Lucky to have found this one in a "salvage store" that was copyright was 1953. Contains so much information amd simplified that its hard to put down. Enjoyed Mr.Weaver's prospective and I am curious to know more about the author...

At a time when fundamental economic understanding appears lacking, this book (though simplified) makes basic economic principles easy to understand. It is written in a simple format easily understood by all age groups, young folks (junior high school) as well as adults.
I have introduced all of my children to this book and they all agree that it enabled them to have a much better grasp on the realities of economics. If you find Econ 101 boring, read this book. It will provide ample incentive to "dig into" the subject. A "must read."

This book can create a general framwork around human history like not too many books that I have read. Expressed in clear language and organized in short, thought provoking sections.

If you are looking for a novel about the American Revolution or 18th century America - go elsewhere. You get no sense of the times. What you get is a sappy romance between too-good-to-be-true characters and - oh yeah - uh, there's some kind of war going on about something.

This book is NOT a historical novel. It is a romance novel with religious overtones (not that there's anything wrong with romance and religion). But everything is so superficial, why would anybody care about this shallow story or these cardboard charaters?

The Liberty Bell Series are the best books I have ever read! They go into so much detail, and you feel like you know the characters.

I loved the story, actually I am caught up in the lives of all the characters in the series. I pray that there is more coming. After all Clive and Katherine, Micah and Sarah's lives are not settled yet. One thing that I have found throughout reading this series and the other ones (House of Winslow, Dr. Cheney Duvual) is that the Lord uses these books to speak to me about different things in my own life. Please don't leave this series unfinished!!!

This book is absolutely junk. The author still cannot give a reasonable explanation as to why Israel would attack an ally on purpose. There is so much sworn testimony out there that isn't even mentioned in this book. It does not present an unbiased, objective version of the events. It is only one man's propaganda against a nation he hates.

Look at what the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) says about this accidental attack. There have also been too many investigations for any of MR. Ennes' lies to stand up. For example, here are the investigations that found no wrong doing:
C.I.A. report June 13, 1967 no malice; attack a mistake
U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry June 18, 1967 mistaken identity
Report by Clark Clifford July 18, 1967 no evidence ship was known to be American
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 1979/1981 no merit to claims attack was intentional
National Security Agency 1981 Mistaken identity
House Armed Services Cmtee 1991/1992 No support for claims attack was intentional

Friendly fire accidents happen all the time in war. They happened in WW2, in Vietnam, in Desert Storm (most allied deaths were from accidents in this war). Even the other day the US shot down a British Tornado warplane. Was it on purpose? Of course not.

Some people want t hold Israel to a higher standard than other nations, but in the end it just weakens their arguments as it did with this book.

I was in the US Navy and stationed on board the USS Arcturus during the late sixties. A member of the crew from the decommissioned USS Liberty was transferred to this ship. One night, after a few too many drinks, he told me a wild and, at that time, unbelievable story about what had really happened when the Israelis attacked the USS Liberty while it was steaming in international waters during broad daylight while flying a very large US Flag. I had read the official account in TIME Magazine and thought that he was a liar. Reading this book made me realize that TIME Magazine and the US Government were the liars! If I knew the where abouts of my old shipmate, I would call him on the telephone and ask his forgiveness for thinking that he was the liar. Maybe TIME Magazine was duped into lying to the public, but they printed lies and I believed them at the time.

After more than thirty years of following political intrigues, and the lies that shroud the machinations of politicians, it is my opinion that the Isrealis planned the attack on the USS Liberty with the intention of sinking it, with all hands on board being lost. Since it was off the coast of Eygpt, and we were not on friendly terms with that country at that time, the sinking could be blamed on the Egyptians. With there being no survivors to disput the story, the American public would be outraged against the Arabs. Then, Israel, being our good ally, would help the United States seek revenge against Egypt and it's Arabic allies. That way, they would not have to be the only aggressors in the Six Day War, which they were after the sinking of the Liberty did not actually take place as planned.

Since reading the book, I have aquired the video tape of the twenty year reunion of the USS Liberty survivors. The many interviews, especially the one by the ex Chief of Naval Operations, only confirm the legitimacy of this well documented book.

As an added concern, the only country to benefit from the 9/11 World Trade Center attack was Israel. After the Muslims crashed the airplanes into the towers, Americans no longer cared about the slaughter of Palestinian people by Israel. I sometimes wonder if the Israeli Mossad was involved in the planning of the WTC attack. Reading this book only adds to my concern.

From the pen of Jim Ennes, annotated with critical sources, this important book adds to the understanding of political/military process. What the men of the Liberty endured during this attack becomes real to the reader - the indifference of two governments is horrifying. We are led to understand that the norm of war is to minimize the individual and for governments to accept no responsibility for independent acts. What happened to the Liberty will not make you proud of government or war.

Interestingly the latest declassfications (especially NSA intercepts) show that the US knew in short order that Israeli forces did in fact believe the ship was hostile. It is a shame that the myth of an intentional attack has become more of a story than the heroic efforts of the crew.

Friendly fire incidents are terrible. We shot down an Iranian airliner, killed Canadian troops who were where they were supposed to be in Afghanistan, etc. But to manufacture motives, especially contrary to the facts, is not really helpful.

I found this book to be an excellent account of the attack on the USS Liberty by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats. I was on active duty in the U.S. Navy at the time of this attack as an officer assigned to a destroyer. The censorship and secrecy surrounding this attack only stimulated more interest in learning the truth about this cowardly attack on a defenseless ship. While we may never learn the real reasons why the Israeli's attacked an ally and financial supporter, I believe many of the reasons frequently cited by survivors make much more sense than the illogical 'mistaken identity' excuse offered by the State of Israel. This book takes the reader step by step through the attack, citing the many heroic acts of this brave crew. Excellent reading; I highly recommend this book to anyone seeing to learn the truth of this dastardly attack.

The subject of the USS Liberty and its attack by an susposed ally and client state of this country has interested and enraged me for some time.

This book has gotten to the very core of how and why it happened and who was responsible.

This book left out the emotion of accounts by survivors that I have read and dealt only with accurate facts that have been painstakenly researched. My congradulations and thanks to the author.

The book has 178 pages.

Before reading this work, I looked upon it as very promising. Read, in contrast the vast majority of other historians of the era, proposes to analyze and contrast the political philosophies of four major early Americans by examining their views on the relationship between power and liberty. Thus, the author is also in effect transcending the trite republicanism/liberalism dichotomy that has domincated scholarship for decades by returning to the methodology used by the great Bernard Bailyn. Unfortunately, the author ultimately fails to execute.

Madison is the first thinker that he discusses, and along with the chapter on Wilson, this is the highlight of the book. He effectively argues that Madison was a much more consistent thinker than past scholars have made him out to be. While Madison's transformation from an ally to Hamilton during the Constitutional Convention to a strong opponent several years later has long puzzled historians, Read demonstrates the consistenty that he maintained in both positions as related through his interpretation of the Constitution and the public's understanding and perception of it. In addition to this, he also undertakes the strangely neglected task of comparing Madison with Hamilton. This however, leads the first major downfall of the study, viz. his unsound analysis of Hamilton.

To begin with, even the subtitle of this chapter is enough to arouse one's suspicions. Hamilton is characterized as a "Libertarian and nationalist." The later appelation is certainly undisputable, but the former is clearly absurd to anyone who has any idea what libertarianism actually entails. Throughout the chaper, Hamilton's supposed commitment to liberty and other traditional Whig or republican principles is given far too much emphasis with far too little substantive evidence. Along with this, Hamilton's views on Constitional and economic policy are given a shallow, sympathetic treatment, while other aspects of his life and thought are either ignored or merely glossed over. This of course, largely serves to vitiate the very promising contrast of Hamilton with Madison that he conducts.

Nevertheless, the chapter on James Wilson is quite valuable, especially since he, unlike the other 3 figures dealt with, has been prodominantly ignored by modern scholars. He shows that while Wilson was as committed to the concept of popular sovreignty as Thomas Jefferson, he believed that the proper manner to systemize this was primarily through the Federal government. Hence, Wilson, like Hamilton, was a proponent of "energetic government," because he viewed it as the proper systemization of the "energy" of the sovereign people.

Although the chaper on Hamilton was bad, that dealing with Jefferson is worse. Read, quite correctly, recognizes throughout the work that Jefferson, (unlike Madison, Hamilton, and Wilson) viewed power and liberty as polar opposites, with every increase of power entailing a proportionate decrease in liberty. T Surprisingly , however, his actual analysis of his thought is among the worst that I have ever read. He seems to make a concerted effort to make his political philosophy as nebulous and contradictory as possible. Moreover, while he cites David N. Mayer's invaluable work on Jefferson's Constitutional thought, and even states that fellow scholar Michael Zuckert helped him with the work; he utilizes the flawed and inaccurate work of Lance Banning and Richard Matthews. As a result of this, he takes up the absurd contention that Jefferson was an agrarian who opposed capitalism, and thus Hamilton and his radical vision for a new economic order.

This view, in addition to being completely unfounded, also highlights the paucity of Read's sources. Such important works as Joyce Appleby's "Capitalism & A New Social Order" and Garret Sheldon's "The Political Philosophy of Thomas Jefferson" are completely ignored.

While the analysis of Jefferson's thought is dramatically poor, perhaps the worst aspect of the work is the author's translation of views of each thinker to the politcal landscape of the late 20th century. For the first three thinkers, he manages to claim that their theories may actually be able to fit modern day circumstances. Jefferson, however, is excluded from this, given his radical views on power. In each case, he uses the common statist platitude that convictions formulated two centuries ago cannot apply to issues out of their temporal context. In the case of all of these men, even Hamilton, this argument is patently absurd, as their adherence to the principals of natural rights and liberty certainly make clear. As Jefferson once said, Nothing...is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man." Consideration of this, among other Founding principles, has led even as staunch a Hamiltonian as Forrest McDonald to conclude the Founding Fathers would look upon the current government as tyrannical. As should be obvious, I view this work as very deeply flawed. Nevertheless, given the proper author utilizing the same methodology, this could have been a truly fascinating and valuable piece of scholarship.

Recent scholarship has revealed a much more consistent 'Madison' than some historians have granted 'The Father of the Constitution'.Scholars Rosen, Banning, and Rakove have lead the way in this regard. Reads contribution although brief is as Rakove pointed out a deft work.By highlighting the concerns Madison held about the excresent powers of the Continental Congress, amidst the environment where the Congress was frustrated from performing the assigned tasks, revitalizes and reinforces the devotion Madison held for Constituional integrity reconciling the thoughts and actions of Madison in the 1780s, to the 1790s. It is only wished this essay could be expanded, and that the author could apply a more expanded study on Madison's contributions.

Dr. James Read was a recent guest on National Public Radio. His scholarship is evident, but what he has written here is a very "user-friendly" exploration of the early American debate on the role of government, which is as pertinent today as it was in 1776.
Dr. James Read has given us a highly readable, as well as well researched, look at a question which all Americans ponder: "Is big government antagonistic to individual rights and liberties?" The discussion is framed in the context of those early American thinkers who initially set up the American system of government with an especial emphasis on Jefferson and Hamilton.
This is a very readable book that is written in straightforward prose. It presents a nice, concise history of America's early philosophical public policy issues, its greatest thinkers, and the debate in the 18th century about what form the American government would take. It is fascinating to read about the debates taking place in the hammering out of the United States' Constitution.
The book is organized into:
Power and Liberty (James Madison);
Libertarianism and nationalism (Alexander Hamilton);
Popular Sovereighty (James Wilson);
Liberty and States Rights (Thomas Jefferson).

This book is, above all, a collection of conspectuses about various classical authors' views on the factors(most related to the development of a distinctly Western mindframe) that triggered the commercial and technological dominance of the West from the XVIIIth Century on. By doing so, the author misses the opportunity to investigate more closely the actual political and economic factors at work ("Imperialism", for instance, and not only in the Leninist sense). Also, his remarks on the authrors selected are sadly banal and add nothing new. To be used at most as an undergraduate textbook. Too bad that Macfarlane didn't write nothing that could compare to his works on English individualism and and the role of marriage in pre-modern England.

If you wish to have a good summary of certain aspects (i.e., the interactions and relations between liberty, wealth and equality) of three great thinkers (Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Tocqueville; Ernst Gellner is also treated but not to much in depth, really), this book is interesting. But not at all enough to cope with its ambitious aims: i) to explain the obstacles which had halted the growth of all great agrarian civilizations up to the18th century ; and ii) to try and explain what has happened since the 18th century. By the end of the book, the author recognizes that "there is still a large gap in the explanation of how the transition to the modern world has occurred" and that there is still pending an explanation of the technological and scientific growth in western Europe between the 12th-19th centuries and why, during the same period, it slowed down, ceased and even partially regressed in other civilizations which had previously been far more advanced than Europe. As of today, nobody has a definitive answer to this, but I would suggest to read the following books: "The Rise of the West" by William H. McNeill, "World History. A new perspective" by Clive Ponting, "Reorient" by Andre Gunder Frank, "The Great Divergence", by Kenneth Pomeranz, "The Dynamics of Global Dominance. European Overseas Empires 1415-1980", by David Abernethy and "The Cash Nexus" by Niall Ferguson.

Fantastic book! MacFarlane examines the riddle of why mankind has done so well over the last 300 years, and what prevented these advancements from occuring earlier in our history. He uses the work of four "philosophers"; Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Ernest Geller to throw light on the role that liberty, wealth, and democracy have played. The book is broken down into four sections. Each section starts with the life and times of the philosopher in question. Then their ideas and discoveries about the world around them are examined in detail. Each one contributes to the "solution" to the "riddle". I have been reading a lot of Hayek lately, and many of the ideas he refers to in passing in his work are laid out much more throughly here. If you enjoy history, and are particularly interested in the development of liberty and understanding how individual liberty leads to wealth and better conditions for all, you should buy this book. Also, if you are interested in anyone of the four philosophers mentioned above, you'll be treated to a clear overview of their life and work in the context of the book's subject. It's expensive, but worth it. Buy it before it goes out of print again!

The Japanese, like the Germans, Soviets, and British, had an atomic bomb program. The appendix notes that the Germans transferred V2 rockets via submarine to the Japanese (a long steam around South Africa), with a view to "revenge" against the US. The Japanese would have used the V2s to deliver atomic bombs against the US fleet. Luckily that particular field-leveler never materialized, as the Japanese bomb project was at least two years behind that of the US. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, interest in nuclear technology (which the Japanese government had developed in secret) was at best muted. In recent years the possibility of cheap electricity using small reactor designs has emerged.

This book is otherwise about the attempted transfer (in 1944) from the US of silver and other "hard assets" to the Soviet Union, under Lend-Lease. I have to wonder why such materials were of interest to Stalin, particularly in 1944 when the German army and Waffen SS was in retreat. Also available in hardcover (0312205902).

I agree with the review of Kirkus Reviews. The author tries hard to make the search for the John Barry exciting but the ending is anti-climactic, to say the least. The book is very self-serving for the searchers and adds little to solving the mystery of the SS John Barry. Nice glimpse of WW II naval history though.

I found the book to be very interesting. My father survived the sinking of the USS John Barry. He thought that they were transporting gold. He also predicted some day there would be an attempt to recover the cargo. The details of the voyage, sinking, and actions of the crew, are in accordance with his report. He would have enjoyed this book.

I read with great interest Mr Hart's contention that the founding fathers philosophy was essentially drawn from the Bible. Through select uses of quotations Mr. Hart leads the reader to believe that the American Revolution, Declaration of Independence, etc. are essentially a product of a Christian world view. His use of quotes to support his suppositions are not based in the context in which they were written. For example, he quotes from Thomas Jefferson extensively to support his position that the founding fathers used the bible to form their ideas of liberty and freedom for the individual. I am assuming that Mr. Hart is an Evangelical Christian who believes that the Bible should be the only source to inform the morals and laws for society. He ignores the fact that Thomas Jefferson was a deist, which is the very opposite of what he believes. He uses the term from Jefferson of "God's Nature." Mr Hart you need to know that Jefferson did not believe in the deity of Jesus Christ or the Bible as the Word of God. He draws parallels between the Old Testament and a supposed relationship to the Declaration of Independence. He fails to give hard evidence of this connection. This book is at best a diatribe against what Mr. Hart sees as the destruction of America's "Christian Roots." Check your sources Mr. Hart and admit that America's "Christian Roots" is at best laced with historical fabrications and misleading assertions.

The logic this book uses is bad. For example, Hart states that everyone, not just members of one religion, should have a say in how government works. In a different chapter he says that it's O.K. for a majority to make the entire decision (as long as it's a Christian majority, of course). As a secular humanist who believes that religion should be tolerated but not encouraged, I recommend this book as a way to gain understanding of why fundamentalists often suffer from brain atrophy. The reason why I gave it two stars instead of one is that despite its lack of logic, it is well written, and the history itself is very interesting, particularly the section on the Quakers.

Faith and Freedom is an excellent history of the ideological roots of American Government. Mr. Hart has done a masterful job of identifying the sources of those ideas that influenced the Founding Fathers and the charters which they wrote. This book defuses the revisionist's arguements that posit that America is a child of the Enlightenment in the same vein as France. Mr. Hart shows that America, unlike France, adopted the Protestant Christian principle that freedoms came from God and not government. Government within this structure was charged with the protection of those God given freedoms. France on the other hand virtually excluded God from discourses that proceeded their revolution, and by doing so, put government in the position to give and take freedoms as it saw fit. Our war for Independence was successful while France's was a bloodbath that failed by all measures. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in an accurate, concise history of this very important episode of the American story.

I was especially taken by Patterson's book on the sociology of Slavery. However, in this book he appears to contradict himself. Maybe. In his 1982 book Patterson tendered that Greek polis and Roman slavery ought not to be confused with modern, capitalistic notions of freedom. If freedom was yearned for by slaves and freedom indeed was a virtue aspired to particulary by women and slaves, then, what of the paranome and operae obligations, reciprocal obligatons that was part and parcel of first century Mediterranean societies. Indeed Peter Garnsey and Richard Saller have admitted that even while the Romans may have given their slaves citizenship along with their freedom, this act was always undergirded in the interests of the owner. The slave had to work out his obligations. Why does not Patterson talk about these obligations, a social-anthropological reality? Or, is Berlin right in stating that freedom as we know it is a modern phenomena, something that Patterson himself observed in 1982, Slavery and Social Death?

Who would have thought that a Marxist sociologist at Harvard could write a profoundly moving account of the history of freedom? Patterson delivers a highly readable account of the "three chords of freedom" as they evolved in the ancient world, were crushed during the Roman empire, and were reborn and spread worldwide by history's first freedom-centered religion, Christianity. The book has just two small flaws: the author's frequent references to rusty Marxist notions of class struggle, and the sketchy and incomplete character of the final chapters and conclusion. Still, it is a marvelous read. I for once can hardly wait for volume 2, expected in 1999.

This book literally changed my life. I stumbled on it at a [local bookstore] (sorry Amazon). Through this Marxist scholar I learned pride in the accomplishments of my culture i. e. Western Civilization.

While his Marxist training sometimes peeks through, in asides, it never interferes in his central theme which ultimately destroys the foundations of Marxist thought and propaganda.

His skill is in weaving facts about the West, we all know but have displaced because of left wing historical revision, into a compelling and coherent pagent about the "invention" of freedom.

This Marxist turned me into a proud conservative.

Written from the remove of an all-white suburb of Winthrop, Massachusetts, the book: 'LIBERTY'S CHOSEN HOME: The Politics of Violence in Boston' (c. 1977) by journalist Alan Lupo, is less of a scholarly inquiry into the violent aspects of Boston's history and more of an anti-South Boston political polemic.

The author exhibited a Marxist monomania throughout his work demonstrated by this statement on page 154, that: "Forces born more than a century before had clashed repeatedly, and now they were giving shape and substance to the ultimate battles of class warfare" as the left-wing determinist explanation for the vehement protest against court ordered forced busing in 1974 by concerned Boston neighborhood families.

By suggesting that the vehement protests against forced busing in 1974 by assimilated Irish Americans (and many others) in South Boston were a direct extension of the violent strikes by Irish Immigrants in the 1854 North End (Boston), the author had committed both an historical and logical error by suggesting that cities and people demonstrate "Timeless Qualities". In this, Alan Lupo 'Begs the Question' - he assumed the accuracy in his own statements without proof.

The lack of proof, 'ipse dixit', is the hallmark of this pretentious phillipic as non-sequiturs follow non-sequiturs to support unsubstantiated allegations. Among Alan Lupo's numerous dogmatic claims that are supposed to be consumed on their own 'a priori' is that: "The black street violence of today is as viscious as was the Irish brand a century ago." (p. 16) But how did the author know that? - He made no attempt to document his source.

The contribution to Boston's 'Mytho-history' by Alan Lupo can be found on page thirty, as the author related the excited outburst of an anti-forced busing protester in 1974 to then Mayor Kevin White that: "No matter how poor we were, Kevin, we always had clean lace curtains on our windows." And through sheer hyperbole, this exclamation from a non-Irish woman found its way into another polemic as the long established Boston tradition of the 'Lace Curtain Irish'. ('LIBERTY'S CHOSEN HOME (c. 1977) should be read in tandem with the screed 'COMMON GROUND' (c. 1984) for adroit readers to recognize their clone-like similarities.)

The author, Alan Lupo, really does not have any insights into South Boston that are not truisms ("The strengthening of voluntary busing programs made more sense than forced busing." p. 111); pointless facts ("Southie is a peninsula." p. 5); 'ad hominem' attacks ("It [South Boston] is, in fact, a white ghetto." p. 5); or well-poisoning ("A couple of alleged syndicate figures were in the room ... Nobody realized that day how important that segment of Boston society would become in the busing crisis." p. 171); and coupled with his constant use of vague generalizations ("Time made Patriots of wharf rats and brawlers." p. 10); plus three chapters of digressions, to promulgate a tenebrous theory of historical determinism.

All the author had to do was check with the Boston City Record to find out that in the summer of 1974 there were 240 Afro-American families living in South Boston; including a small colony of MicMac Indians from the Canadian Maritimes; not to mention that the Irish-American in South Boston were a vocal minority out numbered by Lithuanians, Polish, Italians, Estonians, Latvians, Albanians, Greeks, and Czeckoslavakians, to accurately show that South Boston was not 'all white'. Also, that the most segregated and insulated of all Boston neighborhoods was Chinatown, not Charlestown! Mysteriously the Chinese-American was fortuitously spared both the color coding process as well as the collectivization process inflicted upon their caucasian neighbors!

The writing of History, as "the critical examination of source material into a synthesis of an explanation that will stand the test of critical methodology", is absent in LIBERTY"S CHOSEN HOME, as the author manipulated his information, from the safety of his suburb of Winthrop, Massachusetts, to comply with his historically determinant system.

No responsible researcher would use LIBERTY"S CHOSEN HOME as source material for an intelligent analysis of forced busing in Boston because of its constant comparison of two disassociate historical events throughout the book. This author had espoused such a tendentiously written tract of Marxist dialectic it is not surprising that LIBERTY'S CHOSEN HOME is out of print. Yet Alan Lupo's book still contains some merit as an example of 1970s leftist propaganda before the 1990 self-destruction of communism and the world recognition of Marxism as a psuedo-scientific cult.

For the most accurate examination of South Boston residents, please read: 'THAT OLD GANG OF MINE: A History of South Boston' (c. 1991) by Frank J. Loftus Jr., for the truest look at a tightly knitted community.

Lupo, a seasoned reporter for the Boston Globe, delivers us a bookbook on busing with a forthright no nonsence appeal. WhileLupo does have a slant towards the left, he offers an excellent historical, social and economic discussion of what actually took place in Boston during the seventies a must for academics concerned with desegragation and readers looking for fresh insight on an ever present issue

"Liberty's Chosen Home" is a thorough and well-balanced treatment of the politics of violence in Boston. Using the busing crisis of the 1970's as his central theme, Lupo elucidates some of the various ethnic conflicts which have plagued Boston since its founding. Lupo's status as a prominent journalist and a political insider allows him to provide the reader with a unique, firsthand view of the events he details. In addition, his familiarity with the vagaries of Boston politics enables him to draw remarkable character sketches of the players in these same events. For example, his analyses of Mayor Kevin White's upbringing and administration are penetrating. In fact, these discussions of White are more insightful than those in the far more celebrated, "Common Ground" by Anthony J. Lukas. While this latter book has garnered a great deal of attention for its wide scope, Lupo's book is no less an achievement. Highly Recommended.