if I had the space and the money, this is along the lines of what my library of history books would look like
What book(s) are you currently reading?
- Thread starter john4psu
- Start date
I just found out that there will be a free webinar on this book (with the author) on February 24 sponsored by the New England Genealogical Society (I have an e-subscription to their weekly newsletter, as my dad's family is from Essex Co.).
I finished this a few weeks ago. It was interesting, in that I never really thought of these two Founding Fathers as having a partnership. Edward J. Larson makes a good case that they did, though you could also argue that they were two Founders that just were extremely competent in their roles, which were quite different before, during, and after the American Revolution.
I'd give it a 3, possibly a 3.5, on a 5-star scale. It's well written, and was easy to read. It did have a few tacts that I had forgotten, but at least for me, there wasn't enough really new info to make this a great book.
Link
You have to scroll through the online activities bar to find it.
I'm part Irish, and I cannot take sides (though I can deplore the violence and hatred). My maternal great-grandfather was a Protestant from Belfast. My parernal great-grandmother was a Catholic from Dublin. So if I did, I'd have a civil war inside my own body. I suspect, given the melting pot that is the US, that I'm not alone in this.
I knew of the presentation, as I had noticed it on the web site of the Boston Athenaeum web site. My recollection is that it was open only to members, and clicking on the registration link, it appears that you do need to indicate whether or not you are a member of the three organizations that appear to be sponsoring the talk. I saw Ed Larson talk about the book in question in the spring (or early summer) in an online event sponsored by Mount Vernon.
Yeah, I would not have recommended Cheney's bio. It's more a review of early America than a bio of Madison.
My favorite bio of Madison is by Ralph Ketcham, titled, James Madison: A Biography. It was initially published in 1971, but it really stands the test of time. If you wanted a shorter bio of Madison, I'd go with James Madison, by Richard Brookhiser. It lacks some of the depth and the analysis of Ketcham's bio, and doesn't always give you a sense of what Madison was thinking, but it certainly captures the salient aspects of his life.
Oh certainly. Although, I would say, I generally don't view the troubles in a sectarian way. Lots of protestants on the rebel side as well, including the great Wolfe Tone. Although that was a different "troubles". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfe_Tone
Last edited:
I'm not a paid member, but I am registered with American Ancestors for the stuff you can have free access to--like this.
With Lent coming up, I just finished “ Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls “
This book provides some historical interest, even if your theological interest is limited.
In 1947, Bedouins discovered some very ancient scrolls in a series of caves in the West side of the Dead Sea. These scrolls made it into the hands of some antiquities dealers and it was soon determined that these were about 2000 years old. Archaeological expeditions were mounted and additional scrolls were discovered.
The Scrolls were the property of a monastic community that lived in the aforementioned caves between about 200 B.C. and 70 A.D. The community was a celibate, male group of what we would today call “ monks “. Others referred to them as the Essenes, although they probably would have referred to themselves as Israelites. They were a third main branch of Judaism in the first century, the others being the Pharisees and the Sadducees. In addition to the monastic community, there were many other Jews at the time who were either part of the wider Essene community, or were at least very familiar and somewhat sympathetic to it’s beliefs.
The Essenes were focused on the coming of the Messiah and were heavily occupied with liturgical and ritual purity. Most of them actually expected not one, but two Messiahs in the separate roles of priest and king. Learning about this branch of first century Judaism fills in a lot of the puzzle pieces in the New Testament that might take too long in this post to adequately cover. However, numerous details that sometimes seem trivial begin to make more sense. The language of the Gospel of John can be seen as something contemporaneous with the time of the Apostles. John The Baptist becomes a much more understandable and important figure. The Sacramental aspect of early Christianity also comes into sharper focus. Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem at the culmination of his ministry is more appreciable, along with his execution by Roman officialdom less than a week later.
The author is a Catholic, so most readers would likely conclude there is a mostly Catholic interpretation of the available evidence. It is, however, a fascinating and well researched review of an overlooked and rather foundational aspect of first century history.
This book provides some historical interest, even if your theological interest is limited.
In 1947, Bedouins discovered some very ancient scrolls in a series of caves in the West side of the Dead Sea. These scrolls made it into the hands of some antiquities dealers and it was soon determined that these were about 2000 years old. Archaeological expeditions were mounted and additional scrolls were discovered.
The Scrolls were the property of a monastic community that lived in the aforementioned caves between about 200 B.C. and 70 A.D. The community was a celibate, male group of what we would today call “ monks “. Others referred to them as the Essenes, although they probably would have referred to themselves as Israelites. They were a third main branch of Judaism in the first century, the others being the Pharisees and the Sadducees. In addition to the monastic community, there were many other Jews at the time who were either part of the wider Essene community, or were at least very familiar and somewhat sympathetic to it’s beliefs.
The Essenes were focused on the coming of the Messiah and were heavily occupied with liturgical and ritual purity. Most of them actually expected not one, but two Messiahs in the separate roles of priest and king. Learning about this branch of first century Judaism fills in a lot of the puzzle pieces in the New Testament that might take too long in this post to adequately cover. However, numerous details that sometimes seem trivial begin to make more sense. The language of the Gospel of John can be seen as something contemporaneous with the time of the Apostles. John The Baptist becomes a much more understandable and important figure. The Sacramental aspect of early Christianity also comes into sharper focus. Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem at the culmination of his ministry is more appreciable, along with his execution by Roman officialdom less than a week later.
The author is a Catholic, so most readers would likely conclude there is a mostly Catholic interpretation of the available evidence. It is, however, a fascinating and well researched review of an overlooked and rather foundational aspect of first century history.
Last edited:
Thanks - wishing I had asked you first. I looked at the Ketcham bio but thought it might be a tedious read. If Cheney doesn't get the job done I will consider Ketcham as well.
I changed delivery method for now... learning online from The Great Courses Plus instead of reading a book. Currently doing Intro to Astrophysics, with Joshua Winn from Princeton. Lots of use of mathematical modeling to describe the fundamentals, and I'm enjoying it. Will be doing another topic when this 25-lecture astrophysics one is done. Definitely worth it for $120 for the year.
But it would take years (and cost me a mint) to take the courses to understand that.
Jacob Burckhardt's 1860 classic "The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy". I bought it in grad school and it sat neglected for many years. I recently finished "The Polymath: A Cultural History from Leonardo da Vinci to Susan Sontag" by Peter Burke, and Burckhardt was mentioned, so it rang a distant bell. I had always meant to read it, and after a long search I retrieved it from deep in my book collection. It assumes a detailed knowledge of many long-dead Italians (before there was a country called Italy) so my trips to Rome and Florence the past few years helped, but it still sends me to Google frequently. The Italian Renaissance was a very violent and amoral time, so it is a wonder that such a spectacular flourishing of creativity occurred there and then. Perhaps that was the essential prerequisite for it.
A college buddy sent me this list a few weeks ago:
huckberry.com
I’ve only read less than 20 of them (there are a bunch of self help books that I don’t read very much). But I did just read “Matterhorn”, a novel about the Vietnam War which I enjoyed. It’s long but well written. The author was a Rhodes Scholar who volunteered and served as a 1st LT in the Marines.
I’m now reading “The Art of Fielding” which is a light read but questionable so far to merit being on the top 50 list. We’ll see.
How to become a genius in 50 easy steps | Huckberry
How to become a genius in 50 easy steps
I’ve only read less than 20 of them (there are a bunch of self help books that I don’t read very much). But I did just read “Matterhorn”, a novel about the Vietnam War which I enjoyed. It’s long but well written. The author was a Rhodes Scholar who volunteered and served as a 1st LT in the Marines.
I’m now reading “The Art of Fielding” which is a light read but questionable so far to merit being on the top 50 list. We’ll see.
Per a prior post, Pelikan's "Mary Through the Centuries". This is an outstanding book crossing history, theology, art, and culture. First, particularly in the first millenium, we see how Mary and Marian doctrine was very much at the inflection point, and a necessary part of the resolution of, many core theological issues at the heart of Christianity generally (the relationship of Christianity to Judaism, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the veneration of icons, etc.) We see the tremendous regard that Islam has for Mary, which was very new to me. In medieval centuries we see the interaction of Marian doctrine with concepts of free will, intercession of the saints, and the like. Then, a fascinating discussion of the Romanticism of Goethe, and finally modern CAtholic affirmation of the immaculate conception, assumption, and queenship
Well you can always replay segments for reinforcement. But yeah having had calculus and at least an introductory physics class before taking this class is very helpful.
There are some good ones here.A college buddy sent me this list a few weeks ago:
How to become a genius in 50 easy steps | Huckberry
How to become a genius in 50 easy steps
I’ve only read less than 20 of them (there are a bunch of self help books that I don’t read very much). But I did just read “Matterhorn”, a novel about the Vietnam War which I enjoyed. It’s long but well written. The author was a Rhodes Scholar who volunteered and served as a 1st LT in the Marines.
I’m now reading “The Art of Fielding” which is a light read but questionable so far to merit being on the top 50 list. We’ll see.
Genesis
Interesting that God refers to man being made in "our" image and God speaks as a plurality of subjects on multiple occasions in the creation story.
Interesting that God refers to man being made in "our" image and God speaks as a plurality of subjects on multiple occasions in the creation story.
Some Christians beleive that this is an early reference to the concept of the Trinity.
Happened upon this letter from Voltaire to Rousseau. After finishing it, I immediately ordered “The Portable Voltaire.”
Voltaire was visited on his deathbed by a priest who asked him if he would renounce Satan, Voltaire supposedly replied, "This is no time to be making new enemies".
Lol. You’ll like hearing how I happened upon the letter in the first place. In the Losing Weight thread there was some discussion about the importance of protein-focused breakfasts. (Which is significant, I admit.) I myself eat shredded wheat for breakfast because I value regularity. I was looking for another letter Voltaire wrote to Rosseau, responding to Rousseau’s complaining that he was going deaf. “At our age, being regular is more important than being able to hear.”
Voltaire was more than a poet, playwright,and world-class wit. He read deeply of Isaac Newton and popularized his works in France by writing, along with the physicist and mathematician Emilie du Chatelet, "Elements of the Philosophy of Newton".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleme...h: Éléments de la,and thought of Isaac Newton.
"Voltaire explained Newtonian science to the educated public more successfully than any other writer, perhaps because he took more pains to understand it."
I know upstream I posted a list of the top 50 books every guy should read. I got that from a fraternity brother and I’m slowly plowing my way through. One book I loved is “The Dog Stars” by Peter Heller. Great book about 99% of the world dying in a flu pandemic written in 2012. Reading “Sapiens” now.
![Occupied America: British Military Rule and the Experience of Revolution (Early American Studies) by [Donald F. Johnson]](/proxy.php?image=https%3A%2F%2Fm.media-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F51%2BwU97-hdL.jpg&hash=d58041b5b47d419ac96515511ea765d4 "Occupied America: British Military Rule and the Experience of Revolution (Early American Studies) by [Donald F. Johnson]")
I completed this book a few days ago. It examines the experiences of Americans (loyalist and patriot) in the cities that were occupied for extended times by the British in the American Revolution. These were: Boston, Newport, New York, Philadelphia, Charleston, and Savannah. To a much lesser extent, it examines the situations in Georgia and in South Carolina, where Britain was able to extend their occupation far beyond Savannah and South Carolina, respectively.
The author's main point was that the British thought that by occupying these areas, they could show the advantage to the populace of remaining loyal subjects, and abandoning the revolution. However, their actions in those cities ended up working against their larger goals.
The book is well written (I didn't find my first typo until page 45), and while a lot of the general info I was well versed on, it did bring up some facts involving specific individuals in some of the aforementioned cities that I was not aware of. I thought a few of the conclusions that were drawn, based on things that took place when Philadelphia was occupied, were mischaracterized, but not in a major way, and I thought I could understand the author's take on those, even if I disagreed with small parts of his descriptions.
It was interesting to read how many of those in the aforementioned cities kind of straddled the line, and kept their foot, so to speak, in both the British camp and the patriot's camp. In some cases, these individuals were disaffected, and really didn't care who won -- they just wanted to get on with their lives. In other cases, the individuals did have a preference, but also were keeping their options open as best they could.
I've read a great deal about the occupations of Philadelphia, Boston, New York, and Charleston. As such, I got more out of the book about the occupations of Newport and Savannah, as I'm just not as knowledgeable about those occupations. For those not as read on the occupations of the aforementioned cities, I think you would learn a good deal from the book.
I'd rate the book somewhere between a 3.75 to a 4.0 on a 5 point scale.
I've seen Lindsay Chervinsky give online presentations about her book several times, and was looking forward to reading her book. I completed it a couple of days ago.
Chervinsky is the nice combination of a good historian and a good writer.
The President's cabinet is something that all Americans have heard of. Most of us likely assume that it's been an institution since the start of the US. Alas, as with most things involving the founding of America, the story is a tad more complicated than what people assume.
At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates considered the creation of a cabinet several times, and rejected it. The delegates were familiar with cabinets in the British government, and felt that these unelected bodies had corrupted both the government and the monarch of Britain, and really did not want to see something like that occur in the United States.
Basically, the Constitution left it that the President could request written replies from his Secretaries, or he could consult with the Senate for their opinion.
Washington attempted to work under these guidelines, but found them to be of limited value. The first time he went to the Senate, he supplied them in advance all the background material he thought was needed to reach a decision. And after presenting the issue, and requesting their opinion, no Senators responded, and eventually one suggested that they form a committee to consider the President's questions, and meet with him again in a week. Washington was in disbelief at how ineffective this process was, and contemplating not returning for the follow-up meeting. He did eventually agree to return, but that meeting also did not offer much resolution to the situation the country was facing, so Washington decided to never again waste his time through that process.
He also attempted to follow the Constitution's guidelines on receiving written input from his Secretaries, but process proved less than satisfactory to Washington.
Two years into his first term, he assembled all of his Secretaries for a meeting, and thus was held the first Cabinet meeting.
Chervinsky spent almost half of the book reviewing Washington's background, to establish what Washington was comfortable with as Commander of the patriot army (where he would hold meetings with his leading officers before every battle), and his frustrations with the early American government under the Articles of Confederation. It probably is a little longer than is needed to establish Washington's patterns and preferences, but it's also pretty effective.
The second half of the book deals with Washington's Cabinet in both his first and second terms. I found this part of the book to be more interesting, in part because there wasn't much in the first half that I hadn't read in several other books.
I do recommend the book, and would give it somewhere between a 3.75 and 4.00 on a 5-point scale.
After watching the Hemingway series by ken Burns on PBS I decided to go back and read Islands in the Stream. It’s interesting as so much of the character in the book is really him, and his life. The drinking, the fishing, the women, etc. I’m reading it with a whole different perspective after learning more about his literary style.
What are the AKB's thoughts on the Bill O'Reilly/Martin Dugard "Killing" series?
Several of my last books were AKB recommendations and they were all very good, including:
The Longest Winter (Kershaw)
Say Nothing (Keefe)
Born Standing Up (Martin)
Thanks to everyone for recommending great books!
Several of my last books were AKB recommendations and they were all very good, including:
The Longest Winter (Kershaw)
Say Nothing (Keefe)
Born Standing Up (Martin)
Thanks to everyone for recommending great books!
I'm reading The Lost Colonies of Ancient America. It's pretty interesting. Lots of conjecture and theories of Pre-Columbian travels to the Americas. I have to admit, there's some very thought provoking evidence of centuries old expeditions to America. I'm starting to think Columbus was just the 1st one to brag about it..
Last edited:
This Wheel’s on Fire by Levon Helm. Great read about the history of The Band.
Tom- you are an incredibly voracious reader. Your reviews are great.Well, in past few weeks I read:
1. The Invasion of Virginia 1781
by Michael Cecere
It was pretty good. Most books that examine the Rev War in Virginia in 1781 focus on Yorktown (for good reason). This book looks at Bendict Arnold's landing British troops in the Tidewater area, and what took place with them, the militia that battled them, the government of Virginia in Richmond, the governor (Thomas Jefferson) in Richmond, etc. (Cornwallis moved his large force to join up with Arnold's smaller group, and ultimately Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown, but that's not really examined by Cecere.) It's a book that focuses on a small theatre of the Rev War, but brings a lot of detail to the examination. I enjoyed it. It's hard to say if non-Rev War junkies would enjoy the book as much as I did -- probably not, but it's well written, and not very long in length, so it should keep your interest.
2. Whispers Across The Atlantick: General William Howe and the American Revolution
by David Smith
This book was excellent. Gen. Howe was the leader of the British forces in America in 1776 and 1777*. Britain had assembled the largest force in their history to handle the revolution. Howe initial battle was in Brooklyn, where he routed the American forces. (As in most large battles where Gen. Washington faced the British, he did a poor job of defending the flank.) Howe did not press the advantage at the end of the battle, or the next day, and the Americans were able to slip away to Manhattan. For the rest of 1776, the British defeated the Americans in a series of battles, yet Howe did not seem to aggressively utilize his superiority in numbers, arms, or naval vessels. The patriots got their first victories at the end of the year, in the surprise attack on Trenton and the subsequent attack on Princeton.
Howe's hesitancy continued in 1777, where he decided not to march up the North River (now called the Hudson), to link up with Burgoyne's troops coming south from Canada. Had the two British forces linked up, they would have basically cut the rebellious colonies in half, and eliminated most means of communication, troop movement, supplies by the French, etc. between the New England colonies and the rest of the colonies. Instead of joining up with Burgoyne, Howe decided to take Philadelphia. He had boats built that could fit on carriages for the trek, but would be used to ferry the troops and supplies across the Delaware. After dithering in New Jersey, and some limited patriot attacks, Howe changed course and decided to go by boat to take Philadelphia. The trip took far longer than anticipated, and when they got to Delaware Bay they met with the commander of a British boat patrolling the mouth of the Bay, and then decided to continue on to the Chesapeake Bay. Their limited supplies ran out, the majority of their horses were pushed overboard due to sickness, death, or lack of food. They finally landed in late August, defeated Washington at the Battle of Brandywine (again, mostly due to Washington not adequately protecting his flank), and subsequently took Philadelphia. After the Battle of Germantown, Howe basically shut down the 1777 campaign, took comfort in Philadelphia, and made little to no effort to bother Washington's forces at Valley Forge.
Howe's superiors in Britain (Lord Germain, Lord North, and King George III) grew increasingly exacerbated by Howe's limited activity, and failure to put down the rebellion. Howe offered his resignation in Oct. 1777, and was notified in April 1778 that his offer was accepted.
Since then, there has been endless debate about why Howe did not prosecute the war more vigorously. Reasons offered have included:
1. his respect for Americans who had erected a statue of his older brother in Boston, and thus his belief that if he bloodied their noses just a bit in 1776 they would come to their senses, and give up the rebellion
2. his inability to get along with the first leader of the German troops that augmented the British forces (who didn't speak English, and Howe didn't speak German, and it took several months for them to get somebody to serve as a go-between that spoke both languages)
3. his distrust of his 2nd in command, Gen. Clinton, who constantly wanted to attack, and didn't work well with anyone
4. his enjoying the charms of Mrs. Loring, in NYC and in Philadelphia
5. his general cautiousness
6. the number of casualties forces under his command suffered in his initial efforts in the Rev War, at the Battle of Bunker Hill*
6. etc.
Historians have also been hamstrung by a fire that took place at the Howe estate, which destroyed a lot of Gen. Howe's papers long after the Rev War.
This book examines why Howe failed, and does so through the perspective of the defense Gen. Howe offered in the House of Commons to an inquiry into his efforts/failures/etc. a few years after his resignation. It's the best analysis I've read of Howe's actions/inactions during the Rev War. The book, which came out in 2017, has proved to be very popular with Rev War enthusiasts, and I would highly recommend it to the general public.
* Howe joined the British efforts against the rebellion in 1775, under Gen. Gage at Boston. His most notable involvement was in the Battle of Bunker Hill. He became the Commander-in-Chief of the British Army in America in Oct. 1775.
I was wondering why it took so long for Howe’s resignation to be accepted. “Howe offered his resignation in Oct. 1777, and was notified in April 1778 that his offer was accepted.”
Why someone sat on an email so long before responding is crazy. I wonder if he sent his resignation via DocuSign it would have been accepted faster.
I am almost done with ‘Shattered Sword’ which covers WWII’s Midway battle from an amazingly well-researched Japanese perspective. It’s so interesting how a small bit of INFORMATION, based on (the lack of) soon-to-exist technologies, could have veered some historic events.
