A fine account of a most interesting and crucial series of Civil War battles. Stackpole treats everyone very fairly. Broad in its scope, audacious in its execution this book analyzes the Confederacy's third and final invasion of the North. A very excellent work that is well worth the time.

Instinctively, most decent people don't like to see anyone singled out and denigrated unfairly. To most, it seems particularly distasteful if the denigration is on the basis of race, gender or (to many, at least) sexual orientation. Yet the authors of this book, all of whom are active in campaigns for equality as well as for civil liberties, see codes on US campuses which prohibit and punish such speech as a threat.... Why?

Their book examines the arguments for and against such codes and the issues that underlie them. Objections to these codes include that :

They are a threat to basic free speech principles. In particular the idea that speech should be protected regardless of its content or viewpoint -- a principle intended to prevent the law from favouring one interest over another.
 
They have a chilling effect on wider discourse. Nadine Strossen points out that : Regardless of how carefully these rules are drafted, they inevitably are vague and unavoidably invest officials with substantial discretion in the enforcement process; thus, such regulations exert a chilling effect on speech beyond their literal bands. (1)
 
They put us on a "slippery slope". Ideas not originally intended to be the subject of the codes will be penalised. Throughout the book examples are given of this happening. Strossen points out that in Britain the "No Platform for racists and fascists" was extended to cover Zionism (whereby its victims included the Israeli ambassador to the UK). (2) In Canada the victims of restrictions of free expression have included the black feminist scholar Bell Hooks, and a gay & lesbian bookshop in Toronto. (3)

Much the same issue was raised from the floor of an LM sponsored conference in London at which one of the authors (Nadine Strossen) spoke; it was pointed out that the UK Public Order Act of 1936, which was ostensibly introduced to control the followers of British Fascist leader Oswald Mosley, had been invoked time and time again to ban demonstrations by leftists and trade unionists. Similarly, police tactics used against the National Front in the 1980s to prevent their coaches from reaching demonstrations were later employed against striking miners.

The book's authors note that the codes give power to institutions and government. Can we trust them with these new powers? As David Coles, a law professor at Georgetown University, wrote :

...in a democratic society the only speech government is likely to succeed in regulating will be that of the politically marginalised. If an idea is sufficiently popular, a representative government will lack the political wherewithal to supress it, irrespective of the First Amendment. But if an idea is unpopular, the only thing that may protect it from the majority is a strong constitutional norm of content neutrality. (4)

Donald E. Lively questions how new powers will be exercised :

Reliance upon a community to enact and enforce protective regulation when the dominant culture itself has evidenced insensitivity toward the harm for which sanction is sought does not seem well placed. A mentality that trivialises incidents such as those Lawrence relates is likely to house the attitudes that historically have inspired the turning of racially significant legislation against minorities. (5)

But perhaps Ira Glasser puts it best in her introduction to the book :

First, the attempt by minorities of any kind -- racial, political, religious, sexual -- to pass legal restrictions on speech creates a self-constructed trap. It is a trap because politically once you have such restrictions in place the most important questions to ask are: Who is going to enforce them? Who is going to interpret what they mean? Who is going to decide whom to target?
The answer is : those in power. (6)

Another condemnation is that the codes are an exercise in self-indulgency, a trivialisation of real racial imperatives by the pursuit of relatively marginal and debatable concerns....
Donald E. Lively states :

As a method for progress, however, protocolism (1) seriously misreads history and disregards evolving social and economic conditions, (2) is an exercise in manipulating and avoiding racial reality; and (3) represents a serious misallocation of scarce reformist resources. (7)

Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex doesn't just put the arguments against speech codes -- it also deconstructs the arguments put in their favour. The three most interesting arguments in favour of such codes are, in my view, (1) that racist expression is not about truth or an attempt to persuade and so is not worthy of protection; (2) that racist declarations are in fact group libels; and (3) that racist expression is akin to an assault.

All three arguments are dismissed by the authors. In the first case, Justice Douglas is approvingly quoted :

(A) function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. This is why freedom of speech, though not absolute is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance or unrest. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardisation of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups. (8)

The second argument -- that racist, sexist or homophobic statements are group libels -- is likewise dismissed. The authors point out that libel involves the publication of information about someone that is both damaging and false. Apart from the obvious fact that group libel doesn't refer to an individual does it fit the definition? Henry Louis Gates Jr. states that it does not. He points out that racist statements may be right or wrong but cannot in many forms be judged true or false. they are often statements of what the individual thinks should be or an expression of feeling. As Gates points out : You cannot libel someone by saying 'I despise you', which seems to be the essential message of most racial epithets. (9)

The last argument -- that such speech represents an assault or words that wound -- is examined, and also dismissed. The authors accept that words can cause harm. Their concern, however, is that no code can be drawn in such a way as to punish only words which stigmatise and dehumanise. They point out that the most harmful forms of racist language are precisely those that combine insult with advocacy -- those that are in short the most political. (10) Attempts to deny that racist speech has a political content also deny that they are part of a larger mechanism of political subordination.

So, can we combat hatred on grounds of race, gender or sexual preference whilst cherishing and nurturing civil liberties? Can we encourage a diversity of thought as well as of population and lifestyle? The answer given by the authors of this book is an emphatic 'yes'. They don't see equality of opportunity and freedom of expression as being at odds. As such, their ideas are refreshing in contrast to the many who seem to have quite unthinkingly accepted that we must sacrifice our freedom on an altar of (faked) equality...

I tried to read this late at night in a guest room in Palo Alto (while I was still on Eastern time), at a house where I was also urged to read _Up and down California_, the narrative based on Brewer's own letters, still in print (first edition 1930). I got the latter via interlibrary loan but the memory of Alsup's vistas of rock has brought me to Amazon to buy my own copies of both.

Just when I think I've seen every modern-day compilation of Thoreau quotations, I turn down an aisle at a used bookstore and gasp in pleasant surprise. Henry David Thoreau wrote in 1850 about "a sweet wild world which lives along the strain of the wood thrush," and here William White reveals glimpses of that realm through selected journal entries arranged by season. White rightly asserts that the transcendentalist's formal poems are clumsy concoctions and are less than memorable, but his prose -- especially portions of his journal -- contains a poetic quality worthy of transcribing into free verse form. Hence, this volume. Individual excerpts appear on separate pages and are enhanced with 16 seasonal pen-and-ink illustrations by Georgia Dearborn. A tasteful gift idea for nature lovers, and certainly less expensive than one of the innumerable coffee table books with full-color photos accompanied by random quotes.

Henry Charlton Beck tells folklore and legends about the small towns in Northern New Jersey. Although not an official account of our history, Beck toured small towns, researched local resources, and had conversations with the locals. Highly recommended for someone who has an interest in local history.

What makes this book particularly appealing is that this was released after the authors death. It was the admiration and dedication of Mayr-Harting is resonsible for the book's release, and the reader is thankful for it. After a moving Introduction about Urrey and his love of Canterbury by Mayr-Harding, the book starts and does not let go.

This book is perfect for armchair historians who know about the martyrdom and wants to know "what really happened". It is highly detailed, but not to the point of boredom. And it is blessedly edited for a reader, not a scholar. While the author seems to have definite opinions about certain figures, he is decidedly neutral about Becket, stating events as they occur. But, after reading this book, one comes away with a much shrewder version of the Saint. It's pretty clear that Thomas knew he was going to die and he was not going away quietly. Even though you know what is going to happen, it actually builds tension. Urrey spares nothing as he graphically (and I do mean graphic!)describes the murder. Which brings me to my only complaint. The author gives and enjoyable and fascinating background to the four murderers, but does not give any information on them after the murder. Not even a "no more records are given after this."

That aside, I highly recommend this book. It's a shame that the author is no longer with us. I would love to have heard what else he would have liked to say.

This book gives you a spectacular, vivid, and unique look at the mountains of New England as only Thoreau could provide. This book is a compilation of peak-by-peak short stories which include Thoreaus' own journal writings along with commentary by the author. You join Thoreau as he explores many of New England's more famous mountains. Originally published in the 19th Century, Thoreau gives a glimpse of the mountains before roads, well-graded paths, or even maps gave the average tourist easy access to their beautiful heights. Thoreau explores such peaks as Katahdin in Maine, Lafayette, Monadnock, and Washington in New Hampshire, as well as Greylock and Wachusett in his home state of Massachusetts. The author gives modern day reference points as you follow Thoreau on his adventures across New England. Thoreau even teaches, unintentionaly, some important do's and don'ts for the modern day explorer. As you will discover Thoreau even learned a few lessons that can still be seen to this day! Overall, a very interesting read, especially for anyone at home in the mountains of New England. A book sure to bring out the adventurer in you.

It is a shame that this is out of stock. I recently read this book and it helped me understand the basic tenets of Marxism more clearly. It does this in an interesting way: a dialogue between three people with varying positions on Marxism and history. Very good introduction to Marxism.

Professor Allen Speer has kindly shared with us the innermost thoughts of his Confederate ancestor, Colonel William Henry Asbury Speer through a diary and a number of letters to his folks back home. While the diary does show the horrors of the war and the problems of being captured, the focus of the work is to show the inner conflicts suffered by those who answered the call to duty to fight for their nation (whether it was the Confederate States of America or the United States) and the pain those men felt because they were fighting against friends and family.

The bitterness of family members over the war and the death of loved ones is made painfully clear by a letter written by Col. Speer's mother several years after he was killed fighting in the 28th North Carolina at Reams Station in August of 1864. This book brings us closer to understanding the complexities of the Civil War, a war that was not only fought between nations, but between friends and families.

It is rather easy to dismiss a president who caught pneumonia during his inauguration and dies a month later, the shortest term of office in American history. I would have said I was already able to tick off the salient facts about It is rather easy to dismiss a president who caught pneumonia during his inauguration and dies a month later, the shortest term of office in American history. I would have said I was already able to tick off the salient facts about William Henry Harrison on the fingers of one hand: the first Whig elected to the White House, famous as the general who won the battle of Tippecanoe, his grandson Benjamin was also elected President, he was the first President to die in office, and, of course, serving the shortest amount of time in American history. The only problem with that list is that Harrison did not become a general until after the battle of Tippecanoe and unlike other famous generals who went on to the White House, such as fellow Whig Zachary Taylor (who also died in office) and Ulysses Grant following the Civil War, William Henry Harrison was a career politician with one of the most impressive resumes I have ever seen. Oh, and his fatal pneumonia was the result of a cold caught while doing his customary early-morning shopping in late March, not during the inaugural.

In this volume for the Encyclopedia of Presidents series, Christine Maloney Fitz-Gerald focuses on that length political career, along with its military highlights, since his Presidency is reduced to a few paragraphs describing his illness and the office-seekers who wanted jobs from the new President. William Henry Harrison might be the most forgotten President, but this informative juvenile biography will soon convince you this should not be the case. Given that his father was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, it becomes clear the Harrison were a major political family in this country. As for Harrison's political resume, while he did indeed start out to be a career soldier he resigned from the army to become secretary of the Northwest Territory before going on to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, appointed governor of the Indiana Territory, reelected to the U.S. House, then elected to the Ohio State Senate and then the U.S. Senate from Ohio, before being appointed minister to Columbia. His political career apparently ended by Andrew Jackson's election and the dictates of the "Spoils System," Harrison actively campaigns for the presidency as early as 1835 before joining the Whig Party and being elected in 1840. In the middle of this political career he had time to be a general during the War of 1812, so while he was a soldier, he was also a formidable politicians.

One of the most notable things about Harrison is that he actively campaigned for the presidency, actually trying to get the Whig nomination in 1836 before being elected four years later. Most readers have probably heard of the "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too" slogan, but Fitz-Gerald goes into considerably more detail about the 1840 campaign and the book is illustrated with several choice examples of political broadsides, cartoons, and such from that period. While there is an early photograph of Tyler, the book does not include one of Harrison, although I understand he was the first sitting president to have his picture taken; however, I have yet to stumble across it. This is an informative volume that will allow young readers assigned to research this forgotten President to learn a lot more than they will ever find out about him in their history textbook.