Sisters First by Jenna Bush Hager and Barbara Pierce Bush

This book is not heavy reading but neither is it trivial.  The Bush twins are intelligent, thoughtful and well-adjusted; they have a balanced sense of who they are and where they stand on the spectrum of public figures.  They write about their relationship with one another and their experiences as members of an influential political family in a style that is personal and heartfelt without being gossipy or sentimental.

Of particular interest are their accounts of being in the public eye from a relatively young age when their grandfather, George H.W. Bush, became president.  Having a Secret Service detail when only eight years old is not exactly normal.  Both wrote entertaining, but, again, thoughtful descriptions of life as a twenty-something with agents always close by.  Other highlights were Barbara’s account of her dinner conversation with Vladimir Putin, Jenna’s account of meeting her husband, Barbara’s experience on 9/11, their insights into the calm disposition of Laura Bush, how they handled all the media coverage during their father’s presidency and the relationship they have with both their parents and four grandparents.  

We’ve been in Texas for six years.  I’m still convinced that I’m going to run into George or Laura Bush one day when I’m at the playground with my granddaughters.  I just know it.  Fortunately, now that I've read this book, I'll be able to jump right in and start a friendly conversation with them😊.

American Lion by Jon Meacham

The main issues that confronted Andrew Jackson (1767-1845) as the seventh president of the United States (1828-1836) were the nullification controversy, secession and the banking crisis. This book, more political history than biography,  seemed a good complement to the subject of Sam Houston (who was mentored by Jackson and greatly admired him) and the early history of the United States. For the most part it was. 

 Andrew Jackson served as president scarcely 40 years after George Washington and already, in that short space of time, he was considered to be overstepping the powers of the presidency as intended by the Founding Fathers.  Jackson was dubbed King Andrew the First and was criticized for his belief that he had an allegiance directly to the American people.  I had thought that the erosion of the distinctions between the three branches of government and the ballooning of the powers of the executive branch didn’t occur until at least Theodore Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson.

 As for the issues of his presidency, the nullification controversy involved the claim on the part of the state of South Carolina that they had the right to declare null and void certain tariffs (of 1828 and 1832) which were deemed punitive to the economy of that state and the South.  Underlying that claim was the issue of states’ rights and the nature of the ties that bound the states together into a union.  The author writes: “Jackson argued that “We the People” had formed the Union that produced the Constitution, as opposed to the Southern theory that the Constitution was a compact between the states in which the individual states were paramount.”  Pg 228  

The threat of secession arose from the further claim by South Carolina, John Calhoun being its principal spokesman, that the federal government could either amend or remove the tariffs and if they didn’t the state could then secede from the Union.  Jackson saw secession as akin to the destruction of the nation and was adamantly against it.  A compromise was eventually drawn up,  but it’s easy to see that this was a tip-of-the-iceberg controversy.  The division between North and South, with the moral issue of slavery at its core, was building to the crescendo it would soon reach during Lincoln’s presidency.

On the banking issue, briefly, Jackson opposed a national bank because he felt it concentrated power in the hands of the elite and ignored the common man.  Jackson managed to veto a re-charter of the bank and then did just as he had threatened and removed United States funds from the bank.  For that act, the Senate censured him (just like Trump!), a serious blow to Jackson which was later rescinded.

There was no real discussion in the book of the familiar phrase “Jacksonian democracy” that I could ascertain. Nor was much space given to Jackson’s policies toward the Indians, specifically the removal of the Cherokee and the Trail of Tears.  The relationship between Sam Houston and Jackson received scant treatment in this book; I thought Jackson had played a larger role in the events in Texas but his presidency was largely over as Texas was bursting onto the national scene.  A bit of trivia about Jackson, he was the first president to be the target of an assassination attempt. 

Jackson was a figure much like Sam Houston in that he was a Tennessean (though a South Carolinian by birth) and a frontier-type soldier, statesman and lawyer.  Jackson left his mark on history and as the title of the book indicates, American Lion, Jackson was considered a force to be reckoned with.  By today’s standards, he seemed to be a pretty normal politician to me.  Granted, after Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and another Adams, Jackson was the first rough-and-tumble sort to occupy the White House. But he was apparently well spoken, educated to some degree and had informed views.  He was devoted to his wife who died just as he was elected to the presidency and he was equally devoted to his niece and nephew who were his closest aides in Washington. 

This book was good reading by a recognized author who, like Daniel Bergamini, used newly uncovered documents in writing this book.  Meacham also had a hefty bunch of notes at the end of the book, none of which I consulted, but still only half the amount that Bergamini had in his book.  Meacham explained in his acknowledgments that he did not intend an “academic study” of Jackson’s presidency but rather wanted to “paint a biographical portrait” of the man.  I would say he did so with moderate success.  As noted above, I found the book to be more of a political history than an exhaustive biography of Jackson.  The reading was also a little dry at times.  

Kings of Texas by Don Graham

The author of this book clearly loves his subject and gives the reader a lot to think about. Indeed, the subtitle of the book is The 150-Year Saga of an American Ranching Empire and the author covers it all. The King Ranch story is a fascinating one made more so by being here in Texas and having a sense of just how much country there is from San Antonio down to the border.  There’s a lot.  More than enough for one man to easily aggregate to himself over a half million acres.  Today, the King Ranch in the United States covers almost a million acres, roughly the same area as the state of Rhode Island.

Richard King (1824-1885) began life in New York, the child of Irish immigrants.  He was orphaned by the age of 5, stowed away on a ship by his early teens and at 16 was a steamboat pilot on the Alabama River.  His life only grew more exciting after that! From Alabama, King made his way to Texas via Florida and the Seminole War. By 1847, when he began steamboating along the Texas/Mexico border, the Texas Revolution was history, Texas had joined the Union and the Mexican American War was just about fought. 

In the years before the Civil War, King began to coalesce his empire through steamboats and ranches.  As he explored Texas beyond the area of Brownsville, territory variously referred to by the author as the Wild Horse Desert or the “sea of grass,” King ultimately bought a tract of land along the Santa Gertrudis Creek.  Today, when you take a tour of King Ranch, one reports to this area, Kingsville to be exact.    

Mention should be made of the innovation in ranching that Richard King made.  The author writes, “King adopted the Mexican model, which meant year-round, lifetime support for one’s vaqueros and families.” (pg. 66) King established a hacienda not a mere ranch and he was the hacendado.  His workers came to be called Kinenos (tilda over the second n) and bestowed upon King the sobriquet El Capitan or el patron.  The Kinenos lived and worked together as a community alongside the King family. In some cases, lifelong loyalties were formed.

During the Civil War, King had a lucrative business shipping cotton for the South from the only port available to the Confederacy, the Brazos Santiago Pass (Port Isabel). To the extent that he was political, King was a Confederate who quickly pledged loyalty to the Union when the War was over.  No sooner was the nation’s war settled than the hostilities between Mexicans and Anglos went into full swing.  Cattle and horse thievery on the part of Mexicans was a constant threat during the 1870’s.  That’s not to say that the Anglos didn’t do their share of killing and provoking.  On this topic the author does an excellent job of examining Mexican/Anglo relations in terms of Manifest Destiny and the history of the times.  Highly recommended reading in those early chapters of the book. 

As engaging as it is to read about Captain King’s exploits, it is equally engaging to read about the German immigrant Robert Justus Kleberg whose son by the same name married Alice King, the Captain’s daughter, and carried on the King Ranch successes.  Robert Kleberg and Alice King Kleberg had five children, at least two of whom went on to make history themselves.  Son Richard Kleberg (1887-1955) is the career congressman from Texas who gave Lyndon Baines Johnson his entrée to Washington D.C. politics.  LBJ was Kleberg’s secretary!  It’s nice how history connects the dots for us.  Robert Kleberg---that’s a third Robert---is the son whom the author so accurately identifies as “the most significant figure in King Ranch history since Captain King.” pg. 207.  

From Richard King to Robert Kleberg (1896-1974), the King/Kleberg Ranch has had its hand in salt, wool, sheep, the cotton trade, cattle, oil, thoroughbred horses and citrus groves to name a few.  The King Ranch came to have operations not only in several countries, but even in my little hometown corner of the world, the Coatesville/Brandywine River Valley area.  History is again at hand to make connections!

The details of the 20^th century lawsuit, Chapman vs. King Ranch, are described in a fair amount of detail in the final chapters of the book. A descendant of the Chapman family decided to revive an 1883 lawsuit brought against King Ranch over a parcel of land claimed to belong to the Chapman heirs. While the lawsuit is certainly part of the lore of King Ranch, it just got to be more detail than I cared to go into.  Of greater value in my opinion is the colorful, historical account of South Texas that the author supplies as part of the warp and woof of Richard King’s life.  Texas is certainly unique among states given its beginnings as part of Mexico.  Its sons and daughters are equally unique in the contribution they’ve made to the history of our country.  That is all captured in this book. 

 

Leadership by Rudolph Giuliani

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani begins and ends his book with the terrorist attacks of 9/11 which occurred during his final year as mayor. Sandwiched in between are several hundred pages of Giuliani’s views on management and leadership.   

Like most of these books that public figures seem programmed to write after their term in office expires, Giuliani’s book is both self-referential and self-serving.  He re-caps in a favorable light his accomplishments during his eight years as mayor, but, to his credit, Giuliani has plenty to favorably highlight.  His leadership during the 9/11 disaster was truly exemplary as was the order he brought to the chaotic and crime-ridden New York City of the 90s.  This book is interesting reading for anyone, but especially for New Yorkers and certainly for those who lived in the city during the 9/11 attacks.  

The way that Giuliani turned around crime in NYC is legend, but true legend of course.  In this book, he describes in readable fashion how his administration employed George Kelling’s Broken Windows Policy along with Compstat, regular precinct meetings and quality of life arrests to begin what would be the remarkable restoration of New York City to safety and livability.  He describes how he bypassed the bureaucracy to rout the squeegee-men at the bridges and tunnels and engage the MTA in the fight against graffiti in the subway system.  

He made Times Square and Bryant Park walkable again. He lowered taxes, dealt with a spate of plane crashes that had taken off from JFK and reformed the city’s welfare system.  His account of his dealings with the city hospitals is informative.  He made extensive changes to the Child Welfare Administration, separating it from the HRA to make it an independent and better functioning agency under the name of the Administration for Children’s Services.  

This book, though not autobiography, does have a trace of the personal in it.  The mayor shares a little about his schooling, his parents and more than I cared to know about his prostate cancer.  He included that subject in the chapter on decision making, a bit contrived perhaps.  He wrote just a bit here and there about his children.  He had nothing to say about his second wife, Donna Hanover and surprisingly more to say about his relationship with Judith Nathan who became his third wife (they are now divorced or in the process thereof).  He makes copious references to baseball and his love of that sport and other pastimes.  His account of how he prepared himself for the mayoralty is good reading.  He includes also reflections on his years as a prosecutor in the Southern District of New York and his years in the Justice Department. This is personal autobiography only to the extent that Giuliani wants it to be which is not all that much.  

Entirely missing from this book was any discussion by Mayor Giuliani of the role that his Catholic faith may have played in his personal formation or his decisions as mayor.  He does mention some of the nuns and brothers in his Catholic school education.  He did consider the priesthood for a time.  But in the day-to-day challenges of running a large and complex city neither prayer, church nor faith are discussed.  Something must account for his strong sense of justice, fair play, sense of responsibility and right vs. wrong.  I would have thought it would be his Catholic background.    

Rudy Giuliani is a man with a keen intellect that he puts to constant use in order to unpack issues, resolve problems and get a job done.  He is not one given to brooding introspective reflection or soul-searching self-analysis.  He is a man of action who uses incisive reasoning and facts to address life’s challenges.   Giuliani is not the most charismatic of public figures in case you didn’t know.  In fact, he’s pretty low on the likeability factor.   As he himself says, as a prosecutor he wouldn’t be doing his job if people found him likeable.  (I paraphrase.)  Nor does Giuliani have physical attributes working to his advantage.  He lacks the towering presence of a reserved six-foot-tall George Washington.  He could not pull off appearing in native Cherokee dress in the streets of Washington, D.C. as Sam Houston did.  He does not have the classic good looks of a JFK and he even has that slight speech irregularity barely noticeable as it is.  

What he does have is steely determination and an abundance of brainpower and confidence.  It must be said that he has used these to advantage and achieved to an admirable degree.  His contributions to the city of New York are, alone, enough that he should occupy a well-deserved place as a notable public figure.

 

The Sword of San Jacinto by Marshall De Bruhl and The Raven by Marquis James

Sam Houston (1793-1863) was at once frontiersman, soldier, lawyer, Byronic hero, friend of both Indian chiefs and U.S. presidents, Commander-in-Chief of Armies during the Texas Revolution, husband, father, opportunist, politician and statesman.  He had a flair for the flamboyant and, at over 6 feet tall, he had the physical presence to carry off his colorful showmanship.  He was a Virginian, Tennessean and Texan.  As the Raven, he was a full-fledged son of the Cherokee Nation and married for a time to one of its daughters.  He served Tennessee as both a congressman and its governor.  He was the liberator of the Republic of Texas and its first president as well as its senator and, finally, its governor.  Houston even made a brief bid for president of the United States as a candidate for the Know-Nothing Party. 

Sam Houston is best remembered for defeating Santa Ana in the Battle of San Jacinto and winning Texas its freedom from Mexico in 1836.  The cause of the conflict between Texans and Mexicans had its roots in the Manifest Destiny of the young republic and, not, as I always naively thought due to the treachery of Mexican despots who wouldn’t leave the American settlers alone.   Like most conflicts between polities, this war of revolution was a battle for territory and power.  There’s a lot of Texas history to cover when you read about Sam Houston. 

General Houston was the voice of reason in the Texas Revolution and the model of leadership.   It is true that the courage and steadfastness shown by Bowie, Travis and Crockett at the Alamo are marks of true heroic virtue. But their lives need not have been lost. Houston had instructed James Bowie to remove cannon and other weapons from the Alamo, blow up the mission and abandon it.  Bowie did not follow orders.  Neither did James Fannin at Goliad who, along with his soldiers, was killed execution-style by the Mexicans who trapped him there.  It was only after these and other disasters such as the ill-fated drive south to Matamoros that Houston was finally able to exercise his full leadership and battle plans for a remarkable victory at San Jacinto. 

 There are other significant events in the life of Houston, but the Texas Revolution is both a seminal event in the history of Texas and in the life of Sam Houston.  This event defined his place in American history.  Later in life, Houston again showed reason and leadership with the stance he took on the secession of Texas from the Union.  Houston was staunchly against secession (though not exactly anti-slavery) and resigned his governorship of Texas over the issue.    

A brief word about the two books.  When we found ourselves in Texas in 2015, it seemed a good time to read about Sam Houston.  Conveniently, we had the Marshall De Bruhl book in our home library so I was able to both further my reading goal and read on a subject of my choosing with the De Bruhl book close at hand.  It wasn’t until I had finished the book that a Texan asked if I’d read Marquis James’ biography of which I had never heard.  

James’ book was written in 1929 and De Bruhl’s in 1993.  I don’t know if historians consider one better than the other but I found them of equal value.  In fact, the only difference I noted between them is that the James book had slightly better maps.  Both treat the person of Sam Houston with objectivity and a touch of humor.  Both avoid the psychological probing of the man’s actions and thoughts that I find so irritating in a biography.  Both give historical background with perhaps the De Bruhl book going into slightly more detail.    

Both are very good books to read when you’re ready to brush up on your American history and read about this uniquely American soldier and statesman, General Sam Houston.

To Write or Not To Write in Your Books

In 2004,  the classical pianist Lang Lang came to our East Village neighborhood music school during a summer piano workshop.  Young and totally without affectation, Lang Lang arrived in socks and sandals with his father as his manager.  He was great with the kids, easy-going, engaged and entertaining.  As a kind of wrap-up to the afternoon, our director had suggested that students bring a copy of the music they were currently working on for Lang Lang to sign.  

I happened to be standing near-by as the first student approached.  Lang Lang looked pained.  He demurred.  He politely shook his head no and said that he couldn't sign the music.  Perhaps thinking he didn't understand, our director cheerfully explained that it would be a souvenir of the workshop and that the students would appreciate it.  Lang Lang, still troubled and with careful language returned the explanation that he didn't want to sign the music because it would be disrespectful to the composer and disrespectful to the music if he were to scribble up the score with his autograph.  I was mildly surprised at the nature of his concern, but I think of his response every time I consider the matter of writing in books.  

Writing in books was something I was taught not to do so I suppose I actually agree with Lang Lang after a fashion.  Except for writing your name or a brief dedication on the inside cover, writing in a book was tantamount to 'ruining' the book, messing it up and demonstrating a careless disregard for one's belongings.  To the extent that I've even given thought to writing on a music score, I suppose I don't go for that either.  Except for fingerings or extra dynamic markings, my opinion has always been that all that scrawling on your music meant that you didn't know the piece very well!

No more! I still don't like mussing up my music, but as for books, I attribute my change in outlook to C.S. Lewis who wrote that writing in the books you're reading is a way of making them your own.  How true. What better evidence that I've been round the block with a book than finding my notations and pencil markings among the pages!  A little question mark here or there means I'm confused about this or that and need to re-visit the passage.  Underlining can be used to highlight new vocabulary, a name, date or important idea. Bracketing is nice for an important paragraph that contains a summary or pivotal idea.  An exclamation point usually means That's weird or Who would have thought.  Occasionally, I offer an opinion in the margins or a brief phrase that summarizes the subject covered on that page.   

I do now and again still find the idea of marking up a book objectionable particularly if the book is printed on fine paper stock or if the book is just beautiful or very old.  In these circumstances I may still use faint pencil markings, though faint pencil markings is generally all I use.  No pen whatsoever.  I do admit to finding it easier to mark up a paperback. I do not write in library books or books that I borrow from others and I generally do not bother much with writing in a book of fiction. Writing in a Bible is a bit off in my estimation though writing in a study Bible is fine.   I don't like to see writing in children's picture books. I think it's only good discipline to tell young children not to write in their books.   

You can see that there is judgment to be exercised when it comes to writing in books. I acknowledge that one does have to make certain considerations.  Overall, however, writing in books is a practice that I can endorse as a worthwhile and enjoyable adjunct to reading.  It would be useful to hear what others have to say on the subject.  

As for Lang Lang on that long-ago occasion, it should be added that he had brought along promotional materials.  For the students, there was an over-sized sort of post card with a picture of Lang Lang standing in front of a grand piano.  On my son Phillip's card Lang Lang wrote 'To Pillip,' and Lang Lang did not seem to mind that his big, loopy letters were written all across the picture of himself on the front of the card.     

LBJ Architect of American Ambition by Randall B. Woods

What a difference 58 years can make.  Though basically a liberal Southern Democrat who created one federal program after another, Lyndon Johnson defies categorization as either liberal or conservative,  Democrat or Republican by today’s standards.  

And what a book almost 900 pages does make.  Lyndon Baines Johnson’s trajectory from Hill Country Texan to President of the United State is narrated in full detail in this biography with detailed in-depth coverage of his years as a Senate aid, Congressman, Senate deal maker and power broker to the heady days of his presidency, the 60s, the Great Society, the War on Poverty, Vietnam and the Civil Rights movement.  The detail was at times daunting, at other times it filled in the empty spaces in my recollection of the tumultuous Kennedy-Johnson era.  The LBJ years were my formative years. I was 11 in 1963 when JFK was assassinated and the events of the 60s have remained indelibly printed in my memory but they are just that, discrete events. I never could figure out how to connect the dots.

There was the nightly news on TV, the Philadelphia Inquirer and Life magazine that kept constantly in the forefront the names—McNamara, Ky, Khrushchev, Mobutu, Bobby Baker, Bill Moyers; the places—Cuba, Dienbienphu, the Mekong Delta, Dallas, Selma, Watts and Newark; the laws—The Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Voting Rights Act of 1965, The Higher Education Act; the programs-- Medicare, Head Start, HUD, NEA, NEH, CAPs; the events—the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the assassinations, Bloody Sunday, the Tet Offensive.   My parents had opinions and were involved but there was never sufficient discussion or explanation to provide a framework for understanding everything that was happening and who the various players were.  Reading about LBJ and his life and times provided the framework.  

The author describes Johnson as a “visionary committed to public service.”  Johnson espoused a “modern individualism” and a “pragmatic liberalism.”  He was paternalistic, believing as he did that government exists “mainly to be an agent of social justice."  In Johnson’s own words “Government is the business of deciding what is right and then finding the way to do it.” 

LBJ decided that it was right for Washington, D.C. to create opportunity for all Americans, that it was right to fight for full equality of the races under federal law, that it was right for the federal government to guarantee education, housing and medical care for all citizens.  Though well-intentioned all of this, the way he found to do it was mis-guided.  Like most social justice warriors, Johnson confused the proper roles of government and religion. While it is the proper role of government to reflect the moral law (which I thought stemmed from natural law which will be to the inherent benefit of the common good), it is not the role of government to hatch and legislate morality.  Rather it’s religion and philosophy that shape citizens’ morality.  The government is there to ensure that citizens can exercise their beliefs in a safe and rational society with fair and equal treatment of all.    

Johnson, himself, admitted the failure of his own programs.  By 1968, amidst riots and violence following the assassination of MLKJr and with Ralph Abernathy addressing 50,000 people in June about broken promises and the failure of the administration to end poverty and discrimination, here’s what Lyndon Johnson said (his words): “the very people we are seeking to help in Medicare and education and welfare and Food Stamps are protesting louder and louder and giving no recognition or allowance for what’s been done.  Our efforts seem to have resulted only in anarchy…The women no longer bother to get married, they just keep breeding.  The men go their way and the women get relief---why should they work?” 

Yet Johnson persisted in his “vision.” 

I found it hard to dislike him.  There is a sincerity underlying LBJ’s misguided do-gooder mission. He was for the common man and being from the rural South, he identified with him.  Though dedicated to the poor and disenfranchised, it seems LBJ never intended to help them by creating a welfare state.  Though a champion of civil rights he was careful to keep the white South in mind when advancing the cause of ‘the Negro.’    

Overall, Lyndon Johnson had traditional values and believed in America and love of country. He was decidedly more principled than most politicians of today and his politics were decidedly less partisan. His political style was to bring the ends to meet the middle.  He valued hard work, honesty and loyalty.  He didn’t like communists. He did not identify with intellectuals or coastal elites. 

Though maybe he was a man who craved being the center of attention and sought out more than his fair share of praise and approval, I didn’t find Johnson to be any more of an egotist or ambitious over-achiever than the next career politician or Type A personality.  Too much is made of his domineering personality and his overarching ego in my opinion.  

He had a sometimes-testy relation with the press not all unlike that of President Trump.  He could be crude and boorish as when he displayed his abdominal scar to the world.  While his speeches were loaded up with flowery, idealistic, even preachy language, to his cabinet members and advisors he spoke his mind, talked straight and made no effort to tidy up his grammar or his slang. 

Lyndon Johnson was not a fake, phony or fraud. He at times speaks best for himself as on this occasion in Italy during his presidency.  Johnson was not all that interested in collecting art but an art dealer made available to him a painting of a nude valued at $3,000. Commenting on the possible purchase of the artwork, LBJ told the aide traveling with him: “He [the art dealer] wants $3,000 for it.  I told him I’d give him $l,500, but I also told him that I would give him the whole $3,000 if he’d take about twenty pounds off her ass.” 

You know you have to laugh!    

Whether this book or some other (such as Robert Caro’s volumes on Johnson) is or is not the authoritative work on the life of LBJ, the author certainly covered the waterfront.  I did have the slightest hesitation about continuing with this book when I skimmed the introduction.  There, the author described the hours immediately following the assassination of JFK and the swearing-in of LBJ on the plane.  The author referred to Jackie Kennedy in her “green” suit.  Green!  What an editorial oversight!  Everybody knows her suit was pink!