Current Events Books

I read this book along with several others on Abe Lincoln and the Civil War. It provided additional facts from another view on secession and the Constitutional right to secession. I enjoyed it and would recommend a buy.

I was required to memorize the Constitution of the United States as well as that of the state of Illinois and the State of Arkansas before graduating eighth grade. This was a bit of a refresher course for me, though I keep a copy of the Constitution in my desk. I had always maintained that nothing in the Constitution forbade secession and when a student in Illinois, was called "secesh" for my simple and irrefutable argument. My family were Unionist Arkansans and Georgians but were, upon reflection mistaken. Lincoln trashed the Constitution as has every administration since that time. The South had the legal right to secede and exercised that right. The Confederacy offered to compensate the US government for improvements on their territory but were never heard by President Lincoln. It seems quite apparent that Lincoln was the direct cause of the worst war in US history and contrary to my earlier belief was more sinner than saint in the business. The first two thirds of the book makes a Constitutional case for secession as a right reserved to the states. I simply can't argue with that and can't find any provision in the Constitution declaring the Union eternal or secession illegal. It seems that the states formed the Union and had every right to depart from it.

The last part of the book deals with violations of the Constitution on the part of President Lincoln. There was not only inconsistency and violation of the Constitution which Lincoln had sworn to uphold but there was the logical inconsistency of saying that states never left the Union but in some sense must be readmitted to the Union. If they never left, how would they be required to be readmitted? It goes downhill from there to all sorts of violations of the civil rights of people both North and South.

Unfortunately, such has been the pattern of the federal government ever since. Perhaps it was right to free the slaves. I would ask was it right to violate the rights and therefore enslave all Americans as a result of the illegal suspension of habeas corpus or the other violence done to the rule of law by Lincoln? My perception of the man has changed from almost hero-worship to revulsion.

I have thoroughly checked references in this book before commenting. I even questioned the quality of the references and found all but one to be reliable. The one I could not verify was due to lack of time.

~One Nation, Indivisible? A Study of Secession and the Constitution~ is a fascinating overview of the constitutional issue of secession in the context of American constitutionalism. Hawes offers a sweeping point-by-point refutation of the unitary nationalist doctrines of Joseph Story and Daniel Webster. He also makes light of Webster's conflicting stance as he affirmed the right of state interposition at the Hartford Convention, and later reaffirmed the compact theory of the Union tacitly at his Capon Springs speech in the 1850s. Hawes offers an astute defense of the doctrine of secession, which was affirmed in express terms by three states in the state ratifying conventions of the late 1780s. In the most express terms, the founding fathers denied that the general government of the United States had any right whatsoever to coerce a sovereign state. Such naked coercion was diametrically opposed to the principle of rule by consent of the governed.

What this book does is manifest the illegality of the United States government under the Lincoln administration in the 1860s. Prior to Lincoln's election, the general government controlled by northern majority aggravated the continuance of the Union by pursuing a course of irrational tax policy which compelled southern secession. The Union was not founded on the principles of the inviolability of the national sovereignty, but on popular sovereignty and rule by the consent of the governed. Nearly two centuries after the adoption of the Constitution, the United States' fortieth President Ronald Reagan could proclaim, "[T]he Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government." That probably explains why Reagan said he would belonged to the other party had he lived in the mid-nineteenth century too.

This book is a nice supplement to Thomas DiLorenzo's book, and much more meticulous in examining the constitutional issues behind the secession issue. It offers a two-pronged defense of the actions of the Confederate States of America and a defense of the constitutional doctrine of state secession in general. I highly recommend it.

This is a most intriguing book which debunks many of the myths surrounding Lincoln, an easy read, easy to follow and most thought provoking.

This book was the first I found in my look for books based on the politics of secession and while I haven't quite finished it, it is quite excellent and should be read by any serious student of politics.

Are the father-centered family, private property, and the state necessary and inevitable part of all human societies?
Frederick Engels, coworker of Karl Marx, says no. Engels demonstrates that these three institutions arose in the fairly recent history of the human race, as a way to establish the rule of the many over the few. And, conversley, when these institutions are an obstacle to human progress, they can be dismantled.
Although this book was written about 125 years ago, the subject matter and his point of view sound surprisingly modern. Evelyn Reed, a Marxist anthropologist, writes a 1972 introduction that updates the original work from the point of view of 20th century anthropology debates abd the rise of modern women's movement. An additional short article by Engels, "The part played by labor in the transition from ape to man" is a lively piece that could be part of today's debates on human origin with almost no hint of its vintage (except maybe for his use of the term "man", instead of gender-neutral "humanity").

Marx and Engels made a fundamentally wrong guess about the nature of human beings. But it is very important to understand their line of reasoning, because they developed quite a few critical insights along the way. Due to political charge associated with their teachings it is practically impossible to find suitable third party narrative of their works. So, the only way to enlighten yourself is to dig right down into originals.

This is a serious, scientific and materialist analysis of development and change in human society and its institutions. Frederick Engels, who along with Karl Marx was one of the central founders of the modern communist movement, wrote this book in the late 1800s based on the latest developments in the then-new science of anthropology. Studying it can help us understand society and be better prepared to organize and work to change it.

Engels takes up the rise of the state and of the family and the oppression of women as early societies became more productive, making possible the division of groups of human beings into those who produce and those who live off them, and the need of the exploiters to perpetuate this state of affairs.

The Pathfinder Press edition also has a valuable introduction by Evelyn Reed, long-time socialist activist and author of works including "Woman's Evolution," "Sexism and Science," "Cosmetics, Fashion and the Exploitation of Women," and "Problems of Women's Liberation."

Why is society so cruel? It seems to be self-defeating. Why doesn't the war of the sexes ever end? In no other species do the two sexes battle against each other.

In this book we learn that things weren't always this way. In fact, oppression and exploitation are recent inventions, if we count that human history dates back EIGHTY thousand years since the rise of homo sapiens sapiens. At one point most cultures suddenly became sedentary and agriculturalist - and private property in the land emerged. Private property of land resulted in an overthrow of the matriarchal family by its male members and in the establishment of a separate group of men who violently protect unequal relationships (the state as we know it today). All happened together in a revolution that occurred in the course of just a few generations some SIX thousand years ago.

Nonetheless, the moral of this story is one of hope. If we were capable of remaking ourselves once, and based on that have advanced dramatically in a limited sense of creating material culture, then humankind can remake itself again and found a culture that enriches all aspects of everyone's lives. But this time the redesign will have to be conscious and conscientious, the beginning of a humane human history in which all participate on an equal basis. Such is the future that socialism and communism promise for us.

As a companion to this volume, be sure to read Women's Evolution, by Reed. Written a century later, it shows that anthropology's evidence overwhelmingly coincides with the theory Engels put forward in this book.

Was human society always overseen by a military and police force?
Was wealth and the means of producing more wealth always the private possession of individuals or a small section of society?
Were women always at the bottom of society, treated primarily as sex objects and machines for child-bearing and child-raising?

And is this humanity's destiny?
In this book published in 1884, Fredrich Engels answers the above questions in the negative. His book is based on anthropological data available in his day from societies around the globe. New discoveries since have confirmed his conclusions and the book is remarkably relevant today.

Though a separation of church and state is implied in the Bill of Rights, Sullivan suggests that our country was built on fundamentally religious principles that permeate the lives of all American citizens. Amy Sullivan's poignant book examines the issue of how one political party lost its right to religion. With keen wit and clever insight, Sullivan explores the series of decisions made within the Democratic Party which led to its inability to maintain religious voters.

The author points to key moments throughout history that contributed to the shift of religion in politics. Sullivan notes the importance of the Scopes Trial in disenfranchising evangelical voters from the left and acknowledges the huge role Roe v. Wade played in the democratic loss of catholic voters. She asserts that Bill Clinton's overt religiosity was not enough to inspire people of faith and that John Kerry's seemingly false Catholicism was even more off-putting for religious voters.

Though critical, her book is not without hope. Amy Sullivan suggests that the way for the left to reclaim religion is through compromise. The evangelical movement is not one against liberal ideals and the agenda has actually expanded to include such liberal issues as protection of the environment.

This book is an important one--for anyone of any political affiliation. Though a liberal reader may identify more closely with Sullivan's progressive bias, she expresses ideas on both sides of the political spectrum while providing an important message about modern politics.

Amy Sullivan obviously did a lot of homework, and she presents a wealth of facts and details in a very readable book that holds one's attention and whizzes by. And if you remember the pivotal presidential elections of 1972, 1976, and 1992, for example--pivotal because they involved religious issues that disrupted the composition of the traditional base of the Democratic Party--then you'll enjoy Sullivan's book even more. A very enjoyable read, and I can't recommend it highly enough.

For years, as a Democrat and progressive, I have watched the meteoric rise of the religious right. I have been struck by one question "what is it in the psyche of the American public that the Republicans are tapping into and the Democrats have missed?" I couldn't understand the exodus of fellow Catholic voters to support Republicans when so many of that party's policies were hostile to major tenants of Catholic teachings on economic and social justice. I raised this question with my Dad, a semi-retired college professor and political pollster. He too was perplexed. In an attempt to answer this question, a couple of years ago, we began a journey reading about the history of religion in America and its influence on politics and culture. It was not until we read Amy Sullivan's The Party Faithful that we finally got an answer.

One of late Democratic speaker Tip O'Neill's most famous quotes was that if you want someone's vote, "you need to ask for it." Politics 101! It appears that the Democratic Party forgot this very simple rule. They ceded a large group of voters, including historic supporters, because they incorrectly assumed all people of faith are conservatives. The party and its candidates stopped asking for their votes - or worse - pushed these voters away.

Ms. Sullivan's very timely book, describes the events and contemporary rise of the religious right as the Republican's seized a vacuum created by the Democrats. The Party Faithful is exceptionally well written, insightful and an astute social and political commentary. It is an easy read and full of entertaining and tragically true stories of how the Democratic party has bumbled its relationship with constituencies of faith voters. In the wake of the outcome of the 2004 Presidential elections, the book also highlights the actions of a growing group of progressive faith and political leaders to rediscover, build bridges, and redefine the "values voter." This book is a "must read" for all Democrats and anyone interested in the rise of religious right regardless of their religious (or non-religious) beliefs.

The actions of the Democratic party certainly were not unprovoked. The divisive rhetoric of a handful of neo-conservative evangelist leaders and outspoken Catholic bishops certainly exacerbated the situation. By narrowing the scope of issues that defined "good" faithful voters to include only abortion and anti-gay rights, they alienated members of their own faith, widened the cultural and political gaps in our nation, and pushed progressive religious voters of most faiths underground. Issues speaking to the faith values of economic and social justice - which are core to many faith traditions across the theological spectrum --were pushed off the agenda. Tragically and shamefully, over several decades, the actions of these faith leaders created a political environment that led to the de-funding of programs and weakening of laws and regulations that help the poor, safeguard the environment, and protect human rights.

The chapters on Catholics were of great personal interest. It was heartening to learn of the struggles of numerous prominent Catholic elected leaders to balance the internal dilemma of how to be a "good" Catholic and a political progressive at the same time. The chapters on white Evangelicals were also illuminating. Despite my own dislike for the too oft characterization of all Catholics as conservatives, I too had incorrectly assumed all Evangelicals were conservative. It was heartening to learn that, like Catholics, evangelicals run the political spectrum from progressive to conservative.

The impact of religion and political activism has run in cycles over the history of our nation. Ms. Sullivan's book artfully traces the beginning, middle and (hopefully) end of the most recent cycle. In a time when the American people are weary of four decades of political and cultural divisiveness that have torn at the fabric and cohesiveness of our nation, this book is a call for action.

Amy Sullivan is one of the smartest commentators at the intersection of religion and politics, and for readers who already appreciate her analysis and wit, this book will live up to their expectations. And for those who have not yet encountered Sullivan's talent for keen observation and lucid prose, The Party Faithful will be a treat. Filled with insider stories and compelling commentary, The Party Faithful is must reading for anyone who wants to understand why Democrats have much more than a prayer in 2008. Conservatives and liberals alike will learn a great deal from Sullivan and her impressive volume, The Party Faithful.

Our parents may have warned us to avoid talking about religion or politics. Fortunately, Amy Sullivan never got--or never listened to--that warning. Regardless of your political persuasion, The Party Faithful is a fascinating look deep inside a world which the mainstream media for the most part seems afraid to touch or simply does not seem to understand well.

It is no secret that Democratic party presidential candidates have been hurt by shaky support among Catholic voters and abysmal support among white evangelical Christian voters for most of the period from 1972 on. Catholics, once a solidly Democratic constituency, have preferred the Democratic presidential candidate only in 1996 and 2000 in the seven elections since 1980. And not since Jimmy Carter carried 58% of the white evangelical vote has that group favored Democrats, with no other Democratic nominee since then garnering more than 33% support among this very large demographic.

Sullivan, an evangelical Baptist and a liberal Democrat, maintains it did not and does not need to be so. National editor for Time and formerly editor of the Washington Monthly and a Capitol Hill staffer, she explains how Democrats have missed opportunities to do far better with both groups without compromising their principles--and of how the party is lately showing signs of rapid progress in working its way up that learning curve.

John Kerry, who lost the white evangelical vote 78-22, did not learn that there were evangelical Democrats until after the election. His campaign's approach: "We don't do white churches", even though 40% of evangelicals are politically moderate. Sullivan describes the recent broadening of priorities beyond abortion and gay marriage within the younger generation of politically active evengelicals to include attention to issues such as Iraq, poverty and AIDS in Africa. Many among this new generation of evangelical activists feel used and taken for granted by the Republican party and have put their support up for grabs based on which party can deliver on this expanded range of concerns.

Sullivan likewise believes that Democrats can, and need to, engage Catholic voters on a much broader range of issues and not assume, incorrectly, that Catholic voters are only concerned with abortion and gay marriage. She explains that many Catholic voters are influenced by Church teachings in support of the concept of the Common Good and that this outlook may align better with Democratic party approaches on many economic/social justice and foreign policy issues. But, fearful (not without reason) of being disrupted by anti-abortion rights protesters and a vocal, visible minority of communion-denying far right-wing Catholic officials, many Democratic politicians have declined to engage Catholic audiences. In this regard, I was moved by the account of Rep. Rosa DeLauro's refusal to disengage from her Church, no matter how much her Church has given the back of its hand to her and other pro-choice Catholic Democratic elected officials. DeLauro has been among the leaders seeking to put in place policies which would reduce the number of abortions without overturning Roe v. Wade.

Sullivan describes some of the strategies that, so far applied on a small scale, have already borne impressive results with both groups.

At 220 pages the book is a brisk read. While the author devoted considerable, and quite fruitful, attention, to the abortion issue, I would like to have gotten a similar level of detail and insight on the inside politics of the gay marriage/civil union issue.

Sullivan's sources are impressive. She left me feeling like a fly on the wall as she recounted one vivid anecdote after another involving major players ordinary citizens like me have no, or limited, access to. Marked by a lively reportorial style, a passion for illumination in lieu of condemnation, and sensible positive suggestions for how Democrats and liberals can pick up support among religious voters without losing their souls, The Party Faithful is a winning and hopeful window into that world where politics and religion intersect. As someone who has been trying to educate myself about this subject in recent years, I learned a great deal from this book.

Any textbook that can incorporate sayings like "There's more sex on the Web than flies on a cowpie" (p. 287). Is a book written by authors who love what they do. This was by far the most "fun" textbook I've read, and easy to teach from.

I would recommend this seller. My purchase was delivered fast and as guaranteed.

Item was in great condition and very fast shipment. No problems. Would definately buy from again.

As an undergrad, this was a great book to read. It's written in a conversational style, yet it is still detailed and comprehensive in research, meta-analyses, and examples. The authors also have a sense of humor...which is nice and used sparingly, yet makes it even more enjoyable to read.

It also has an chapter on ethics which some textbooks seem to disregard. There are also real-life situation info-boxes where people can learn and apply what they learn to purchasing new cars, making more tips, and how to ward off telemarketers.

I'm writing this just at the end of the 2006 elections. I can't imagine how many millions were spent trying to persuade me that this candidate or that question on the ballot should be my choice. I'm astounded at how many phone calls I've received from Laura Bush, or that candidate who just wants to set the record straight about the lies her opponnent has been telling about her. And then there are the outright lies. The people for Question 4 tell us that this will eliminate smoking in public places and we should vote for 4 but not for 5. Question 4 relaxes some of the current laws, Question 5 strongly limits smoking nearly everywhere but casinos and brothels. Oh, and did I tell you about this fellow in Nigeria with the huge amount of money that's tied up in his country and if I will just pay some transfer fees....

This book looks at all aspects of persuasion from a scientific point of view. It's useful from two directions, how to be more persuasive, and how to resist persuasion. Most important, it's how to understand what's happening in out world.

I was pleased with the purchase. The item came fast and in the promised condition.

Weimer's "Policy Analysis -3rd edition" provides a well-organized, widely-covered, and easily-understandable introduction to policy analysis. Although we have to seek for other materials for an in-depth analysis of some topics, the book helps us start with Public Policy, Policy Analysis, and even economic policies. This is especially good for undergraduate level, since this provides how to study, investigate, and write policy paper.

This is 'the' book when it comes to public policy analysis. I have read the 3rd and 4th editions and both are great foundational books for anyone looking to do public policy analysis as a practitioner or academic researcher.

This is one of the very best textbooks in the study of policy analysis.

The first part of the book sets the context. It provides a neat case study of the Canadian salmon fishery to give an example of basic policy analysis. Following this are chapters on the nature of policy analysis and the professional ethics related to the endeavor.

One of the most important elements of this book is the next section--the economics of policy analysis. The text discusses the logic of economics, why government intervention through making policy can make economic sense under certain conditions, and the danger of "government failure" (when governmernt actions may work against good economic sense).

The following section focuses on the variety of policy options available to government to address problems. Some "solutions" are market-based; others include regulations and taxes. The volume goes on to explore techniques such as cost-benefit analysis. Two case studies of policy analysis round out the substantive chapters. The last chapter focuses on the responsibility of policy analysts to both "do well" and to "do good."

Not an easy read, but a book that provides the basic underpinnings for understanding policy analysis--and how to do policy analysis.

I read this book for a class and it gives a fantastic overview of the basics of policy analysis. It discusses the reasons for government intervention in markets, the analysis of policies and ways of going about doing a thorough policy analysis. Easy to read and very informative!

Before MLK, Gandhi, Tolstoy, or Thoreau, there was the brilliant Etienne de La Boetie, who explored civil disobedience, resistance to tyranny, and the brutal exploitative nature of the state.

Murray N. Rothbard's insightful introduction places this pioneering work in historical context and in the pantheon of Libertarian classics.

Boetie wrote his "Discourse" around 1553 when he was about 22 years of age and a student at the University of Orleans. This libertarian essay, two centuries ahead of its time, was never published by the Catholic and soon-to-be conservative Boetie. Huguenots published it anonymously in 1574 and fully credited it in 1576 (Boetie died in 1563 at 32 years of age).

The "Discourse" is an abstract, universal, naturally reasoned argument passionately calling for widespread civil disobedience to tyranny. Harold Laski later made the observation that "A sense of popular right such as the Friend of Montaigne [Boetie] depicts is, indeed, as remote from the spirit of the time as the anarchy of Herbert Spencer in an age committed to government interference" (see his "A Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants, p 11). Boetie appealed to man's universal nature rather than presumed or real historical precedents resulting in a timeless document that speaks to all ages.

Boetie begins "I should like merely to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him . . .". He asks "Shall we call subjection to such a leader cowardice? . . . If a hundred, if a thousand endure the caprice of a single man, should we not rather say that they lack not the courage but the desire to rise against him, and that such an attitude indicates indifference rather than cowardice? . . . What monstrous vice, then, is this which does not even deserve to be called cowardice, a vice for which no term can be found vile enough?"

Boetie made a profound insight into the nature of the State - all states, including tyrannous ones, are based upon general popular acceptance.

Boetie continues "If we led our lives according to the ways intended by nature and the lessons taught by her, we should be intuitively obedient to our parents; later we should adopt reason as our guide and become slaves to nobody". He says ". . . there can be no further doubt that we are all naturally free", and asks "what evil chance has so denatured man that he, the only creature really born to be free, lacks the memory of his original condition and the desire to return to it?"

"He who thus domineers over you . . . How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you?", he asks, ". . . you can deliver yourself if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed".

Boetie is saying that tyranny dissolves when the majority of the ruled withdraws its consent and thereby deprives the ruling minority of its support and grudging acceptance. Yet, the ruled seldom accomplish this. Boetie tells us the reason is "habituation":

"It is true that in the beginning men submit under constraint and by force; but those who come after them obey without regret and perform willingly what their predecessors had done because they had to. This is why men born under the yoke and then nourished and reared in slavery are content, without further effort, to live in their native circumstance, unaware of any other state or right, and considering as quite natural the condition into which they are born . . . it is clear enough that the powerful influence of custom is in no respect more compelling than in this, namely, habituation to subjection. It is said that . . . nature . . . has less power over us than custom."

Boetie made a second profound insight into the nature of the State - all states are in essence a hierarchy of privilege that benefits a limited minority. In his illustration of this point, Boetie employes the language of natural law and natural rights.

Boetie also noted the State's use of propaganda and techniques of information warfare (IW) employed upon its subjects to maintain servility. He says "it has always happened that tyrants, in order to strengthen their power, have made every effort to train their people not only in obedience and servility toward themselves, but also in adoration."

In conclusion, Boetie should be considered the first "Gandhi" or advocate of civil disobedience and it should be noted that he grounded his notions in man's natural right to liberty as dictated by natural law. His insights into the State ring true today. Modern Americans allow themselves to be regulated, taxed, and shipped off to invade and bomb their global neighbors to the same extent as their "cousins" across the pond in the United Kingdom - a phenomenon that no doubt has their liberty-loving forefathers rolling in their graves. Boetie hoped education would induce the withdrawal of consent, but as his turn to conservatism lays tribute, it is the weight of the yoke that prompts any reaction.

"...And you are at once free. I do not ask that you place hands on the tyrant, but merely cease to obey him, and you will see him, like a colossus, fall of his own weight and break into pieces." So begins this short classic. It reads as if written with words of fire. Astonishing clarity and moral certitude bathe the ideas expressed. There is no room for temporarizing in La Boiete; the breathtaking clarity of his ideas blew cobwebs from my mind. It was like learning to walk on two legs instead of four. Some toung in cheek references to how his rhetoric does not apply to the France of the Capetian dynasty merely add flavor and wit to his insights. Non-violent resistance and civil disobedience both trace their modern pedigrees to this work. This is a book for the ages, and it is a shame that it is not widely available in English. (Knowledge Products excerpts it on tape in their, "Giants of Political Thought" cassette series.) I wish every student could be given a copy of this book; then, our liberty would face a brighter future than now appears to be the case. -Lloyd A. Conway

"The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude" has influencedsome of the world's greatest social thinkers; from Leo Tolstoy toMohandus Gandhi to Ayn Rand. Written in the 1550s, as something of an underground tract or pamphlet by a young French student and friend of essayist Michelle de Montaigne, this short work remains a timeless expose of the psychology and inherent corruption involved in social or political power. The work has been in and out of print in English (Some of its various titles over the years were "Slaves By Choice," "Anti-Dictator," "The Will To Bondage," and "The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude"). In North America it has been out of print for some time now, unfortunately. Since its original circulation in the early 1550s as "de la servitude volontaire ou contr'un," this short but powerful work seems to find its way back into print whenever the winds of social change began blowing toward tyranny.

Etienne de la Boetie's THE POLITICS OF OBEDIENCE has also been named THE WILL TO BONDAGE edited by James J. Martin. The focus of the Boetie's book is the fact that the "Terrible Tyrant" is often a wimp and a coward and only survives because of the sychophants who readily obey him and betray each other to prove their loyalty.

Boetie cites historical examples of tyrants who ruled large populations due to the fact that their immediate supporters and the masses of people were immune to thinking that they could do better if their changes or regime changes. Yet, history provided very few examples up to the time of Boetie(the 16th. century). Boetie witnessed some of the excesses of the Reformation and Counter Reformation and the fact that tyrants were only too willing to take advantage of religious hatred to exploit their subjects.

Boetie's work is relevant in the 21st. century. The game of politics has not changed much except for the fact that The State has expanded exponentially since the 16th century. Boetie's argument that thinking only have to withdraw their support to bring the State to its knees which Ghandi did in India. Yet, there are so few surviving examples of this political ploy to expect too much except to write for the record.

What has made the situation worse is that the State has layers of burcaucracy with brainless bureaucrats who staff these powerful offices. These bureaucrats are basically useless and stupid and easily fit James J. Martin's description as "The New Stupid." They are useless which is why the State has made them indespensible.

This book has been reissued only a few times since it was first published in 1577. Yet, the reappearence of this book is a good sign that some people still consider it an important study in understanding the State

This work of Craig's is the definitive one volume history for the Prussian Army. You can read lots of books about the different Prussian wars or Prussian history - but they will ALL list this book in the bibliography. So do yourself a favor and read this first.

Gordon Craig is the doyen of America's historians of Germany. Now retired from academic life, he is highly respected at home and in Germany, and is sought after for sound and temperate reviews and commentary in the media. No other survey has superceded The Politics of the Prussian Army, although it is now over 40 years old. (However, Gerhard Ritter's important, multi-volume "Staatskunst und Kriegshandwerk" covers a lot of the same ground, with a more conservative viewpoint. There's an English translation) There are two basic reasons for this, I think. One is of course the book's very high quality. Craig became throughly familiar with all the most important source material available, and his fundamental conclusions are unquestioned: that the army was the keystone and guardian of the Prussian monarchy and its conservative social order, and always at work to hinder the progress of democracy and the achievement of popular over monarchical sovereignty. The authoritarian (N. B.: as distinct from totalitarian!) sympathies and traditions of the Prussian officer corps survived after the end of the Prussian monarchy in 1918 and carried on in the Reichswehr of the Weimar Republic, and then in the Wehrmacht. Eventually the officer corps sold its soul to the "Austrian corporal" (Hindenburg's disdainful reference), Hitler, believing they could control him for their own ends, and that he was in any case the best available political option. But Hitler was nobody's fool, and his ultimate aim always remained to undermine the social authority and prestige of the regular army and in its place install himself, his party, and an absolutely fanaticized and obedient military force (the Waffen-SS). A sense of duty not to Hitler but to the German people and their civilization flamed up and extinguished in the assasination attempt of Oct 1944, led by Wehrmacht officers of the old Prussian nobility. Recent research (in English, cf. for example Omer Bartov) has tended to see more ideological sympathy for Nazism in the officer corps of the Wehrmacht more than Craig does here, though his focus is less on ideology than on the army's involvement in political machinations at the highest level. German historians and journalists are debating this issue at the moment, as new publications argue that the Wehrmacht committed war crimes on a greater scale, esp. on the Eastern front, than previously admitted, and that it fought unrestrained by professional ethos or conscience. A second reason for the book's longevity is that most of the Prussian military archive was destroyed in a 1945 bombing raid, which makes significant new discoveries impossible for the period before World War II. One has to rely on published sources, and as I noted, Craig read the most important of them. New histories of the Prussian army would be new interpretations of the same sources. One could, for example, to take a more sympathetic view of the army's 19th-century ideology and ethos - that it was defensive - in view of Prussia's vulnerable geographical position, the hostility of its neighbors, and the rise of the socialist movement. But in the early 20th century Germany was far and away the dominant power in Europe, and the question arises of what "went wrong" and led to Germany's (in my view) unprovoked attack and reckless strategy in World War I. Note: Despite the title, the book is really a history of the army after 1806, with an introductory chapter on the period before.

I had to read this book for a History of Germany Course at Mary Washington College. I remember my Professor, Blakemore, hyping the book. He was right. Based on this book, it is easy to see why Gordon Craig is considered one of the best Historians when it comes to Germany. This book is not only a history of the German army, but it is really a history of Germany it self. It was especially interesting to read about the importance of the Blood Oath of Loyalty taken by the German Army to Hitler before WWII. If you are interested in Germany, I highly recommend this book.

Gordon Craig's history of the Prussian officer corps and its relationship with the state it served is a true classic of military history. The primary focus of the book is on the civil-military relations of the Prussian state beginning with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and tracings its evolution and influence to the Second World War when Hitler and the Nazis crushed the political influence of the officer corps. In addition, the book also addresses a number other issues in exquisite detail, including the formation of the German General Staff, the strategy developed before the First and Second World Wars, and the social conflict of the unified German states.

Craig's conclusions on the Prussian officer corps, their reforms and their performance are rather "standard" as far as historical interpretations go - but that is due in no small part to the fact that the author in many ways set the standard. The most salient theme of the book is that for all the German military got right in planning, strategy and innovation, it was never able to effectively solve the civil-military relationship issue, and it was that failure that led to the disasters of the First and Second World Wars.

In Craig's opinion, the opportunity for success was formulated but squandered early in 19th century. After the devastating defeat at Jena in 1807 at the hands of Napoleon, the once vaunted Prussian military had to assess how and why the disaster had occurred. The solution presented by the great military reformer Scharnhorst was the institutionalization of military genius in a centralized, elite general staff and the accountability of the armed services to the German people through an oath of allegiance to a republican constitution, rather than personal fealty to the monarch. The former was adopted and proved a stunning success, especially in the wars against the Danes, Austrians and French in 1866-1872. However, the conservative officer corps' unwillingness to embrace the more liberal reform set forth by Scharnhorst kept the military at odds with the nation it served and ultimately led to the military's political dominance in World War I and political subjugation in World War II.

If you have a keen interest in civil-military relations, German history, or the development of the General Staff system this book is simply indispensable.

This excellent volume was one of my textbooks in college, and I completely underestimated its importance for years. Being deeply involved and interested in Napoleonic military history and the campaigns of the Grande Armee, I have again started to use this book as there is now a 'revisionist' (read 'excuse')school of Prussian history beginning to emerge, revolving around the disastrous, for the Prussians, Jena campaign of 1806. For this period, and indeed for the periods up to the end of World War II, this book is invaluable.

The author uses myriad German source material for his references, and the story he tells is accurate, lively, and riveting. He knows his material, and his subject, and is unflinching in calling a spade a spade when necessary. While I am only interested in those portions relating to the Napoleonic period and its immediate aftermath, students of the Prussian/German Army will find this book invaluable.

Craig's bona fides are impeccable and he writes with authority, verve, and accuracy. His analysis of the Prussian Army's beginnings in the aftermath of the Thirty Years' War set the definition and trends for what the Prussian Army would become, something apart from the people of Prussia and an army supported by a dynastic state. His demonstration of the effectiveness of the instrument under the Great Frederick, and of his policies, and those of his successors after the Seven Years' War, tell the tale of why is became nothing more than a 'parade ground facade', made up of half-foreign mercenary strength, which were two of the many reasons for its defeat and destruction by Napoleon and the Grande Armee in 1806.

The coverage of the Prussian reformers is also excellent, and dispels many myths, some of which unforunately are resurfacing under the guise of 'recent scholarship.' The War of Liberation from Napoleon was in actuality a war of liberating whatever German territory Prussia could grab in the chaos of the aftermath of French hegemony in western Germany (they took the Rhineland, most of Westphalia, and about half of Saxony, keeping the Saxon king, Napoleon's ally, as a prisoner of war). Additionally, force had to be used in Prussia to get the manpower required to fight the Grande Armee. The end of the tale is also excellently told-that of how the reformers, so necessary to Prussian resurgence, were treated and eventually disposed of politically, the Prussian monarchy almost completely retrenching to pre-1806 'values.'

All in all this is an excellent volume for students and historians of the period or of the Prussian/German army in particular. It is highly recommended.

Most college kids in the 70's were force-fed RICHARD HOFSTADTER's book, The Age of Reform, which ridiculed populism.
But having grown up the son of a immigrant farm boy and county agent, my view of the midwestern populism and farm culture was much much different.

So Goodwyn's book was a welcome documentation of what I had known all along--that populism was a uniquely American movement, and the spirit of the frontier was never rugged individualism, but community.

The Farmer-Laborer Alliances of the late 19th Century, and the People's Party that resulted, always referred to their reform movement as 'cooperation', and quoted Thomas Jefferson, and the founding fathers. In this context, populism was uniquely American. It was a struggle between democratic capitalism vs. speculative and monopoly capitalism.

Real populism was about creating cooperative systems to consolidate farmer's economic power in competition with the railroads and the banks. It was the alternative to the disasterous crop-lien system of the rural south that turned so many of Jefferson's yoeman farmers into destitute sharecroppers, that forced them out of their homes to settle the western plains.

Goodwyn's book debunks the idea the William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech was the defining highpoint of populism, when in fact it was it's destruction. Goodwyn points out that free silver was never more then a shadow movement of an immensely popular political movement.

Goodwyn also debunks the later-day revisionists like Michael Kazin's book, author of The Populist Persuasion, that populism was a style of rhetoric than a coherent set of political ideas or reforms.

While the People's Party was co-opted and destroyed by the Democrat Party, most of the reforms advocated by the populists came to pass in the 1930's with the agricultural reforms of the 1930's. Things like the rural electrification, the regulation of the railroads, the Farm Credit Administration, and the federal reserve all grew out the original populist ideas. Because of the populist complaints, eventually government intervention in the grain and other food commodies marketplace was recognized as the means of democraticizing and strengthing the market system, stablizing the food supply, and strengthening the market system.

But most importantly, the dignity of the common man against the rich and powerful urban elite entered American political discourse.

This is an important book, and a welcome understanding of perhaps the most successful movement by common folks to control their own destiny.

Obviously influenced by the New Social history and the Sixties' social movements, Lawrence Goodwyn attempts a major reinterpretation of the Populist movement in The Populist Moment, an abridged version of his epic Democratic Promise: The Populist Movement in America. Although Goodwyn's main project is a redefinition of Populism and stress on the movement's culture, he also provides a theory for social action that serves as the narrative structure for his history and a useful philosophy in itself. Placing the origins of Populism in Texas and conceptualizing the Farmers' Alliance as the movement's ideological core, Goodwyn's analysis marginalizes the Fusionists and Free Silverites, providing a powerful reinterpretation and the main strength of the book. However, by stressing these aspects of the movement, Goodwyn fails to take in the whole of Populism in all its disparate manifestations.

Before proceeding to the history of Populism, Goodwyn begins his book by introducing his "sequential process of democratic movement-building:" forming, recruiting, educating, and politicizing. (xviii) It is this theory of building and maintaining a movement culture, which provides the outline for Goodwyn's history. For Goodwyn, the movement successfully formed, recruited, and educated a large body of supporters. However, in politicizing, the movement failed to maintain its educational program and cooperative institutions, thereby opening the way for Silverites and Fusionists while losing its movement culture that attracted and held the base supporters.

Throughout the book Goodwyn centers Populism in the Farmers' Alliance of Texas and sees Charles Macune and William Lamb as the movement's unofficial leaders. In response to increasing poverty, drastically reduced farm prices, and, most importantly, the centralization of power and resources, the Farmers' Alliance sprung forth from communities in central Texas as a way for tenants, sharecroppers, and small farmers to educate themselves about politics, economics, and agriculture. Building membership and loyalty through cooperatives stores and the joint marketing of crops, the Alliance expanded across the South and Midwest through a phalanx of itinerant lecturers spreading the group's message. As their cooperatives fell victim to the ongoing economic recession, Charles Macune developed a federal sub-treasury plan that would create a fiat currency for farmers, essentially issuing greenbacks as loans backed by the harvest. While the sub-treasury never came to fruition, Goodwyn defines true Populists as unaligned supporters of the plan and members of the Farmers' Alliance. Consequently for Goodwyn, everyone else falls under the 'shadow' movement of Silverites and Fusionists. With this conception of Populism, Goodwyn locates the movement's demise not in the failure of Bryan's campaign, but in the People's Party support of the free silver Democratic ticket.

Goodwyn attempts a major reinterpretation of the Populist movement and largely succeeds by marginalizing the 'shadow' movement. Furthermore, his detailed analysis of Populism's development posits a truly democratic movement of common folk united by a shared set of concerns. By tying the rise and fall of Populism to his movement theory, Goodwyn provides a tremendously useful framework for understanding the broad implications, successes, and failures of the movement. While his reinterpretation can not be overemphasized, his book falls short by not paying more attention to the 'shadow' movement in the West and Midwest. The 'shadow' movement of free silver and fusion was an important and influential component of Populism; by not giving it attention, Goodwyn tells only half the story. Finally, Goodwyn's analysis of Populism could have benefited from talking more about race. Despite the connection with the Colored Farmers' Alliance, at its heart, Populism was based on white supremacy, deeply problematizing Goodwyn's eulogy of Populism as the last truly democratic American social movement.

Seldom in our nation's history have there been widespread, grass-roots challenges to the economic and political system. According to the author, the agrarian movement of the late 1880s, otherwise known as Populism, was in fact the last such great challenge. Beyond the history of the movement, the author is much concerned with the implications for future democratic movements.

The small farmers in western Texas in the 1880s recognized that the economic cards were stacked against them. The crop lien system and the "furnishing" merchant, the exorbitant prices paid for goods combined with low prices paid for cash crops, and the price gouging of railroads - all of these inspired some farmers to begin forming local alliances that would try to use cooperative methods to bypass those powerful interests that placed farmers in economic thralldom. Lecturers that spread across the South, and even westward and northward, drew upon close-knit farming community ties to eventually establish some 40,000 "sub-alliances" involving two million people, all finally part of a National Farmers Alliance. Through local trade stores, warehouses, and state exchanges, these sub-alliances attempted to buy and sell in bulk. But these efforts met with varying and limited success. Banking interests, grain elevator operators, and stockyards, among others, refused to deal with these farming groups, to accept their notes based on their cash crops and land.

It is hardly surprising, given their radical critique of economic interests, that agrarian organizers would turn to political action to seek redress for farmer grievances. Yet the turn to politics was a highly complicating development for agrarian reform. The agrarian platform was highly radical for the times involving such issues as land reform, labor rights, government ownership and control of transportation and communication, and banking and currency reform with the elimination of the gold standard. But the hold of generational allegiances to the Democratic and Republican parties prevented many farmers from shifting to independent politics despite the fact that their traditional parties were resolutely opposed to many of the farmers' measures. Attempts at reform through the traditional parties were met by cooptation and demagoguery.

The People's Party was formed at Omaha in July, 1892. The party's platform was the agrarian platform containing not only the National Alliance's sub-treasury plan, which was a plan for the issuance of greenbacks, but also calling for the free coinage of silver, both planks having the effect of increasing the money supply. Electoral success was limited. The Democratic Party through coopting of the silver issue and flagrant electoral fraud was able to defeat the Populists throughout the South, where they had their greatest support. In 1896 the People's Party through pre-convention intrigue actually nominated a staunch silver Democrat, William Jennings Bryan, for president, thus essentially ending the Populist movement. According to the author, Populism had become a "shadow" movement, a mere shell of its former orientation.

For the author, democratic mass movements that take issue with core aspects of society face almost insurmountable odds. In the first place, there are the assumptions that the "system" works, that the system contains mechanisms for continual progress and for overcoming problems. In fact, there exists an entire school of thought among historians that contends that the Populists were cranks unwilling to accept social progress and sought only to maintain an antiquated way of life. That school of thought is most closely associated with historian Richard Hofstadter. However, the author finds that the Populists' grievances were real enough while admitting the difficulties of overcoming the received culture. In addition, the author contends that the hierarchical nature of social structures and the accompanying deferential behavior make independent thought and action exceedingly difficult.

Genuine mass movements cannot be top-down driven. The formation of a mass movement that can achieve political viability must proceed from the ground up. Key to any such movement is the establishment of an independent institution that through the participation of its members develops an ideology and strategy that counters prevailing authority. The counter organization must educate and recruit new adherents. The agrarian movement was based on the sub-alliances and their cooperative ventures and achieved extensive recruitment and education through a lecturing system. The politicization step is often difficult to take and sustain because member activism takes on an indirect element in that it is geared to electoral success allowing party elites to then fully engage in the governmental process. Populism was ultimately unable to successfully take the political step.

The author suggests that the failures of Populism essentially defined the boundaries of the possible in fundamentally changing basic structures of American culture. First Progressivism and then liberalism all operated on a basis of incremental reform. In other words, the system works. The policies forming the Federal Reserve, allowing the constant rise of farm tenantry, and permitting the continued centralization and rise in influence of corporations all rejected or minimized the scope of the Populist program.

This book is a short form of the author's complete work, "The Democratic Promise." At times the book takes on the feel of an overview. For example, it would have been interesting to see far more details concerning the actually workings of the various cooperative efforts at the sub-alliance level. And following the twin threads of the Alliance and the People's Party across many states and conventions over a ten year period can be a little sketchy.

The author's insights into forming mass democratic movements and mounting cultural challenges are outstanding. Those insights add to the understanding of Populism. It should give anyone pause when considering the ability of modern movements to impact the status quo.

I was moved, impressed, and inspired by this book. There are a couple of other reviews that do excellent jobs of summarizing, so I will try to limit my ten pages of notes to a few highlights, and some other books that I believe can help the 3 out of 5 Americans that want "none of those now running." The Republican and Democratic parties have sold out (this is best documented in Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It) and it is time we restored the Constitution and demanded Electoral Reform to restore We the People as sovereign.

Written in 1978, this book could not have come to me, and others in the transpartisan movement, at a better time.

The author opens with very helpful overviews of how a mass culture, a mass indoctrination, if you will, is a much cheaper and easier way to keep the mass docile, than a forced or fascist solution. He reminds me of Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.

He then moves to the manner in which industrialization eroded democracy, making it a poor facade. I am reminded of Manufacture of Evil: Ethics, Evolution, and the Industrial System

He then stresses how in a damaged or constrained democracy, public resignation and private escapism are the dominant features of the mass public.

He then moves into an overview of the agrarian-based populist movement that was crushed by the railroads, Pinkerton's as an illegal army, and the banks, with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 being the consummation of the banking victory over the people.

He notes that mass protest requires a higher order of culture, education, and achievement, especially in harmonization of disparate nodes. He identifies four steps within which the third is clearly of vital importance:

1. Autonomous institution emerges as a hub
2. Recruiting of masses takes place
3. Educating of masses takes place (40,000 "lecturers")
4. Politicization of the masses actualizes their power to good effect.

The author does a superb job of stressing the importance of internal communication, and says that IF this can be achieved, THEN a new plateau of social responsibility is possible. He calls this plateau of cooperative and democratic conduct "the movement culture."

The populists achieved a "sense of somebodyness." I am reminded of All Rise: Somebodies, Nobodies, and the Politics of Dignity (Bk Currents) as well as Society's Breakthrough!: Releasing Essential Wisdom and Virtue in All the People.

He examines the Civil War and concludes that it changed everything--it fragmented the nation into sectarian, religious, and racial prejudices. Latter in the book he examines the pernicious effects of white supremacy, which ultimately undid the potential collaboration among poor whites, poor blacks, and poor Catholics factory workers in the Northeast.

The populists tried to break free of the railroads and banks that conspired to keep them in debt forever. Among their brilliant leaders, one stood out, conceptualizing both a large scale credit cooperative (i.e. public ownership of the essentials of society including food, water, energy, and communications), and a sub-treasury that would ensure that natural resources were applied to the needs of the people and not to squatter or absentee landlords.

The seven "demands" of the populists, ultimately crushed by the banks:

1) Abolishment of banks, issuance of government tender
2) Government ownership of the means of communication & transportation
3) Prohibition of alien ownership of USA land
4) Free and unlimited coinage in silver
5) Equitable taxation among classes
6) Fractional paper currency
7) Government economy

The populists opposed "organized capital", emphasized living issues over dead or archaic contracts, and tried to establish their own newspapers because they understood that the mainstream media had been co-opted by the railroads and the banks.

The following quote on page 168, from the year 1892, is eerily relevant to today:

"The people are demoralized. ...The newspapers are subsidized or muzzled; public opinion silenced; business prostrate; our homes covered with mortgages; labor impoverished; and the land concentrated in the hands of capitalists. The urban workmen are denied the right of organization for self-protection; imported pauperized labor beats down our own wages; a hireling standing army (Pinkerton's), unrecognized by our laws, is established to shoot them down; and they are rapidly disintegrating to European conditions. The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes, unprecedented, while their possessors despise the republic and endanger liberty."

Wow. I am reminded of virtually every book I have read in the past four years on unilateral militarism, virtual colonialism, and predatory immoral capitalism. Just a couple can be mentioned here:

The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy
Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil
The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (The American Empire Project)
The Global Class War: How America's Bipartisan Elite Lost Our Future - and What It Will Take to Win It Back
The Working Poor: Invisible in America

The author draws the book to a close by observing four trends that spelled the demise of the populist movement:

1. Banishment of "financial issue" from public debate
2. Corporate mergers (and one could add, corporate "personality")
3. Decline of public participation in democracy
4. Corporate domination of mass communications

He identifies three persistent flaws in the existing American economy:

1. Land ownership permitting alien, absentee, and predatory landlords
2. Basic financial structure that imposes debt rather than credit
3. Corporate centralization

He stresses that populism is not socialism, but rather a democratic promise emergent. He is optemistic that lessons from the populist failure could be used by farmers, laborers, and others to do a mass insurgency, to "work together to be free individually."

If we are to defeat the current corrupt Republican and Democratic parties, we must do so in a transpartisan fashion: a third party must be based on the disaffected from both of the corrupt "main parties" while attracting back to the debate and the electoral process the lapsed voters and the new voters. I think we can do that for 2008.

In a very thorough manner, Mr. Goodwyn covers the history of the populist movement thru its years as the farmers' alliance and the Peoples' Party! The leading people, the main party newspapers,the conventions, experiments and actions of this great movement are covered in this excellent book! Put this powerfully written book next to the classics by Hicks and McMath! A must have!

Capturing the true essence of what it means to be a soldier in the American Army and the Lord's Army Christopher Plekenpol points an unblinking eye at his time in Iraq. Sharing intimate details about his troubles, tragedies, and triumphs. I would recommend The Power In Him to anyone who wants to know what it is like to be a man of faith in such a trying and dangerous situation. I thank all the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect my freedom.

I was so excited to get my copy of Power In-Him. Captain Christopher Plekenpol shares with us in his book what God has been showing and teaching him during his service in Iraq. Cpt Plekenpol is an awesome man of God and writes from his heart. His devotionals/stories challenge you to think outside of the box that we sometimes can put God in and encourages you to take a closer look at God's heart. This book is definately for all ages of readers; in all walks of life. Thank you Captain Plekenpol for writing a book about your service in Iraq but more for showing what it means to be a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ellen Taylor
Raleigh, NC

This book is incredible! I absolutely loved it! Captain Christopher L.F. Plekenpol has made it possible for us to step into his charachter and see exactly how life is for an American soldier at war. He takes us through his feelings, and what soldiers are thinking as well as himself. Captain Plekenpol has shown very well in his book how soldiers minds, hearts and lives are dramatically changed and effected by war. There are parts of his book that will make you laugh, cry and meditate on exactly what he is talking about. This book will help you have a better understanding of how life for a soldier in war is. This is a "Powerful" book and will profoundly change your heart and mind. Captain Plekenpol has done an incredible job at showing us all how war and being away from friends and family will change you in many ways.
I was blessed to get this book into my hands, It changed me a lot as well.

Melissa Dana
Raytown, Missouri

I loved this book!!! Captain Christopher L. F. Plekenpol has done an incredible job bringing the reader into the reality of the war in Iraq. As an American citizen, I have often wondered about the day-to-day goings on in the life of a soldier at war. What do they feel? What do they think? Captain Plekenpol has masterfully written this book about the reality of things that occur in the mind and heart of a soldier on a daily basis. His warm writing style openly invites the reader to step into his skin and experience the joys and struggles that he daily endures. Some parts of The Power In-Him will make you laugh, some will make you cry, and all of it will challenge you to examine your own life. As a Christian, I embraced this book. Captain Plekenpol loves the Lord and loves the men and women he is serving with. This book is truly a must read. I was not able to put it down!!! It is a great gift for men and women that have served in our military as well as for those who are currently serving or intend to serve. It is a great read for all!

This is the most "power full" devotional book I've read in a long time. The book spoke to my heart and brought me to tears as Chris talked about issues that I've dealt with in my life. He is candid and willing to talk about errors as well as triumphs. He gives the reader insight into the life of a soldier at war. The book appeals to all ages. My 20+ son enjoyed it. I enjoyed it (I'm female and over 50). My 70+ mother enjoyed it. I believe this book will readily reach its target audience and beyond!

While this book is an excellent telling of the major events of Jefferson's presidency, it is not an intimate portrait of the man himself during those years. In the early couple chapters McDonald gives the reader what I would call a "Jefferson primer" for the unacquainted which is masterfully written, yet as he carefully and thoughtfully steps through the events of Jefferson's two terms, he does not delve into the mind of the man himself. There were several points where I thought to myself - 'gee, I would really like to hear more about what Jefferson was thinking as he made this decision'. A further inclusion of written sources from Jefferson would have alleviated this lacking.

However, despite this major flaw (which may be intentional, leaving such thoughts for a biographist), it is a superb book. The narratives are interesting, well balanced, and complete. The book sticks to a well defined chronological organization. And, finally McDonald delves just enough into the characters surrounding Jefferson without overstepping his dues. A great read as a whole.

McDonald analyzes Jefferson's presidency, discussing the early successes in stopping Federalism, as well as the limitations to the changes that Jefferson and the Republicans could achieve. He discusses the failures of his presidency, notably the embargo of all trade, in a fair manner. Finally, he provides an interesting analysis of the motivations and sources of Republican policy and places Jeffersonianism in its historical context in a much clearer way than I have ever read before.

The book is well-written, although perhaps on the short side. It also contains almost nothing about Jefferson's life before or after the presidency--it really is a history of his presidency.

Forrest McDonald has produced a succinct, penetrating and fascinating history of Thomas Jefferson's Administration.

This book is part of the Univ. of Kansas' history of the presidency series and the second effort from McDonald (he wrote a wonderful history of Washington's Administration). This book is about the policies, international relations, politics and style of America's third chief executive. Running at less than 200 pages, McDonald manages to be both thorough and interesting in his telling of this period.

Jefferson and his Administration produced wonderful contradictions. His party espoused a "Republican" philosophy that basically wanted to liberate Americans from Hamilton's financial system and Adam's heavy handedness as witnessed by the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Jefferson's early term saw him implement much of his program. As McDonald points out, few if any other Presidents have had their way so successfully with Congress. Jefferson also added greatly to the US through the Louisianna Purchase, despite his concerns with the Constitutionality of the aquisition.

Jefferson and his Administration reached rough shoals in foreign affairs. Blinded by anti-British sentiment, the Administration prooved less than adroit at negotiating the position between Napolean and England. America was buffetted by this struggle and it reverberated back on our domestic situation. Suddenly, Jefferson's first term accomplishments became liabilities and were revealed as short sighted. The scheduled reduction of America's debt through the slashing of the Navy budget left us without the ability to challenge foreign powers. The abolition of Hamilton's system of internal revenues that left us entirely dependent upon tarriffs and thereby upon the grace of the British (who had the ability to determine how much trade our country could enjoy)for government revenue.

In the most surprising irony, Jefferson -- who had decried Adams and his anti-liberal legislation (Alien and Sedition Acts) would go much farther than Adams in restricting liberties and in executive arrogance through his Embargo Acts and various executive orders designed to limit trade with the European powers.

This is a fascinating story well told. Besides the policies, McDonald gives insight as to how Jefferson governed, his relations with Congress and the Judiciary as well as the toll of the office on the man himself. A good book.

McDonald is not only a great scholar, he is a storyteller without peer. He presents the Jeffersonian presidency in an objective and even-handed manner, highlighting both the successes and the tragic shortcomings of the Jefferson administration. Despite Jefferson's reputation today as a civil libertarian and a champion of liberty, McDonald shows how his heavy-handed tactics and his disregard for the Constitution led to disaster both at home and abroad. Despite ushering in the Republican Revolution of 1800, by 1808 Jefferson had lost control of the party he helped create and found himself at the mercy of John Randolph and his ilk in the House. McDonald never attacks Jefferson, however; he simply tells the rather sad story of a man consistently unable to meet the challenges with which he was faced. Another masterpiece from America's foremost historian.

Due to his primary authorship of the American Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson is widely viewed as a strong civil libertarian. The words of the Declaration and the American constitution speak so strongly about the limitations that government has when dealing with the citizens that they are just as valid over 200 years after they were written. He was also the primary individual around which the fledgling Republican party coalesced. In fact, McDonald commonly refers to the party as the Jeffersonian Republicans.
Less well known is the manner whereby the Jefferson administration callously ignored those rights so clearly stated in those magnificent documents. People were arrested for their political persuasion and he attempted to have Federal judges removed simply because he was unhappy with their Federalist philosophy. This really was a sad time in history, as it was the first case where a president openly interpreted the law as it suited him. In my opinion, the clear statement of these actions of Jefferson while president is what makes this book. Since the Louisiana Purchase was the greatest event in the United States between independence and the war between the states, it tends to overshadow many of the other things that Jefferson did during his presidency.
Jefferson's wholesale destruction of the American military left the country defenseless when it was being drawn into the wars between Napoleonic France and Great Britain. The consequences of these errors were monumental to the new country and his diplomatic mistakes contributed to a senseless conflict between the United States and Great Britain that served no useful purpose and could easily have destroyed the United States. Once again, McDonald is right on the mark in explaining what Jefferson did.
Thomas Jefferson is often held up to mythic proportions as a champion of liberty and as an early statesman. In this volume, he is described as he truly was, a man who professed liberty for all, but practiced it only when it suited him. This is a superb account of what he did while president.