Delightful and discerning . . . In this evocative study a remarkable woman; creator of the ‘first lady' role; comes vividly to life.―The New York TimesWhen the roar of the Revolution had finally died down; a new generation of politicians was summoned to the Potomac to assemble the nation's capital. Into that unsteady atmosphere―which would soon enough erupt into another conflict with Britain―Dolley Madison arrived; alongside her husband; James. Within a few years; she had mastered both the social and political intricacies of the city; and by her death in 1849 was the most celebrated person in Washington. And yet; to most Americans; she's best known for saving a portrait from the burning White House. Why did her contemporaries so admire a lady so little known today? In A Perfect Union; acclaimed historian Catherine Allgor reveals how Dolley manipulated the contstraints of her gender to construct an American democratic ruling style and to achieve her husband's political goals. By emphasizing cooperation over coercion―building bridges instead of bunkers―she left us with not only an important story about our past but a model for a modern form of politics.
#1889823 in Books Henry Holt n Co 1992-11Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.25 x 6.25 x 1.00l; #File Name: 0805018301350 pages350 pp.; hardcover; dj.; Henry Holt and Company first edition;
Review
17 of 19 people found the following review helpful. Good butBy Tom MunroThis book is another revisionist attack on the reputation of General Robert E Lee. It suggests that Lee missed opportunities to defeat Northern armies most significantly at the battle of Chancellorsville. It further suggests that Stonewall Jackson had developed a greater tactical skill than Lee and had developed a "plan" which would have allowed the South to defeat the North.That plan was a recognition that due to the invention of the rifled musket frontal attacks on defended positions would lead to defeat. For the south to win it was necessary for them to invade the north; but not to seek a military victory by attacking a northern army. Rather it would be necessary to move north and to force a defensive battle on terms that favor the confederacy.The central argument has some interest. It would seem clear that Lee's career was aided by facing in the main not just timorous but incompetent opponents. One wonders in his various successful battles such as the Seven Days and Antiem what sort of disaster would have befallen him if his opponent had not run away at the point when they could have achieved victory.The suggestion that another general could have done better is harder to believe. The Federal government had large numbers of troops that were generally dispersed. The dispersal of the armies assisted the confederates in fighting battles in which they were not overwhelmed. A move to Washington however would have seen a concentration of such force it is hard to believe the southern armies could have been victorious.The book however is well written and in approaching the topic from the way it does it forces the reader to think and learn more about the American Civil War than most straight chronological narratives.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Good read. The author has a lot of admiration ...By M SchmeetsGood read. The author has a lot of admiration for Thomas Jackson; so there is a little bit of a cheerleading effect. But it is very good; and he points out some aspects of Jackson's command that other authors don't. Recommended!0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Four StarsBy Michael B. O'MalleyA Genius ahead of his time in Military Strategy
