wants more than the sugar-coated LDS Church history and wants to find the truth. For LDS church members, I would recommend you take this with a grain of salt. Because it is not pretty. And for non-LDS readers, I would just like to remind that acts of religious fundamentalism does not prove a religion false. If that were the case, then Judaism, Christianity and Islam all would be false, because all three faiths are guilty of murdering men, women and children in the name of God. From the Israelites slaughtering the men, woman and children of Canaan, to Church Fathers and Protestant Reformers condoning the persecution and murder of Jews, Muslims, Witches, Pagans, Native Americans and other "heathens" and to modern day Fundamentalist Islam clerics crashing planes into buildings for God.

Now please do not think that I am trying to justify the MMM, I am not doing that. I am simply trying to offer a new perspective to those who wish to read up on this fascinating yet tragic event. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the real history, legacy - and infamy - of the State of Deseret and Brigham Young.

I didn't buy the instant love between the main characters Henry Ann and Tom Dolan. They had no restraint, didn' even try hard at all to do the right thing, which was to keep their hands and mouths off each other. Afterall, he was a married man with a very mentally ill wife. They really didn't care what was right, they selfishly went along with their desires. I was very disappointed in them. I did like the secondary characters, Henry Ann's half brother Johnny, Grant (the bum who turns out to be a Harvard educated lawyer), and the best friend Karen. In fact, I would much rather have read about Grant and Karen's lives and their romance.

Dorothy Garlock created a wonderful collection of characters in this novel based in the 1930s. The only bad thing about this book, was closing it and letting go of these characters. I've fallen in love with the main characters - Henry Ann Henry and Tom Dolan... but most of all, for her step-brother, Johnny. I so hope, as I believe the other readers will too, that Ms. Garlock will write a novel with Johnny as the main character someday. He's simply charming and easy to fall in love with.

The main characters provided a spectacular chemistry of emotion, while the world around them suffered with the hardships of the time. However, they were not completely unaffected, they did suffer as well, along with witnessing the suffering of those around them they cared about.

The one thing that Ms. Garlock did create was characters that were obviously bad... when sometimes actually there is a fine line between bad and good within a person. The story would have been even more emotional if those characters showed more of their good, along with some of their evil.

Overall, a very good book with wonderful characters, that you are sure to enjoy!

"With Hope" is the best book I have read in a long time. The newest best sellers have been somewhat of a disappointment to me lately with several of my favorite writers. I decided to try reading a book written a few years back and was glad I did.

I have been looking for new romance authors to explore and I came across Dorothy Garlock. What caught my attention was the fact that many of her novels are set during the 1930s. The only things that spring to mind about the 1930s to me are the Depression, the author Margaret Mitchell, pilot Amelia Earhart and gangster Al Capone. According to my findings, Garlock began her career by writing nineteenth century Westerns and later moved on to early twentieth century Americana. With Hope is part of a series centered on the Dolan siblings and I was very impressed and deeply touched with this charming love story. The year is 1932 in Oklahoma. Henry Ann Henry (yes, that's her name) lives in a farm with her father. When her wayward, ill-reputed mother who had abandoned her dies, she and her father have to look after her mother's bastard children, Johnny and Isabel. And when her father dies one week later, she has to bear full responsibility for the farm and her half-siblings. But with the help of her "Aunt" Dozie, her friend Karen, a mysterious bum named Grant, and Tom Dolan, her gorgeous, albeit married next-door-neighbor, she may be all right. But when a town bully insists on making her life hell and feelings emerge between Henry Ann and Tom, which costs her her reputation, she may need the support of her close friends even more, especially when Tom becomes a murder suspect. There are various twists throughout the novel.

This novel is such a delightful read. The small town feel of the setting with its gossipers and close friends alike is the most endearing part here. I like how Garlock creates a vivid picture of the time period and the small-town inhabitants. The issues regarding double standards against women and racial segregation are quite insightful. I also love the colorful characters. There are many characters in this novel and they are all very well developed. I loved Aunt Dozie, Johnny, Grant, Karen, Chris and Jay. I even liked Pete and the other Perrys, the ill-reputed town trash. Pete is annoying and he is such a petty, immature bully, but I liked the many depths and nuances in this character. I also liked his little brother Jude. And the protagonists are wonderful and their love story is romantic, funny and also poignant. For those of you who are turned off with the idea that the hero is married, he is an honorable, kind man who endures a life of hell with a woman who is obviously bipolar. His story is truly heartwrenching. Henry Ann is a great heroine, but a little too kindhearted and generous to be believable at times. In addition to Henry Ann and Tom, there are two more romantic subplots that I enjoyed very much. Grant and Karen and Chris and Opal will touch your hearts as well. The small bit of mystery plot toward the end is quite well done. I was surprised with the way the author wrapped that up. Eep! I am so going to read more stuff by this author and I will definitely read the other parts of this series. I especially look forward to reading Johnny's story. Based on this wonderful novel, I am sure that Dorothy Garlock will find a place on my must-read list of authors.

This was my first Garlick book, but believe me, it will not be my last. I would have to put her up there with Nora Roberts! A beautiful story in a time when it would be very difficult to find anything beautiful. Yes, the story of the wife is very sad, but I really could not find fault with the husband, Tom. Very good summer reading!

Do you like books about the Civil War, military tactics, or just the second Battle of Bull Run? Then this book is for you. This is a complete analysis of the second Battle of Bull Run. This battle has been overlooked by history and never been told so completely before this book.
The book starts out with Edward Pope filling the empty general's position for the army of North Virginia for the Union. He decides to move the army from the Potomic to confront Lee, the comander of the army of Virginia, for the South. Lee decides to send his top general, Stonewall Jackson, on a flanking manuver around the Union lines to attack the Union from the rear. When Jackson and his 25,000 men make their way around, they take supply depots and set up defensive positions at the Union rear. Lee then sent another general, Longstreet and 12,000 men to follow behind Jackson. Pope was convinced he needed to attack Jackson and sent his troops to attack. The next day Pope sends the bulk of his army to attack Jackson. Jackson held his ground and repelled Pope. The next day Longstreet met up with Jackson. They combined their forces and mounted a counterattck agianst Pope and forced his army to retreat.
If you like books that are about the Civil War, read this book. It is a comprhensive guide of the second Battle of Manassas, in depth, and included maps. It not a very easy read. The book contains 600 pages and has medium sized font. This book is what I consider to be more of a guy book because it deals with war, killing, and military tactics.
This book is a great account of a underappreciated Civil War battle. If the Union had won, the war could have been over much earlier and lives wouldn't have had to be wasted. If you are an avid Civil War buff or have just begun to have an interest in the Civil War, this book is for you.

Ben Richardson

Rarely in the past few years has a campaign study been published that has been as good as John Hennessy's "Return to Bull Run: The Campaign and Battle of Second Manassas." Expertly researched and well written the author knows his subject, and draws the reader in with the first page. This was one of the most interesting campaigns in the eastern theater. High drama prevailed from the very start. Jackson's performance is well documented and Hennessy does a very good job of describing his effort and those of his men as they marched around Pope's flank. Freeman's Ford, the attack on Mannassas Junction, Brawner's Farm, the railroad cut, the annihilation of the 5th New York, it's all here and extemely well done. A very fine book in every way.

I was impressed by this book's flowing description. One time I sat down to read a bit, and next thing I knew, three hours had passed!
I would highly reccomend this to anyone interested in the Second Manassas campaign.
On a downside, the maps, though common, are hard to read in places, and it is hard to tell the woods from the open land....

This is the quality of book that will make anyone wishing to write a book on this campaign/battle drop the idea.
Hennessy has blended the facts, personal accounts, maps, and analysis splendidly....one is never over served in any area.
Being detailed work, regimental positioning (something I enjoy)is here for the taking. The maps are of a quality that in conjunction with the regimental movement information, this book could serve as a guide for a battlefield visit. Having read this book after reading Kricks "Stonewall Jackson at Cedar Mountain", I am thankful that we can draw on the workmanship of such fine students of the WBTS.
This battle sets up the Antietam Campaign and this book should be read previous to that study. The North doesnt want to talk much about this battle, understandably, and perhaps this is why it hasnt received much attention. Lee makes his largest charge of the war (Longstreet on 8/30/62) which reveals the magnitude of this battle.

At first glance, John Hennessy provides an excellent account of the Second Bull Run campaign. He draws on copious primary and secondary sources and crafts a very readable narrative, often clarifying what can be a very confusing campaign to follow. While not absolving the Lincoln administration, Henry Halleck and George McClellan for the Union fiasco, Hennessy believes the chief responsibility for the failed campaign rests on John Pope.

But there is one huge problem here. Hennessy ignores almost everything John Pope wrote about the campaign. This is very odd. Hennessy looked at an impressive number of primary sources. He looked at a number of articles from the "National Tribune." Oddly enough he never looked at any of Pope's articles from the Tribune. While Pope often refered to the OR, he did offer some insight on his motives and decisions. This undermines a great deal of Hennessy's book. For example, Pope wrote a great deal about Banks attacking Jackson at Cedar Mountain and what the exact orders were. Hennessy blithely ignores this and much other material.

Since Hennessy goes out of his way to trash Pope, this is a major factor in evaluating the book. Pope may well have been a scoundrel full of bravado. He may well have been an incompetent commander. But Pope, like all other commanders, deserves to have his say. The fact that Hennessy feels compelled to ignore Pope's records is disturbing to say the least.
Can you write an account of the Overland campaign without consulting the assorted writings and musings of Grant or Lee? Of course not and the fact that Hennessy chose to ignore the writings of the chief Union commander of the Second Manassas campaign is appalling and frankly undermines the credability of the book.

After reading the Blanche Barrow book, the James R. Knight and the E.R. Milner book I have to admit I was a little disapponinted in this one. I found it to be very self-serving. After all, these people were common criminals who chose to make a life of robbery and violence. Mr. Fults wanted to project the idea that it was solely the corruption of the Texas penal sytem that was most to blame for the lives of the badmen of the era. Also, he constantly surrounded himself with vicious violent men; yet he wants us to beleive that even though he was willing to kill and came close several times, he was basically innocent and an honorable man.
One last point that confused me. In all the other books, Ray Hamilton was portrayed as afraid of, and loathed by, Joe Palmer. In this books, supposedly they are best of pals and are comforted in the fact that they are executed at the same time. There just seems to be more than a few inconsistancies in thsi book.

A must read for anyone interested in Bonnie and Clyde, Ray Hamilton, Joe Palmer or about American crime in the 1930's. A well written review of an amazing life, offering a new angle on the story of the infamous Barrow Gang and the long term results of the 1934 Eastham Camp 1 breakout. A great book that takes you on a journey that you can see being played out before you. Buy it, you won't regret it!

A very thorough book on Bonnie and Clyde. More in-depth than others I've read.

Mr. Phillips is currently considered the foremost authority on Bonnie and Clyde, and for good reason. He is also the editor of Blanche Barrow's recently published memoirs (GREAT). I enjoyed the detail included in this book. His premise is that Clyde was driven in his life of crime by his desire to raid Eastham Prison - one of the worst prisons in Texas. As an historian myself and huge Bonnie and Clyde fan, I would have to say that the raid on Eastham was certainly a part of Clyde Barrow's larger plan (if indeed he had one), but not the sole driving factor. I also appreciate the fact that Mr. Phillips was able to interview Ralph Fults face-to-face, but Mr. Fults seemed to be a bit-part player in the story of Bonnie and Clyde. All in all this book was worth the read - the research is incredible and many former publications' myths and mistakes are straightened out.

I know this for a fact by the author. My dad, Ralph Fults is who the book is about. John Neal Phillips did not just take my dad's word on the events in the book, he interviewed many people to back up the details of each story. If you want to encourage a young person, who thinks they cannot turn their life around, please give this book to them. It will be a great encouragement to them. If my dad can turn his life around, anyone can.

Set in Quiver, Oklahoma in 1961, a 13-year old girl named Frannie becomes friends with an African-American girl Celeste. Celeste is the first and only African-American student to attend Quiver Junior High School. Initially, Frannie grapples with having a friendship with Celeste or maintaining the acceptance of her peers. This friendship blossoms after the two are selected to be a part of an all-girl vocal ensemble. Through this friendship, Frannie learns a lot about prejudice, segregation, and injustice. Through Celeste's fathers' research of his genealogy, the girls realize that the town of Quiver holds a lot of secrets including include a history of Klan activity. The two girls find a secret "starplace" where thy meet and share their deepest inner most thoughts. This book falls into the genre of historical fiction. The accounts in the story are historically accurate, but unfortunately some of the actions of the characters are far too unrealistic for the time period for which the book is written. Most of the students are far too welcoming of Celeste. Also, Celeste's characterization is far too idealized, portraying her as having all positive traits. The feeling of the early 1960s is strong in spite of a few phrases and slang terms that sound more modern. This book is for middle and junior high students, but I would only use this book after careful consideration. In addition, the students would need background knowledge of Klan activity and the horrid acts committed by its members. This aspect is only slightly touched upon in the novel.

This book is about two girl's, Nancy And Celeste that become friend's one white and one black, the town doesn't really appreciate having black people in their town especially becoming friend's with what they call negro's!!! They have a history of racisim but they naver could get through it! So will Nancy stay with her naew best friend or will she dump her for town's reputation. I really recommened this book for all teenager's to read about racisim and how it could ruein A best friend's relationship!!!

A black girl moves to a "white town," and isn't treated the best by her peers. However, a girl named Frannie befriends her, and so does a small group of girls. She came with her father, to find out about their family history, and they discovered some interesting things about their ansestors. The klu klux klan had been terrorizing her family for a long time, but she responded better than most people would, she didn't try to get revenge or anything. After a while, Frannie and her friends didn't care about what other people thought about them hanging out with Celeste, and they stuck up for her, even when she would't stick up for herself. This is a very good book that makes what happend in the past, directly after segragation was outlawed, very interesting and you can really relate to this book, and understand everything.

One of the star sisters

When school starts at Quiver Junior High Celeste is the new student and the first ever black student. When Frannie meets Celeste she likes her and wants to be her friend but wonders what others will say. Frannie has also had been planning a luau. With Celeste in her choir class they try out for the soloist group to see if they can beat the popular girls. Read the book to figure out if Celeste makes friends, if the luau goes according to plan, and if Celeste and Frannie make the cut.

The Starplace was a very great book. It was about a girl named Frannie who lives in a town called Quiver. The setting is back in the 1960s when there was a lot of racism. In the town of Quiver, there aren't many blacks in this town, there is a haunted house were an old man use to live. Everyone thinks that the house is haunted. One ordinary day Frannie was going to her moms work and sees a black man going out from her office. Frannie finds out that he has bought the old haunted house. The man has a daughter named Celeste. When summer break ends and Frannie and her friends go back to school, she sees Celeste at school. No one talks to her because of the color of her skin. When people pass by her in the hallway they stay at least five feet away. Celeste happens to be the first colored girl to go to the Quiver school. Frannie starts talking to her and they become the best of friends. Many other people that Frannie hangs out with talk to Celeste, too. They stick up for her and hang out with her. Celeste is a very good singer. She takes choir class with Frannie. They try out for a group for singers and they both make it. They sing all around the town of Quiver. Then when they have reauditions Celeste does not make the team because the color of her skin. This makes Frannie very upset. Frannie one day sees Celeste and her father in her backyard looking at the field behind her house. Frannie is very curious. Frannie sees them picking up something that looks like a burnt finger. Celeste tells her everything about her great grandfather that had to do with that field and a cave in the woods. Celeste and her dad moved to Quiver because her dad wanted to write a book about the cave and the field. There are many mysteries that have to do with the field and the cave. The book that her dad writes has to do with her great granfather and his time in Quiver. It has to do with the poeple hanging the colored people in their town. In addition, the cave has to do with where a colored guy was dragged after he was beaten and cut many times. Celeste was very sad and emotional over this. When her and Frannie were in the cave they found mangles that happened to be from the colored guy that was beaten. At the end, Celeste gives her the burnt finger which is actually a harmonica that was her great grandfathers. The book is called Starplace because Celeste and Frannie have a place where they like to hang out and they like to sing with each other. They call it their Starplace. They call each other star sisters. The main conflict in this book is just because Celeste is colored people do not talk to her and try to avoid her. Frannie makes a difference by talking to her and had people starting to talk to her. This book has a lot to do about racism. Frannie trys to create a difference by having a colored friend and showing that they are not different then regular white people. This book is good to read if you like books about true friendships. If you like a little mystery there is some in here for you to read. Girls and Boys should read this it could teach you a thing or two about friendships and how important they are.

Dorothy Garlock's books (except for the earliest romance novels) are so rich and moving that I have trouble putting them down. I savor her books and am looking forward to reading all of them, but don't want to be thru with them!

Kathleen Dolan has bought half of a newspaper in Rawlings, Oklahoma--a small town with big secrets. As she tries to uncover just what's going on, she finds herself thrown together with Johnny Henry. He's a complex man. A man who doesn't want the complications of falling in love. But sometimes loves happens whether we want it to or not.

With Heart is the story of two strong people who unite for a cause, and stay united for love.

I really wanted to like Dorothy Garlock's WITH HEART more, and it's probably one of my better and readable 1-star romances. I liked both our lead characters here, I thought the hero was slightly different from the historical-romance archetype, and I enjoyed their sparse moments of romance together. Not to mention the late 1930s Oklahoma backdrop constituted a new setting for me. Unfortunately, the bungling plot and pace of this 433-page paperback disappointed big time. The characters and passion in most romances usually supersedes any plot or more often, the romantic tension *is* the plot. Here, Garlock attempts to balance the plot having to do with surreptitious dealings in Rawlings, Oklahoma, with Kathleen & Johnny's burgeoning love. But since the passion and love was rather on the light side, the blundering plot really exacerbated the entire reading experience in this romance novel.

Heroes and heroines from past novels crowding the plotting never sits well with me, and there's just too much of Keith McCabe in this novel, a hero from one of Garlock's prior novels, I presume. It seemed like this novel's hero Johnny Henry constantly deferred to Keith McCabe for help and building Johnny's characterization. For instance, light-hearted banter between Keith, his wife and Johnny molded Johnny's characterization from our heroine Kathleen's eyes during a dinner after the rodeo. Barker Fleming attempts to bond with his long-lost son Johnny after the rodeo as well while helping Keith ride his flock back to his ranch. Johnny mentions connections through Keith McCabe which could succor a dangerous situation our protagonists create from uncovering the surreptitious conspiracy in Rawlings, OK. And Johnny turns to Keith McCabe when he wishes to entrap a murderer as well. Too much Keith McCabe, enough already!

I thought an episodic bookkeeping characterizes much of the plotting. There were too many times in the novel where Garlock painstakingly notes to include all the characters in the room before allowing someone to divulge pertinent information. For example, Kathleen makes Barker Fleming wait until Paul and Adelaide are in the room together before allowing him to share what happened at the clinic with Doc Herman. In a gossiping way, Kathleen asks Johnny whether he heard about the young girl in town (Judy) looking for her real parents. It all amounts to amateurish bookkeeping if you ask me. Worse, for over 3 pages, we're treated to a confrontation between a local merchant Leroy and our newspaper owners Kathleen and Adelaide when Leroy threatens to withdraw all local advertising. Kathleen fumes at Leroy for being spineless, and the entire altercation seemed pointless since we knew Doc Herman was pulling the strings and naive of Kathleen to prolong and provoke an altercation with an intimidated hireling. I think that dumb and pointless argument accelerated the book's decline while the melodramatic ending hammered the final nail in this book's coffin. Finally, it's funny and I'm probably bad for saying it, but I really didn't find our villain Doc Herman's clandestine activity all that condemning. I'm skeptical a profitable market would exist for his service: a pseudo adoption agency, providing homes for unwanted children of unwed mothers. Are there really that many affluent couples not able to have children of their own?

WITH HEART mostly belongs to Kathleen although I thought our hero Johnny managed to make an impact as well. The passion is PG-13 though their connection wasn't any less resounding for it; in fact, I find more explicitly sensual romance novels involving a notorious libertine scientifically igniting a virgin's passion empty by comparison.

I have read several of Garlock's books and have enjoyed all of them. The characters are so believable. Their personalities, characteristics and mannerisms are so well described. It was a love story but was also a mystery. There are a few surprises that will catch the reader completely off guard. I loved it.

I fell in love with Johnny Henry in "With Hope" and "With Song", and am thrilled to find him the main hero in this story, and "After The Parade", the next book in this series. Ms. Garlock did not disappoint me! This is the best romance story I ever read! Why this series hasn't been grabbed for a mini series is beyond me... it has all the best qualities!!!!

The romance is so powerful and strong, I couldn't put the book down. I read this one in two days, and was left breathless for more! Luckily, "After The Parade" was waiting for me! You won't be disappointed. If you read any of Ms. Garlock's books, read this one!!! You do not have to read the series in order, there is enough information cleverly included so that you don't miss a beat!

This book is essential reading for every undergrad. Empiricism should be taken to heart by anyone engaged in social or natural sciences. Shamefully, it tends to be forgotten in both, in favor of a pseudo-science of studying "concepts" or "models" instead of facts.

Social sciences are behavioral. They study human behavior, and therefore are purely empirical. Natural sciences are observational and experimental, and therefore also empirical. Yet, even some geologists (in my experience) tend to forget to examine the world as it is and instead fall back lazily on a fake intellectualism of model-driven thinking.

Completed some time after he had immigrated to New Zealand upon fleeing Nazi Germany, this, one of Popper's most important and well-known works, is where he first introduces his solution to the problem of induction. According to Popper, scientific theories can never be proven; they can only be tested and confirmed or "falsified." In short, theories are mere hunches: more or less guided speculation, that must undergo continuous and rigorous testing and are subject to being overthrown at any time, including even after they have been rigorously tested. Popper's main point is that theories, are never completely proven, whether tested or not, they must remain available to falsification.

The Logic of Scientific Discovery was thus aimed primarily at pseudo-science and the pseudo-scientist (or at least at what Popper saw as the dangers of pseudo-science). Eventually the attack developed here became a full-scale broadside against the technique and process of inductive reasoning and of all scientific progress and theorizing that had been advanced on the basis of such reasoning.

Popper contends here (as does Hume and his other fellow Logical Positivists) that induction -- and presumably this includes mathematical induction, which many believe to be on a somewhat sounder footing than ordinary inductive reasoning -- was not logical. Among those that Popper considered a practicing pseudo-scientist, was none other than the great Sigmund Freud and his psychoanalytic theories of consciousness, which Popper considered to be dangerous pseudo-science.

Before this book was written, the best defense against the logical hole in induction was that put forth by the other Logical Positivists. They had rested their hat on a technique they coined as the "Principle of Verification," which was designed consciously as a temporary stopgap to close the logical hole that they all knew existed in inductive reasoning. Here Popper analyzes this principle and concludes that even though it is indeed a sounder form of induction, it remains induction no less: that is, it too is not logical. The "Principle of Verification" which required that theories be capable of passing rigorously designed scientific tests in Popper's eyes was just a halfway house between "pure induction" and Popper's more stringent criterion introduced for the first time in this book called the "Principle of "Falsification." Falsification turned the "Principle of Verification" on its head, by requiring that every proposition be falsifiable, and thus logical through the backdoor of being forever open to testing.

For the better part of four decades, Popper's principle of falsification reigned supreme in science, but now cracks have begun to develop, and many scientists, including some of his fellow logical positivists are beginning to give inductive reasoning and the Principle of Verification a second look. Despite these emerging reconsiderations of Popper's work, this book (which is dense and heavy going, and difficult to read in most of the middle parts), and his principle of falsification, Popper has nevertheless assured himself a well-deserved place in the annals of the history of the philosophy of science.

Five Stars

Not exactly light reading, but a great reference work, and a clear expostion of Popper's Falsificationism. This methodology is widely regarded as the leading tool for demarcating between science and non-science or pseudo-science.

The Logic of Scientific Discovery is in my view Karl Popper's finest work. When I studied science I was amazed at the insight Popper had into the scientific method of inquiry, and I admired his refusal to accept intellectual garbage.

While Popper has come under strong attack from both scientists and philosophers for several shortcomings in his work, in my view Popper has framed one of the most important studies of scientific knowledge and how it is gained, and the difference between science and non-science.

I agree with Popper's argument that the key feature of scientific theories is that they are 'falsifiable.' By this Popper simply meant that a scientific theory, even if beautiful, can be shown wrong by empirical observation. While this account is no doubt oversimplified and leaves out the key social and historical dimensions to science (which thinkers such as Kuhn addressed later on), this principle remains central to science; as Feynman said, 'If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.' The fallibility of science in Popper's view was the key to its strength, in contrast to pseudo-sciences such as Marxism and Freudian psychology, which while containing elements of truth, set themselves up as infallible truths and glossed over things which contradicted the belief system.

Popper also wrote many other philosophical works, including an important study of the difference between democratic political societies and ones ruled by totalitarian ideaology. However, he rightly deserves fame as one of the most important 20th century philosophers of science.

I have to ask myself, "What is the basis for my scientific knowledge?" On a daily basis, as I am a chemist. I have often been struck by arguments for "induction" as lacking credibility, because how can one argue of probabilities with an unknown sample size? Popper argues that a proposing scientific hypothesis is an inductive act, but it is a creative act not a logical one, but that scientific knowledge is dedective.

I agree with him. The nature of science is such that one must put for statements about how the world works and test them. A scientist should always try to find a way of proving himself or herself wrong. If the predictions of the test are shown to be false, then the hypothesis must be false. That is the basis of scientific knowledge. The rest, the best theories we have are just "working models" and we can never justify why they work. They're simply our best working models now.


I don't find Popper's argument disheartening. Popper points out that we don't have to justify our search for explanations of the world, because they may do us benefit (if we happened to live in a world with stable physical laws, for instance).

I think many scientists would fundamentally agree that the laws of nature can never really be proven. They can't, but they speak volumes about what is relevant to us as a species (which is why Popper's argument that "induction" is creative is so interesting). All Popper asks of a scientific hypothesis is that it can, in principle, be demonstrated false by experience.

This is by far one of the most interesting and (I feel) important books I've ever read.

One of my all time favorite books.
If you like westerns and outdoor adventure books, you must read Mountain Man. The story and the story telling are riveting.
I have owned a copy of this book since 1972! All of my friends were compelled to read it(by me) and all enjoyed the book.The book stuck a lasting chord for us.
I could call an old friend up today and say "watch your topknot" and he would reply "watch yourn". Back then we all wanted to be mountain men.

If you happen to be a fan of Bob Redfords 'Jeremiah Johnson'or a lesser known work by Richard Harris called 'A Man in the Wilderness', or of just a good tale of the early, open west then this book by Vardis Fisher is one you must read at least once.This is one of an extremely small number of books that truly transported me into another place and time and made me wish I was right there along side them.Beautifully written it is the story of one, Sam Minnard.An educated man who gave it all up to live little better than a civilized savage on the open ranges and endless plains of the northern midwest territories.It encompasses and incorporates music,art,flora and fauna,survivalist skills and the truly hard but satisfying life these men had.These men did exist and they helped to tame and open the west to others who would follow much to their disgust and saddness of just what that meant to their way of life.Loners who belonged to a very select club mostly knew each other and would come together to aid Sam in one final showdown against the Indian nation.The book focuses on his life but opens up his inner self and emotional makeup and does maintain a rather negative viewpoint toward the redman which was widely held by many mountain men at that time.The encroaching westward movement of civilization and the day to day hardships and joys of living free are examined with subtle yet powerful story telling.The need and enjoyment of no taxes,free food provided by the land itself, no bills,mortgages,laws,police or government control were gladly accepted by these men who lived off the land and knew how to survive in a sometimes hostile but glorious landscape that was the untouched west.The American Indian was there first, lest we forget, and we were trespassing but the number of men were so small that their presence was barely felt. That is until the rest of us came along and mucked up the works for everybody.Sam's happiness is abruptly and violently ended setting him on the path of vengence both sealing his fate and securing his legend.This book is remarkable and will not let you down.If you tire of the crap written today and long for something you can sink your teeth into,something that will stay in your head for a while with its crystal clear clarity and descriptive beauty, then read it.True, it is only a work of fiction but it is based on the lives of real men and women for that matter in real situations during the early to mid 19th century American west.For mountain men, life was probably very much like this, it had to be and Fisher nailed it right on the head.That alone will allow you to safely observe a life story of survival without the benefit of civilization all around you.A situation that could be upon us again if our world turns upside down.Would any one of us today live as good as Sam Minnard did with just a gun, a knife and a horse,I truly doubt it.There is something to be learned from this book. Read and learn.

I really liked Vardis Fisher's colorful writing style....He paints a picture of the world the Mountain Men lived in so well....This book has A LOT of info on what Mountain Men ate...Vardis pretty much describes every meal the guy ate....This book does have a lot of violence and it is kinda sad at some parts..But then again the life of a Mountain Man was no cake walk...There is some good Bowie knife and tomahawk action too!!!....This is a fiction book but it has alot of REAL Mountain Men "characters"..Jim Bridger..."Old" Bill Williams....Kit Carson..They are all there....The story is pretty good too...A story of love and vengeance would be the best way to describe it....Now I see why so many people regard this as a CLASSIC in Mountain Mnn literature...I fully agree..This is a classic book.

MOUNTAIN MAN continues to be a classic in American Western literature. The major foundation for the movie, Jeremiah Johnson, MOUNTAIN MAN tells the story of Samuel John Minard, a mountain man known for his physical prowess and for his quick and educated intellect. A renaissance man who has chosen the life of the great American West.

In his adventures Sam meets up with Indians of various tribes, other mountain men and a crazy pilgrim woman. HIs marriage to an Indian maiden leads him into a one-man war with sweeping consequences for himself and for his enemies.

MOUNTAIN MAN, as is the case with most books upon which movies are based, considerably outshines JEREMIAH JOHNSON in its story and characterizations. But, hey, I love the movie as well. I guess that says a lot about what I think of the book.

THE HORSEMAN

I didn't read this book until after I had seen 'Jeremiah Johnson', and was pleased that the movie and book were so different. I enjoyed the movie very much, but with Fisher's story I felt as though I had put on my huntin' clothes, laced up my boots, grabbed my Hawken Rifle, and joined in on the adventure. Coming from a family of outdoorsmen, some of us certainly fantasized about leaving it all behind from time to time, and making our way in the remote wilderness. In fact my two brothers moved to the Pacific Northwest after college and still spend much of their free time wandering the Cascades. Anyone who loves the wild west will find this one to be a real gem, and simply by reading it, will be richly rewarded. It is a diamond in the rough, but not one to be missed, and has inspired much of my own writing. This one comes highly recommended.

James Hart Isley
Author of The Bear Hunter

I really enjoyed reading this book. However, you must keep in mind that it was told by one of the participants and that self image and self preservation were apparent in telling her side of the story. I would advise doing what I did. I read the Knight book, "Bonnie & Clyde, a Twenty-First Century Update" and the John Neal Phillips book "Running with Bonnie and Clyde" at the same time as this one. I think by combining and sifting through the information in all three, you can come away with a pretty clear picture of these peoples lives.

I often wondered what had become of Blanch Barrow as the movie did not tell us much of anything. At the end of the book I found myself with tears in my eyes. I am not saying she was totally innocent in everything that transpired, but she paid dearly for the mistake of loving her husband and I being a woman can synpathize with her greatly. I can just picture her sitting in a chair, an old woman, forgotten, left with nothing but her cats and memories of days gone by...nothing is sadder than what might have been. What really made me realize how human these characters were was when Blanche tells us about bringing her dog Snowball on the run when she and Buck took off with Bonnie and Clyde and then loosing her dog during the shootout in Platte City, as the dog was spooked by the gun battle, he ran out of the house and this was the last she ever saw of her beloved pet. These were very much people like us that I firmly believe were victims of the times they lived and the desolation that surrounded them. I often wonder what would have became of those four people if they would have grown up in New England perhaps or New York where even though the depression was going on, there were more opportunities for work or perhaps they were born at the wrong time in history. Maybe if Bonnie and Clyde would have been born and came of age in the 80's or 90's, they would have been different people....but we will never know. This book is a must read for anyone, not just fans of Bonnie and Clyde, but its just a damned good book to read.

This is about the best book I've read on Bonnie and Clyde so far. Although as Mr. Phillips states it is slanted in the favor of Blanche, it still is very well written and I think more historically correct than other books I have read on this subject. It was interesting to read how these people really lived on the run and how human they were. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in Bonnie and Clyde.

For anyone looking for new surprises and a new angle on the story of Bonnie and Clyde, this book is a must. Blanche Barrow bears the facts of her life with the Barrow Gang right down to the bone. You can almost smell, see and hear this story as it plays out before your eyes.
It was also great to see what happened to those who survived past 1934, following Blanche through her prison sentence and into her later years, with Billie Moon (Bonnie Parker's sister)beside her. A must for all Bonnie and Clyde researchers.

Blanche Barrow gives a first hand account of life on the run. As she says it was pure hell which ended with the death of her huband; prison for her and a loss of an eye. It was very intresting.