This book is a dignified piece of historical writing. Although it is long, it manages to be significant throughout. The personality profiles are interesting, the battle descriptions are gripping, and the political analysis is acute. Before reading this volume (and its companion), I did not realize how pivotal the events of this era were in shaping the rest of 19th century US. Recommended to those with time to ponder, especially if they are fond of Adams' writing style.

...Which pave the road to mediocrity, a writer's hell. Though it isn't terrible, "Democracy" is little more than a could-have-been in all respects. It has interesting ideas and competent writing, so the potential was there. The problem, as is so often the case, is in the novel's execution.

The idea that power corrupts is an old one, and it is obviously the main point of Henry Adams' novel. His intention seems to be to portray the lengths to which those in power will go to acquire more power, and how the lust for power is certain to deaden one's sense of morality. Unfortunately, Adams would have done better to write an essay on the subject rather than attempt to weave it into a fictional novel, for the author waxes too moralistic on his theme, rather than stepping back and allowing the characters to make his point for him. This does more harm than simply annoying the reader with value judgments; the story itself becomes so transparent and predictable, that it seems a mere vehicle for what soon becomes a tiresome refrain.

Perhaps this is why the characters are so lamentably flat. The descriptions Adams writes for each character seem to foreshadow complexity and development, but this soon is proven to be a false impression. Interesting as the characters might have been from their descriptions, when push comes to shove and the story continues, they remain utterly devoid of personality. Ironically, the main characters, Madeleine and Ratcliffe, are probably the most thinly developed of the entire bunch; the supporting cast is slightly more interesting, but not by much.

Another annoyance is the implausible thinking and actions of so many of the characters; for Madeleine to contemplate marrying Ratcliffe for her sister's sake is simply ridiculous. The fact that she considers her life at an end at age thirty is equally implausible, as is Sybil's attitude of careless youth at age twenty-five: in the nineteenth century, any woman of that age who was yet unmarried would have been considered an old maid, yet that is never even hinted at.

Perhaps the worst of it all was the pacing: this 300+ page book could have EASILY been half its size. It drags along without character development and without even any plot development. Worse yet, the book is centered entirely around politics, yet Adams seems hazy as to the details of those politics. Perhaps Madeleine learned a lot about American politics from her stay in Washington, but very little of this is shared with the reader. As such, the book does not even have an interesting setting to recommend itself.

In the end, it is obvious what Adams was trying to say, but by making Madeleine so careless with regard to Ratcliffe, the author fails utterly. With no temptation, there can be no sacrifice. It is unclear why the reader is expected to admire Madeleine, yet this expectation is clear enough.

To sum up...for a book about government corruption, look elsewhere. There must be something out there better than this. Anything.

"Democracy" is what "Primary Colors" would have been if the latter had been well-written. Like Joe Klein, Adams published his book anonymously and skewered a number of contemporary politicians (including President Rutherford B. Hayes). But Adams goes two steps further: his novel is a scathing commentary more on the American political system in general than on one administration in particular, and his characters are iconic and recognizable in any era.

In "Democracy," the nation's capital "swarms with simple-minded exhibitions of human nature; men and women curiously out of place, whom it would be cruel to ridicule and ridiculous to weep over." But Adams is not hesitant about being cruel in his portrayal of Washington's residents, and he saves his weeping for the true victims in his novel: the American people. The typical American senator combines "the utmost pragmatical self-assurance and overbearing temper with the narrowest education and meanest personal experience that ever existed in any considerable government." (Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose!)

The story concerns Madeleine Lee, an intelligent and well-meaning (if somewhat naive) New York widow, who, bored with her cosmopolitan lifestyle, travels to Washington to learn what makes the nation tick. She and her sister are quickly surrounded by a diverse group of politicians, lobbyists, and foreign diplomats, and she finds herself courted by Silas Ratcliffe, a senator with presidential aspirations whose talent "consisted in the skill with which he evaded questions of principle." During one heated (and humorous) argument about George Washington's merits, Ratcliffe sums up his view of politics: "If virtue won't answer our purpose, then we must use vice, or our opponents will put us out of office."

Adams's prose is almost Jamesian in its measured pacing (and this may simply bore some readers); the initial chapters are unhurried as he weaves the web of the plot and sketches his all-too-believable characters. Along the way he tosses barbed zingers at every target. The climactic passages are among the most comically riveting, emotionally intense, and morally satisfying finales I've read in a satire: as you might expect, nobody gets exactly what they want, but everyone gets what they deserve.

To act with entire honesty and self-respect, one should always live in a pure atmosphere, and the atmosphere of politics is impure. -Senator Silas Ratcliffe, Democracy

In his own lifetime, Henry Adams was famous first for being the grandson of John Quincy Adams, thus the great grandson of John Adams; second for his epic History of the United States During the Jefferson and Madison Administrations. It was only upon his death, in 1918, that his third person autobiography, The Education of Henry Adams, was published and that his publisher revealed that Adams had written the previously anonymous novel Democracy. It is The Education which has sustained his reputation, having been named the number one book on the Modern Library list of the Top 100 Nonfiction Books of the 20th Century, but Democracy is still considered one of the better novels of American politics, though surprisingly it is currently out of print.

The novel is both a fairly typical 19th Century comedy of manners--with the widow Madeleine Lee decamping from New York to Washington DC, where she instantly becomes one of the Capital's most desirable catches--and a more serious meditation on the nature and pursuit of power in the American democracy. The widow Lee is specifically interested in Washington because it is the seat of power :

...she was bent upon getting to the heart of the great American mystery of democracy and government.

. . .

What she wished to see, she thought, was the clash of interests, the interests of forty millions of people and a whole continent, centering at Washington; guided, restrained, controlled, or unrestrained and uncontrollable, by men of ordinary mould; the tremendous forces of government, and the machinery of society at work. What she wanted was POWER.

Mrs. Lee's most likely pursuer is Senator Silas Ratcliffe of Illinois, widely considered a likely future President : he sees her as a perfect First Lady and she sees him as her path to power. Through an elaborate courtship ritual and several set piece scenes (in the Senate, at the White House, at Mount Vernon, at Arlington Cemetery and at a dress ball) Adams puts his characters through their paces and affords the reader an intimate look at the rather tawdry political milieu of the 1870's. The theme that runs throughout the story is that access to power comes only through compromising one's principles, but Adams is sufficiently ambivalent about the point that we're uncertain whether he's more contemptuous of those who make the necessary deals or those who, by staying "pure," sacrifice the opportunity to influence affairs of state. Suffice it to say that the novel ends with Mrs. Lee, assumed by most critics to represent Adams himself, fleeing to Egypt, telling her sister : "Democracy has shaken my nerves to pieces."

Like his presidential forebears, Henry Adams had a realistic and therefore jaundiced view of politics, even as practiced in a democracy. The Adams's did not subscribe to the starry eyed idealism of the Jeffersonians. But they were all drawn to politics, even realizing that it was a moral quagmire. This is the fundamental dilemma of the conservative democrat, we recognize that we have to govern ourselves because we know we can't trust unelected rulers, but we also understand that our elected representatives are unlikely to be any more honest than the tyrants we threw out. This attitude is famously captured in Winston Churchill's (alleged) aphorism : "Democracy: the worst of all possible systems, but there is no other which would be better." And the unfortunate corollary is that unless relatively honorable men like the Adamses and the Churchills pursue careers in politics, the field will be left to the real scoundrels. Henry Adams doesn't offer any solutions to the dilemma, but he offers an amusing take on it.

GRADE : B

Anyone picking up this book should know from the start that this is as about as unobjective a biography as one is bound to find. Henry Adams has multiple scores to settle, on behalf of John Adams and John Quincy Adams (his great-grandfather and grandfather, respectively), with John Randolph of Roanoke (who never had a kind word for either of the Adams presidents). The reader would be strongly advised to read both the introduction by Robert McColley, as well as the notes on the text (located at the end of the book) which deals with specific matters of interpretation in the book.

Adams uses this book to savage Randolph at every opportunity. The bulk of the book follows Randolph in his congressional career up through 1806, when he broke with the Jefferson administration over the administration's attempt to pay France two million dollars to secure Western Florida from Spain. Up until 1806, as Adams puts it, Randolph was the "spoiled child of his party and recognised mouthpiece of the administration." (p. 118) Randolph was in the thick of things up to that point, including the Louisiana Purchase, the approval of which he helped shephard through the House of Representatives. He was also given the responsibility for the February 1805 impeachment of Samuel Chase, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. At that point in history, the question of the Executive Branch's authority over the Judicial Branch was far from settled. A successful prosecution of Justice Chase might well have changed the history of Executive-Judicial relations, but Randolph botched the job thoroughly. Adams can barely contain his glee when describing how unequal to the task Randolph was.

The bungled Chase impeachment increasingly made Randolph an embarrassment to the Jefferson administration. Randolph's political prospects were damaged beyond repair after 1806, and from that point on, as he became increasingly erratic, was on the periphery of the American political scene. He quarrelled, at one point or another, with every administration from Jefferson to Andrew Jackson. Adams devotes only 70 pages to Randolph's life from 1806 until his death in 1833. It is evident at this point that Adams is more interested in directing criticism at Jefferson and his successors in the Virginia Dynasty than he is at studying the life of Randolph.

Adams does make good points in his book, especially regarding the notions of states' rights. Coventional wisdom holds that Randolph was one the early advocates of the states' rights philosophy that John C. Calhoun subsequently embraced, but Adams argues persuasively that actions such as the Louisiana Purchase and the protection by the federal government of slavery (such as the Fugitive Slave Act) were in themselves encroachments on the rights of individual states and helped further the centralization of government in the United States. Far from being a traditional states' rights advocate, Adams contends, Randolph did a great deal to undermine the notion of states' rights as it existed in 1789.

Despite the rather venomous nature of the book, it is none the less a wonderful piece of literature that is worth reading. Adams' skills as a writer are evident throughout. The three stars represents a dual rating: 5 stars for the quality of the writing, 1 star for the utter lack of objectivity...although what could the reader seriously expect anyway?

"On the Altar of Freedom" was an interesting book in that it compiled the letters sent to a newspaper by Corporal James Gooding of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry (the "Glory" outfit). By reading the letters (ie the book), one can get a view of Civil War life from the view of a black Union soldier. The major drawback to the work is that Gooding was sending the letters to the newspaper for the express purpose of them being published. What would have been more interesting would have been to see his private (if any) correspondence. That way the reader would have been able to see the private man. This book is also an interesting read because of the mention of unapolgetic black CSA sharpshooters being captured by Union forces outside Fort Wagner.

Many of the newly-released Osprey titles are delightful to read or expand our knowledge of less well-known subjects. This entry is neither. Its text is undistinguished, its color illustrations poor, and its technical content execrable! The latter is particularly annoying in light of claims that the author is a "curator at the Royal Armories at Fort Nelson." Obvious errors abound. Some are typographical -- "7.62mm" mortars, "60-pounder" cannon, 1910 transmuted to 1901 in the same paragraph, and the "Write" airplane engine (invented by the Right brothers)-- but this begs the question, doesn't Osprey have any editors? Weapons/equipment data are awful: one photo shows a Model 93 Mauser rifle "in 7.65 mm, the standard" (caliber). In point of fact, all 93's were made in 7x57mm which was the standard; another shows a (1937) "Lanchester submachine-gun copy." This would be a remarkable feat, since the Lanchester was invented in 1941! (The gun is a copy of a German Bergmann). Some weapons are pure fantasy: the "Czech 7.62mm Mannlicher," for example. Likewise, aircraft and tank data differ from that found in easily accessible references. Since the numbers/types of aircraft used are at variance with other sources, this makes his Order of Battle (strengths and organization) information highly suspect. If the author has a real understanding of the strategic significance of this battle, he does not make it clear to the reader. His battle analysis is awkward, and its accuracy is highly suspect. Overall, the book has no credibility and should owe several stars!

The book is well writen and documented. The Ebro is possibly the most famous battle of the Spanish Civil War, and some of its images are classical icons of that period of history as the Pablo Picasso's "Guernica" or the Robert Cappa's picture of the fallen militia men. Its very clear in its explanations of the strategies and the development of the actions from both parts. At the same time, it had a lot of pictures from the places were the fight took place, so the reader can grasp a very good idea of the battles.

Nevertheless it has some flaws. The most important in my opinion is the low detail of the campaing main map in page 30. Some villages, mountain ridges and roads that are later named in the text, are missing in this map. Even for a spaniard is difficult to locate those places without the help of a map. The explanation of the objetifs of the Republican side is confussed due to this lack of detail. Another is the few pictures of the leaders from both sides. In other Osprey books the leader section usually depicts a lot of pictures of the leaders, but here you can see only three and in one of them only the back of a nationalist leader instead of his face. Finally, if has the typical english mistakes with the spanish names (Is so hard to check an spanish atlas?). The most funny is the name of the source from some pictures. You can read "Partido Comunista Española" instead of "Partido Comunista Español". Well, in spanish language as opposed to english language, some things and its adjetifs have gender. For example "a red table" is in spanish a "female" thing (una mesa roja). A political party is a "male" thing. So it was delightful to check that a posible translation for the PCE is the Comunist Party of Spanish Woman.

Despite those things I recomend its lecture even for those not interested in pure military history but only in the spanish modern history.

I thought this book dealt pretty well with an unknown battle from the Spanish Civil War. Up to now there are few books on the military campaigns and this one plugs the gap.
There are a few errors in the text but judging by the bibliography the author has attempted to look at a wide range of sources.