Kansas Books

My dad was on Omaha Beach D-Day and later captured outside Mortain at St. Lo and has many commendations including 2 purple hearts for his service. He is now an 85 year old Alzheimer patient whose most enjoyable times now are with family & friends who he still remembers and reading everything he can about the war, in particular, the areas he was involved in with the 30th Division Company C. He spends hours reading this and other books I've ordered then reading them again. His best memories are the early years and the war even though he rarely can tell you what day it is. It has been very hard on my mom trying to take care of him as he asks the same questions over again every few minutes but since I've bought so many war-related books for him he gets engrossed in them leaving her with much needed quiet time. He esp. likes "The D-Day Atlas: Anatomy of the Normandy Campaign" which he can track the various campaigns movements, battles, etc.

Mark Reardon's description of The Battle of Mortain is an outstanding contribution to military history. In this comprehensive study of the largest German counterattack in France in World War II, he sets forth the background of this momentus struggle, gives the reader the detail and blow-by-blow of the battle as it raged for six days and then sets forth a thoughtful and fresh analysis of what was important in bringing about the victory of the American forces.

By this work Mark Reardon has not only added significantly to the literature of World War II but has assured for himself a place in the front rank of military historians.

Robert Weiss, author of "Enemy North, South, East, West" soon to be reprinted as "Fire Mission! The Siege at Mortain, Normandy"

Starting on a positive note, this book is impressively researched, with dozens of original interviews.

But it is very poorly organized and difficult to read. When presenting a complex series of events, it is the author's responsibility to provide the reader with some kind of framework for following those events -- something more than "this happened, then this happened, then this other thing happened." Instead of providing this framework at the start of a chapter, where it would be useful, the author presents it at the end of the chapter, in a brief and not always helpful "conclusion."

Some of the chapters are essentially useless data dumps. The third chapter deals with German dithering about the units that will be devoted to the Mortain attack. The result is 20 pages of "first they decided to send X batallion, then they changed their minds, then they changed their minds back..." This could have been usefully compressed to about a page -- I'm not sure even a specialist would find this information useful, unless he or she is into unit histories.

Finally, the maps are awful. They are completely static, with no start or stop lines, lines of attacks or boundaries of control -- just unit symbols plunked down in the general area the unit occupied at a particular point in the battle.

Altogether, a hard slog.

Victory at Mortain is a comprehensive look at the German counterattack toward Avranches in early August, just following the COBRA breakout in Normandy. Reardon's book is useful, as the battle is under-studied and not widely known. Indeed there is only one other widely available and read book on the subject (Featherstone's Saving the Breakout). Further, Reardon's book is very good in that it provides insights into both German and US command decisions and tactical movements. In this way, it becomes easy for the reader to see exactly how both sides were making decisions, and how those choices directly played out on the battlefield.

Reardon starts his book with two chapters devoted to the situation in Normandy from July to the first few days of August 1944. These chapters show what the German plan for defense was (contain, contain, contain), and how the US breakout from Normandy progressed. This serves to set the context for the rest of the book. The very nature of the breakout served to "offer up" the option of a German counterattack through the Mortain area toward Avranches. This town represented the tenuous link between US Armies (First and Third) and served as the primary logistics/supply rout. Moving south through Avranches, US forces of the Third Army could and did turn west into Brittany and east to threaten the southern flank of the German 7th Army, which was trying to contain the US First Army. A German breakthrough to Avranches would surround most of the Third Army and have the simultaneous effect of solidifying the German 7th Army positions. This would have allowed the Germans to shift more resources to continue to contain the Normandy lodgments. It would have been a stunning blow to the Americans and would have completely derailed the Allied breakout from the vicious boccage country of Normandy.

Of course, this didn't happen. The counterattack (Operation Luttich) failed, largely due to an inauspicious infantry division...the US 30th. Although it got help at key points in the counterstrike against the German thrust from portions of the 2nd Armored Division (on the southern flank) and the 3 Armored Division (on the northern flank), the 30th bore the brunt of the initial onslaught. Being able to stop an entire Panzerkorp (including the vaunted 1st and 2nd SS Panzer Divisions, the 116th Panzer Division, the 2nd Panzer Division, and part of the 17th SS Panzergrenadier division) dead in its tracks is an amazing achievement. Reardon shows us that the German attack failed due to a combination of factors: bad German staff planning, bad German battlefield tactics, tenacious US roadblocks, the aggressiveness of the US 119th, 120th, and 117th regimental commanders, US artillery and airpower, and a bold American (3rd Army) thrust toward LeMans southeast of the battlefield and subsequent drive north to envelope the units that had participated in Operation Luttich in the Falaise Pocket.

Unlike the conventional wisdom about the battle, which focuses excessively on the the struggle for Hill 314 and the trapped second battalion, 120th infantry, Reardon spends more time on the attack through St. Barthelmy, and the northern flank, which represented the Germans' main push. He convincingly shows that the few AT guns and the battalion's worth of infantry holding St. Barthelmy effectively derailed the German plans. Further, Reardon faults German commanders for not bypassing the town, who instead chose to continue to ram against the US defenders. Although the Germans eventually did take the town, the other German units to the north now had an exposed flank. The Germans failed to press hard and stopped their advanced units, which then had to retreat. This action, and armored thrusts around Barenton (southeast of Mortain) were the keys to halting the German advance. Additionally, Reardon faults the Germans for uninspired leadership, for not securing the southeast flank at Barenton, for failing to use recon units in their proper role of info gathering rather than combat units, for failing to coordinate with the Luftwaffe, and for mismanaging artillery assets. These German problems, coupled with good regimental leadership on the US side, added up to a US victory.

Reardon does give pause, however. Had the Germans been more adept in their attack, it's not clear the Americans would have been able to contain them. Reardon notes that the divisional command functions nearly completely failed (or were non-existent). The 30th Infantry Division did not fight as a division, but rather are three nearly-independent regiments. This hampered coordination between regiments, hindered the ability to link artillery and armor assets with the battalions that needed them, and hurt the ability to time the counterattack against the Germans. In the end, bad German tactics and leadership, coupled with a sweep to LeMans to tear open the southern flank of the German army, is what sealed the deal.

This is a very good book. It is a useful history in that it provides an analysis and critique of both sides' command decisions, and displays how those decisions turned out on the battlefield. In my opinion, it is the definitive account of the German offensive at Mortain. My only problem with the book is that in places the text jumps temporally; there are places where a new section of the book will describe events that occurred prior to what was just happening in the previous section. This got very confusing, and at several places I had to jump back about a hundred pages to reference earlier text and maps. With some patience, however, this can be dealt with by any reader.

This book allowed me to look through the eyes of a person who was there. My father was a forward observer for the 113th and I believe he was there on that hill with the author. thanks for the opportunity to live it also.

Kiesling is an impressive historian and author who has substantially increased our understanding of the nature of national security planning and warfare. She convincingly argues that France's defeat in 1940 was not inevitable. Her careful and thorough use of primary source material on the evolution of French military thought and security policy demolishes many of the most prominent myths perpetuated for over two generations on the reasons for the French defeat. Her chapters on doctrine, training, and the tyranny of the mundane should be required reading for military officers and public officials working in the US NSC, Intelligence Community, and the Department of Defense.

Many authors have written on the fall of France in 1940 but Keisling is the first to actually examine how French military structure and policy played perhaps the most significant role in the defeat. A one year conscript army and a totally untrained reserve would have made any doctrine unusable and thus made defeat likely. With an army such as that prepared by France in 1940 it is unlikely they could have made even their own version of mechanized warfare effective. This book will put paid to the arguments that the French officers paid little or no attention to mechanization, modern doctrine or were simply negligent.

One of the main arguments of the book is that the French believed they had an effective, thorough, and well thought out doctrine. The fact that they did not was illustrated by the events of 1940 and the speed with which the country was overwhelmed.

Kiesling does and excellent job of presenting reasons why French doctrine was flawed, and also addresses why it was inadequately tested before the war. Numerous obstacles to the process are presented and explained in this well-researched account.

The implications of Kiesling's argument are profound. They suggest that no matter how thorough the planning and evaluation of a military doctrine, it can still be fundamentally flawed unless the assumptions underlying it are also tested.

In 1940 using a plan designed by General Manstien Germany attacked France. The campaign cut off the French from their Belgian and English Allies who were forced to retreate or surrender. Germany was then left to conquer a much reduced opposition.

At the time it was thought that Germany outnumbered the allies and had vastly superior weapons. After the war it was found that the allies in fact outnumbered the Germans and that most German weapons were either inferior to or at most equal to the allied.

This book tries to argue that the preparations made by France were a factor in the French defeat. It is hard to show that this was the case. The book parallels a debate which took place in German conentration camps during the war. The French Military tried to put the government on trial for betraying the nation and letting France be defeated. Blum the prime minister of France was able to show how he had given the army everything that it wanted.

France lost the war not because of the size of its armies or the weapons it had but because of the stupidity of its military leaders.

The book simply fails to look at France in the context of German rearmament. If it did it would show that the French program was ratinal and adequate.

All in all not worth the money.

Kiesling main thesis is that the lack of trianing of reservist and regular officers led to an overly cautious military doctrine. The beginnning of the book describes some of the crisis facing the French military. Consrcipts were poorly trained since they only had two years worth of training. The same also applied to reservist. The French army was overly strained as to whether to devote resources to the reservists or the conscripts. The schooling that French officers received was limited to their particular branch of the armed forces and lacked any geopolitics or any overview of current military operations. To make matters worse the French army lacked any cohesion. Men in the reserves would be originally in their regional unit than transferred to an new unit based on their technical skills. As a result of this policy men lacked any time to become well adjusted to their unit. The end result of these above mentioned factors was that the French developed a doctrine that was highly centralized and overly cautious. I worked reccomend this book to read alongside James Corum's "The Roots of Blitzkrieg," in order to understand the French defeat in 1940.

The illustrations for this book are not scary. The situation for each letter is as follows "(Letter) is for (name) but who is chasing him/her?" The animal's name begins with the same letter. It is possible to be "chased by" an animal and not be in abject terror. It's all in how the parent presents the situation to the child. If you read the book in a way that makes it seem Sita is afraid of the Snake, it's your interpretation. If you make it light and funny that Ruben is chased by a Rabbit, that's how your child will take it. At the end "Zoe" and her "Zebra" seem to chase off all the "scary" animals anyway. It's no more frightening than your average Disney movie (in fact, it's much less).

Don't let the idea that "chased by" is "scary" keep you from enjoying this book with your child. The applique and embroidery work is exceptional and makes this book different from any other children's book I've seen. The colors are bright and each illustration is different. As other reviewers have said, the names and skin tones of the children are cross-cultural and the animals are diverse as well (not your usual menagerie).

The book is also well-constructed and large for a board book. It's easy for toddlers' hands to manipulate and the pages are large, allowing for enjoyment of the details even by the tiniest infant. I read this book to my Zoe from the time she was a wee baby and she still loves it. And it doesn't frighten her one bit.

I was hoping for a story (my baby is named Zoe) but instead it is another standard Alphabet book only featuring children with names that try way too hard to be diverse. Maybe my baby will grow into the illustrations, but right now she is confused by them.

My 6 year old had this book in paperback for a year and read it so much it lost pages and I had to buy a new board book! He can recite it in the car on trips, and I hear him speaking the alliterations under his breath as he draws. Beautiful pictures and diversity. Thanks!

I'm a huge fan of books illustrated by Clare Beaton. The felt images are colorful and imaginative. In fact, I'd even consider buying an original to hang in my home if I could find one.

Zoe and Her Zebra is as good as Clare Beaton's best work. Each alphabet letter is gorgeously illustrated with a child whose name begins with that letter, being chased by an animal who also begins with that letter. For example, Ben is being chased by a Bear.

I also appreciated Beaton's efforts to make the cast of children multiracial and international. Alice and Ben are accompanied by Hamadi and Naiser, Olga and Pedro.

I have only two complaints. First, most of the children are also carrying an object which does NOT begin with the relevant letter. Why is Ben carrying a yo-yo instead of a ball? It seems like a missed opportunity to reinforce the letters.

Finally, and more importantly, almost all of the pictures are of scary situations, and the children are mostly frowning or sad. Poor Luke's hair is being parted by a Leopard's claw. And Pedro has a Porcupine quill stuck in his foot. It's only when we reach Z that things are happy, and Zoe is chasing the Zebra rather than the reverse.

Overall I love the book (and so does my 15-month old son), despite the somewhat grim context.

Without question, Clare Beaton's appliqué illustrations are gorgeous, and it's great that the text emphasizes diversity, but stick to her other books, like _How Big Is a Pig?_ or _One Moose, Twenty Mice,_ which are excellent and in the same visual style as _Zoe and Her Zebra._ This book is likely to frighten younger kids, with its depictions of frightened- and unhappy-looking children being chased by snarling animals.

I don't understand what Beaton and Barefoot Books were thinking with this book; what exactly is the point of using scary pictures to introduce the alphabet?? No doubt some people will point to Grimm's fairy tales and the like, to demonstrate that fear has a place in children's literature (which is absolutely true, it does have its place), but it's a poor rationale in this instance. First of all, most of the Grimm's fairy tales aren't intended for as young an audience as this book, and secondly, the Grimm's tales are *stories,* with plots and morals and some context for the scary parts, whereas this book has none of those things. The element of fear here is gratuitous; the author could just as easily have used non-threatening language and images without changing the substance of this book.

The fabulous illustrations are the only real redeeming factor with this book, and that bumps it up from a 1 star rating to a 3 star rating, in my opinion, but overall I would not recommend this book.

In a polite and matter of fact way, the author explains the differences between Calvinism and Wesleyan Arminianism. There is no name calling or insulting of those who hold the Calvinist view, only the clear, biblical, reason why it doesn't make scriptural sense. For further confirmation I would suggest one also read "Life In The Son" by Robert Foster.

I like the overall treatment because it covers a lot of ground fairly succinctly. Not a gripping best selling novel mind you, but it does what it needs to. In some of the later chapters her organization gets a little harder to follow, but overall a good work if you are wanting to have a solid grasp of the essentials.

Those who don't like Mildred Wynkoop's "Foundations of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology" (1967 and 1972 paperback) would do well to reconsider her brief but poignant work. This small book (only 128 pages total, two of which are an extended bibliography) firmly defines the differences between contemporary Arminianism and Calvinism. It is a one of a kind teacher for the Free Will-Predestination debate.

Beginning from a theological base Wynkoop accurately presents these late 16th century doctrinal movements. She explains that neither side understood the other to be biblically based. Considering the prominent followers of the initial Jacob Arminius and John Calvin (Eipscopus and Beza) she says that those students changed the original perspectives of their teachers. Debate, often turning murderous in the late Reformation period, began which continues into the current day.

With brilliant clarity the author describes the Synod of Dort's adoption of the Calvinists' "Answer" to Armininism and its heretical declaration for the Remonstrants (Arminius' followers). This book suggests that today's Prevenient Grace-Irresistible Grace debate took root from that 1619 decision. By the end Wynkoop traces the debate's influence on John Wesley and many modern Wesleyans (Wesleyans tend to follow Wesley's Arminian lead).

This enterprising book is a must read for all who have ever considered the Arminian-Calvinist controversy. If you are a member of the debate you will be informed with Wynkoop's Wesleyan perspective. If you are new to the quarrel she will teach you. This book is a quick read and will prove to be a valueable quick reference for all Free Will-Unconditional Election debate students. It is very recommendable.

This book offers a concise and well stated differentiation between Arminian (and Wesleyan) theological roots against Calvinist theology. The primary focus is on the historical contexts that led to the divergence of these two branches of Christian theology. As a primer, this is an excellent tool.

This short introduction to Wesleyan Theology is an easy, and fun read as far as theology goes. The scope of the debate is is a brief statement of the historical developement of the theology, and a definition of its basic points. Therefore it is not a defensive work which will pit it against competing theologies. Other works dedicated to that purpose are more than sufficient for that.

I would recommend this for a good group study course, but it will not go beyond the surface.

Dozens of photographs, drawings, maps, and a comprehensive index make this an excellent guide to the battle of Shiloh.

In addition to actual military reports, the editors provide explanatory information that helps clarify the reports.

With input from the National Park Service, this handbook is an excellent tourbook for the visitor to Shiloh Battlefield Park, and a fine way for the reader at home to come to appreciate the importance of Shiloh.

It is well-organized, with listings of the forces involved, a recapitulation of casualties broken down by brigade AND division, and a comprehensive index to track down specifics.

I feel that Jay Luvass didnt describe this battle in the best way he could. Being a Social Studies teacher, i feel i know alot about this battle and many of the details. I have also read many other books on this battle. I enjoy studying and reading up on this battle and i think that Jay could have done a much better job on portraying the main idea. If your not looking to learn all that much, then its and ok book but definitley do not read it for historical information.

The Shiloh battlefield guide is the fifth of many Civil War guidebooks and maintained the standard started in the Gettysburg guide. The book covers the first big battles of the American Civil War and a Battlefield Park that is the closest to the veteran's vision of "their" battle park. Shiloh is a confusing battle with a story that is being rethought by the experts; this is not a battle history as such. My recommendation is to read Cunningham's book "Shiloh and the Western Campaign of 1862" before visiting the field. This is best of the very few guidebooks on the battle and is an option to employing a guide or purchasing a park driving tour.
The series format is directions to a point on the field, orientation, a general lesson on what happened in your view, followed by first person accounts of the action. These guides are designed using the general staff training concept of a Staff Ride. This is when a class is taken to a historic location, discuss what happened and see how the terrain influences the event. Staff Rides are designed to be intensive "on the ground" training coupled with physical observation in the hopes students will gain experience for later use.
I am not saying this to frighten you away from this guide but to tell you this is not a walk about and look at the monuments type of guide. This guide will have several pages devoted to the action at this point. It may contain a critique of the local commander's actions with possible alternates.
My experience is that reading the book prior to my visit works best. This allows me more time observing the field and less time reading the book. Of the tour options, a professional guide is usually the best but most expensive choice. The park driving tour is the best choice for a quick trip through the field to get the kids passport stamp. This book is the best choice for a serious student of the battle looking for a detailed explanation.

This is the second battlefield guide in the Army War College series that I have used on a tour. I found it an indispensible aide to understanding how the battle unfolded.

The guide arranges the stops on the tour in a logical manner, and the selected descriptions of the battle by participants do an excellent job describing the combat. I highly recommend this guide to anyone touring the field.

I recommend that you use it in conjunction with the Trailhead Grpahics map of the battlefield, to ensure you have an accurate understanding of the terrain.

I have bought several of the guides in the U.S. Army War College Guide series printed by the University Press of Kansas, and have never been disappointed--until now. Living only a two-hour drive away from Shiloh, I have been to that battlefield too many times to count, and have in that time become very well acquainted with it and the surrounding area. I decided to give this book a try, mainly in the hope that it would reveal something to me at the battlefield that I didn't previously know about. I will repeat that I was disappointed, especially considering the high standard I had learned to hold this series of battlefield guides to.

First of all, there are gaps in the authors' coverage of the battlefield. In other words, they skip important parts of the battlefield while giving other parts plenty. I was also saddened to find out that the authors don't cover sites off the actual battlefield that have to do with pre- or post-battle events, such as the site of the Confederate council-of-war on April 5 or the location of Fallen Timbers, where Nathan Bedford Forrest fought a brilliant rear-guard action after the battle was over. This book would have been much better if the coverage had been widened to sites other than those located within the park itself.

Secondly, I feel as though the authors did not describe each tour stop very well. They would describe what was happening in the general area, but woudln't put that into the context of where you are then standing. For example, most tour guides would say something like the following: "From where you are now standing, Adams' brigade (randomnly picking names here) attacked in the field to your left. At the same time, Shaver's brigade attacked to your right." If the authors had done this, the book would have been much better.

For those who wish to see only sites within the park boundaries, and not see all the important sites associated with the battle outside the park, this would be a good, not great, battlefield guide. For those, like me, who are very adamant about touring the lesser know sites, this guide will be disappointing. I may even be a little too generous in giving it two stars

I found this book to be insightful and very well researched. As a historian, I enjoyed the detail, and the photographs -- particularly the team pictures from each year -- added to the product.

During my highschool and college years, the K.C. Athletics were my team. Their less than remarkable history and Charlie Finlay's escapades are accurately captured in this book.

The title of this short review says it all: too much about Charlie Finley and Arnold Johnson, and not enuff about the players - you learn nothing about the players and the team in this book - you read all about stadium leases, concession revenues, deals to move to other cities, attendance figures, front office personnel salaries, etc. - I'm sure most A's fans didn't wake up eager to read the morning sports pages in Kansas City to read about attendance figures. What you DON'T get to know is the team - most players get, at the very most, a short paragraph or two, and some get nothing at all - you read some about the managers and coaches - there is no biographical info or anecdotal info on the players. Have you ever read a book and realize that the author isn't a professional writer? - you'll get that feeling with this book - about halfway thru, I realized I was reading about leases and concessions and revenues, and hardly NOTHING about the players. Readers, there is a reason why some books still are at their list price, years after they've been released, in paperback no less - this is why.

If you're a Philly, KC, or Oakland A's or hard-core baseball fan you should read this book. It's obvious that Rev. Peterson loved the KC A's and enjoyed his research in writing this book, and there was much research which into this book. Using Bill James' (Kansas native) Win Shares to value the dozens of trades made by the A's was quite interesting. It shows that the A's weren't quite the buffoons everybody thought that they were. Unfortunately several of the trades helped the Yankees in the short run, and the A's subsequently traded some of the players that they acquired and those players went on to good careers with other clubs.

I did find one or two factuals errors and one editing error. The book states that the expansion draft let each club designate 15 players of their 40 man roster to be eligible for the draft. Actually the clubs could protect 15 players from their 40 man roster. So the expansion clubs got to pick from the 16th best player on down from a team's 40 man roster. In memory serves after the first player was selected from your team, the original AL team could pull two more players back from being selected. The NL used a similar system one year later. Although dumping salaries weren't the issue that they would become in the expansion drafts of the nineties, many older players in the twilight of their careers were drafted by the expansion clubs (e.g., Bobby Shantz). Bobby had several nice years subsequent to expansion, but was essentially what today would be called a role player, but what a role player.

At first I was going to rate this book 4*, but decided to rate it 5* because it did retain my interest throughout the book and I looked forward to reading each succeeding chapter. It most definitely is an enjoyable read.

I grew up with the A's, moving to K.C. in 1961 when I was 8 years old. Although I love the Royals, the A's were my first team. This book brought back many memories and is well worth the cost. There are a few more typos and punctuation errors than I expected but these did not detract much from my enjoyment of the book. I have never seen this book for sale in K.C area book stores, so was thrilled to find out about this recently and aquired my copy from Amazon. Municipal Stadium was such a neat place to watch games - I'm glad I grew up watching the A's and Chiefs there. My dad was too cheap to park at the Sam's lots (but to his credit we rarely sat in general admission!), so he always parked in somebody's yard on Brooklyn Avenue. At least today you can still eat at Arthur Bryant's down the street, then go see the "info plaque" at 22nd & Brooklyn where the stadium was.

I purchased this book with the greatest of intentions. Unfortunately, it is so rambling and disorganized that I was not successful.
In reading the other reviews, it is apparent that the focus of this book was on the college level student reader. True, to my knowledge there is nothing out there with the same focus. However, Land of Contrasts, while written at the supposed high school level (though I enjoyed it), is much more organized and a better read.
I did enjoy the Bleeding Kansas section, Civil War impact, and the building boom time period of the 1880's. Then the organization starts falling apart.
I tried hard to like this book, but I couldn't get past the way it jumped around in topical themes to decide whether I really was enjoying it or whether I was missing something somewhere. I decided to put it back on my book shelf and to get over the headache it had created, and then try again another day.
College students, keep looking out there.

After buying this book, I regret not reading a few pages in the store so that I could decide on whether to keep looking for something more accessible.

The book is often tedious and rambling. While the basic organization is clear and logical, each chapter covers too many incidents and characters in too little detail, with weak transitions leading to an overall feeling of choppiness. Miner relies too much on quotes which feature the language of the day for added color, adding an unnecessary level of complexity in many instances.

Too many characters come, go and return too quickly; events do likewise. Even careful readers may find themselves referring back to previous pages and paragraphs to keep everything straight (which is, of course, detrimental to flow).

This is, frankly, not a book that will give most readers a good feel for Kansas in any way except in the abstract. It's full of great facts and research, but is just not compelling or colorful writing. I'm on the lookout for a more interesting read while I slowly work my way through this one.

I am not surprised at Mr. Fitzgerald's remarks regarding Craig Miner's fine new work on Kansas. Fitzgerald, who has published two successful books on "ghost towns" (actually "near dead" towns) in Kansas is a popularizer. His books, while fun to read, are by no means scholarly works. Miner's new book is scholarly, but interesting! Robert Richmond's book is a good survey of Kansas history, but is appropriate for a high school audience. Thomas Isern's book, Kansas Land, is written for a junior high audience. Until Miner wrote this book, there has been no survey of Kansas history that was apporpriate for college students and for scholarly study. Richmond's book has suggesstions for further reading at the end of every chapter. Fitzgerald seems to be underestimating Kansans in the way that they have been underestimated for 150 years, as simple, illiterate people of the land. Read Miner's book, and you will soon find out that Kansans are quite the opposite! Miner's book is written with the erudition that Kansans deserve. This is a fine book, a fitting history of Kansas for Kansans, and for others.
Historians will always bicker about each other's work, sometimes jealously, sometimes with clear reason. I cannot say that Mr. Fitzgerald is jealous, but he certainly did not make his argument with clear reason!

With much anticipation, I waited for this book to be released. There has been no general historical monograph of Kansas since Robert Richmond's Kansas, A Land of Contrasts, back in the mid-1970's. Kansas is overdue for a new basic history. My original review of this book gave it 1 star. Since that time I have had the opportunity to read the volume a couple of times and my original comments may have been too harsh. The book does go indepth into areas which have not been addressed by other state monographs, especially with regard to civil rights movements in the 1960's and especially important issues of the last 30 years in the later chapters. Miner's evaluations of recent political changes in the last chapters was also quite thought-provoking. My original argument regarding the organization of this history remains and keeps me from giving it 5 stars. There is an enormous amount of information contained here and it needed, for lack of a better word, more user-friendly organization, maybe even some side-bars where the author could have more freedom to digress in related topics. This volume was meant for a scholarly audience and it will appeal quite well to this relatively small percentage of Kansans and deserves four stars. Whether this book will attract a sizable number of non-scholarly Kansans remains to be seen. This is not meant as a derogatory remark, merely a realistic observation. With regard to its chosen audience, however, it appears to be successful. With regard to illustrations, maps, and graphs, I would have enjoyed seeing more. Why not show off a little bit of Kansas visually? The photographs dept of the KSHS has several hundred thousand images and over 10,000 pertinent maps. Why was this valuable resource underutilized? To address Mr Avid, there is certainly no jealousy involved as I am not a historian nor a college professor and I write about subjects that I have an interest in pursuing. I own every book that Miner has authored and have enjoyed his previous works very much. My expectations with regard to this book were apparently unrealistic-- I was expecting a bigger and better model of Land of Contrasts. This book will help to alter the image of Kansas in a positive way among academics in other states who have an image of Kansas as a flat, dull lifeless place. The details outlined in Miner's book portray a far more complex state of mind than the outside world realizes. That is a good thing.

Craig Miner's exhaustive volume demolishes the marginalization of Kansas in the writing of American history. Arguing for the importance of regional history, Miner persuades the reader that Kansas is not a "Great American Desert" historically, but a fascinating land, chockful of colorful characters, dramatic events, and great influence on the rest of the United States.

Given the exhaustive nature of the volume, every reader will find something of interest in Miner's history, from agricultural history to political intrigue. Most Kansas histories simply scratch the surface, citing "Bleeding Kansas" and prohibition as everything interesting about Kansas. Not so with Minor's work. The pro-communist Waldo McNutt shares the stage with the anti-communist Gerald K. Winrod in a story that will remind Kansans of the richness of their history and amaze others with what historical treasures have yet be unearthed in the middle of America.

The final chapter demonstrates what separates Miner from many other historians. A finely woven look at Kansas and its future, the author weaves in cultural allusions from Bob Dylan to Reynolds Price in order to understand the struggle for Kansas' identity. This is a rich work for any fan of American history.

The corpses of Wylene Dunbar's title are probably not what you think. Her book is indeed populated in part by the dead, but her corpses are most often mobile beings, difficult to distinguish from the living even for someone with a practiced eye, such as Dunbar's protagonist and narrator Oz. Oz grew up the only living member of a family of corpses, her mother and sister having died before Oz was born, her father perhaps shortly thereafter. It is difficult, in Dunbar's world, to determine precisely when the transition from life to death occurs. The process of dying can be a lengthy one, and besides, corpses tend to retain the characteristics they enjoyed in life: "...a southern corpse does not forget her manners just because she is dead, any more than a midwestern one suddenly learns how to carry on a charming conversation about nothing at all."

Dunbar's story begins with an appealing mystery: the grave of Oz's childhood neighbor and friend Winfield Evan Stark has been found to be empty, Oz's own published account of her childhood among corpses lying in the grave in its place. This discovery prompts Mr. Stark's relatives to exhume a nearby grave in the hope of finding the missing body, a task over which Oz is for some reason set as overseer. While workmen dig up the grave, Oz writes a continuation of her earlier account, in part as a warning to the rest of us. As Oz discovered in adulthood, her family of corpses was not as unusual as she had supposed. There are corpses everywhere--vacationing in Canada, publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals, meeting with friends at coffee shops--and if you're not careful you may get the life sucked out of you as well.

Oz's narrative--Dunbar's novel--is punctuated by keen observations and patches of lovely writing:

"He was quite thin and I would say he was tall and lean, but you would think of Gary Cooper in High Noon when what I mean is that he was a rather beat-up stick; a long, emaciated collection of bones and skin supporting a large bearded head. Everything about him was that way, even his hair, which was slicked down and lightly grayed, above a long wolfhound face."

But Oz's philosophizing slows the narrative down, and neither she nor the characters she describes ever become real enough to make readers care what happens to them. What is maddening about the book, however, is that Dunbar leaves so many questions unanswered: why can people other than Oz see some corpses but not others? how did Stark "rescue" Oz from her family of corpses, and why did he bother rescuing her subsequently from her perfectly normal foster family? why is her book found in Stark's grave? And so on. This is evidently meant to be a thinking person's book, inspiring in us ideas about the loss of spirit that can precede corporeal death, but the imperfections of the premise around which Dunbar's serious narrative is constructed are too distracting for us to take the book very seriously. An ostensibly absurd premise can be made to work if it is logically consistent, if all the loose ends are tied up, but Dunbar leaves too much unexplained.

While My Life with Corpses disappoints, however, Dunbar is clearly a very good prose stylist. There are passages in this book that merit rereading. It will be interesting to see what the author offers us in the future.

Reviewed by Debra Hamel, author of Trying Neaira: The True Story of a Courtesan's Scandalous Life in Ancient Greece

I didn't get as excited about this book as the other reviewers have. I did not get much out of this book. The author is trying to blend the fantasy with the real, and it somehow misses the mark. I understand the metaphor of the "waking dead" and how she tries to juxtapose merely being alive with living life. But it just doesn't stir me. Something seems to be missing. I don't think the book is a waste of time, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend it, either.

To say that "Oz" had a unique childhood would be a drastic understatement. The memories she carries with her are unlike any held in the hearts of other children. Why so different? Oz was raised by a family of corpses.

Her mother and older sister were already dead when Oz was born, but her father was still somewhat alive. Having existed in a household of corpses, however, he was forgetting more and more how to live and one day he just crossed over into death. It happened with such subtlety that Oz isn't even certain when her father died.

While some may think this lifestyle odd, Oz never gave it a thought. When a person is raised in a particular manner, and knows no other, it is impossible to think of it as being abnormal.

At the request of a friend, the man who saved her from her life with corpses, Oz has written the account of her childhood. And now, she sits at his graveside, ten years after his death, and writes a further account as she awaits the exhumation of what some believe will be Mr. Stark`s empty coffin.

This new memoir, of sorts, will take Oz's first tale and expand upon it to share the valuable lessons she has learned since she was "saved" from her family. She tells of realizing that there are more corpses in existence than even she could have imagined and she relates her struggles with falling into the trap of becoming a corpse herself.

Rather than write of corpses as the gruesome entities that fiction fans are used to, Wylene Dunbar has brought them to a new level by instilling a philosophical aspect into their existence. My Life With Corpses is a provocative tome that, though requiring a sizeable suspension of belief, will have its readers picking between the lines to relate certain aspects to reality.

"You've heard the story of the boy who was raised by wolves," writes Wylene Dunbar in her second novel, MY LIFE WITH CORPSES. She plays off the idea of the feral child in intriguing and surprising ways: her protagonist and narrator, known only as Oz, is raised by corpses. Oz's parents and older sister have all died, yet they still reside on their Kansas farm and still commingle with the living, who can see them but can't see that they're deceased. They live, but without warmth or desires or any kind of distinctiveness. Oz is the only person who can see them for what they truly are --- the walking dead.

Coming seven years after Dunbar's celebrated debut, MARGARET CAPE, MY LIFE WITH CORPSES begins with Oz declaring her intentions to tell her strange life story as honestly as possible: "What I write you now is not a fiction or even half-true but, instead, the whole of what I know, if long concealed." While this limited point of view can be a little bit disconcerting, especially early in the novel, the technique works only because Dunbar so quickly and effectively establishes Oz as a dynamic, unpredictable, and tough-minded character, our Virgil through the land of the dead.

Oz's life with corpses has surprising consequences. For instance, since the dead cannot feel, Oz grows up more or less without emotions: "My mother taught me how to live without feeling," she writes, neither lamenting nor whining. "More than stoicism or the courageous bearing of plain, I was taught not to feel at all." Also, Oz's family raises her as a boy, so it's a shock both to her and to the reader when she later realizes that she is in fact a girl.

However, given Dunbar's wild imagining of the differences between life and death, it's no surprise that Oz becomes a philosophy professor, finally settling into a decidedly abnormal life in Oxford, Mississippi. Here she sees corpses all over campus, in her students (one of whom has decomposed so much that she is little more than a skeleton) and in her colleagues. These corpses, however, are not metaphorically dead, nor are they zombies or ghosts. Their deathliness is somewhere between literal and figurative, between real and unreal, and Dunbar has a lot of fun developing her own personal mythology of death. She is intrigued by the logistics of it, the philosophy of death as well as the science. For her death seems to exist as a condition as much of the soul as of the body. The corpses that stumble through the novel seem to have lost their life-fires and so only maintain the appearance of the fully human. Inside, however, they are cold.

MY LIFE WITH CORPSES is most interesting when it takes its title as its mission and describes the lives the dead lead. Corpses don't have to eat, yet they must do so regularly for practical purposes: "their ethereal nature gives them a tendency to float above the earth unless they are weighted down." Also, they don't like to touch, but experience intimacy through sheer proximity. As Oz observes, "this accounts for the fact that we bury our dead collectively in cemeteries and that couples and relatives express the desire to be buried side by side."

Later in the novel, however, Oz describes an "unexplained breathlessness" that results from the presence of too many corpses, even recollecting that she would eat alone instead of with her dead family. This detail, however intriguing, contradicts her earlier memories of long road trips with her parents and sister, when proximity was not just unavoidable but desired. While such inconsistencies may seem inconsequential individually, they accumulate into something a bit more damning by the novel's conclusion, revealing the holes in Dunbar's imaginative mythology.

Regardless of such flaws, underneath the surface whimsy of this outlandish conceit lies a current of inevitable loss and pain. MY LIFE WITH CORPSES is tragedy through comedy, or perhaps comedy through tragedy. Either way it serves as a reminder that "living must be learned, and it can only be learned in contact with those who are living."

--- Reviewed by Stephen M. Deusner

Do not be put off by the title. "My Life With Corpses" is an allegorical amusement park ride through the haunted house. We are all Dorothy, transported to a magical and mystical world, by the narrator, "Oz". Just like Dorothy, we will learn about ourselves, our relationships with others, and what is truly important. The book is cleverly written, thought provoking and potentially life altering.

When a good friend died his wife gave me his collection of books on the Civil War. Over the years, I have ebayed most of them, but some how, I could not bring myself to auction this book off. During a recent move, as I was packing my library, I toss this book aside to read. Wow! What a good read. Although written ten years ago, this book is strangely appropriate for our times.

Lincoln has taken a hit from the politically correct revisionist historians on two accounts: First because of his early stance on resolving the race issue (colonization), and secondly because of the limited reach of the Emancipation Proclamation (freeing only slaves in the states in active rebellion against the Union). For these reasons, modern revisionist judge Lincoln according to modern liberal standards and find him guilty of racism. Unfortunately, history is not that simple. People, at least intelligent people as Lincoln certainly was, have complex and evolving views of the critical issues of their day. Lincoln certainly did not have the hindsight that today's historians do. He was a man of his time who struggled with the issues and whose changing views on race made him a great man. It is to Paludan's credit that he refuses to give simple answers to explain the life and views of a very complex man. He shows us a complex even contradictory personality.

Especially pertinent to the current news is Paludan's analysis of Lincoln and the Supreme Court. Lincoln believed that ultimate authority in the issues before the nation was the political process, not the Supreme Court (i.e., the Dred Scott decision). Social policy was not the realm of the court, but of the congress. Lincoln saw the court having authority only on parties to the suit and perhaps as a precedent in parallel cases. But "upon vital questions affecting the whole people" American citizens could not "resign their government into the hands of judges." The same issue faces us today. The fundamental question we are facing is the same Lincoln faced: Is the role of the court to adjudicate constitutional issues or to decide social policy?

Vital to Lincoln's perception of the role of the Supreme Court was his view of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. He saw the Declaration as the promise and the Constitution as the incomplete fulfillment of that promise. The inclusion of slavery into the Constitution was a political necessity to form the union (six slave states would not enter the union without it). Thus Dread Scott was the wrong decision, immoral as it were, even if the constitution included slavery. Why? Because the promise was given in the Declaration of Independence that all men were created equal. Hum . . . funny thing, when today's conservatives cite the Declaration of Independence in defense of a theistic basis for our nation, liberals are quick to point out that the Declaration is not a legal document and that the Constitution, as the ultimate authority, does not mention God at all. Just a thought.


Ok, I can't help it. I have to talk about the anti-war Democrats of Lincoln's day. Paludan points out again and again that the Democrats of Lincoln's day kept up a constant litany that the war could not be won, that it would bankrupt the county, and that civil liberties were threatened. The peace activist of that day saw nothing but failure and thought that recognizing that failure made better sense than perpetuating it. Um. . . sounds familiar doesn't it. I guess some things never change.

Well, I guess I said enough. This was a great book. I could hardly put it down. Good thing I did not ebay it.

Well, first of all, I must tell everyone that I probably have a negative bias towards this book's author. The best thing I can say of this book is that curling up with it is much more pleasant than being in the same county as the author and his enormous ego. His scholarship in the book is a lot sounder than his verbal musings in the classroom, many of which are non-sensical and poorly thought-out, and his modern political musings which are often inappropiate and non-germane. One of my fondest memories is of him being made a fool of by a freshman student when he lectured for an hour on why a funeral home is called a "home". In typical PS Paludan fashion, he constructed an elaborate 19th century socio-historical explanation for what was easily explained by the student. They are called "funeral homes" because they were in caretaker's houses! Yes, Philly has a way of making the simple hard. This man almost ruined me on the study of history. I obviously would never buy this book, as I wouldn't want to see a penny go to this conceited egotist. I had this guy for a course 2 years ago and the mention of his name still makes my blood boil.

Like one of the previous reviewers, I too have been a previous student of Professor Paluden at the University of Kansas. I count him as one of the instructors that have fueled a passion in me to study the civil war period. Unlike the previous reviewer, I have had the benefit of having read this book before offering an opinion. Prof. Paluden offers an extremely well researched account of the civil war presidency of Lincoln. This work includes statistics and facts you simply cannot get from documentaries or other accounts. He correctly paints Lincoln as a master politician and cuts through the mythology of the man. Was Lincoln morally opposed to slavery...yes. Was he willing to run on an abolitionist platform?? Hell no, not and get elected during that time period. Paluden's real gift is painting a picture of the period and making folks realize just how important politics was in the 19th Century to all Americans (80-90% voter turnout). Unlike the previous reviewer, I have never noted the negative side of Prof. Paluden. He does have an ego, but, like has been said of his subject "no great man was ever modest". Thanks for a wonderful book professor. (Jayhawk Class of 1995).

As the title indicates, this is not a biography of Abraham Lincoln. It is, instead, a narrow, but detailed and incisive study of Lincoln's exercise of executive power between his election in 1860 and his assassination in 1865. This is important because, as author Philip Shaw Paludan explains: "No president had larger challenges than Abraham Lincoln." And Paludan proceeds to state the obvious, that Lincoln was "responsible for two enormous accomplishments that are part of folk legend as well as fact. He saved the Union and he freed the slaves." No other president did so much in so little time, and Paludan explains why. As a result, within its limited confines, this book is excellent!

Paludan demonstrates in the chapter entitled "Assembling the Cast: Winter 1860-61," that Lincoln, as president-elect, was a shrewd politician. According to Paludan: "Lincoln could be effective only if he unified the six-year-old Republican party," so one of his first appointments was "his strongest party rival," William Seward, Senator from New York, as secretary of state. As political payback for delivering Pennsylvania to the Republicans in 1860, Lincoln was obliged to appoint the notoriously-corrupt Simon Cameron Secretary of War. To counter that stench, Lincoln named as his secretary of the navy Connecticut newspaper editor Gideon Welles, who "had a glowing reputation for honesty." Within a year, Cameron also proved to be incompetent, and, in 1862, Lincoln replaced him with Edwin Stanton, who proved to be not only a man of great integrity but a very capable manager as well. It proved to be one of the most talented cabinets in American history, although Paludan makes clear that its operations were not always harmonious, most notably during the "cabinet crisis" of December 1862.

With most of the executive departments in capable hands, Lincoln "involved himself actively in matters of strategy," claiming "`war power' authority to use his office to the limits." Lincoln's focus on military affairs was essential because the Civil War generally went badly for the Union for the first year. Paludan ably demonstrates that even while Lincoln struggled to find generals who had both the talents and temperament to be successful, the Union was "forging the resources of war," which eventually proved decisive. Gen. George McClellan was a brilliant military administrator but proved much too cautious in the field, appalled by the "mangled corpses and the poor suffering wounded. Lincoln eventually lost confidence in McClellan, and he had to be replaced. One of McClellan's eventual successors, Gen. George Meade, won the great victory at Gettysburg in July 1863, but the Union did fully gain the initiative in the field until Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, who won an equally great victory at Vicksburg, Mississippi almost on the same day, was appointed general in chief in March 1864.

Lincoln's original war aim was merely to restore the Union. But the costs, human and material, of the war's first two years, made eradication of slavery a necessity. Following the battle of Antietam in September 1862, which was a "tactical draw but a strategic victory" for the Union, Lincoln announced the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. The issue then became: What was to be done with the former slaves? In December, Lincoln proposed a constitutional amendment for the federal government to pay to colonize any blacks who wished to emigrate, but blacks "rejected it, abolitionists had condemned it," and this "doubtful solution" was beyond the practical realities of the time. Even while the war continued to rage, the prospective problems of reconstruction never were far from Lincoln's mind, and, according to Paludan, this difficult issue increasingly divided the president from radical Republicans.

Paludan writes that, while the radicals favored confiscation of land which had prospered from slave labor, Lincoln believed in "peaceful, gradual, compensated emancipation." Lincoln opposed the harsh remedy of confiscation and believed that the Constitution permitted him to free the slaves only "in places where war was being made." The Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 potentially freed 3 million slaves but did not mention colonization or compensated emancipation. Nevertheless, the emancipation issue proved controversial. Solidly Republican New England remained largely committed to the war, but, according to Paludan: "Especially in the regions of the Middle West settled from the South and in cities where job competition existed between the races, people resented the idea of fighting in order to free blacks."

Equally controversial was the Emancipation Proclamation's "arming of black freedom fighters." According to Paludan, "Lincoln and his party clearly were committed to Union and to emancipation and to the belief that the two were linked indissolubly by the need for black soldiers." Almost 180,000 black troops were serving in Union armies by the end of the war. Lincoln was very conscious of the importance of maintaining the national moral, and, in Paludan's view, northern whites increasingly recognized the benefits of having black soldiers defend the Union.

According to Paludan, the Union's victory was in large part a result of Lincoln's "devotion to and mastery of the political-constitutional institutions of his time." Some Civil War buffs and many general readers are likely to find this book rather dry because it focuses on the science of politics. But, as Paludan writes, the preservation of the Union "was achieved chiefly through an extraordinary outreach of national authority." This book is an exceptionally thoughtful account of the exercise of executive power during the most serious crisis in American history.

This is not a bad book, and in fact offers a solid description and assessment of the Lincoln Administration.

Paludan describes the working of Lincoln's government well, including the personalities and major policy issues they faced. He does a good job in explaining the manueverings between Salmon P. Chase and Lincoln for dominance of the Administration and later for the 1864 Repbulican Party nomination. Also described thoroughly is Lincoln's Louisianna reconstruction plan, which gives a pretty plausible map to what reconstruction could have looked like had Booth not intervened.

I found the writing average. While the book explains the subject well enough, the prose is more workmanlike. It didn't reach the level of engrossing style other chronicler's of Lincoln and his government have.

Overall, not bad.

Quoting Mark Twain, who felt that Hayes's presidency "would steadily rise into higher and higher prominence, as time & distance give it a right perspective, until at last it would stand out against the horizon of history in its true proportions," Ari Hoogenboom states that his purpose in writing this biography is "in the hope of fulfilling Twain's prediction ...." Thus from the beginning we are warned that Hoogenboom is out to cast his subject in as favorable a light as possible. He doesn't distort the facts to attain this goal, but his judgments at times seem overstraining and one-sided. For example, a pragmatist to a fault, Hayes compromised on a number of issues (black voting rights in the South, the Chinese Immigration Bill), seeing no use in a fight to perhaps capture the high ground, yet the author is able to dismiss these moves as politically prudent. Hoogenboom includes a 5-page Afterward that is one defense after another of Hayes and his actions as president; it's such a glowing explication of the man that the only thing missing is a standing ovation.

That doesn't mean Hayes was unworthy of any praise. His Civil War career was noteworthy, serving with and leading the 23rd Ohio in many engagements, including South Mountain in Maryland where he was severely wounded. As president, his stand on civil service reform was generally commendable, fighting unsuccessfully against Congress for a civil service commission, introducing the idea of competitive exams for appointments in some departments, and ordering that federal officers not be permitted to take part in political activities. Although hardly mentioned by Hoogenboom, the Hayes administration also did much to stop the wanton destruction of much of the national forest lands. Hayes also was the one who appointed the great Supreme Court justice John Marshall Harlan to the bench.

Of course, Hoogenboom describes in detail the "stolen" election that got Hayes into office. He also relates admirably the post-presidency years of Hayes, his great interest in education and prison reform. Hoogenboom is also a competent writer, and he sweeps the reader along laudably with his narrative. The biography is an informative and interesting account of the nineteenth president; it's just that the author's singular purpose in writing the book must be kept in mind while reading it.

One of my favorite biographies, Ari Hoogenboom's "Hayes" is a positive and incisive look at the 19th president. Hayes is the prototypical Midwesterner, successful, yet humble, proper and reform minded, but not priggish or censorious. Hayes had a genuine concern for humanity and America. Though limited in the lengths he would travel to enact social changes we would today deem necessary (or that he himself would wish for), Hayes should be better-remembered. Hoogenboom's work is quite thorough, covering both Hayes's political and personal life.
Hayes has been criticized for giving up on Reconstruction and thus dooming blacks to a century of repression, but Hayes had genuine concern for blacks. However, by 1877 Hayes was quite limited in what he could do politically to maintain Reconstruction. Hayes was traditionally criticized for doing little to address the growing inequalities of the American economy. But, although he did help put down nation-wide strikes, Hayes was more sympathetic to labor than any other late 19th century president. I was also surprised to read about the extensive post-presidency work of Hayes, comparable to Jimmy Carter.

Hayes had an interesting life and an active time in the Civil War. This book is aimed at presenting a favorable picture of him, and is written kind of like old-fashioned biographies. It pays excessive attention ro Hayes' diary, and contains considerable trivia. Some chapters are boring. The most interesting chapters are are, obviously, on 1876 and 1877 and the dramatic events around Hayes' election to the Presidency. And yes, the Republicans stole that election too!

Over the last few years I've read more than 30 presidential biographies, usually using Amazon to guide me to the best book on each president. Hoogenboom's biography of Hayes seemed the best, and I was not disappointed. Hayes comes off as a courageous man of good intentions, but also as a man who was unable to overcome the nation`s problems while he was president. His childhood story is told in detail, and it reminds us just how difficult it was to survive from day to day 200 years ago. He was a genuine Civil War hero. 1876 was certainly the US's most contentious national election. There were so many deals and chicaneries in determining the outcome in 1876 that no one will ever know who should have won.

As president Hayes lacked anything resembling a mandate, and the Republican Party was divided between spoils men and those who wanted reform. Reconstruction had failed, and it is beyond me to imagine what anyone could have done to develop a better outcome for African Americans or national unity. Suffice it to say Hayes didn't solve either problem, and although he could be criticized for not trying harder to bring out civil service reforms and to insure ensure voting rights, there simply was not enough support for these efforts. He did work to make the US economy sound after a stiff recession and he was probably the only president that cared a wit for treating Native Americans in a respectful manner.

To my surprise Hayes was genuinely a good man rather than just another Ohio politician who became a 19th century president. Hayes actually considered his world and shaped his beliefs and actions according to his synthesis of the truth, rather than going along with the crowd. His reactions to the temperance movement and organized religion are worthy of our respect. Hayes made a genuine commitment to education and was a catalyst for funding black universities and Ohio State. He was appalled at excessive wealth and championed redistribution of wealth. At his core he was a man of the people and a good husband. He simply cannot be compared to most politicos of his time.

Hoogenboom's narrative lays out Hayes and his times in readable detail. He is not a great biographer in terms of bringing his characters to life, but this biography is well organized. This is a better than average biography about a fascinating time in US history.

I have to give Professor Hoogenboom credit for giving it the old college try. He does his very best to portray Hayes as an effective politician and as a real reformer. Unfortunately, the case he makes is simply not convincing.

To be fair to Hayes, this is not to say that his life was uninteresting. This biography shows that Hayes was not just some non-entity that was tapped for the GOP nomination by the power-brokers of the party, but that he had a pretty interesting life (a Civil War record of real consequence, plus an impressive career in Ohio politics) prior to ascending to the presidency.

Unfortunately, the only reason we are reading a Hayes biography is because he became President, not because he was a Civil War general or a governor of Ohio. It is when dealing with Hayes' record as President that Hoogenboom fails to persuade the reader of Hayes' impact & commitment to reform.

For one thing, Hoogenboom pulls way too many punches when it comes to the 1876 elections. He equivocates; he is not willing to say that the elections were on the up-and-up, but neither is he willing to concede that Hayes was involved in what was a truly stolen election. Anyone who thinks the 2000 election was stolen ought to take a good look at 1876. Like it or not, Hayes was complicit in this, and his credibility was compromised from the very beginning of his term.

It really doesn't get any better from there. Was Hayes a dynamic, reform-minded president? Good luck trying to prove that --- the record simply does not support that contention, no matter how hard Hoogenboom tries accentuate the positive. Granted, Hayes' administration was not the embarrassment of scandals that typified Ulysses Grant's administration, and certainly corrupt Republicans like Roscoe Conkling & James Blaine make Hayes look quite pure, but this does not mean that Hayes had any genuine tendency towards reform. One only has to examine the not particularly comfortable relationship between Hayes and Secretary of the Interior Carl Schurz to see how Hayes felt about the movement supporting civil service reform, for example.

So we are left with a mixed bag. The only other Hayes biography I have read was written in the early 1930's and was so appallingly racist that I couldn't put it down fast enough. There has been precious little written on Hayes since then, so Hoogenboom has provided a great service. It is a well-written & well-researched biography, so there are no complaints in that regard. I simply do not feel that the author has convincingly made his case.