University of Missouri Books

This journal, last published some years ago, has now been republished with the editor, Carla Kelly, removing, apparently, the philosophy and ramblings of Kurz. What remains is that portion of his journal that sticks to the subject of the Native Americans and the interaction of the "white man" in the 1800's. It is just one more piece to be added to the mosaic of the American West in the Upper Missouri. As diaries go, it's quite bland; it's simply a day-by-day description of life that has become fairly familiar through other books covering the same time and place, particularly Denig's "Five Tribes of the Upper Missouri." If you have read Denig's, Kurz's journal does not add much. However, Kurz does provide the romantic, softer, more idealistic views to counter the rougher, businesslike realities Denig had to face. The editor, Carla Kelly, would do well to publish a sequel to this journal in the form of a book with chapters of the various subjects Kurz spoke to, such as Indian women, his challenges with painting in the "wild West," the use of tobacco, Indian culture, etc. The only problem is that most of this is now well documented and she would have to be a very good writer to attract enough interest to make the effort worthwhile.

Carla Kelly has done a fine job of editing this classic diary (first published by the Smithsonian in 1937) by highlighting Kurz's commentary on the Upper Missouri fur trade rather than his ruminations on art and thus making it feasible for a university press to issue an abridged version.

Kurz came to the Upper Missouri as romantic, a believer in the superiority of wilderness and the noble savage over Euro-American cities and civilization. While Kurz never specifically repudiates this view, the notion fades from the journal during his comparatively brief stay in what today is western North Dakota. Certainly there is no romanticism in Kurz's description of the fur traders and their Indian clients. No modern author could publish with a university press such a meticulous portrait of native Americans as lazy, violent, thievish, superstitious, and abusers of their women and children. That's one advantage of Kurz: you can avoid political correctness and read the account of someone who was there.

Kelly has also provided a useful index and 93 plates of Kurz's drawings. Kurz was a careful observer but not a great artist. In fact, if Kurz's Indian subjects--especially the women--were decked out in European clothing and hair styles, most of them would look right at home in his native Bern.

The previous critique misses the point of a limited one person biography. This book overemphasizes the contribution of Wilson's contribution to America's founding as much as any book that focuses on one thinker overestimates his or her role in any given aspect of history.

Wilson, as Hall clearly states, was a democrat. Of course this term, as in the case of the book, is used in its historical sense. Terms, ideologies change throughout time. Liberal now is far from what liberal once was. Wilson, in the historical context was a democrat (this of course is compared to the thinkers in America during the founding).

This histiography is one that needs to be taken seriously by anyone who is interested in the political philosophy and James Wilson. Of course, as previous commentor has lacked to mention, one must be concerned and understand history if he or she is interested in enjoying this book. A narrow look as social science and firm principles which we have defined as of present will greatly obscure ones understanding of this work- which would be a pitty.

Mark David Hall has tried to fill a void in the historiography. A biography of James Wilson was certainly overdue by 1997. Hall does shed light on Wilson's unique epistomology and how he integrated it into the liberal and republican ideology of the time. Indeed, Hall demonstrates how Wilson's belief in a "moral sense" that existed in all human beings necessitated an optimism toward popular rule, an optimism that surpassed that of many of the other Founders by the late 1780s.
Nonetheless, this work has numerous unforgivable mistakes. Hall over-emphasizes Wilson's democratic tendencies, going so far as to actually call him a democrat -- a title that Wilson would have abhored as much as aristocrat. Hall notes Wilson's belief that majoritarian government had to have its power checked, but this aspect of Wilson's ideology he gives slight attention to. He makes a disengenuous argument that Wilson believed that balance of power was needed to check corruption rather than the democracy. This distinction is hollow. To believe that democratic government needs to be limited is equivalent to believing that democratic rule needs to be checked. The truth is that though Wilson did believe that the people could be trusted more than did the other Founders, he also believed in limiting popular power. Wilson disagreed at many points how these checks ought to be achieved and to what degree they were to be implimented. But the same can be said for most of the Founders. Wilson is better classified along with the majority of the other Founders as a republican and a liberal -- a republican willing to allow the people a slightly greater role in authority, but a republican nonetheless, not a democrat.
Hall also over-emphasizes Wilson's role in developing the governmental ideology of the new republic. Likewise he often underestimates the activity of others. This work also fails to place Wilson's ideas in the context of broader, external, intellectual activity, therefore giving the reader the impression that he originated more than he did. Finally, this author fails to chart Wilson's intellectual development. There seems to be an assumption that what Wilson believed in 1789 was what he believed in 1768 soon after he arrived in America.
This is a book that I wanted to like and it does have some redeeming value, but ultimately it is too flawed to allow any more than a single star. I will be looking for a new biography of Wilson, soon.

I've been teaching Erdrich's fiction for a few years, and often have wished I could check my own sense of genealogy and character relationships. This guide does a good job of that, though it was published before THE LAST REPORT was published; we need an update to include that and subsequent works.

In an attempt to "solve" readers' problems, Beidler and Barton have simplified the structure of Louise Erdrich's interlocking series of narratives (Tracks, Bingo Palace, Tales of Burning Love, Love Medicine)-- almost to a fault. In a painstaking but somehow wrong-headed exercise, they have straightened out the intricate and mysterious convolutions of Native American ancestry in these novels and recharted them as Western pedigrees. With similar de-mystifying intent, they have dogged each major and minor character through the entire series of novels and then collected every scrap of information in all the books under single headings bearing that chracter's name. While the authors should be complimented on their tenacity, the linear vision that permeates their "guide" is likely to send readers of Erdrich and other Native American storytellers in the wrong direction. This reductive study obscures rather than illuminates the magical power of Erdrich's asynchornous narrative fragments that loop and twist out of the reach of clock time into the realm of spirit.

"A Second Home: Missouri's Early Schools," by Sue Thomas, University of Missouri Press, Columbia, 2006. This 142 p. paperback is another in the Missouri Heritage Reader series, a collection on historical topics intended for new adult readers. This one looks at early education in Missouri in ten chapters.

The book begins with an introduction to the settlement of what became Missouri. The region is usually known as Upper Louisiana, Spanish Illinois, or the Illinois Country. It was originally settled by the French at St. Genevieve in about 1750 (near lead mines), and at St. Louis in 1764 (fur trading). St. Louis was settled in the belief that France would give up only its territory East of the Mississippi after their defeat by the British in the French and Indian War. The founders did not anticipate that the Louisiana Territory would be ceded to Spain in 1762. However, Spain administered the territory from New Orleans and had little presence in Upper Louisiana. The territory joined the US with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Missouri became a state in 1821.

In the early days, education practices varied widely. Well educated French settlers owned books and typically hired tutors to teach their children. Pioneers who could read taught their children to read from the books available-often a Bible. Teachers were hired on the frontier when available-usually during the winter months. Churches taught reading and writing in their Sunday Schools. Some established parochial schools as early as 1818. The first private tuition school in St. Louis was opened in 1774.

The concept of free public education seems to have been present in Missouri from the earliest days, but conflicted with the traditional idea that parents are responsible for educating their children. Hence, "free" schools were termed pauper schools-intended for the poor. St. Genevieve Academy, chartered in 1807, had a provision to provide free education for Indians and the poor.

The second wave of immigrants in Missouri came down the Ohio River from Kentucky and Virginia. Daniel Boone is typical of this group. Southern land owners favored the formation of private academies and seminaries. Boarding schools for young ladies were reported in Missouri as early as 1820.

The first state constitution (1821) provided for one school or more for each 36-sq. mi. Congressional township "where the poor shall be taught gratis," but implementation was slow. The General Assembly created a "board of commissioners for literary matters," considered a first state board of education in 1835. Henry S. Geyer of St. Louis, a member of the state legislature, is considered the father of Missouri's public education system. His School Act of 1839 and a series of enactments through 1853, provided for the basic school system including township school districts and the University of Missouri.

One room rural schools teaching eight grades seem to have evolved in Missouri by about 1840. They relied on the Lancaster system under which older students taught younger students. The book continues with a discussion of the facilities of the rural schools. Textbooks became available in the 1850s. (The invention of the steam powered rotary printing press in 1833 probably made textbooks affordable.) The first high school in St. Louis was founded in 1853.

The problem of qualified teachers was addressed in the 1850s. By that time a teacher certification system was in place. Three levels of certificates were granted. Testing and certification was by the counties. Normal schools to train teachers were recommended to the legislature in 1858. Lincoln Institute was established in 1866. Kirksville (1867); Warrenburg (1871); Cape Girardeau (1873); Maryville (1905); and Springfield (1905).

The book does a reasonable job of whetting the appetite for more information. It summarizes quite well published information on education in Missouri. A three-page list of additional reading references is included. However, some gaps are apparent. There is little discussion of the development of public high schools throughout the state (which seems to have happened in the 1920s). There is no mention of the Morrill Act of 1862, which provided federal land grants for the establishment of technical and agricultural universities. In an act dated Feb 24, 1870, the state accepted its federal land grant to establish the Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy at Rolla and the school of agriculture at the University of Missouri at Columbia. The University of Missouri had been founded by the Geyer Act in 1839, but received little support from the legislature. There is little mention of the many private colleges such as Central Wesleyan College in Warrenton, MO, or of the ladies academy that escaped destruction when Danville was burned in the Civil War. There is no mention of Missouri's two private military academies. Eckler school, founded in Montgomery County in 1870, is mentioned.

Students of education and state history will find this a useful introduction to the subject. Index.

Written by former elementary school teacher Sue Thomas, A Second Home: Missouri's Early Schools is a fascinating history of Missouri's early schools and their role in taming the frontier, from the first one-room schoolhouses to charity schools for poor and Indian children, "dame schools", denominational schools, subscription schools, and more up until the 1850s and the rise of state-sponsored public education. Chapters address not only the basic facts about the construction and organization of Missouri's first schools, but also daily life for the educators and the students, including the difficulties of balancing schooling with the seasonal pioneer necessities of clearing fields, harvesting crops and providing shelter. A handful of black-and-white photographs and illustrations embellish this well-researched and thoroughly engaging tour of yesteryear.

I was surprised to discover the existance of these two books: Tom Sawyer Abroad and Tom Sawyer Detective. Apparently, they were both very popular back when they were first published, in the late 1890s, but have become mostly forgotten. They're more novellas than anything; Detective isn't even 100 pages long. The illustrations are really good, and I plan on buying the other volumes in the Mark Twain Library, each of which include the original illustrations that were present in the first editions. Both Abroad and Detective are entertaining, but they're not in the mold of the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. You know how in Huckleberry Finn, Huck goes through all these little misadventures, all the while growing up and gaining all kinds of wisdom, and then in the end, the book takes a harsh turn and goes back to the juvenile exploits of Tom Sawyer, when he and Huck try to free Jim? It's like the end of the book really doesn't have much to do with the rest of it, it's just Huck and Tom doing dumb, yet funny, kid stuff. Well, both Abroad and Detective are like that; only very occasionally do you get any of Huck's unique flashes of insight. Jim himself only appears in Abroad, which is a fantasy tale in which he, Tom, and Huck happen to be kidnapped onto a high-tech balloon (!) and go across the Atlantic to Africa. There's really not much of a plot or resolution, they just float along over the desert, Tom tells them about the Arabian Nights, and Jim gets stranded on the head of the Sphinx for a little while. Abroad picks up not long after the events in the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and apparently Detective picks up not long after Abroad, though the events that transpired in Abroad are never mentioned in Tom Sawyer, Detective. Maybe Twain considered Abroad more of a whimsical tale, something that never really happened. Who knows...but I think Detective was the better of the two, even though Jim doesn't even appear in the book, and it's more of a mystery novel than anything. Huck basically plays the role of the reporter in Detective, just relating all of the incidents he witnessed in an unusual murder/crime, and describing Tom Sawyer's scene-stealing exploits in the trial that follows. Many of the characters that appeared in the last half of Adv. of Huck Finn make a return appearance in Detective. But anyway, both books are enjoyable to read, especially considering that both are written in the 1st person, from Huck's perspective, yet don't read them expecting the depth and emotion that are found in the Adv. of Huck Finn. I think these books were written for a younger audience, and that's how they read. But, for a frustrating, yet very interesting look into what might have been, had Twain finished his other two planned sequels to Huckleberry Finn, you should check out the book "Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer Among the Indians," which contains two unfinished sequels that are both heads and tails better than Abroad and Detective: Among the Indians and Tom Sawyer's Conspiracy. But that's all I have to say about that.

This book picks up right after the hallaballo has died down from Tom and Huck's triumphal return. Tom kinda craves notoriety as he competes for the unofficial title of Hannibal's First Traveler. Kidnapped by a mad inventor Tom, Huck and Jim
find themselves sailing in a hot-air balloon. They eventually realize that they are alone over the Atlantic, but when they sight land, it is not Europe! This first-person story is narrated with youthful zest and slangy vocabulary by an admiring Huck, so that he can praise Tom's leadership skills and power of argument.

The three unprepared argonauts finally understand that they are floating over the vast Sahara Desert, where they experience a variety of adventures--interspersed with juvenile deductions and lively debate. Their challenges are right out of the Arabian Nights: no magic lamp or genies, but Twain serves up caravans, lions, mirages, warring Bedouin tribes, and a devastating sand storm. All this action is spiced with his wry humor, as he slips in snide remarks about more serious social issues (spoken through the mouths of babes). Although this tale is Plot Lite, there's plenty of lively dialogue, as the boys argue using kid logic, while indulging in youthful dreams of sudden fortune. A fun read with sly social criticism. But really, Mark Twain--tigers--in Africa?

The author of this book intended to make laura Ingalls look like a controlling mother, but in his effort to do so, only showed what a mental mess Rose Lane was.Her parents appeared to be the wiser, steady ones.He also tries to make it appear she was saddled with supporting her folks, but I don't believe they ever asked for her help.In fact, they often helped HER out of her financial messes.She obviously would spend money as fast as she got it.From what I gather, she was ashamed of her poor upbringing.(shame on her!)Her parents were hard-working & it appears she had no respect for them.I also took offense at the obvious scorn she had for farmers.She also slams mothers her choose to stay home, and marriage.As to the claims she edited her mothers work-so what?!It was still largely her mothers.She did that willingly-her Mom wasn't holding a gun to her head!I think the author had too much time on his hands.He went to alot of trouble just trying to read too much into silly things.Laura Ingalls books have brought alot of joy to many people.

I know it is difficult for fans of LIW to accept the fact that her daughter, Rose, edited and/or re-wrote many of her writings that turned into the Little House books, IF that is the case. I have read most of the books written about LIW and Rose and I hear the voice of Rose loud and clear after reading many writings by both authors, including the Little House Books. I was delighted to find this book, as I was very interested in learning more about Rose's life after the Little House books and the Rose years book. The pictures in this book are interesting and although many reviewers have found the book redundant and a bit tedious, I thought the writing was interesting. I do look forward to reading the book written by John Miller, as many reviewers feel it tells the story from a different angle then this book. If you are interested in learning more about Laura and Rose, you might give this book a try.

I am about 3/4 through the book. So far it has been a very informative and interesting read. I would not recommend it to die hard Laura Ingalls Wilder fans, as it shows her true self. She is not the perfect woman she is made out to be in her books. The authur manages to bring to life, the incredible life lived by Rose so long ago. Her feelings and beliefs can be related to by the modern women of today. Her story is one worth telling, and is done so with detailed descriptions and narratives by William Holtz.

If you are interested in how it was to survive as a writer - and a woman - in the early twentieth century, this is well written study.
Rose had a difficult childhood, and though there was a certain amount of conflict between herself and her parents, it's a pretty normal kind of tension. I don't completely fall for Holtz' argument that she wrote the Little House books. I think there is a freshness to the style that her own writing didn't have at the time because she was too used to fitting commercial requirements. Revising and editing them probably helped her develop, and it is clear that she was a master editor. I do think however there was a tension between Laura and Rose over the actual material - Rose had grown up with the Pioneer stories and during the Depression, just as it seemed the right moment for her to express how she felt about things by using them (eg, in HURRICANE), her mother took complete possession of them and made it harder for her. They were mutually threatened by each other - for instance, in Laura's negative reaction to the publicity for HURRICANE. Rose probably felt she could use the material better but felt disloyal in doing so - so she helped her mother instead. I always saw a coldness in Caroline Ingalls and a reserve in Laura in the Little House books. Holtz brings to light a passive-agressiveness in Laura that is not surprising, nevertheless, Rose seems highly strung and over sensitive.
While this biography is detailed, I think it's primarily useful detail - Though some reviews here have criticized this, I believe it's quite valid to go through Rose's finances. I've often thought about this aspect of great writers/travellers lives: how did they manage it? How could they get by in the real world and achieve what they did? You've heard of Hemingway dining on pigeons in Paris - So, how did a pioneer girl from Missouri cope in Albania? This is all part of the artist's struggle, and certainly part of Rose's upbringing. Getting a check in the mail to fund her next adventure was like Laura earning pennies to save for the move to the Ozarks.
The more I read about RWL, the more disappointed I am. She accomplished so much but she always seemed so fed up and bitter. She had a hardened approach to people, and though personally generous, had little time for charity or handouts even during the Depression. She expected suffering, thought of it as the normal course of things, but didn't see that she was more talented and gifted than others in overcoming it. Her belief in true liberty was admirable but problematic. Her theories on Communism and economics seem nutty now, and it would be interesting to see what she would have thought of the current Bush administration and what America has become to the world - Paris Hilton, it's most prominent symbol. Admirable too was Rose's independence, but her prickliness meant she'd always be alone.

There are a few points that should be made before one reads this book, in my opinion.
1.)Holtz just doesn't understand the complexities of the Mother-Daughter relationship! When I read this book, I felt that Rose had enormous love and respect for her mother, they were just two strong and opinionated women from different eras.
2.)Some of the exasperated comments that Rose made about her mother were made in a diary, therefore not intended for anyone else but Rose. She was venting! Where else can a person do this? Does this mean she felt the same the next day? I have kept a journal and let me tell you, sometimes I have read a few passages later and wondered "was this REALLY what I thought?"
3.) Sounds to me like Rose and Laura contributed equally to the Little House books. Laura was a good writer with a fantastic memory and a sense of humor. She aquired keen descriptive powers as a young girl, when she was asked by her father to be her blind sister Mary's eyes. One can tell that the person who wrote these stories lived that life and thought those thoughts. But I do believe Rose added her brand of warmth to the stories; if you read some of Rose's work you can tell what her contribution was. It's just too bad that Rose herself didn't want to be credited at all because she didn't want to be pegged as a "Children's book writer." I got the impression that Rose was much harder on herself than she should have been for her supposed "Failure" to write something "GREAT."
She was a complex, brilliant woman, way ahead of her time.
Although I don't agree with some of Holtz's opinions or assessments, Rose is such a fascinating subject and this book is well-written, so I gave it 4 stars.

Despite the impressive cover image of an open-hatched boomer, if you're a current or ex-submariner seeking validation of your contribution to national defense, you will be left a little hungry. "Power at Sea: A Violent Peace" pays heavy dues to the surface navy, especially carriers, but fails to sufficiently explore the awesome power of subs. The terms, "Polaris, Poseidon, Trident, missile and torpedo," while mentioned in text, don't appear in the index. I could have enjoyed a few more words at the nuts-and-bolts level on sub development; the major impact of nuclear propulsion on subs' mobility and forward stance; the problems and hazards overcome to put nuclear powerplants aboard navy vessels; quality control and safety issues; missiles; targeting accuracy; navigation and positioning systems; range and depth capability; stealth measures; sonar, radar, ecm, communications and special ops capabilities; and more discussion of subs' cost effectiveness in relation to the rest of the navy and broader military objectives. ASW and countermeasures as a military specialty lack attention. By the last page, these powerful machines simply don't get fair credit for their huge role in naval power projection. Admiral Rickover's unique personality rated about three pages, but if you haven't read "Rickover" you won't adequately appreciate the great scope of his contributions based on this book alone. That said, this book makes an excellent sales pitch for Tomahawk cruise missiles as readily deployable from multiple platforms; provides a worthwhile overview of naval and general war history; bemoans the impact of constantly shifting political winds; and appeals for an end to constant underfunding. Last, the bibliography is a handy pointer to other materials you might want to check out.

I must agree with one reviewer that this book presents an excellent history and analysis of the US Navy from the end of the Second World War until 2006. Whether an author has a right to express political views which are as yet unsettled is a question that inspired two readers to submit highly unfavorable reviews (in and of themselves an expression of opposed political views that also remain unsettled). Personally, I had no difficulty separating out the author's opinions from his presentation of historical fact. His analysis is sound and is also easy to separate from his political views, which are, in fact, not at all unfavorable to the Navy, rather to the current administration (Bush Presidency).

Dr. Rose's third and final volume in his Power at Sea trilogy encompases some 60 years, a far longer time than the scope of either of the two earlier volumes. For that reason, it is a more difficult read but it is especially interesting because most of us lived through at least a part of that period. Dr Rose completes his excellent analysis of sea power by shining a bright light on several of the facets of this era that are not well known to the American public.

I was particularly interested in learning that the U.S. Navy fought the Vietnam War with mostly World War II ships and in learning that for a time, before the fall of the Soviet empire, our navy might well have lost a major confrontation with the Soviet Navy had it occurred.

There is much more to fascinate the reader as the U.S. Navy, inherently conservative, is forced to deal with a changing world, admit female sailors to its ranks, cope with modern youth, and search for a mission in a world that may never fight a major sea battle again. Anyone who has read the last two books of the series will definitely want to get this one.

A monumental undertaking, unfortunately tainted by the author's unsubstantiated bias and opinion. The preface to this volume is telling:

"When 9/11 provided an overeager George W. Bush and his "neoconservative followers" with the pretext to proclaim a global imperium, the United States Navy stood ready to enforce it........"

"The current quagmire in Iraq, recalling the earlier frustration in Southeast Asia, raises once again long held questions about the pertinence and effectiveness of sea power."

The real quagmire is the frustration experienced by a reader's attempt to sort through the authors facts, fiction and political opinions.

After reading this third installment in Dr. Rose's trilogy I was initially hesitant to provide a review, but after seeing the previous reviewer's comments regarding "editorializing" by Dr. Rose I felt compelled to add my two-cents worth. I thoroughly concur with the comment regarding the interjection of personal opinions of this sort into a book's ostensibly factual narrative. Certainly any author has the right to weave personal opinion into his book but, in this case, where is Dr. Rose's substantiation for his off-the-wall comments about 9/11 and the Iraq war? This all smacks of left-wing Bush-bashing and is surprising coming as it does in an analytical review of the U.S. Navy in the Cold War and post-Cold War period. Just where exactly does the Navy fit into Rose's assertion that the Bush administration used the terrorist attacks of September 11th to "proclaim a global imperium?" This is never made clear. It certainly appears to represent the typical "blame America first" attitude so prevalent in much of the academic community.
Dr. Rose has excellent insights into the evolution of the nuclear submarine as the post-modern capital ship. His analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis is spot-on, as is his review of social-cultural conflicts within the fleet's personnel, ship-and-shore-based alike, in view of radically altering late 20th century social changes and the climate of "political correctness" which now seems to permeate every aspect of the American military culture.
I do somewhat take issue with Rose's not-so-subliminal assertion that the USN would have been hard-pressed in a head-to-head confrontation with the Soviet navy of the 1970s and 1980s. Certainly the Soviet navy had large numbers of surface vessels and a clear superiority in numbers of both conventional and nuclear-powered submarines, but American boats were, and are, always far quieter and stealthier, which typified the overwhelming U.S. technological superiority throughout the Cold War (otherwise, why were the Societs always trying to steal our secrets, rather than vice-versa?). Then too, Soviet naval doctrine in the Cold War era was virtually the opposite of that of the USN. Gorshkov's fleet was mostly defensive in nature--even the Soviets' big missile "boomers" were kept close to home ports both to defend the homeland and to remain out of harm's way of U.S. Los Angeles-class attack subs. Conversely the USN, particularly during the 1981-87 Reagan-Lehman buildup toward the 600-ship Navy, was offensive in nature and espoused blue-water power projection as opposed to the Soviets' maintenance of the "fleet in being" concept--almost to the point of emulating the strategy of the German High Seas Fleet that rarely ventured out of port during the war of 1914-18.

Ferrell has a long, long history as an author, of distorting the life of Harding. Every book he has written, even when he writes one chapter on Harding (see his book "Presidential Leadership") is written from an anti-revisionist stance. He has consistently tried to rehabilitate Harding's legacy and character, when the facts are apparent to everyone else. Ferrell ignores the two children Harding fathered out of wedlock, his drinking during prohibition, and his partial Black ancestry per the most recent information available. Francis Russell's books on Harding and Carl Anthony's on Mrs. Harding, are closer to the truth. This book on Harding is like the one he wrote recently on Grace Coolidge...just fluff. As a historian myself, don't waste your time...it's very poor scholarship.

This is an attempt to look at President Harding from a different perspective. The general opinion is that this man was one of the worse presidents this country has every had. Although Mr. Ferrell does not try to totally reverse this opinion and make President Harding out to be a great president he does attempt to explain how the Harding Administration was a reflection of the 1920s and what the people wanted and needed from their government.

The many "deaths" relates first to his physical death. President Harding was -- contrary to what his aides wanted people to believe -- not a well man and had a severe heart condition. He went on a tour to the west coast and was so beaten down physically that he was laid up on bed rest for several days with reports on his conditions being monitored by the news media. The first couple of days the reports were grim and then suddenly the reports became optimistic. Then, just as suddenly the man was dead.

The other deaths of President Harding relates to the death of his image. He reportedly had affairs and illegitimate children. His name was mired in the Teapot Dome Scandal. His accomplishments were diminished by the events that followed his administration. In the end most President Harding's accomplishments were forgotten and so, too, was President Harding.

Americans have always had a love hate relationship with the truth. We love the truth because it's something that we believe in, but we hate the truth when it is less entertaining than tawdry details dreamt up in the minds of scandal mongers. Such is the case of the Nation's 29th President Warren G. Harding, for whom lore wins out over the truth.

"The Strange Deaths of President Harding" is Robert Ferrell's painstakingly researched retort to the years of lies, myths and lore that have enveloped the legacy of President Warren G. Harding, the nations 29th President (1921-1923). At the time of Harding's death in 1923, he was one of the most beloved people in the nation. During the trip that returned his body to Washington D.C. for the State Funeral, millions of Americans lined the railway tracks to pay tribute to him. Adding to the speculation of wrong doing was Mrs. Harding's death in 1924, leaving both Harding's defenseless against the rising tide of tales surrounding them and the President's appointees. The Harding's reputations were so harmed by the public's inability to separate the man from his appointee's actions that their final resting place, completed in 1927 wasn't dedicated until 1931.

Ferrell's strength is not in writing a juicy tell all, but in writing a well documented expose on the truths about the Harding's, and the truth is always less juicy to the American people than the rumors that have persisted. Ferrell does an outstanding job at stripping away the salacious speculations (for example, Mrs. Harding did not kill her husband as Gaston Means speculated) and circumstantial evidence that has damned Harding to be appraised as one of the worst Presidents in American History. Indeed, once free of innuendo and false labels, Harding actually comes out as an average President who gave to much power the wrong the people, and suffered dearly because of this loyalty.

So if you are one of those who believe that Mrs. Harding and Dr. Sawyer conspired to kill Harding, or that Harding fathered Nan Britton's baby or that even Nan Britton worte "The President's Daughter", Ferrell is poised to poke you in the eye with fact patterns and research that show that Harding died of end stage heart disease, no concrete evidence exists to support the paternal claims of Britton and that Britton's book was most likely written by her middle-age mentor.

Despite Ferrell's outstanding work, this book will never enjoy the success it and its writer fully deserve and that is a true American tragedy. Had Ferrell set out to trash the reputation of an American hero, this would have been a best seller, his face would have appearred on the cover of Time and Oprah would have chosen this for her book club. Regardless, this remains a must read for those people who value truth over myth, and honor over dishonor.

The Strange Deaths of President Harding, by Robert Ferrell is a well researched and documented work that concerns itself with debunking many of the myths that surround the legacy of President Harding. Ferrell begins by recounting a story about a time when he was in college driving through Ohio with a carload of friends. Nearing the Harding Memorial, he drove onto the memorial grounds and stopped the car. At that moment, he pointed out to his friends that it was Harding's tomb, and everyone including Ferrell, laughed. Indeed Ferrell's story as he indicated, demonstrated how the passage of years can change a person's mind. And yet, as he also indicates, Harding continues to be ranked last in the presidential polls. Ferrell sets out not to argue that Harding should be considered a great or near great president--he simply calls for an honest reconsideration of Harding. Ferrell begins by offering evidence that Harding died of a heart attack, from overexertion and after years of suffering from heart disease; He disproves the theory that Florence Harding poisoned her husband. Ferrell then challenges the claims made by Nan Britton, who claimed Harding fathered her child. After which, Ferrell discusses the scandals of the Harding administration and the aftermath. He goes into great detail questioning the motives of a few journalists and authors who relentlessly attacked Harding's reputation and the many salacious biographies written before the Harding papers were opened that relied on rumor, gossip and unsubstantiated claims--and subsequent biographies after the Harding papers opened that continued to rely heavily on these earlier, albeit inaccurate works, giving little to no consideration of the Harding papers. Ferrell makes a compelling argument that many of the stories surrounding Harding would have been disproven had the Harding papers been available. He also suggests that Florence Harding, in her well meaning attempts to protect the legacy of her late husband by burning his papers,(she believed she had burned the majority of his papers but was not aware that she possessed only a very, very small portion of his papers) unwittingly helped hasten the maligning of her husband. Overall Ferrell makes a compelling case that given the inaccuracies that have persisted for decades regarding Harding, there should and must be a reexamination of Harding's legacy that separates fact from fiction.

I read through this book very carefully, as well as that of John Dean's recent one on Harding. Dean's is much more balanced, and gives a sense of Harding's attributes in the context of his very real and deep weaknesses for women and drink and gambling. Why is it that Ferrell cannot see the whole man and must whitewash him into a hero? To me the real hero is one who overcomes his failings to succeed. Also, I suspect the author is old, because it is amusing that he dismisses every woman's opinion as "gossip" yet takes as bible truth the gossip of men like the mail clerk! I also read a book about his wife and noticed that this book uses a sanitized "for public eyes" version of the doctor's notes - while the Mrs. Harding book uses the raw handwritten first and real notes. And the most obvious fact - the face of Nan Britton's daughter - speaks more obviously to the fact that Harding did father the child. Why is it hard to believe that a ditzy mistress can't remember exact times and hours of everything and did as she was told to burn every single letter her great hero asked her to? If you want to see a rush job and a lot of failure in biography - this is the one. But if you want the real story of the Hardings read John Dean's book, Professor Murray's excellent book, Francis Russell - who actually interviewed many of the people involved in the 1950's when they were old-timers, and the Mrs. Harding story.

Author Settle (true name: Dr. Robert Parker) was a college history professor from Oklahoma who spent 20+ years researching his subject - the notorious James Brothers of Missouri. His book, first published in 1961, still stands as the resource work in the "Jesse James" field. A historian, Settle refused to use or dwell upon anything except fact when dealing with his material. His research included developing a friendship with Frank James' only son, Robert - who lived on the James brothers' Missouri farm until his death in the 1950's. Settle leaned on family history, but primarily used grass roots documentation in reporting all of he known facts - through the time of publication. His work is the most often cited reference used by current authors. His research and book opened the way for the current boom of writers and researchers in the field of the James Gang. Nicely written and easy to read, the book not only discusses the family history and known criminal activities of Jesse and Frank, but tells how and why Jesse James - a known murderer and thief - has crept into legend as a hero. If you are interested in outlaw and lawman history of the Old West, this book is a "must".

While Settle's account is thorough and well-documented, it reads more like a research paper than a book, as it really doesn't tell a story, so much as parade a litany of facts before the reader. The facts are occasionally interesting in and of themselves, but we don't come away with any real feeling of of the human being who was Jesse James.

I believe Settle is, or was a professor at some college. If he's still teaching it might be best to avoid his class, especially if it's offered early in the morning or right after lunch for reasons that will become readily apparent to his readers.

Even today, in the year 2002, it's hard to find any American who hasn't heard the name Jesse James. All types of wild stories have been passed through the years about him, some saying he was nothing more than a cold blooded killer and some swearing he was more like Robin Hood. In William Settle's book, "Jesse James Was His Name", he chronicalizes the events of Jesse's life starting with his boyhood home on a farm in Missouri, through the bloody years of the Civil War where he fought in Confederate guerrilla bands, and then on to his outlaw career.
The book, in my opinion, was too lengthy, it was full of facts a lot of which were unnecessary, and it didn't flow very well. So as Jesse James himself was an exciting person, this book was far from it. If you want to find more about Jesse James, don't read this book.

The research in the book seems to be first-rate. However the author doesn't seem to present the information in a way that leads to the the implied conclusions. He gives information on various robberies, implying they were conducted by the James/Younger gang, but the information doesn't support the conclusion--I wouldn't convict them based on the info presented. In fact, I was left leaning far more toward the James' and Youngers' own statements that they _weren't_ involved in most of these robberies and were convenient victims of post-war, anti-Quantill sentiments. Evidence of the James/Youngers' guilt struck me as being rather shoddy. Sorting out which robberies really could be attributed to whom is largely left to the reader.

Though well worth reading, I would view this book as a suppliment to other reading and research rather than the sole, final statement on the events.

This is a good read for those interested in one of our Great Presidents. It also shows the machine politics which infected Missouri in the 1930-1940s. Tom Pendergast was the leader of the Kansas City, Missouri machine which put forward its candidates for local, state, and national politics. The real election was not in November, but during the primary when the Democrats made the choice of who their candidates would be. During the general election,the Pendergast machine rigged their wards well with only marginal votes for Republican candidates.
It was not true democracy. Pendergast was convicted of income tax evasion after he didn't declare bribes he "earned" in an insurance settlement scheme. The book details Truman's 1940 Senate election campaign as he attempted to revive his fortunes following the fall of his mentor Tom Pendergast. Truman did not forsake his mentor (neither did he mention him) but managed to defeat the seating governor and prosecutor for his Senate position.
This is a short book. The first chapter doesn't read correctly and the flow is not there. The detail and interest are, and the following chapters have more page turning drama in them. Truman won the campaign and must have impressed FDR since in 1944, Roosevelt gave him the Veep position. The book also details the duplicity of FDR in his dealings with other Democrats.

The title of Truman and Pendergast implys that there is some meaningful and new knowledge regarding the relationship between these two men. This is simply not the case. There is very little about that relationship but rather a rehash of frequently publish information in other bios. This book, while it may be well written, adds nothing to the pile of information already out there. Three-percent of this very short book explored the relationship and ninety-seven percent was about the difficulties experienced by Truman because of the stigma of the relationship. Nothing new. If you want to read some great bios on Truman read TRUMAN by McCullough or MAN OF THE PEOPLE by Hamby.

Robert H. Ferrell's "Truman and Pendergast" is a fine addition to the ever increasing pantheon of written history of our 33rd (32nd) president. Ferrell focuses on a period which, until now, has not been the main focus of any Truman biography. The author paints a vivid picture of the necessary evils one faces when choosing a life in public service while maintaining one's own countenance. Ferrell centralizes his work on several main points, beginning with the initial years of Truman's political career when it was necessary for the backing of Pendergast (especially in the political machine controlled era of the earlier part of the century) and culminating with Truman's Senate re-election campaign of 1940. These main points bookend a gradual separation of Truman and Pendergast, as Truman ascends in stature and Pendergast descends into a downward spiral culminating in his incarceration in a federal penitentiary. Throughout the course of the book Ferrell maintains an anecdotal style of storytelling, which allows the reader to gain deeper insight into a very different period of political history then we find in today's day and age. "Truman and Pendergast" is a must-have for any student of Truman, as well as an excellent addition to the history of politics of the early 1900s.