Illinois Books

If this book were fiction, it would rank up there with The War of The Worlds for exciting reading-BUT IT ISN'T. This insane incident occured and the [people] involved got a very short prison sentence for almost kdnaping the president's body to get a counterfeiter out of jail! I won't reveal anything, but get this book-it's [a good price] and reads like a great mystery, but it all happened in 1879 and its all true and all unbelievable!!

This revised edition of the Great Abraham Lincoln Hijack, story of the 1876 attempt to steal President Lincoln's body, first published in 1990, is footnoted with foreword by Thomas F. Schwartz, Illinois State Historian. Bonnie Speer has made a notable contribution to Lincoln literature and this study deserves a place on the shelves of Lincolniana. It is most readable and factual. Wayne C. Temple, Illinois State Archives

As with all Acanthus Press books, this volumn is exquisitely presented, the paper quality is first rate and the black and white archieval images are vivid. I think most people, when they think of great Chicago houses, think of the great houses of Chicago's North Shore suburbs, most notably, Lake Forest, however, as this book chronicles, Chicago itself had some outstanding homes. Though i was familiar with some of the homes presented, many I was not. I think anybody with an appreciation of fine books or Chicago grand residental architecture will not be disappointed in this book. Frankly, anything that Acanthus Press publishes is worth owning if for no other reason than to appreciate the lost art of creating a fine book.

Great Houses of Chicago is a treat to read, or to simply browse through. Filled with images of the magnificent homes that once were, or still remain, a part of my city, it is a book that I'd recommend to any lover of Chicago history or urban architecture.

Recently, there has been an increasing stream of revisionist studies of the Supreme Court, focusing on the New Deal period, designed to convince us that the Court really was not as reactionary and partisan as generally believed. Cushman's book on the New Deal Court and McKenna's volume on the Court Packing plan are two examples. The author of this volume goes back to the Gilden Age Court to develop a complimentary thesis. It is hard to be too critical of the book, given that the scholarship is impeccable and exhaustively examines an area not too well studied in the Court literature. Bailey's main thesis is that the Justices comprising the Court between 1860 and 1910 overwhelmingly based their decisions upon a shared heritage of morality and ethics, which gave them a "moral compass." The author reviews in depth the speeches and off-the-court writings of Justices Brewer, Field, Strong, Harlan, Bradley, Brown, McKenna and others to examine their private views of morality, ethics, and the role of law. He demonstrates that several Justices, especially Brewer and Harlan, held strongly Christian orientations. The bibliography of original sources covers nearly ten pages and is a very valuable resource in tracing these viewpoints. But in final analysis, one asks "so what?" The fact that "moral" and Christian justices unleashed the Income Tax decision, developed the concept of freedom of contract, and came close to suppressing the labor and reform movements is not made any more palatable because those Justices sincerely believed in what they were doing. So the main contribution of the book, which is a substantial one, is that it gives us new insight into what made these Justices tick. Nonetheless, their oath was to preserve and protect the Constitution, not to translate their religious and ethical beliefs into constitutional law. Some Justices of the period appeared to have forgotten that fact.

This is a necessary book in both jurisprudence and American history generally. Another reviewer believes that the justices of the period read their politics (or more accurately, what that reviewer believes to have been their politics) into the Constitution. This completely misses the point of the book: the justices believed not only in the unity of the common law, but in the Unity of the Law - that the Science of the Law is the golden chain that links the farthest reaches of theology to everyday human experience. Legislation in such a view is mere fallible distraction from Truth; the suggestion that the justices consciously introduced their political ideas into the law would have greatly insulted them. To speculate that these preferences unconsciously dictated their rulings not only falls into the murky depths of Legal Realism, but is directly contradicted by the evidence of the book, showing that all the justices, regardless of party affiliation or regional origin, shared this view. This is the norm against which Oliver Wendell Holmes' radicalism can now properly be viewed; it is ironic that the reviewer upset by the supposed activism of this Court holds their same conservative view that there can be only one correct interpretation of the law.

Highly recommend this book, great pricing structure. Could possibly use an easier way of looking up items but generally a great book.

We have been collecting Haeger for years. This book gives us a much better understanding of our collection.

First of all, since the political campaigns have been raging in the media, we have heard a lot about hate crimes. The category of hate crime however, is restricted to personal violence, as it is commonly understood to mean. This book broadens the concept by globalizing the notion of hate. In lieu of today's developments and some other notable global crimes, such as genocides (i.e., Rwanda, Bosnia) this type of macro approach to the etiology of crime seems highly relevant and necessary. What I found particularly noteworthy is the multiple-point stances and perspectives of the various authors. Such a diverse representation of opinions, I thought, added to the overall purpose and strength of the book.

The chapter on Colin Ferguson approached explanation by using Franz Fanon's theory of violence. The author does successfully incorporate the major tenets of his theory in his explanation, there were some questions I thought would be relevant to the discussion. For example, Sartre, in writing the preface to Fanon's book, concurred with Fanon in stating that the native, repressed in his hatred toward his colonizers, is apt to act more violently against his native man. I was not sure if such was the case with Ferguson. Perhaps, if there had been instances in which he did act out against "his people" it would strengthen the argument more.

Rage, anger, madness as manifestation of creativity and freeing force in the subject's double bind is a topic worthy of further exploration. I am looking forward to the author developing this idea in his further works.

I enjoyed the differing perspective on the nature of hate. By charting the macro origins of conflict, I think the book sheds insight as to the micro dimensions of hate crime as it presently finds form today.

The recent brutal beating and murder of a gay Wyoming student points out but one aspect of the type of hate crimes whuch in most countries of the world. In Hate Crimes: The Global Politics of Polarization professor Jess Maghan and Robert J. Kelly have brought together an excellent collection of essays which hit the problem head-on. The editors contributions add to the book, especially the article on the Ku Klux Klan by Kelly and Maghan's well researched annotated bibliography on the subject. The book includes essays on black rage and victimization; neo-nazis and skinheads; homeless Palestinians and the Arab world; hate crime in India; and the victimization of street children in Colombia. Of particular interest are several pieces on the historical aspects of hate crime, and the development of legislative efforts to cope with what is percived as a growing area of concern in criminal justice. Maghan, who is an associate professor of criminal justice at the university of illinois at chicago, and Kelly, who is a Broeklundian professor of social science at Brooklyn College and a professor of criminal justice at the Graduate School of the City University of New York are well respected authors in the area of hate crime, and in this book they have made a significant contribution to understanding the international dimensions and manifistations of hatred and brutality.

When one thinks of orphanages, Oliver Twist asking "Can I have some more, please?" comes to mind. So does the image of the orphanage as a giant warehouse packed to the rafters with filthy children cowering under the harsh glare of psychotic social workers. Kenneth Cmiel's "A Home of Another Kind: One Chicago Orphanage and the Tangle of Child Welfare" does much to refute this view. Certainly, some orphanages were cesspools that mistreated their charges, but most genuinely tried to assist the children under their care. Cmiel's book, through the use of a plethora of source materials--including orphanage records, government documents, and personal interviews-- successfully charts the changing course of child welfare by looking at the Chicago Nursery and Half-Orphan Asylum from its founding in 1860 to its reorganization as a research center in 1984. Most importantly, he uses his findings to trace the changing attitudes regarding the care of dependent and delinquent children in the country at large.

The author discovers that the early years of the Chicago Nursery and Half-Orphan Asylum, from 1860 to roughly 1900, were a time of private, religion based assistance. The people that ran the institution on a daily basis were Protestant, wealthy, and female. They lived near the asylum, which meant that they took a personal interest in the condition of the institution and the children living there. The women running the orphanage also helped raise the funds necessary to operate the building on a yearly basis. Children chosen to live in the asylum came from working class families undergoing some sort of catastrophic upheaval, disasters that left one or both of the parents needing someone to watch their offspring while they put their family back together again. As a result, children in the orphanage during the early years of its existence rarely lived there very long. Progressive ideas about childcare, which began in earnest after 1900, sought to change the practices of the asylum by creating a unified network of facilities dependent upon citywide umbrella organizations that disbursed both funds and the latest social service theories. While successful in some areas, these Progressive ideas failed to gain power over Chicago area orphanages and asylums because privately owned facilities refused to give up control.

The Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war period saw public funding increase from a trickle to a flood. With the boost in public funding came rules and regulations that severely curtailed the traditional authority of the private managing boards. The Chicago Nursery and Half-Orphan Asylum, now known as Chapin Hall as a result of a new facility built with donated funds, gradually turned over control of the organization to the professionally trained staff. The institution also went on the public dole, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). With public money came new responsibilities, primarily rejecting dependent kids in favor of delinquent children with a host of emotional and physical problems. Chapin Hall became a "residential treatment facility" staffed with dozens of highly trained professionals working intensively with the youths. When the state government began a policy of "deinstitutionalization" in the 1970s, a policy that sought to remove as many children from public orphanages and asylums as possible, Chapin Hall failed to respond to the new reality and closed after running deep deficits for several years. The institution reopened as a children's research center under the ownership of the University of Chicago.

Cmiel's book is a wonderful work because it succeeds in personalizing the history of the Chicago orphanage. The author consistently brings to the foreground the personal elements of social history that are often lost in lengthy descriptions of changing policies, power struggles, and theories on childcare. The reader gains a very real sense of what it was like to live in an asylum. For instance, Cmiel describes how the children living in the orphanage in the late nineteenth century, both male and female, had their heads shaved in order to prevent lice. And the descriptions of youths with serious mental and emotional problems in the later years of the orphanage, children abandoned by their parents and left to languish at Chapin Hall for years, brought tears to the eyes of this reader. It is rare for a history book to elicit this sort of reaction. Arguably the most surprising element in the book concerns the process of deinstitutionalization, and who started that process. Conservatives usually shoulder the blame for closing down hospitals, mental asylums, and other shelters. But Cmiel's research points the finger at liberals coming into power in the 1970s. They supported reducing the number of children in institutions with programs designed to keep kids at home or in small group houses scattered throughout the city. It was only later that Republicans signed on to the policies when they too discovered the amount of money the state would save in the process. It seems there is enough guilt to go around for both parties.

It is difficult to find problems with Cmiel's study due to the excellent research and strict parameters of the study. Yet there are a few areas that could use additional explanation or elaboration. For example, at several points in the narrative the author contends that Catholic facilities eluded Progressive efforts to exert financial and operational control far longer than most of the city's other institutions. Not until the DCFS pumped massive amounts of money into privately controlled facilities did the Catholics turn over control. Why were Catholic operations impervious to the earlier Progressive attempts to unite Chicago's childcare institutions under a broad operational umbrella when others were not? Was Catholic unity the reason these asylums resisted change for so long? Or was it something else? If it was the latter, could the Protestant organizations like Chapin Hall have done something similar and thus explored other options to keep control of their institution, if even for awhile longer?

Child Abuse by the State

by Patrick Quinn

Child welfare work consists of one party taking over some or all of the process of rearing children when another party, usually in the nuclear family, has failed in some egregious way. Since the nuclear family is one of the most important components of any civil society, this is extremely important work.

Children whose families fail them in some catastrophic way -- either through abuse, neglect or abandonment -- eventually become adults, and often prove to be formidable social nuisances. And the ability of any society to deal with such children is all the more crucial given that such problems seem to be pretty durable over time. Concern with exceedingly poor child rearing dates at least as far back as ancient Sumeria, and probably farther.

America's approach to child welfare work has undergone a dramatic shift over the past 100 years, but the nature of the work done has remained fundamentally the same. When families are unwilling or unable to raise their children -- for whatever reason -- the rearing process must be assumed by someone else. What has changed in American child welfare work over the course of the 20th century is who that someone is. In the past, child welfare work was almost entirely private. Today, the assumption of the rearing process is handled almost entirely by government.

It is time to consider the likelihood that this transition was a tragic mistake.

Does gross ineffectiveness bother you? In 1995, a Chicago Tribune report revealed that the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), the state child welfare bureaucracy, did not know the whereabouts of more than 20,000 of its wards. Think about that for a moment: The physical location of roughly half of the children under the direct responsibility of the state was unknown to the state's bureaucrats.

Does fiscal insanity bother you more? In Illinois, DCFS has been under fire almost constantly since its creation via legislative fiat in 1964. A steady stream of exposes has uncovered blunder after blunder: children sleeping on the floors of DCFS offices, a group of children housed without supervision in a local motel with regular access to adult movies, children actually dying while in the state's care. The state finally gave in to the immense political pressure that comes with such tragic and chronic embarrassments and went on a knee-jerk spending spree, with the help of some changes in state Medicaid laws. In the early 1990s, the DCFS budget soared more than 300 percent. Today, that budget is well over $1 billion. The clearest result of all of that spending is that children in the system now have a lot more people to "care" for them.

Imagine a troubled child trying to adjust to a new group home. Now, after all that spending, that same child of limited coping abilities is expected to adjust to a new set of "parents" every 8 hours, along with numerous ancillary workers. And since all of those bloated budgets need to be justified, those who work in the system have been turned into paper jockeys. As a therapist coworker once told me, "I got into this field to try to help children, but 60-70 percent of my job is paperwork."

Or perhaps you are particularly bothered by arbitrary power. Now, imagine combining arbitrary and largely unstoppable power with the pseudo-sciences of psychiatry and social work. That mix is what exists in much of child welfare work. I have had the utterly enervating experience of witnessing this combination of forces used to dismantle children psychologically and spiritually.

One of the group homes where I worked was set in a quiet residential neighborhood on Chicago's northwest side. One of the boys, Shannon, was a model child, not just in our institution, but among all of the neighborhood children as well. Shannon was utterly reliable. We allowed him free reign in the neighborhood, gave him an allowance, let him join the local YMCA, and even sent him shopping when essentials ran out.

One day, some psychiatric social workers from the state visited the home, a "private" contractor with the state. Their putative function was to act as a kind of meta-authority within the system, looking into special cases, or performing investigations of problems, and so on. They were interested in Shannon because of his unique situation. Altogether, he had nine family members in the custody of the state, including two younger brothers who lived with him at our home, and his oldest brother, who had just been convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison in Arizona. Shannon didn't know his oldest brother, but the social workers thought it appropriate to probe his thoughts on the sentencing, and in the process to review his situation to see if any changes were warranted.

For reasons known only to themselves, the workers began suggesting to Shannon that they would separate him from his two younger brothers at the home by placing him elsewhere. Most likely, they were simply under pressure to change his "treatment plan," which is the name given to the state's plan for dealing with individual wards. Treatment plans represent an effort to quantify the services given to wards (e.g., length of stay in the system), as well as to specify the nature of the services rendered (e.g., foster care vs. institutional settings, medication vs. behavior modification). Since treatment plans are tied to state budgets, there is constant pressure to tinker with them, a process that often does not consider a child's best interests. From the vantage-point of those actually raising Shannon -- me and my co-worker -- there was absolutely no reason to move him.

Not surprisingly, Shannon was bothered greatly by the suggestion. As I've said, he was a sweet, good little kid. But every human has a touchy spot, and the thought of separation from his brothers, understandably, was his. Loving and watching over his two little brothers -- was a responsibility Shannon had understandably (and proudly) bestowed upon himself, given the condition of his family.

So he became combative with the workers. Not violent, mind you; just angry enough to raise his voice to the complete strangers who were proposing to shatter what was left of his life. In response, they had him summarily committed to a psychiatric hospital. Shannon, the good kid, was no more.

As justification for their move, the social workers engaged in a bit of revisionist history. As it turned out, Shannon had the swimming ability of a rock, and about a week earlier had nearly drowned at the YMCA. He was revived on the pool deck, and was fine after a short observation. The social workers decided to call this a suicide attempt. Suddenly, Shannon was a depressed youth suffering from suicidal ideation.

And of course, on the psychiatric ward, he was medicated for the first time in his life. When he began having nightmares (presumably from the drugs, as is so often the case) he was tagged as suffering from a psychotic episode. And, his (perfectly sensible) refusal to cooperate at all at the hospital was taken by the social workers as "evidence" of their having made a keen diagnosis, and as justification for their intervention.

Such is the circular, arbitrary reasoning of psychiatric social work.

Monolithic Welfare

One of the most troubling aspects of all this is that child welfare work in America is a monolith. The problems I've been describing are systemic and nationwide. Just as public education has withered the private school sector, so too has the government's role in caring for delinquent and dependent children reduced the options for such children. Sure, there are a few largely private organizations that have endured the state's takeover of child welfare work. Boys Town, one of the largest and most famous, accepts only about ten percent of its income from the state. But these institutions are the exception. The rule for children whose families don't function for them is the labyrinth of public and quasi-public homes and agencies that the government has created, including the perennially troubled juvenile court system.

Even the "private" homes like I worked at are funded and controlled by the state. One group home that I worked for called itself a private organization, but it received nearly 80% of its operating income directly from the state and was thoroughly controlled by the state, right down to the minute detail of what the children could have on the tops of their dressers. Even the option for children that is furthest removed from the state -- foster homes, private homes where children are placed by the state -- is tightly regulated by government bureaucrats.

And the results are what one might expect of government bureaucracy. Child welfare bureaucrats constantly claim that resources are too scarce. But in reality, inefficiencies and politics are squandering resources that desperately need to be utilized. In Illinois in 1991, for example, DCFS admitted that of the 14,000 foster homes it had licensed, only 6,000 were in use at any time.

Given all of this, it is more than worthwhile to

I loved this story of hardship and struggle. It made me realize if you have a dream go after it. I liked the reality of life portrayed in this book.I think that William and Aurthur and their families were perfect for this documentary. HOOP DREAMS HOOP DREAMS HOOP DREAMS

...Spinning, around the back swooping in for the lay-up. The kids swarmed around the b-ball court as Arthur plays ball with the other boys. He shoots lights out, drives past the defense.... Growing up, Arthur was always a top competitor. As he gets to high school he learns some hard lessons about life. As does William Gates, the other star basketball player. The book is filled with great details about the games, the dazzling life experiences, the realistic settings the book describes. The story of two boys: great basketball players growing up, living their lives through basketball, in and out of school. This book was really great; it taught me about how it is to live in bad conditions and to fight against odds to get what you want. I think everybody with a goal who is willing to work towards goals they set, should read this book.

Even though I'm not from the Urbana area, I found this book to be very enjoyable. I liked the idea of 150 different stories that were told. Many of them were very interesting. I would definitely recommend this book and hope that the author, Tom Kacich, will write future books. I thought his insight into the stories was very informative.

I consider myself to be an avid reader and I like the books I read to be interesting and easy to read. I found that Hot Type by Tom Kacich is the best of both worlds for me - the stories come from Champaign and Urbana in Illinois but they could easily be from any town in this country. The stories in the book are compelling and the format of the book allows the reader to read a few stories at a time or the entire book at once. Mr. Kacich has done a fine job researching the stories and the photos are interesting, too. Hot Type is not just a book for people from Illinois but a must for all avid readers!

One doesn't need an entire day to appreciate the arts and life of the great city of Chicago. "Hour Chicago: Twenty Five Self-Guided Sixty Minute Tours of Chicago's Great Architecture and Art" is a guide for tourists and residents who looking to savor full appreciation of the city's culture in conveniently bite-sized doses. Presented in a compact and portable form, Hour Chicago is the perfect guide to carry along for any trip through the city. Highly recommended for community library travel collections.

Other guidebooks can tell you where to eat, where to stay, what to wear or what plays to go to. But if you love cities because of their art and architecture, if you want to get off the tour bus, THIS is the guidebook you want.

The author is the perfect guide. After a few pages, you feel like you've gotten to know her, and you're eager to get her opinions on whatever she shows you on the next page. She's not afraid to say when she thinks a building is dull, which is a nice change from the hype of most tourist guides. But when she likes something, it's obvious. Somehow she can explain what makes a painting, sculpture or building great, in just a few choice words. You get the feeling she knows way more than she has space to share. But "share" is the word. She doesn't talk down to the reader, but she also knows that not everyone has a masters in fine art and architecture. There's a great glossary and good maps, which you'll need, because this guide doesn't stop at the Art Institute and the Loop. It takes you into the neighborhoods for galleries, architecture and smaller museums with collections that are world-class, but are overshadowed by the Art Institute.

The book is the perfect size for a backpack or fanny pack -- you can tell it's meant to be USED. The prose is clean and direct, and should not be a problem for tourists whose 1st language is not English.

It's organized into short tours that you really can take if you only have an hour, but you can also string them together if you're lucky enough to have a weekend or a lifetime. (This book is not just for tourists. It's must for people who live here, especially if you already think you know the city.)

What I like most about this book is that it seems to have a special place in its heart for the person who is by himself or herself. Anyone who's travelled to a great city alone has felt at times the lack of a companion to share the experience with. You find yourself wanting to turn to someone and see your excitement reflected back. In "Hour Chicago,"that person is the author. You feel like, whether she's physically there or not, she wrote this book for you and is hoping to see her excitement reflected back in you.

We have been collecting Haeger for years. This book gives us a better understanding and history of our collection.

This wonderful book explores more than just Haeger's early years. It contains a wealth of information about Martin Stangl and his connections to the Fulper pottery and of course Fulper's later incarnation as Stangl pottery. I recommend this book without reservation to anyone seeking more information about Haeger, Fulper or Stangl. I have collected Fulper for a long time but still found useful insights. The photos are grand!