Although very detailed, this book is geared more toward those taking frequent or extended trips on the canals of France. It's also aimed at boat owners (primarily those coming from Great Britain)as opposed to vacation boat renters. The detail is more on the navigation end of things. I guess I was looking for something geared more for the casual tourist who rents a boat for a week or so and needs details on towns, shops and services along the canals.

Now in its tenth edition which is revised by David Jefferson, Through The French Canals by Philip Bristow deftly describes and accessibly illustrates 39 scenic routes through waterways ranging from the English Channel to the Mediterranean. Weather information, Hatles and ports de plaisance, waterway signals, recommend-ations for suitable boats, information on locks, the cost of living, cruiser hire, even French vocabularies and conversion tables, fill the pages of this informative and thoroughly "user friendly" guide for vacationers and boaters looking to enjoy a grand ride along the inland waterways of France.

I read about halfway through this book, and then I gave up. I read James' "Turn of the Screw," and "Daisy Miller" in high school, and I remember liking the former and thinking the latter was just okay. (I know, I know, it's a major classic by one of America's most celebrated writers, but just because something has merit doesn't mean I like it better.) One of my all time favorite books was James' "Washington Square." It's hard for me to believe that the same man wrote "Square" and "Maisie." This book is only for MAJOR Henry James enthusiasts.

I don't regret having read this book, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who isn't already into Henry James. The style is hard to understand, apparently because it was dictated, and the subject matter is even more obscure. I don't think Henry James had much experience with children: even assuming that Maisie is twisted by her strange situation, she doesn't talk like any child I know or can imagine. Weird moral undercurrents and jealousy take up most, if not all, of the novel. I wouldn't take claims of this book's modernity too seriously - it's more on the byzantine side. Read The Europeans instead: so much more fun!

I think this is the most modern of Henry James' stories. Young Maisie's parents divorce and then seem to spend their lives using her to get a teach other, until they develop other interests. Sadly, the story resonates today - immature, self-centered parents and the children that they create. Henry James' insight into the life of such a child is brilliant.

Aaron Burr has long been dismissed as one of the bad boys of American history. The Revolutionary War hero and onetime VP under Jefferson shot his political future in the foot when he killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel in 1804, and was later tried for treason for conspiring to invade Mexico.

Here Roger Kennedy retrieves Burr from the slag heap of history and rehabilitates him as perhaps the most progressive of the founding fathers: a fervent abolitionist, early feminist and friend to the Indians long before such ideals were considered kosher. To Hamilton and Jefferson, Kennedy is not so kind. Hamilton cuts an almost pathetic figure as a frustrated politician who projects his own failures onto Burr and determines to ruin him even at the cost of his own life. Meanwhile, Kennedy's Jefferson is craven, duplicitous and vindictive.

But Burr's image has suffered because he could never match Hamilton's skills as spin doctor, nor could he compete with the voluminous paper trail left behind by Jefferson. Whereas the sage of Monticello meticulously copied every scrap he wrote, most of Burr's papers were lost at sea, along with his last surviving daughter and would-be biographer, Theodosia.

Despite this imbalance in the documentary evidence, Kennedy presents a compelling case that Burr was not a traitor, as Jefferson charged in 1806. (Burr was later acquitted of treason by four separate juries, an indication of Jefferson's stubbornness as much as Burr's probable innocence.) Instead, Kennedy shows that Burr exhibited every sign of loyalty to the young republic, whose borders he probably hoped to expand by force--much as Jefferson would do by checkbook with the Louisiana Purchase.

This is an enormously satisfying book, one that goes farther to rescue Aaron Burr from an undeserved historical contempt than any book since Gore Vida1's elegant fiction BURR. It is still a reflex to dismiss Thomas Jefferson's first Vice-President as a sly scheming traitor who murdered the well-beloved Hamilton in a one-sided duel where Hamilton deliberately and romantically threw away his shot.. It is all thoughtless and unscrutinized balderdash, and Kennedy has a wonderful time proving it. There are surprising and provocative ideas on every page, and fascinating portraits of the brilliant neurotic Hamilton, and the almost perfect hypocrisy and subtle genius of Thomas Jefferson. Most of all, however, is the picture Kennedy draws of the witty, graceful gentleman who was Aaron Burr. Kennedy call him America's first professional politician, but he was far more than that(and if he was that, what was Jefferson?) To say that he was an abolitionist and a feminist does not really do him justice; he practiced what he preached, as Kennedy amply describes, fifty, even a hundred, even two hundred years ahead of his time. His generosity was outsized, his intellect keen, without cant or self-delusion. A scion of one of the colonies first and oldest familes, he was an honest to God Revolutionary War hero not once but many times, (unlike The Sage of Monticello, to say the least). Like Jane Austen's Gentleman, Burr never apologized and never explained. This last was a grievous mistake, because his silence, to his contemporaries and to posterity, though elegant, ceded much ground to his enemies. Much of Burr's abolitionist activity was done in association with Alexander Hamilton, whose anti-slavery views were grounded in his youth in the West Indies, where he could see slavery and its affect close up. There was much to admire in both of these men, and their contemporaries did so. But Hamilton carried a molten envy of Burr for many years, years during which Burr apparently had not a clue that his friend-rival-ally-competitor was viciously and continuously slandering him, sharing opinions about Burr that went beyond the norm of political rivalry, making certain that Burr would not succeed in politics even if it meant that Jefferson whom he despised, would. But Burr was more than Hamilton1s opponent; he was the man who, in almost every respect, from military heroism to family background to manners to wit to success with the ladies, Hamilton yearned to be. And everything Hamilton hated in himself, argues Kennedy, he projected on to Burr. And then there is Jefferson. It has become open season on Jefferson these last few years, and high time too. Jefferson's undoubted brilliance as a literary stylist and his extraordinary ability as a practical and cunning politician have kept him at the top of the heap for decade after decade, but much of that vaunted reputation The Great Democrat, or The Great Commoner, or the Great Something or Other, does not hold up under close scrutiny. Jefferson knew when to flatter, and when to betray, as when he broke his oath to Burr in 1800 and bargained for the Presidency. He wrote the undying phrase that all men are created equal, and then strangled the L'Ourverture Revolution in Haiti because he was terrified of black sovereignty. Kennedy is wonderful in discerning plausible motives to Jefferson's unquenchable need to destroy Burr, a man who might very well have moved up abolitions' cause by 50 years. The various accounts of back room snakiness by The Sage, and the description of the similarity between Jefferson's Western machinations both before and after Burr's trial for treason for the same activities(which Jefferson pushed with a Shakespearean malignity) are priceless. There are greater tragedies in America's past, I suppose, than the consignment of Aaron Burr to the Most Reviled Villain Category, but it feels terribly unjust. And the easy and even glib way many of our teachers and historians wave airy hands of dismissal in Burr's direction does rankle however, to say nothing of the ongoing worship of The Sage, also airy, also unscrutinized. Roger Kennedy has created a thoughtful, witty, outraged response to all that.

The author has amassed a lot of detail about primary figures in the early history of the United States. A fascinating read by a guy who's had a very diverse set of careers. By bringing out Burr's role in the early days of the USA the author has really made those times live again. Since many of us are taught canards in school- that Burr was a baddie and that Jefferson was a saint, it becomes very difficult to have much understanding of the finer points of early US history, this book is an antidote. By using evidence of his subject's character, the author is able to flesh out intent behind action. Occasionally the sentence structure is a bit complex but he's making sure you're getting your money's worth. A lovely passage describing the upper Mississippi river valley shows the author's ability to paint pictures of the natural world as well as that of human society. From Forrest McDonald's biography of Alexander Hamilton I always felt like I had a pretty good feel for the last 25 years of the 18th century and how my country was put together. After learning about the often dismissed alter ego of Hamilton, I have a much better feel for the personality and character of the principle individuals involved. As a principle elucidator and salesman for the Constituition and George Washington's right hand man we can give Hamilton a lot of credit for the strength and character of this nation, but it was Aaron Burr and those like him, the unique American type possesed of a certain wiliness and strength of character, that were the raw material it was formed out of.

I don't even know what Bob Barr's contribution to this piece of trash was - considering he's a racist, lying, philandering little midget who is one of the biggest hypocrites around. and he's probably illiterate too!

As a gigantic scoresheet on Bill Clinton's abuses of power and why people at least _ought to_ care about them, this book is right on target. But as a valid predictor of the future or a handbook for practical action, this book does not qualify. And as a novel, _Huckleberry Finn_ it isn't. It is, in the end, wishful thinking.

Tyrrell's major handicap is that he is trying to move from the realm of journalistic editorship to the realm of novel-writing, and simply doesn't have the skills for it. Simply put, Mark Twain he isn't. When I read a novel, I expect an in-depth study of the characters and the situation. I expect to be told not just _what_ the characters do, but _why_ they do it. And the "why" inevitably goes much deeper than "that Bill Clinton may be a scumbag, but he's _our_ scumbag," and is definitely more complicated than that.

But instead of depth of characterization and background, I get Barney Frank and Charles Schumer acting like Rush Limbaugh's favorite caricatures of them. I also get Sonny Bono behaving as though he were once again doing one of his television shows, instead of participating in arguably the most _serious business_ of all our lives--and again, with no explanation of Sonny's behavior. And I get thirteen Democratic "crossover Senators" who make the difference between "Guilty" and "Not Guilty" in the Senate--but with no, or scant, explanation of _why_ they cross over. Compare Tyrrell's Frank and Schumer with Twain's "King and Duke," and compare Tyrrell's Sonny Bono to Twain's Tom Sawyer, and you'll see what I mean.

I would certainly hope that the _real_ Bob Barr (who has just filed an impeachment resolution in the House in real life), the _real_ Henry Hyde, and the _real_ Orrin Hatch and Arlen Specter would make a better effort than this to (a) gather intelligence on the other side, and (b) make a coherent plan to win people over, through appeals to emotions either noble or ignoble. Tyrrell's book is not a plan. It is a wish. A wish that I myself will fully acknowledge sharing, but a wish nonetheless. And again, as a novel, it is far too pedestrian ever to take itself, or be taken, seriously.

The trouble is that I think Bill Clinton _should_ be impeached, and for the reasons that Tyrrell states, and for other actions and policies of his that are tantamount to treason. But by the time the professional book reviewers--which is to say, those who actually write novels for a living--get through with this book, they'll start such a drumbeat against it that the American people will lose its message in their disappointment in the finished work. And that's too bad for the country.

I expected this book to be an ultra-conservative raving against Clinton. Instead, I found it to be the best recap of every scandal (so far) that has swirled around Clinton. The fictional part is interspersed with copies of actual documents of prior hearings, White House memos, etc. This book should be required reading for all citizens, for them to see all in one place the myriad of abuses and coverups which we have allowed to happen due to our nonchalance and feeling of "everybody does it". The historical part of the book is irrefutable, and much of it are things I have never heard previously, or certainly never read about in the media!

Note to a previous reviewer: Virginius Dabney was a man. He was a longtime Virginia newspaper editor and died shortly after "The Jefferson Scandals" was published. He was unquestionably a sincere gentleman and passionate in his defense of Jefferson's honor and purity. He didn't live to see the definitive DNA evidence that confirms the Sally Hemings relationship. The consistent denials of the affair by Jefferson apologists, in my opinion, involve more than a tinge of racism. These same scholars have no problem affirming Jefferson's liaison with Maria Cosway, who was probably much less virtuous than Sally Hemings. It is entertaining, however, to read Dabney's book with Fawn Brodie's back-to-back. We eagerly await an up-to-date Jefferson biography that fully explores the new evidence.

The Jefferson/Sally Hemmings story has recently been accepted as fact. Before you accept Fawn Brodie's account (which re-fueld this 200 year old speculation) or the TV movie which recently told a highly inaccurate version, please read Dabney's smart little book. Dabney takes on Brodie point by point. I don't claim to know the truth of what, if anything, went on between Jefferson and Sally... But frankly, nobody else knows either. All these accounts are speculative at best. I am not a fan of Thomas Jefferson. Still, it seems wrong to trash him with a scandal two hundred years old that can't be proven one way or the other, inspite of DNA testing.

This book was mostly an okay one except that she was a bit repetitous and extremely harsh on Fawn Brodie's book Thomas Jefferson:an Intimate History. I have not read Brodie's book but from how Dabney puts it, it is rubbish, lacking in evidence, untruthful, and just plain nonsense. You almost got the sense that she didn't really like Brodie for more than just her book. Some of Dabney's sarcastic comments are quite funny, if not a bit harsh at times. But it is an intersting book if you like history and Thomas Jefferson.

Montgomery's book is a wonderful, delightful history of not only Lewis and Clark, but also the lesser known tale of Zebulon Pike's (ahem) explorations and the maneuverings of General James Wilkinson and Aaron Burr. The book is broken up by date, with each day of the history getting anything from a line to several pages. The whole book is full of humor, and Montgomery's zest for telling the story comes through consistently. This book is highly recommended for anyone who wants an introduction to Lewis and Clark (though at least passing familiarity is suggested) or wants a fresh look at their expedition. This book goes into the kind of details that many other histories ignore. For example, the sex lives of the Corps of Discovery and Aaron Burr's seductions are gone into with some detail. Where Montgomery really hits his stride is in the details of Aaron Burr's plot to make himself Emperor of the American west and James Wilkinson's part in it, as well as the General's bizarre and devious work as a Spanish spy. These divided loyalties are displayed against Lewis and Clark's loyalty to Jefferson and Jefferson's apathy for much of Burr's plot. Filled with lively anectdotes and new insight, and written more like a novel than a history, this is an excellent book on a part of our past that is unknown to far too many people.

This surely the liveliest and most entertaining book on American history published in the year 2000. Like Bruce Catton before him, M.R. Montgomery uses skills honed as a newspaperman to tell the compelling story of three groups of adventurers who set out on divergent, but interrelated missions in the newly acquired Louisiana Territory 1803-7. The best know of these is the Corps of Discovery led by Lewis and Clark, whom President Jefferson has sent on a multi-purpose mission to the headwaters of the Missouri River and beyond to the Pacific Ocean. As Lewis and Clark ascend the Missouri, Jefferson's former Vice President, Aaron Burr, who had recently killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel, travels west to conspire with the commanding general of the US Army, Wilkerson (who is also governor of the new Louisiana Territory). They plot to either invade Mexico or to split off all the land west of the Appalachians into a new nation -- or perhaps to do both. Wilerson then sends off an exploration party of his own led by Lt. Zebulon Pike first to the headwaters of the Mississippi and then into the southern Rockies and Spanish New Mexico.

Montgomery's perspective is mildly revisionist, his tone is ironic, and his story-telling is crisp and colorful. He uses the present tense to draw the reader inside the frame of the story. His narrative uses intercutting -- as a novel might -- to keep us abreast of the progress each of the groups is making toward its objective, as well as what Jefferson is doing back in Washington. Lewis and Clark's adventures provide the main thread of the story, while the conspirators and Pike supply the villainy and the comic relief. The hapless Pike's energetic but incompetent leadership serves to highlight the skills and foresight of Lewis and Clark.

Jefferson and the Gun-Men, in little more than 300 pages, does better than thicker academic histories at putting the Lewis and Clark expedition in the context of its time. A time very different from our own -- not just for the absence of truck stops and shopping malls. It is a time before the gospel of manifest destiny and a civil war had resolved the question of how many nations would occupy the continent. It is a time when a Vice President of the United States could kill a man in a duel and then preside at the impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice. (Montgomery has the wrong justice Chase being impeached, however) It is a time when the commanding general of the US Army is taking Spanish bribes at the same time he and Burr plot for empire. Montgomery works hard to show us not only Lewis and Clark, but Jefferson, Burr and the other figures in this story not as icons, but as complex human beings -- capable of great vision and great acts, but afflicted with blind spots and shortcomings peculiar to thenselves and to their times.

The title is taken from a speech Jefferson made to a group of Indian chiefs sent east by Lewis and Clark and others. He begins by telling them that "we are united in one family with our red brethren"; a sentiment few of Jefferson's white brethren would have endorsed. Then Jefferson says (untruthfully) that he plans to establish non-profit trading posts for their benefit. He closes with a plea for peace among the tribes and between the tribes and whites. In case the Indians do not opt for peace, he warns them, "My children, we are strong, we are numerous as the stars in the heavens, and we are all gun-men." We present-day Americans, the beneficiaries of those gun-men, can learn a great deal from this book.

If Aaron Burr had not killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel, Burr might later have become the first sociopath to be elected president of the United States. But, because of this single fatal pistol shot, he had to content himself with conspiring to become Emperor of the American West.

He worked with the Commander of the United States Army, General James Wilkinson, a traitor and spy who worked for the Spanish, and with Zebulon Pike (the Pike's Peak or Bust Pike) to amputate the West from the United States.

But Burr's timing was awful. During his conspiracy Lewis & Clark led The Corps of Discovery to Astoria, Oregon and back to St Louis, setting in motion a doubling of the size of the United States.

Read this fascinating, engrossing story of those times, when it seemed as if the United States might double in size -- or be cut in half.

And I don't mean that in a bad way. This was the first biography I read about Jefferson and a dozen or so books later I still think it's one of the best. Brodie brings warmth, passion, and humanity to her subject. Yes, she gets important facts wrong, speculates wildly, and at times misses her target. I think the Jefferson she describes, though, is closer to the real man than the portraits which can be found in stodgier biographies. It's not academic history but it's not fiction either. Read it for her take on the spirit of the man. Btw, the DNA evidence which was presented in the journal "Nature" two years ago disproved Brodie's speculations about an affair between Jefferson and Hemmings in Paris (which was was also turned into a popular movie). Two lines of descent were tested. The one linked to Paris didn't pan out. If Jefferson and Hemmings had children together this relationship probably started later.

American History, Thomas Jefferson, being my greater passions, I was fascinated by this book. The depth of Ms. Brodie's research is obvious, & her conclusions are thought provoking. Being also well-trained in the area of human behavior & pyschology, I would agree STRONGLY with the probable assumptions she makes about the pysche of Mr. Jefferson. What is historical fact concerning Mr. Jefferson concerning his earler years, his relationship w/ his mother, the death of his father, & his relationship to the women in his life, noticeably his wife & daughters, lends strong credence to the theories Ms. Brodie brings forth. A person w/ great insight into human behavior can always make strong probable cases. Ms.Brodie has done this admirably. I admire Mr. Jefferson more than any other man in American history, yet I also love the truth, and the key word is HUMAN. Mr. Jefferson would have the same quirks & idyosyncrasies as any other human, which when one realizes this about the greats of time, should endear them even more, that the bottom line is we are ALL human. Mention Sally Hemmings at the Monticello visitor center, & watch the fur fly. It seems as though some people want to elevate others to God-like status, & not allow themselves to admit to the humanism of the ones they admire. I'm looking forward to read Ms. Brodie's account of the life of Joseph Smith, which I will do soon.

I have read this book several times over the past ten years, and referred back to it after reading biographies by others who often slander Ms. Brodies work. It is an excellent portrait of what Mr. Jefferson may have been like, both flattering and not so flattering, but always fascinating. I always enjoy it because it captures so many people around Jefferson so well, such as his mentor George Wythe and his father-in-law John Wayles, both who took a slave concubine after becoming widowers. This book is about relationships and their social times.

Ms. Brodie weighed in on Jefferson being the father of Sally Hemming's children when it was not popular to taint him with human emotions. She would be proved right on at least one of Ms. Hemming's children, Eston, being fathered by the same Y chromosome that Jefferson's own father carried. Unfortunately Ms. Brodie did not live to see the scientific vindication of her research and insight. The Jefferson family has long claimed that Sally's children who favored Jefferson were fathered by nephew Samuel Carr, Jefferson's sister Martha's son. But Sam couldn't pass that Jefferson Y chromosome!

This book is a must read for everyone who is interested in understanding the Sage of Montecello. It makes the world of Jefferson come to life and allow the reader to walk in the times of his day, his friendships, enemies, depressions, joys, trials, and triumphs. Brodie takes the time to richly describe the other individuals in Jefferson's life, there by providing to the reader great scholarship that is immensely personal and interesting.

No single book can capture Jefferson's philosophy and accomplishments; but this book is a must read for a study of the personality of one of the most complex and interesting men in the history of our civilization.

It is the most fun book on Jefferson and his times that one can read.

Alan Dershowitz has really outdone himself this time. Although it is true that the "Nature's God" of the Declaration of Independence is not the god of the Bible, and that Jefferson was a Deist,is true overall this book is awful. The most telling feature of this book is Dershowitz's politically correct deconstructionist attack on the concept of natural rights and his assault on Thomas Jefferson.

Dershowitz ridicules the concept of people being born with inherent rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". he believes rights are "man made" and have no sacred meaning. He trashed the Declaration's author in the typical modern bolshevik manner by applying the standards of the 21st century to the 18th. He clearly sets out to demolish natural law and the entire tradition of Anglo American libertarian ideals of which Thomas Jefferson was a subscriber. It is amazing that a man like Dershowitz can be so brazen and hypocritical in his evaluation of Jefferson. Dershowitz, critical of Jefferson on slavery, supports "torturing" terrorist suspects, and is a rabid supporter of Isreali despotism in the Middle East.

This book show how degenerate the entire history profession has become and how any evaluation of our Founding should be viewed with a jaundiced eye. Overall a horrible piece of nonsense.

This could have been a great book, as one certainly expects from Alan Dershowitz; unfortunately, it reflects the American belief that democracy was invented here rather than realizing this country is part of a long evolution of freedom.

Dershowitz, a renowned Harvard law school professor and frequent commentator on individual rights, wastes most of his effort refuting, rejecting and attacking the Religious Right rather than understanding such people are the bell weather of American freedom. He doesn't seem to understand the impact of the Religious Right (or the Radical Left) is in inverse proportion to the level of freedom in this or any other country -- as the absolute rule of the Taliban religious extremists certainly proved in Afghanistan.

However, zealots exist in very society. Perhaps they counterbalance each other; if they become part of the Establishment, they crimp the freedom of everyone. Dershowitz uses the massive artillery of his intellect to attack the limited acumen of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Alan Keyes -- as if Justice Louis Brandeis would have been profitably employed attacking Father Coughlin.

Dershowitz doesn't seem to understand that freedom and individual rights have constantly evolved in Anglo society for more than a thousand years. Democracy wasn't invented when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, cribbing many ideas from the English Bill of Rights written in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Freedom and democracy is a constant and uneven struggle, not an accident or gift .

The Declaration of Independence was a quantum leap forward in defining some basic ideas of freedom, but it was not the end of the process. Before 1776, American colonists had legitimate complaints; the Thirteen Colonies were run by the English Colonial office, part of the executive branch of government. Colonists were ruled by King George III and his bureaucrats, instead of their own elected officials.

In response, the colonists said, in effect, "We're Englishmen. We have an absolute right to be represented in Parliament." If their rights were denied, according to the Bill of Rights of 1688, they had a right to overthrow the government. As Englishmen brought up with the Bill of Rights, the Declaration asserted their most basic rights.

Out of that came The United States of America, with a Constitution written to clearly avoid problems which led to the Declaration of Independence. Dershowitz recognizes the idea that freedom evolves in a society; his weakness is thinking there was an immaculate birth of freedom in America in 1776. He doesn't understand the Declaration of Independence was a bold and perfectly legitimate assertion of the basic rights of every free Englishman -- and from this a new form of "Democracy in America" (to use Alexis de Tocqueville's phrase) evolved.

There are two elements in society: a view that people are basically evil and must be restrained for their own good, as represented by the likes of Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, Alexander Hamilton and the current Bush administration. The countering view says people are basically good and must be free of as many social restraints as feasible, as represented by Rousseau, Voltaire and Thomas Paine and the usual Democratic politicians.

Either view, if carried to the extremes of a Father Coughlin or Alan Keyes, or the excesses of the French or Russian revolutions, destroys our freedoms.

Yet, history shows an uneven but very real expansion of human freedom. When freedom is limited, the response in 1775 was the shot heard round the world; today, the response is often footsteps that cross half the world to find freedom.

This screed by Dershowitz is a rant against the Religious Right. His recognized talents would have been much better used to examine and explain the English origins of the Declaration, rather than bashing baleful bigots who are mostly irrelevant in a free society.

All in all, perhaps a useful book to demolish straw devils; but, it could have been immeasurably better with a different approach.

I second the motion in the review of Aug. 19, 2003, "A good idea -- but hardley original", that Alan Dershowitz could have put his incredible talents to even further use by laying out the philosophy of history behind America's founding, and examining and explaining how America did not just happen, but is the result of a long evolution of blood, sweat, tears, and suffering for freedom. But, that is not to take away from the fact that "America Declares Independence" is very well written, very interesting, and very much a 5 star book. It comes to you highly recommended by this reader. And, if you value my recommendation, I would also recommend that, after you read Mr. Dershowitz's book, read Norman Thomas Remick's book, "West Point: Character Leadership Education, A Book Developed From The Readings And Writings Of Thomas Jefferson", a book that does explain how America did not just happen, but was the result of a long evolution of blood, sweat, tears, and suffering for freedom.

Despite the puff reviews on the jacket, this is not the book to read to "get to know" Thomas Jefferson. It is an entry in the Tom and Sally myth, mostly based on secondary sources, which attempts to raise Fawn Brodie's 1974 musings ("Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History")to historical fact. The narrative flows smoothly under Halliday's writing style and will reinforce the opinions of those who are predisposed to accept the claim that Jefferson fathered children by his slave Sally Hemings. The book will be frustrating for one who is reading about this issue for the first time because Halliday piles inference on supposition and kneads them together so that it is difficult to separate fact from imagination. The agreed historical record on Sally Hemings is scant: Hemings was inherited as a baby by Jefferson's wife; while in her early teens she spent about about two years in Paris as a maid to Jefferson's daughters; she returned to Monticello and bore four children who survived to adulthood; she lived about eight years as a free woman after Jefferson's death. Halliday skirts, as have other proponents of the paternity claim, that during the thirty-five years Hemings lived at Monticello after her return from France she was treated as a slave, and not one person made a direct reference to so much as a glance between her and Jefferson. This includes many of Jefferson's grandchildren who lived at Monticello, his two daughters, countless other relatives and visitors, and those slaves who could read and write, which included three of Sally's brothers freed by Jefferson, one of whom was in France with Sally. For proof of paternity, we are asked to accept a newspaper interview of one of Sally's sons, Madison Hemings, conducted some fifty years after he was freed by Jefferson. Madison relates events that occurred before his birth, including the claim that Sally's first child was fathered by Jefferson in Paris, an oft repeated legend, unsupported by any record or witness. However, Halliday accepts the hearsay of the Madison Hemings interview, but then, on the grounds it is "hearsay," rejects the interview given by Jefferson's grandson, who spent much of his youth at Monticello, and who denied that his grandfather had a relationship with a slave. Halliday also asserts that the relationship has been accepted by most scholars. Actually, there have been very few. There was the strange concession by the Trustees of the Monticello Foundation that Jefferson was probably the father of Sally's children after DNA tests showed that the descendants of Sally's youngest son, Eston, carried a y haplotype common to the Jefferson male line. Recently, a panel of distinguised scholars considered the DNA results, as well as the historical record, and released a detailed report which concluded Jefferson was not the father of Sally's children. Even though Halliday makes Jefferson into a public and private fraud, he inexplicably concedes at the end that Jefferson deserves his spot on Mount Rushmore.

As a self styled Jefferson "scholar", I found the book fascinating, thought provoking and enlightening. I agree with the editorial comments that there is a heavy emphasis on Jefferson's sex life; the emphasis was there, but perhaps it would be better called his "love" life in the truest sense of that word. I've read and studied the other books the auther cites and wonder now how so many of us, for so long, accepted the academic view that the man was non-sexual. We made a priestly nun out of a real man, and thought we must be right. How much racism played into that belief, I can't tell. Who among us can rate our own racism and separate it from our culture and our time? And which of us can separate our home/love/erotic life from the actions, large and small, that make up our professions, careers, beliefs, actions? I've often felt that Nixon's follies could have/would have been far different if his sex/love life (whatever it was) had been different.

Now it is possible for me to consider the TRAGEDY of the life of Jefferson and Sally Hemmings....there must have been "love" (however that is defined for that age, that culture, that understanding) between the two for it to have lasted a lifetime! And never, never to be able to speak of it to a soul! Maybe THAT'S what made him want to go home again and again and again. The mountain, the fascinating building, the horticulture, surely, but the woman too!

Halliday's book brings an "understanding" of that.

My criticism of the book would be that Halliday is TOO conversational, TOO gossipy; he seems too ready to apply today's views of sex/eroticism to the culture of the 18th Century. Since the book IS chiefly about the man's erotic life, it would have added to our knowledge to have included further studies of the sexual, cultural differences these two centuries have made in our understanding of human nature.

...also far too much on Laurence Sterne.

But all in all, a must book for those who have an abiding interest in Jefferson and what made him tick.

If you're looking for a good, all around biography of Thomas Jefferson, this is not the book for you. "Understanding Thomas Jefferson" attempts to do exactly what the title suggests-understand Thomas Jefferson, but as a human being rather than as a statesman. E. M. Halliday's thesis is that virtually every standard biography of Thomas Jefferson describes him as a complex individual and highlights the contradictions in his life that border on hypocrisy (maybe even cross that border), but few try to put them in perspective.

This book attempts to do just that. Much of it (especially the first part of the book) deals with Jefferson's relationships with the women in his life. Admittedly, much of it is conjectural, because there's not much documentation extant. For example, Jefferson burned all his correspondence with his wife and mother. But Halliday has done a lot of research and puts his conjectures in context with documented events in Jefferson's life as well as with the social norms in which he lived.

If the author attacks the renowned Jefferson biographers (e.g., Dumas Malone and Joseph Ellis) for concluding that Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings was a myth, the criticism is well deserved. I read Joseph Ellis's biography "American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson" when it was first published in 1997 and was astonished with his conclusion (in the Appendix of the book) that the "rumors" about Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings were not true. Now, this was the first biography I had ever read about Thomas Jefferson, so after having read what Ellis himself had written, I was shocked that he could come to that conclusion.

If you find Thomas Jefferson to be a fascinating individual (as I do) and have already read some mainstream history/biography about him, then you will probably enjoy this book immensely (as I have). It's different, it's conjectural, and that's its appeal.

The PC, anti-Jefferson crowd jumped to conclusions upon the completion of the DNA study in 1998 and again with the shameful press conference at Monticello in 2000, obviously attempting to further an agenda rather than to search for the truth. This book exposes them.

You will learn much about the process, the quality of the scholarship, and the special interests that lead to the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation's pronouncement that Jefferson was likely Eston Heming's father. They apparently found enough "evidence" to support the conclusion they hoped to reach a priori, that Jefferson fathered Hemings's children, while ignoring more persuasive exculpatory evidence.

As for Reed's motives,... view the Coolidge letter for yourself. You decide whether Reed's error was innocuous.

It is this reader's opinion that the "investigation" that gave rise to the original report will accompany fantasy Vietnam war veterans among the discredited pretenders whose works merit pity. This work provides a palliative to the shoddy "scholarship" that resulted in the original report.

Though the quality of the essays is uneven, to anyone interested in the truth of this matter I commend this book.

This book is long overdue, and a powerful piece of work. It exposes the lies,agendas,and duplicity involved in the interpretation of the DNA "evidence" obtained two years ago.From the first to the last chapter this book destroys the report of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, which concluded that Jefferson was the father of all of the children of Sally Hemings. Particularly good is chapter five by White McKenzie Wallenborn,MD,which shows how the TJMF prevented his dissenting committee report from being published with the majority report. He exposes the political agenda of the TJMF, and their lack of honesty.Chapter seven by Robert Eyler Coates,Sr is a brilliant refutation of the supposed "evidence" using common sense and logical alternative possibilities for Eston Heming's father. I believe the Conclusion by Bahman Batmanghellidj is truly the most inspiring. He passionatly describes the principles and character of Thomas Jefferson,in both his public and private life. He refutes the agenda that is attempting to destroy one of the greatest champions of human liberty.If you believe in truth and liberty,buy this book. If you do not want to see the name of a great human being such as Thomas Jefferson maliciously destroyed,buy this book. Above all if you value truth and logic and wish for them to triumph, buy this book.

The anguished moans you hear are coming from politically correct academia as they witness the destruction by this book of their carefully burnished canard that Thomas Jefferson had one or more children by his black slave, Sally Hemings. The diligent research evident in the essays in THE JEFFERSON - HEMINGS MYTH is based upon careful analyses of historical, genealogical and scientific data by Jefferson experts. It is welcome new scholarship resulting in an eye-opening contrast to the recent spate of anti-Jefferson books that use flimsy or created "evidence" to draw one-sided conclusions only the flakiest conspiracy theorist could believe.

As the book shows vividly, the real story behind the creation and ongoing enhancement of the Jefferson - Hemings myth is absolutely fascinating. James T. Callender, who in 1802 created this hoax, was a paid character assassin who hated Jefferson and wanted to embarrass him by slandering him with miscegenation, the usual stock-in-trade charge Callender used against his enemies. More than seventy years later one of Sally Hemings' sons, Madison, was profiled in an Abolitionist newspaper. In that account, purportedly in Madison's own words, Madison claimed Jefferson was his father and that Sally's mother Betty Hemings was the concubine of John Wayles, Jefferson's father-in-law. This rambling profile has long been taken as fact by unwary (or uncaring) historians, despite the fact, as is amply shown through new historical and genealogical research, virtually all of what Madison said is extremely suspect as to accuracy and intent. Nonetheless, the words of Callender and Madison Hemings serve as a basis for modern books by Fawn Brodie and Annette Gordon-Reed, as well as several abominable movies.

The much ballyhooed DNA evidence was manipulated by the media. In fact, Thomas Jefferson was proved not to be the father of Tom Woodson, despite the Woodson family's allegedly long oral tradition to the contrary. Moreover, as is exceedingly well described, it is far more likely than Randolph Jefferson, Thomas' much younger and slightly retarded brother, was the father of Eston Hemings, the only Hemings descendant whose DNA was tested. Strangely, the Hemings family claimed not to know the burial site of a son of Madison Hemings (Eston's brother), despite the fact he was a Union Army veteran. When one of the authors of this book located the grave, the Hemings family refused permission for DNA testing. Were they afraid tests would reveal no Jefferson DNA, which in addition to damaging their claim would also show that Sally had multiple sexual partners?

Nonetheless, release of the DNA findings, such as they were, allowed Jefferson's enemies to attack his reputation with a vengeance. Foremost among them was the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, the tax exempt operator of Monticello. They went so far as to say that Jefferson may have fathered all of Sally's children, and a compelling chapter in this book is an insider's view of the politically correct shenanigans that took place within the TJF as this charge was bullied into existence.

Publication of THE JEFFERSON - HEMINGS MYTH will no doubt raise the ire of Jefferson's enemies. Indeed, one can expect them to come out of the woodwork soon to attack the authors and their conclusions as "Hemings-deniers" or some such thing. And that is exactly why it deserves to be read by everyone who - like Jefferson himself - values the truth.