A story of a mythical kingdom with problems similar to a kingdom here, which had its own solutions to problems of corrupch churches and treasonous brothers, and accidents of fate
Picking up the pieces and rebuilding despite suspicion and anger.
Someone different in the attic
If only we hadn't voted for that guy
Shortest and newest
Just how far could they have gotten, really
Benjamin was an intellectual giant striding among intellectual pigmies, a hard worker among the lazy. He could therefore be a whale in a puddle. Wherever he went, the law courts of Louisiana, the Senate, the confederate cabinet, or the english courts he could shine brighter than almost anyone.
He was obviously brilliant from a young age. He was sent to Yale at 12, expelled for some mysterious reason that has . been lost by 14, and a promising lawyer by 18, after arriving in New Orleans 2ith no more than $5.
But... he was also stuck by being ethnically Jewish. He had no religion, but he was called "jew" by every moral or intellectual midget. He didn't flee from his heritage, he didn't embrace it either. It was just there.
He had trials. His Marriage was a disaster. Even his closest acquaintances, such as Jefferson Davis did't understand him at all. He was effectively lonely in the midst of a crowd.
This book does a very good jib of explaining Benjamin. And it explains the world he lived in. There are some quibbles, arising from the fact he led such a complicated life. The author has to go over the same years in different chapters because there were things that required different chapters for things that happened simultaneously, The author makes too much of order#11, it was a minor molehill, he makes an everest out of it. It could have been an everest, but Lincoln squashed it so quickly.
A book of weirdness about the birth, life, and death of Jesus. It makes as much sense as anything else written of the man.
He posits a theory that at first blush is just totally insane, but through textual analysis has you going that makes perfect sense.
His argument is that the the central facts of Jesus life occurred 20 years after they were stated. There were no problems with the province of Judea around 33AD, but starting with Caligula's insistance of putting a statue of himself in the holy of holies in Jerusalem, Judea was always causing problems for the Roman state, which ended with with the revolt of 67.
It is a very entertaining book. And I am almost convinced
Priestly and Lavoisier were very different men who did more for the world of science than any other two. Lavoisier got the idea of element from the ancient to the modern way of thinking.
They also found themselves in trouble for different reasons. Lavoisier got in trouble for reasons of insane jealousy and he was murdered by the state. Priestly was exiled for being to close to the regime in france, which he disliked.
Priestly did more than any other person who destroyed the theory of phlogiston, which he insisted was correct long after anyone else gave it any credence.
The book had too much petty 'take thats' for contemporary politics which no longer applies. It is like seeing a dispute between Assyrian noblemen ton a modern text. It made reading the book irritating.
Thomas was the man who both had a sense of morality witch never altered, and a intellectual stance that changed a great deal. Thomas was a slave owning southerner that by the end of the war had the best record of civil rights. He didn't wear his radicalism on his sleeve like Sheridan, but he was far more effective at the radical (for the time) things he carried out.
Thomas had some good things and some very bad things about his sense of honor. His refusal to be seen as campaigning for his superiors jobs was very just and moral. however the men who he was moral toward, Buell in particular, really didn't deserve his consideration. One could argue that Thomas' morality cost the lives of thousands.
Thomas had a different way of waging war than Grant. neither way always right or always wrong for a given set of circumstances . They were very different, and as Grant and Sherman were the men in charge, they found Thomas aggravating when he was right .and annoying when he was wrong.
Thomas in the right place for the union war effort. Without him the north would have lost battles disastrously. he was one who won the war..
The wealth of Nations is a great thick thing. This very slim volume means to boil it down to 150 pages. He does a good job to it.
This is not Hagiography. He finds where Smith made some weird sophistical arguments as well as the remarkably clear and far seeing ones. He by and large agrees with Smith, and finds his arguments have a great deal of force. But there are other discussions like the digression on the price of silver which make the judicious weep. And that digression is so weird and misses its point, and is so important for his main point.
Adam Smith had a philosophical system that was opposed to cant and special pleading. He demolishes the crooks and fools of 225 years ago, who still try and pick pockets with their tongues today. He tries to come top with better ideas for the administration of justice, but he admits that some of the problems of human existence are insoluble, that the best we can hope for is minor amelioration, not good systems that will replace the old.
I really enjoyed the book. But I have no desire to read the Wealth of Nations again. But there are excellent spots inn there.
This Is a report of three years constructive digging for a ancient city first destroyed by a massive earthquake, and later made uninhabitable by saracen raids.
The Earthquake was massive, perhaps nine or ten on the Richter scale. The casualties horrendous. The earthquake left the city so damaged that the bodies were left by the few survivors. After 100 years a small contingent moved back in, but 200 years late the saracen raids had it abandoned again.
This is modern archaeology, where they are interested in how people lived, rather than ransacking the cities of the past for treasure. The finds of this study were of a pair of small families that were crushed by their collapsing houses. In death, they help us understand their lives.
In April of 1863, Benjamin Grierson began his raid through the center of Mississippi. There were three other raids begun at the same time. The goal of all of them was to confuse the confederate high command. And confuse them they did.
Grierson was something remarkable as a commander. He was big on discipline and drill, but he also ate what the men ate and shared their privations as and gave then the glory.
Like Grant and Sherman, he had a very rough time prior to the war. Like Grant, he was surviving on the charity of family.
Unlike Grant, Grierson was intensely musical. He made ends meet, unsuccessfully , as a music teacher.
The raid lasted three weeks. Grierson backtracked and gave the confederates fits as to his location and his intentions. The confederates knew his goal was one place, and he showed up in someplace else 60 miles away.
as far as Grierson was concerned, any destruction of the railroads or losses of war material was so much the better, but his real goal was confusion and attention. Especially for Pemberton and his attention on Grant. And this was very successful. Grant got across the river w unopposed because Pemberton was to busy with Grierson's two regiments to worry about Grant and his three armies.
The goal of this book was to discuss Lincoln's record as commandeer. Lincoln's military record prior to being president had been in a small conflict with a group of Indians. he had been elected by his fellow militiamen. And then they went home. He performed a great deal better than his history. He performed substantially better than Davis, who had a long military record.
He had to deal with Prima Donas, a command structure that mostly disliked him and hated his goals. Macllellan, his choice for commander disposed him and gave Lincoln excuses rather than results.
Lincoln learned, the hard way, how to chose commanders. And after three years he got the generals that would perform, rather than backbite.
Lincoln didn't want the role of military commander. His goals in November 1860 were relatively modest. The confederacy through their intransigence and folly presented Lincoln with achievements he couldn't dream of. However it also fundamentally changed the United States in ways both positive and profoundly negative
General Thomas was Southerner who fought for the union during the Civil War. Something his family never forgave him for. However, his southern heritage had his contemporaries worried over.
His manner of fighting war, being very careful that everything was just so, exasperated Grant And Sherman. And it must be said that Grant was jealous of his very effectiveness.
Personality wise, Grant and Thomas were almost exactly alike: Quiet, reflective, and bull headed once their mind was made up. General Thomas was a great deal more self effacing than Grant. He turned down promotions several times because they would have been more harm than good.
His rise was a lot slower than Grant's. And because Grant got along with Sherman better than Thomas he was left in the dust. Thomas also had the misfortune of being the person Halleck chose more than Grant,Grant blamed him for Halleck's bad manners.
The book glosses over his reconstruction service, which seems to have been more radical than one would think