Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.Recensioni

I really enjoyed reading the transcripts of these conversations and I'm so glad the interviews were unedited. Started to listen to the CDs but it was faster to read. It was a walk through a time capsule. I had to keep reminding myself that she was only 34 years old and her husband had been killed just four months earlier. She was remarkably composed. I found it so interesting to hear her views on JFK and the political scene and characters of the 1960s and the footnotes were wonderful in clarifying the people and situations she was referring to. It was funny in a shocking way to hear her views on male/female relationships and feminism. Mostly I loved the history both the good and the bad .... one item that jumped out was Ike's appointment (Lyman Lemnitzer) as Chairman of Joint Chiefs who approved a classified plan for the US government to commit acts of terrorism against Miami and other US cities and blame those acts on Castro. Thankfully JFK rejected it. JFK said he thought it a disgrace that there were less than 100 people in Washington working on disarmament ... and he was upset there was no proper award for civilian achievement while there were many for military achievements so he created the Medal of Freedom. Also interesting, he had no chief of staff so ideas didn't get filtered and each cabinet head had access to him. Lots of good stuff and makes me wonder how the world might have been different had he finished his term. Depressing to compare it all to political "leaders" of today.

5790. The Cycles of American History, by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. (read 17 May 2022) This book, published in 1986, is the 13th book by its author I have read. It expatiates a lot about the political scene as of 1986 and hence is often not pertinent to the very different political scene as it exists today. And one knows that what the author would say about today's political scene would be darker than what he had to say about the 1986 scene. The book says lots of wise things but some I could not agree with. For instance, he spends a lot of time bemoaning the fact that the 25th Amendment permits a person, such as Jerry Ford to be president even though he was never voted on by all the nation's voters. I cannot think that is a pertinent complaint. I think the 25th Amendment worked OK in 1974 and see no need to change it. All in all the book said wisely much but it seemed far removed from the situation which confronts us today--a perilous one in my view, with so many people eager to do violence to our system of government

Being cynical about politicians is only natural, yet sometimes someone comes along who somehow taps into our natural craving for leadership, seemingly embodying the best of our national spirit and promising a better tomorrow via their charismatic presence alone. RFK is to many people the last politician they could trust emotionally, a man of infinite compassion yet ruthless integrity, a person of infinite compassion yet ruthless integrity, someone with a prosecutor's ferocity yet a poet's sensibility. He was murdered before he could really do much to validate the immense, almost messianic hopes that people laid on him, and this biography, written by a man who knew him well, takes you through his journey from hard-edged enforcer of justice to champion of the downtrodden in a way that will leave you greatly saddened at the cruelties of history.

The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this book are historical. No identification with extant persons, places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.

Page 25: opposition to the abolition of child labor, minimum-wage and maximum-hour laws, and social insurance is framed by businessmen as a defense of the “freedom” of workers to make a living however they please.

Page 57: President Coolidge says “The chief business of the American people is business….If the Federal Government should go out of existence, the common run of people would not detect the difference in the affairs of their daily life for a considerable length of time.”

Page 66: “Denied outlet in lower prices because of accumulating rigidities, the gains of technological efficiency were equally denied outlet in higher wages or in higher farm prices because of the bargaining feebleness of the labor movement and of the farm bloc. As a result, these gains were captured increasingly by the businessmen themselves in the form of profits. Through the [1920s], profits rose over 80 per cent as a whole, or twice as much as productivity; the profits of financial institutions rose a fantastic 150 per cent.”

Page 67: “Between 1923 and 1929, output per man-hour in manufacturing rose almost 32 per cent, while hourly wages rose but slightly over 8 per cent.

Page 67: “By the middle twenties, the whole economic process began to focus on a single point—the ticker-tape machine with its endless chatter of stock market quotations….The leaders of the business community, now heedless of caution in their passion for gain, promoted new investment trusts, devised new holding companies and manipulated new pools, always with the aim of floating new securities for the apparently insatiable market….In time it would appear that even the leaders of business could not decipher the intricate financial structures they were erecting.”

Pages 103-104: In a 1925 letter, FDR advises fellow his fellow Democrats that the party must become “by definite policy, the Party of constructive progress, before we can attract a larger following.” Since 1920, he says, “we have been doing nothing—waiting for the other fellow to put his foot in it.” “In the minds of the average voter the Democratic Party has no definite constructive aims.”


Page 114: “The A.F. of L. played little role in initiating [efforts to abolish the yellow-dog contract and limit the labor injunction], preferring rather to place its trust in the foremost industrial statesmen of modern times. Yet, underneath, new currents were stirring. Toward the end of the twenties, a series of strikes, especially in the needle trades and in the textile mills, showed a defiance not yet smothered by the boom.”

Page 150: “Never before in American history had artists and writers felt so impotent in their relation to American society. The business culture wanted nothing from the intellectual, had no use for him, gave him no sustenance.”

Page 165: On March 7, 1930, Hoover says “All the evidences indicate that the worst effects of the crash on unemployment will have been passed in the next sixty days. “[President Hoover’s] fault lay not in taking an optimistic line, but in bending the facts to sustain his optimism, and then in believing his own conclusions.” “Hoover found in pledges an acceptable substitute for actions; assurances given took the place of dollars spent.”

Page 177: In 1930, businessmen predict that “by early spring there should be definite signs of a turn….1930 will stand out as a year of unusual stability….Renewed business expansion may be anticipated during the second half….The last half should be marked by rapid recovery in every direction.”

Page 207: “[Socialist party leader Norman Thomas’s] most successful appeal was not to workers but to middle-class audiences in the colleges and the churches. Between 1928 and 1932, the Socialist party hardly more than doubled its tiny membership—from about 7,000 to 15,000.”


Page 226: Oklahoma Senator Gore, in 1931, says “You might just as well try to prevent the human race from having a disease as to prevent economic grief of this sort.”

Page 244: “[President Hoover’s] attitude in press conferences aroused more serious concern. He played favorites…and complained to publishers of reporters whose stories he did not like. Gradually he began to cancel his press conferences….The conferences themselves consisted increasingly of official handouts. Bumbling attempts by White House secretaries to withhold official news and to control the writing of stories only aggravated the situation. The president’s relations with the press…had reached ‘a stage of unpleasantness without parallel during the present century. They are characterized by mutual dislike, unconcealed suspicion, and downright bitterness.’”

Page 253: “J.P. Morgan, who appealed to workers to give their meager wages for the block-aid campaign (‘we must all do our bit’), paid not one cent of federal income tax himself in 1930, 1931, or 1932; nor, in the latter two years, did any of his partners….According to their tax returns, the Morgan partners, for all their accumulation of town houses and limousines, yachts in Long Island Sound and shooting boxes in Scotland, had virtually no taxable income at all in the depression years.”

Page 268: Pennsylvania Senator David A. Reed says “I do not often envy other countries their governments, but I say that if this country ever needed a Mussolini, it needs one now.”

Page 286: Democratic presidential candidate John Nance Garner’s “motto would be ‘America First’.”

Page 419: Felix Frankfurter favors “rigorous regulation of investment banking and securities exchanges.” Rex Tugwell and others preferred central planning.

NA

This book replaces a long section of American history left blank by all the school books I had. I had already read a bio of Jackson years ago, but this book is not about Jackson. It is about that blank period between the War of 1812 and the Civil War. It is primarily a political history of that era which was defined to a large extent by the rise of Andrew Jackson and the Democratic party. It is a hard read, about 10% of which is contained in the footnotes. Sheds a lot of light on how America got from an innocent, largely aristocratic republic to a popular (if not completely enfranchised) democracy ultimately driven into the Civil War.

I struggled with giving this 3 or 4 stars. I think it lands somewhere in between. 4 because of historical significance but 3 because of how it's presented. I think it may have been to soon and Jackie doesn't come across well at times. It also didn't really add much if you know anything about JFK or the time period.

Anyone writing about Teddy Roosevelt starts with an almost unfair advantage, as TR was an outsized individual whose life included varied accomplishments, each of which might be someone else's entire life story.

He restored himself to health from severe childhood frailty and become a professional-level athlete as it was conceived in his time. He started, ran, and lost a major cattle ranch, cow-punching alongside his employees. He adventures included treks in the Black Hills of South Dakota, across Africa, and down the River of Doubt in South America. He served as Under Secretary of the Navy and prepared for the War with Spain without the approval of his superiors. He trained and lead the Rough Riders up San Juan Hill in Cuba, making himself famous. President of the NY Police Commission; Governor of NY; Vice President; President due to assassination of James Garfield; elected President. And on and on...

I'm sure it was a challenge to get all of that, plus TR's outsize personality, friendships and rivalries, into the limitation of this series.

However, I have to say that Auchincloss usually writes much better than this. One chapter was simply a series of quotations from TR, with brief introductions for context. Other chapters were introduced as set pieces on some particular topic, such as TR's re-election, his run as a Bull Moose candidate, and his legacy as an environmentalist (as it was conceived at the time). This created a sense of a visible outline, and made the book seem like a long freshman comp essay and not a book by one of our prominent writers of fiction and non-fiction. Auchincloss was phoning it in.

However, if you only have a couple of hours and want to get a sense of the person and life of TR, this is not a bad choice. Auchincloss does quote liberally from TR and his associates and rivals, providing an excellent brief introduction. If you have more time, and want to really understand the topic, read Edmund Morris's three-volume biography.

Good, brief biography of Ike

There is much to say critical about Eisenhower, and Wicker brings these topics up. Eisenhower gave Nixon too much of a platform. He didn’t directly oppose Sen. Joseph McCarthy, but instead gave us the doctrine of “executive privilege.” He only reluctantly enforced Brown v. Board of Education, and while giving us the first modern equal rights legislation, gave us a lackluster law, with no real enforcement. And he supported anti-democratic coups in Guatemala and Iran, for which the United States is still paying penalties.

But Eisenhower also defused the Suez crisis, avoided a war with China, limited the engagement in Vietnam (it was Kennedy and later Johnson, Democrats who did not want to appear soft on communism, who escalated US involvement). He opposed what he termed in his farewell speech the “military-industrial complex,” and the notion from Republican hawks and Democrats such as Kennedy, that there was a missile gap with the Soviets.

The real tragedy of the Eisenhower administration, called out eloquently in Wicker’s book, is how close the great soldier was to a nuclear test ban with the Soviet Union, and how his hubris and that of his subordinates led to the U-2 incident that gave Khrushchev the opportunity to storm out of the Paris talks.

Wicker writes well. There is a bone-head error in describing the time between the collapse of the May 1959 talks in Paris and the end of Eisenhower’s presidency as “7 months,” when in fact it was nineteen. This should have been caught by the most junior copy editor. However, the book is well researched, and shows an overall strong understanding of the subject and the times, which Wicker had as a NY Times political correspondent when Eisenhower was still alive.

The nature of this series of presidential biographies is of course brevity, but Wicker’s book is one that feels like it covers the whole subject and does not skirt issues or portions of the life. Wicker’s reminisce of a trip with Eisenhower, one aide, and another reporter, during the 1962 campaign was an interesting coda and lead up to Wicker’s summary that Eisenhower was a great man, but not a great president.

5557. Journals 1952-2000, by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. Edited by Andrew Schlesinger and Stephen Schlesinger (read 16 May 2018) This is the 12th Schlesinger book I've read. I look on it as the sequel to his A Life in the Twentieth Century Innocent Beginnings 1917-1950 which I read clear back on 13 Feb 2001. I should have read this book when it was published in 2007 but it is still excellent and enjoyable reading even though Schlesinger has been dead since 28 Feb 2007. It tells of his life from 1952 to 2000, consisting of journal entries he made during that tme. It is edited by two of his sons and as far as one can tell the journal has not been changed from what he wrote periodically during the years. It is always interesting to see his comments on the people he associated with and observed. He was a very talented and opinionated observer and participant in the political life of the country. I often agreed with his outlook but not always. His support for JFK and Bobby Kennedy resonated well with my position in the years involved, but he was not as supportive as I thought he should have been of LBJ in his domestic policies at least and I was disturbed that he did not even vote for Jimmy Carter in either 1976 or 1980. I am a great believer in voting for the better person who has a chance to win and it was bothersome that he did not vote for the Democratic presidential candidate in 1976 and 1980.. But the account over the years was full of interest and the gossip and the name-dropping actually made the book high in vivid historical fascination, I thought..½

This is a classic statement by a preeminent historian about the increase in unconstitutional power that presidents have accumulated.

Arthur M. Schlessinger, Jr.'s book on the Kennedy Presidency is of interest to the historian of foreign policy and diplomacy if for no other reason than the fact that he was close enough to the internal workings of the American presidency that he could write a book of personal reminiscences which would qualify as a history. As one of a general outpouring of reminiscences in the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination it has surprisingly retained its utility.1 Looking back in retrospect nearly 30 years after its publication, The Thousand Days still affords a valuable insider's account. Obviously written for the general educated public, the book has the additional advantage of historical writing has lost in the last several decades.

The U.S.-Soviet Cold War dominates much of Schlessinger's account. Schlessinger shared (as well as shaped) the American Cold War consensus ideology during the years covered in this account. Within the context of this consensus he characterizes Kennedy as a consummate statesman, able to find the correct balance between diplomacy and the recourse to military force and - perhaps most importantly - able to learn from his mistakes. This "memoir" of the Kennedy Presidency, full of first hand accounts of diplomacy at the highest levels of government, also represents an attempt to draw "lessons" from American history. This book bears testimony to Schlessinger's important assumption about the Cold War, which - simply put - is that the Munich analogy applies to U.S.-Soviet relations.

Though it would be unfair to characterize the book as Kennedy-worship pure and simple, there is a great deal to James MacGregor Burns' claim that Kennedy was astute enough to choose his own biographer. The Bay of Pigs, for instance, was Kennedy's "ordeal by fire" in which he learned the lessons vlhich allowed him to emerge successful from the Cuban missile crisis. Even from the jaws of defeat, Schlessinger allows his "hero" to snatch victory (and perhaps vindicate his own performance as author of the famous white paper on Cuba?). the prototypical statesman is the account of the Berlin Crisis of 1961. During the crisis Kennedy sought the advice of subordinates, yet maintained control over policy formulation at all times (in contrast to Eisenhower, who Schlessinger implies gave a free reign to John Foster Dulles). As tensions over Berlin mounted in the aftermath of the Kennedy-Khrushchev meeting in Vienna, Dean Acheson recommended sending an Army division along the corridor to West Berlin to demonstrate American resolve. Schlessinger and Kissinger stressed the need for more extensive attempts at diplomacy. Kennedy took a middle course, calling up the reserves but threatening no military action when the East Germans erected the wall. JFK also eschcalated hastily beginning negotiations with the Soviets. In the section entitled "Coda," with which Schlessinger concludes the chapter "Trial in Berlin," Schlessinger stresses the continuing process of education which Kennedy underwent in his attempt to combine high ideals with a "realistic" assessment of geopolitics.

"The Berlin crisis of 1961 represented a further step beyond Laos in the education of the President in the controlled employment of force in the use of peace. One never knows, of course, what would have happened if Kennedy had ordered full mobilization, or if he had rushed straight into negotiation; but either extreme might well have invited Soviet miscalculation and ended in war. Instead he applied power and diplomacy in a combination and sequence which enabled him to guard the vital interests of the west and hold off the holocaust." (p. 404)

According to Schlessinger, Kennedy struck just the right balance in his relationship with the Soviets over Berlin.

Recording this just 4 months after the assassination. Incredible. Mrs Kennedy is a national treasure.

Really fascinating. Hard to put down. Very grateful for the heavy annotation. Wonderful inside look.

Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy by Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, interviews by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.

★ ★ ★ ★

These interviews took place only months after the assassination of JFK. But you won't hear about the assassination in these interviews (the interviewer chose to steer away from that since she was also doing the Manchester interviews at the same time which did focus on the assassinations. The interviewer had no urge to make her relive the horrific day more than once). Instead, you'll get a candid, very intimate and personal look into the lives of Jacqueline and John Kennedy. Everything from their marriage, to political policies, to kids, to the little things (such JFK's sensitive stomach and napping habits). So beautiful in so many ways.

I am usually content with either the audio version or the paper edition of a book. This is one of the few times I must say that having both is a must. The paper book is much easier to sift through and the pictures are amazing. The book is made to make it easier to read so all the “uh, ah”, mumbling, background noises (planes, walking, etc) and interruptions are obvious taken out. Also, a lot of people are mentioned in the audio version – and are actually explained as footnotes in the book on who they are (and unless you are extremely knowledgeable in 1950s and 60s politics, there will be questions of who these people are) . However, listening to the actual recording of, what I think, is one of the greatest women ever was absolutely awe-inspiring. And when John Jr. walks in, hearing his 4 year old voice saying he knows his dad “has gone to Heaven” was so heart crushing. The emotions and the voices are something the book can't hold.

My only complaint is I wish Jackie would have delved a little more into their personal life and her own. There was a lot on JFK's political policies and how he and Jackie felt about every political person of the period. But given that John Kennedy was a politician, it seems logical. And I've heard people complain that Jackie's thoughts on marriage and the role of the wife is dated. Well..obviously people. It was an interview by a woman born in the 1920s and married in the 1950s. Putting today's thoughts and standards on history's thoughts just doesn't work. I enjoyed the book but it wasn't one I could sit down and go through in one sitting. I could only handle a little bit at a time.

Witness the progression of Democracy in the formative years of the United States. The era of the Founders is just about over. Some remnants still live and the attitude of the affluent minority tries to influence a government that is truly of the people. Jackson's struggle against Biddle is here in fine detail. The early secession movement of John C. Calhoun is established in Southern political beliefs. The growth westward... All these struggles are explored in wonderful detail, but not so detailed that the reader becomes bored. A terrific history book for the era.

Read this in high school and really loved it.

631. The Age of Roosevelt: The Coming of the New Deal, by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. (read 20 Oct 1960) It was great fun reading this book and enjoying the triumph of the Democrats.

629. The Age of Roosevelt: The Crisis of the Old Order 1919-1933, by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. (read 12 Oct 1960) (Bancroft Prize in 1958) (Parkman Prize for 1958) As one who grew up in the Hoover-engineered Depression, I really enjoyed this book, and had no doubt it was a factual account of the time leading to the triumph of 1932

636. The Age of Roosevelt: The Politics of Upheaval, by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. (read 4 Dec 1960) I devoured this book, enjoying every word.

Impressive and long view of a history and policy career starting with Adlai Stevenson and ending with the start of the Bush years. Schlesinger has a lot of friends in the higher circles, and it's interesting to hear of his conversations and portraits of them.

On a side note, he mentions my hometown early on, and describes it is full of 'juvenile delinquents' and the 'worst crowd in years'. Not much has changed in 60 years, it seems.

An extremely interesting history of the evolution of the relative power and influence of the executive branch of the American government. Written shortly after the Nixon administration, and the book views it not as an aberration, but as a culmination of executive power, which has continued to expand beyond its original constitutional grounds.

Links accumulation of powers of foreign policy during war time (Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, and finally Vietnam) to later accumulation of domestic power - crucial.

One wonders what Schlesinger thought of the last few administrations. Need to acquire his diaries. He is an insightful thinker about the nature of power.

I have read various biographies of John F. Kennedy, both for and against, whitewash and mud-raking, but could somehow never bear to have his widow submitted to the same unauthorised coverage. Instead of the usual anecdotes from so-called 'friends', this collection of interviews recorded in 1964 by Arthur Schlesinger is perhaps the closest there is to an actual autobiography of Jacqueline Kennedy, released and edited by her daughter Caroline.

Speaking less than a year after the assassination, Jackie is obviously still devastated and filled with bitterness, but her love for her husband really shines through. The personal details are what stand out for me, not the political opinions that Schlesinger is pressing for (Jackie's interview was part of an oral history project to record JFK's term of office for posterity). Why he keeps asking her what she thought of this man, or what she remembers of that event, I'm not sure, because while Jackie is certainly more clued up that she lets on, her standard answer is usually 'Oh, I was in hospital/home sick/don't know'. Yet when she talks about her home life with Jack and the children, she sounds much more thoughtful and animated.

While I appreciate Caroline Kennedy's decision to transcribe her mother's oral history recordings almost verbatim, the print format is hard to follow in places - perhaps listening to the audiobook would be easier. And again, Schlesinger's political questions seem like a wasted opportunity with hindsight. He hardly lets her talk about herself, and his questions about Jack mostly concern his political career. After William Manchester's book, however, and her controversial interview with Theodore White after the assassination, this remains one of the very few honest and expressive accounts that Jackie gave of that time, so every word counts. I was touched by the flashes of genuine love and grief in and amongst the politicians and presidential crises.

The book gives an overview about the life of one of the most famous people in American history, Benjamin Franklin. It gives information about his family life, his inventions, his policies - everything he had done for the United States of America.

This is a collection of interviews made in 1964 by author and White House historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. with Jacqueline Kennedy. It consists of mainly questions asked of Mrs. Kennedy regarding a few political incidents and many persons who played an important role in the history of the Kennedy administration. They were published by daughter Caroline Kennedy in 2011 after consideration and consultation with other family members.

The narrative is essentially unedited from tape transcriptions. As such, it contains interruptions, sentence fragments, stream of thought and other natural comments and reflections. Consequently, the book cannot be considered to have "been written" by anyone as an author. The insights and opinions of Mrs. Kennedy at the time are priceless history.