I thoroughly enjoyed this book. In particular, I thought the author gave us a unigue look into the selection of a President's cabinet. Also, Lincoln's ups and downs with the various General's during the Civil War was clearly depicted. The conversations with approach is a good one that is vastly different than the normal biography.

Charles Segal's book entitled "Conversations with Lincoln" offers a unique view into both our country's early history as well as the personal and political struggles that Abraham Lincoln endured throughout his tenure as our nation's leader. While many authors have explored various aspects of Lincoln and his administration, Segal's innovative approach provides an objective assessment of the political and social dynamics that surrounded Lincoln's decision-making throughout his presidency. By chronologically organizing excerpts from personal interviews and narrative accounts, "Conversations with Lincoln" captures Lincoln's valiant effort of uniting the United States while steadfastly working to protect the integrity of the Constitution. Lincoln's own thoughts provide rare social commentary as well as vivid insight into one of America's greatest leaders. I sincerely recommend this book to anyone interested in gaining a more accurate perspective of both Abraham Lincoln and the United States during this extraordinary time period.

Donald starts off his book as an iconoclast, intent on reversing the apotheosis of Lincoln. Lincoln was not, he asserts, the god among us that many ardent admirers believe. He gives examples of this uncritical adulation and states that Lincoln has been claimed by Mormons, vegetarians, and other disparate groups anxious to claim a popular figure as their own.

But, as it turns out, Donald's iconoclasm is a bit false. He reexamines Lincoln's more controversial points, and casts his verdict with the purveyors of the Lincoln legend. Did Lincoln imprison thousands of people without charges or trial? He did, but they deserved it. Did Lincoln destroy the Constitution by starting a war without the approval of Congress? Yes, but he had to abrogate the Constitution in order to save it.

Donald starts out bravely but in the end, cops out in favor of sentimental Lincolnism. I thought it a bit disappointing.

Lincoln Reconsidered is a collection of provactive essays that probe the multiple depths of Abraham Lincoln--life and mythology. He paints Lincoln's portrait onto the background of the sectional conflict that led to the Civil War. Originally published about 1961, Donald's stories remain fresh and relevant. In fact the reader will encounter the thesis and outline for his recent prize-winning biography of Lincoln. I first encoutered LR in 1962 when I taught Advanced Placement American History and assigned portions of the book to my students. They loved it; you will. Donald is a superlative historian and stylist. Listen to these chapter headings: Getting Right With Lincoln, Reconsideration of Abolitionists, Herndon and Mrs. Lincoln, Folklore Lincoln, An Excess of Democracy. Readers of Donald's Lincoln will want to have this as a companion reference piece. It's rare for an historian's essays to experience such a rich and extended publishing history. Here's a quote from my faded copy of LR, a touch of wisdom for our parlous times: "...Lincoln knew that there were limits rational human activity, and that there was no virtue in irritably seeking to perform the impossible. As President, he could only do his best to handle problems as they arose and have a patient trusdt that popular support for his solutions would be forthcoming. But the ultimate decision was beyond his, or any man's, control. 'Now at the end of three years struggle,' he said, 'the nation's condition is not what either party, or any man, devised, or expected. God alone can claim it.'" Page after page runs like this, and virtually every theme connected to the Civil War gets enough discussion to stimulate and edify.

The title of this book perpetuates a common myth, i.e., that Abraham and Biblical Jews (and Christians) were monotheists.

While they worshiped YHWH as God (and Christians worshiped Jesus/Ihsous as God's son), they did not rule out the existence of other gods (though Paul may only have suggested the existence of other gods without actually believing in their existence). Hence, they were henotheists, not monotheists. YHWH was the God or only God for them, but the nations had their gods, too.

Someone needs to put this "myth of monotheism" to rest. I'm doing my part.

David Klinghoffer is living very close to uncovering his own story. The story continues - I believe in a Temple near by his Mercer Island Home...

Excellent Book on the Story and Trials facing Abraham, Esther and a Convert in the Jewish Community...

I met David Klinghoffer at a ...author's party and bought his book, the discovery of God. I could not stop reading his biography of Abraham. David weaves in some of his trip to Israel, the Midrash and the oral tradition with the Bible. Not only does he save me the trouble of doing all the research but his writing style is fresh and kept me on the edge of my seat wanting to know more about stories that I have heard a hundred times. What a treat!
I have since purchased his spiritual journey The Lord Will Gather Me In and would liken it to a Jewish Seven Storey Mountain. David has become one of my favorite writers and his refreshingly honesty about his faults and his willingness to keep on his spiritual journey gives me hope about my own.

Okay, I have to admit that I went to high school with David Long, so I may be a bit biased. However, as a dedicated fiction reader who ventures into history, I must say that I learned a lot about not only the election, but Lincoln himself. David is an unadulterated Lincoln fan, and the book is written from a mid-western point of view, which I found refreshing, since we normally hear the Southern or the Yankee version of the war. The basic premise that Lincoln showed incredible courage in even holding the election in a time of crisis was most interesting, but the sections on the racial diatribes of Lincoln's opponents after the Emancipation Proclamation are fascinating. Well worth the read for even the modest history buff. This book is almost too well documented which is hardly a sin, and he rarely veers into personal opinion and speculation, and certainly never wildly. Definitely worth the time.

Those readers who hate unsupported assertions and enjoy copious citations--and I am one--will love this work.

This is a paperback reprint of a book published in 1978. The message today is as timely as it was then -- or, for that matter as it was during Civil War America. Professor Nichols book is a good overview of Indian policy during the Civil War-- an often overlooked part of the Lincoln story.

The book begins with an overview of the system of Indian administration as it had developed by 1860. It was dominated by the political spoils system and by corruption resulting from the power accorded to the Indian agents. As a master of the art of pragmatic politics, Lincoln used the system -- as he needed to do--to hold the Union together-resulting in tragedy for too many of our country's Indian wards.

The book discusses the Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma (then Indian territory) and their relationship to both the Union and the Confederacy. The story picks up focus, though, in the discussion of the Minnesota Sioux rebellion, the summary trials and capital sentences of over 300 Sioux Indians, and Lincoln's remission of the death sentence in all but 39 cases. Nichols tells this story well, perhaps giving Lincoln's actions less credit and less courage than they may deserve.

The book discusses Lincoln's attempts in 1862 to reform Indian policy, which were defeated by War exegencies and by Congressional inaction.He discusses a famous meeting held between Lincoln and the Indian chiefs in 1863 in the White House, again perhaps undervaluing Lincoln's intentions and the difficulties he faced.

He discusses the policy resulting from the Sioux war of concentrating the Indians under the control of the military with unsuccessful and inhumane results in Arizona and New Mexico. The book also includes an account of the too little known Sand Hill Massacre in Colorado in 1864.

The treatment of the American Indians does not constitute one of our nation's or of President Lincoln's prouder accomplishments. Professor Nichols is correct that this story deserves to be known as part of our history. The book ties Lincoln's treatment of the Indians to prevailing ideologies at the time involving a disprespect of cultural differences, to westward expansion, industrialization, the political patronage system, and, first and foresmost, the Civil War. Even Nichols appears to acknowledge that given the War, there was little that might have been done differently at the time in the way of systematic reform.

As is unfortunately the case with most histories of Indian affairs, it is easier, as Nichols does, to find a great deal of deserved fault than it is to develop answers, as he does not. This book is still worth reading as a good history of Indian affairs during the Civil War era.

The United States may be a liberal nation, but liberal belief differ. This metahistory dissects these philosophic strains, and explain how the liberal viewpoint breeds consensus and contention. Lincoln's philosophy and that of other thinkers are clearly explained. The author conclusions are lucid and explicit making it a joy to follow his reasoning.

This book gives a solid sense of what it must have felt like to be a Jewish immigrant to New York around the turn of the century. I enjoyed the fact that the book was not only a very interesting adventure, but also a fascinating account of changing class consciousness and socialization to a new society. Kahan's account of what is gained and what is given up in this process allowed me to understand my own ancestors at a deeper level. He writes well in a journalistic style and is constantly providing details about his present that help me to understand the meaning of what was going on.

This is a highly recommended book for anyone who is interested in the history of the Jewish Lower East Side in the late 19th century and early 20th century. It is written by an author with intimate knowledge of the time and place. Written in 1917, it is a very captivating and compelling story of an Eastern European Jewish immigrant's plight on The Lower East Side. I highly recommend it.

I first read this book in the mid-70s when it was assigned as part of an undergrad history course. I devoured it then, rediscovered it ten years later and found I enjoyed it even more on a second reading. Subsequent readings have not diminished my admiration for the novel.

"Levinsky" is a rare example of the novel that works both as history and as literature. Cahan's firsthand observations of late 19th century industrial America and of the immigrants' struggles to adapt to life in a new land are compelling in their own right. But this is no mere slice of life realism. Cahan created complex characters who face conflicts beyond the struggle to survive.

Cahan's main character, Levinsky, spends the first part of the book struggling to master the Talmud in his village in Russia. Here Cahan introduces us to Levinsky's incisive mind, one that will serve him well when he goes to America and begins to serve a new master: business. In the opening section, Cahan also develops one of several beautifully drawn supporting characters: Levinsky's mother.

By novel's end, we realize the irony of the novel's title. On one level, Levinsky's story is a classic tale of rags-to-riches, American-style success. On the other, his story is one of failure to achieve the rich, personal, intellectually stimulating connection with others that he has craved since childhood.

This great novel deserves to be on the short list of indispensable American fiction. One seeking to understand the roots of our country would be hard pressed to do better than to read it.

Don't bother to buy this book. David Adler merely collectsfacts about the life of Abraham Lincoln and connects them together. Alist of facts do not a story make! Lincoln was a fascinating man, with a sense of humor and a strong will and an honest character who seems to have truly cared for others. None of this comes out in Adler's books. Not even listed as facts in his boring way. I gave the book one star because the artist shouldn't be punished for illustrating the wrong book. But the people in the pictures are barely identifiable. Buy another biography, like Abraham Lincoln, which won a Caldicot award and has been around for decades. I doubt Adler's book will last that long.

My four year olds really liked this book and Adler's book on George Washington. We have looked at some of the other books in the series, and the subject matter in some others seems too old for preschoolers. My preschoolers were interested in the Lincoln and Washington books because they liked hearing about presidents and (because they are boys!) wars. But one caution about the Lincoln book: be prepared to talk about Lincoln getting shot (there's an illustration of this happening). Also, the book discusses slavery and depicts a slave auction. The pictures are as innocuous as possible, and my children were not upset, but you should plan in advance for how you are going to introduce this piece of history in an age appropriate way.

This book tells all about Abraham Lincoln and his adventures in the Civil War. This was a great book and I hope you enjoy it.

After missing the first collection of essays on this brilliant recluse published soon after his death, I picked up the present version as soon as I was able. It did not disappoint.

The book is a collection of four lectures given in the subject's honor in 1995 on the tenth anniversary of his death. The final lecture and the latter part of the third are highly mathematical and technical and clearly intended for a professional audience.

But for me, the first lecture by Abraham Pais is worth the purchase price alone. Pais was not only a contemporary physicist, but also a close friend and as close to a confidant as was possible with such a reticent man.

Through Pais' eyes, we see a mathematician turned physicist who was very different from the man to whom Dirac is most frequently compared, Albert Einstein. Einstein was a physicist first, mathematician second. Dirac was exactly the opposite. Einstein became a social and political critic, Dirac never strayed far from his study. The two were similar in that both viewed mathematical beauty as primary and both hated the modern remake of quantum mechanics (after the initial theory) for very similar reasons. This last point was interesting as Dirac was the first one to combine all his contemporaries' work on this improved quantum physics into a formal mathematical structure. His resulting equation, called naturally the Dirac equation, is classic Dirac, short and sweet. It combined Einsteinian relativity with the new quantum theory and Dirac considered the result to govern most of physics and all of chemistry. Stephen Hawking, the renowned theoretical physicist, says in his introductory memorial address to the book, "If Dirac had patented the equation ... he would have become one of the richest men in the world. Every television set or computer would have paid him royalties." For this work, Dirac shared the 1933 Nobel Prize with German physicist Erwin Schroedinger. One unexpected consequence of this work was a mathematical conclusion that defined a "negative energy" matter (aka antimatter) solution. Simply put, he had discovered a universe noone had imagined. To this day, we see the effects of this discovery from medical necessities (PET scan imaging-Positron Emission Tomography) to science fiction (Star Trek).

The quotations and anecdotes Pais chooses are well placed and often very funny. They are also supported by the images of Dirac portrayed in the sketch on the cover and in the few photographs scattered through the first two lectures. They reveal his character well. He saw mathematical and physical realities so clearly that he simply could not understand why others did not see them as well. The photo of him "listening" to future Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman in Maurice Jacob's section is one of the most amusing of the collection.

In the second lecture, Jacob shows the path of discovery and effect on latter day experimental physics of antimatter. He goes too long in spots but is generally fine.

We were ourselves participating in the inauguration of the Paul Dirac memorial in Westminster Abbey. Especially the speeches of Stephan Hawking and Abraham Pais were very touching as they did not only touch Dirac's work but also his personality and life. He was a very complex person and a great physicist. This book reflects that more than others about him.

Told from the perspective of John Surratt, perhaps, after Booth himself, the least understood of the Lincoln assassination conspirators, Robertson's John Suratt is very much a fictional Surratt, as are all the historical figures presented in the book. While interesting in its depiction of Civil War Washington, ultimately, the book is a disappointment in that the characterizations are flat and stereotypical as Mr. Robertson dispenses with historical truth in search of a good yarn. The Lincoln assassination and its participants can provide enough grist for an enjoyable and plausible historical novel (as Mr. Robertson describes his work) with only marginal manipulation of history; thus the wholesale manipulation of history results in a work that is, at the end, an unconvincing and uncomfortable perversion of the historical fiction genre.

Most (though clearly not all, judging from previous comments here) Civil War and Lincoln buffs will applaud David Robertson's debut novel, which rescues a friend of John Wilkes Booth from obscurity and places him at center stage. Robertson brings to life John H. Surratt, tried as a co-conspirator and acquitted -- two years after his mother was convicted on the same charge and became the first woman to be hanged by the U.S. government. But "Booth" is a book for even readers with no special interest in the Civil War. It opens a fascinating window onto those turbulent times and offers insights -- though, granted, fictional ones -- into a story whose ending everyone already knows.

The novel opens with Surratt's 1916 New York Times obituary and then shows us diary entries he had written a few days before. In his initial entry, Surratt reveals that he has been plucked from shipping-clerk obscurity by none other than D.W. Griffith, who wants to put the reminiscences of the long-forgotten historical figure on film for an epilogue to his new movie, "The Birth of a Nation." He considers Griffith's proposal: "Perhaps," he writes, "it was time to tell the full truth about the Lincoln assassination." And with that, the septuagenarian opens up his diaries from the fateful months of 1864-65, offering up the observations and narrations of his younger self.

At 21, already a failed playwright, Surratt has just landed a job as a photographer's assistant that both affords him gainful employment and helps him avoid the draft. It was a strong recommendation by his friend Booth (one of the country's most popular actors) that got him the position, and, as he finds out, the favor comes with strings attached. According to Robertson's somewhat defensive five-page essay on his sources, Surratt wasn't actually a photographer, but the author's invention is welcome -- it enlivens both the novel and Surratt's character and allows for some remarkable bits about the Civil War photographer's art: the metal rack that painfully hol! ds subjects' heads and bodies still; the delicate glass-and-chemical work to produce photographic plates; and "the bane of the photographers' art" -- the light-absorbing fabric called bombazine. Surratt's boss complains that "with the fashion in ladies' dress, a pretty maiden of twenty who comes to my studio in her best bombazine outfit becomes . . . a fleshy blob of a face swimming in an inky darkness."

The truly fascinating element of the novel, though, is the relationship between Booth and Surratt, who is torn between obligation and independence, struggling for control over "Booth's presence in my life." Robertson's Surratt is a reluctant cipher, a humorless man searching for a cause; it's all too easy to fall under Booth's sway. He's aware of this influence, disturbed by it, fights it. He frets about his place in Booth's shadow even as his friend worries that "he is not the great man onstage" that his father, Junius Booth, was. At times Surratt reflects upon "how lucky I was to be able to call a man like John Wilkes Booth my friend." But he's fully aware that Booth is a "subtle manipulator and egotist"; even as he marvels at his friend's generosity, "I couldn't help wondering what Booth wanted."

It turns out that what Booth wants is help with a wild scheme: He intends to kidnap President Lincoln as a prisoner of war, to stop all the killing; his primary concern is that the Union army is bent on humiliating the South. His safety compromised, Surratt turns against his friend: "Booth has reduced my life to comical farce, and a low bumbling comedy. . . . I fear he is a loose cannon, and sure to get me killed -- and over something about which I am utterly disagreed with him on. Why did I ever think Booth was my friend? How can I now disassociate myself from him?" He tries to disentangle himself, deciding that "with the return of peace I will back away from Booth, and turn once again to my own hopes, my own future." But, of course, eventually it's too late, and Booth commits "the one act that would write! my name forever in the history books, and, I prayed, make the South whole again."

This last bit is from Booth's diary, written during his flight after Lincoln's murder. Booth's entries are by turns contemplative and thrilling -- and, considering the harried circumstances of their writing, a little too glossy to seem genuine. Indeed, both diaries read more like meticulously edited historical fiction than contemporary journals. They're far too nuanced and accomplished, laced with italicized flashback phrases and artful foreshadowing. The entries conclude with teasing cliffhangers. There are no missteps, no unsurety, no spontaneity. They don't *sound* right. Surratt's recollection of even throwaway dialogue is too pitch-perfect to be real, as when Booth tells a colleague: "Lewis, there is also a sideboard at the bar with pickled eggs, oysters, and beefsteaks for sandwiches. . . . You must get yourself something to eat. It's all right." Not even Truman Capote would have remembered these lines! Many readers have trouble when an author gives us an unreliable narrator, but sometimes a narrator can be *too* reliable.

The upside to the writing's shininess is that "Booth" is very smooth reading -- though I can't resist pointing out a rare stumble, when Surratt describes his dread: "I felt a cold shiver in my bowels, as if the shadow of death had sent a chill wind through them." Somehow I doubt Robertson was aiming to instill an image of wind in Surratt's bowels. But this type of lapse is unusual. "Booth" is a gripping, enlightening read that's well worth the time of even those who don't often pick up historical fiction. And for Civil War aficionados: Don't miss this one.

An enjoyable book to read, and one that is hard to put down. Robertson admittedly takes some liberties but sticks pretty much to the main facts. Telling the tale through diary accounts, we see the relationship between John Wilkes Booth and the POV character, John Surratt, develop much like that of Steerforth's and David Copperfield's in the Dickens novel. Robertson interestingly enough has the aged Surratt meet with film maker D.W.Griffith and uses this to begin the novel, to great effect. An interesting tale with historical tidbits thrown in, and some insight into early American photography techniques as well. I hope to read many more novels by David Robertson in the future.