<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Real, not "popular," history
Review: Anyone who is fascinated by ante-bellum American history will, I think, enjoy this book. The great triumvirate played a dominating role in the history of our country from 1812 till they died, and reading this book is similar to reading the history of the country during that period, because everything happening politically during that time was affected by one or more of the principals in this work. Peterson does a great job telling the story. My only complaint about the book is that it has no bibliography, and it is tough trying to make up such from the 55 pages of notes which are in the book. How much the book would be enhanced by a bibliography! But if the lack of a bibliography does not bother you then you should find nothing to complain about in regard to this book. I was inspired to read the book by the fact that the author's Lincoln in American Memory is such a great book that it won my personal prize for the best book I read in 1996 (a year in which I read 126 books).
Rating:
Summary: Real, not "popular," history
Review: Anyone who is fascinated by ante-bellum American history will, I think, enjoy this book. The great triumvirate played a dominating role in the history of our country from 1812 till they died, and reading this book is similar to reading the history of the country during that period, because everything happening politically during that time was affected by one or more of the principals in this work. Peterson does a great job telling the story. My only complaint about the book is that it has no bibliography, and it is tough trying to make up such from the 55 pages of notes which are in the book. How much the book would be enhanced by a bibliography! But if the lack of a bibliography does not bother you then you should find nothing to complain about in regard to this book. I was inspired to read the book by the fact that the author's Lincoln in American Memory is such a great book that it won my personal prize for the best book I read in 1996 (a year in which I read 126 books).
Rating: 
Summary: The big three in antebellum America
Review: In the first half of the 19th century, American politics was dominated by the Congress, with only one really strong president (Andrew Jackson) in the era between Jefferson and Lincoln. Perhaps the largest figures in this period were the so-called "Great Triumvirate" of Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John Calhoun. Serving in both houses of Congress, various presidential cabinets and (in Calhoun's case), the Vice Presidency, these three were the architects of the era. Only the Presidency itself would elude their ambitions.
All three were born at roughly the same time, entered Congress around the same time and died within a couple years of each other. They represented the three regions of antebellum America: Webster was in the North, Clay the West and Calhoun the South. They were often at odds with each other, even when they were in agreement on a subject.
Webster was probably the least significant of the three. Known for his oratory and intellect, he led primarily by example. His constant financial problems put him in some ethically dubious situations. Calhoun was renowned for his integrity but - although he never lived to see it - provided a lot of the theoretical basis for the secession movement that eventually resulted in the Civil War. Clay was probably the most blatantly ambitious of the three, but also the best deal-maker. Among his many accomplishments (often shared with others) were the Treaty of Ghent, the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850. Some of these may have be problematic to modern eyes, but these Compromises helped delay the Civil War. Although this may have not been Clay's design, the delay allowed the North to develop enough resources to win the war, which may have not been possible a decade earlier.
This book actually serves as three parallel biographies that occasionally intertwine. While generally interesting and informative, it is also a somewhat ponderous read. In addition, while the book does a good job at looking at the three as individuals, it is sometimes lacking in describing them as a trio. For better works about this era and its participants, I recommend Robert Remini, who has written biographies of Clay and Webster along with Andrew Jackson. Despite the flaws in this work, it is still at least a solid four stars for the information it does present, so you can't go too wrong reading it if the subject matter interests you.
Rating:
Summary: Great is Great
Review: Peterson has to be the top historian in Early American Republic history and this book proves it. You would not think that one book on these three giants could do them justice, but this one does it magnificently. During this time span in American history, you could read the biographies of four individuals and have a good understanding of what happened during that time span and these are three of them, with John Quincy Adams being the 4th. Peterson did such a good job with the 3, how about the 4th?!?!?!
Rating:
Summary: Great is Great
Review: Peterson has to be the top historian in Early American Republic history and this book proves it. You would not think that one book on these three giants could do them justice, but this one does it magnificently. During this time span in American history, you could read the biographies of four individuals and have a good understanding of what happened during that time span and these are three of them, with John Quincy Adams being the 4th. Peterson did such a good job with the 3, how about the 4th?!?!?!
Rating:
Summary: 41/2*: Party of Three
Review: This excellent book can be read as a follow-up to Joseph Ellis' "Founding Brothers," although written at a more advanced level. Merrill D. Peterson examines the characters of Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun and the issues facing them in (roughly) the first half of the 19th century. These issues involved primarily the differing conceptions of the federal government (federal powers vs. states' rights) arising in the Constitution Conventions of the Revolutionary War period. This fundamental political difference was linked to other fiercely divisive issues, such as the moral and economic conflict over slavery, and eventually led to the Civil War (to put it simply). Passions were so linked to sectional economic and political interests that the Civil War appears inevitable; indeed, one wonders why it didn't occur earlier. Part of the answer is that Clay and others, through a series of "Compromises" delayed the war. The reader's attitude toward these three "giants" will depend on his/her own values and politics. Peterson paints vivid portraits of the characters, but he assumes a fair amount of historical knowledge by the reader. For example, his discussions on tariffs, the need to increase the debt, and other economic measures were often too dense, as were the detailed and somewhat confusing party realignments (e.g., Whigs, Republicans, Democrats, "Ultras," and various combinations of these). Although he is sometimes dry, Peterson also has a scholar's wit and appreciation for his subject. Furthermore, the political and legal manipulations of the principles are often fascinating (e.g., Calhoun's unconstitutional theory of states rights known as "Nullification;" the failure of all three to reach the presidency). At times, it feels lengthy (especially for the non expert; the book is basically written at a beginning graduate school level), but it is generally very well written and covers a fascinating period in American history.
<< 1 >>
|
