Scan barcode
spinnerroweok's review against another edition
3.0
Harlow Giles Unger always provides succinct factual biographies that lay out he basics. His no frills biography focuses on his subject with little in the way of information about the supporting characters. And while you don't really get to know his subjects, by the end, you know what they have done. This book on Henry Clay follows that form. It was OK. I can't say that I recommend or don't recommend unless you are specifically looking for this type of book.
lewismillholland's review against another edition
2.0
Exceptional history rendered adequately. Unger's writing is no more inspiring than a Wikipedia article, and also no less interesting than a Wikipedia article. A pleasant read.
Reading this in 2021 I draw two parallels to 1851: the first being intense sectional rivalries in the U.S., the other being the apparent unlikelihood of secession and civil war. Sure, we're different, but we're Americans -- the thread of unity spun by Washington et. al. was passed to Henry Clay who delivered it to Lincoln, and so the baton was passed until the present day, where we have the great unifier, the compromiser of... Joe Manchin?
This work also raises the question of the value of unity. Leaving aside economic prognostications and moral rectitudes, why is it better that the slave-owning South should be rolled into the Union? Or in today's politics, why should those who listen to science compromise with those who don't? Henry Clay repeatedly presented the middle ground as a salve for a splitting nation. But if unity isn't paramount, why pursue the middle ground?
Reading this in 2021 I draw two parallels to 1851: the first being intense sectional rivalries in the U.S., the other being the apparent unlikelihood of secession and civil war. Sure, we're different, but we're Americans -- the thread of unity spun by Washington et. al. was passed to Henry Clay who delivered it to Lincoln, and so the baton was passed until the present day, where we have the great unifier, the compromiser of... Joe Manchin?
This work also raises the question of the value of unity. Leaving aside economic prognostications and moral rectitudes, why is it better that the slave-owning South should be rolled into the Union? Or in today's politics, why should those who listen to science compromise with those who don't? Henry Clay repeatedly presented the middle ground as a salve for a splitting nation. But if unity isn't paramount, why pursue the middle ground?
socraticgadfly's review against another edition
1.0
How many errors can you pack into 55 pages?
A lot, seemingly. Because that's when I stopped reading.
The biggest? Unger claims that, despite Clay having slaves before marriage and getting yet more as part of his wife's dowry, he was antislavery. Oh, maybe he was in the abstract, but really? Clay actually legally fought against a slave of his who claimed that a promise by a former owner meant she should be free. Also note the "former owner" part; Clay was buying slaves through much of his adult life.
That's followed by Unger claiming the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional.
Total rot.
Besides the main fact on the ground of the Senate passing the treaty, the John Marshall Supreme Court, having already established judicial review in the case of Marbury v Madison, obviously declined to review the treaty.
Elsewhere in these brief pages, Unger claims Clay lost four presidential contests. Wrong. It was three. A failed big for the Whig nomination in 1840 isn't counted by professional historians. And, there's more. I'm just listing the worst.
Davd Heidler's book is a real read. Not this.
As for the title of this one? It's arguably true, depending on how one defines "statesman."
Don't think I'll be reading other books by Unger.
A lot, seemingly. Because that's when I stopped reading.
The biggest? Unger claims that, despite Clay having slaves before marriage and getting yet more as part of his wife's dowry, he was antislavery. Oh, maybe he was in the abstract, but really? Clay actually legally fought against a slave of his who claimed that a promise by a former owner meant she should be free. Also note the "former owner" part; Clay was buying slaves through much of his adult life.
That's followed by Unger claiming the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional.
Total rot.
Besides the main fact on the ground of the Senate passing the treaty, the John Marshall Supreme Court, having already established judicial review in the case of Marbury v Madison, obviously declined to review the treaty.
Elsewhere in these brief pages, Unger claims Clay lost four presidential contests. Wrong. It was three. A failed big for the Whig nomination in 1840 isn't counted by professional historians. And, there's more. I'm just listing the worst.
Davd Heidler's book is a real read. Not this.
As for the title of this one? It's arguably true, depending on how one defines "statesman."
Don't think I'll be reading other books by Unger.
civreader's review against another edition
4.0
3.5*
A lot of good content. Sometimes the chronology gets a little muddled - Unger jumps about a bit, and the book could have benefited from clearer signposting of dates, etc.
But, very interesting biography. It is amazing that Clay never ended up President. If it hadn't been for Jackson's pushing of the "corrupt bargain" narrative (not to mention bringing it up multiple times after Jackson had left the White House),* and John Tyler, Seward and Weed's backstabbing, he likely would have been.
* A narrative, incidentally, that was hypocritical, not to mention proven false in 1827 by Buchanan - who Jackson presented as a witness for the 'prosecution'! (Buchanan really was rather feckless at everything...)
A lot of good content. Sometimes the chronology gets a little muddled - Unger jumps about a bit, and the book could have benefited from clearer signposting of dates, etc.
But, very interesting biography. It is amazing that Clay never ended up President. If it hadn't been for Jackson's pushing of the "corrupt bargain" narrative (not to mention bringing it up multiple times after Jackson had left the White House),* and John Tyler, Seward and Weed's backstabbing, he likely would have been.
* A narrative, incidentally, that was hypocritical, not to mention proven false in 1827 by Buchanan - who Jackson presented as a witness for the 'prosecution'! (Buchanan really was rather feckless at everything...)
More...