Reviews for Stationary Engineering Handbook

The average rating for Stationary Engineering Handbook based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2018-10-12 00:00:00 Gabriela Moraes Let’s give it 4.5 stars, to differentiate it from other four star ratings. There are some who know Aaron Burr solely for his role in a 1804 duel with fellow politician, Alexander Hamilton, while others admit to knowing nothing about the man at all. Before I cracked open this book, I admit I was in the former category, but only just. While Nancy Isenberg does not deny that Burr has received significant mention throughout history (usually for the duel and other treacherous activities), much of what has been written about him seems to have come from the pens of amateurs, cobbling together vignettes piecemeal to suit their needs. This sewing together of small tales may serve some, but does little to offer a piece that presents the man in a balanced manner. Isenberg chose to use her role as a professional historian to set the record straight in this comprehensive biography, leaving the reader to decide for themselves . Well-documented and wonderfully written, Isenberg makes a strong case that Burr was a man whose role in the early years of American statehood ought not be forgotten or dismissed. Orphaned at an early age, Aaron Burr spent much of his young life with an uncle, before beginning his studies in the priesthood. This early career choice came from a history of important religious leaders on both sides of his family, though Burr soon saw that he was ill-suited for the pulpit and soon chose a legal career. Burr’s studies at Princeton allowed him to engage with other like-minded young men about the role that the colonies ought to play in a larger Britain, sparking a passion for all things political. Burr settled back in New York, but helped out in the War of Independence, having served as a key aide to senior military personnel, as Isenberg explores in the early chapters of his biography. Another key theme that arises throughout the biography would be Burr’s strong desires for the opposite sex, including his luring of Theodosia Bartow Prevost into his marriage bed during the military actions. Theodosia was older than Burr and used this refined nature to help shape him into the man he was to become, though Isenberg does not dispute that Burr always had a strong libido and love of women. Burr’s reputation followed him after the warring ended, when he entered life as a lawyer before taking on political roles. Fellow New Yorker, Alexander Hamilton, became a key player in Burr’s life, first as a legal partner and eventually as a political foe. Burr’s start in the New York Assembly honed his skills to seek higher office in the form of a Senate seat. Isenberg effectively shows how this Senate seat helped fuel the ongoing feud with Hamilton, who felt offended that the young man would seek to create controversy in the political arena. While Burr and Hamilton worked to push forth key elements of the New York delegation’s views on a new Constitution, they differed greatly. In an era before political parties, these two men helped lay the groundwork for this formalised political schism in the years to come. Not even the death of his beloved Theodosia could extinguish his focus on work in the Senate, where he sought to represent his constituents and apparently flirted quite openly, but always in a classy manner. Isenberg discusses Burr’s various letters, full of coded stories rather than lewd admissions. The height of Burr’s political footprint came when he ran for President of the United States in 1800. Burr entered what has been come to be known as the most intense election in US history, one in which the House of Representatives was forced to resolve. In the end, Thomas Jefferson emerged victorious, with Burr serving as his vice-president. Isenberg shows that Burr tended to be a strong statesman and served America well, overseeing the US Senate, as per his constitutional expectations. Burr made sure that Democratic-Republican laws were passed and kept an eye on the Federalists who sought to shape legislation and the young country in their own image. All the while, Alexander Hamilton continued his barrage and slanderous statements, through speeches and in the press, leaving Burr somewhat unsure how to handle things in a gentlemanly way. When he had reached his limit, Burr and Hamilton engaged in a duel—the way men handled their differences at that time—and this proved to be the event that history books knows best as it relates to Burr. While even Isenberg cannot be entirely sure who fired first, Hamilton was mortally wounded and died soon thereafter. His name seemingly cleared, Burr’s reputation took a serious hit and he was never to play a significant role in elected politics again. However, as Isenberg depicts so thoroughly, Burr looked to the West and sought to stir up some trouble in the newer states, fanning the flames for secession and almost cobbling together enough support to lead a third party into a future election. This led to further political crises that saw Burr tried for treason, with a full congressional court and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. Isenberg does a masterful job of portraying the background and story of the trial itself, in which President Jefferson sought to ensure his former friend was annihilated politically and personally. Thereafter, Burr slipped into a quieter life as his public persona dwindled. Isenberg offers up a few nuggets that the interested reader can discover in the waning pages of this strong biographical piece. While much of the summary above could likely be found in a number of sources, it is Isenberg’s attention to detail to gather it together that makes this book one that is well worth the curious reader’s time. Told not only in a somewhat succinct manner, Isenberg does not ignore the many vignettes that serve to define the life of Aaron Burr. Her writing style is quite easy to comprehend and the narrative flows quite well. Taking portions of Burr’s life, Isenberg creates sizeable chapters to describe them, while using smaller division to help portray the pieces of the larger whole, making the entire process all the more digestible. Her use of extensive research can be seen throughout, not only with the number of quotations, but that the narrative presents as smooth and not disjointed. Isenberg seeks to fill in many of the gaps left by others—including outrightly criticising Gore Vidal’s biography for being vilifying—while not pushing out her own soapbox to depict Burr as entirely worthy of honour or villainy. The reader is given much of the information and permitted to judge for themselves, which is something many great biographical tomes I have read seem to do. Wonderful in its depiction of the man and with a great deal of information of the other players in early American politics, Isenberg has correctly titled this piece to show how Burr was a Founding Father of sorts, even if he fell from grace in the history books. A wonderful biography for those who want to know more about the early actors in American politics and how their lives differed greatly from the depictions we have of the current group who vie for power and notoriety. Kudos, Madam Isenberg, for a wonderfully researched piece that deserves all the praise I can offer. I feel more educated about the man and will look to see what else you may have published. This book fulfils Topic #1: Just the Facts, Ma’am in the Equinox #5 Reading Challenge. A hearty thank you to Susan in NC for suggesting this topic! Like/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at: A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge:

Review # 2 was written on 2010-05-26 00:00:00 Jeremy Tollberg Nancy Isenberg has a valid argument that Aaron Burr has been grossly misjudged by history. However, her restoration is tainted by her devotion to the man. Isenberg's Burr is a brilliant, progressive, selfless hero who deserves a spot on the pantheon of America's founders. His enemies were small, vainglorious, hypocrites who only served their own interest. She attacks other writers, such as Ron Chernow, for upholding the standard story. Isenberg may have a point, but I think the truth lies somewhere between Chernow's version and her own version of history. At some point, I realized that I no longer trusted the credibility of Isenberg's version of the facts. This started when she described the Jay Treaty. The Jay Treaty was widely criticized at the time but the majority of recent scholars have recognized the pragmatism behind it. The young republic had to make certain tough concessions to Great Britain but it was worth it in the end. Eventually, a large segment of the contemporary American populace recognized the benefits of the treaty, and the Jeffersonians were actually hurt by their continued denunciation of it. Isenberg does not attempt to delve into any sort of nuance whatsoever. Instead, she accepts Jeffersonian propoganda for what it is, using it to highlight Burr as a hero of the masses, and his opponents as craven elites. This type of sloppy history persists throughout the book. Isenberg's Federalists are villains, except when they are supporting Burr. Whenever Burr dirties his hands he is being a rational, whenever his opponents do they are playing dirty politics. Fallen Founder seems at times to be more devoted to restoring Burr's reputation than being solid history. For example, Burr went from being a consensus Republican vice presidential candidate in 1800 to being blacklisted completely and humiliated in the New York Governor's race in 1804. There must be more to this than Isenberg's attribution of scheming of Dewitt Clinton and Thomas Jefferson. She also whitewashes Burr's activities in the western frontier that led to his treason trial. While his actions may not have justified the government's prosecution, he was definitely up to something not completely legal and legitimate. Isenberg paints Burr as a great progressive, years ahead of his time in woman's rights, but she only glosses over the fact that he was a slave-owner for the majority of his life. Sure, many of the founders owned slaves but their modern biographers don't attempt to make them out to be modern defenders of liberty. Isenberg also never really proved that Burr belongs with Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton and others in any supposed pantheon. Burr served with decent distinction in the Revolutionary War but played no part in the debate over the Constitution. Burr seems to be no more or less principled than any other politician in that era. Like most politicians, he seemed to let his principles fluctuate with the times. His greatest accomplishments, other than his treason acquittal and his duel with Hamilton, seem to be his coalition building efforts, which invite comparisons with Martin Van Buren. The argument could be made that, if anything, Burr was a politician ahead of his time and a less successful Van Buren. There are some joys in the book. If condition yourself to look past some of Isenberg's apparent biases, there is some interesting stuff, particularly about 1790s New York politics. But Isenberg lets her affinity for her subject get in the way of solid history. It really is a shame, because Burr's story at least deserves a balanced, objective telling.