Book Reviews:

Since I read so many books, and some that are obscure to the average reader (and some that are obscure to the average history or poli sci student for that matter), I thought I would review a couple tonight, a pair that are wildly different in scope and presentation, but splendid in their own right.

First off we have The Rising Tide by Jeff Shaara. Many of you might be familiar with the name and may have even read his other books as well. His father, Michael, wrote the classic The Killer Angels that later became the movie Gettysburg, and after his father's death, Jeff Shaara finished the trilogy of Civil War novels, writing Gods and Generals and The Last Full Measure. Later, Shaara continued the historical novel of our country's wars by writing Gone for Soldiers (about the Mexican War), two novels of the American Revolution and To the Last Man, a novel of the Great War. Now, a word about my usage of novel (and indeed Mr. Shaara's usage as well). The historical events he describes are for the most part accurate and many of his sources come from letters and other primary sources of the participants; however, because he utilizes dialogue that may or may not (more likely not) have been accurate, the books are considered fiction taking place in the context of the events he describes. For his part, most historians find his representations fairly accurate, and I would contend he captures the spirit of the characters he portrays.

The Rising Tide is the first in a series of novels about the United States' involvement in World War II. It begins with the United States forming a coalition with the British, and to a lesser extent the French (who had not been liberated at the time and were mostly exiled or collaborating), moving through Operation: Torch in North Africa and the invasion of Sicily and Italy. It is presumed the next book will begin with D-Day. Shaara utilizes two main protagonists, General Dwight D. Eisenhower and General (later Field Marshal) Erwin Rommel, though Generals George S. Patton and Mark Clark are featured supporting protagonists. He also captures well the perspective of the enlisted man with chapters devoted to an American tanker as he progresses through the first fight in North Africa, the disastrous battle of Kasserine Pass.

The action in the novel is played out well, with dueling perspectives of the commanders and the enlisted men, and gives the book a gritty, realistic feel. And his characterization of Erwin Rommel is one of the best I have ever read. Further, Shaara captures the intense pressure Eisenhower was under in building a coalition of two (later three) major allies and trying to stop the German war machine. From the German side, we see how hamstrung Rommel and his contemporaries were because of Hitler's increasing insanity and the delusions of Fascist Italy. On the side of the Allies, we also see Eisenhower's frustration with his two best field commanders, Patton and Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery. In the end, it is amazing, with all the conflicting and outrageous personalities, that the Allies were ever able to coordinate their forces.

If I had one misgiving, it was that I had the feeling I had seen this before, especially in Shaara's realistic portrayal of Patton. Indeed, at times, I thought I was having flashbacks to the movie 'Patton' because much of how Patton is characterized is dead on with the movie. It may be that Shaara paid homage, or that both the movie and the book were fairly accurate in that regard. In any event, I still recommend the book, especially for the casual student of World War II history, as it does not overwhelm the reader with details of battle but instead focuses on those who fought the war and how the war affected them.

Switching gears, we have What Kind of Nation by James F. Simon, a study of the constitutional struggles between Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall. At first, I thought it would be more of an analysis of their confrontations as President and Chief Justice respectively (though the book goes into that in great detail), but it is more a narrative of their lives in relation to the early growing pains of the young Republic. The book begins with Jefferson joining Washington's Cabinet and his early conflicts with Alexander Hamilton, a man diametrically opposed to Jefferson. Indeed, the heart of the book is less the conflict of Jefferson and Marshall to me, but the struggle of the early political ideologies of the nation.

Simon also makes some interesting insights into the character of Jefferson, especially his desire for secession during the presidency of his former friend John Adams, and shows how John Marshall emerges from relative obscurity to basically determine how the Supreme Court would be seen in later generations. Indeed, for good or ill, John Marshall is the reason the Supreme Court exists in the manner it does today. Further, it can (and is) argued that his legacy is perhaps more important to modern America than Jefferson's, if only because Jefferson was a product of the Enlightenment and could never escape the idea that the United States should remain an 'are' and not an 'is' (with apologies to Shelby Foote). Marshall's America heralds the 20th century, while Jefferson's longs for simpler times. The problem is that Marshall understood that the Federal system might have been better for America in the long run, while Jefferson continued to scream States Rights until his death.

I thoroughly enjoyed this book, mostly because I am intrigued by the philosophy of political ideology and how it has evolved to the present day. And this book delivers in that regard. If you are interested in the early political struggles of the United States, I recommend this book.

Well, I hope these reviews are ok, as I have not done a real review in a couple of years. Do enjoy whatever books you choose to read, and again, I do recommend these two fine books.

C.