I remember reading this book in a Cornell undergraduate course in American history and recalling it being a remarkable work of American social history. Polenberg fuses little-known (but very telling) statistics and demographics with lucid descriptions of historical events and qualitative trends. I am astonished that no one has reviewed this first-rate work yet. Its subject matter penetrates almost every aspect of our private lives and public discourse today.

According to its title, the book compiles documents from 1933-1945, the era of Franklin D. Roosevelt, but the contents are strongly tilted toward the 1933-1941 period. Maybe that's justified, given Polenberg's clear focus on domestic social and political issues and given, of course, that the New Deal period consituted more years than World War II. But I felt more than a little disappointed by the brief treatment the war effort received. And the documents pertaining to the war focused largely on Japanese internment and the issue of bombing the concentration camps. These are both important topics and worthy of attention, particularly the latter which I fear is sometimes overlooked (and which is in many ways a telling issue). FDR's Four Freedoms speech is not included, nor the Atlantic Charter, nor the Pearl Harbor speech. The book would definitely have profited from inclusion of these documents and perhaps also of documents pertaining to strategy or military policy.

Nevertheless, the book has three strong points that make it worthwhile. One, Polenberg includes a wide variety of primary sources: speeches, photographs, Supreme Court decisions, letters, posters, poems, songs, press conferences, etc. The sources also come from a range of people, left and right, "large and small." This makes the book particularly useful as a teaching tool for showing students how to tackle primary documents of all types.

Two, in the book's imbalance lies its strongest element--it covers the Depression and the New Deal thoroughly, offering new perspectives and carving new dimensions. We hear from the Roosevelts, both Franklin and Eleanor. We read the views of writers John Steinbeck and Upton Sinclair, and of Roosevelt opponents Charles Coughlin and Huey Long. Administration officials provide their opinions on New Deal legislation (including the frequently ignored Federal Theatre Project). Dorothea Lange's photographs depict the misery and poverty of the Depression. Mexican-American, African-American, and Native American viewpoints also receive attention. Polenberg successfully draws documents to paint a multi-dimensional, in-depth portrait of the 1930s.

And three, Polenberg concludes with a fine bibliography for further reading on the various topics of spanned by the documents.

All in all, despite the weak coverage of World War II, the book is eminently useful for readers interested in the period and especially for teachers and students. Had Polenberg covered the war years in the same detail as the Depression/New Deal, this would be a thoroughly excellent sourcebook. Nevertheless, it is a worthwhile book and could function quite well in an AP history course, or as a complement to reading, say, David Kennedy's Freedom from Fear.

All reliable evidence indicates Sacco and Vanzetti are emblematic of rather low-level, low-life anti-intellectual types. They were clearly guilty but unfortunately (for them) they committed their vile murder in a time when decency still reigned (even in Massachusetts) and fair trials were still the norm of the day. Lost in all of this is the name of the poor victim. You can read entire essays railing against the evils of racism,etc. and not find the name of the victim. The poor fellow is lost in the fray of leftist babble. In the end, justice was served and the two immigrant anarchists who, after all, sought the destruction of American society were put to death for their evil actions. Still, reading this compilation of their letters serves several useful purposes: 1) it clearly indicates how stupid they were; 2) it reminds one that even evil nuts have families whom they care about (can one imagine reading the prison letters of Dr. Joseph Goebells "I love you, deary and the little kidders too."); it demonstrates once and for all the boorish mentality of the nutcase (admittedly a redundant phrase)leftwing; 4) it demonstrates that liberals have always been stupid.

Polenberg of Cornell University The introduction to The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti (Penguin Books 1997) by Professor Richard Polenberg is richly informative. The publication is timely and useful. Readers must ask whether these letters offer a clue to the moral character of convicted murderers Sacco and Vanzetti. John Nicholas Beffel, radical journalist who roomed with chief defense counsel Fred Moore during the Dedham trial, declared in “The New Republic,” December 29, 1920, that Vanzetti was a “philosophical anarchist.” In “The Case of Sacco and Vanzetti” (March 1927), Harvard Law School Professor Felix Frankfurter called Vanzetti “a dreamy fish peddler” (p. 101). Bruce Bliven, “managing editor of the liberal New Republic” (a phrase from American National Biography), wrote of Sacco and Vanzetti: “Their faith is philosophical anarchism.” See TNR: June 22, 1927, p. 121. When an unknown reviewer in the April 1929 issue of the anarchist journal “The Road to Freedom” argued that Upton Sinclair’s novel “Boston” was the work of an unfit historian, Sinclair replied angrily in the June issue: “It is a fact that Sacco was a ‘Militant Anarchist.’” Anarchist editor Hippolyte Havel agreed. In the August 1929 issue of “Lantern” Walter Lippmann wrote: “By every test that I know of for judging character, these are the letters [The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti] of innocent men.” Note: The brackets are by Lippmann Frederick Allen (Only Yesterday, 1931) said Vanzetti was “clearly a remarkable man--an intellectual of noble character, a philosophical anarchist of a type which it seemed impossible to associate with a pay-roll murder.” Alfred Jules Ayer, Professor of Logic at Oxford, reviewing Francis Russell’s 1962 book on Sacco and Vanzetti, wrote: “Both men were active anarchists of an idealistic kind.” Ayer said the letters of Vanzetti revealed “a man of great swetnesss and nobility of character.” See New Statesman: 5 July 1963. Sacco-Vanzetti scholars who met at the Boston Public Library on October 26 and 27, 1979, reminded readers that time is a great corrective. Professor Nunzio Pernicone, on the second conference day said: “ . . . these men [Sacco and Vanzetti] were not philosophical anarchists; they were genuine, militant revolutionaries.” See “Sacco-Vanzetti: Developments and Reconsiderations--1979,” the 1982 publication by Trustees of the Public Library of the City of Boston. In “Sacco and Vanzetti: The Anarchist Background,” a 1991 publication by Princeton University Press, Professor Paul Avrich wrote: “Both [Sacco and Vanzetti] were ultra-militants, . . .” See p. 161 for Avrich’s citation to Sinclair’s letters that acknowledge the militancy of Sacco and Vanzetti. On page xxxix of his Introduction, Polenberg calls Edmund M. Morgan a historian. In fact, Morgan is called Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University on the back cover of the 1978 reprint of “The Legacy of Sacco and Vanzetti,” that 1948 book by Joughin and Morgan that Tom O’Connorr said had educated a generation of college students and professors. Polenberg’s assertion (p. xxxix) that Joughin and Morgan, . . .believed Sacco and Vanzetti innocent, . . .” must be severely qualified. Morgan said Ehrmann’s book, “The Untried Case: The Sacco-Vanzetti Case and the Morelli Gang,” failed to convince him that the Morelli gang, not Sacco and Vanzetti, had committed the crime at South Braintree. Morgan also said that if Sacco and Vanzetti “were alive today [1934] and were to be tried again, . . . and if a verdict were returned, it could not be set aside as contrary to the weight of evidence, at least against Sacco.” See Harvard Law Review, January 1934. Morgan has more telling concessions in the book he and Joughin published in 1948. On pp. 55-56 he calls Vanzetti’s Plymouth trial fair, the verdict just. On p. 46 Morgan writes: “ . . . this cross-examination, taken alone,

tends strongly to show that a group of Italians had framed an alibi for Vanzetti and had coached this bright youngster [Beltrado Brini] to tell his story with details which would tie in with the incidents related by other witnesses.” On pages 48-49 Morgan says Vanzetti’s statements on the Plymouth trial are suspect. A handbook on the two disputed trials is “Kill Now, Talk Forever: Debating Sacco and Vanzetti,” an ebook by 1stBooks Library. Soft cover issue will be available before the end of summer....

This is the most important testament to a now largely forgotten tragedy of American politics. Sacco and Vanzetti were essentially convicted and executed for being unpatriotic foreigners, regardless of the crime they were accused of [for which no specific evidence was presented against them]. They waited for seven years in prison before their execution, during which time they wrote these letters. Their English, though it improved through the years, was never fully accomplished. But the results are extraordinary. The letters express ideas about life, society, faith, politics and human feelings, and the often clumsy and misused language actually makes the expression more lucid and more beautiful. The path of trial, appeal and final sentencing runs through clearly, and as the end approaches the letters are inexpressibly heartbreaking, as when Sacco asks his wife to tell his daughter "that I love her so much, and again, so much." This book has been in and out of print since the late 1920's, and is often unavailable in libraries because patrons steal it. It is a blessing that Penguin has brought it back.