Brian Dirck's new book on the U.S. and C.S. presidents establishes a surprising amount of continuity in American political thinking between the ratification contest of the late 1780s and the sectional conflict of the 1850s and 1860s. In doing so, it goes a long way to tie together the American Revolution and the Civil War.

In 1787, advocates of ratification of the federal constitution argued that without it, they Union would dissolve. Their vision of American Union was, as Dirck puts it (I paraphrase here), one of impersonal association, a community of strangers. Their opponents, the Antifederalists/Republicans, doubted that the Federalists' apocalyptic rhetoric accurately described reality, because the Antifederalists could not imagine that mere breakdown of the Articles of Confederation would destroy the America they knew in their hearts. They were at times downright blase' about the problems the Federalists perceived in the 1780s because of their sanguine faith in American nationality.

As Dirck shows, Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis had essentially the same understandings of America: Lincoln, the Federalist, and Davis, the Antifederalist. It makes for a very engaging argument, and one that will be of great use for undergraduate teaching.

The only shortcomings of the book come at the very end, where Dirck says that Davis laid the ground for the idea that blacks were depraved and inferior by depicting the Yankees (that is, northern whites) that way. (p. 239) I for one find it unconvincing that anti-black sentiment had its origins in anti-white propaganda. Secondly, he says that Davis' statement that the United States had set upon a policy in which "no quarter is to be given and no sex to be spared" had an innovative "sexual" undertone. (pp. 238-39) Yet, Davis' claim certainly was not innovative, but was a paraphrase of a claim Thomas Jefferson had made about the British king in the Declaration of Independence (Jefferson claimed that George had sicced the Indians, whose rule of war knew no discrimination of age or sex, upon the Americans). These are minor objections, however, and the book certainly repays a careful perusal.

Okay, maybe it didn't change my life, but it sure brought a warm feeling into my home at Christmastime. A quick, entertaining book, great for adults and children, A Little Christmas Story is well worth the read.

A heavy drinker and trouble-maker while at West Point, Jefferson Davis went on to be a war hero, a U.S. Senator, a Secretary of War and finally first and only President of the Confederate States of America. Thin skinned, proud and convinced his position was the only correct one, he was unsuited to be in a political administrative position.

Davis' unsuitability did not prevent the founding CSA Congress from electing him to the Presidency. That was the only high point of his term in office. He fought with his generals (thinking he was better qualified than they), failed to get along with his Vice President and earned the hatred of many Southern papers. Then the war was lost. The South did not earn independence.

This was when the Davis weaknesses became his strengths. Convinced he was still right in his firm belief in Southern independence, he kept the fight and government alive long after most men would have given up. His retreat from Richmond was met by cheering and appreciative crowds of people who only months before would have jeered him. In defeat he was fearless, still dedicated and still passonate about the fight.

With out going into the long and troubled life of Mr. Davis, Ballard looks at the final days of the Confederacy in minute detail. He does not attempt to cover-up the Davis failures or chararter flaws. Instead, he shows how the stuborn leader turned those flaws to his advantage as he endured the retreat, capture and imprisonment. While in popular opinion today, General Lee is viewed as the Confederate war leader, President Davis becomes the leader of the aftermath. He never gave up on the Lost Cause, becoming the South's spiritual leader for nearly 20 years after the war's end.

Ballard's style takes us through those days smoothly, showing the transformation of Mr. Davis from revieled President to peace time leader of a nation that would exist only in the hearts of its inhabitants.

Unlike current historical works, Ballard does not write as if he is being paid by the word. Each word has a purpose. Details are not told and then retold several times. He tells the story, pure and simple, and tells it well. This is a most book for any student of the Civil War, the South, Jefferson Davis, or the Reconstruction period.

This is a must have for all welders and apprentices. It is one of the most informative books about welding, boring as all get out, but still very good

This book is really a series of lectures given in 1912. However, Jefferson's insigts are as fresh as today's newspapers. Other than a few illustrations, the book could have been written this year. Jefferson does an excellent job of calling all pastors to their Biblical role of caring for the sheep. This is a must read for every pastor who is serious about his calling.

Upon completion of this book, the reader will have a complete history of the growth of today's hotel industry from the days of tourist camps, through motor courts, motels, and now motor inns. It is well researched, very quick reading, and gives an excellent history of this major form of commerce during the earlier part of the 20th century. The only thing missing might be a pictoral diagram showing the evolution of early chains into today's major lodging chains. I would also suggest a little more detail on the circumstances of some of the chain's that went out of business. Either way, a great piece for anyone interested in travel history and highway evolution.

Albert J. Nock has long been known by those familiar with his work as a shrewd commentator who is always eager to "tell it as it is." When his premises are correct, this can be refreshing, to say the least. However, when he misses the mark, the results can be embarassing. This work, much like his infamous "Our Enemy the State," is a great testament to this.

However, to begin with, there is much of great worth and interest in this volume. Nock, as one scholar has observed, was a supremely literate man, and his great learning and intelligence is clearly evident throughout this work. Unlike many other authors, Nock reflects a deep, thorough knowledge of Jefferson's life and writings. Furthermore, few modern authors can equal Nock's beautiful prose style. Thus, when one reads of Jefferson's opinion on architechure, art, philosophy, or agriculture, we have some of the most delightful passages in all of the Jefferson literature.

Unfortunately, a large portion of the work is consumed by Nock's grossly inaccurate analysis of the political environment of the early republic. Economic determinism in the tradition of Charles A. Beard and Henry George is the gist of what you find, and all of their fallacies and flaws are given full exercise. Indeed, as one Jefferson scholar has remarked, this work reveals a "uncritical" use of the Beard thesis. Thus, Jefferson is portrayed, not as an advocate of natural rights or anything of the sort, but as the supporter of the interests of the producing class against those of the exploiting class. As one would expect, the Constitution is portrayed simply as a tool for economic exploitation, and much ink is spilled documenting the evils of Hamilton, the Federalists, as well as "speculators." While all of this is not without a semblance of truth, his simplistic and often misleading exegesis is very dissapointing.

Nevertheless, as I have said, the work still has great value, largely as a brilliant account of Jefferson's interests and character. Nock is fundamentally correct when he focuses on the fact that Jefferson's real views are very far from those of his comtemporaries, and even farther from those who claim his name for support in later days. Ultimately, I would only recommend this work to individuals who have already done a good deal of study in Jefferson's life and ideas, for only these individuals will be able to see the true worth of this study despite its many flaws.

I had been thoroughly enjoying this book -- amazingly written as though it were the journal of Martha Jefferson. With all of its rich detail and character, I could almost believe I was hearing the voice of Martha herself. About halfway through, I had taken the book on a car trip when an accident occurred. I am fine, but the book was demolished. I would dearly love to finish the story, but the book is out of print. If you have a copy that you wish to sell, please contact me at JudyGHartzog@juno.com. Thanks!

Jefferson Scott's cyberthrillers were forerunners in the Christian market, ahead of their time and underappreciated. (I highly recommend "Virtually Eliminated," if you've never read it.) Here, in the Operation: Firebrand series, Scott breaks fresh ground again, exploring military options from a Christian perspective. This time, his team is headed for Sudan to rescue enslaved southern Sudanese from cruel taskmasters.

The Firebrand team, a conglomerate of men and women from different backgrounds and with different skills, goes to world hotspots to rescue those in need. Financed by a wealthy Christian woman, the team is never without work--thankfully for us readers. While the first book was a bit ponderous in setting up the ideas for the series, this second gets going quickly. Scott writes gritty battle scenes--particularly in a heartwrenching prologue--but never for gratituous thrills. He has something to say about the needs of the world around us and the means in which we meet those needs. Operation: Firebrand is a great concept.

On the positive side, Scott creates some laugh-out-loud moments to lighten the mood at appropriate intervals. Despite a large cast of characters, he keeps us sympathetic toward the team as a whole. The story is clear, the messages straightforward, and the plot fast-paced. On the downside, he throws out similes like bits of New Year's Day confetti (a wry grin), sometimes overdoing it. Adverbs crop up needlessly, and endless references/inside jokes to popular movies are cute but annoying after a while.

If you enjoy adrenaline-packed stories, quirky and humorous characters, and morals to ponder as you turn the last page, then grab the first two books in this series and get ready for the third.

According to Scott's website, the Firebrand team is headed for North Korea next. That should be a timely and interesting read!

As a lover of American law and a 'court-watcher', this title hooked me in immediately. Trying to find the balance between maximum democracy and learned aristocracy has always been a struggle so the main thesis should come as no suprise. Our constitution has rough edges. What is suprising is Hook's diagnosis.

The first thing Hook does is to lambaste those who believe in absolute rights. The first and fifth amendment have clashed. The first amendment can even clash against itself and when these happen, one right must yield to the other. The bill of rights offers us no roadmap in how to decide this so Mr. Hook reaches for the first available solution- that of utilitarianism. I've always been skeptical of 'The greatest good for the greatest number. All others get screwed.' but sometimes it is unavoidable. Hook still seems too eager to use this 'quick-fix' to resolve the issue.

Next, he goes on to textualism in the constitution. Like it or not, there is no text that conveys with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY what it's author meant. Our constitution comes close. 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,' seems pretty clear on the surface but what constitutes a religion, is it a pre-existing establishment congress may not respect or simply their own establishment, and does this imply that congress may offer 'respect' to many religions thereby avoiding the problem by not showing preference to only one? Whew! Difficult stuff. At some point (godels proof), we have to rely on someone's interpretation. Who better than the supreme court? Here, the only skepticism I have is Hook's use of the 'Bork Method' of trying to figure out what the founders- He uses Jefferson and Madison- meant by quoting their personal letters. I know that Hook realizes there was more than two people's intentions, but you'd never think it.
The point of disagreement I have with Mr. Hook is on judicial review. He's right, it's not authorized by the constitution, merely implied. But there are two extremes. One is congress as the final arbiter of which laws are constitutional an which aren't, or the courts could do it. Mr. Hook seems to trust the congress more than the courts. He does not recognize that the danger in democracy is that the people are generally short-sighted and are not likely to read the constitution closely (how many of your friends can name the first ten amendments?). The congress, being, through elections, directly accountable to the people, may not do what is in the best interest of the constitution if it will not help them get re-elected. With the supreme court there is not this difficulty, but another. They are not at all accountable to the people having been appointed for life. The only check on them is that they can only rule on cases brought to them (they must adhere to jurisdiction) but I'd rather the justices (who'se job it is to read the constitution) be safeguarding congress than congress do it themselves. We can either trust Scalia and Ginsburg or Helmes and Daschale. The choice is obvious. The tentative compromise- You'll have to read the book to find out- Hook offers is brilliant so in a round-about way, I agree with him again.

For such an exacting subject, the author must be excused for a little pedantry. This is difficult stuff, but the book is short and if you're into American law and judiciary, you'll not be able to put this one down!!