lawecon

complexphenom says

I hope that I may get to reading the book soon enough. Though, like you, I am also behind in my own reading (so many interesting books, so little time). Wood is generally a good writer and a very thorough researcher. Having only read this book’s introduction I can only say that it consists of a collection of essays he’s previously published elsewhere reflecting on the ideological origins of the revolution, the making of the constitution and American democracy (as part II of the book is called), and on the early republic (part III). Wood’s focus on the importance of ideas has always sat well with me. I may not always agree with his interpretations but I appreciate his approach and intent. I’ll be sure to let you know my thoughts as soon I am able to.

Also, I’m still waiting for Border’s to deliver to me Dumas Malone’s six volume set. I placed the order with them well over a month ago but I’m also aware that they’re not doing too well (as a business) right now. They tell me not to despair and that it will soon on its way. Can’t wait.

posted 8 months ago. ( send a note )

complexphenom says

Thank you for the recommendations. Malone's work seems to be the most comprehensive and the reviews on amazon make it the most appealing to me at this point. I have read Jefferson's personal writings and used the Library of America (LoA) volume that you mentioned. My first exposure to his writings was via a Modern Library volume of his public/private letters, speeches, Autobiography & notes on Virginia. The LoA volume is definitely more complete and worth having. My own impression of Jefferson is similar to Craig Matteson's views mentioned in his LoA review on amazon. I don't excuse his failings, but I do understand that none of us is perfect. And to me at least he was a very great man. Thanks again!

posted 10 months ago. ( send a note )

Ryan L says

The commenter's thoughts also crossed my mind when reading that particular sentence. I don't believe that Clausewitz can be fully convicted of writing from a dynastic viewpoint, however, I also don't believe that he can be completely absolved of it either. Clausewitz is often referred to as an interpreter of Napoleon, himself having wars waged against him and revolutionary France in large part because of their revolutionary ideals. This is one reason why Napoleon's Grand Armee was able to enlist and draft so many more men than other armies, and consistently rebuild itself. So, certainly Clausewitz had these thoughts in mind while writing.

The problem that I see in modern U.S. Army thought is this need to use something as scripture. There is a tendency to create a doctrine that strategists can always fall back upon, a formulaic approach. Clausewitz does talk about the uncertainty of war, and how many things are unexpected. But, so did many American military thinkers, many whom we've discarded in favor of a theorist whose basis of military thought was used in wars largely unsuccessful since the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. Sherman for example, said "You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace." This, I would argue is culturally how Americans have always executed our particular brand of warfare, as Roosevelt said, "Win[ning] through to absolute victory."[/I ].

This viewpoint largely came conflict, and finally to a head, with the removal of MacArthur by Truman. As the author suggests, the cold war was a grand strategic defense --containment was exactly that, holding the line--. I think some of the author's statistical analysis is sometimes silly, but I am inclined to agree with his, (and my own) overarching point -American War, is, and always should be, total war. His analysis of past wars attempt to outline this point, but he does quite a poor job of it, and they are far too concise and garden variety to make any impression on the reader that a paragraph in a high-school textbook wouldn't already have.