Presidents' Day Books

It's been several years since I read this, but I remember being awed by it. Brigham Young has such a way of preaching the Gospel that it appears ever practical. At the same time, he elevates the mind to contemplate grand, eon-encompassing principles. I would rate this the best in the series.

This book contains sections of talks and discourses arranged by subject, so that you can look up the subject and find out what he said about it.

This book has some of the best advice I've ever had. It has changed my life for the better.

--George Stancliffe

If you are looking for an in-depth history of the life of Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the LDS Church, then this book is a good choice. It covers his life from birth until death. What's more; the book is also very entertaining....some of the material is comical! Besides being a biography, the book also contains some discussion as to the sources, accuracy and divine origin of the Book of Mormon. ( The copy I read is from the Branigan Library in Las Cruces, NM - I provide this info since it appears to be hard to find.)

The first 100 days of FDR's first administration are the focal point of this recently published work. Alter uses several chapters to re-introduce us to FDR the man, and also to provide background on the socio-economic situation in America at the time. Some of the more powerful insights show how Roosevelt's struggle with polio changed him from the sneering, privileged, upper class twit of his youth to the "man of the people" that he was to become. Especially interesting is the study of the 1932 Presidential Campaign and the compromises and sacrifices that had to be made just for the privilege of leading America through some of its darkest hours. After this drama, the actual 100 days seem almost anti-climatic. The ultimate picture we're left with is that of a pragmatist, a man who was willing to admit that he didn't have the answers and so was willing to try anything that might help. Alter admits that many of FDR's programs were failures, but is quick to point out how much Americans were heartened just by the fact that the government was actually doing something. Conversely Hoover's inaction, even when it was theoretically the wisest course, left Americans feeling abandoned when they were in need.

Although not notoriously a great student of history, this reviewer enjoyed this book and its depiction of a period eerily similar to our own. It is also a fascinating study of FDR himself, a man whose story often gets overshadowed by the momentous events that he guided America through. WWII buffs please note: Alter leaves off after the first 100 days of FDR's first term, so don't expect an analysis of his entire presidency. Still an engrossing read.

Great introduction to FDR's efforts at responding to the Great Depression upon his entrance into the presidency. Sometimes a bit too much psychoanalyzing, but there should be no doubt that FDR was the great president of the 20th century, not necessarily for finding a domestic economic cure for the Great Depression, but for helping millions of suffering people and giving them hope. His leadership of WWII would take care of the rest, but that's for another book. Great description of FDR's pre-presidential career and his political talents, and Alter gives appropriate credit to Louis Howe for much of FDR's success.

This is a very well done, tightly focused biographical portrait of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the early days of his Presidency. Alter, a television political commentator, begins with the idea that Roosevelt found himself as a leader in the fight to overcome the problems of the Depression.

It is a fair, balanced book, although I suspect close readers will pick up on the fact that Alter has far more respect for FDR than he does for President Bush. (And acutely close readers will realize he admires Reagan more than Bush.)

Alter does make numerous comparisons to contemporary politics, and I think on balance these are often unnecessary distractions. I sometimes felt like I had an overbearing teacher explaining the meaning of the book to me. I did not feel while reading this that I was inhabiting the times, which was a feeling I had with No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II.

The book is especially strong in its treatment of Roosevelt's speaking style and the confidence he instilled in the the nation at a very dangerous time in our history.

This book was apparently written with the goal of showing how Roosevelt attained success in his first 100 days, but it often comes off sounding more negative than positive. I grew up imagining Roosevelt was a genius and close to perfect president. The impression I got from this book was that his sense of hope, showmanship and tireless dedication to always try something trumped an average grasp of the subject, and some odd personality and character traits. Much of this book actually seems to suggest between the lines that Herbert Hoover was more competent with the issues, and should almost be given some credit for the initial New Deal successes. I would say that there are numerous places in the book where history is being interpreted through today's lens. There are footnotes that make comparisons to more contemporary presidents and events, and it's obvious the writer has the current climate of opinion in mind when writing. Overall, I found the book fascinating. I discovered many things I did not previously know. For example, the country was almost hoping for a dictator in 1932. Both parties favored balanced budgets and tax increases during the early part of the depression. Roosevelt perhaps delayed recovery by some of his actions. Hope and inspiration were almost as important as the actual policies, and the low point of the depression came the night before Roosevelt's inauguration. I would recommend this book to anyone who would like to make comparisons between the Depression and what the various players did with current times, and what we should consider doing.

This is a worthy read if you don't swallow it in the "whole cloth." Alter tells the history of the time within his own parameters and with his own prejudices, as any of us would do if writing this history. What we learn from this is that FDR was no social genius with all the plans worked out ahead of time. Instead he was a willing experimenter. He was willing to try something and if it didn't work he would move on to something else until he found what did work. But you have to read between the lines here and realize that FDR was willing to go to unconstitutional lengths to accomplish his agenda. Many of his programs were determined to be unconstitutional. So his strategy was to try to pack the Supreme Court with more judges so that his programs would be approved. He was also willing to built government bigger and bigger by creating new bureaucracies and new programs from which we have never recovered. All in all, I recommend this book as long as you view it from the prospective in which it was written and don't allow yourselves to be overwhelmed by the idea that Roosevelt was the knight on shining armor who saved civilization.

First off this is an excellent profile of the hectic RFK campaign in 1968. It does a wonderful job of expressing the frenetic pace of the campaign and how it inspired hope in so many people. The book does a wonderful job at trying to inspire in the reader the sense of optimism that RFK's campaign inspired in so many groups.

The one great weakness of the book is that it often descends into raising Kennedy to almost a sainthood. It is very obvious that the author admires RFK and thinks he would have made a great president. That maybe but it does cloud the author's work and makes this almost as much of a sports like bio then a work like history.

I'm not American, nor was I alive when RFK was murdured, but this book made me travel along with all the Kennedy entourage during those 82 days of campaign (the part that described the death, and aftermath, of Martin Luther King made me feel all the emotion people must have felt), and more that that, gave me the precise picture of what RFK wanted to America, in one word, his philosophy. Even if you have already read more about RFK will not be disapointed.

This is one of the best books I have read in a long time! It is very personal and inspiring. It is like being on the campaign trial with Robert Kennedy. I would strongly reccomend this book to anyone interested in american politcs.

One of the best campaign books I have ever read. As he did in "Ask Not," Thurston Clark brings out the back-story of a great moment in history. In this case, RFK's decision to run for president, despite his many misgivings about doing so. It chronicles his determination to run the way he wanted to - not the ways the polls and pols told him to run. Ultimately, though, "The Last Campaign" shows us what a real leader looks like and ought to behave. With his characteristic bluntness, RFK didn't shirk from reminding people that in a democracy, everyone is responsible for the country's actions. One cannot blame Washington for their problems without holding themselves just as accountable. Sadly, as Clark cites in the book, no politician from any party could get away with such an attitude today.

A great book about a great man.

If I were rating Bobby, there aren't enough stars in the heavens to measure how I feel about him. I was 17 when he died, and I don't think I have taken politics seriously since. Even the left of center Democrats I usually agree with on policy seem pale, scheming elitists compared to Bobby. So do the other Kennedys actually.

Someone, I think Jack Newfield, has argued that Bobby Kennedy's murder was the most tragic event of the 1960s. That if you could go back in time and stop only one of the three murders that defined the decade, it would be Bobby, because he is the one who was still growing, whose work was not nearly complete already. He seems to be the one, who, had he lived, would have really been an agent for change.

The book however, is slight, more a compilation of admiring stories than anything else. Granted the book is a look at a very brief part of Bobby's life and not a full scale biography, but the author Thurston Clark does not go into much about Kennedy's past, and what set him on that road to the Ambassador Hotel.

He also assumes thoughout that had Kennedy lived he would have been elected president. I doubt it, the old machine politics still ruled. The question it seems to me, is how much more vigorous the anti-movement would have been with Bobby as part of it, possibly forcing Humphrey or Nixon to end the Vietnam war quicker, to even to act more aggressively against poverty and hunger in America.

First of all, let's get it out of the way. I really love the Kennedys. I enjoy most of the books about them and always learn something of each (yes, even the crazy conspiracy books). This book was a little different. I learned a lot. I enjoyed how it was put together. It starts with the 1950's and then takes 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and then Bobby Alone as separate topics. It has stories from their growing years in each as if looking back to show why they were doing what they were doing at that time in their life. I really got in the Bobby Alone section from 1964 to 1968. It showed how Bobby totally changed his views and what he went through in order to come to the conclusion that he needed to run for President. Mr. Mahoney does drag out the New Orleans, Cuban, and Mafia stuff but it's ok. Most nowadays do. I would highly recommend this book to anyone looking for a well rounded book on the Kennedy boys.

ive read other books on JFK and none of the other books can quite compair to the realism in this book. the things i didnt understand in the first few books where explained more in depth than before and i came to realize that half of the things that kennedy was blammed for after his death were not acctually his fault. for example, vietnam.

this is not a biography,it's a fiction and it's stupid, boring.
the author was surely drunk when he wrote it.
this book is a shame to the legacy of the kennedys.
there are a few photos.
buy abetter book like: rfk and his times....

Richard Mahoney is to be commended for putting together a highly readable and cogent account of the life and times of JFK and RFK, as well as their dealings with the Mafia (that led to the death of JFK). Well done.
[...]

I was raised in a conservative household and consider myself conservative in many ways (though I'm a registered independent). That said, I am 29 years old and both these men were dead before I was even born. However I have had a fascination with JFK & RFK since I first started studying history and the impact that the changes in the 1960's would have on future America. The picture on the cover is very telling about how different these brothers were -- black and white. What this book is really about is how co-dependent these two men were, with Jack more so upon Bobby. Many disturbing facts have come out about the Kennedy brothers in the last twenty years. Much of it does bother me as a moral and religious person. But that doesn't erase the fact that Jack and Bobby were very intelligent and gifted men and when it is all said and done, their idealism and determination positively impacted our nation's history.

This is an entertaining read, but do not take it as history. Not that I'm saying that Bishop's facts are in error - I imply nothing of the kind one way or the other - but the absence of sources puts this work outside the historical realm. When Bishop put quotes around sentences in a conversation, how do we know where he got them? Are they accurate, or is the author creating them? Any book claiming to be historical that fails to source its data is worthless. However, TDLWS is so well written that I advise you to read for enjoyment if nothing else, but never cite it as a data source on a paper or in your book.

This is a very entertaining book. Bishop draws the reader into this familiar story from the start and holds our interest. It is by no means the definitive account of what happened (for example, there are those historians who believe Mrs. Surratt was quite aware and involved with the doings of her boarding house) but it's a good read and it brings an important chapter of American history to life.

Strange that this book is still in print while Bishop's other book about the murder of a President, "The Day Kennedy Was Shot," is out of print. That book similiarly examines the day Kennedy died as this one examines the day Lincoln died, and both are stellar examples of the researcher's craft and the storyteller's art. Oddly, another book which minutely examines the day of Kennedy's murder, William Manchester's "Death Of A President," is ALSO out of print. Conspiracy? At this point, who knows? Who even cares anymore?

JFK asked Bishop to write an article about him on the basis of having read this book about Lincoln; the original article was titled "A Day In The Life of a President." Kennedy suggested Bishop expand the article into a full book, which Bishop was in the process of doing when JFK was killed, and so the book turned into a sequel of sorts to this one about Lincoln that the murdered President loved. In the words of William Shatner, "Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes."

I have no idea why the Kennedy book is no longer in print. The Lincoln book is still out there, but "The Day Kennedy Was Shot" has apparently fallen out of favor. Strange.

So why a minute-by-minute examination of a single day, even a day as momentous as this one? That's not necessarily an easy question to answer; it is a kind of subset history genre, the close examination of Kennedy's death, or Lincoln's, or Christ's, or 9/11, or D-Day, or Hiroshima, etc. On first blush it might seem of value only to the researcher writing from a larger historical perspective, but in fact a work of history with this kind of focus can be far more interesting than any other approach to the subject. In the case of JFK, for instance, the incredible tension that builds naturally from a chronicle of the day he was killed makes for a more thrilling story than a novel on the same subject could ever hope to achieve.

The book follows not only Kennedy but all the players, Jackie, Oswald, his mother & his wife, LBJ, RFK, J.D. Tippett, and so on. At times these separate strands converge, but mostly they're followed separately and Bishop does a masterful job of keeping all the threads tight. It's hard to imagine the amount of research and organization that went into telling this story so cleanly, because it is certainly one of the most confusing, contradictory days in world history, but Bishop makes it look easy. He is a brilliant storyteller, and anyone will tell you that is what a great reporter has to be. It's not just the facts, ma'am, it's the narrative drive, and this one moves like a supercharged Hummer.

So why has it fallen out of print? And why has another book on the same topic, William Manchester's "Death of a President," also fallen out of print? I'm not much on conspiracy theories; there's nothing in either book that the "military-industrial complex" would find terribly distressing. Bishop does mention several eyewitnesses who saw or heard shots coming from the famous grassy knoll---as, incidentally, do the live news accounts of November 22---but by far most of the evidence Bishop (and Manchester) collects points squarely at Lee Harvey Oswald. I think this excellent book is out of print now because people just don't care who killed Kennedy anymore, and they certainly aren't interested in a blow-by-blow account of the assassination.

To say this is "too bad" would be an understatement of biblical proportions. Every day, every hour, we are losing our sense of wonder and curiosity about our world, and we are most particularly forgetting the lessons the Sixties taught us: don't trust the official story. They may be right (in this case, I think they actually are: I believe Oswald did act alone and the "coverup" all these years has been the CIA, FBI, Dallas police dept., etc. covering up how incompetent and ineffectual they were protecting Kennedy that day), but you should ALWAYS look into the story for yourself. Books like "The Day Kennedy Was Shot" (and Oliver Stone's masterwork film "JFK") help us do that, by marshalling all the available information into a powerful narrative thrust. If we forget, or more importantly if we simply cease to care, then the ones who want us to sleep our lives away have won before we're even out of the starting gate.

Read this book, not just because it is about one of the most important days in American history, and not just because it is a remarkably well-written thriller, but also because it is important, SO important, that we never forget this man and how he died and the lessons his death taught us.

The Day Lincoln Was Shot is, in fact, about the entire day of Lincoln's death. If you decide to pick up this book make sure you set aside a lot of time and anything else you could be doing. This book is a very detailed hour by hour account of the day Lincoln was murdered. I do give the author credit for being historically accurate. Although it was accurate, this book did not have the ability to capture and hold on to my attention. The plot was pretty straight forward and I felt as though i was reading something straight out of a history book plus what's inbetween the lines. Mr.Bishop did make a good effort and put alot of time into this book judging by how detailed it is. The level of detail however, was my biggest problem with this book. I understand that Lincoln got shot and it was tragic but I don't need to know his murderer's every action throughout the day to get to where he was when he shot Lincoln.
In conclusion, reading this book was comparable only to cruel and unusual punishment and I can only hope to never read anything this horrible ever again.

All history books should be written by Jim Bishop. He is able to bring the past to life with wonderful story telling that doesn't lose any details. This book taught me more about Lincoln than I have ever gotten out of classes and lessons. I had no clue that he disliked his wife and that John W Booth had failed so many times in his attempts. The deep research involved in such a writing must make it almost impossible to create history books in its image. Yet, we could do with less encyclopedia-like accounts of our past so that we keep our heritage instead of trying to wade through it. I will make sure to add Bishop's other masterpieces to my collection as soon as possible.

This biography proves to be a very informative life account of one of the great leaders of the LDS as well as one of the prime movers of the American West. But Leonard Arrington avoids the major controversies that surrounded Brigham Young, exhorting on his virtures rather then his faults. While that does not make a bad biography, it doesn't show us the complete man. Arrington make it clear that Young was the right man for the right job at the right moment in history. Without his leadership, intelligence and gusto, the Mormon church probably won't have survived the death of Joseph Smith, its founder. Arrington revealed how talented, how skilled and how devoted Young was to his church and how he put all he had into it. But what Arrington failed to get into, was some of Young's failings which must be just as important as his accomplishments. Arrington played into the traditional Mormon defense on Mountain Meadow Massacre, doesn't question Young's devotion to plural marriages which often rallied the rest of the nation against the Mormons and Young's racist attitudes - especically toward blacks that the LDS Church didn't resolved until the 1970s. Although these are just examples, they presented long term problems that Young left behind and they should have been address by the author. But overall, its still a good biography and worth the effort in reading it and understanding the basic essence of the man.

The name Brigham Young conjures up many images of the unsettled West. He was one of the greatest religious colonizers of the nineteenth century. The reason is the overall fact that he was so successful. Much of the Eastern images dealt mainly with his polygamous relationships. This unfortunately overlooks his major contributions as founder of over 300 settlements in the West's Great Basin. He gathered the beleaguered Mormons, from Missouri, Illinois and the World, home to the Rocky Mountains. Leonard Arrington, late LDS Church Historian, has compiled a fairly objective account of his life. From Brigham's early conversion to Mormonism through the migration to the Salt Lake Valley to his settling the Utah range, here is a history of a very interesting man. As LDS President, Prophet , Territory Governor and Indian Agent, Brigham displayed a very practical and pragmatic philosophy. Arrington show us a man that truly was faithful to Joseph Smith. Not only did he preach and read scripture but he practiced what he preached. This was no better emphasized than on Sunday October 5, 1856 when he stood and delivery the opening address of the semiannual general conference. He said "I will now give this people the subject and the text for the Elders who may speak today and during the conference. It is this....Many of our brethren and sisters are on the Plains (Wyoming snows) with handcarts, and probably many are now seven hundred miles from this place. They must be brought here, we must send assistance to them. The text will be to get them here!..I will tell you all that your faith, religion and profession of religion will not save one soul of you in the celestial kingdom of our God unless you carry out just such principles as I am now teaching you. Go and bring in those people on the Plains and attend strictly to those things which we call temporal..."
The effects of this speech were that during the conference 27 young men and 16 mule teams were out on the trail to start the rescue. Throughout his life Brigham emphasized that the spiritual and temporal were inclusive entities that needed daily careful maintenance.

Arrington emphasized that not all the programs that Brigham Young started were successful but that indirectly they lead to a cohesive ethnic society. He had many verbal wars with Washington over statehood, judges and the slow money to cover Indian affairs. Arrington doesn't shy away from the Mountain Meadows Massacre and Brigham's desire to settle this affair or with his confrontations with apostle Orson Pratt. The one area that I wish Arrington would have covered more was the Mormon War or Buchanan's Blunder, but overall I felt he covered Brigham Young well. Anyone interested in the settling of the West needs to include Brigham Young in that study. Well worth recommending and adding to the history shelf.

The book captures the energy of this man as Brigham always said,"I will die in the harness" and he did.An amazing true tale of how he was able to rise as leader of the Mormons after Joseph Smith's death.He was able to organize with the help of others the grand migration to the Salt Lake despite persecution from the U.S. government as well as infighting within his own ranks.The image i most remember is when in the last year of his life a Mormon who had "fallen out" with Brigham cursed the old gentleman as he passed by in his wagon. Brigham sat back in his seat,uttered not a word but tightened his lips.Probably he was thinking,"Buddy if you knew even the 1/2 of it you'd curse me even louder"!!As Frank Perdue asserted,"it takes a tough man to make a tender chicken",the same for a religion.No apologies here just alot of facts.still though sometimes energy can land a person in alot of trouble.If young's life were publicly laid bare by today's standards he would probably have more than one's share of problems.But as well documented in this book you would have to be aware of events in America and in England and Europe during this period.The Great Awakening was a period of religious ferverency like no other since.Mormons were just one small group that came from this period. But with leadership like Smith and Young they emerged from the 1830's intact and growing.Also the young United States was on the verge of Civil War,the Mormons being nonslave owning and settling almost in the heart of "Bleeding Kansas". Brigham Young just had that charismatic personality that made people listen and ones who didn't he had the cruelty to prevent them from becoming a disruption. Characters like young gave the Mormons a big "jump start"which is what a small group needs to survive.No need to comment whether he had 70 wives or 54 since more than 1 automatically would put you as a polygamist.That door officialy closed in 1890 never to be reopened and from reading this book,Young himself would have been capable of changing with the times.The major emphasis of the book seems to be on the Wagon Exodus of the Mormons from Illinois and Missouri,hence the title Brigham Young,American Moses.The Mormons were persecuted by the then shaky American government as were the Jews in Egypt.Since alot of the Mormon settlers were displaced industrial workers and farmers from old world European countries,one would have to wonder if the major motive for conversion to Mormonism was economic.A chance to start a new life with a guarantee of land and credit for the immigrant.A larger than life figurehead like Young,offered the mormons a rallying point,who could at times turn a "blind eye" to both large and small indiscretions necessary to gain an advantageous foothold in Utah.Young also could bring in the government and private contracts so many of his shortcomings were overlooked as well.Then you have about 4 or 5 "pretenders to the throne" to be dealt with and you have a balancing act only a real tight rope walker could pull off.let's hope Frank Perdue could handle the problem and no comparisons would have to be made to Al Capone!!

This is certainly by far the best biography ever written on a very important figure in western American history. It is very well documented. Arrington does not skip the controversies, it is all layed out. I certainly came away with a greater understanding of Brigham Young. Leonard Arrington was the head of the Mormon churches hisorical department for years and had a great influence on many Mormon historians to write honest and concise history. My only criticism is sometimes Arrington overly discusses economics in Utah rather then other aspects of Brigham Youngs life. Overall though it is great!

Between the 1950s and the 1990s no one was more important in advancing the cause of Mormon history than Leonard J. Arrington. Prolific personally, and encouraging of others, he is best known for a path-breaking book "Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900" (Harvard University Press, 1958), but "Brigham Young: American Moses" is a close second. This is a work of great maturity and sophistication. On rereading it twenty years after it was first published, it remains unsurpassed as a biographical treatment of this remarkable Mormon leader. In it Arrington tells the life story of Brigham Young, an early convert to Mormonism and the leader of the largest group of Mormonism to emerge from the split that took place within the church at the time of the assassination of Joseph Smith in 1844. As president of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles Young had a powerful position from which to exert influence over the churc. At first he asserted leadership only as president of the Twelve, and was only ordained to the presidency in 1847.

But it is what Young did afer the 1844 succession crisis in Mormonism that is most important. He realized that the Latter-day Saints had to depart the United States to enjoy their peculiar version of theocracy with esoteric temple rituals, plural marriage, and a millennial expectation of the destruction of all earthly governments and the establishment of a "Kingdom of God" on Earth. He led the Mormons to the Rocky Mountains, hence Arrington's characterization of him as the "American Moses," arriving in the Great Basin in 1847 and establishing Salt Lake City beside the lake from which it took its name. For a decade he aggressively expanded his Mormon kingdom in the mountains, but in 1857 he faced down a U.S. Army sent to bring the Mormons under control and he avoided all-out war only through negotiations that allowed both sides to live with the situation. Much married and with many children, Young lived another twenty years after that confrontation. He saw his church expand in numbers and influence, suffer under pressure to end the practice of plural marriage (which it would finally officially do in 1890), and to enjoy much easier transportation with the completion of the Transcontinental railroad in 1869. Young finally died in 1877.

Arrington's biography is an example of "faithful history," a genre of Mormon history that is honest but also highly enthused with the ideas and ethos of the LDS faith. It is a book that most Mormons would be quite happy with, but one that does not whitewash difficult issues. For instance, Arrington deals with the Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857 in which Mormons in southern Utah engaged in the killing of all of the adults in a wagon train bound for California. Some think Young was the mastermind of this horrific event, but Arrington demonstrates that he did not order\ it. He did help to cover it up, however, and Arrington acknowledges that it was "The most tragic event in Mormon history" (p. 257).

This is a most welcome work of history. It is a compelling story well told. It is also very much Arrington's Brigham Young. With unprecedented access to the archives of the Mormon Church, because of his role as Church Historian, Arrington created a portrait of a poorly-educated man of the people who was rational, even-handed, practical, diligent in his work, and faithful to the tenets of Mormonism as he understood them. There is no question but that this is the Brigham Young that Arrington would have happily followed; it is neither the unlettered tyrant and reprobate of anti-Mormon conceptions nor the saccharine depictions of simplistic devotional literature.

There is a sense of irony in this book that bears mention. "Brigham Young: American Moses" was written using the voluminous primary source materials available at the LDS Church Archives. No one has enjoyed such unfettered access and Arrington notes in this book that "they have since been closed to researchers, and it will not be possible for readers of this book to check out every source I have used" (p. 433). This grated on Arrington, for he spent his career campaigning for greater openness. He always believed that LDS members had nothing to fear from their history. Honest accounts would show people struggling to live their lives within the context of their faiths, and not always succeeding but still trying. For Arrington this struggle gave him hope that his own failings would be forgiven, and he was the first to admit them. He also believed the same would be true for others. His account of Young's life is an example of this endeavor, as Brigham Young is neither a saint nor a demon.

This is as near to a definitive work as one is ever likely to read about Brigham Young, and it will be quite a long time before it is seriously challenged as a benchmark in the historiography of Mormonism. Its insights are impressive.

As is stated in the forward section, he was a giant among men. But I think what made him a truly great leader was how well he stayed connected with the people he led, seemingly never losing touch with the world, its people and the issues affecting them.

However, the book was a bit of a slow read. Took me a while to get through it because I had a difficult time staying attentive.

This is a wonderful book- the history, stories and inspirational advice
from the life of the prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley are motivating and will lift your spirits.

What a lovely man, so real and earthy, and how inspiring to read his story!

This was a wonderful book about the life of President Gordon B. Hinckley's life.

Gordon B. Hinckley's life is the the LDS Church and has been since His call to serve as a missionary.So don't be surprised if it talks a lot about the Chruch and the role that Gordon played in the history of it in the last century.

It's an excellent read and you'll learn much more about this amazing man.

Gordon B. Hinckley is an interesting man who has had great influence on the LDS Church. Primarily a marketing guru, the book details the role he played in his early years working with Stephen L. Richards and J. Rueben Clark and others as an up and coming man in the church. He sufficiently impressed his superiors that they called him to be an assistant to the apostles and eventually an apostle.

As a young apostle, Hinckley spent much of his efforts on the missionary program. It appears that he deferred to the elder apostles on matters of doctrine and interestingly played little role in some of the more colorful disputes that took place in the church during the sixties. While Harold B. Lee, Joseph Fielding Smith and Hugh B. Brown were trying to reign in Ezra Taft Benson's crazy political doctrines, Gordon B. Hinckley was apparently a non-entity (no mention of those events in Dew's book).

As a senior apostle, Gordon B. Hinckley had tremendous influence as ailing older Presidents and Apostles relied heavily on him to be essentially the cheif administrative officer of the church. Eventually becoming President himself, Gordon B. Hinckley continued his role as primarily an adminstrator and marketing guru.

Gordon B. Hinckley will not be remembered as someone who made contributions in Mormon doctrine. Sometimes, in the book, you almost sense a Gordon B. Hinckley who doesn't really believe in anything other than the organization. After reading the book, I feel I understand Gordon B. Hinckley as a capable administrator, a loyal member of the organization, but anything but a dynamic leader who actually stands for anything.

I cannot think of a single revelation that Gordon B. Hinckley has made (other than some silly stuff about piercings and tattoos- how's that for earth-shattering). He has spent millions on temples, and has worked tirelessly on public relations pursuits for the church, but an inspired leader? Even with the author's best spin, I don't think so.

Sometime in the future, I look forward to a biography on Gordon B. Hinckley that has the intention of telling his story, not selling his church.

1932 was a pivotal year in American history. The Great Depression was in full swing, the wet forces were gathering steam, a Kingfish from Louisiana arrived in Congress, and the Democratic party was itching to get back in the White House. All of this came to a grand climax in the Democratic National Convention in Chicago that summer, the topic of this book. The political careers of several generations of Democrats came together that summer and decided the future of the country and dozens of leaders. Characters like Adlai Stevenson, Sam Rayburn, Huey Long, Al Smith, Joseph Kennedy, William Randolph Hearst, and FDR would wheel and deal in a tenacious game of power where friends and enemies all melted into one pool of potential allies. The book unfolds in a semi-chronological order. Most of the chapters are spent highlighting individual characters and their careers, especially the various serious and erstwhile candidates, such as Newton Baker, John Nance Garner, Al Smith, and FDR himself. The final chapters relive the convention itself, both the public events, and the private politicking. Everything is told from an objective manner, as each candidate is shown in both their glory and defeats. The book does an especially good job of explaining how the various candidates fought for delegates. Overall, this is a great history book. It is told like a story, and is quite readable.

More than seventy years later, it is easy for us to view Franklin Roosevelt's nomination and presidency as inevitable: how could the New Dealer and world warrior have lost? Easily, as Steve Neal makes clear in this, his last book, on the 1932 Democratic National Convention.

Neal paints a rich, colorful portrait of the behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing that secured, on the fourth ballot, the nomination for FDR. Had Huey Long's Lousiana delegation not been seated, had a deal with Speaker of the House John Nance Garner not been reach -- had any number of pieces not fallen into place, the convention might have swung in a different direction, perhaps to perpetual candidate Al Smith or a dark horse.

Neal captures all the drama and suspense as these events unfolded in stifling Chicago. His is a character-based account, which is reflected in the book's organization and which tends to give short shrift to the major issues of the day, like Prohibition (whether to repeal) or foreign policy (whether to pursue Wilsonian internationalism). While the reader probably won't walk away with a full appreciation of the issues, he will certainly have a vivid picture of what these men were like and how they acted. The book is worth reading for that reason alone.

Before they became the highly polished love fests that they are today political conventions were high drama events that often caught the imagination of the country. There were fights over the platform, the convention rules and credentials with the members of almost every convention deciding which delegations to seat when more than one delegation showed up from the same state. Then after all that the convention would get around to nominating a candidate for president.

The Republicans had their share of contested conventions but it was usually the Democratic convention where most of the fireworks were to be found. The Democrats you see had the 2/3 rule, which meant that a candidate had to get 2/3 of the delegate votes in order to be nominated and over the years that rule had on many occasions put a stop to the candidacy of many front-runners. The 2/3 rule and its history gave great pause to Franklin Roosevelt and his staff because FDR came into the 1932 Chicago convention with well over half of the votes but no where near 2/3 of the votes and there was a very strong stop FDR movement afoot.

Mr. Neal looks at this drama in detail and tells the story is such a way as to bring the reader up onto the edge of his seat in anticipation of just what might happen next. Quite an accomplishment when you consider that the reader already knows who will win when it is all said and done. The author takes each of the major contenders and leads the reader through a brief history of their candidacy and their career in public service and some of these guys like Alfalfa Bill Murray are colorful to say the least. Among the major players at this convention were political legends Al Smith, Joe Kennedy, John Nance (Cactus Jack) Garner, William Randolph Hearst, Clarence Darrow, Jane Adams and Cordell Hull. Two of the major players at this convention Chicago Mayor A.J. Cermak and Louisiana Governor Huey Long were not only extremely colorful but also bound for assassination. In February of 1933 a bullet meant for Roosevelt would fell Cermak who had opposed FDR and in 1935 Huey Long who had been instrumental in holding the South for FDR in 1932 but had since turned against him was felled in the Louisiana State House. With characters like these to work with Neal has a great cast for his story and he does them all justice.

Mr. Neal has written a gripping account of this watershed convention and it is an account that no history lover or political junkie will want to pass over. He has captured the back room wheeling and dealing, the energy and the high drama of the convention floor as the Democratic Party charted the course of its future. Despite knowing how the story ends you will find it very difficult to put this book down.

I read this book in the midst of the '04 convention season, and welcomed the journey back to a time when political parleys actually meant something.

The late Chicago journalist Steve Neal (he passed on in February) recounts the '32 Chicago convention that propelled FDR on the path to the White House and immortality.

FDR's nomination was no sure thing, despite his entering the Chicago convention with a strong majority of delegates. Indeed, Neal shows how close FDR came to being denied the nomination, as past Democratic frontrunners like Champ Clark (1912) and William McAdoo (1924) had before him. At the time, Democratic candidates needed to amass two-thirds of the delegates to cinch the nomination -- a threshold that assured Southern states a voice in the selection of a candidate, and made for protracted, multi-ballot fights (more than 100 in '24) and brokered conventions. FDR abolished the two-thirds rule (replacing it with a simple majority standard) and only two subsequent Democratic conventions went past the first ballot.

An eclectic cast of characters loomed large in the machinations that secured FDR's nomination -- for example, Joe Kennedy and WR Hearst, who cleared a path for Cactus Jack Garner to be given the VP slot; Huey Long, whose support was ironic in light of The Kingfish's later vitriolic attacks on FDR, and Big Jim Farley, FDR's brilliant campaign manager. But no one played a more central role than McAdoo, Woodrow Wilson's son-in-law and Treasury Secretary. No fan of FDR's, he swung the deeply divided California delegation into the New York Governor's camp at the decisive moment. This deft maneuver thwarted the ambitions of FDR's bete noir, Al Smith (who had foiled McAdoo hopes in '24) and McAdoo's old nemesis Newton Baker, who was the likely beneficiary of a deadlocked convention. (At one point, FDR offered to throw his support to Baker.)

This book takes its title from the FDR campaign's theme song. But I was surprised to learn that "Happy Days Are Here Again" was actually a substitute when the original theme song --"Anchor's Away" (paying homage to FDR's stint as assistant Navy Secretary) -- was deemed too subdued for the raucous Chicago partisans.

Political junkies looking for a short reprieve from the '04 presidential sweepstakes would do well to pick up Neal's new book. It'll transport you back to a time when political conventions still mattered.

This is a gripping narrative of the 1932 Democratic Convention in Chicago, which nominated Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) of New York for President. Today Mr. Roosevelt (1882-1945) is widely recognized as a great leader, elected four times despite having polio, the man who launched the New Deal programs that changed America and who led the USA through most of World War II. But here we see that the front-running Roosevelt was on shaky ice at the 1932 convention because candidates then needed a 2/3rds vote for the nomination. FDR faced powerful opposition from former nominee Al Smith, house speaker John Nance Garner, Governor Albert Ritchie, Newton Baker, and other powerful figures. Of course, Roosevelt had strong allies, including Louisiana's notorious Huey Long, plus key advisors Louis Howe and James Farley. The author describes the strengths and weaknesses of the major players, setting the stage for the drama that unfolded. Readers also see how FDR's lieutenants offered Garner the Vice Presidency in a near-desperation move after the third ballot that worked and kept Roosevelt's coalition from unraveling. All this occurred at a convention where Democrats knew they were likely winners against President Hoover in November due to the onset of the Great Depression.

Author Steve Neal is political correspondent for the Chicago Sun-Times, and he's written a superb narrative. Some may question whether FDR's coalition at the 1932 convention was as tenuous as Neal suggests, but few will fail to be engaged by this remarkable story.