Monumental, Pulitzer-winning narrative history of African-American efforts before, during and after the Civil War to forge a cohesive community. Hahn Monumental, Pulitzer-winning narrative history of African-American efforts before, during and after the Civil War to forge a cohesive community. Hahn (A Nation Without Borders) demonstrates that, long before emancipation, slaves in the South created intricate, informal networks of communication to keep abreast of politics and social developments; these laid the groundwork for the postwar emergence of an African-American political class. Thus, freedmen and women needed no encouragement from white Republicans, Freedman’s Bureau educators and Northern philanthropists to take control of their own destiny; they eagerly sought out education, literature and religious connections that enabled them to overcome the ossified racism of Southern states. Nonetheless, even with the emergence of a generation of remarkable individuals (Mississippi activist John Roy Lynch, politicians Hiram Revels and Blanche K. Bruce, writers Ida Wells and Booker T. Washington) their success was largely contingent on events outside their control. The withdrawal of Federal support (and the renascence of white supremacy) resulted in a violent overthrow of the New Order. Not that this ended anything: even after Reconstruction’s end, black Americans found new to assert themselves, whether in immigrating abroad, forging self-sufficient communities (both urban and rural) or forging biracial coalitions with Republicans, populists and others to exert their strength. Not a happy story (and one that ends somewhat arbitrarily in the early 20th Century), but an insightful, well-written one; it shows that African-Americans, even as they were victimized and targeted by institutional racism, never lost agency, drive or willingness to forge ahead....more
Disaffected Connecticut suburbanites come together (in more ways than one) for Thanksgiving in 1973, only to see the resulting congress and complicatiDisaffected Connecticut suburbanites come together (in more ways than one) for Thanksgiving in 1973, only to see the resulting congress and complications having unexpected fallout. In most ways, your typical ponderous Modern Lit novel: Moody's characters are the sort of educated, well-off white people who spend their time complaining about Nixon between sordid and unsatisfying sexual acts, and probably exist only in books like this. There's much musing about the nature of human connections and alienation of modern society, and the book occasionally ventures a clever characterization (even if its teen characters, the nerdy Paul and rebellious Wendy, prove more compelling than their parents). On a prose level, there's much to commend it, with Moody showing a knack for turning phrases and rendering vivid scenery. Yet once you've read enough of these books, middle-aged men whining about their boners seems less like literature than a collective cry for help. If these characters can't find satisfaction in their careers, their social circles or their bedrooms, Moody earnestly asks, then what hope is there for anyone? Whether you find this profound or deeply tedious will be a matter of taste. ...more
Workmanlike novel about Joe Leland, a cop-turned-PI whose investigation of a rich man's suicide dredges up memories of a case from his police past. InWorkmanlike novel about Joe Leland, a cop-turned-PI whose investigation of a rich man's suicide dredges up memories of a case from his police past. In a way, it's easy to see why this novel was a best-seller in its day (inspiring a popular film starring Frank Sinatra): Thorp writes as very much the anti-Chandler or Hammett, eschewing their stylized private eyes for a weather-beaten wariness. Certainly the book's sexual frankness (Leland's wife is a nymphomaniac, one suspect a tormented homosexual) would have been shocking in the 1960s. Unfortunately, this doesn't make the novel good: Thorp's prose style is dense to the point of unnavigable, with huge blocks of staccato, affectless dialogue and exposition that reads more like a court reporter's notes than a fiction. As a mystery, the book isn't up to much, with Thorp losing himself in thickets of exposition and digressions to the point that Leland's investigation vanishes. As a character study of Leland (a war hero and jaded cop unable to separate his work and private lives), the book has some merits, but even these passages feel like they're jammed into the mystery plot without caring how they'll fit (the thinness of the supporting players doesn't help, either). Whether read as a whodunnit, crime fiction or more serious literature it's clunky and unsatisfying....more
Superlative account of Franklin Roosevelt’s most notorious folly: his second-term effort to pack the Supreme Court. Shesol (previously author of MutuaSuperlative account of Franklin Roosevelt’s most notorious folly: his second-term effort to pack the Supreme Court. Shesol (previously author of Mutual Contempt, an excellent chronicle of the rivalry between Lyndon Johnson and Bobby Kennedy) does much to demystify this event, often chalked up to FDR’s frustration at the Court’s overturning New Deal legislation and hubris after his 1936 landslide. In fact, Shesol shows that Roosevelt’s gesture in adding seats to the SCOTUS was well-grounded in contemporary debates. In the abstract, the principle was popular: the Court, led by the stolidly conservative Charles Evans Hughes and overwhelmingly peopled by Republican appointees, was viewed as an ossified obstacle to progress, clinging to outmoded ideology in a time of crisis. Nonetheless, once Roosevelt seriously began pushing for a revision of SCOTUS opposition began; not only on the Court itself, but among conservative groups (especially the American Liberty League) defending the prerogatives of big business under the veneer of Constitutionalism, traditionalists who viewed the Court as a necessary check on presidential and legislative excesses and those generally (including many on the Left) who feared Roosevelt was sliding towards dictatorship. The fight made odd bedfellows: Harlan Fiske Stone, a conservative Justice, became a wary administration ally, while progressives like Burton K. Wheeler turned against Roosevelt to defend the Court. Shesol captures the fight in all its gory particulars, while framing its ongoing significance. Debates over the role of Supreme Court have never truly ended, and indeed variants of the arguments assayed by Roosevelt and his opponents in the ‘30s continue to appear, albeit with the parties shifting according to issue. An excellent book for history buffs, political junkies and anyone seeking to understand America’s endless debates over the Constitution....more
Nick Taylor's American-Made offers a detailed examination of the New Deal's biggest and most successful project, the Works Progress Administration. ThNick Taylor's American-Made offers a detailed examination of the New Deal's biggest and most successful project, the Works Progress Administration. This is something of a misnomer as the book is broader in scope; often it reads like a general history of FDR's presidency that occasionally zooms in to focus in on the WPA's activities. Which is fine: Taylor is an incisive, engaging writer with an eye for human detail and pleasurable portraits (especially of the WPA's godfather, Harry Hopkins), which makes the book a compelling read even for casual history buffs. He shows the WPA's wide-ranging programs - from public works projects and disaster relief to archaeological and historical catalogs, to funding writers, theater companies (there's a fun chapter on Orson Welles and the Mercury Theater) and artists - impacted the country in a wide variety of ways, not only providing brute work for the unemployed but making use of a wide range of talents. A lot of WPA projects - historical surveys, a crucial tool for any researchers, and public art projects - remain intact today, attesting to its impact. Taylor shows that the WPA, despite its success, fell victim to political sniping as the Dies Committee viewed it as a haven for Communists; and the wartime boom after Pearl Harbor rendered it obsolete. Still, few will come away from Taylor's book without appreciating the WPA's lasting achievements - one of the most productive uses of government aide in American history....more
Lovely historical fiction chronicling the romance between First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and journalist Lorena Hickok. Recent historians have chronicledLovely historical fiction chronicling the romance between First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and journalist Lorena Hickok. Recent historians have chronicled their relationship (eg. Susan Quinn's Eleanor and Hick), long the subject of speculation and denial; for certain "respectable" writers, it's never been permissible to think that a First Lady might have pursued a same-sex relationship. Bloom takes the perspective of Hickok, who fights to cover Franklin Roosevelt's 1932 campaign and finds herself more drawn to his wife than the candidate. Bloom writes with gentle sensitivity about two women of such drastically different backgrounds: Hickok's life in rural South Dakota, wrestling with her sexuality and wandering the country (including an odd interlude with a friendly troupe of sideshow performers) until she realizes she can write, and puts that talent to brilliant use; Roosevelt as an awkward, insecure child of privilege who felt more comfortable among the common people than high society. Together they forge a close, passionate bond which leaves both women profoundly changed, even as physical intimacy fades. The novel maintains a wistful tone that's generally gentle and feeling; Bloom mixes sparse prose, tart wit and quiet passion with commensurate skill. As historical fiction the book's light on scenery and stage-setting (FDR mostly remains off-stage, a capricious, vexing figure more admirable as statesman than man), while Bloom shows occasional lapses in taste (Bloom insisting, through Hickok, that Charles Lindbergh murdered his son!). On the other hand, she's so understanding of the difficulties of a same-sex relationship between public figures in a very intolerant time, while avoiding the genre's typical clichés of angst and self-loathing, that it's easy to overlook....more
Lively portrait of Al Smith, the longtime New York Governor, failed presidential candidate and standard-bearer for liberalism in the conservative TwenLively portrait of Al Smith, the longtime New York Governor, failed presidential candidate and standard-bearer for liberalism in the conservative Twenties. Born in Manhattan to a Civil War veteran and an Irishwoman, Smith early showed an instinctive sympathy for the underdog. Upon his entry into politics Smith became involved in progressive causes, from investigating the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire to labor reforms and clashing with William Randolph Hearst's machine; establishing himself as a man of integrity, he was first elected Governor in 1918 and served in that post for eight of the next ten years. Slayton shows Smith as an activist governor who reformed the state's ossified political machinery and improved its infrastructure and welfare systems; it's no exaggeration to say that his governorship presaged the New Deal. His presidential campaigns, however, were catastrophic failures, with Smith's liberalism, opposition to Prohibition and most of all, his Catholic faith sabotaging his 1928 campaign. Afterwards, bitter over his rejection and being eclipsed by his protege Franklin Roosevelt, Smith lapsed into reactionary politics in the '30s. Through his friendship with Du Pont executive John Raskob, he became a leading spokesman for the American Liberty League, denouncing the New Deal (which incorporated many of his innovations on a national scale) as a Marxist plot to subvert America. Slayton approaches his subject with wit, sympathy and good-natured flair; his admiration for Smith's achievements doesn't prevent his highlighting the Governor's vanity and pettiness, which harmed his presidential campaigns and left a blot on his reputation. Top tier political biography....more
Energetic attempt at rehabilitating Wendell Willkie, the Indiana businessman-turned-Republican presidential candidate in 1940. Lewis (previously authoEnergetic attempt at rehabilitating Wendell Willkie, the Indiana businessman-turned-Republican presidential candidate in 1940. Lewis (previously author of a two-volume work on W.E.B. DuBois) makes no effort to hide his admiration for Willkie, who's portrayed as the standard bearer of a long-dead breed of Republican: socially liberal, fiscally conservative, an internationalist in foreign affairs. In other words, what used to be called a Rockefeller Republican might as easily be dubbed a Willkie Republican. Willkie's opposition to the Tennessee Valley Authority and ensuing clash with Roosevelt made him a Republican hero in the late '30s, even though he remained nominally a Democrat. His charisma (one observer dubbed him "a Republican with sex appeal") and connections among political and media circles - including his long-running affair with Irita van Doren, influential book review editor for The New York Herald Tribune, and friendship with Henry and Clare Booth Luce of Time - catapulted him to a "dark horse" nomination over Bob Taft, Thomas Dewey and other Republicans in 1940. Nonetheless, Willkie's campaign, while energetic, struggled to articulate a vision distinct from Roosevelt. Ultimately, in a familiar story, he abandoned high-minded principle for mudslinging in the campaign's final days, courting isolationists who despised him while dismaying his allies.
Regardless, Lewis views Willkie's nomination as rescuing the GOP from its chronic isolationism, and playing a major role in mobilizing support for American entry into WWII. It's hard to argue with that: Franklin Roosevelt, who made Willkie an ambassador-at-large, viewed his assistance in rallying the "loyal opposition" towards intervention and his wartime trips abroad as invaluable. Certainly Lewis convinces that Willkie was a man of consequence and integrity (being, among other things, an ally of the NAACP, an early backer of the Equal Rights Amendment and a staunch advocate for what became the United Nations), who probably would have made a strong president. But he struggles to show that Willkie "saved" the Republican Party, as the title asserts. After all, the GOP's split between intervention and isolation lasted until Eisenhower and Bob Taft's showdown in 1952; certainly the split between conservative and moderate Republicans raged for decades, and Willkie's side ultimately lost. At the very least, Willkie was the right man at a crucial historical moment - if not for his party, then certainly his country. And for that, if nothing else, he's worth remembering....more
Christopher
>
Books:
2019-reads
(295)
