Reviews for War government, Federal and State

The average rating for War government, Federal and State based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2018-07-12 00:00:00 Lonnie Mccroy (I'm beginning to find goodreads a bit limiting. And this is an example. I don't have plans on reading this book but did want to note it. I placed it on a shelf called "noted-but-not-read" so that I could reference back to discoveries about the book despite only a cursory look.) This book caught my eye for two reasons. One as a resource for my ongoing investigation of the nations capitol and two I on occasion interact with the office of the Architect of the Capitol professionally. On the second I'm far better off with government websites. Unfortunately I found this book boring to my tastes. It contains a great deal of detail about the bureaucracy involved with erecting the different stages of the capitol as well as biography on the makers, especially their troubles in their efforts. It was weak on theory, perspective, and aesthetic evaluation which I believe is what I'd hoped for. This book has some nice drawings and photographs in it. But reading it was a chore and I felt that I'd mostly come away with a sack full of minute details that didn't cohere well. As a general overview in the city's development I'm enjoying "Washington in Focus" much more, though admittedly that book is nearly juvenile in comparison. I've yet to find a powerful book that provides the capitol's architecture, statuary, museums, institutions of power, urban planning, with a provoking treatment. This book is for the "all things DC" total nut, who's probably already explored the avenues I'm seeking and was left wanting for more. Compare it to those who love Roman history so much they'll sit around and read the minutes of a senate session on farming issues.

Review # 2 was written on 2014-01-21 00:00:00 HermanA Pauwels Eleven chapters of, how shall I put this mildly, bovine waste. This book was urged upon my by one who found it compelling. Finally, after a century and a half of myth-based pseudo-history propping up the image of "King Lincoln", he told me, comes Thomas J. DiLorenzo, an economist with a book exposing the "truth" about not-so-honest Abe. I'll admit to skepticism. And I'll even admit that I had no real desire to read The Real Lincoln. Whenever I'm faced with a conflict between mainstream and fringe, the burden of proof is on fringe to convince me that the mainstream is incorrect. It can be done. But when common sense and logic side with the mainstream, it is difficult - as I think that it should be - to convince me that the mainstream is wrong. I felt it was highly unlikely that DiLorenzo could shift my viewpoint. Time passed but the comments kept coming. You might be surprised how often our sixteenth president can make it into everyday conversation. The comments traced the roots of America's generally bad state of nearly everything to Abraham Lincoln. And the source backing the comments was Thomas DiLorenzo. Then fate intervened. I saw an advertisement alongside an article that I was reading on a news site - I don't recall ever having paid attention to one before. The advertisement was for a book by Dennis W. Brandt called Shattering the Truth: The Slandering of Abraham Lincoln. I went to Amazon and pulled up a copy of Brandt's book and previewed the Preface. Lo and behold Brandt was talking about DiLorenzo. And his book was a direct reply to DiLorenzo's works, including The Real Lincoln, and seemed to be a document-based, irrefutable, refutation. Brandt, I suspected, had taken the time to do the work necessary to prove the truth of the mainstream in opposition to the fringe. I ordered it immediately. I knew that I would read The Real Lincoln and Shattering the Truth together but, hoping to keep as open a mind as possible under the circumstances, I decided to read DiLorenzo first and Brandt second, instead of reading them side by side. Even without Brandt's help, I found DiLorenzo unconvincing. Throughout The Real Lincoln, DiLorenzo discounts any historian who disagrees with him and lauds those who agree. He takes some bits and pieces from original sources and cuts and pastes them out of context. He alternately holds Lincoln to modern racial sensibilities and downplays the evils of slavery as irrelevant to the cause - or even a cause - of the Civil War. And, most glaringly, he writes from an absolutist standpoint. There is no room for nuance and no shades of gray. And there is certainly no room for historical context. DiLorenzo's logic is often faulty but, at times, his points sound convincing. Many such points, however, rely on assumptions without footnotes or any other proof. But, as Brandt points out, even if the assumptions were footnoted, DiLorenzo's use of sources isn't always (or even often) reliable. DiLorenzo uses The Real Lincoln as part of his broader effort to trash the image of Lincoln for refusing to allow the Confederacy to secede, for doing so not to save the Union but to consolidate absolute power and riches in the hands of a few and oppress the God-given liberties of all Americans. In a vacuum and unchecked, I fear, DiLorenzo's efforts could succeed. Thankfully, we don't live in a vacuum. Check DiLorenzo's sources, and check his sources' sources. Or, if you don't have time, as I didn't, feel free to consult Shattering the Truth. Dennis Brandt has done yeoman's work for us all. If you're interested in a different opinion on Abraham Lincoln, The Real Lincoln is right for you. But if you want that different view to be honest, accurate, or based in reality - as I think something with the word "real" in its title should be, look elsewhere - almost anywhere elsewhere would be better.