Expansion Books

This book is simple, not scholarly. If you are looking for a seminal work on James K. Polk, look elsewhere. On the other hand, if you are looking for an easy read to familiarize yourself with his life and presidency, this is kind of like the spark notes version.

11 James K. Polk - 1845-49
Polk is our most underrated president. He championed the idea of manifest destiny. He believed the United States was destined to own all the land from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Texas was annexed, and the Mexican War was fought. The treaty added California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. The U.S. stretched from sea to shining sea. Polk was from Tennessee. He accomplished what he wanted and decided not to seek a second term. I rank him #6.

James K. Polk has one of the most interesting historical reputations among American presidents. Serving for a solitary term, he consistently ranks among the most highly regarded occupants of the White House. Yet in spite of this he has been the subject of surprisingly little attention from historians. This is what makes Sam Haynes' short study so welcome. Seeing Polk as representative of the nation's desire for territorial expansion, he provides a concise account of the life of this understudied figure.

Haynes' book is hardly the final word on Polk; he compresses the first thirty years of Polk's life into a single chapter, raising many questions that are then left unanswered. It is only when Polk emerges as one of Andrew Jackson's lieutenants in the House of Representatives that the narrative slows enough to allow for insights. Haynes sees Polk as the "consummate Jacksonian," serving as a loyal lieutenant and emerging as one of the foremost heirs to his legacy. Yet two successive defeats in races for the governorship of Tennessee dimmed his political star, and his name was not among those of the frontrunners for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1844.

Nonetheless, Polk emerged from a deadlocked convention as the first "dark horse" nominee in American history. Hynes argues that the significance of the 1844 presidential convention lies in the embrace of territorial expansion as an issue that united a broad range of groups in a diverse country, which helped Polk defeat Henry Clay in the subsequent election. As president, Polk was a hands-on manager who carefully monitored every department of the executive branch. While viable with the small bureaucracy in the Washington of his day, this proved impractical when managing the far-flung war against Mexico.

The Mexican-American War takes up over a third of the book, both as the pivotal event of Polk's presidency and as the culminating moment of the expansionist movement. Haynes depicts it as a natural consequence of the belligerency of American expansion, which risked war with Great Britain as well over the Pacific Northwest. Polk's battles were not confined to foreign relations, though, as going to war with poorly defined aims exacerbated tensions between the proslavery South and antislavery North. Polk also clashed with the predominantly Whig military commanders, who chafed at the president's effort to micromanage the conflict. This created conflict as well with Polk's handpicked negotiator, Nicholas Trist, who succeeded in hammering out a treaty ending the war before the expected recall order arrived. His success allowed the president to step down with the war as the crowning achievement of his administration, though Polk was so exhausted that he died soon afterwards.

Haynes's book provides an excellent introduction to both American expansionism during the 1840s and Polk's conduct of the war. In many respects, it serves as a useful supplement to Charles Sellers's unfinished two-volume study of Polk, James K. Polk, Jackonian 1795-1843 & Continentalist 1843-1846 (Two Volume Set), which covers his life to the start of the war with Mexico. Yet while Sellers's biography is the definitive work on the president's early years, this book is still the best modern study available of Polk's complete political career.

A short book written more as text book that about the life of Polk. I was disappointed with the book. We need more about James K. Polk.

James K. Polk and the Expansionist Impulse is an exciting and educational book. It helps to understand American history especially the policies pursued between 1845 and 1849 as well as the polities of that time but more importantly it enlightens the reader on the life of American's 11th president who added 522 million acres to land of the country. The book also confirmed the accusation that Americans think they are superior and have the ability to do anything at all better than the rest of the world. This is evident in the way Mexico was treated. Convinced that they were the only people with the requisite qualities for self-government, they looked down on the Mexicans and took away their lands. One can now perfectly understands why Mexicans harbor so much bitterness towards Americans even up to today. This book will be of a great benefit to any student studying American history and anyone at all who is interested in learning about President Polk and the lands he coveted for his country.

I had the opportunity to be a student in Professor O'Brien's Alexander the Great class at Queens college. He was so knowlegdeable and eloquent in that class, his book is also a really well-rounded inquiry to Alexander. In his book, aside from his on take on Alexander, O'Brien reveals many of the differing characterizations that other leading historians such as Peter Green, Mary Renault, Robin Lane Fox, etc. attribute to Alexander. I have read a bunch of Alexander biographies, however, O'Brien's is one of the more well-rounded. Plus, he gives his own interesting opinion on the role alcohol played in Alexander's life and death. This book is excellent for someone who is a serious historian or history student, but it is also written clear enough that you don't have to be one of the latter in order to understand it. I recommmend this book, because the fair balance O'Brien gives to the debate over Alexander's mysterious and multi-faced personality.

I find this book fascinating, full of interesting facts and references. A great reading for someone who is curious to find out more about the phenomenon we call Alexander the Great.

This particular book is full of references from ancient greek literature quoted to illustrate various aspects of Alexander the Great's life. It has the most complete bibliography on Alexander and students will find it is a must buy for that feature alone. The author concentrates on the deterioration of Alexander from alcohol and his parallel life with the god of wine Dionysus. Very unusual indeed...

What on earth is a "reluctant heterosexual"? From what I know of ancient Greek history, there was no such term as homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual. It is only modern historians who feel the overwhelming need to add labels, and usually the label that best suits their own sexuality. If a "hero" is considered heterosexual then their exploits with the opposite sex are essential to their character and to understanding them. Can you imagine a historian recounting the life of Marc Antony or Julius Caesar for that matter without mentioning Cleopatra or a history of Napoleon without Josephine? And yet here we have another historian placing another annoying tag. And one that doesn't make much sense.

... the chapter on Alexander's sexuality was a little bit strange. The author comes up with quite some proof that Alexander loved his own sex more than the opposite one only to conclude in the last two paragraphs that since Alexander eventually married to produce heirs (a point the author stresses) he possibly was just a "reluctant heterosexual".

I think it's a really difficult situation when biographers are influenced by their restrictive notions of human sexuality while writing about such difficult subjects. A man doesn't have to be (exclusively) heterosexual to be able to have sex with women! It's whom one really loves that counts.

And I think it's quite appaling that the heterosexuality of historical or mythical figures is always praised or not questioned while their homosexuality is either ignored, denied or heavily questioned. To have role models free of contemporary stereotypes such as Alexander the Great (or Richard Lionhart or Achilles and Patroclus) for their sexuality could make all the difference to gay youth.

Otherwise this is an interesting biography looking into some other personal aspects which are often neglected over the battle homo vs. hetero or the image of Alexander as a spotless hero.

I received this book as a birthday present. The book gives an interesting, readable and evenly balanced biography of Alexander the Great's life. One wonders how much time must be required researching such a work as this! It wasn't until I was halfway through the book and had read the Amazon reviews that I realized the book's first copyright was in 1940. The account remains fresh decades later.

As others have mentioned, however, the book is slightly deficient map-wise. As I was reading the first chapter, "Philip of Macedon", I started looking at the various maps throughout the book to try and locate the place-names being discussed. The first chapter desperately needs a map! With regards to the remaining maps, they are difficult to read due to lack of shading to indicate the principal bodies of water. Improvement of the existing maps plus inclusion of one or two additional maps would add much to the enjoyment of this book. It would also be nice to have a portrature of Alexander and some of the other characters mentioned in the text. I'm sure the archaelogical findings of the last 70 years could be used to add photos and illustrations to make this already great book superb! Maybe this can be done in a future edition.

More than you ever wanted to know about Alexander. Overall, an interesting and comprehensive read. The footnotes are exhausting, listing information about the geographic and meteorological changes that have taken place over the last two thousand years. (Makes you feel like an archaeologist.) His detailed notes on Alexander's military strategies was fascinating. Couldn't help but appreciate Cummings' dedication to the study of such a tremendous figure in ancient history. Take your time with this one.

I enjoyed this book. I found the text to be very readable. The main complaint I have for this book is that there are very few maps. If you are not thoroughly versed in the geography of Alexander, then you will either be confused or forced to have a world atlas at your side while you read. Cummings is supposed to have been a cartographer but he does not use many maps. Besides the lack of images or maps, the book is a fun book to read. If there were more maps and images, I would give the book a five.

With all the recent interest in Alexander its not surprising that biographies new and old are popping up all over the place. Lewis Cummings 1940 bio of Alexander is certainly not one of the better known, nor is it the most distingished either. Though written in English his account is often less clear than Ulrich Wilken's German translated bio from a few years earlier.

Like most bios this one starts out a bit slow with all the heavy-duty background info. about the orgins of the Macedonians and the development of their monarchy over the centuries. Cumming's rather wordy explantions does not make this difficult historical background easy to comprehend either. Despite what is purported as a readable work, the first 50 pages are a real push!

Once we pass with background and get into Alexander himself the narrative start to pick up. Still, Cummings is fond of erodite expressions and typically English round-about explanations. These often cloud the narrative. One reviewer noted that since Cummings's was a cartographer how come there are not more maps in the book! This would certainly help as he is fond of discussing all sorts of obscure place names that Alexander allegedly trammped through. Most bios don't go into such detail on the locales because many of these places aren't around anymore. They certainly don't debate the topic as much as here. For all the descriptions about locales that the author may have seen in person, his actual discussions about Alexander are limited. There are a few good points made here and there, and when not mentioning obsure hill towns in detail the narrative can actually be good at times.

Its hard to figure where Cummings stands with Alex. One gets the impression he is firm admirer in the first half of his career up until the death of Darius III, but after that he believes his subject just becomes a brutal conqueror. Some good points here that could have been debated more. Overall this is an average bio at best. I would recommend Wilcken's from this period of research more as its concise, debates important points, and is a better read. This would not be a good first work to read on Alexander in my opinion. Having read other better works the reader might like to take a look at this one just to compare. Not one of the better older Alex bios out there for sure.

This was a source for my term paper in college. The author is somewhat confusing as she consistently identifies several lies about Calamity Jane before telling the facts. Some of the time I couldn't figure out if what she was currently discussing was fact or fiction. However, after sorting through her analysis I was able to put together an exceptional list of facts that lead to an A on the paper. I would recommend this as a reference tool because it is the one book on Jane that I have found to actually assist in disproving the fictions of her life.

It's a thrill to see this historic treasure back in print. I found the 1951 edition of Sollid's "historical criticisim" in the basement of my University in a cracked and brittle condition. After spending months of wading through the various versions of Calamity Jane's life here was a first hand investigation into not only all the source material I had read but also of jail records, court reports, newspaper archives and interviews with Deadwood oldtimers who knew "Calam'". The term "historical criticisim" is somewhat misleading if it implies a dull achedemic read. Sollid's passion for her subject leads her to board the bus in the summer of 1949 to visit numerous towns in Montana, South Dakota and Wyoming where she searched local archives and interviewed townsfolk ranging from Catholic nuns to the Deadwood bar-tender who was pallbearer at Calamity Jane's funeral. As Sollid progresses her scholarly text begins to ignite. This book contains many photos of Calam' that I had never seen elsewhere, including a macabre photo given to Sollid by the undertakers' widow. This gem of a book cuts through the glamorisation of Calamity Jane by Hollywood fake up artists and challenges the equally absurd sketches of her character by predominately male historians of the 20th century. A wonderfull tribute to the memory of Martha Cannary Burke a.k.a. Calamity Jane. Discover the woman behind the myth.

In 1949 when this work was being researched, it was a major focus for historians of the American West to correct the exaggerated romantic legends that had grown up around many memorable frontier figures. In our skeptical day and age that focus is far less helpful. Roberta Sollid did an excellent job of debunking the many unsubstantiated stories that surround "Calamity Jane". Unfortunately, this work totally fails to help us understand the real person and how she came to survive as a frontier woman who frequently fulfilled roles usually reserved for men.

History is full of contradictions and ironies. This book is one of them.

How else can you explain how the one book historians claim is the most historically authentic Calamity Jane narrative, appears to have been written by the one scholar who despises her the most?

After years of exhaustive scholarly research, what does Roberta Beed Sollid have to say about Calamity Jane? In the introduction, Ms. Sollid calls..."the much publiciz-ed Calamity Jane, a well-meaning but good-for-nothing frontierswoman."

And, Calamity Jane is not the only one insulted in this book. A number of individuals and whole categories of human beings are described in negative terms. Even tourists visting the historic town of Deadwood, South Dakota, are described as "gullible".

Now, I do not mind that Ms. Sollid attempts to debunk the Calamity Jane myth and bring the real life of Martha Jane Cannary into the light of history. She does give the world new primary source material from her interviews of Deadwood citizens, and overall, she collects a considerable amount of authentic material.

But, Ms. Sollid cannot seem to keep her negative feelings out of what should have been a scholarly work, and I believe that this predjudices the text in both content and conclusion. Calamity Jane deserves better.

I recommend that everyone, especially those interested in history and politics, read "Mein Kampf" (1925) and and "Hitler's Second Book" (1928, titled in the US as "Hitler's Secret Book). The reason is very simple, everything he wrote and planned came true. It's powerful stuff and it's something to learn from. History was Hitler's favorite subject and that is clearly on display in "Hitler's Secret Book" in which he discusses the South Tyrol problem. It's an excellent display of his grasp of history and the reality of power politics in the 1920's. It does not matter what you think or feel about the Nazis--read this book, you will learn a lot.

Having read Hitler's most celebrated tract, "Mein Kampf" twice, I was extremely pleased to discover the lesser known piece by this author (actually written before his association with his latter days adie-de-camp, and brutal editor, Rudolf Hess) and found the style much more contiguous, the structure less choppy and the content wholly logical and reasonable to digest. Truly worth reading in order to better understand the ideology and character (and person) of perhaps the most maligned intellect of modern history.

This book, never published until after WWII, sheds further insights into Hitler's thinking, expanding upon some of the themes of his MEIN KAMPF.

National Socialism had undoubtedly been an actual form of socialism, as reiterated by Hitler: "I am a socialist. I see no class and no social estate before me, but that community of people who are linked by blood, united by a language, and subject to the same general fate." (p. 44). "A new nation must arise from this work [the National Socialist movement] which overcomes the worst evils of the present, the cleavage between the classes, for which the bourgeoisie and Marxism are equally guilty." (p. 79).

Interestingly, Hitler toyed with the possible future of Communism, and this turned out to be prophetic: "To be sure, it is conceivable that in Russia itself an internal change within the Bolshevik world may ensue to the extent that the Jewish element, perhaps, could be crowded out by a more or less Russian national element." (p. 133). To a degree, this later happened. Jewish Communists were expelled from their Parties for their "cosmopolitanism" and "Zionism".

We sometimes hear the claim that the German people voted for Hitler, in free elections, without realizing the fact that he would start a major war. Or, at worst, Hitler would be content with a little border war to rectify the "injustices" of Versailles. In actuality, the scope of Hitler's aggressive ambitions had long been obvious. The Fuhrer-to-be planned a war of massive conquest and extermination against the Slavic peoples, as indicated by his following statements regarding lebensraum (in addition to those earlier in MEIN KAMPF): "An additional 500,000 square kilometers in Europe can provide new homesteads for millions of German peasants...The only area in Europe that could be considered for such a territorial policy therefore was Russia." (p. 74; see also page 145). (Later, the Nazis spoke of "resettlement" of Jews and Slavs. In time, "resettlement" evolved into a euphemism for extermination.)

Proponents of Holocaust uniqueness sometimes claim that, whereas there was nothing that Jews could do to change their standing in the eyes of the Nazis, Poles could redeem themselves by undergoing Germanization. This is fallacious, as Hitler made obvious (as he had done earlier in MEIN KAMPF): "The National Socialist movement...knows no Germanizing or Teutonizing, as in the case of the national bourgeoisie, but only the spread of its own people. It will never see in the subjugated, so-called Germanized, Czechs or Poles a national, let alone a folkish, strengthening, but only the racial weakening of our people." (p. 45). "The folkish state, conversely, must under no conditions annex Poles with the intention of wanting to make Germans out of them some day. On the contrary it must muster the determination either to seal off these alien racial elements, so that the blood of its own people will not be corrupted again, or it must without further ado remove than and hand over the vacated territory to its own national comrades." (pp. 47-48). (During the later German occupation of Poland, the "Germanization" of selected Poles was actually a re-Germanization of ethnic Germans who had previously become Polonized.)

Hitler's virulent anti-Semitism had a somewhat different emphasis in this book than it had in MEIN KAMPF. In the latter, he spoke of Jews as parasites that live off the hard-earned wealth of other peoples. In this work, Hitler portrayed Jews as intentional destroyers of the nations' intellectual elites, either through direct extermination (as in Bolshevism) or through indirect means (notably the bastardization of the races, as done in western nations)(p. 105; 212-216); all ostensibly done by the Jews in order to have unfettered rule over the masses.

But Jews weren't the only scapegoats. Hitler also had grandiose views of the Poles' great power and malevolence. He fantasized that the Poles had killed 17,000 Germans during the Silesian Uprisings (p. 190). He painted the 1928 destruction of Bismarck's statue in the city of Bydgoszcz (Bromberg), by Poles, as part of the systematic destruction of German culture (p. 189). In actuality, numerous hallmarks of German culture were spared in Poland, as indeed they are to this very day. And, considering the brutal anti-Polish and anti-Catholic character of Bismarck's policies in Prussian-occupied western Poland (as exemplified by the kulturkampf, one of the first-recorded instances of culture war), it is a wonder that the Poles had waited ten years (after their acquisition of independence) to tear it down!

Clearly a rough draft done about 1928. Rambling. Tends to put one asleep. Obsessively goes on about the South Tyrol German minority in Italy trying to defuse it as a German domestic political issue. Useful in illuminating geopolitical views and directions regarding France, Italy, Russia and his later to be proven erroneous evaluation of England. Obsessed with a nations daily bread and need for lebensraum, the source of which was to be the East. Must have been a nightmare to have to listen to him.

This is an outstanding book: lucidly written, well-reasoned, soundly researched, and visually appealing. In my review of this book and others on the Lewis and Clark expeditiion, published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, I state that the subtitle refers to the divide the author crosses, that is, the divide that has so far minimized or ignored the crucial role played by Indians, including Indian women, in making the explorers' long journey successful.

Carolyn Gilman crosses this divide skilllfully and diplomatically. Granted, readers and viewers who resist fresh interpretations that grant to non-whites and women the recognition they deserve, as does this book, are likely to call her approach "politically correct." That label misses the point. The appropriate label for the author, the book, and exhibition it accompanies is "h.h.," that is, "historically honest." Cross the divide with the author, and that is what you will discover.

My review can be found at .

This book is a tragedy. Because it is the text that will accompany the bicentennial touring exibit of L&C it will have a wide spread readership, yet it is another politically correct dose of revisionist clap-trap.

Much of it deals with Indian Culture that has few specific connective points to the Corps of Discovery and their brave and honorable exploration.

There is no doubt that many Indian tribes played important roles in the success of the venture. They showed friendship and intelligence at critical times during the L&C Journey. Yet, to pound and pound on this to the point that L&C are nearly reduced to stumbling, lucky buffoons finally wears thin.

All the negatives(L&C were slaveholders etc., etc.) are highlighted while many of the astonishing achivements are glossed over.

The photos are inconsistent. I know the intent was to show the articles on display at the exhibit but many pictures are too small to do justice to the subject shown. There are some beautiful prints of Bodner and Catlin paintings but again an overabundace of Indian artifacts and dress.

This book could have and should have been so much more than it is.

The quality of the paper and binding are its strongest points.

My my, all the fits about this book - it is "PC,' or it is revisionist, what ever that means. In all, this is a good book which attempts to be balanced and soothe all the nerves of the thin skinned who still think Americans are a privileged people with a Manifest Destiny to do what they will to other cultures.

This book is the catalogue to a Lewis & Clark Exhibit being put together by the Smithsonian and Missouri Historical Society. First, the good news. The exhibit (and book) documents and presents over 400 objects and artifacts related to the L&C expedition. These items have been gathered from institutions from all over the world (such as the American Philosophical Society, Smithsonian, Library of Congress, National Archives, etc.) The objects presented consists of maps, art work, journal excerpts, expedition artifacts, Indian artifacts. Some of the object are directly traced to the expedition; others (such as some of the Indian artifacts) are presented as examples of objects that Lewis & Clark describe in their journals. Each object is described, photographed, and documented. One chapter of the book describes (with flow charts) how the expedition artifacts have traveled over the past 200 years and how the items reached various institutions. The photographs are beautiful, the book layout is stunning. The book is well-worth the money for this alone.

Unfortunately, as with many Lewis and Clark books, the text (witten by Carolyn Gilman)is marred by political correctness.
For example, one whole chapter is devoted to the role of women in the tribal society versus the roles of women in post-colonial society. Why this is relevant to the Lewis and Clark expedition escapes me. But then, I am a man, so I am likely too stupid to understand this. Ms. Gilman calls the biblical creation account in Genesis the "Euro-American" creation story. No Carolyn, the biblical creation story arose in Mesopotamia about 4000 years ago. The Corps of Discovery is basically presented as a bunch of stupid white men whose trip would have been so much easier if they had only listened to the Indians. Well, they did listen to the Indians, on many ocasions. At one point, she briefly mentions how the Corps hired an Indian (Old Toby) to guide the Corps through the Bitteroots. She fails to mention that Old Toby got them lost. However, this does not stop her from criticizing Clark for failing to listen to Sakajawea, who knew a shorter path. Apparently, in this case, Clark listened to the wrong Indian. She attributes the fact that the Corps was able to shoot the waterfalls on the Columbia River to "luck," because the local Indian tribes were sure that the Corps would fail. Hey, why not praise the skill of the Corps? They had been paddling rivers for 1 1/2 years, maybe they learned something. Her most disgraceful writing is her all too brief description of William Clark's post expedition career, in which she accuses him of "Ethnic Cleansing." Of course, she does not provide much detail to support this outrageous statement, which I consider to be gutless.

These type of statements are most unfortunate because there is a lot of good information in the text. The descriptions of tribal society are excellent. The mapping section is, in general, very good, even though I don't accept some of the conclusions. For example, while the evidence certainly shows that the Corps was greatly surprised by some of this country's geographical surprises, the idea they couldn't accept them this is not supportable. Read their maps and journals. Lewis called his team "The Corps of Discovery." He compared his expedition to Capt. Cook and Colombus. Why would he do that unless he expected to "discover" new things?

To her credit, Ms. Gilman does discuss slavery as practiced by the Indians and even briefly mentions that some of the tribes did practice human sacrafice. That is almost never mentioned in most Lewis & Clark books because, in my view, it would distract from politically correct view of the American Indians as the world's first hippies. However, like most Lewis & Clark books, the author, in general, is "value neutral" when discussing Indian society, practices, and beliefs but highly judgemental when discussing Lewis and Clark. Why is it so hard to be value neutral in both cases and let the reader make the judgements?

By the way, notice that I don't use the term "Native American in my write-up. Why? Because most American Indians don't like it. You would have thought someone from the PC police would have asked American Indians what they thought of the term "Native American" before trying to force the rest of us to use it.

This book contains a huge cache of interesting and thought provoking articles by some of the best scholars out there. I agree with the first two reviewers, this is hard work. But its the kind of hard work that is actually refreshing and even energizing, in a way. There are different types of writing, these different types produce different reading experiences. The style predominant in this book is meant to slow the reader down, to present an interpretation that should be reflected on and critically engaged. The writers herein, I would say, should be credited with analyzing difficult topics in the history of American imperialism in ways that are still enjoyably readable. My personal favorites are:

Myra Jehlen, "Why Did the Europeans Cross the Ocean?"
Richard Slotkin, "Buffalo Bill's 'Wild West' and the Mythologization of American Empire"
Amy Kaplan, "Black and Blue on San Juan Hill"
Donna Haraway, "Teddy Bear Patriarchy"
Eric Lott, "White Like Me"

The only other reviewer (to date) has made a fair point about the density of the essays collected here and the relative obscurity of some of the subject matter. But he/she has missed the larger point of this whole volume by dwelling on the perceived shortcomings of a single article. Until recently, scholars of American Studies, literature, and history have largely ignored the role of imperialism in the development of American culture. Since the early 1990s, some scholars have attempted to set this right by paying more attention to issues like immigration, race and gender identity, travel, and American empire (Philippines, Cuba, Panama, etc.).

This collection of essays brings together some of the finest scholars who have worked in this area during the past decade: Amy Kaplan, Donald Pease, Walter Benn Michaels, John Carlos Rowe, Kenneth Warren, and many more. Their work is certainly of the academic variety, and it can be frustrating to readers who are searching for clear-cut, black-or-white arguments. But as a self-described democracy with a protracted history of slavery, institutionalized racism and sexism, and shady imperialist ventures, U.S. culture defies simple, straightforward answers. The writers of these essays understand this difficulty and theorize accordingly. Anyone seeking to understand a fairly recent but very significant development in American Studies, history and literature would be highly advised to puruse this volume. It will continue to play a major role in each of those disciplines for at least the next decade.

Still, I acknowledge the other reviewer's frustration and want to point out this is definitely NOT light reading. And some of the essays are far more intellectually rigorous than others. However, if you start with Kaplan's excellent introduction, you should get a sense of what the collective goal of these scholars is, and you can get a handle on what each of them writes -- even if a particular essay isn't very stimulating.

This is, as one can guess by the title, an academic book. Obviously it is; it is difficult to say, even after reading it, what exactly it means. Does it refer to "cultures" created by U.S. Imperialism? Or perhaps to "cultures" created within the U.S. by imperialism? The predictable answer would be "both," an answer that seems to be given by the structure of the book itself, which not only includes essays on the impact of U.S. imperialism on other nations but also essays on the impact of imperialism "on-shore," so to speak. One such essay is by a professor named Bill Brown, who writes on, apparently, the relationship between the Panama Canal and artificial limbs in "The Prosthetics of Empire." This, to a non-academic, might sound surprising, but it is if anything rather banal these days. But what is really interesting about Brown's essay is that, while he seems to be well-within the crypto-Marxian, post-everything critical theory mish-mash of what passes for academic thought these days, he has actually, in a somewhat weird way, entirely transcended those boundaries. How, you might ask? Well, the answer seems to be that Brown has taken the bold step of not merely just making assertions, as critical theory types are wont to do, but he has even dispensed with that old-fashioned technique of the bourgeois class, and written an essay that does not just merely gesticulate at argumentation but has left argumentation behind entirely. What I mean is, Brown doesn't just say that there is a connection between artificial limbs and the Panama Canal and be done with it; instead he just proceeds as if there was a connection. This, you might say, is a stunning achievement, and one has to praise not just Brown, but also his editors for their courage in publishing it. Of course, not all of the essays in this volume are this "edgy," but don't be surprised next year when you find used bookstores awash with it. By then, of course, the work of Brown and his compatriots will have been denounced as just another victims of cooptation by the "hegemonic state."

Without a doubt, this is the finest book I have read about the American fur trade. It is the biography of Ramsey Crooks, John Jacob Astor's primary field agent, and his amazing participation in the early years of America's post colonial participation of this business. If you read about Astor and the fur trade, the literature seems to focus on Astor's Astoria in 1811 and then jumps 25 years to 1830, when fur expeditions began embarking from St. Louis focused on the Rocky Mountain trade. Entering the romance of the Mountain Man, one is left with the impression that the mountain trade and the fur trade are synonymous.

No so. The fur trade began in the 1650s and lasted until the 1840s. It was one of the key economic drivers behind the exploration and settlement of North America. It launched wars, set today's international boundary between the United States and Canada and was truly a global endeavor. This is a segment of that story, from 1803 until the business was supplanted by Chinese silk in the 1840s. It is a story of the middle days of this business when the focus centered on Minnesota's Boundary Waters, Wisconsin's Prairie du Chien and Michigan's Mackinac Island, i.e., the time in the fur trade that seriously predates the fabled Mountain Man. It is wonderfully well written and presents some of the very early history of Detroit, Chicago, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan prior to the time when whites fought Indians for territorial control.

Much went on here and we meet characters that are the stuff of legend: William Clark, Tecumseh, Zebulon Pike, James Wilkinson, Manuel Lisa, the Chouteaus, etc., etc., too many, far too many movers and shakers to list here. Let me just say that Lavender's story is smack in the middle of the overall struggle between the United States and Britain for control of the North American continent. It is the story of John Jacob Astor's American Fur Company in competition with Britain's Hudson Bay Company, a most integral part of early US economic history. It was a competition waged deep within the heart of the country when US and British law was at times nonexistent and at other times diametrically opposed. It gives the reader a visceral understanding for early US, western, hatred for the British and for the British unending efforts to obfuscate the terms and conditions of the Treaty of Paris. An empire was at stake and so too was unbridled wealth.

I would argue with the previous reviewer and call this book "challenging" rather than monotonous; of course it depends on the level of your interest in the subject...for me, it approaches the passionate...the author uses what might be called the "immersion" method of historical writing which can indeed be exhausting; this is not a book to be read in huge swatches; rather,a few pages at a time must be digested thoroughly...it requires a commitment of time and concentration, and should be read steadily from start to finish...you wouldn't want to put it down for weeks and then try to pick it up again. This book rewards effort; the reader will leave it with a vast knowledge of this arcane subject and most likely, a feeling of gratitude for a huge lesson in North American geography. It's amazing to find out how little you know about the latter subject until you start reading a book like this....also recommended, the author's ONE MAN'S WEST, a lively and fascinating chronicle of early mining and ranching adventures.

The amount of research which went into this book must have been phenomenal but the writing style is so complex and confusing, it can be difficult to follow. This is the political and economical side of the fur trade business during the early 1800's from the point of view of John Jacob Astor and Ramsay Crooks of the American Fur Company. There is much to be learned from the book, especially relationships between the United States, England, France and Spain; establishing international boundaries; the never-ending saga of allowing (or not allowing) whiskey into the Indian country; the tense competition between the fur companies, etc. Better have a dictionary handy too as some of the wording will need defining to the average reader.

I've been using Ellis' book in some recent research into the fiscal history of the Irish Lordship. I'm afraid I agree more with the first reviewer -- remember, the popularity of a book often varies inversely with its quality. Yes, the book contains a great deal of useful information, but it is confusingly arranged. Dr. Ellis gets a few facts wrong, although it doesn't seem too critical except when he attributes certain actions of Richard III to Henry VII. Overall, however, the reader had better already have a working knowledge of the subject before using this book. A large number of assumptions are made concerning the identity of individuals; Ellis seems to take for granted the reader already knows who they are. For a foreigner such as myself reading this book, these lacunae make for irritating diversions from the flow of the narrative. No, it is not a book for beginners, nor an adequate introduction. What the second reviewer hints, however, is correct also -- there isn't much else in the way of material from which to choose, and this book does a better job than most.

Ellis' book is too complex and extremely difficult to read. It certainly is not a good starting point for reading up on the Tudor History of Ireland. It contains absolutely no pictures or illustrations of any kind re-emphasing its difficulty.

Has your reviewer actually seen the book? It has a colour picture of Cahir castle, Co. Tipperary on the dust jacket. It includes seven maps, three tables, a glossary of terms, and a guide to further reading. It is a revised version of the standard work on the subject used in universities in Ireland and Britain since the publication of the original work, TUDOR IRELAND, in 1985. The reason for this new edition was precisely the popularity and continuing sales of the original. Perhaps your reader wanted a more romantic, simplistic view of Ireland's past.

If you're looking for relaxing weekend reading and a well-spun tale then avoid this book. I imagine that it is excellent source for academic historians of the period. There are scattered references to a few critical incidents all through the book so it is not easy to follow.
I was also disappointed that the book is written only from a US-centric perspective with no coverage of the victims of filibustering: did nothing of note happen in Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, etc during the period? How were the coalitions built that finally disgorged Walker and other filibusters from their Central American footholds? The epilogue finally addresses some of the damage that these pirates did to US reputation in the rest of the Americas, but a lot more could be said.

I had the honor of studying under Professor May as a graduate student in the early 90s. May had the well earned reputation of being a tough task master, especially when it came to our research skills and proper citation of sources. This work lives up to my memories of the author as being exacting, an exceptional writer, and "deep" in his examination of a fascinating and little known phenomena in the pre-war South. Highly recommended to serious students of the period and the more general reader wishing to explore the activities of proponents of slavery and American expansionism prior to the advent of the war.

Manifest Destiny's Underworld, a book written by Dr. Robert E. May of Purdue University, offers an in depth look at mid-19th Century filibusters.

Dr. May first gives a detailed history of the filibusters. First, he details the origins of the name and then describes the roots of filibustering. Then, he details all the prominent attempts to filibuster. He goes on to explain why Americans filibustered, why the United States government was unable to stop the filibusters, and the logistics involved in financing a filibuster attempt. Lastly, he deals with the consequences of the filibuster movement; specifically, how it affected United States foreign policy and the War Between the States.

Dr. May's goal in writing this book was to give the filibuster movement its proper place in history. He thought that too few historians had studied what the filibuster movement was, who was involved, how it came about, and its consequences. Dr. May wished for people to get a better understanding of the filibusters and what they meant in the history of America.

Dr. May did an excellent job in making his arguments and conclusions. Every time he makes a proposition, he backs up the statement with numerous facts. At the end of the book are 107 pages of notes, showing the amount of detail Dr. May gave to the book. I had always thought filibusters sought the expansion of slavery, and were few. This book taught me how widespread the filibuster movement was, and how much United States officials hated it. I never before realized how much the filibuster movement affected antebellum life in America. Previous lessons about filibusters never taught me as much as this book; after reading this book, I feel that I have read The Complete Idiot's Guide to Filibusters, only written in words that do not insult my intelligence. The author could not have done a better job at illustrating his points.

The best feature of the book is how well organized it is. Everything is logically discussed at the appropriate time. The voluminous notes guarantee the academic reliability of the book.

The only thing wrong with this book is that some details were skipped over in order to give further impact of other subjects. The epilogue was rather rushed; more detail about filibusters adjusting to life after the War Between the States would have been welcomed. A comparison between the filibusters and the gold miners of the California Gold Rush and the Yukon Rush would have been welcomed. The legacy of the filibusters in the annexation of Hawaii in the 1890's would also have been welcomed. Also, the Monroe Doctrine was curiously absent throughout the book; how it was impacted by the filibuster movement seems necessary, but absent. Still, it is easy to overlook these deficiencies.

Still, I am glad that I have read this book. As an American historian, I feel now that I had missed out on an important aspect of antebellum American society. I never before realized how necessary it was for an American historian to have knowledge of the filibusters.