History Books

I am 3/4 of the way through this book. Yes, it reads well. Yes, there are some errors and even some questionable use of source material (in my opinion). But still, it is a good story that Donovan tells. But it should be read in conjuction with other books on the topic and not as the final word. And Donovan does slant things against Reno. Yes, Reno may be guilty of not fulfilling his duty that day (and quite honestly, not being a war veteran, I don't feel completely comfortable criticizing the guy) but the following is a clear example of how Donovan clearly has it in for him:
p. 461 (bottom)-- Captain Thomas French told a New York Times reporter that Reno had been DRUNK during the hilltop fight and had hidden himself from the command..." NY Times, January 19, 1879.
Now here are the actual words from that newspaper clipping:
"Capt. French, of the Seventh Cavalry, who is credited with great bravery at the battle of Little Big Horn, and a coming witness before the Reno Court of Inquiry at Chicago, stated today that he saw nothing of Major Reno from the evening of June 25 until noon of June 26; that Reno was out of sight, and that he (French) could not find any one who did see him; in other words, that Reno slunk away in a hole and left the command to Benteen."

Please, will someone tell me where French said Reno was drunk?

Again, the book must be read with caution and with so many footnotes, many that are hard to confirm without seeing the original material, it is a painstaking task!!!

James Donovan clearly set out to thread a needle. He tried to write a completely fair and honest retelling of the 7th Calvary's defeat at the Little Big Horn and the death of George Armstrong Custer. He carefully lays out the past history of all the important characters, warts and all. He then does his honest best to tell the tale of the battle. Not finished there, he goes on to tell the tale of the courts martial held to determine the fate of Reno & Benteen. He doesn't even stop the story there. He carries it on to the slaughter at Wounded Knee, perpetrated by many of the same people who survived the Little Big Horn battle.

The book is very well written and incredibly well researched with a complete set of footnotes and endnotes. The maps are clear and work well with the text. The descriptions of the characters and people involved helped paint a full picture of what was happening in that part of the world and why.

Another book on this topic, To Hell With Honor: Custer and the Little Big Horn, focused almost exclusively on the battle, and while it clearly has more bias than this book, does more to detail what happened, specifically, during the fighting. This book goes way beyond the battle, before and after, to tell the bigger story of the Native Americans and their fights with each other and newcomers from a fledgling country. It's not better than the other book, it's different. If anything, they complement each other very well.

It's a real joy to get to read a well written book that also educates, so this one is really worth the time.

It starts long before the campaign and ends much more later on.
It lefts no stone unturned, and actually uses all the data available in a tour de force of rigour.
Actually if you are not going to read more then a book about it this one will do perfectly the job.
It is neither pro-Custer or anti-Custer, makes a good job of simply saying what is known and formulating the best plausible guesses when explaining the parts of the fight harder to establish (there other authors are perhaps much more passionate in their arguments!).
Highly Recommended for what it is fair History without undue passion.

ADB

When I was eight or nine, back in the early 1950's, my parents took me to see a traveling exhibit of American historical objects in Trenton NJ. I am not sure if this mobile museum came to town for the annual State Fair or some other reason, and I don't know who sponsored it, but Henry Ford might be a good guess. The ONLY object I recall from this presentation is a rolltop school desk, there because the initials G.A.C. were carved in the lid. "G.A.C."---For George Armstrong Custer. During my childhood, he was considered a full hero who was a victim of the vicious Sioux and Cheyenne. By the time I was a teenager, Hollywood began to depict Custer as a victim only of his own arrogance and stupidity, and the Indians as victims of Caucasian conquest who had one glorious afternoon of victory.
The truth lies between these views, of course, and you will get it if you have the patience to read this lengthy, somewhat scholarly work carefully. It requires half the book to get to the morning of June 25, 1876, when the Seventh Cavalry finally connects with the hostile encampment of native Americans. The next 25 percent shows us the aftermath of the slaughter on all parties, and the final fourth consists of extensive and often fascinating notes. There are photos of the principal players, but I wanted more. There are maps, but I wanted them larger. These are minor quibbles with a massive story, masterfully composed. The Battle of the Little Bighorn, as the author notes, probably has been more written about than even the Battle of Gettysburg. "A Terrible Glory" is a fine place to begin the saga, but you won't want to stop with it alone. General Custer made mistakes, but not as many as revisionist history wants to lay on him. His chief subordinates also made mistakes, perhaps more serious than Custer's, yet there were just so many indians and so few troopers than even if these officers behaved with perfect courage, it is likely the troops would still have lost. The "blame Custer" movement got started early, got nipped in the bud, and then made a comeback, then receded, then made another comeback. Complexities such as these are what has kept this tale alive for 130 years.

I read Son of the Morning Star some years ago after visiting the Little Bighorn Battlefield. I found Terrible Glory a more informative read and apparently extensively researched. Donovan presents a more sympathetic view of Custer. He also discusses the Reno Court of Inquiry in some detail, which is quite interesting. In that context he delves into the actions, and motivation therefor, of certain participants to color the truth of what occurred during the battle. While Custer was in command and deserved a measure of blame, the verdict of history has been unnecessarily harsh as to him and undeservedly lenient as to others.

I thoroughly enjoyed Ian Toll's history of the ships that quickly established the Navy's tradition for excellence. Toll has the gift of a great story teller. Wonderfully researched, beautifully written and told in prose dotted with the nautical expressions that have become staples of our language,this work is highly recommended to anyone who loves history, adventure and great prose. Well done.

This is one of those History Books that is a great read, like a well written novel with an epic storyline and cast of characters. At times, the battle actions read like a Patrick O'Brian novel and in addition to the Naval warfare, it is a great account of the early Republic, its leaders, and the world as it then existed.

Ian Toll crafted a masterpiece of historical writing in this book. At least I liked it!!! It sometimes reads like fiction, but consistently bears the weight of historical fact. "Six Frigates" presents an intruiging picture of the interplay between the economic, political, and military considerations that led to a critical decision-point during the vulnerable fledgling years of the USA between the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

During the first part of the book we join the Founding Fathers as they engage in hot debates over whether to invest limited federal funds in an extrememly expensive ship-building program. Why build ships? And why only six? What good could six ships do? At the time the US merchant fleet, one of the largest in the world, was experiencing harassment and losses to pirates based along the north coast of Africa in the Mediterranean Sea...the Barbary pirates.

And so a decision was made to build 3 heavy frigates and 3 lighter frigates. Toll provides detail about the planning and building of the ships. The materials used and the manner of construction combined to make these six frigates some of the strongest ships afloat, and helps the reader to understand how the USS Constitution eventually earned the knickname "Old Ironsides."

Once the ships were built some of them were dispached to the Mediterranean Sea to project US military power during a little known period of US History...the Tripolitan War with the Barbary Coast pirates. These engagements provided the military action made famous in the US Marine Corps song with the refrain, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli." (Just in case you were wondering.)

Not many years later another war loomed with England, the country with the mightiest and most efficient navy in the world...they had 300 ships of war, and the USA had only six dedicated warships. Yikes!

Nevertheless, war broke out and the frigates went to war to protect the merchant fleet from English warships and to protect American sailors from being forcibly pressed into British naval service. Toll provides excellent insights and paints vivid pictures of war during the age of sail. I knew life was rough aboard those ships, but until I read this book I had never developed a clear mental image of the combination of courage, terror, and extreme damage that resulted from naval engagements.

The British navy took great pride in being the ruler of the seas, and they had a long and glorious history of overpowering their adversaries with the combined skill of sailing prowess, gunnery efficiency and accuracy, and bold courage. Toll provides excellent narrative of single ship to single ship engagements between British and American vessels. Imagine the shock and awe that ensued when an American frigate bested and captured a British frigate! Both ships were a shambles, but the British ship was brought into port and the American captain and crew were natioal heroes...there were give parades, balls, feasts, and so on.

Another aspect of life under sail that I never before understood was the beating these ships took, not only during battle but also from the elements. I was amazed as Toll described the type and frequency of refitting that sailing warships needed. Read for yourself and find out for yourselves.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who enjoys military history or even sea tales like those told in the Horatio Hornblower saga or in books by Patrick O'Brien.

This is clearly a 5 star product. No question about it.

Well written and entertaining book. As an avid sailor I particularly enjoyed reading this book. Beautiful sentences. Rich and full of history. Well researched. The type of book that I was sorry when I had finished it as I yearned for more. Highest recommendation.

I had absolutely no idea that the US Navy had such a rough and uncertain start. Nor did I realize the scale of our efforts against the Barbary pirates of North Africa.

Just read it.

Great book, got it just in time for my american heritage class. Will recommend to all my friends.

Modern feminists who claim Rowlandson as a progenitor are sorely mistaken. Rowlandson, in fact, ascribed to those same conservative, religious values that today's society lacks.

Interestingly enough, I read this for a course on early American literature. But as a history major, I can say that it would have served equally well in a course on, say, Colonial New England or Social Life in Colonial America. It provides fascinating insights into Puritan life--especially into its religious beliefs and practices and the huge role they played in the life of a Puritan. Moreover, it chronicles the contact of two societies at odds: Puritans and Native Americans. Rowlandson's descriptions of her captors are exceedingly interesting and give depth to any consideration of life in early America. Salisbury's notes and introduction are also quite helpful. Read as a piece of literature, moreover, The Sovereignty and Goodness of God proves to be a fruitful topic for study, as well as a great complement to its function as an historical document. Considering my English course included some rather unsavory texts, this one was much appreciated and quite refreshing, too.

After reading books such as The Name of War by Jill Lepore and Dawnland Encounters by Colin Callaway, I am a bit skeptical of Mary's intentions for writing this piece.

The name of war has a section of how much press that King Philip's War received. It was astounding. In only a two-year period, there were 18+ books written on the war. Everyone with a press was trying to cash in with Europe so interested in the outcome.

Combining this information from Lepore with Colin Callaway's, I have come to doubt the information she gives. Callaway's book tries to escape the typical Euro-indian encounters, by discussing how they co-existed in economical, religious, and ecological terms. His studies on Native Americans taking prisoners, tellsa different story. In most cases, Native Americans from the North East tried to assimilate their captives into their own society to replace brethren lost in war. Though this did not always happen, it was more often than not. Callaway happens to be the leading authority on Native American studies.

Mary's description of her captivity tells a different story of threats, hunger, and slavery, in captivity while God and bible scriptures gave her hope. Having been the wife of a preacher, her words of God could be her attempt to fill reader's minds with religious beliefs in hopes of a conversion. I think it is a combination of all three.

Though she did have reason to hate the Native Americans which gives plausibility to her story, I still feel it is more fact than fiction. They did murder much of her family, including her 6-year old daughter which gave reasons of hate. But what other reason to actually write such a story but for the reason's aforementioned?

"The Sovereignty and Goodness of God, Together with the Faithfulness of His Promises Displayed," by Mary Rowlandson, is a compelling piece of colonial American literature. First published in 1682, this autobiographical text represents a genre of literature known as the "captivity narrative": a first-person account of a white settler who was held as a hostage or prisoner by Native Americans. In Rowlandson's case, she was taken captive during Metacom's War (also known as King Philip's War), which took place in 1675-1676.

The edition of Rowlandson's book edited by Neal Salisbury is excellent. This edition contains Rowlandson's text, together with a wealth of other materials: a thorough introduction, many maps, a chronology, a bibliography, and other historic documents from Rowlandson's era. The many illustrations include photographs of the title pages of earlier editions.

Rowlandson's captivity narrative is a significant milestone in American literature; the introduction to the Salisbury edition notes that the text "has been almost continually in print since 1770." Since the text itself is relatively short, it has appeared in anthologies (see, for example, "The Harper Single Volume American Literature," third edition). But the many "extras" in the Salisbury edition definitely make it a book worth buying, even if you have an anthology already containing the Rowlandson text.

Rowlandson's memoir itself is not great literature stylistically. But it is a fascinating text with some really striking passages. Rowlandson's extreme evangelical Puritanism will likely alienate or bewilder some modern readers, but her religious attitude should be read in historic and cultural context. Similarly, her extremely racist descriptions of Indians ("merciless Heathen," "ravenous Beasts," etc.) should to be read in context (but should not be trivialized, especially in multiethnic classrooms where this text might be taught).

This book is a significant document of contact between cultures in times of extreme crisis. It is an especially intriguing text for those careful readers who really try to read "between the lines." Recommended as companion texts: William Apess' "A Son of the Forest and Other Writings" (Apess was a pioneer Native American writer) and James Fenimore Cooper's novel "The Last of the Mohicans."

Excellent condition as promised. Timely delivery as well. No complaints, I would buy from this seller again.

If you are a) an undergrad. in sociology, economy, or political science, you must have this for grad. school; b) a grad. student in sociology and unsure of its application, what theory is, or what the masters talked about, you must have it; and c) a theory freak like myself, a must for your collection (but you already knew that!). This book is a classic in sociology, and while Durkheim recanted much of what he said later in his career, his ecological model for the evolution of society is still relevant today. Furthermore, his discussion of the integrative effects of the Division of Labor are unmatched, and while this mechanism is probably not the only one of its kind, it is still important especially in a postindustrial society that is increasingly compartementalized...

A classic in many ways, the Division of Labor is a great starting point for sociology - not because it's terribly sexy or interesting or even correct, but because it begins to lay out what sociology can do.

... The Coser edition of THE DIVISION OF LABOUR is commonly regarded as the best english translation edition.

... The Halls translation is quite a good one. If we examine the Halls text and compare it to the "revisions" that the reviewer has posed, we find that the differences are not merely aesthetic, they are substantive. They change the meaning of the sentence, and therefore the nature and meaning of Durkheim's argument.

I think that this Durkheim's best work. As a warning, it is not easy; perhaps this is where the difficulty with the translation lies. But for anyone interested in sociological theory, this book is essential reading. The translation is the best out there.

One must be a drooling English major to read, much less, enjoy this book.
It has nothing to do with reality.

Another must-read for anyone interested in great literature. From the sublime to the mundane, Fussell is most fascinating. This can be a fairly quick read -- perhaps a long weekend for most, but then you will find yourself returning to re-read certain chapters, and it will definitely end up on your desk as a reference book. I was most pleased to see many references to the Bloomsbury Group, but I was surprised that there was no mention of JRR Tolkien whose The Lord of the Rings, I believe, had its genesis in the trenches of WWI.

This book is some 25 years old, but still shares with Edward Said's "Orientalism" the prize for best literary criticism. Unlike Said's book, however, Fussell's analysis has never been attacked or questioned; it has only gained in stature over the years. It is, quite simply, a beautiful book and was rightly recognized when it first appeared as an instant classic. It was written at a time when historians were just beginning to crawl around old battlefields looking for new ways to tell the story of war. Fussell got down and dirty in the trenches of France and came back with a story of how the gruesome battles of WWI shaped a generation of English writers and artists. There is not much new that can be said about this superb book, except that there has been no better book written since its publication by an American on literature.

This classic by Paul Fussell should be required reading on most college campuses. His prose is impeccable. I have read every Fussell book I can get my hands on. He is one of the best.

On one level, Fussell writes about World War I, and his unsparing depiction of the industrialized killing in this first "modern" war will acquaint readers with a war that now seems very distant. On the second level, he shows how British World War I soldiers viewed their experience through the literary and popular culture they brought to the trenches--through ideas of the pastoral, of epic sacrifice, of manly strength and beauty. Fussell brilliantly links "The Oxford Book of English Verse" and the battlefields of France. His discussion of how the poppy came to be a symbol of this war is alone worth the price of the book. Finally, and most interestingly, there is Fussell's idea that this particular past is not distant at all. He not only points out how accounts of the second World War were influenced by accounts of the first, but suggests how some of the ways we currently think about war are shaped by the Great War. One wonders, in the midst of it, what myths of our own we bring to our conceptions of the War On Terror.

Reading STOP ME IF YOU'VE HEARD THIS: A HISTORY AND
PHILOSOPHY OF JOKES by Jim Holt reminded me of many papers
that my students submit . . there seems to be 142 pages, but after
you subtract a bibliography, credits and an index, you are down
to 126 pages . . . take away another 24 pages for illustrations,
and you're down to 102 pages in a smallish 4.5 x 7 format with
very wide margins.

However, don't be put off by what seems to be a lack
of material . . . what is presented is interesting, as well as fun . . . and
you'll learn perhaps more than you ever wanted to know about such
individuals as Gershon Legman (the encylopedist of the dirty joke), Nat
Schmulowitz (the most prodigious joke collector of all time) and Alan
Dundes (the "joke professor" of Berkeley who saw a sinister side
in elephant jokes).

I kid you not about the latter . . . as the author notes:

* It is no accident that elephant jokes appeared around the beginning
of the civil rights movement, he said. Consider the parallels between
the elephant and the white stereotype of the black: the association
with the jungle, the potential for violence, the idea of unusually large
genitals and corresponding sexual capacity. "You can see this even
in the seemingly most nonsensical jokes," he said. "Why did the
elephant sit on the marshmallow? So he wouldn't fall into the cocoa.
That reflects the white person's fear of blacks moving into his
neighborhood--they're trying to sit on the white oasis in the chocolate,
so to speak. This joke was being told at a time when even liberals felt
anxious about the effects of integration." I confessed to Dundes that
I found his interpretation a tad, well, oversubtle. But he insisted that
there was plenty of anecdotal data in its favor. "When a psychiatrist
friend of mine asked his black secretary if she knew any elephant
jokes, she said, 'Why would we tell them? They're about us.' "

Holt also presents a wide variety of jokes, including these:

* There are jokes about musical instruments, especially the viola,
which seems to be especially despised in the world of classical music.
(Why did the chicken cross the road? To get away from the viola recital.
Or, in a more esoteric vein, How was the canon invented? When two violists
attempted to play in unison.)

* There are short jokes, some with a single-syllable punch line. (What's
brown and sounds like a bell? Dung!) There is even the rare joke
consisting of only two words. ("Pretentious? Moi?").

* But what of the pun, widely and perhaps justly regarded as the lowest
form of humor? (Vladimir Nabokov, when told by a professor of English
that a nun who was auditing one of the professor's classes had complained
that two students in the back of the classroom were "spooning" during
a lecture: "You should have said, 'Sister, you're lucky they weren't
forking.' ") Well, one might say that in wordplay we are enjoying
our superiority to language or reason. But now the superiority theory
has become elastic to the point of meaninglessness.

STOP ME might not be the funniest book you'll ever read; however,
I do believe that with respect to jokes, it will be one of the most
thought-provoking.

I purchased this volume after I read a review in The Week magazine. The book doesn't live up to the review, nor its title. Stop Me is not exactling boring, nor is it especially interesting. It is quite disjointed and really isn't much more than a longish magazine article. If your flight is any longer than 40 minutes, you'll need a second book.

This is the question that Holt aims to answer in his short, witty, and pithy book. He traces the history of jokes-when we started telling them, when they were recorded, and how they have evolved (and devolved) over time. He focuses mostly on dirty jokes-jokes about sex, bodily functions, racism, and sexism-namely because at a certain level, all jokes are dirty and tasteless, and that's why we love them. He also examines WHY things are funny from philosophical, psychological, and physiological perspectives. Do we laugh at a joke because it is unexpected, because it allows us to acknowledge the darker sides of our psyche, or because a certain section of our brain is suddenly stimulated?



Holt is a clever writer and provides lots of sample jokes to show what he's trying to explain. However, this book is just too darn short. He could have easily doubled the length of the book to just get into everything. This book gives a few biographies of influential people in the history and study of jokes, but doesn't delve into the theories nearly deeply enough. I was constantly disappointed that he didn't spend more time on each topic. But this just shows how good a read the book is-he leaves the reader wanting more.

What makes us laugh? Why do certain jokes work? How long have jokes been around? The answers to these and many more questions are contained in this delightful look at the "history" of jokes. It goes almost without saying that one of the very early humorists, Poggio Bracciolini, was a Papal Secretary. Oh, the stories he could tell....and did!

As author Jim Holt proceeds, the book gets funnier and it isn't the compendium of jokes that makes this slender volume so attractive, but it is the different kinds of jokes and our responses to them (which makes up the thrust of his writing) that allows you to pause, think and laugh. "Stop Me If You've Heard This" can be read in one easy sitting and when you're through you hope a sequel might be in order. Or even out of order. I highly recommend it.

Jim Holt, a columnist and contributor to the _New Yorker_, collects jokes, and the shortest among them is two words: "Pretentious? Moi?" It is fitting that he has included it in his book _Stop Me If You've Heard This: A History and Philosophy of Jokes_ (Norton), for his own book is tiny, and despite its brevity, it succeeds in delivering its intended history and philosophy just as well as the two-word joke delivers a smile. It might seem strange that jokes should be a subject for philosophical enquiries, but consider how central they are to the human condition. Sit down at a dinner party, and a good deal of the conversation will be directed at putting together strings of words that will elicit laughter from the hearers. Another reason jokes ought to be considered food for philosophical thought is that philosophers through history have indeed speculated about them, and have come up with answers about why jokes are funny, but none of the answers is complete or completely satisfying. Another reason to study the history and philosophy of jokes is that when one does so, one necessarily gets to read lots of jokes, and Holt's little volume does contain plenty of good ones.

The book is divided into two parts, necessarily "History" and "Philosophy". There were jokebooks of the ancients, since Plautus refers to their existence in his comic plays, but only one has come down to us, the _Philolegos_ ("laughter lover") from the fourth or fifth century C.E. The jokes in it are peopled with stock characters like the miser, the drunk, and the sex-starved woman. "How shall I cut your hair?" a talkative barber asks a customer. "In silence!" comes the retort. Holt writes admiringly of the more contemporary work of joke collector Gershon Legman, who claimed to have invented the slogan "Make Love, Not War" and who obtained books for Alfred Kinsey's collection. The admiration is muted, however: "Reading through Legman's vast compilation of dirty jokes is a punishing experience, like being trapped in the men's room of a Greyhound bus station in the 1950s." Philosophy, of course, seems to begin with the Greeks; Plato said that the proper objects of laughter are vice and folly, both well illustrated in jokes here. Immanuel Kant explained that incongruity was what led to laughter, but the philosopher Henri Bergson said that laughs came from a feeling of superiority; watch a man slip on a banana peel, and you laugh because you, yourself, would never, ever exhibit such gracelessness. Freud famously proposed that a joke allows laughter to release inhibited thoughts and feelings of sex and aggression. That sounds good, but Holt notes that if Freud is right, the ones "who laugh hardest at lewd jokes should be the ones who are the most sexually repressed. This seems to be backwards. No general explanation of why we laugh at jokes seems to work in all cases, and the problem may be that trying to understand the funniness of specific jokes is just not funny. The explanation of a joke is not funny, it never helps us appreciate the joke more (and often less), and it seldom seems like a good explanation.

As with so many philosophical issues these days, perhaps only because of our current fashions of research, humor may simply come down to the neurological. Using an electric probe to try to find the cause of a patient's seizures, doctors stimulated a part of her left frontal lobe, eliciting a laugh. It happened over and over, and it was not just a mere physical reflex. She really did find things funny, whether she was looking at the operating team, or at a picture of a horse they showed her. Put a little current to the "L-spot" of the brain, and everything becomes a joke. There is little risk that neurosurgical procedures are going to impair the activities of joke-tellers, however; telling a joke is a simpler way of getting a laugh than doing brain probes, and anyway, whatever the purpose of jokes is, it probably cannot be accomplished in such an electromechanical way. Like many things, jokes are probably best appreciated for themselves and not for any thinking that they might inspire. Holt's little volume will inspire some thinking, but it also contains more than its share of good (along with some bad) jokes, including one that he has traced back in different forms which people have been laughing at for fifteen centuries. And he even includes a personal favorite of mine, a meta-joke: "A priest, a rabbi and a minister walk into a bar. The bartender says, `What is this, a joke?'"

Professor Wood, considered by many to be one of the better historians of the American Revolution, has written perhaps the classic summary of the conflict that founded one nation,ended the first empire of another and has changed the world. What sets this book, at less than a 170 pages, is its conciseness and ability to sum up many and large complicated issues well.

Wood does a wonderful job if explaining how a struggle between 13 of Britain's 21 North American colonies was virtually inevitable due to many circumstances that were surely incomprehensible at first, and to hard to untangle afterwards when the issues were of the present day, until all at once, individuals who would rather not, were forced to choose sides. The unusual thing about the American Revolution, is that both sides were choosing between two different types of traditionalism, and were forced to fight a contemporary battle among issues that had divided English speaking peoples since early Norman times, over 600 years in the past. As Wood easily explains, a series of disputes over trade acts and taxes hardly seems like the justification to start the world anew, especially considering that the Revolution saw a huge proportion of military and civilian deaths, leading to economic destruction and civil war in many of the colonies.

Wood only spends 14 whole pages on direct discussion on the military conflict proper, though a reader will not come away with misunderstandings about how the conflict developed or why it was concluded the way it was. The strategic limitations of the British military, not least of which was that were told to wage general war on people most of their office class considered to be as much their countrymen as a Scotchman or Welshman, in the fast American frontier, are explained crisply.

Along the way, Wood does a fine job of explaining why the culture of the American colonies was more united than they gave themselves credit for, why it was overwhelmingly optimistic, with a bent on radical equality of the sort that British people had not hoped for in over 400 years. Wood quotes a British traveler in America from 1759 who writes of the American urgency to rise to the point where the American British reached their destiny to write the laws of the rest of civilization. From that frame of reference, of a new American nation, built with the best of British hopes of tradition, law and religion is how Wood has framed the story of the American Revolution. The book is recommended in the highest way.

Gordon Wood has taken on the subject he's best at again, The American Revolution, with this short, concise history. With the book itself running only about 170 pages, it serves as a nice refresher for the regular scholar, and an above average briefing for the layman. In addition, it provides an extremely helpful bibliography, which is broken down by subject within the Revolutionary movement.

By nature, this book is a bit more simple than many of Wood's other works, but it is also considerably more clear. He is able to make his point about liberalism and forward thinking in a much more digestible way than he attempted in Radicalism in the American Revolution.

The American Revolution is generally acknowledged to be the most crucial event in the birth of the United States of America. Copious interpretations have resulted from this status. Yet, few historians have been able to provide a pioneering viewpoint by so coherently integrating the complex factors surrounding the revolution until Gordon S. Wood in his The American Revolution.
Through this book, Wood attempts to demonstrate that the Revolution "needs to be explained and understood, not celebrated or condemned" (xxv). He is not interested in whether the revolution was good or bad. Instead, he brings to light a view of the revolution that few historians have embraced recently. He focuses on "the worth of the Revolution" (xxiv), stating this simply yet eloquently: "How the Revolution came about, what its character was, and what its consequences were--not whether it was good or bad--are the questions this brief history seeks to answer" (xxv). Wood's simple yet succinct style in the book suggests that his audience is the general public.
Wood is no neophyte of historiography. Having received his B. A. from Tufts University and his Ph.D. from Harvard University, he has already demonstrated his masterful expertise of history in his two previous books: The Creation of the American Republic, winner of the Bancroft and John H. Dunning prizes, and The Radicalism of the American Revolution, winner of the prestigious Pulitzer Prize. As an experienced author, Wood understands that writing history demands more than simply explaining one's whims and preferences. This is clearly seen in The American Revolution. Wood realizes that the works of historians who analyze the revolution subjectively "tell us more about the political attitudes of the historians who make such statements than they do about the American Revolution" (xxv). He perceives the American Revolution objectively, rather than subjectively, and The American Revolution is remarkably free of biases. The reader thus proceeds in reading the book with confidence of Wood's impartiality.
With a book called The American Revolution, the reader would expect to find matter dealing only with the American War of Independence. However, Wood sees it as more than a simple military conflict. He sees it as a complete ideological, political, and social revolution: "It was a genuinely radical event, which led to the breakdown of such longstanding patterns of society as deference, patriarchy, and traditional gender relations" (Brinkley, American History, 131). This is his thesis, and it explains why his book concerns more than the American War of Independence.
In order to explain his thesis, Wood must demonstrate how the United States was impacted by this radical revolution, evolving from English colonies to an independent republic. He does this by organizing the book into seven chapters: Origins, American Resistance, Revolution, Constitution-Making and War, Republicanism, Republican Society, and the Federal Constitution. The fact that only fourteen out of the almost two-hundred pages of the book are dedicated to the actual military conflict and that the longest chapter is "Republican Society" demonstrate once again where Wood's emphasis lies. In each chapter, he intertwines the many issues (economic, cultural, political, and ideological), giving the reader a well-rounded image of the proceedings. The short book is dense with evidence for his thesis, creating a sense of "rush of events". The reader can detect that Wood is fascinated by his topic and that fascination is transmitted to the reader.
Wood traces the origins of the American Revolution to three fundamental sources: the growth and movement of the American population, economic expansion, and the reform of the British Empire. These dynamic developments "demanded that England pay more attention to its North American colonies" (Wood 6). They woke Britain from its "salutary neglect" policy and the increasing British presence was seen as an invasion of the colonists' rights. When Britain did reform, Americans were not fervently opposed to the ensuing taxes until Parliament passed the Stamp Act, which Wood describes as the key event in the rise of American resistance.
The nature of American resistance was what made the Revolution so radical. The colonists began by protesting British taxes. These protests came to justify a larger debate: the ideological one. Tensions rose over the differing views on actual/virtual representation and the nature of British Empire. These strains, combined with the ineffectiveness of the British government, caused the crisis to become "more than a simple breakdown in the imperial relationship" (47). Wood traces the changes in the American mentality, but doesn't omit the impact of smaller localized events, such as the Regulator Movement, involved in the rise to independence. He describes the events leading up to Independence as a "spiraling momentum" (51) growing increasingly radical. He explains how America developed its own unique view on liberty, best exemplified in the Declaration of Independence, and how it was primarily motivated by a "desire to root out tyranny once and for all" (67). The results were the radical state constitutions, the Articles of Confederation, and later the Constitution. They were radical because of their unprecedented egalitarianism. Along with these developments, Wood does an excellent job in providing a brief yet exhaustive summary of the military conflict of the American Revolution.
However, his emphasis is on the radical effects of the war, not the war itself. Beginning with the Republicanism chapter, Wood finally unveils these much-awaited radical outcomes, the most important of which is the adoption of a Republican worldview: "This republicanism was in every way a radical ideology" (91). Accompanying this political revolution was a cultural revolution. The flourishing of American literature, art, and architecture are all explained. There emerged a social revolution: a new belief that "the natural affection, moral sense, and benevolence of people were no utopian fantasies" (103). Penal codes were liberalized and humanitarian societies formed. Wood discusses the significance of the concept of equality in American society and juxtaposes it with the subjugation of blacks and natives. The American Revolution also weakened the patriarchal structure of America, increasing the power of women and reforming the concept of "family". A religious revolution, characterized by religious toleration and the growth of formerly underground religions, is described by Wood as the "city upon a hill" assuming a republican character, becoming "the Christian Sparta" (129). Out of these many sub-revolutions, Wood focuses on the Republican society that emerged and how it came to be.
Following the weak central government created by the Articles of Confederation, there was a growing fear of the tyrannical power of state legislatures. Interstate trade also needed to be regulated, and this could only be accomplished by a central authority; the result was the Constitution. Born out of the raging Federalist/Anti-Federalist debates, it created a strong central government, while retaining specific state rights. In doing so, it transformed the concept of sovereignty by locating it in the people at large. The government became only a "temporary and limited agency of the people" (161). Wood concludes by asserting that the most radical impact of the American Revolution is democracy itself: "this democracy was no longer a technical term of political science...Instead, it became the civic faith of the United States" (166). As a result of the American Revolution, America began as "thirteen insignificant British colonies" (xxv) and grew to be a democracy.
By concluding in such way, Wood shows clear evidence for his thesis. The American Revolution truly changed America. He is able to demonstrate this in a book that does not exceed two-hundred pages in length. The book's neat division into chapters concerning each component of the American Revolution, from its origins to its effects, helps the reader digest the material and comprehend Wood's thesis.
Wood's The American Revolution cannot be overestimated in its contribution to history. It strikes new ground by completely renovating the American Revolution's place in American history. It breaks free from all the schools of thought concerning the Revolution, creating its own new category. Because of its innovativeness, persuasiveness, and exactitude, this book is strongly recommended not only for the skilled historian, but also for the amateur who wishes to introduce himself to the American Revolution. The reader of this book will truly understand "the worth of the Revolution" and, along the way, be enthralled by it.

Light, rapid history, a good refresher on the dates, the book carries Wood's major contention, the liberalness of the revolution itself. He also makes some good points on Washington's real strengths.

Gordon S. Wood provides a pleasantly swift account of the conflicts and motivations of the period from 1760 to 1790. Its language is simple and straightforward, and the organization of the book is logical and precise. Altogether, its pace and elementary approach provides for an entertaining read.

The work's objectives, according to Wood, are: "How the Revolution came about, what its character was, and what its consequences were- not whether it was good or bad- are the questions this brief history seeks to answer" (Wood xxv). This is preceded by a quick overview of past works on the subject, which Wood claims, rightfully, as being biased and too much in toe with the authors' contemporary strains. However, despite his wish to be seemingly objective in his prologue, Wood himself seems to be not without his own biases in the book. Often times the work feels not so much an explanation of how the Revolution came about, but more a justification of the actions taken by American patriots. Much attention is given to the fumbling efforts of Parliament and early on describes Great Britain's politics as "ramshackle" (5), "haphazardly" (5), "rickety" (18), "hodgepodge" (20), and declares that it was "no wonder that it took only a bit more than a decade for the whole shaky imperial structure to come crashing down" (21), while at the same time depicting Americans as "confined" (7), and "enmeshed" (23) in the empires blunderings. He then begins to show Americans in a light growing steadily brighter, describing their actions as "spectacular" (33), and as being "raised to the highest plane of principle" (39), "extraordinary" (47) and so noble as to aim to "bring freedom to the whole world" (47). His language, therefore, seems ambitious and patriotic at times, and although they are perhaps not without merit, the argument tends to be greatly one-sided.

The book ends, rather suddenly it seems, with the creation of the constitution. However, it is perhaps too sudden. The Revolution hardly seems complete without at least some attention given to the first presidential term of Washington, which set the Revolutionary principles in practice. Wood deals with the creation of the government, but in not somehow conveying whether or not these revolutionary principles were successful in practice for the figures that formed them allows the claims for the historical granduer of their fight to be rather unjustified. Now that the American (white) people had broken the bonds of an oppressive monarchy, how will their newly elected presidential leader act? Will he encompass their ideals and set new standards for the modern world? A history of the American Revolution, even a short one, hardly seems complete without at least some attention given to this chapter of the story, for just explaining that these people thought up and wrote down the ideas is not the end of the Revolution: it is those ideas put into action that truly can, in at least in some way, conclude the tale.

Despite these minor and perhaps irrelevant grievances, the work is a wonderfully quick way for one who wishes to be introduced to the origins, people, process, and outcome of the Revolution. It excels in its simple overviews of political movements and struggles, as well as concisely displaying the motivations and reasons for events and their results. Overall, it provides for a fun, quick read of a dramatic and interesting period in history.

... Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America still accurately describes political and social America, and has turned out to be prophetic of modern problems. This book, along with Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Papers, remain the key to understanding American constitutional theory and political culture. Get 'em both!

I marveled at Alexis de Tocqueville's trenchant insights into what made (makes) American Democracy what it is. Indeed, I think Tocqueville knew more about us than we do (partly a benefit of being a foreigner). But it's not just observations on American Democracy that we get in this indispensable book, but useful analysis between the democratic revolutions and societies in Tocqueville's native France and other countries, and the incessant contrasts the author makes between aristocratic and democratic societies. Tocqueville lived in a time in which the old orders of society (mainly aristocratic) were dissipating and hence his careful examination of the promises and problems that democracies posed for this country and others for his day and for the future.

I can't possibly begin to touch on every issue Tocqueville discusses in this book, but I'll try to mention a few. For Tocqueville, America offered a unique opportunity for democracy to grow and flourish. He discusses the advantages of geographic location, the Puritan settlers in New England, the townships that developed, the formation of the states and the eventual Union formally established by the U.S. Constitution written in 1787. In addition to the external factors that evinced a democratic society, he gave careful attention to the interests, beliefs, habits and mores that united Americans North and South, East and West (though there were some obvious economic and social differences between these geographic segments).

America did not possess a ruling class, and Tocqueville discusses what he called the equality of conditions that he saw in this county. Americans believed they were equal to each other, especially in regards to their ability to obtain wealth and prosperity. The people also viewed themselves as sovereign; they had representative leaders, but ultimately those leaders were and remain accountable to the people. Tocqueville is not hesitant to point out some bad sides to democracy, or at least potentially bad tendencies that could develop. Such topics as the tyranny of the majority, individual impotence in the face of democracy's dependence on the force of the public as a single body, lack of greater intellectual pursuits and accomplishments (though he admits this is a result of our busy lives and our desire to find quick answers and solutions). He seems to be most disappointed with the mediocrity that he sees as resulting when all things seem equal. The dangers of tyranny and despotism also linger.

Tocqueville saw signs of potential future conflict, especially considering the presence of slavery. He envisioned a war between the races as very possible. He also discussed the effects of white settlement and their interaction with the Native Americans as well. His judgement seemed to be that the Native Americans were doomed once the white settlers arrived and started moving west. In addition to conflicts among people, he saw the growing concentration of power as almost inevitable. Our history has especially proven the growth of our national government. And there are so many other observations Tocqueville discusses on the future of democracy not only in this country, but for any democratic society. He had his fears and hopes.

There are so many things I'm leaving out, but I was truly impressed with this man's astute observations on our form of government and our society in general and what some of the positive and negative sides to democracy were (and are). There are topics touched on that will cause you to immediately grasp how applicable they are to life today. A must read.

This is one of the few real classics on American Politics, the knowledge of which is essential to every politically-active citizen (which, indeed, should be every single one of them). It is so often quoted and referred to, and yet so often out of context, that one really needs to have read it in order to understand whether even modern arguments that touch upon its themes are legitimate. And that's not to speak of the great style with which Tocqueville discusses such the two forms he envisions emerging out of an uncontrolled democracy--the classical tyranny of the majority, and the soft tyranny of the bureaucracy upon an atomized society (the second being also treated by Mill in his On Liberty). For the last factor alone, this book warrants a reading, although, some of its chapters are indeed very dry.

The five stars, however, are owed also in great part to this particular version of the book. The paper, ink, and design are of superb quality, for one. The long introduction goes to great lengths to introduce the reader to Tocqueville as a person, as a writer, and to the greater structure behind the very book (something every single introduction ought to do as well as this one). The index is quite extensive, and I have found just about everything I've sought through it. Most important is the translation that this edition offers--it should by all means be considered the standard one, much as Crawley's for Thucydides' Peloponnesian War. No other book will try harder to explain to you why it uses the word mores, and what it means in the Tocquevillian context.

This is a classic treatise by a French aristocrat who comprehensively examines the underpinnings of American democatic institutions. Including the rights and powers provided by the Consitution, forms of governments, and concepts of freedom and equality. In this book he also analyzes the influence of democratic values on intellectual movements, customs and political society. This treatise was originally written in 1835.

This 170-year-old book by a young French aristocrat remains one of the most frequently quoted analyses of what Toqueville famously calls America's "habits of the heart."

If you're interested in reading Toqueville for yourself and not through the eyes of some commentator, what version should you get?

Instead of this one, I recommend the Library of America edition. First, the translation by Arthur Goldhammer is smoother and more comprehensible, without informality or paraphrase. Second, the Goldhammer translation is not burdened by political leanings or excessively scholarly apparatus. Third--and not unimportant--the Library of America volume is smaller and easier to hold and provides a more pleasant reading experience.

Paul N. Van de Water

A very good introductory book to the Conquest of Latin America. Though I do have to say, use only as an introduction. It is not a very good book to cite for any research. A very good example of showing both sides of the story; Spanish vs. Native.

Not a review of this book.
Just to emphasized that no one who has read Bernal Diaz del Castillo's "Conquest of Mexico" would hold to any of the misconceptions noted in doomsdayer520's first paragraph. His famous memoir shows that Bernal Diaz was honest and clear-eyed, and perpetually open to the humanity of the Aztecs and the aware of, even the victim of, the venality of his countrymen.

I got this book because I find pre-columbian Mesoamerica fascinating, and I also enjoy the vivid clash of cultures which occured when the Spaniards arrived there. This book describes the conflict between the Aztecs and Spaniards superbly! This book is somewhat unique among histories because it takes the point of view of the vanquished rather than the victors. It starts from before the Spaniards arrive with eerie premonitions of eminent doom to the fall of Tenochtitlan and the suffering associated with that, then proceeds to give a short account of the plight of the native Nahuas after the conquest. Leon-Portilla uses a vast array of native sources from the Florentine Codex to the Cantares Mexicanos(which consists of Native American songs about the conquest), and combines them to create a lively and pleasant read, and its fairly short length add to its overall unburdensome style. In fact for me this book was harder not to read than to read. The tale is full of lively adventure, fascinting omens and cultural tidbits(such as the Aztec dedication to human sacrifice and their belief that the Spaniards were gods), violence, and sorrow. This book is a must for the Aztec fan, the conquistador fan, or anyone who likes an engaging story that just happens to be history.

Broken Spears does something very interesting in his book that no one else has ever tried to do. He approaches the invasion of Mexico from the perspective of the Aztecs. He looks at the court of Montezuma and tells us how the invasion looked from their perspective. This is a very astute look at the invasion and one of the most unique out there. It is very well written and holds the readers interest. The biggest downfall of the book is that if you are not familiar with the story you will find it lacking in information. It assumes a great deal of information about the invasion that can be gotten from other books. It also takes into account the rise and fall of Montezuma and how the kingdom was not as unified as it appeared. If you are going to study Latin American history than this is a must read.

This book is important because it is scholarly, yet written for the average person interested in history of this period. It is very important in that it is the only contemporary book I know of which specifically and consciously attempts to present the native side of the story. It is not a work of pandering, left-wing revisionism. It is a compilation of native historical sources: the Tlaxcala, and the Mexica themselves--often through Spanish priests who recorded their words, including poetry. The thing to remember is that it is the Aztec/Mexica point of view, and we usually get the Euro-centric version--there is a difference. Both are useful and needed to make a complete picture.

Riveting. Lyn Spencer writes an excellent account as seen through the eyes of those in command of our airlines during the 911 "emergency". These tragic events hit close to home for every one of us who ever piloted a passenger plant and subsequently turned our nation's attention to the War on Terror. As the author of Inspiring Leadership: Character and Ethics Matter, I devote an entire chapter to the chief pilot of American flight #77, my friend and classmate, Chic Burlingame: and as I read Spencer's book gained a greater appreciation of what he must have faced on this tragic day. Spencer hits a home run as an author and her book is a must read for not only interested Americans but also those who believe that we are not immune to this type of event ever occurring again. Lessons of history are important if we learn from them that we will never repeat our mistakes or drop our guard against those who want to end our free society.

This book is full information from a pilot who was in the skies on 911. It is a real eye-opener. It is worth reading. HOWEVER........THE AUDIO VERSION IS VERY ANNOYING. The reader should have been a man not a woman. My Daughter and I were hooked on the story but could hardly stand the intonation, inflection, and sound of the voice of the reader. We had to stop listening after the last plane crashed. I would recommend an abridged audio version.
I read the book and it was great!!!

I wanted to know more of what happened, the goings on behind the scenes right after and beyond the day of 9\11. This book was very enlightening. It answered how the planes were grounded. Why the airspace over Washington was able to be invaded. Either the terrorists were extraordinarily prepared or "lucky" upon picking that day because of the events that the military had scheduled on that day, thus causing them to be away from the areas where they were needed. It was a great book. A little hard to absorb all the agencies involved-military and civilian but I got over that.

This is a very compelling book. Well written, and a very fast read. The subject was of great interest to me and Ms. Spencer helped me understand the huge dilemma that our country and it's dedicated soldiers and employees faced on Sept. 11, 2001.

This book was awesome. I couldn't put it down. We should never forget what happened on 9/11/01.