The Wine Project is a well written and researched book. It appeared Mr. Irvine enjoyed his subject. As with the development of many industries, there is usually someone behind the scenes who was instrumental to the success of that industry and is only known within that industry. Dr. Clore, Mr. Irvine's collaborator is that person. For anyone interested in the history and development of the Washington wine industry this is a book that needed to be written and needs to be read.

Anyone, ranging from a wine professional, enthusiast, home winemaker or a person just interested in another aspect of Washington State history, will find this book full of insight into the beginnings and future of the world class wines of Washington, the land it is grown in and the past and present players involved. It is told in large part by the leading scientist who helped create the industry in Washingon. While at times clumsy due to its occasional stringing together of anectodal passages, the book remains essential to those wishing to learn more about one of the recognized emerging areas in the world for the growing of premium grapes and the resulting production of fine wines.

I enjoyed a local telephone conversation with Ron regarding his research on the 'Island Belle' grape stock. My personal interest in this variety dates back years, when my uncle cultivated the "Island Belle" and sold to a local NW Washington winery. His informative and helpful suggestions sold me on buying this book.

I would doubtlessly recommend Ivanhoe to read. History may be often dull but Sir Walter Scott makes history extremely exciting by romanticizing his novel. It directly deals with hatred between the Normans and the Saxons, the discrimination of the Jews, chivalry, and politics--but it is a unforgettable tale of heroism, honor, and love. I felt that the characters were so fascinating and fun to read about. I was enjoying and cheering on the good characters like Ivanhoe, King Richard, and Robin Hood to beat the hated and evil villains. I liked the idea of love added in the story, like how Rowena and Rebecca were both in love with Ivanhoe. I even felt a little sorry for Brian de Bois-Guilbert who would do anything for Rebecca's love but is constantly rejected. I thought how it was appealing how the author questions Ivanhoe and Rebecca's feelings for each other. Suspenseful and action sequences also added entertainment to the story. This book may be a little too detailed for some readers, but I didn't mind. I felt that the details were brilliantly used to decorate the story in an outstanding fashion. The old English wording made me feel like I was actually in the medieval England. I have to admit that it took a great deal of persistence for me to finish this book and it was a challenge for me to read. However, I found Ivanhoe to be a wonderful pleasure. It is no wonder that Ivanhoe is such a well-loved tale!

I enjoyed this adventure yarn on many levels.

I was glad to learn about the Knights of Templer and that they were crusaders. I always wondered how Sam Spade in the Maltese Falcon knew that and it is because of this classic.

I was surprised that it talked so much about Robin of Lockesley. The story of Ivanhoe seemed to be the same only told by Ivanhoe's friends and not Robin's.

I thought that the DeBracyn and the Knight of Templer Brian de Bois Guilbert were pretty evil guys which made the story interesting. They were weasels when they had their backs to the wall but did preform with honor when required like when Richard gets DeBracy.

I guess I did not understand the prejudice of the time because they treated the Jews like dirt and they were so sterotypical. I really thought that the Jewish girl Rebecca was going to end up with Ivanhoe instead of that Saxon Lady Roweana. I guess you have to appreciate the times that they lived in.

It was a different look the Richard/Prince John history.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this book, by Sir Walter Scott, was the progenitor of what was to become a venerable tradition in English letters (and in other European literatures as well): the historical romance. There have been many after IVANHOE, and frequently with a finer eye to the period in which the tale is set (for IVANHOE contains quite a number of anachronisms -- even Scott acknowledged it), but few have done it quite as well as Scott. He uses an archaic English to give voice to his characters, but one which is readily absorbed because of the speed & quality of the tale. So, though these people certainly wouldn't really have spoken as he has them speaking, they yet sound as though they should have. Peopled by many 'stock' characters and situations, this tale was fresh in its time & still reads well today -- a testament to Scott's skills as a teller of tales and a sketcher of marvelously wrought characters. In this tale of the 'disinherited knight' returning home to find the world he left turned upside down, young Ivanhoe, after a stint with King Richard in the Holy Land, must fight the enemies of his king and kinsmen anew. Yet the hero is oddly sidelined for much of the tale as events swirl around him and the brilliantly evoked villain, Sir Brian de Bois Gilbert, in the pay of Prince John, struggles to win treasure and the beautiful Rebeccah, who yet has eyes only for Ivanhoe, a knight she can never hope to win herself. There's lots of action and coincidences galore here and Robin Hood makes more than a cameo appearance, as does the noble Richard. In sum, this one's great fun, a great tale, and the progenitor of a whole genre. All those which came after owe their form to it. Worth the price and the read.

This book is worth the purchase price simply for the fascinating biography of Jefferson Davis. This gentleman stood head and shoulders above the sectionalist, despotic, backwoods bozo who won the election of 1860 and forced the Southern states to secede in order to preserve the Constitutional ideals handed on to them by the Founding Fathers. If Jefferson Davis, a man who proved time and again during his national career that he was concerned with the general welfare and interests of *all* the states, had run in the election of 1860 and won I believe he would have been hailed as the greatest American president since George Washington.

He was a hero of the Mexican-American War; he treated captured American Indians with honor and dignity; he was a Congressman and Senator of note who was scrupulously honest in the performance of his duties -- even to the point of not availing himself of the perks of his office; and he was probably the best Secretary of War our nation had (which to its eternal shame did not officially acknowledge his death in 1889 as all other Secretaries were acknowledged and officially mourned).

And that's only the first half of the book!

The second half is an impassioned defense of Jefferson Davis' honor and proof that he was not a traitor based on the writings of the Founding Fathers (including such centralists -- even monarchists -- as Alexander Hamilton). Based on the ideals of the Founding Fathers, as the Kennedys prove beyond doubt, Jefferson Davis was not a traitor. Abraham Lincoln and his Yankee cohorts who raped and ravaged the South in the name of "preserving the Union!" were the true traitors, indeed war criminals.

This juror's verdict? Jefferson Davis was right!

In a day in which the Federal government of the United States is virtually all-powerful, nothing is needed so much as a diligent study of the United States constitution, its limitations, and the original intentions and perspectives of America's founders. "Was Jefferson Davis Right?" serves this capacity not only by employing a rigorous examination of the US constitution and early American politics and perspectives, but by challenging the modern politically-correct dogma concerning Jefferson Davis, the Southern Confederacy and the War of 1861-1865. The Kennedy brothers demonstrate key principles that impacted the events of the conflict between North and South and created the America that we live in today. Among those are: 1) The historically provable fact that the Founding Fathers did not intend that Washington's government be all-powerful but rather limited to a small range of specifically delegated powers: a conditional, not supreme union. 2) That prior to 1865, the states of the union did not hesitate to defend their reserved rights and that such actions were in fact mainstream practices. 3) That the consolidated view of the United States government was a view that evolved after the formation of the Republic. 4) That the usurpation of power by the Federal govt. began very shortly after the formation of the union and was reasonably contained until 1861. 5) That Jefferson Davis and those who advocated southern independence were in fact following the pattern originated by our Founding Fathers in their separation from England. 6) That the issue of slavery (although a heinous practice) was beyond the power of the Federal govt. and was instead a matter for the states to decide for themselves just as the Northern states (and European nations) had done during the time in which they embraced the practice. In summary, "Was Jefferson Davis Right?" is an excellent book in terms of providing evidence for its assertions and eliciting thoughtful response. I would highly recommend it to anyone interested in the great issues that so consumed our nation in the mid-19th century, and (in many ways) have dictated the society in which we live today. On the nitpick scale, I'd have to say that I had only two problems with this book. To start with, it was a bit too redundant in some places. I know that repitition is the key to learning and such but I think that this statement applies more to facts and less to logical thoughtlines. I have more trouble with remembering dates and names than I do with following ideas though, and your mileage may vary of course. The only other detractor is a Kennedy brothers predilection that is actually much reduced from "The South Was Right," and that is the use of rather harsh language directed at certain historical figures and regions. I can understand very well the frustration that these issues raise (particuarly when considering your stolen heritage...I am a Virginian, after all....), but I think that your case is weakened and sometimes lost on those who might be persuaded (or at least become sympathetic) to your point of view, if your word usage is designed to be offensive to the "facts" and perspectives with which some individuals are familiar. They take it personally. For that reason, I believe that some things could have been phrased more effectively for the undecided or skeptical reader. Overall...an excellent work. Powerfully persuasive. Highly recommended.

This book is: 1. A book that opens up bringing Jeff Davis to life telling us of his lifes joys and sorrows. His adventures and his sufferings. His victories and his defeats. 2. It vindicates Davis's character and faith shrugging off the lies told about him as well as John Edsmoe vindicates the Founding Fathers in "Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of our Founding Fathers" 3. It provides some solid Constitutional points Davis and his countrymen made about states rights and secession. Davis was definatly NOT a traitor. 4. It shows the reader that the issue of slavery was not as cut and dry as television and movies would have us believe. Not everyone who owned slaves was a cruel barbaric beast. And just because the Abolitionists were called abolitionists does not mean they were interested in the well being of black people. In fact they, like the Environmentalists and Anti-Smoking crowd today, were just using the issue as a vehicle to gain control wealth and power. A great book

With American Reformers, Walters has composed a fine synthesis of secondary literature on the varied antebellum reform movements. In doing so, he argues that the reform impulse emerges out of evangelical Protestantism but by the Civil War takes a more secular turn more involved in legislating social controls than converting the hearts of individuals. As he develops this argument he addresses the different forms that this reform impulse took and organizes the book thematically. He discusses in successive chapters utopian movements and secular communitarians, abolition, the women's movement and the peace movement, temperance, health reform and spiritualism, working man's reform, and institutional reform, into which he groups mental hospitals, prisons and schools.

Walters demonstrates the secularization of reform in the realm of communitarian societies. Thus, the early nineteenth century utopian settlements that often emerged out of pietistic impulses gave way to more secular experiments in social engineering such as Owenism, or as in the case of Oneida, how a once religious community endured only as a commercial venture. Similarly he shows institutions such as asylums wove their religious inspiration with the science of the times but like prisons and almshouses became holding pens for outcasts rather than places for healing and reform.

Walters also situates the emergence of reform in the particular circumstances of antebellum America. He argues that the emergence of the middle class created made it possible for people to devote time to reform, and that technological advances in printing made it possible for people to actually make a living as an "agitator." He also argues that reform helped shape the identity of the emerging middle class. This point come through particularly clearly in his chapter on working man's reform.

Walters' synthesis suffers from its grand scope and short length. In it he sacrifices a certain amount of detail and analysis for space and clarity. The section on utopian movements, for example, traces the personalities of the major reformers and a brief outline of the community that followed without in-depth analysis. Throughout the book quotations from primary sources would have been helpful in giving a feel for the particular movement under discussion. The lack of primary source material allows Walters to sacrifice documentation, and the reader sometimes wishes for some assistance in discerning the origin or fuller development of a particular point. To his credit, Walters provides a good bibliographical essay at the end, but the lack of documentation sometimes proves frustrating and thus interrupts the otherwise smooth flow in the text. Nonetheless, American Reformers is a very readable and useful synthesis of the secondary sources on antebellum reform. As such, it is a helpful and welcome addition to the field.

American Reformers is a wonderful resource book. Walters has done a beautiful job blending information with intersting anecdotes. A great book for anyone interested in reform movements of the 19th century, and how they infuence contemporary society.

Today, despite the progress that has been made since the Civil Rights Act, systemic, and often unconscious discrimination persists against African Americans. Why is this the case? I believe Walters and Smith would argue that presently Americans are lack the ability to analyze society in political, economic, and structural terms. The result is that we, as a society, and African Americans, as a minority, are blind to the very obstacles that must be overcome. The value of "African American Leadership" lies in its ability to situate the discussion of African American leadership in the midst of a social, political, and historical exegesis. The weakness of the book rest with its deficiency in theoretical and methodological approaches, as well as its lack of attention to how other societal inequalities besides race (socioeconomic stratification, for instance) should be part of the discussion. Walters and Smith, take on the challenge of educating their audience about the social and historical forces that influence "Negro" and later "Black" leaders' effectiveness throughout history and even today. Towards this end, I feel "African American Leadership" has met the challenge. The contemporary pioneers of the movement towards social equity must build on and learn from Walters' and Smith's discussion.

Befroe the time of tabiod news, there was a man who felt that journalism should be taught in college so that the people who entered the field knew what they were doing. From that beginning at the University of Missouri, many other colleges have gone on to teach journalism. But it took the work of one man who believed that journalism was a respeceted profession to make the rest of the world to believe that too. A fascinating read about Walter Williams and how the School of Journalism came to be at one university and changed the way journalist were thought of.

Ever hear of 'last name' reference books?
(as in: "Got a problem? Look it up in (author's last name)!")

This is one of those books--- broad coverage of a lot of important topics regarding Spotlight SAR...

I really enjoyed this book. He goes through some pretty basic things and then goes from there to being able to use these techniques to complete a painting. I like how he introduced color and explained each one on transparency etc. The demos are explained very well, then he goes on to show other ways to use similar techniques. Lots of good photos for reference. It is a fun and very worthwhile book for the beginner and intermediate watercolor painter. I would buy it again!

This book covers a very emotional issue for many people on both sides of the debate. I believe this book to be one of the better in presenting the Southern side. I belive the term "yankee" is used so much in this book simply because of emotion. Unbridled anger, I'm sure overcame the authors during their research. If something has been represented to you as truth your entire life, just to be proven otherwise, it would be a great point of contention. This book is well documented and thoroughly researched and footnoted. Human nature is to be sorry for misdeeds. Human tendency is to justify one's actions. Slavery was immoral, wrong, indecent, and was no "bed of roses" (European immigrants in the 1800's knew all about it). I don't think the authors should have "gone there." I thought it ironic that some Northern states passed laws disallowing blacks from residing within their borders. I've grew up in the South and have never heard this. I wonder why? They were allowed to stay long enough to get out. My only wish is that others, not JUST the South, would be labled for what they were. Perhaps this book may open some minds and we can all realize blame as well as glory.

Buy it and read it! This book is about a critical point in American history, the fight for Southern Independence. That is, the seperation of America into two seperate distinct countries. The book presents the less known story of the Southern States. It addresses several reasons for the War, many which are not widely known and may not be popular. It demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt that the Confederate States of America achieved constitutional legal independence. The book brings forth the atrocities that the American government (Northern nation) inflicted upon the newly formed Confederate nation. It presents an account of slavery that is startling, but supports the position with strong documentation. For credibility and accuracy the book uses the American Constitution and other American Federal, State and local government documents. It also references documents by several individuals of the time, from Senators to slaves.

Many people hold emotional views why the war was fought, without ever getting the facts. Some of those people are quite outraged when they encounter historical facts that do not align with their unfounded emotional beliefs. This book presents documented historical information, it is not written to incite, but to inform. And inform it does!

Even today the events of those four years are still impacting our daily lives. Isn't it time you got informed too !!

My interest in the Civil War started with a goal of understanding "Why war was inevitable" given that secession would occur. "The South Was Right" gives great insight into the real causes of war. The issue of slavery vs Tariffs will be debated forever as the cause, but this book clearly presents the concept that Lincoln saw that the loss of Southern agriculture and ports for internationsl trading would mean financial disaster for the Union. The book documents well that money raised from taxation on imports and exports through Southern ports and particularly of southern agriculture products (King Cotton) fed the construction of the northern infrastructure (canals, roads, bridges) and ignored the the needs of the south. Upwards of 75% of federal revenues came from southern imports/exports and the south received little of the benefit of that revenue. This insight alone made my reading of this book well worth the time spent.

A new and interesting tidbit of information was revealed in this book. Why was Ft Sumpter so important? Why fire on Ft Sumpter? Lincoln refused to vacate Ft Sumpter after secession, making Ft Sumpter an occupied military installation, occupied by the Union Army on the soil of the CSA. Ft Sumpter was being resupplied by sea on the order of Lincoln, and Ft Sumpter was the Customs House in Charleston. All Tariffs were collected at Ft Sumpter and it would appear that the Union refused to give up tax collection on cargo passing through Charleston. It would also appear that this war was was fought over taxes.

Further, when I read of the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in 1867, and the deceipt, illegality, and coercion required to ratify the 14th Amendment, which effectively killed the concept of "States Rights", I was deeply affected. The case is made that the 14th Amendment was not legally ratified and one could conclude that all Supreme Court decisions that follow the 14th Amendment are without basis... Almost all civil rights decisions go to the 14th Amendment and the growth in power of the central federal government eminates from the 14th Amendment.

Further revelations concerned a summary of historical facts of slavery, roles and attitudes of some blacks favorable to the south, summary of many Yankee atrocities, treatise on Slavery as the cause of the Civil War, and dealing with numerous "myths" that support the traditional causes and history of the war between the North and the South.

As a Texan, I well remember learning i n the 1950sthat "Lincoln was the Greatest president because he freed the slaves" and can recite to this day the Gettysburg Address. I do believe that I am the victim of these "Yankee Myths". I greatly value the liberation from those myths that "The South Was Right" has provided.

This book was not written to be an objective evaluation of both sides of all of these issues. But it does present the Southern view, as told by southerners, and presents much compelling evidence and logic. It goes far to balance out the barrage of traditional Yankee history that we all learn in school. Do not expect to read about Southern Atrocities, Southern culpability in the causes of the war, Southern political miscalculations, or fault in any southern leaders.

"The South Was Right" will sadden you to read that Lincoln trampled the Constitution in starting a war to "Save the Union"... He needed to "Save the Union from bankruptcy" and he started a war to do so. And you will be saddened to see the extremes that the Northern politicians went to in enacting the laws of Reconstruction and reatification of the 14th Amendment. Be prepared to be emotionally affected if you value the letter of the law in the U S Constitution.

This book has altered my view in many respects. I highly recommend it in spite of its flaws.

I'm being generous by giving one star. It's a very concise explanation of the motives behind abolitionism after 1830, however, most people would probably rather gouge out their eyes with a spoon or undergo open heart surgery without anesthesia before reading past the first chapter. Much primary material is used, however, an all encompassing thesis is never given. Moreover, Walthers doesn't ever give a history of events that influenced abolitionism such as the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, or the Dred Scott decision. This book is a waste of trees. I reccomend using it for kindling or smoke signals.