Review of Winston Groom's The Aviators

It takes a very skilled writer to accomplish what Winston Groom has done in The Aviators. He weaves the tales of Rickenbacker, Doolittle, and Lindbergh into seamless whole.

It’s a great book, filled with fascinating stories of perhaps the three most fascinating characters in the history of aviation, outside of the Wright brothers themselves. Groom tracks all three characters in a fairly tight chronology, writing a virtual biography of each man. The most confusing feature of the book for me will probably be the favorite feature for other readers: the accounts of the three are intertwined at the chapter level. This chapter might be devoted (wholly) to Lindbergh, the next chapter to Doolittle, and so on. It definitely holds your interest. But the net effect for me as a reader was that—other than the single major event that defined their lives (Rickenbacker: WWI ace; Lindbergh: first cross-Atlantic flight; Doolittle: the 1942 raid on Tokyo)—I became confused as to who did what. The three tales converge in World War 2, as each man has something of significance to contribute to the war effort.

Groom’s writing style is excellent. Rather than projecting the cold distance of the academician, the writing is warm and accessible, more of a story-telling format. The book is meticulously footnoted, and Groom does an good job of presenting both sides of points that are in dispute among historians. He’s not afraid to render his own ideas on the matter, even when disputing a majority opinion.

In a nice touch Groom takes each man’s story all the way to their death, and then writes a clear-eyed retrospective on their lives.

If you are researching the early days of aviation, or are merely fascinated by its history, this book is a must-read. Five stars.

Review of Joseph Ellis, The Quartet

At the close of the Revolutionary War Americans tended to view themselves as citizens of sovereign states that were organized into a loose cooperative, not as citizens of a new nation composed of united states. That understanding was codified into the Articles of Confederation. Any hint of a united nation was anathema to the colonists-turned-revolutionaries: that sort of unity smelled like the monarchy they’d just spent precious blood and treasure to escape. Nationhood was the farthest thing from their mind, something viewed with suspicion, not favor.

It was the prescient knowledge of the “quartet,” the four uniquely talented patriots of whom Ellis writes that foresaw coming disaster if the thirteen states failed to unite firmly into a national government worthy of the name. The Philadelphia Convention of 1787 was called by the Confederation Congress to correct the deficiencies of the Articles that had by this time become glaringly obvious. These four men, with the help of several others, hijacked the Convention and wrote a wholly new constitution. Their action—which went far beyond the commission granted by Congress—was technically illegal and constituted a second American revolution.

This is the thesis of Joseph Ellis’s remarkable book, and using primary sources he builds an airtight case for it. Heavily documented but so engagingly written it reads like a novel, the book traces the upbringing and early careers of the quartet: George Washington, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. Ellis manages to explain—very believably, I might add—how their backgrounds influenced these four to think and act as they did. The author points out the flaws in the Articles of Confederation, but also explains the political temperature of the populace so we can understand why the Articles came to have such short-comings. Ellis does a great job tracing the sometimes secretive and circuitous means by which three of the four principals managed to put together a convention that would take the radical step of replacing rather than revising the Articles. Along the way they also faced the difficult task of convincing the fourth, George Washington, to throw his considerable political clout behind the effort.

Ellis treats us to the best of the debates and behind-the-scenes maneuvering as the Convention squabbles its way through the creation of a blueprint for a strong federal government capable of administering the massive continent of North America, while leaving a great deal of sovereignty in the hands of the states.

Having recently read The Federalist Papers, this book greatly added to my understanding of the crucial moments and movements of that important post-war period. In closing I should also say that Ellis boldly resists the modern error infecting much contemporary historiography. He refuses to judge the Founding Fathers by the canon of contemporary post-modern “correct” behavior. Ellis evaluates them by their own times and morals and avoids the trap of turning the Founders into either semi-divine saints or slave-holding devils. He has a refreshing objectivity and offers the reader a much more accurate account of late eighteenth-century America than will the politically-correct pieties of many modern historians. I highly recommend this book.

Review of The City that Does Not Age

Americans cannot identify with a modern city built over top of ruins that reach back to the fifth century BC, and even earlier—in other words, a city continuously inhabited for over 2400 years. But that is the situation of modern-day Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria, once known as the ancient Thracian city of Serdonpolis. Bistra Johnson has compiled an interesting and comprehensive record of the history of this remarkable place in her book, The City that Does Not Age.

After a prologue that introduces the reader to the topic, Johnson begins to trace the history of Sofia through Thracian and Roman times. The city figured significantly in the history of the Roman Empire as it sat astride the Via Militaris, the Roman road which stretched from Constantinople (modern Istanbul) to Singidunum (modern Belgrade).

As the Roman empire declines through internal assassinations and external threats of the invading Germanic tribes throughout the Middle Ages, Johnson does an excellent job of tracing the volatile fortunes of Sofia, as the welfare of the city rises and falls under different leaders and foreign overlords.

After the crusades the city succumbs to the Ottoman empire, which maintains alternately loose and close control of the city, ultimately resulting in the somewhat peaceful if decidedly tenuous coexistence of local Christians, Muslims and Jews. The level of detail of Johnson’s research and her use of primary and secondary sources pays off as she is able to relate many fascinating accounts of both major and minor events during the period.

The liberation of Sofia from Ottoman domination, and the eventual attaining of Bulgaria’s independence is carefully chronicled. She includes a section on the resurgence of the arts and intelligentsia of the city, as well as its entrance into the modern age. The changing loyalties and fortunes of the city from the beginning of the 20^th century until the end of the Soviet era complete the story, bringing the reader to Sofia’s present status as the capital of Bulgaria. Johnson includes a bibliography and an excellent index.

One of the notable tasks Johnson has accomplished is giving the reader an understanding of the significance of Sofia to the larger history of Europe. The city’s location on the Balkan peninsula made it a strategic prize, the control of which gave armies and nations a means of projecting power and influence over a much larger area.

There are some negatives. Two difficulties which frequently bedevil independent authors are apparent in this book: the cover is not impressive, nor is the formatting and editing. Every writer needs a good, professional editor and Johnson is no exception. Even so, her writing is solid though a little uneven at the beginning of the book and the very end.

If I was evaluating on the editing alone I would give this book three stars at most. But the excellent historical account and the strength of the research combine to make this book a good read, well worth the effort. All things considered, I’m giving it four stars.

[Full disclosure: I received a complimentary copy from the author for the purposes of review.]

Book Review: Ancient Rome, The Rise and Fall of an Empire

Great book. I'd known bits and pieces of the history of the Roman Empire, but this book gave me a much fuller picture. If the Pax Romana quelled wars in the greater Mediterranean region, the Romans themselves enjoyed very little of it. There was such a struggle for power between the emperors, the wannabes, the generals, that the internal history of Rome seems to be a history of assassination, rebellion, and revolution.

Baker demonstrated that one of the chief causes of turbulence--something that the political powers and usurpers cynically used to their advantage--was the disparity of income between the senatorial class and the plebs. At first I wondered if he was simply importing modern frustrations into an ancient history. But he soon proved his point by his frequent quotation of first sources.

Well-worth reading. Baker's writing is crisp, at times dryly humorous, well-paced, always engaging and heavily documented. Highly, highly recommended.

Book Review: A Blaze of Glory, by Jeff Shaara

Shaara’s account of the battle of Shiloh in the form of a historical novel does a great service by bringing to attention a battle the import and impact of which has been largely lost in the mists of history. The fields of slaughter produced by that conflict (24,000 casualties out of 100,000 combatants) are among the most horrific of the Civil War.

Shaara continues with his style of tracing the movement of the battle through the eyes of a select set of characters on both sides, most historical, some fictional. His research, as always, is impeccable.

On the negative side, there was too much climbing inside the thoughts of the characters, causing me as a reader to lose the thread of the tale. And the book could have used double the number of maps. In Shaara’s defense, the confusion I experienced trying to stay atop the action might have had something to do with the confusing reality of the battle itself. The generals running the show appeared to have the same confusion that I did reading the story  so long after the fact.

This one I would not characterize as a page-turner, but definitely a worthwhile and enjoyable read. Three and a half stars.

Book Review: Rescuing the Gospel, by Erwin W. Lutzer

Rescuing the Gospel, by Erwin W. Lutzer

Lutzer, pastor of Moody Church in Chicago, has done the evangelical world a favor in two ways. First, he has written a concise history of the Reformation that is accessible to any reader. And second, he demonstrates that the causes of the original Reformation—the distortion of the gospel by the Catholic Church—persist unto this very day.

Lutzer begins with an honest assessment of the medieval church and its moral corruption. He traces the beginning of the glow of the Reformation through Wycliffe and Hus, and then devotes the bulk of the book to Luther. Luther’s path from terrified monk to fearless reformer is given in sufficient detail to allow the reader to come to know Luther the man.

Zwingli, the Anabaptists, and Calvin occupy most of the remainder of Lutzer’s attention. Lutzer is brief enough that the reader is not awash in details, and yet specific enough to flesh out the primary doctrinal and historical highpoints of each of his subjects.

Lutzer’s retelling of the Reformation is a valuable—if brief—introduction to a tumultuous time in history. But the real value of the book is in the final chapter, in which Lutzer documents that the issues initially separating Luther and Calvin from the Catholic church persist unto the present day. In an age in which philosophers and theologians seem to have an almost desperate craving to unify the Catholic and Protestant faiths, Lutzer demonstrates that there is only one side compromising its beliefs: the Catholics are holding firm to their historic pronouncements and distinctives while the Evangelicals are being tempted to move the doctrine of Justification to a back bench for the sake of “unity.”

If you are looking for a concise history of the Reformation with an equally concise and clear list of the issues that continue to separate Catholics and Evangelicals, this book is a good place to start. Four stars.

Book Review: Historic Tales from Park County: Parked in the Past

Organized around decades from the 1860s to the 1950s, Historic Tales is a delightful, anecdotal account of the goings-on of beautiful Park County, Colorado. From mines to murders, gold strikes to graveyards, Van Dusen’s work is full of the colorful characters who comprised the landscape of the past. She writes with the historian’s penchant for research and the journalist’s eye for the story. The book brings to life the hardships and heartaches of the pioneers, miners, and families who settled this beautiful high valley of Colorado, as well as their extraordinary good fortunes in mining discoveries, the cattle business, and other business ventures.

If, while wandering Colorado’s high country, you run across the remains of a cabin and find yourself thinking “I wonder who lived there, and what their story is,” this book just might have the answer. Highly recommended.

Book Review: Allegiance: Fort Sumpter, Charleston, and the beginning of the Civil War, by David Detzer

This is a good book. I started it wondering whether or not a 320 page book about one tiny battle would be able to hold my attention. It did. Detzer's writing is excellent, highly readable, and free from academic jargon. His research on the topic is exhaustive: he knows what he is talking about.

Detzer provides a fine snapshot of antebellum Charleston, its commerce and society, its colorful characters and politicians, and its slaves. He does a good job of pointing out the sad ironies of slavery amidst a free people: he's not preachy but at times very cutting.

Detzer sugar-coats no one, although he comes close in his portrayal of Major Robert Anderson, who is presented as a man of high character and leadership skills, who is blessed with equal but contradictory doses of pacifism and duty to country.

The final chapter was outstanding, and presented a very sensitive and appropriate retrospective on the later lives of some of the major characters as well as Charleston and Fort Sumpter.

It's an excellent book. There are a few weaknesses, all relatively minor. Dezter is a professional historian, but he gets pretty snarky in places. I'm still trying to decide whether it's endearing or irritating. He does a good bit of editorializing, as well. Usually in just a sentence, never more than a paragraph or two at a time, but liberally sprinkled through the book.

One example is his almost-gratuitous passage on the meaning of the flag, on pages 127-128, claiming that there is no true meaning of a flag. In fine postmodern fashion, Detzer intimates that the flag means whatever its wielder wishes it to mean. He then goes on to complete the book demonstrating (unconsciously, perhaps?) that it stands for the sovereignty of the nation whose emblem it bears. There seems to be no confusion about the meaning of the flag for either the soldiers in Sumpter or the civilians in Charleston--and they both seem to ascribe to it the same significance.

Another weakness in his writing is his tendency to skip around in chronology from one paragraph to the next without giving the reader due warning. I found on repeated occasions, well into the paragraph, that the matter being expounded happened before the matter in previous paragraph. I'm no fan of slavish chronology, but I would appreciate a warning when the time of the scene shifts backwards, otherwise it can be (and was) a little confusing.

All these petty gripes are minor in view of the excellence of the account Detzer has created. I recommend the book to anyone who has an interest in Civil War era history.

Book Review: Landscape Turned Red: The Battle of Antietam

Stephen W. Sears, Landscape Turned Red. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co.  (Mariner Books, 2003 edition).

This volume ranks among the best works of military history that I have read. Sears is a top-drawer writer and historian, and this book displays both those skills. It’s one of the few histories I’ve read that could be legitimately described as a page-turner.

Sears does a great job of unfolding the context for the Battle of Antietam—of 336 pages in the main body of the book, fully 180 are devoted to establishing the background. Much of that material is spent elaborating General George B. McClellan’s personal history and conduct up to the collision between the armies on September 17, 1862. I didn’t come away feeling that any of the detail was unnecessary. In many respects the book is an examination of McClellan, and Sears is not among his fans.

Those looking to redeem the general from history’s opprobrium will need to look elsewhere. By the extensive use of original documents, Sears has documented the man’s failings as a combat commander, although he balanced his critique with a fair assessment of McCellan’s strong record of organizing and training the Army of the Potomac.

The threads of political intrigue that were whirling about Washington are well represented, as is the dithering of the Great Powers as they grappled whether or not to support the Rebellion.

From the first bullets of the skirmishers to the slow withdrawal from the battlefield, Sears is able to narrate the action in such a clear way I was able to follow it without difficulty. The biggest problem was keeping track of which commanders were attached to what unit, as the officers were mowed down so rapidly even regiment and brigade commanders were quickly used up. The maps Sears has included are excellent; you might want to mark the maps with post-notes to enable you to find them easily.

This book will be a treat for those who enjoy military history, especially as regards the Civil War. I recommend it highly.

Book Review: Team of Rivals

 

Goodwin, Doris Kearns. Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of AbrahamLincoln. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006.

This is one of those books so thick that they ought to publish it with a set of wheels. That said, it is a fascinating exploration of the character and genius of Abraham Lincoln. Goodwin studies four main characters, Lincoln, plus the other men who were seeking the Republican nomination in the 1860 presidential election, Salmon Chase, William Seward, and Edward Bates. She traces the life of each, from childhood through their tours of duty on Lincoln’s cabinet in the dark days of the Civil War.

Goodwin does a masterful job of not only displaying (with a great deal of accompanying evidence) the character of each man, but how their political machinations throughout their lives either helped or hurt their political ambitions, ultimately culminating in Lincoln’s election. She documents the open disdain with which Lincoln’s rivals held the “rail splitter from Illinois,” and shows how everyone underestimated his intelligence and the shrewdness of his own political maneuverings.

Lincoln invites his rivals to serve in his cabinet, placing each man in a position where he can’t say “no” to the opportunity, and then patiently manages the fireworks that ensue from the clash of egos and ambitions at the top level of his administration. At each turn in the story, Goodwin shows how Lincoln outfoxes the newspapers, the politicians, the political parties, and his own cabinet members.

The genius of Lincoln, Goodwin demonstrates, is not that he “kept his friends close and his enemies closer,” but that he managed to turn enemies into allies, calling forth from each man the best of their gifts and skills in the service of a nation badly in need of strong leadership. Lincoln’s character (especially his humility) is seen in that many of his most contemptuous rivals became his most devoted friends, once they began to work closely with him. Edwin Stanton’s heartbroken tribute at Lincoln’s deathbed, “Now he belongs to the ages,” put a voice to the quiet awe in which many of Lincoln’s compatriots held him at the end.

This is a terrific book, from multiple aspects. First, I am guessing you won’t find a better, more complete accounting of the run-up to the 1860 presidential elections, and then Lincoln’s management of his administration. Second, it is an outstanding study of leadership and character. Third, it is a great biography of Lincoln. And last, it is so well-written, so well-documented, so detailed that Goodwin held my attention from the first page to the last. I recommend it highly.

Review of David McCullough's 1776

There’s an unfortunate tendency at work in modern history-writing to diminish heroes. This is accomplished in one of two ways. Either the writer makes normal people into heroes, because they show up for work everyday and accomplish what is expected of them, often times amidst suffering of some sort. Or the writer demonstrates (usually by accentuating their flaws) that so-called heroes were nothing of the sort.

By the measure of such historiographers there are no truly exceptional people, because everyone is exceptional. But such a notion is both intellectually and experimentally vacuous. Think about it: do you know who Mohammed Ali was? How about Lance Armstrong? Or Michael Phelps? Have you ever heard of Albert Einstein? Or Dwight Eisenhower? The existence of awards such as the Nobel Prize and the Congressional Medal of Honor very quickly demonstrates that there are, in fact, real heroes and you and I are not them.

After reading 1776, it’s easy to identify David McCullough as an exceptional, Pulitzer-prize winning historian. This volume is as close to being a page-turner as history ever gets (and I love history). The book is essentially about a real American hero by the name of George Washington; I’m sure you’ve heard of him. The author does a great job of illustrating Washington’s outstanding character qualities, neither inappropriately diminishing nor embellishing the record. The action of the book all takes place in the fateful year of 1776, though the author is unafraid to introduce earlier and later material to make his points.

Washington is presented as a noble, doggedly determined man of high character, a great leader of men who gets the big picture right. He engenders great loyalty, and is loved by enlisted men, officers, and even the politicians who tie his hands. And yet McCullough does not fall into the trap of hero worship: Washington’s flaws are exposed as readily as his truly great virtues are. He’s indecisive at bad times, terribly inconsistent (fighting for freedom while owning slaves), unremarkable as a strategist, and mistake-prone as a tactician.

And yet, for all that, Washington accomplished a task no one else could have, while juggling the micromanagement of the Continental Congress on one hand, an ill-equipped and untrained army on the other, insufficient funding, constantly expiring enlistments, and a raft of mediocre officers. Washington plays the hand that is dealt him with grace and discipline, even in the midst of terrible mistakes. He manages a war against the most powerful nation on the planet, ultimately defeating far superior forces led by superior officers. General Washington shows strokes of tactical brilliance at the most crucial times.

You walk away from this book knowing that you’ve been learning about a genuine American hero, a truly exceptional man who accomplished a virtually impossible task. If you enjoy history, particularly military history, you’ll love this book.