Governments

Dark Horse: The surprise election and Political Murder of President James A. Garfield, by Kenneth D. Ackerman, is an extremely well written book about an era frequently bypassed by today's historians.

The Gilded Age has been largely ignored it seems by historians, but this book is a tremendous addition to the literature available on the political history of the era.

Ackerman has provided us with a book that truly chronicles Garfield's rise from semi-obscurity to the Presidency and then his assassination by a deranged man that claimed he was "removing" the President for the good of the Republican party and the country.

Starting with the Republican national convention of 1880, where Garfield was truly the "dark horse" candidate (U.S. Grant, James Blaine, and John Sherman were the leading contenders for the nomination), Ackerman has given us a fantastic political history of what transpired at the convention to earn Garfield the nomination.

He then proceeds to the national campaign against the Democratic nominee (General Winfield Hancock) and Garfield's "front porch" campaign. His description of the national race that ended in Garfield winning the Presidency is unmatched in writing today.

Ackerman intermixes Charles Guiteau into the history in appropriate places, and finally brings Guiteau to the forefront when he shoots Garfield in the railway station as Garfield was preparing for vacation. The subsequent trial and execution of Guiteau are also covered in the book.

I must commend Ackerman for ending with the elevation of Chester Arthur to the Presidency - other books might go into detail on how Arthur's Presidency was similar to and different than Garfield's, but Ackerman holds true to his title and stops with the ascendancy of Chester Arthur.

I would highly recommend this book to anyone that has an interest in 19th century American politics, the Garfield administration (as short as it may have been), or to better understand the reasons Guiteau assassinated the President. It's an easy read, very well researched, and an oustanding addition to the available books on the subject.

History has afforded us many instances where the power and conversely the "adolescence" of political party in-fighting has seemingly affected our abilty to govern ourselves. Never was this theory put to greater practice than in 1880 when Ohio Senator James A. Garfield was surprisingly nominated and then (with help from the New York "political machinery") elected as the Republican Party candidate for President. Subsequently, and to Garfield's great surprise (and his untimely death), the "makers" of his election victory, whether real or imagined, expected to be rewarded. The resulting political in-fighting and backstabbing are the basis for this marvelous work by congressional historian Kenneth Ackerman. Wonderfully written and amazingly comprehensive, this account brings back to light the provocative Gilded Age period of our government and shows what "power politics" can do when adequately (in-adequately?) challenged.

The story of James Garfield's short Presidential term and assasination has previously been covered in general terms in many Presidential histories, but nowhere have I read such a focused and sublime account of this man and this period as in this book. Republicans in 1880 were set to re-nominate Ulysses Grant for an unprecedented 3rd term as President. This effort is led by Roscoe Conkling (calling his faction the "Stalwarts"), an arrogant and flamboyant Senator from New York, then the "mecca" of politcal machinery and power. His (Conkling's) political enemy James Blaine (leading the "Half-Breeds") is set to oppose Grant for the nomination and the ensuing gridlock blossomes at the Republican convention in Chicago. To break the roadblock (and it finally took a record 36 ballots), party members initiate votes for Garfield, himself there simply as an Ohio delegate for candidate John Sherman, then Rutherford Hayes's Treasury Secretary. Seeking to offset the "machinery", one State after another chooses to switch their vote...the result is that Garfield garners enough votes for the nomination. Then for Garfield to consolidate support from both the Stalwarts and Half-Breeds, he does not oppose the nomination (the conventions also chose the Vice Presidential candidate in those days) of Chester Arthur (a key New York Stalwart and Conkling ally) as his Vice-Presidential running mate and also makes tacit promises for patronage for both sides if they would help him get elected.

Upon his election, Garfield discovers just how acute the patronage issue is and decides to balance his Cabinet with leaders from both sides...this only serves to antagonize Conkling (Blaine is named Secretary of State, at the time the 2nd most powerful office next to the President) who then resorts to villifying Garfield in the press. Many of the Stalwart supporters rally around Conkling including a fringe supporter named Charles Guiteau, himself pursuing a foreign consul position after minor assistance in the campaign. Ackerman describes all this in clear and concise detail while still maintaining an amazing readability component. He shows how Guiteau's dementia escalates into a controlled fury and how the "removal" of Garfield would make everything well for the Stalwarts. Indeed, Ackerman's ability to place the reader well inside the minds of these major players leads one to effortlessly see each perspective.

Guiteau then of course shoots Garfield (saying "I am a Stalwart and Arthur will be president") at a train station in Washington and Ackerman discusses Garfield's death and Guiteau's trial and excecution brilliantly. The reader really feels all the emotion and sense of loss as the nation suffers through the 2nd Presidential assasination in history and the rage at Guiteau for his senseless act. Ackerman then exonerates Arthur and shows him to be an honest (although clearly not Executive Office material) and hard-working President. The underlying thread throughout this work, however, is the clear and present danger that petty partisan politics plays in making or breaking any candidate or office holder. Garfield, an otherwise decent and honest man, becomes entwined in the web of political patronage and seemingly loses perspective for the presidency and not until he takes a stand against the "machine" (read Conkling) does he become effective as a leader. Unfortunately for America, he does not get the chance to build on this moral stance and the country loses someone who may have been an exemplary president.

It really is a cliche to say that any historical work reads like a novel but it is really true with Ackerman's book. He has crafted an amazingly readable historical piece and deserves mention amoung the many gifted political history writers today. This tome should appeal to the historian and the general reader interested in politics and I recommend it highly.

Kenneth D Ackerman's Dark Horse is truly a satisfying read for politcal buffs. With two other books it forms trilogy of three consecutive elections. The other two books are Roy Morris Jr's 'Fraud of the Century' and Mark Wahlgren Summers' 'Rum, Romanism, & Rebellion'. Ackerman brings to life the suspense filled convention of 1880 vividly and all the excitement it generated then. He describes the total surprise of Garfield very aptly at becoming the nominee. Garfield's razor thin majority in the elections against Hancock and the deal it generated with the Stalwarts is very well described. Garfield was a man reluctantly thrust into the Presidency but once in office was totally overwhelmed by the office. Only when he started to grow in office he was tragically cut down. Only if had the chance to survive we would have seen maybe an interesting Presidency. Ackerman describes the feuds between the Stalwarts of the Conkling faction and the Half-Breeds of Blaine faction very well. The book instead of being a straight biography of one person is a collective biography of few people and thus brings to life the era very vividly. We can only wish for more books like this for politcal buffs. It is a about a remote time but the era is presented with all the excitement and enthusiasm of that time. I highly recommend this book for any political junky.

I was first introdced to Solzhenitsyn's works when I was a freshman in high school, far too many years ago in a little town. The book was the Volume 1 of The Gulag Archipelago. It was really an eye-opener for me in so many ways, given that it was the first "really serious" book that I'd read.

I believe that Solzhenitsyn is the best writer of the 20th century, or at least he's the top writer I've read so far (and I've read a lot of books). Maybe that's influenced by my early exposure, but I don't think so; I find his works just as compelling now as I did then.

The First Circle is one of his most "accessible" works (that is, you can just jump in and start reading) and probably one of his best. A very compelling story; his portraits of the various vile creatures of the Soviet government have been shown to be quite accurate, and the way the various plots intertwine and are resolved is wonderful.

The First Circle gives great insight into a culture totally foreign to most US citizens, as the book's a mixture of spy novel, guide to life in a Gulag camp, and brief introduction to Soviet society of the 1950s. A depressing place to be sure, but fascinating. Well worth reading.

The theme of this book is not prison camps: it is nothing more narrow than life itself. And it is almost as rich in characters and stories within stories (here Solzhenitsyn is very like Tolstoy) as life: constancy in love, artistic integrity, the whimspy of fate, literacy in Medieval Novgorod, the prison in the Count of Monte Cristo, snow, how to sew, the law of unintended consequences.

A few major abiding themes run like threads throughout the book, providing unity: First, the life of the "zek," the prisoner in Stalin's camps. Second, loneliness: not just of prisoners longing for a woman or lost loved ones, or of persecuted wives trying to make lives for themselves, but ultimately of each person. Every conversation carries a different meaning for the people involved. The author "gets inside of peoples heads" in an amazing way -- from the janitor Spiridon to the "Best Friend of Counter-Intelligence Operatives," Joseph Stalin himself. Third, and on a deeper level, integrity, both artistic and moral.

Fourth, and I don't know if this was the conscious intent of the author or not, the book reminds us of the unity of Western civilization. Aside from mentions of Tolstoy, Dostoevski, Pushkin, and Lermontov, (which, I might add, also describes the company Solzhenitsyn belongs in, with honor), the book is honeycombed with references to the great thinkers and artists of European civilization -- from the ancient Greeks and the Gospels, to Dante, the Holy Grail, Bach and Beethoven. The Marxist Rubin even quotes Luther. Primarily, no doubt this is a reflection of the fact that the prisoners in the "sharashkas," the top-secret scientific work camps, were educated men, unlike, say, the hero of his shorter novel, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. (The contrast Solzhenitsyn draws to their well-paid Neanderthal captors is just one form of the irony that is his most distinctive and powerful stylistic weapon. But even the Neanderthals, including Stalin himself, are portrayed not as cardboard villains, but with insight and imagination.) These references also remind us that, as much as Solzhenitsyn has been accused of being a "Slavophobe," as if that were an insult, the Russian culture he loves is an integral part of Western civilization. This iconic dialogue of the ages, similiar to the works of great Chinese painters, also adds another layer of delight to the book.

The final and greatest thread that unifies this work is the idea of achieving humanity, of becoming what a person ought to be, of heroism. The prisoners are poets, eccentric, and philosophers (though there are also scoundrels, and everyone is tempted that way), beaten down by life and the forces of disolution within, trying to preserve their souls, or civilization, from the barbarians who are their masters. In describing the simple heroism of some of his characters, Solzhenitsyn achieves brilliance. In my opinion, First Circle is the greatest of his works, and one of the most powerful pieces of writing of the 20th Century, at least. And it is not about the Gulag, primarily: it is about what it means to be human, and the choices we all face.

Aside from the characters and stories, many of the scenes are wonderful (again like Tolstoy): of Rubin standing in the courtyard at night in the snow when he hears the train whistle, of the party at the prosecutor's house, of the arrest of the diplomat. If life is sometimes too strange for fiction, (and it is) there are also pieces of fiction that seem truer than life. First Circle is a marriage of style and substance made in heaven, or at least, the highest circle of hell.

author, Jesus and the Religions of Man

I recommend that you read the entire Gulag Archipelago; The First Circle is a particularly specific work, dealing with the mind-numbing and devious prison for intellectually valuable polical prisoners during Stalinist Russia. A sort of think-tank was created by falsely accusing and imprisoning brilliant people. What occurred was not the total degradation of a labor camp, but the mind-numbing passivity of those whose future is not in their own hands. The First Circle refers to Dante's First Circle of Hell; the best circle, but hell nonetheless.

On the eve of Richard Clarke's testimony to the 9-11 Commission, this book adds an invaluable source to evaluate the testimony you hear (and the testimony you don't hear...no one in the Bush administration will testify under oath.)

Robert Bamford, in his book, Body of Secrets, already revealed a plot by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the 1960s to stage terrorist attacks against American citizens by murdering them on the street, hijacking planes, and blaming these acts on others. It is important to question the reasons that Bush tried to stall an investigation into 9-11 for more than a year, budgeted less than 5 million on that investigation, while the Republican Congress was willing to waste approximately 70 million taxpayer dollars investigating Clinton's stupidity.

The neo-cons planned an invasion of Iraq for years, and when 9-11 occurred, they wanted to immediately blame Iraq, and were willing, it seems, to let Osama get away with murder so that they could immediately launch an attack on Iraq. Clarke reveals this in his book, Against All Enemies.

The March 21, 04 WSJ finally has an article which also notes the lies from the administration about events on that day. Better late than never.

Read this book, Clarke's book, the WSJ article, and ask yourself why we have been lied to over and over by Bush.

Griffin's book is the ultimate wake-up call for America. It's time to "take the bull by the tail and look the facts in the face" (W.C. Fields) and admit "we've met the enemy, and he is us" (Pogo). It's time to take a close look at the official story of 9-11, which is demonstrably false--a Big Lie presumably concocted by those who wanted to drag us into endless war by staging a phoney "New Pearl Harbor". It was the disaster film to end all disaster films, a cinemetographically stunning commercial for the long-planned war in which 3000 extras played the role of collateral damage.

The facts are stunningly clear. The hijackers' mission could not have succeeded without stand-down orders issued by the top of the U.S. military command. The WTC was taken down with explosives in classic controlled demolitions, as FEMA well understood but couldn't come right out and say. The fifteen-foot diameter hole in the Pentagon was obviously caused by a missile, not a 125-foot wide by 40-foot-high 757. And the flight in Pennsylvania that "crashed" was shot down BECAUSE the passengers were regaining control of the plane. One of them was a pilot, and live hijackers would be inconvenient. Those guys weren't Muslim fanatics. They went to a lap-dance club the night before, for Allah's sakes! The Saudi muscle guys came over on CIA snitch visas, as a CIA source involved in the subsequent coverup, I mean "investigation", informed me, and they were garden variety thugs, not martyrs. Keeping all of the above in mind, Bush's weirdly nonchalant behavior at the school in Florida--a location the whole world knew about, from which he would have been quickly evacuated if the nation were really under attack--makes a bit more sense. As does the coverup of Mossad involvement that Justin Raimondo so eloquently discusses in The Terror Enigma. Mossad, like Pakistan's ISI, got key subcontracts, doing certain things that it would be hard to get Americans to do.

Face it, folks. The Emperor forgot to put his clothes on before he strode off to war. Read Griffin's book, then start agitating for a real 9-11 investigation. Before we start spreading "democracy" in the Middle East, we should think about re-establishing it at home.

This is the book I've been waiting for since the first nagging doubt, why didn't they scramble the F-16s by 8:30 a.m.? Why that look on GWB's face while reading the goat story in the Florida classroom?
Griffin cites all his sources (the compendious footnotes alone are worth the price of the book!) and to his credit does NOT draw the obvious conclusions, but simply recommends a full investigation, hopefully by the heretofore comatose press. (Where are you, Woodward & Bernstein?)
For any reader who is dead set on getting Bush out of the presidency, this book is a must-read. Beyond that: buy several! Give them to your library, your friends, your family! Do it now!

I am lebanese and I lived in Lebanon during the 15 years of
war . I read the book and I think it contains an accurate
account of the main events in the war ,and a good description
of the people involved in the conflict (militias, foreign armies,
etc ) But I find Fisk is too harsh when he suggests that
all lebanese statesmen or politicians were feudal warlords,
or as he says , "mafiosi." Some were , and some others were
lawyers , bankers ,etc. It is true ,however , that most of these
became at some point allies of a warlord ,or were forced
to flee the country. Nevertheless, I think a reader would get a more
balanced view of Lebanon , if he reads *in addition* to this
book , Kamal Salibi's "A house of many mansions" or "crossroads
to civil war" . Salibi is infinitely more sympathetic than
Fisk to the idea of the creation of the Lebanese state, and I
think it is necessary to read both books to have a balanced view.

The author provides a first hand account on the civil war that ravaged Lebanon for more than 15 years. Having been a journalist for the British Times and now the Independent in London, he lived and reported from the part of the country that suffered most, West Beirut. Robert Fisk provides detailed analysis of the war, the politics, and describes the gruesome attacks and massacres on civilians by the Israelis and their allies. He witnesses the kidnapping of his fellow journalists and narrowly escapes it himself. He discusses both the Syrian and Israeli invasions of Lebanon. The author maintains, as humanly possible, objectivism as he reports on this war with no winners. Excellent reading. Cynical writing. Good history book for non-lebanese and for those with little knowledge on the war.

Robert Fisk's "Pity The Nation" is the most comprehensive, unbiased book ever written about the Lebanon's tragic civil war. Whereas most authors about this subject have written these books relying on newpaper clippings and rumours, and based on a very biased perspective, Fisk gets down and dirty from the beginning to the end. He has spent almost the entire period from 1975 until the war's conclusion in Lebanon, traveling from Beirut to Sidon to the Bekaa valley to the ignored villages of the south which were under occupation to Damascus, living out the war with the various militia's and the civilians, who took the brunt of the fighting. His detailed description of the rise and quick fall of the Phalangists and their leader, Bashir Gamayel America's ignorance towards what would bring peace to Lebanon, the links between the Shias' inspirational resurrection and Khomenei's revolution, Israel's bruatality, Syria's involvment and the misery of the Palestinian refugees is unparalleled in its depth and coverage. Fisk, through facing the realities of the situation, has a real understanding of the situation. The way he goes about describing the dire situation of the Lebanese and the Palestinians as well as the uncertainties he and his collegues feel about their safety in Lebanon, and the eventual kidnapping of Terry Anderson, makes this book read somewhat like a novel. Even if you know nothing about the Middle East, pick up this book.

In 1960, Armando Valladares was arrested in Cuba for being opposed to communism on philosophical and religious grounds. He was kept in the Isla de Pinos prison. His imprisonment was hallmarked by violence, putrid food, squalid living conditions, and the psychological torture of listening to Castro's firing squads eliminating "counter revolutionaries" in the courtyard below his cell. Valladares retained his sanity by prayer and the writing of poetry. It was the publication of his poetry in Europe and America which brought his condition to such international figures as French President Francois Mitterand and numerous human rights organizations. It was the constant pressure of such individuals and international organizations upon the Castro regime that finally led to Valladares release in 1982. Against All Hope is a testament of the endurance of the human spirit in the face of totalitarianism and inhumanity. The 426 pages of text are enhanced with photographs. This new Encounter books edition of a classic prison narrative had been out of print for fifteen years and is a welcome addition to political science, Latin American, and human rights studies, prison literature reading lists, and autobiography collections.

I HAVE NEVER REALLY UNDERSTOOD THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS BOOK, UNTIL MY FATHER READ ME A FEW VERSES THAT HE WAS MENTIONED IN IT THE OTHER DAY. THIS BOOK REPRESENTS THE STORY OF MANY CUBANS THAT GAVE THEIR LIFE TO FIGHT AGAINST THE CUBAN GOVERNMENT. MY FATHER WAS A CELL MATE OF VALLADARES, AND WAS ONE OF THE MEN THAT WERE LEADING STRIKES AGAINST THE PRISON SYSTEM. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE REALIZE THE STORY BEHIND THIS BOOK, AND THAT THE REASON MOST WERE PRISONERS FOR OVER 14 YEARS ,LIKE MY FATHER, WAS TO FREE CUBA OF THE COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT THAT IS STILL ACTIVE. FOR HIS FAMILY, FRIENDS, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, FOR HIS COUNTRY. I HAVE YET TO READ THIS BOOK, BUT BY MEETING VALLADARES, AND ALL OF MY FATHER'S FRIEND THAT WERE IN PRISON WITH HIM, I KNOW THIS IS A STORY OF HOW YOUNG MEN GAVE THEIR LIFE TO TRY TO BECOME HEROES TO THEIR COUNTRY.
ROBERT ALVAREZ

Are you ever against adversity?? Then, I would read this book!

But I do wish to articulate:

I lived near the Northern Border of Mexico, in the early mid 1980s; when Liberation Theology was in Central America; when insurgent movements were across Latin America; I had a shortwave radio and among other things, I listened to "Radio Havana Cuba", I am anglo, but I learned the Spanish language in college. I watched the excellent movie "El Norte" addressing the problems of Mayan Indians from Guatemala migrating to the U.S. (and probably a good unbiased movie to watch as well). I read and read and I saw even Socialist demonstrations in Mexico along with murals for all of the assorted parties there besides those with the hammer and sickle.

But it made me wonder; what is the truth?

So famous, is that "Scarface" movie of the early eighties; about a Cuban Prisoner of all things; coming over to Florida on the Mariel Boatlift. During that time, I took a class on Cuban history and I may have been a shade positive attitude towards Fidel Castro; but after reading this book; I became very neutral, not knowing what to think, about the "workers paradise" of that Caribbean isle.

Fidel; and in fact, others, Che Guevara and the dictator's brother, Raoul; all are mentioned in this book, additionally in no favorable way;

If half of what Valladares writes in this book were true, that would be rather sad for the ruling regime of Cuba; but then, I have to read it, and wonder, what motives would Valladares have to write untruths? How could he even come up with some of the stories in this book, if not true, such as depriving a prisoner of certain minerals (and he eludes to such countries as East Germany, as this era is during the time of the Iron Curtain) so that they develop chemical imbalances in the body, or prison cells that are so tiny, you only have room really, to just lie there; and many, many tales.

We learn of heroes as well; those who die in prison as the victim of the system, of priests and common peoples.

In my life, I have known adversity; this book, is something to read in those times; in fact, I have loaned this book out, not getting it back and making sure I follow up in obtaining another copy.

And again, I tend to believe Valladares, he was finally freed after over 20 years (I believe) of imprisonment through international action. And true, the original charges he was brought up on, are very petty. You will read, in this book, throughout those years, how Valladares was moved from prison to prison.

The left, the right, have all committed wrongs, maybe man in general; but this is a testament to the indomitable spirit of man too. You turn the pages and read it in rapid succession, it is so interesting.

This should be required reading in any colleges offering Latin American Studies or Caribean Studies.

If you are currently in the midst of deep emotional pain and turmoil in your life, as I am, this book is absolutely essential. I know firsthand what it means to love God but be sure He has abandoned you in the middle of a terrible time. Be assured, He has not, but when you are suffering, it is unbelievably difficult sometimes to trust Him. Where is He? Why doesn't He answer our prayers, if He loves us so much? This book answers that question. It is written along the same lines as Disappointment With God (another great book) by Philip Yancey, but this one goes much more in depth and explains things in a much clearer way, in my opinion, especially for one who is reading it with a mind that is clouded by hurt and pain. Don't turn away from God-- hold on!! He will not leave you with more than you can bear, if you turn to Him to help you bear it. Jerry Bridges shows you how to do this in Trusting God Even When Life Hurts. A truly great and healing book.

This is - BY FAR - the best book that I have EVER read on the subject of how to deal with suffering. Mr. Bridges does not simply dwell on the subject of the sovereignty of God, and spend the rest of the book telling people who are suffering that they should just "suck it up" and trust God blindly. The first 7 chapters of the book do deal with the sovereignty of God. But Mr. Bridges goes a step further in the last 7 chapters of the book: he talks about the will of God and the love of God. This book has been such an encouragement to me through some very difficult times. It is a book I highly recommend...and loan out on a very regular basis!

This is a great book if you are grappling with man's responsibility vs. God's soreignty. The author writes well, always showing the basis of his thoughts based on scripture. That is the power of this book. Personally I don't think you could get much from this book if you were in the midst of a personal crisis. I think you should read this book NOW, while things are calm. That way you can store up the scriptures (and concepts) in your heart, and be prepared, for any storms that may come in the future. Get out your yellow highlighter; you will want to highlight this book a lot.

Miller presents a detailed history of a remarkable period in U.S. Congressional history leading up to the Civil War. Miller describes the battle waged in the U.S. House of Representatives, led by John Quincy Adams, to preserve the right of citizens to petition their government, and his efforts to keep the issue of slavery before the House. I finally saw one of the important effects of the infamous 3/5's rule, which was to create a power imbalance in Congress in which slave holding states dominated the House due to the additional Congressional Reps. they gained by virtue of their large slave populations. It was this imbalance that hindered Congress from a full debate regarding the abolition of slavery. Extremely informative, very well researched and documented, and Miller weaves a witty commentary throughout that is most enjoyable. This is a book that should be read in every high school American History class. It is at times dry (big surprise as Miller details Congressional proceedings) but nonetheless fascinating. I have a new appreciation of the contribution of Adams to the battle against slavery.

Anybody who ascribes to the idiotic notion that Southern secession was all about states' rights and really had nothing to do with slavery needs to be reminded of two antebellum events: the Fugitive Slave Act, which was legislation that solely benefitted slaveowners while being a complete affront to the notion of states' rights; and the gag rule in Congress from 1836-1844, which essentially stripped citizens & Congressmen of their 1st amendment rights.

The gag rule was focused on the 1st Amendment right of petition, which was frequently utilized by US citizens in the early 19th century. The cause of the furor was a dramatic increase of abolitionist petitions that proposed the abolition of the slave trade within the District of Columbia, which was under the direct jurisdiction of the US Congress (DC was chosen because most people believed that the Constitution did not give the Congress jurisdiction in the individual states --- DC was another matter).

The Congress of that period was dominated by pro-slavery Southerners and sympathetic Northerners who would rather not stir up too much trouble. However, a small group of Congressmen, led by John Quincy Adams, waged an 8-year against the gag rule. Along the way, Adams & his cohorts, along with an increasingly organized & vocal abolitionist movement, undermined the neutral attitude most Americans had towards the issue of slavery.

Former president John Quincy Adams is clearly the central figure of the story, and it is pretty obvious that Miller likes the crochety old statesman. One cannot read this book and not come away with an increased respect for Adams, who has unfairly been relegated to historical obscurity. It is remarkable to think that through most of the gag rule battle, Adams was in his mid to late 70's, and almost never missed a day in Congress. The story also displays abundantly Adams' formidable intellect and parliamentary skills.

On the other side of the aisle were the Southern fire-eaters, who were capable of great oratorical flourishes but who possessed precious little strategic skill. Miller recounts how, time again, the pro-slavery forces miscalculated with their tactics. Instead of squelching debate about slavery, hotheads like Henry Wise & Waddy Thompson Jr succeeded only in inflaming the controversy. After 8 years, the leaders of the pro-gag forces were realizing that they might have unleashed forces beyond their control, and abandoned the fight to maintain the gag.

The story is presented in an entertainingly narrative style which I found to be quite enjoyable. Some reviewers have found the author's asides to be a distraction, but I found that they contributed well to the story for the most part. Indeed, some sections of the book (such as when Adams is facing down his opponents who are attempting to censure him) are real page-turners.

While the book was very entertaining, it is also quite sobering. One becomes aware of the appalling nature of the slave-owning bloc. So dedicated were they to preserving their own interests that they repeatedly violated the 1st Amendment & trampled on civil rights of WHITE citizens in general, through the censoring of private mail, violating the writ of habeas corpus (South Carolina had a law on the books for almost 40 years, allowing free black sailors to arrested & imprisoned for duration of their ship's stay in port, simply because they were free blacks and MIGHT incite the local slave population to rebel) and (ironically) violating the doctrine of states' rights --- as the right to due process was systematically denied to the citizens of other states (a free enfranchised citizen of Massachusetts, for example, was not due any rights at all under the constitution of Missouri if he happened not to be white). Eventually, the encroachment by the South on the civil rights of the rest of the nation's citizens became ominous enough for the average citizen in the North to become aware of the genuine threat that the expansion of slavery posed. Almost all of this starts with the fight over the gag rule in Congress.

Miller also examines how Southern politicians tried, with increasing difficulty, to reconcile their claims to being good republicans with their obvious anti-republican actions. Miller argues that the politicians of the South fought to prevent the mere discussion of slavery because they knew better than anyone that the institution & way of life they were defending could not be defended in the playing field was level. If violating the principles of the Constitution & the Declaration of Independence is what it took to defend the peculiar institution, then they would do it, but not without a great deal of moral & intellectual discomfort. It is amazing to read some of the tortured rationalizations of Southern statesmen during this period.

This should be required reading for the student of this period. It is not a dry subject, and fortunately the author writes with plenty of flair. If some devotee of the Lost Cause mythos starts blathering on about how the Confederacy was only about the defense of states' rights & tries to use the Constitution as a rationalization for secession, this book should provide you with plenty of ammunition for your debate.

John Quincy Adams is not on Mount Rushmore; he is not trumpeted in high school history textbooks as a messianic figure, a beacon of freedom and liberty.

Quite rightly so; he would probably have found that amusing.

Adams is subject to an almost criminal lack of coverage in history courses--he does not fit the traditional model of the good American politician, and teachers often don't like to introduce amniguity into their courses by suggesting that an 'elitist' can be a great public figure, and that greatness is distinct from political success. Washington was great because he "created the country." Lincoln was great because he "ended slavery." Adams was simply an extremely good Secretary of State, brilliant Represenative in the House, and--god forbid--knew what he was doing while he was President.

The problem really is that Adams, with all his abilities, was not a politician in the American sense: he was educated, cultured, and actually knew what he was doing. His successor, Andrew Jackson--a boorish man who disobeyed the law, helped wipe out a race of people, and pandered to the whims of "the masses"--is often hailed as a great figure in American politics, apparently because of said boorishness, refusal to obey the Constitution, and genocidal tendencies.

In Adams is a figure that really ought to be respected and aimed for in American politics: a man with a strongly defined sense of morality, well-developed mind and good education, vast experience, and ability to govern. The traits that made Adams such a great man--his refusal to do anything simply because "the people" wanted it, coupled with his disturbing tendency to pursue policies that were intelligent, necessary, beneficial, and incredibly foresighted--seem to doom him to obscurity.

Miller takes on the unenviable task of arguing in favor of Adams as a great man, although he limits himself to his time in the House; in doing so, he provides an accesible and much-needed glimpse into the life of a man by far one of the greatest public figures America has seen.

Unfortunately for Dole, Richard Ben Cramer tells the story of Dole's rise from small-town poverty to near-fatal war injury better than the Dole campaign did last year. The author paints a portrait of the 1988 presidential candidates that is vivid and human, making them more than the caricatures that we see in our television screens and newspapers. I worked for a Democratic candidate during the 1988 campaign. Cramer's storyline and energetic, somewhat frantic writing style both mirrors and reveals the hectic, seize-the-day atmosphere of a presidential campaign. His greatest contribution, however, is the tremendous insight he gives us of the men who wanted to become the best known and most powerful person in the world and believed they could do it within a matter of years by traveling to small towns and big cities as they meet with ordinary citizens the wealthiest Americans. They are both crazy and courageous and Cramer tells us how they became so as he digs through their personal histories from grade school to the present. Dole may no longer be a player on the American political scene. But Al Gore, Dick Gephardt, Jesse Jackson, Pat Robertson, and Jack Kemp still are. Thus, this book is still relevant. Above all, it's a good read. For those who want to know what it's really like inside a presidential campaign or the head of a presidential candidate, this is the best book and most unique book written since The Making of the President 1960 by the legendary T.H. White.

Think about the best dessert you've ever eaten. Remember how delicious it was? How it melted in your mouth and how you never wanted the experience of eating it to end? Remember that experience when you pick up Richard Ben Cramer's 'What It Takes". This is the literary desert that feels like it melts in your mouth as your read: a beautiful, lyrical tale about the lives of six candidates for President in 1988.

It is hard to describe Cramer's writing style. He seems to have an uncanny knack for getting into his subject's mind and giving you a vision of the world from their perspective. He seems to find what makes his subject unique and showcase it to the world. His Sports Illustrated piece on Cal Ripken, Jr.'s consecutive games streak in September of 1995 remains the finest article I have ever read in SI since I began subscribing back in 1989. Cramer's style of writing is a joy to read. You simply never want him to stop writing, even if it is about something as mundane as observing Bush traveling to a speech.

Needless to say Bob Dole emerges as the hero of Cramer's work. (During the '96 campaign Cramer later released a separate book with just the Dole chapters.) The wounded veteran comes across as a man of stunning drive, courage and loneliness. You can't help but think of the horrific pain and suffering he endured during those years rehabilitating himself and attending law school. The Dole of Cramer's book is easy to admire and quite likeable, despite his gruff demeanor and occasionally cold treatment of people around him.

Gary Hart, in contrast, comes across poorly. (Surprise, surprise.) So much of his portion of the book is devoted to attacking the media and refuting his public persona as either an odd loner or a serial adulterer. Hart's hardscrabble life in rural Oklahoma and journey to Yale divinity school gets pushed aside. There seems to be a huge gap between Hart leaving divinity school for politics in 1960 and his role as George McGovern's campaign manager in 1972 that Cramer doesn't explain.

George Bush takes it on the chin too. Our 41st President and the winner of the 1988 contest was probably the least qualified of the six to run. Bush comes across as a likeable guy (and a hero during World War II), but no leader. While Dole is tested on the campaign trail and works hard to master the machinery of the U.S. Senate, while Dukakis is weathering fierce political storms patching together Massachusetts runaway budget, while Biden loses his wife in a car accident and nearly dies of a brain aneurysm, Bush seems to sail through adversity by relying on his resume to get plum jobs (CIA director, chairman of the RNC, ambassador to the UN and to China). Bush's charmed life and patrician view of the world hurt his reelection campaign four years later when he didn't appreciate the suffering his citizens were enduring during the recession the way a Bob Dole would have. Dole seems to have learned, through his experiences, that life is hard and people need a helping hand. Bush, in contrast, seems to have learned from his life that a smile, a handshake, a spiffy resume and knowing the CEO of a Fortune 500 company will get you far.

What of Biden, Dukakis and Gephardt? Joe Biden, the Senator from Delaware, comes across as a real leader. Elected in an upset at the age of 29, the Senator suffered terrible heartache losing his wife in a car accident after the election. You cannot help but sympathize and feel for him as he struggled to put his family together again and to take responsibility for the poor choices he made as a law student at Syracuse University in the 1960s. After Dole, I found Biden's story to be the most compelling.

Dukakis? Gephardt? I think both men come across the same, as smart, driven, intelligent guys. The theme of Gephardt's chapters is that he has been and always will be an Eagle Scout: smart, popular with his peers and elders, a success in everything. In other words, Gephardt was the guy from from school your parents wanted you to be like in middle school. Dukakis comes across as even more flawless, more driven and more sure of himself. Dukakis, in other words, was the guy from high school that graduated with a 3.9 and still thought he could do better. Both men had to tough out difficult obstacles in their lives, however.

In the final analysis, this is a book you simply do not want to end. Cramer plays no favorites and gives all six men resolutely fair treatment. This is easily one of the three greatest books I have read in my life. (Along with "Thank You For Smoking" by Christopher Buckley and "Truman" by David McCullough). This book is the literary equivalent of desert.

No study of modern American politics is complete without reading this book. At the center of the political universe is the presidency. What kind of people seek this office, and all of the attendant scrutiny and hardship that even the most fortunate candidates endure? What personal attributes set one candidate above the rest?

Essentially, one of these men will be the most powerful man in the world, and have a chance at shaping history. This book answers the questions "why" and "how."

Cramer understands his subjects, and the profiles of each candidate would be excellent stand-alone biographies. Extremely readable and well written, without sacrificing substance.

A truly unique and indespensible work. To find out what it takes, read this book.

This is the 4th book in the Shane Scully series, a series that, I think, is getting stronger with each new book, particularly when it comes to the development of Scully, both as a policeman and as a family man. The preceding Shane Scully books are THE TIN COLLECTORS, THE VIKING FUNERAL and HOLLYWOOD TOUGH.

The story opens with all-out action when Vincent Smiley, a cop-hater, decides to wreak his vengeance on the various law enforcement agencies by shooting a sheriff's deputy who tried to serve him with a warrant. The agency actually responsible for the origin of the warrant was the ATF. What the ATF failed to warn the sheriff's department about was that Smiley was suspected of hoarding a huge stockpile of weapons and explosives in his house.

Sheriff's deputies, tactical response teams and the ATF descend on Smiley's house where he is firing indiscriminately from every window, daring the police to attack him. They finally do attack with the result seeing the house with Smiley inside, burning to the ground.

In the aftermath of the incident blame is passed between the elite forces of the sheriff's department and the ATF over the handling of the incident with neither group convinced that the other is telling the truth as to their knowledge about how dangerous Smiley was. What follows would be the police force's worst nightmare when the bad feeling between the two agencies escalates to the brink of outright war when first, a member of the ATF's SRT (Situation Response Team) is shot by a sniper then a member of the sheriff's department's SEB (Special Enforcement Bureau) is shot and killed in exactly the same way.

Shane Scully, as a homicide detective with the LAPD and consequently independent of the two agencies involved, is asked to investigate the original shooting and subsequent fire. The fact is that he is asked to investigate by his boss, who also happens to be his wife, Alexa because she can trust him over all other detectives to get the job done.

Of course, how can he refuse, but what he is not prepared for is the assignation of a partner from the sheriff's department, an IAD officer no less, named Jo Brickhouse. This partnership quickly becomes the classic hate-hate relationship that is to gradually thaw out to respect, admiration and trust. Although it's been done many times before, I thought it was a particularly strong part of the book and helps define Scully both as a police officer and as a family man.

The pressure that Scully comes under in this case is like no other he has experienced before. Firstly, Alexa continually questions his investigation techniques and second guesses him because results don't come quickly enough for her. Secondly, Brickhouse refuses to concede anything to him, particularly not that he might be carrying out a thorough investigation. All of this added pressure creates an atmosphere of desperation that had me hoping just a little harder than usual that Scully would make the right decisions. (Silly me).

I must admit, I saw where this story was going from pretty early on and so, by the time Scully had uncovered the clues and made the earth-shattering revelation, my reaction was merely one of satisfaction that my own sleuthing was vindicated. However, I will pardon Scully for not getting there as quickly as I did, considering the personal pressure he was working under at the time.

This is a highly charged thriller combining an interesting mystery to be solved with strong character interactions. It takes the usual antagonisms between different law enforcement agencies to a new level, turning heroes into villains, at times unjustly. The resolution of Scully's case provides a strong finale followed by a bittersweet ending suggesting the series won't end here.

Veteran voice performer Scott Brick gives an energetic and exciting reading to both the abridged and unabridged versions of Stephen J. Cannell's latest thriller.

In an estimable professional career writer Cannell has created over 40 TV series, including The Rockford files, The A-Team, and The Commish. Such a background serves him well as he effortless segued into novel form introducing LAPD Investigator Shane Scully who is often aided and abetted by his wife, Alexa, also with the LAPD.

Vertical Coffin, the fourth Scully novel, places Scully in a terrifying role - caught between what are apparently two battling agencies - the Sheriff's Department and the ATF.

Trouble began when a psycho with a store of weapons was trapped and evidently killed in his burning house. Shortly thereafter officials of both agencies are shot at and murdered in vertical coffins. With the LAPD the only uninvolved entity Scully enters the case.

But before he can untangle the interlocking layers of deceit he finds his hold on life becoming more tenuous with each day.

Scott Brick has provided a riveting listening experience.

- Gail Cooke

Vertical Coffin is Stephen J. Cannell's best novel so far. We once again get to join Shane Scully in a far reaching and suspenseful investigation. The book demonstrates Cannell's traditional attention to details and riveting plot and well as improved character development. This one is a real page turner. Once I started, I could not put it down and read it cover to cover in a single sitting. Don't miss it.

This is the first work by Hunter S. Thompson I have read. Perhaps I expected too much, after reading all the rave reviews. I found this collection disjointed, only occasionally humorous, and not at all shocking. I'm not at all sure what the unifying theme is. The nice thing is that since it is a collection, it can be read in bits and pieces. I give it three stars, because there were moments of hilarity.

Hunter S. Thompson is the craziest author that I have ever read. He has a specific style that I have never really seen before. He will go from one idea directly into a totally different one, and then back. The book itself is basically little stories composed on Thompson's experiences as a journalist. The stories take place generally in the 70's, and they are crazy. His constant religious metaphors are often hard to follow. My favorite story in the book is "Fear and Loathing at the Super Bowl." This is about a time when he was covering the Miami Super Bowl game. He is in a hotel and spends his time gambling and drinking. Drugs are a major influence on his life, which is one of the reasons he writes the way that he does. Throughout the story, you are introduced to many strange characters. These characters are described through the eyes of Thomson, which makes them all the more stranger. Thomson talks about preaching from his 15th story hotel room and in the lobby. The next second he is paranoid that the manager is after him. Thomson is an incredible journalist and writer, and his stories are outrageously interesting and thought provoking.

I first read this book when it came out and it is one of the few books I return to read over the years. Of Thompson's "Best Of's" (he has three "best of" volumes the author titles as "Gonzo Papers"), The Great Shark Hunt is easily the best. The book has very rare articles by the author in his formative years in So. America, as well as his best work from the height of his talent and fame (the 1970s). A good companion piece to "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" (the author's finest work and recently inducted as a Modern Library piece) and his insider look with "Hells Angels". The man has a mastery of the English language in a simple, flowing, humorous way