I'm temporarily closing this blog because I've undertaken a new project: a year-long examination/evaluation of all 42 men who have served as president of the United States.

This project will be based at http://thepresidentsatbigmo.blogspot.com/ and also cross-posted with blogging friends at www.hangrightpolitics.com.

The project involves heavy reading of usually 1 or 2 books per president, but because I won't be actually reviewing the books, I felt the project would do better at its own home.

I may restart this blog at a later time, perhaps in 2008.

Cheers!

I’ve decided not to review Philip Yancey’s The Jesus I Never Knew at this time because my notes aren’t fresh enough and I think I need to read it again. So in the meantime, here’s something perfect for this time of year:

Title: The Third Day: The Reality of the Resurrection
Author: Hank Hanegraaff
Publisher: W Publishing Group
Date: 2003
Rating: 5 stars out of 5

What this book is / is not
The Third Day is a solid overview of the evidence surrounding the fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is not an exhaustive study, but is designed more to give believers a guide when discussing the resurrection with skeptics. The book is derived from, or inspired from, Hanegraaff’s earlier Resurrection, which is a detailed examination of the after-life (also recommended).

Main thesis
The author first explores what many skeptics say about the resurrection, including atheists, “Jesus Seminar” liberal scholars and Muslims. He then sets out to destroy their arguments.

Hanegraaff often employs easy-to-remember acronyms in his books as tools for the reader to use for quick recall.  In The Third Day, he uses “FEAT”:

F stands for “fatal torment” where Hanegraaff demonstrates that there was absolutely no way Jesus could have survived crucifixion.

E stands for the “empty tomb” and that there was no body, and no way possible His body could have been stolen.

A stands for “appearances” that Jesus made to more than 500 people before ascending to heaven—people that, when Acts was written, could easily have been called as witnesses to confirm—or even contradict—Christ’s resurrection.

T stands for “transformation” of people’s lives. There were thousands upon thousands of conversions to Christ, especially among Jews who were utterly steeped in their tradition and culture and would not change for a mere rumor or a lie. And there was the transformation of the remaining 11 apostles from craven cowards to bold proselytizers for Jesus.  

Jaw-Droppers
None to one familiar with the information.

Does the author succeed?
Yes, but just as long as the reader remembers that this is a good overview and not an in-depth study.

Criticism
No real criticisms. The Third Day serves as an excellent, handy primer for this generation.

Main takeaway lessons
Truly the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead was the greatest “FEAT” in all human history. And “FEAT” is a handy way to remember the finer points when discussing this with skeptics.

Do I recommend this book?
Yes. (For more in-depth study I recommend Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ and Josh McDowell's brand-new Evidence for Christianity.)

Title: Frederick Douglass
Author: William S. McFeely
Publisher: W.W. Norton & Company
Date: 1991
Rating: three stars out of five (two stars for the presentation, four stars for the research)

What this book is / is not
Frederick Douglass is a full-length biography of the greatest American anti-slavery leader and reformer of the 19th century. It is the most recent biography to be written on Douglass. It is not, however, a terribly exciting book or a well-written one, for that matter—despite the author’s excellent research.

Main thesis
Frederick Douglass was an extraordinary man, and one of the greatest of all Americans. He was proud, quick to anger, generous, and a true fighter.  He was born sometime in the 1820s (or before; Douglass was never sure) as Frederick Bailey in eastern Maryland on the Chesapeake. Young Frederick was sent from master to master, and barely knew his mother. His most fortuitous time was spent in the Auld household in Baltimore, where he was almost a brother to young master Thomas and was taught the Bible by Sophia Auld.

When Douglass escaped to freedom—and married another escapee, Anna—he at first became a preacher.  But soon Douglass found a different calling: fighting the very thing he had escaped from. His destiny was not to spread the gospel, but to fight for freedom for all Negroes. But Douglass recognized early on that getting rid of slavery would be only the beginning. There were invisible chains in the “free” North and that discrimination against black men and women was palpable and constant.

When Douglass published his The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass in 1845, people couldn’t believe that a black man could be so “articulate.” Many charged that his first mentor, the famed abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison or someone else had written it. In Narrative, Douglass wrote strictly about himself, and gave very scant details about his original family or anything else. Douglass would publish two subsequent versions of his autobiography. (He has been charged with inaccuracy in all three versions, a charge which unfortunately is true, but it doesn’t detract overall from any of the three works.)

Douglass proved to be one of the great speakers of the age, having taught himself to speak well by using a copy of The Columbia Orator (a collection of great speeches and soliloquies from plays) while he was still a slave. People literally flocked to hear him speak, and sometimes would even interrupt other speakers with calls that Douglass take the stage.

Before the war, Douglass would continually fight with other abolitionists to assert his independence, even over associating with whom he wanted to. Long after the war, and after Anna had died, he married a white woman, feminist Helen Pitts, which scandalized both whites and blacks, though long-time friend and compatriot Elizabeth Cady Stanton approved. The prejudice in the north against blacks was sometimes subtle, sometimes open. Douglass always felt it, but either ignored it or defied it, in his relationships with white women (as traveling, business or anti-slavery companions) and white men. He was often expected not to be able to handle finances—even when he handled the finances of The North Star (his newspaper) poorly and really did need some help.

Douglass slowly broke with his “father” mentor Garrison when he became convinced that political action was necessary to end slavery; he joined with Gerrit Smith and the Liberty Party, an obscure third party which really had no chance at much of anything. He even got tangled with John Brown before Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry in 1859, but disapproved of Brown’s methods. Douglass would eventually abandon the Liberty Party for the new Republican Party, and remain with it for the rest of his life. After the war, he was disappointed that he was not offered much of a place at the political table, but became a strong supporter of President Grant, the only post-war president who truly cared for the rights of freed blacks (and took strong measures to ensure those rights).

Douglass would eventually land a post as ambassador to Haiti, a post that made him extremely proud. He would return to battle once more late in life at the behest of Ida B. Wells over lynching of blacks in the South. He died in 1893.

Jaw-Droppers
The prejudice of some of the fellow abolitionists is amazing. Some of them really were condescending, and to them Douglass was more like a novelty, or a tool, than a compatriot. But the sentiment wasn’t that widespread.

There were often tensions within anti-slavery circles, as sometimes other causes fought for equal prominence, such as worker’s rights. But as long as Douglass was on the scene, slavery and black equality was the foremost—even the only—issue.  

Also, just learning things about Douglass that I hadn’t known, such as some of the details of his post-war career, and his 1840s campaign in Great Britain to get the Free Church of Scotland to return all donations from Southern churches, because the money came from slavery.

Doe the author succeed?
Unfortunately, no; at least not for me. The reasons have to do with the author’s style and presentation. See below.

Criticism
The good thing about McFeely’s biography is that the author does not always accept at face value what Douglass wrote. McFeely investigates the surrounding circumstances to determine whether Douglass’ version of events matches—or seems to match—events or the motivations that Douglass assigns to various people in his life, especially Thomas Auld. It is this alertness that prevents McFeely’s work from slipping into fawning hagiography, despite his obvious admiration for his subject.

For example, he challenges Douglass’ loose facts in his curious “open letter” to Thomas Auld published in The North Star in 1850. In it he seemed to hold Auld responsible for all the evils of slavery—but wound up saying that were Auld under his roof, he would shelter him and keep him safe. McFeely corrects Douglass on facts that do not fit the paper record.

But I was extremely annoyed at McFeely’s tendency to subjectively decide what Douglass was thinking and feeling rather than using the actual paper record then speculating on possibilities. Instead of giving us a portrait of who Douglass was according to Douglass himself and his contemporaries, with all of the enigmatic possibilities and pitfalls that go along with biography of men long-since dead, McFeely wrote as if he knew exactly what Douglass himself was thinking and feeling—even if Douglass himself didn’t even know!

For example, Douglass was a powerful speaker, and not just with his voice. He had a presence that commanded the room. In a very flowery, even haughty way, McFeely examines whether this led to his having female groupies of a more sexual nature, but curiously remarks that the proper gentleman that he fashioned himself out to be just didn’t do things like that—without even speculating that Douglass wouldn’t cheat on his wife. This speculation is just one of the many frustrating things about this book. True, there is a dearth of details on Douglass’ first wife, but why not speculate that he remained faithful, in the absence of evidence otherwise?

And one thing that I hated – and I do mean truly, utterly disliked – about McFeely’s work is that he doesn’t let Douglass speak enough for himself. Douglass’ speeches, newspaper columns and autobiographies are not excerpted at any length, and the impressions we get of the subject come more from his contemporaries and from the historian’s interpretation than from Douglass himself. For example, Douglass’ July 5, 1852, speech is arguably his greatest. “The Meaning for the Fourth of July for the Negro” certainly ranks among the most powerful of all the speeches against slavery, and should stand with MLK’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail or Lincoln’s second inaugural address as among the greatest in the land.

McFeely barely builds to the speech—even springing it on the reader in the middle of a discussion of his relationship with the English white lady Judith Griffiths—and spends a total of one page on it. He excerpts only a small portion of speech before analyzing it. For such an important talk, you’d think that McFeely would have given much more attention than that.

It almost seems as if the author is more concerned with having his say on Douglass than letting the reader let us hear Douglass speak for himself.  McFeely’s earlier work, Grant: A Biography, which won a Pulitzer Prize (undeserved in my opinion), is in a similar vein because McFeely misses Grant entirely, leaving the reader with a terrible and grossly incorrect impression of Grant. In that work, Grant is left unable to speak for himself either.  

Finally, my ultimate criticism: I don’t feel like I got to know Douglass through this book. It’s almost as if I got to know this book about Douglass.

Main takeaway lessons
If there were ever a second Mount Rushmore created, Frederick Douglass would have to be on it.  

But just as modern-day civil rights leaders and white liberals would do well to heed the actual words of Martin Luther King Jr., they would equally do well to listen to Frederick Douglass before continuing to push for things like race-based quotas, affirmative action, reparations and race-based “solutions.” From Douglass’s 1865 speech, “What the Black Man Wants”:


Do I recommend this book?
Half-heartedly, but only for the most serious students of Douglass.  Otherwise, I’d recommend his autobiographies: Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass (1845), My Bondage and My Freedom (1855), and The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass (1892). This generation needs a much better biography of Douglass, one that’s easy to read, and lets Douglass’ prolific written and spoken words flow.

It’s truly sad that there are seemingly a couple of new books out every year about the Kennedys, Lincoln, the founding fathers, etc., but only on full-length biography of one of America’s greatest sons in the last 40 or so years.

Note: the following three entries are interconnected.  

Title: The Marble Man: Robert E. Lee and His Image in American Society
Author: Thomas Connelly
Publisher: Louisiana State University Press
Date: 1978
Rating: 4 starts out of 5

What this book is / is not
This fascinating study examines the admirers, fans and supporters of Gen. Robert E. Lee who all but deified him as the icon of the noble South and the Lost Cause mythology. However, it’s not an in-depth biography of Lee (a really good one has yet to be written that neither damns him nor fawns over him).

Main thesis
The “Lee Cult,” while seeking to elevate Lee, trashed the reputations of men such as Gen. James Longstreet who disagreed with the Lee Cult or dared to defend themselves. Lee’s reputation as a great American general survives to this day almost intact, despite the fact that he fought vigorously against the United States.

What the “Lee Cult” accomplished is the exception to the rule that the victors write the histories.

Jaw-Dropper
One of the most amazing expositions in this book is the persistent Lee Cult charge, led by Jubal Early and S. Pendleton, that Longstreet lost Gettysburg.  Longstreet, Lee’s “old war horse” and his second-in-command, may not have been at his absolute best in July 1863 – neither was Lee – but he did not lose the battle. The lasting and untrue charges of the Lee Cult revolved around Lee ordering Longstreet to attack at sunrise on July 2, the second day of the battle. By not attacking until 4 p.m., the charge goes, he cost the South the battle and the war. But there was no such order given. After the war Longstreet secured testimony from Lee’s three top aides (Taylor, Marshall and Venable) who wrote that they knew of no such “sunrise” attack order. Besides, such an order was impossible for the 1st Corps commander to fulfill, because much of Longstreet’s corps was not yet on the field at sunrise. Nevertheless, the charge persisted because of Longstreet’s unpardonable “sins” of criticizing Lee, hinting wrongly that he was the genius behind Lee and joining with his old friend Ulysses S. Grant and the Republicans after the war. Many modern analyses of the war still repeat the charge that Longstreet lost Gettysburg—even a century after Lee’s top aids, who would know, testified that no such order was given. (Note: the testimonies of Taylor, Marshall and Venable are reprinted in Longstreet's memoirs, From Manassas to Appomattox.)

Does the author succeed?
For the most part. He’s on firmer ground when concentrating on the Lee Cult than on Lee himself.

Criticism
Robert E. Lee is actually a polarizing figure. There is a battle in Civil War circles over whether he actually caused the South’s defeat by fighting costly battles that the Confederacy could ill afford. Connelly’s book, published in the late 1970s, is considered the first “Lee bashing” book. While I think Connelly’s book is brilliant, I sometimes think he wrote it to pick a fight.

Main takeaway lessons
More than any other book, this gave me a critical eye toward not only how history is shaped by events and personalities, but also how it can be manufactured to fit an agenda. The Lee Cult and the largely mythological Lost Cause dominate studies—and even entertainment—of the Civil War to this day, 140 years later.

Do I recommend this book?
Absolutely. Even if you aren’t at all interested in the Civil War, you should read this book because it will give you a lot of insight into how people will twist, bend, turn and distort words and events to fit their reality—even if that reality never existed. The modern equivalent to the Lee Cult is the leftmedia and liberal Democrats’ “reality-based” version of Iraq, which flies in the face of what most of the soldiers who are there in the field repeatedly say.

Title: President Grant Reconsidered
Author: Frank Scaturro
Publisher: Madison Books
Date: 1999
Rating: 4 ½ stars out of 5

What this book is / is not
This book examines the critics of President Grant, and explores the disingenuousness of their books and faultiness of their research. It is not a biography of Grant.

Main thesis
Along the same lines as Connelly's book (see above) is Scaturro’s work, designed both to begin the rescue of Grant’s presidency from its undeserved and unjust historical trashcan, and call out the lazy, biased, incompetent and/or racist scholars and historians who put him there. You can take almost any biography written on Grant’s presidency during the 20th century and toss it aside, because even Pulitzer Prize winners (William McFeely) managed to miss Grant entirely. Start with Jean Edward Smith’s biography (profiled below) to begin to understand the real President Grant.

As with the “Lee Cult,” there has been an “Anti-Grant Cult” (my term) that began before Grant even left the army. If you want to understand how badly Grant has been treated, imagine what the history of George W. Bush would be like if the primary sources were his harshest enemies like the New York Times, C-BS News, Michael “Stupid White Fat Man” Moore, Newsweek and the faculty at UC-Berkeley; or what the history of Bill Clinton would be like if the primary sources were his harshest critics like National Review and Fox News. In either case, you’d get a very skewed view.

That is precisely what happened with Grant, as his political enemies (like the hypocritical “reformers”) and the self-anointed intellectual elite (like Henry Adams) and racist Reconstruction historians (like the Dunning school) and highly judgmental post-modern historians (McFeely) succeeded in becoming the “final” word on Grant. Although in Grant’s time he was revered in the same breath as Washington and Lincoln, historians, scholars and political enemies have succeeded in trashing what was truly one of the best presidencies. (See Smith, Grant, for the reasons why and also a discussion about the “scandals” and Grant’s real and laudable accomplishments.)

Some of these historians and intellectuals were biased against Grant because they opposed him personally. Some were lazy and neglected to use Grant’s actual papers! Some built upon the previous erroneous works of others and compounded the errors. But mainly they trashed him because of Grant’s enforcement of Reconstruction and a real failure to understand Reconstruction both in the context of the Gilded Age and Grant’s strong belief in it. For example, the Dunning school of thought tore Grant’s presidency to shreds in part because they – like the so-called “reformers” and of course the Democrats before them – despised Reconstruction and therefore Grant. But latter-day historians, like William Gillette in his Retreat from Reconstruction, 1868-1879, (1982) attempt to paint Grant as an obstacle to Reconstruction, and it is his inattentiveness and lack of a coherent policy that caused Reconstruction to fail!

It’s nonsense, of course, and it is Gillette’s thesis that is incomprehensible – as well as most other historical treatments of Grant, and not Grant’s policy toward the South. For in fact Grant was that rarest of presidents: a politically courageous man who did the right thing even in the face of mounting hostility from all sides, especially the racist Democrats as well as many in his own party who were more concerned about power than doing right by America’s blacks.

Jaw droppers
The hostility of historians toward Grant is amazing, but the reasons why, that Scaturro uncovers, are just mindboggling. They just don’t “get” him, nor understand what he tried to achieve. It's very similar to the irrational hostility toward George W. Bush.

Does the author succeed?
Yes. (How could he not?)

Criticism
None, really.

Main takeaway lessons
Grant was the first president to fight for equal rights for blacks based on the simple belief that they deserved it no less than anyone else. He used the full weight of the federal government as much as he could during peace-time--and more than any other president in peace-time, ever – to protect America’s must vulnerable people. But his fight was a doomed fight. (The best analogy I can think of is Atticus Finch defending the prejudged Tom Robinson in To Kill a Mockingbird.) Because racism was so ingrained in America at that time, what Grant sought to do was simply not possible--at least, not then. There are some historians like Gillette who believe that had Grant been a really slick politician, Reconstruction would have worked. But that, too, is hogwash, because even slick politicians can’t change deep-rooted attitudes and beliefs with mere political skills.

But despite Grant’s valiant losing battle, some people did notice and were grateful—and looked forward to a better day when there were more Grants in the country than white supremacists and Klansmen and Redeemers:


So wrote the great Frederick Douglass, who was absolutely right in his assessment of Grant and of the nation. Because when lesser men succeeded Grant as president, and Reconstruction was abandoned, black Americans essentially had to start over. Yet most historians have dismissed Grant as a racist, a butcher and a dullard too stupid to be president. While Grant may never rank among the greatest of presidents, he deserves to be remembered among those ranked “above average.” And certainly, I would hazard that next to Washington, Grant’s two terms were the most consequential, most far-reaching and the most pivotal of all the great peace-time presidents. Scaturro’s book is but the beginning of the struggle to re-right the wrongs done to one of the nation’s greatest sons.

In about 20 years or so, I can envision a book titled “President George W. Bush Reconsidered.” Perhaps I’ll even write it myself.

Title: Grant
Author: Jean Edward Smith
Publisher: Simon & Schuster
Date: 2001
Rating: 4 ½ stars out of 5

What this book is / is not
This is an incomplete yet critically important, meaty one-volume history of the life of Ulysses S. Grant, the victor of the Civil War and 18th president of the United States. Smith’s examination of key aspects of Grant’s two administrations is vitally important to understanding a man who is wrongly labeled a failed president.

Smith offers nothing new concerning Grant’s Civil War service. Readers looking for an in-depth examination would do better with Brooks Simpson’s superior Triumph Over Adversity and Bruce Catton’s classic Grant Moves South and Grant Takes Command. However, as an introduction to Grant, and an objective, honest overview of Grant’s presidency, Smith’s book serves quite nicely.

Main thesis/ jaw droppers
I’ve combined these two sections because historians have indeed gotten Grant wrong—often deliberately so. All of these are more or less jaw-droppers, because they fly in the face of everything you’d hear about Grant in history textbooks, on Wikipedia and elsewhere. This is the real Grant, as his contemporaries knew and recalled him:

First. He was the original “civil rights” president. During Grant’s eight years, he pressed for civil rights long after the country as a whole had tired of “waving the bloody shirt” in support of the freedmen. The general-turned-president spent his eight years in office making sure the “verdict” of Appomattox was not overturned. The Justice Department was formed under Grant specifically to enforce federal authority in the South and preserve the rights of the freedmen. Two of Grant’s attorneys general, Amos T. Ackerman and then George H. Williams, oversaw Grant’s presidential Reconstruction policies through the five Enforcement Acts and the Ku Klux Klan Act. Through their actions—driven by Grant—they smashed the Klan and thereby rendered it impotent for 50 years. Thanks to Grant’s forceful actions, violence in the South against freedmen dropped, and it was only when the threat of reprisal was removed that violence escalated again.

Grant’s support for the 13th amendment before he became president was instrumental to its passage, and the 14th and 15th amendments became law based on President Grant’s full and unswerving support. He suspended habeas corpus and sent in federal troops to enforce suffrage for blacks, believing that the freedmen should enjoy the same political rights as anyone else. The 1872 elections, which Grant won in a landslide, were the fairest in the South until the 1960s. He tried to annex Santo Domingo (modern-day Dominican Republic) not, as has been long thought, in a bungled attempt to add territory to the US. Rather, Grant sought to make the black-dominated island into three or four US states on the theory that if they were successful, then they would serve as models for successful, peaceful government dominated by blacks. The annexation effort of course failed, and whether it was noble or wrongheaded is beside the point: it was an example of novel thinking from someone dismissed as a dullard.

Second. Grant’s secretary of state was one of the most celebrated in the nation’s history, Hamilton Fish. With Grant’s full support, Fish enacted methods of international arbitration that are still used and served as the part of the foundation of the United Nations. Through Fish, Grant made peace with England over Civil War claims, thereby strengthening and deepening the ties between our two nations. It would be fair (well, almost) to say that our true friendship with England began during Grant’s presidency.  

Third. Grant avoided war with Spain over Cuba—twice—despite enormous public and congressional pressure. He knew that the desire to add Havana to the Union was motivated by nothing more than greed. Thirty years later we would fight the highly dubious Spanish-American War—and Grant probably would have disapproved.

Fourth. On the financial/economic front, Grant prevented the greedy cornering of the gold market by Jay Gould and Jim Fisk in a brilliant counter-stroke that flooded the market with government gold (instead of the small amount regularly scheduled to be sold). Contrary to what “history” says, the actual paper record proves that Grant was not fooled by what Gould and Fisk planned and warned his treasury secretary a full two weeks in advance of what they were scheming and to prepare accordingly.

In his second term, Grant single-handedly prevented the amazingly harmful inflation bill of 1874 from becoming law. Designed by a Congress and Wall Street desperate to do something to combat the Panic of 1873 (an economic depression second only to the Great Depression), the bill would have creamed the already-struggling economy while benefiting only a few. Immediately following that victory, Grant supported the Resumption of specie payment Act of 1875, thereby restoring US credit and avoided turning a financial crisis into a financial disaster. The Panic ended abruptly when the act became effective in 1879.

Grant also reduced taxes, cut the deficit by $435 million and national debt by $300 million. In sum, Grant pursued what today would be considered fiscally conservative policies, which stopped inflation, raised the nation’s credit, and reduced taxes and the national debt in response to the absolutely worst economic crisis America had ever faced up to that time.

Fifth. Elsewhere on the domestic front, Grant made a true effort to make peace with the Plains Indian tribes, thereby in all likelihood saving them from extermination. Western states supported Grant in 1868 on the mistaken belief that he—the man who destroyed the Confederacy—would eradicate the “Indian problem” once and for all. They were wrong. In the army in the 1850s Grant wrote to his wife Julia that he knew the Indians were getting shafted left and right, and when he became president, Grant reversed U.S. policy and promoted comprehensive reform designed to bring peace. Of course “Custer’s Last Stand” occurred during the final year of his administration due to Grant’s mistaken trust in Sheridan; but Grant’s policy usually was to punish those who did wrong while making fair and just peace with those who wanted peace. In fact, it’s very similar to Bush’s approach to Islamic terror.

Grant believed in treating Indians as individuals instead of just tribes. When the famed Red Cloud and other Plains chiefs visited Washington in 1870, Grant treated them just shy of visiting heads of state. Not for nothing did the Plains Indians refer specifically to Grant as “great white father.”

He pressed for citizenship for Indians—a remarkably progressive stance for the 1870s and something no president had ever before done—and sought to treat them fairly by replacing corrupt Indian agents with (presumably) un-corruptible Quakers. The corrupt agents were one of the biggest causes of troubles on the Plains. He also created a blue-ribbon panel for Indian affairs to bypass the congressional logjam on Indian appropriations, and placed his longtime friend Ely Parker—himself a Seneca chief—in charge of Indian affairs. Finally, Grant utterly refused to abandon his peace policy just to win votes in the west. Grant swept the west in 1872 except for Texas, which had to do more with Reconstruction than the peace policy.

Sixth. Grant was the only president between Lincoln and McKinley to win re-election to back-to-back terms. He won re-election in a landslide, counting among his supporters the western states, most every single black man and progressives. He crushed the liberal-Republican/Democrat alliance arrayed to defeat him—as effectively as he crushed Rebel armies in Tennessee and Virginia.

Seventh. Grant shepherded the nation through an intensely complex era that immediately followed on the heels of a decade of tremendous upheaval—especially with his calm and non-partisan handling of the election crisis of 1876, where Democrat Tilden won the popular vote but the electoral college vote was in dispute. In fact, his handling of the crisis was much better than Clinton’s in 2000. Clinton was a non-entity; Grant made sure order prevailed and the transition was peaceful, and inserted himself into the crisis in order to solve it.

To sum up points one through seven, few presidents have had to deal with such internal turmoil as Grant did.

Eighth. Yes, there were scandals. But unlike some of Grant’s successors (including a certain turkey from Arkansas), Grant was not the epicenter of scandal. And many of the scandals actually occurred during Johnson’s unfortunate term and only came to light during Grant’s terms (as has happened to George W. Bush). Other scandals merely occurred during Grant’s terms but had nothing to do with him or his administration, such as Boss Tweed and Tamany Hall. As for the “scandals” that Grant’s own people caused, it was Grant’s administration that exposed them: mainly, the Credit Mobilier scandal, which occurred before Grant became president, and the Whiskey scandal, which included some low-ranking members of his administration and would eventually bring accusations—proven unfounded—against his primary secretary, Babcock. Grant made sure that no one guilty would go unpunished—even longtime friends. But when it became clear to Grant that his attorney general, Bristow, was aiming to destroy Grant’s aide and friend Babcock in a bald attempt to win the graces of the reformers and get elected president, Grant sheltered Babcock. Grant’s defense of Babcock, done in an unprecedented five-hour closed session, ended the matter and satisfied (at the time) many of his harshest critics. But these days his defense of Babcock has been taken as evidence of corruption by protecting a crony—but really it was shielding someone from an unjust witch-hunt.

At the same time, the nature of some of the “scandals” are willfully misunderstood, as they involved the spoils system, which all presidents to that point had used without protest. Grant was the first president to press for the creation of a civil service to eliminate the spoils system. The so-called reformers, who supposedly longed for civil service reform, accused Grant of corruption primarily because Grant did not appoint them to posts! (Grant abandoned the attempt late in his second term; it took the murder of President Garfield—himself a “reformer”—for civil service to be reformed under Chester A. Arthur.)

Does the author succeed?
Yes, admirably so.

Criticism
As stated, Smith offers nothing new on Grant’s Civil War career, but this book is satisfactory for the reader or student new to Grant.

More anecdotes of Grant’s life would have made this a better book. It could have also used a more complete, slower exposition of the last year of Grant’s life and the struggle to write his amazing Memoirs.

Main takeaway lessons
So why does President Grant have such a lousy reputation? It’s because the history of his presidency was written by and large by his political and personal enemies (See Frank Scaturro, President Grant Reconsidered, reviewed above). Grant became a victim of “the Lost Cause,” wherein the Confederates were the natural inheritors of the Revolutionary mantle and were overwhelmed by Lincoln’s “illegal war.”  (To see this in action, read The Tragic Era by Claude Bowers, 1928, a member of the Dunning school. Then read W.E.B. DuBois’ Black Reconstruction in America, written as a response to the Dunning school. Then read Eric Foner’s definitive 1987 Reconstruction, America’s Unfinished Revolution.)

So with white supremacists controlling the history of Reconstruction for almost 100 years after his presidency ended, Grant, who fought for civil rights, needed to be destroyed. Grant’s contemporary enemies also proved far more prolific with their condemnations than his supporters were with their praises. Grant’s 1872 victory and vigorous enforcement of Reconstruction soured Grant before the intellectual class—including historians. And later-day lazy, unthinking, uncritical or Lost Cause sympathizing historians have accepted their biased verdict without question. While Smith’s book is wanting in a few areas, it is a much-needed attempt to demonstrate that Grant’s good sense did not desert him in the White House.

He did have faults, of course. He often was too trusting of people—which often got him into trouble—and he managed the military’s and the nation’s finances a lot better than his own. He did have a drinking problem, but after it cost him his first military career, he made damn sure it never hurt him like that again. (Almost every single report about him being drunk during the war or after is false and usually malicious in nature.)

In sum: Grant saved the Union three times. First by winning the war, second by winning the peace at Appomattox, and third by preserving the peace as president. He is now under-appreciated, underestimated, misunderstood and undeserving of his presidency’s lousy reputation. If there was such a creature as historical justice, Grant would be immortalized on Mount Rushmore.

Do I recommend this book?
Without hesitation.

Modern applications
Ulysses S. Grant and George W. Bush have a lot in common: both men in their times were beset by academics, journalists, career politicians and self-anointed “elites” who considered them stupid, incompetent, corrupt and failures.  Rumors concerning them are given wide consideration and accepted as truth, without evidence, by their enemies. Both men are awkward public speakers, but they each have their forte: Bush is great when he’s on fire, and Grant was brilliant with the written word.  

But both men had visions for America that transcended their presidencies: Grant had Reconstruction, and Bush has the war against Islamic terrorism, for which Iraq is the centerpiece.  Both actions were unpopular, but neither man took a poll to decide whether he should do it. Both men looked to a prior critical event as justification for “stubbornly” continuing what media, critics, elites, political opponents, etc., decried as an unpopular, failed and unnecessary policy: the Civil War for Grant, of course, and 9/11 for Bush. Grant spent his entire presidency determined that the “verdict” of Appomattox not be overturned, and Bush has, since Sept. 11, 2001, been determined that another such attack not happen—not ever. Both visions for America, and the actions that they took, had repercussions far beyond their presidencies.

In Grant’s case, there was massive pushback in the South; when Grant’s party abandoned him, and by extension, free blacks in the south, civil rights for black Americans was postponed for 100 years. In Bush’s case, the jihadists who seek our destruction have flocked to Iraq, making our job much more difficult there. Failure in Iraq—leaving will be seen as failure, by our enemies’ own words—will embolden our enemy like nothing else has before, and will mean a much, much more dangerous world than the one we live in now.

Neither man sought failure. Both wanted to win. Grant wanted victory with Reconstruction as much as he sought victory over the Confederacy. But eventually even his party abandoned Grant because they grew tired of the cause, and believed it would never work. Democrats, I believe, abandoned the Iraq cause when it became politically expedient to do so—if they ever truly supported it to begin with; the same goes with squishy Republicans. If the GOP abandons Bush’s policies in Iraq like the party abandoned Grant late in his second term over Reconstruction, the consequences for the world—not just the nation—will be severe. It will be the same for whoever succeeds Bush, because Grant’s successor, Hayes, ended Reconstruction as part of the election compromise—effectively abandoning blacks to the mercies of Democrat white supremacists.

I’ve bogged down reading Frederick Douglass (for reasons that will become apparent when I finally post a review) so to keep this site fresh, here is the first “mini” review.

Title: Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo
Author: Ted Lawson
Publisher: Potomac Books; New Ed edition (reprint of the original)
Date: 2002
Rating: Five stars out of five

Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo is one of the first grown-up books I ever read.  It’s one of most thrilling tales of World War Two, told by one of the pilots who flew the ballsy Doolittle Raid.

After Pearl Harbor, the Japanese army and navy had the US and allies on the ropes. By early April, the Japanese had conquered many islands, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Java, Indonesia and were threatening Australia. US and Filipino forces on the Bataan peninsula and Corregidor were close to surrender and the horror of Japanese prison camps.

America needed a morale booster and quick. Ted Lawson and 85 volunteers had been planning and training for months for a secret mission to bomb Tokyo. They would be flying B-25 Mitchells, a medium, 2-engine bomber. The B-25 was never meant for carrier operations. Yet it was chosen for its range and bomb load, and was stripped of most armament and all non-essential parts. Jimmy Doolittle’s plan called for the B-25s to take off from an aircraft carrier, proceed to their targets then land in China. Simple enough, right?

Despite the months of training, things went wrong from the start. The Japanese spotted the approaching American fleet several hundred miles away from the launch point. Rather than blow the whole mission, Doolittle, Lawson and the rest of the crews took off early. Consequently, while all the bombers hit their targets in Tokyo and three other cities, several B-25s ran out of fuel long before reaching friendly territory in China. Some crews were killed, and some fell into Japanese hands and were executed.

Lawson and his crew succeeded in hitting their targets in Tokyo (hence the terrific title) then crash landed in China. Chinese hid the wounded Lawson and his crew until they were able to ferret them to safety.

The physical damage from the raid was negligible, of course, but that wasn’t the point. The psychological results were phenomenal, and succeeded in throwing the Japanese off their stride. It can be argued that the Japanese attempt to take Midway island two months later – and the subsequent smashing decisive American victory – would not have happened without the Doolittle Raid. Roosevelt was also thrilled with the raid, and told reporters hungry for information that the planes took off from Shangri-La.

This raid should never be forgotten, nor the men who did it. The raid came along at the right time: American bombers, hitting the Japanese homeland! Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo should forever stand as a testament to American ingenuity, courage and brazen guts.

Note: The 50-year-old Van Johnson movie depiction of the raid, based on Lawson’s book, is vastly superior to the presentation in the laughably bad schlock-fest “Pearl Harbor” starring Ben Affleck.

Title: Hard to Believe: The High Cost and Infinite Value of Following Jesus
Author: John MacArthur
Publisher: Thomas Nelson Publishers
Date: 2003
Rating: five stars out of five

What this book is / is not
Hard to Believe is a powerful, gut-punch examination of the church in America today, and how far it has gone astray of the true message of Christ in the quest to be popular and appealing. MacArthur says quite plainly what should be done about it: return to the Bible, where the cost of believing in Jesus Christ is high but the reward is priceless.

This book is not a soft-spoken call to action along the lines of a populist preacher like Billy Graham. Instead, it is a slap upside the head with a two-by-four. Like it says on the dust cover, “There is no user-friendly, seeker-sensitive gospel. There is only the truth.” This book does not treat “mainstream” Christianity with sensitivity or gentleness, but with bluntness and anger.

This is also not a political book, nor does MacArthur concern himself with American politics in any way. Instead, he attacks the “easy believism” that is destroying the church.

Main thesis
Hard to Believe is one of the hardest-hitting Christian books ever written, designed to force Christians to face the reality of the gospel, and not the dangerously cheap and easy—and ultimately futile—“Christianity lite” that has gripped so much of the church in America today. 

The author does not apologize for the hard truths of Christianity, nor does he water them down to appeal to a wider, more accepting audience. That would of course, defeat the purpose of the book.

There’s so much packed into this book that a brief review seems almost unfair. MacArthur examines several late 20th century/early 21st century phenomena that are undermining the church: “self esteem,” popularity, tolerance (the modern definition), chasing miracles, one-step altar calls with false assurances of salvation, the desire to be satisfied in this world, and so on. All of these trends, fads, social political movements, sincere religiosity based on either worldly matters or gross perversion of scripture, are undermining the Body of Christ. They're leading seasoned and new believers astray, MacArthur writes, because people are not adhering to what God has laid out in the Bible. 

So what is “hard to believe” about following Jesus? And what is the “high cost” and “infinite value”? The latter is easy, of course: eternal life with the Master Himself. But why is the gospel hard to believe? Aren’t millions upon millions of people around the world Christians? Well…yes, but as MacArthur says, many of them will be tragically surprised to discover that they really aren’t saved when they die, because they’ve bought into cheap grace or a false gospel or an easy answer. For example, saying a simple prayer asking Jesus to come into your life, but then living your life as if nothing had just transpired, changes absolutely nothing. Or calling yourself a Christian while you still pay homage to the Hindu gods earns you a place on the wide road to destruction. Jesus Himself warned that on the Day of the Lord many will call “Lord! Lord!” and cry that they had worshiped Him and performed miracles in His name, but Jesus Christ will send them away, saying that He never knew them.

But what makes the gospel hard to believe? The “foolishness” of the cross, for one, MacArthur writes. Paul faced this in his own day, by focusing on a crucified Savior—when crucifixion was the most shameful, degrading way for a man to be killed. Only criminals died that way, and "polite society" never even talked about it. But Paul would always come back to the cross. Even today, liberal scholars insist that Christianity must do away with the cross and try to discredit Biblical Christianity, to replace it with something that feels good.  (It is one reason why Christians owe a debt of gratitude to Mel Gibson for his movie The Passion of the Christ, regardless of what you think of Mel Gibson the man.)

The gospel is also hard to believe primarily because it makes people uncomfortable. In its true form, as Jesus and the apostles and Paul preached it, it is offensive. God, nailed to a tree? Turn the other cheek? He who will be last will be first? The wheat will be separated from the chaff? There’s nothing I can do to save myself? Being “good” doesn’t get me to heaven? I can’t go to God, He comes to me? Eat my flesh, drink my blood? (And for the modern man, God created the world, not "chance" and evolutionarty forces?) It’s all offensive to the human mind.

When Jesus was actually speaking the gospel, and challenging them on their religiosity, people were often so enraged at what He was saying—and thoroughly not understanding, to boot—that they tried to kill Him on several occasions! (See John 8 and Luke 4 for examples in full context.)

Liberal denominations, some mega-churches and some populist preachers often preach a feel-good gospel, a superficial faith, something that only scratches the surface. Their focus is on politics, or society, or feeling good, or health and wealth, or this world—instead of where it should be focused: the cross, Christ crucified for our sins and for our salvation. The full gospel itself is rarely preached; instead, a watered-down message is offered so people aren’t scared away. Hard truths aren’t taught, hard lessons go unlearned, and people remain ignorant of the truth of the gospel, MacArthur writes.

And the high cost comes from following Jesus as He meant it. It often means ostracism from some friends, and even some family. It means, today, being called “intolerant,” a “bigot,” “narrow-minded,” etc. It means being hated by some, even many, because the world hated Him first. Looking around the nation today at the incredible hate thrown at ordinary Christians by unbelievers, it’s not hard to imagine. It means destroying your old self and becoming renewed in Christ—which can lead to the above-named ostracism, “intolerance,” etc.

MacArthur concludes his book on a note of hope and ultimate victory, that although many will end up on the wide road to destruction—often unwittingly and tragically so—there are a few (relatively speaking) who are on the narrow path to salvation. It is the narrow path alone that saves, as there is only one true path: through Jesus Christ. 

Jaw-Dropper
It’s a jaw-dropper that a book like this need to be written today: not a defense of the exclusivity of Christianity against, say, Islam or Buddhism (see MacArthur's Why One Way?, also reviewed below), but a defense of Christianity against itself. The lack of proper Biblical education—nay, often the lack of any Biblical education in “mainstream” denominations—and the thirst for easy spiritual answers, easy spiritual comforts and easy Christianity that matches leisurely American consumer lifestyles is wrecking the church in America. Hard to Believe and similar books, sermons, and face-to-face talks between Christians are critical to renewing the church in America. 

Does the author succeed?
Yes. This is easily one of John MacArthur’s best works.

Criticism
First, a production criticism: a topical index would be helpful for subsequent printings.

Second: This is a well-reasoned and logically organized book. It is the culmination of four decades of observation and ministerial teaching of John MacArthur, and combines themes that can be found in sermons and other books, such as Why One Way?.

The only criticism is a relative dearth of examples from the Christian world on where things are going wrong; MacArthur relies more in general observations. I’m not necessarily looking for names (for example, see Hank Hanegraaff’s Christianity in Crisis and Counterfeit Revival) but more concrete examples of the problems. But the lack of examples is only a minor problem, and doesn’t detract from the overall theme, especially because some of the concepts are so well-known in America—and the church—today.  

Main takeaway lessons
There’s so much to absorb in this book that picking only a few lessons is difficult.  But here’s the biggest thing: Christianity is not about a physical building that you show up at on Sundays. It isn’t about a great-sounding band with excellent guitar riffs. It isn’t about making you feel good. It isn’t about your self esteem, nor is it about accepting your “lifestyle.” It isn’t about saying a one-time prayer and thinking you’re “covered” and will automatically go to heaven. It isn’t about making you happy. It isn’t about making you wealthy and healthy here on earth.

Christianity is not just one of many ways to God.

It is all about Jesus, with you destroying your old self and taking up your cross to follow Him. Doing so, in the way that He says, is difficult, but the reward is beyond calculation.

Do I recommend this book?
YES. If you are a “mainstream” Christian or one who would consider himself or herself  “open-minded” or “tolerant,” you will probably be offended by this book, because it most likely flies in the face of everything political you hold dear. Even though politics isn’t the point of Hard to Believe, it has a strong message for denominations that are primarily concerned with politics and the social movements of today.

But please understand, your faith isn’t about politics, or even about America. I recommend this book to anyone who is concerned about the church in America, and ultimately about his or her soul.

John MacArthur, Hard to Believe: The High Cost and Infinite Value of Following Jesus (2003) (already read)

William S. McFeely, Frederick Douglass (reading now)

Philip Yancey, The Jesus I Never Knew (1995) (already read)

Jean Edward Smith, Grant (2001) (already read)

Henry F. Graff, Grover Cleveland (The American Presidents Series, 2002) (already read)

Robert Cowley, editor, The Cold War: A Military History (2006) (to be read)

Note: I’ve decided not to read Bill Sammon, How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media (2006) because frankly, I’m sick of politics--especially now that we've once again entered the silly season--and I have a suspicion that this book may be more than just a little bit of a hagiography. I am a Bush man, but I’m just not interested in this book right now.

Title: The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction?
Author: Hank Hanegraaff and Paul Meier
Publisher: Tyndale House
Date: 2006 (updated to include material from the movie)
Rating: four stars out of five

What this book is / is not
This is a fast-moving, two-part book that first demolishes the claims of Dan Brown’s runaway best-selling novel, The Da Vinci Code, and then examines the claims of the Christian faith.

Despite the title, Fact or Fiction? does not set out to answer the question; it comes to the conclusion immediately that the novel is fiction—and bad fiction at that. Readers wanting something that presents “both sides” should look elsewhere.

Main thesis
Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code claims as fact assertions that:

• Constantine demolished feminine paganism, replacing it with patriarchal Christianity;
• that Jesus was not considered God until the Council of Nicea decreed it as such;
• that several “gospels” were deliberately repressed because they talked about the “humanness” of Jesus Christ, including his supposed marriage to Mary Magdalene and subsequent children
• secret societies desperately want the above secrets hidden and have murdered to do so

All assertions are easily proven false, as Hanegraaff and Meier demonstrate, but the public has absorbed Brown’s fiction and many accept his so-called facts as facts.

The second half of Fact or Fiction? covers the evidence for Jesus as presented in the Bible, and not by Brown, by examining manuscripts, archaeological evidence, witnesses, the Old Testament prophesies that could only be fulfilled by Jesus, etc.  

Fact or Fiction? also includes a presentation of the gospel, so this book can be used as a handy reference guide for witnessing, especially when talking about Brown’s book or the movie version.

Jaw-Dropper
The facts to prove Brown wrong are so easily and readily available – to anyone. Many aren’t hidden deep in scholarly journals or in the dusty, seldom used halls of academic libraries. These facts and resources can be found gathered already in resources such as those that the authors cite. All Christians who seek to debunk the bunk of Brown need do is log on to the Internet. Or pull out a copy of this or similar books.  

Do the authors succeed?
Yes, because they use unimpeachable facts and credible sources to make their case, whereas Brown relied on ancient rumors, long-since discredited sources and misunderstanding of sixth-hand hearsay, especially the Gnostic “gospels”. 

Criticism
None, actually. This is one of the better Da Vinci-debunking books available in that it is short and easy to absorb.

Main takeaway lessons
It is so damnably easy to subvert the historic and evidential church, and unthinking, uncritical Christians who don’t read or understand the Bible can easily fall prey to such nonsense as Brown’s novel. While some may say, “Lighten up; it’s just a novel!” it’s obvious that is no mere novel: it’s a runaway bestseller, a blockbuster movie (it did better in Europe than the United States, remaining at No. 1 for weeks) and the subject of intense debate. This novel has the potential to do serious harm to the faith of undiscerning Christians. 

Do I recommend this book?
YES! The best people to read this book are Christians and non-Christians alike who have questions after reading Brown's novel or seeing the Tom Hanks/Ron Howard movie.

Title: Crucible of War: The Seven Years War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766
Author: Fred Anderson
Publisher: Vintage
Date: 2000
Rating: five stars out of five

What this book is / is not
This grand and well-written study serves as a useful and worthy successor to Francis Parkman’s Montcalm and Wolfe, and a great correction to some of the material presented in William Jennings’ sour Empire of Fortune. Anderson’s primary concern is to understand the fate of the British Empire in North America because of the events of the war of 1754-1763.

However, Crucible of War is not an exhaustive treatise on the Seven Years’ War, so the fighting in Europe is merely overviewed, and the effects of the war in France are not explored. Nor is this primarily a “kings and battles” account of the war. Readers looking for such a book should consider reading Parkman or, for more casual readers, Robert Lekie’s A Few Acres of Snow, because Anderson spends a lot of pages wandering (purposefully!) the halls of the British parliament.  For the purely Indian perspective, readers can peruse Jennings’ Empire of Fortune, but the author comes off as bitter and manages to tell the story of the war by all but omitting the war. 

Main thesis
Often incorrectly viewed as a mere precursor to the Revolution, this last of the series of wars between England and France for control of North America was part of the larger Seven Years’ War (arguably the true first world war) and a huge, earth-shaking event in its own right. Anderson argues that any understanding of the Revolution must first begin not in 1763 with the signing of the treaty of Paris, but in 1754 when an inexperienced George Washington inadvertently touched off a world war in the wilds of the Ohio River valley. Unlike most wars fought in Europe over the previous few hundred years, this war wrought tremendous consequences. Without it, we can speculate that we may have never had a Revolution by force, and the French throne would not have fallen (at least when it did), which of course means that there would not have been no Napoleon, etc., etc.

Two empires came to an end in 1763 and the seeds for the end of the third (at least in North America) were sown. France lost her New World possessions while the loose collection of tribes known as the Iroquois Confederacy, which had played a delicate balancing act between France, England and Colonies, lost power, influence and, eventually, everything. And England, of course, would deal with the consequences of empire a decade after the treaty of Paris.

Any brief summary of this book would do it injustice, because Anderson’s dramatis personae is huge, and their adventures—minor and major, minuscule and transformative—can only be appreciated and savored by reading this magnificent book.

Jaw-Dropper
Anderson splits with Parkman – and most American history, for that matter – in declaring that the siege and battle of Quebec in 1759 was not the great, pivotal and decisive battle that history has said it was. Rather, Anderson contends it was a “dubious” battle that was far less decisive than British mastery of the seas, which denied re-supply and re-enforcements to Canada. The fatal showdown between Montcalm and Wolfe—the latter’s death immortalized in a fanciful painting by Benjamin West—was not as crucial to victory as the romantic images of the war has made it out to be.

Point to ponder
Anderson gives skillful explanations behind scalping and the “biological warfare” of smallpox. For example, scalping was a greatly misunderstood action done by native tribes, and reserved more for sick and wounded, not healthy enemy soldiers and warriors.

As for smallpox epidemics, both whites and Indians were to blame. In some cases, the charges are true that whites deliberately gave Indians blankets infected with smallpox, with the predictable devastating results. Sometimes, though, warriors would unwittingly take infected blankets as booty and carry them back to their villages, with similar results. Such was the case with the fall of Forth William Henry in 1757. (Side note: Anderson is largely in agreement with Francis Jennings in his conclusions that the tales of “massacre” following the British surrender of Fort William Henry were greatly exaggerated.)

Another point: Conservatives tend to ridicule the French, especially their modern military prowess (or lack thereof), but their approach to colonization was decidedly different from that of the British. By and large, they left the native tribes alone and even adopted some native customs -- a type of reverse assimilation -- at least in North America. The Indians therefore (largely) preferred the French to the English.

Does the author succeed?
Yes, tremendously so.

Criticism
Anderson’s prose is clean, refreshing and easy to understand. The casual reader will probably get bogged down in the politics, especially the long chapters on the rise and fall of the governments of Pitt, Grenville, etc., but such a reader, if he is truly interested in understanding this period—and understanding why America came to be—is encouraged to read these parts.

It was sometimes a little difficult to keep track of who was who in the British government, and what office was in charge of what; being an American and not as familiar with the British system, perhaps this is more reader failure than author oversight. But perhaps a flow chart listing the offices and how parliament worked in relation to those offices would be useful.

Main takeaway lessons
If you truly want to understand why the Revolution happened, you must start with this war. In its aftermath, the Colonials were quite proud to be British subjects, and assumed that they were Englishmen who happened to live in a colony. But Whitehall (the British Parliament), while happy to have the Colonies as subjects of the crown, suddenly had a far more immense territory to govern (with the absence of France) and wanted to exert better imperial control – and pay for the massive war debt.

This led directly to the Grenville acts, including the Stamp Act, and also the mislabeled “Pontiac’s Rebellion,” which revealed fissures in the empire. However, revolution against the crown was the furthest thing from their minds, and therefore it is not correct to view independence as a foregone conclusion.

No one in 1766 was seriously thinking of revolution or separation from the crown – and that’s the most important thing to keep in mind. Anderson ends his tale in 1766 following both what he correctly calls the most effective Indian rebellion ever and the Stamp Act upheavals; because it seems that for the moment, in 1766, the empire had gotten back on track.

Thus, Anderson argues effectively that the Stamp Act should no longer be thought of as a precursor to Revolution – a cause and effect relationship – but rather as a failed post-war attempt at reform that wound up exacerbating fissures developed during the war.

The disagreements that led to armed rebellion didn’t cross the Rubicon and become full-fledged revolution until George Washington – the man who unwittingly touched off the war two decades earlier – took command of all of the continental militias and armies after the rebels had already killed and wounded 1,400 of His Majesty’s troops at Concord, Lexington and Bunker Hill. And then it took another full year before independence became a reality, at least on paper.

It is a mistake, therefore, to “start the revolution” in 1763 with the treaty of Paris. This period of American history, from 1760 to at least 1766, is best viewed as the post-war period, instead of the pre-war years. But if you start talking about the Revolution in 1763 instead of 1754, “give me liberty or give me death” seems a little shallow against a king who was very mild on the tyrant scale.

Do I recommend this book?
Absolutely! But be prepared for some heavy-duty reading. At 746 pages (plus 74 pages of notes), Crucible of War is a comprehensive read that deserves to be taken seriously. 

Title: Why One Way? Defending an Exclusive Claim in an Inclusive World
Author: John MacArthur
Publisher: W Publishing Group
Date: 2002
Rating: five stars out of five

What this book is / is not
This is a short, well-focused book in which radio evangelist John MacArthur of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, Calif., makes the case for Christ’s exclusive claim to be the only way to heaven in a postmodern society that prizes its inclusiveness.

Why One Way? is not, however, an in-depth examination of other faiths, nor a side-by-side comparison of the claims of Christianity versus, say, Islam or Buddhism. It is also not a scripturally deep book, but rather a pointed examination of six reasons why Christians should have confidence in the exclusivity of their faith.

Main thesis
MacArthur defends the claim of Jesus’ exclusivity by examining six themes:

• Objectivity. The Bible—the word of God—is objectively true regardless of whether you believe it or not. It is not malleable, nor does its truth change from person to person. It is the standard by which Christians are to measure all other claims to truth.
• Rationality. The Bible makes good sense: “It contains no contradictions, no [fundamental] errors, and no unsound principles,” MacArthur writes. (p.29) This black-and-white rationality, he writes, is one of the main reasons why Biblical Christianity is considered intolerable in an age that despises the notion of absolute truth.
• Veracity. The truth of the Bible is something that the world cannot stand, yet many Christians have watered down that truth or no longer fight for the truth found in the Bible. Many evangelicals, MacArthur writes, ignore doctrine for the sake of peace in the church. MacArthur argues that Christians need to boldly proclaim the truth despite fears of being called arrogant for claiming to know the absolute truth.
• Authority. Proclaiming the truth of scripture has the authority of God Himself behind it—an entirely un-PC notion. If you proclaim yourself a follower of Christ, it should follow that you proclaim the authority of God’s word.
• Incompatibility. Christianity is not compatible with any other religion, period. There can never be a harmonizing of the faiths.
• Integrity. “If we really believe the objective, rationally understood truth of Scripture is both authoritative and incompatible with error, since the Bible is the singular living Word of God, we must not only preach it; we must live it, too.” (p.68)

Jaw-Dropper
The simple fact that a Bible-believing Christian would be bold enough to publish such a book—and preach these themes—in today’s post-Christian America is enough of a jaw-dropper.

Does the author succeed?
Yes. It’s a much-needed kick in the butt for the American church as a whole, which is sadly conforming Christ to the culture, instead of conforming itself to Christ.

Criticism
This book is a fine piece of apologetics by one of the lions of evangelicalism. MacArthur leaves little room for doubt.

I found little with which to disagree, but don’t take that to mean I didn’t give this a thorough read. This isn’t simply a long whine by a troubled evangelist who blames the Christianity’s problems on American culture. Instead, he identifies the real problems as the fact that many churches, pastors and even whole denominations are buying into the modernistic and postmodern trends of American society, and hence softening or watering down the gospel message in order to “fit in” or appear less intolerant.

Because I agree with what MacArthur writes, I’ll look at his style of writing. Some of his longer books seem as though they are merely sermons or lectures in book form. Since his forte is the spoken word, MacArthur can sometimes write in circles. Fortunately, that’s not the case here, because Why One Way? is focused and well-written.

Main takeaway lessons
There is no doubt that many will find this little book offensive, because the gospel of Jesus Himself is offensive to the world.

The world, which is continually hostile to Christ and His message, is currently preaching that all religions are merely different paths to the same God. But Christ’s claim to deity is unique and proven, and Christians need to stand fast under the assault of the evil one who uses the world’s religions to undermine the one true faith. There can never be a reconciliation between Christianity and other faiths, because the only way to salvation is through God’s grace by faith in Jesus Christ alone.

But the gospel of Christ, indeed Christ Himself, is exclusive: “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me,” He said. That is the most “intolerant” statement ever made, according to the new definition of tolerance, which, I guess, makes Jesus a totally intolerant God.

And He is, because God, who is holy (e.g., perfect in every way) cannot countenance sin. He cannot tolerate it in His presence, which is why we cannot earn our way into heaven, or bargain our way, or be “good enough” or please God enough to get into heaven. Only Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, the shedding of innocent divine sacrificial blood to atone for the sins of all mankind, makes it possible for us to enter heaven.

The Father sacrificing His only Son in the supreme act of love takes our filthy rags of sin and replaces them with cloaks of righteousness. In other words, our sins are washed away, covered by Christ. This happens only for those who have accepted the sacrifice and repented of our sins and turned toward the only true God. (Yes, Jesus died for all and carried all sins on His shoulders, but only a relative few accept Him as Lord and Savior.)

It is only this heavenly cleansing, this cloaking of a foreign righteousness (Jesus Christ’s) that permits us to enter into God’s holy (perfect) presence in His heavenly kingdom.

So, yes, God is intolerant. So be it.

Do I recommend this book?
Yes, primarily for those who believe that Jesus is just one of many ways to heaven, and those who think that watering down the gospel message to appear “open-minded” or “tolerant” in order to please man is the way to go.

Title: Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism
Author: Peter Schweizer
Publisher: Doubleday
Date: 2002
Rating: four stars out of five

What this book is / is not
This book is a fast-moving examination of Ronald Reagan and his strong, moral-based crusade to destroy the Soviet Union. The organization of this book couches practically everything in Reagan's life in terms of this battle. The author makes copious and skillful use of previously unavailable primary source material from Soviet and East German archives (see Criticism) to support his thesis, and it is this material that makes this a valuable book.

However, Reagan's War is not a definitive history of the Cold War or of Ronald Reagan. The author assumes reader familiarity of both, so it may not be a good starting point for students new to either subject.

Main thesis
From his early days standing up to Soviet-backed union thugs to his amazing presidency, Reagan believed firmly in the promise of America and the hollowness, corruption and downright evil of the Soviet Union. Reagan became convinced that democracy and capitalism would easily defeat communism in a fair fight – a fair fight being people allowed to choose fairly between both political/economic philosophies. Unlike most of the other Cold War presidents, Reagan did not fear the Soviet Union—which was one of his greatest strengths. Instead, he believed that if America pressured Moscow militarily and economically, and engaged the Soviet empire around the world, the evil empire would collapse under its own weight. Which is exactly what happened.

Reagan began his battle against communism when he was a Hollywood actor by first objecting to the communists' tactics of subterfuge, intimidation and threats used in actors' unions. He soon came to despise communism itself, for, as he said, if communism was so great, how come the Soviets needed walls and fences to keep people inside?  Before he became president, Reagan frequently spoke of the 1 billion prisoners in the Soviet bloc countries that should not and could not be consigned to a life of misery, slavery, poverty and despair, all in the name of "peace." Reagan became convinced that democracy and capitalism would easily defeat communism in a fair fight – a fair fight being people allowed to choose fairly between both political/economic philosophies.

Reagan refused to buy into the cherished belief that the Soviet Union could not be beaten and would always be with us—a belief held by politicians on both sides of the isle. "Containment," "detente," "surrender," "military parity," "get along" with communism—these were all foul concepts to Reagan.  Through spreading his vision at home and abroad, he scared enemies, liberals and even allies with his moral clarity and intellectual certainty that democracy and capitalism would win the day over dead-end Soviet communism--and he never surrendered that belief.

Schweizer's book is interesting, entertaining and enlightening, but moves a little too fast. That said, it is interesting to see how he transforms Reagan from B-movie star and corporate spokesman, to 40th president of the United States and leader of the free world. And it isn't so much a transformation as a continual growth and refinement. For example, Reagan's 1964 speech in support of Barry Goldwater's doomed presidential bid is considered a seminal event among conservative circles. American Heritage magazine declared the speech "overrated" in its annual Overrated/Underrated issue a few years ago and it may just be that, but not for the reasons the magazine gave. Instead, reading Schweizer, one gets the impression that Reagan really presented nothing new in that speech; rather, he had been saying the same concepts for years on the lecture circuit. But "The Speech" did catapult Reagan to further political prominence, leading to the California governor's mansion two years later, and then on to the White House.

Jaw-dropper
What scared the Soviets about Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, jeeringly referred to as "Star Wars" by liberals and media) wasn’t that it would prevent a Soviet attack, but that it would prevent a Soviet counter-attack. Soviet scientists knew that Reagan knew that a fully operational system was 15 to 20 years away (how right they both were) but they also both also knew that the American economy was broad and deep enough to produce such a system—and the Soviets could never, ever match it.

Liberals who claim disingenuously that SDI was an obstacle to ending the Cold War are simply flying in the fact of the facts—facts given by the Soviets themselves!

Does the author succeed?
For the most part, yes, but only if the reader is familiar with the Cold War, and also because of the sources employed by the author (see Criticism).

Criticism
The primary drawback to this book is that Schweizer paints every president from Truman to Carter in a slightly to heavily negative light to advance his thesis (although in Carter's case it is richly deserved). Schweizer has a tendency to use positions and statements that either advance Reagan or denigrate his predecessors – but the Soviet sources concerning those presidents nevertheless are damning. Reagan's predecessors often played right into Moscow's hands, especially Nixon, Ford and Carter. But unfortunately, by writing Reagan's War in such a way, Schweizer slips a into hagiography territory, when he needn't have had to. Anyone who thinks that Harry Truman wasn't an adamant Cold Warrior is way off base.  

Another drawback is that this book seems to pigeon-hole Reagan, making his whole life seem like it was wrapped in destroying Soviet communism.  Therefore, the subtitle seems a little pretentious. But then again, the book never claims to be a complete biography of Reagan, so Schweizer can be forgiven the impression.

However, the great strength of this book is the author's use of newly revealed and released Soviet KGB and East German Stasi documents concerning Reagan and the extent of communism inside America (especially in unions and anti-war movements) which prove Reagan right and the liberals wrong. The Soviets feared Reagan unlike any other American president. They didn't fear that Reagan would stupidly launch a nuclear war, as Reagan-hating liberals moaned he would; rather, they feared quite correctly that Reagan would destroy their empire. Not necessarily by using bombs and bullets, but by using economics, politics and idealism, and by military technology they simply couldn't match.

For example, the author highlights how Moscow liked dealing with Nixon and Ford, and absolutely loved Carter. Why? The Soviets said so. Their own internal secret documents and transcripts of top level meetings reveal that the Soviet Union was not interested in détente or peace. They were out to conquer the world. The more the US retreated – especially into Carter's malaise – the better for the Soviet Union. Negotiations with the Soviet Union invariably gave the advantage to Moscow. Everything conservatives had claimed about the Soviet Union's march across the globe was true, by the Soviets' own admission.

Main takeaway lessons
Until George W. Bush came along, Reagan was the liberals' favorite whipping boy. They still dismiss him as an "amiable dunce" and laughably give credit for the end of the Cold War to the last Soviet dictator, Gorbachev – a man desperate to save the Soviet empire. But the Cold War ended victoriously for the United States and her allies primarily because of one man, Ronald Reagan. Did Reagan win the Cold War alone? No! That’s like saying Churchill, FDR and Stalin won WWII without soldiers, navies or bombers.

However, Reagan was the catalyst. He found allies willing and ready to fight, like Margaret Thatcher, Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel and Pope John Paul II, and forced the world to confront the Soviet Union head-on. He talked (preached, actually) directly to dissidents behind the Iron Curtain, and gave them hope. He took his disgust at communism and its expression in the Soviet Union and turned it into a battle to undo what he considered one of the greatest wrongs in the world.

Reagan wasn't a warmonger, as his detractors claimed. He was, in fact, a peacemaker. "Tear down this wall," Reagan said, so that all men may be free. Not just a privileged few. He was a constant: his ideals and beliefs never wavered, regardless of the audience, and despite perceived political popularity.  In the author's words, "He would not change course, even in the pursuit of personal glory." (p.283)

It seems like Dubya was watching and learning.

Do I recommend this book?
Yes, primarily because of the source materials, which are critical to the continual debate that Reagan, and not the dictator Gorbachev, ended the Cold War. But as written above, those new to the Cold War or Ronald Reagan should seek other materials first.

I'm down in New Orleans for a hurricane relief mission trip for a few days; then I and my group are heading over to Biloxi.

I'm reading McFeely's biography on Frederick Douglass, though I don't know how much I'll get done. Although, I will eventually do a review of this, the only modern full-scale biography of this great American.

Cheers, all.

Title: In Defense of the Religious Right: Why Conservative Christians Are the Lifeblood of the Republican Party and Why that Terrifies the Democrats
Author: Patrick Hynes, founder and proprietor of Ankle Biting Pundits
Publisher: Nelson Current
Date: 2006
Big Mo's rating: 4 1/2 stars out of 5

What this book is / is not
This is primarily a book about politics and, as the title states, a defense of the Religious Right's role in American and Republican politics. It is an examination of the distorted, twisted and often hateful view that the secular, political and religious left has of the Religious Right—and also the misconceptions the political right has of Christian conservatives and their role in Republican victories since 1994.

However, In Defense of the Religious Right is not an exhaustive examination of the inner workings and beliefs of the Religious Right, nor is it an in-depth exploration of its growth over the years, or a biographical treatment of key leaders. Those topics are touched upon, but readers wanting meat on those topics should look elsewhere.

Main thesis
Just who IS the Religious Right? "(It is) simply the most maligned group of Americans in the country. They have been blamed, mocked, ridiculed, chastised, libeled, slandered, demonized, scapegoated, belittled, decried, scorned, insulted, smeared, disparaged, and mythologized by opinion leaders and activists who do not know what the Religious Right is, do not understand what it believes, and have personal and political stakes in seeing it marginalized."

So writes Patrick Hynes in a valuable book that explores a hugely misunderstood (and misunderestimated) segment of America: the Religious Right. At 30 million strong, they are also not only the backbone of the Republican Party, which has taken the GOP from the minority to a rather sizable and solid majority status, but also the guardians and defenders of traditional American values.

Before anyone scoffs, Hynes explains that those values have always been an integral part of American life; they didn't just suddenly spring into being in the last 40 or so years, as leftists are repeatedly claiming. The Religious Right is not some interloper group attempting to impose strange and foreign values upon an unwilling America, Hynes asserts. That description justly belongs to the liberals and assorted leftists who are pushing gay marriage, evolution (to the exclusion of all else) and abortion while at the same time attempting to erase God from American public society.

But this book isn't merely Hynes' opinion. What makes the book valuable is he backs up his thesis by drawing on polling data, studies, interviews, analyses, election results and voting trends. Particularly valuable is his delineation of just who the Religious Right is: they aren't made up of "largely poor, uneducated and easily lead" people, as Michael Wiesskopf famously sneered in 1993. Nor is the Religious Right merely Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and the Christian Coalition. In actuality, the Religious Right crosses all races, all levels of education and all income brackets pretty evenly.

"At last count, the Religious Right is 30 million religiously motivated conservative voters. According to exit and postelection polling data, we can conclude that they are roughly 23 million evangelical and conservative mainline Christians and 6.9 million conservative Catholics. They represent the growing wings of their respective denominations and faith traditions. They are black, white and brown. They live in parts North, South, East, and West. They are wealthy, middle class and poor. They are highly educated and poorly educated. They are, in short, Americans." (p.175)

Jaw-dropper
Perhaps the most surprising part is his revelation that a huge key to Bush’s—and the GOP's—victory in 2004 was the hundreds of thousands of small Bible groups that served as impromptu political action groups. They generally share the same values, the same ideals—and the same politics.  And that, Hynes discovered, is how the word spread and things happened all across the country for 2004. Not through massed marches, big celebrity concerts and billionaire bucks that the liberals employed—but word of mouth.

New term
Hynes also coins a wonderful term: the "theophobes"—a word that I will shamelessly co-opt—which simply means anyone who has an irrational fear of conservative Christians. It’s actually a better term than the misnomer "homophobe," because in this case, the secular, political and religious left are actually afraid of everything the Religious Right represents—real or (usually) imagined.

Does the author succeed?
Yes, for the most part, especially through judicious use of sources.

There is little doubt that this book will be poorly received—or ignored altogether—by the political left. But more critical to the main thesis is whether the book will be received well by the right. Will its message be received by the people who need to heed its call?

In a way, Hynes' book serves as a partial response to Cal Thomas’ and Ed Dobson’s 1999 book, Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America? in which they argue that the Religious Right has been harmful to the cause of Christ in America by cozying up to political causes. The publisher says that authors "insist we must realize that God’s agenda does not rise or fall with political causes" which is very correct "and we must rediscover that our most potent influence is not the ballot booth, but lives that extend God’s grace in the home, in the workplace, and in all spheres of our culture" (words lifted from Barnes and Noble web site). But Hynes demonstrates that by doing just that—through their small groups and faith-based organizations—Christians have affected the ballot box in huge ways!

Criticism
There are only a few minor places where I disagreed with Hynes, or thought he could have made a stronger argument with a few more examples. In Chapter 5, Jan vs. Mel, in which he encapsulates the 2004 election in terms of Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction" versus Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, he could have augmented that chapter with another equally stark juxtaposition: the Gipper versus Slick Willie. Ronald Reagan was an intensely Christian man, and Bill Clinton was, in Hynes' words, a "Faker" (see chapter 10). Reagan’s death and funeral in the summer of 2004 and the release of Bill Clinton's narcissistic best-selling memoirs a month later were incredible contrasts of character and faith—and those who flocked to either man were probably just as sharply divided as those who viewed the "wardrobe malfunction" and The Passion of the Christ quite differently.  

Also, because Hynes went to great lengths to explain what Thomas Jefferson actually said and meant—as well as Washington, Franklin and Madison—I thought he should have included several quotes from other founders to bolster the argument that the nation was founded as a Christian nation with Christian values and morals. 

Still, the lack of either of the above does not detract from the overall argument and presentation. Minor factual errors also do not take away from the overall argument and can easily be corrected in subsequent printings.

Main takeaway lessons
Hynes' ultimate conclusion seems to be: If you're Republican, you ignore the Religious Right to your peril, not because it's a voting block to be pampered, but because it embodies Middle America. If you're Democrat, you ridicule them to your despair, because you can't fake it, nor can you win a battle of the Scriptures against them.

Do I recommend this book?
Yes, definitely.  You can purchase it through Ankle Biting Pundits.

Disclaimer
I guess you could say I am a member of the Religious Right, as I am an evangelical Christian, belonging to a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod congregation, and, although not a Republican per say, usually vote conservative/Republican. Therefore, I am sympathetic to this book. However, if Hynes had done a poor job, I would not recommend this book. Happily, that is not the case.