2016 – Justin Daniel

This is a list of the books I read in 2016. All the reviews were written in 2016 and are archived on this site in (roughly) the order I read them in.

Book Reviews 2016

Valiant Ambition: George Washington, Benedict Arnold, and the Fate of the American Revolution, Nathaniel Philbrick

January 14, 20202016Benedict Arnold is virtually known to every American as a traitor. He is the archetype that resonates in the minds of every United States citizen from young school children to elderly adults as the symbol of what it means to betray freedom and liberty. But few are privy to the details behind Arnold’s defection to the British, and even fewer are sympathetic to his situation. Thankfully, Nathaniel Philbrick has produced this work that definitively seeks to weave the narrative of the Colonial resistance to the British Empire of George Washington with the plight that Arnold went through, in order to shed light on how complicated this story is. Arnold’s desertion was not simply a cursory decision, but rather a series of events that, when built on top of each other, led Arnold to his treasonous act. By the end of Philbrick’s narrative, one can sympathize with Arnold but not condone his actions. Philbrick starts the story in 1776. The British took Long Island and Washington and the rest of his army had to retreat to Manhattan and eventually into New Jersey. Benedict Arnold was a Brigadier General at the time, and during the Battle of Long Island, he established himself as a more than competent military leader. Many of the critiques of Philbrick’s book come at the expense of the needless exposition, but this is a critical point for Arnold. His career as a very good tactician is imperative in what comes next. Arnold also distinguished himself in the invasion of Quebec. Arnold was present for British General Howe’s attempt to take Lake Champlain and was defeated at the Battle of Valcour Island. Despite this, he was up for promotion to Major General. Unfortunately, he was spurned multiple times for this promotion by Congress. He made some enemies in this body which was responsible for Flag Officer promotions. Arnold deserved the promotion, but at the time, Congress believed it was responsible to promote only two Major Generals from each state. Arnold’s own state, Connecticut, already had two Major Generals and he was passed over, even though he anticipated his promotion due to his military prowess. After finding out Fort Ticonderoga had fallen, Arnold was given command of an army under General Horatio Gates, commander of the American Northern Army. Arnold was dispatched with orders to defend Saratoga. In the Battle of Saratoga, Gates and Arnold clashed with Gates eventually reliving Arnold of command. Arnold refused to stay put and went out to the battle anyways where he was able to repulse the British through his savvy tactical brilliance. Arnold was wounded in the leg which eventually claimed a part of his height; by the time he recovered, his leg was six inches shorter. Philbrick makes clear that the Battle of Saratoga was a turning point for Arnold. Not only was he continually spurned from a deserved promotion, the war for independence had claimed a part of his life that he would never get back. He also poured vast resources into the war which claimed much of his fortune. He was appointed military governor of recently reclaimed Philadelphia (that had just been evacuated by the British). Here he made several deals to regain some of his former wealth that were suspect. Further, he married the infamous Peggy Arnold who encouraged him to switch sides to the British. Arnold was court martialed for some of the shady deals he had made in Philadelphia and was relieved of command to be put in charge at the outpost at West Point. Arnold’s treason became complete here. He engaged in writing letters to the high British command. He cooperated with a British spy named John Andre. Andre met with Arnold and Arnold gave him the plans for the defense of West Point. While journeying to British lines, Andre was captured by New York militiamen and Arnold’s plot was discovered. George Washington was suppose to tour the defenses at West Point the same day Andre was captured and Arnold’s treason became clear. He defected to the British. I really enjoyed this book because it makes clear the complicated image of Benedict Arnold. That name has become synonymous with traitor in this country, but given the same circumstances, it is hard not to empathize with him. Given the same set of circumstances, few would be inclined to continue to fight for the country that had dealt you such a terrible hand. But on the flip side, one can empathize with Arnold without condoning his actions. What he did was wrong, but it’s easy to cast the die without really examining the evidence. This book helps you understand the perspective of Arnold and gives great clarity to his decision making process. I highly recommend! [...]

Holiness, J.C. Ryle

January 14, 20202016This book has to be one of the greatest on this subject ever written. Ryle is a genius at communicating and grandly espousing this complicated but necessary topic. Holiness literally means “to separate.” Therefore, the holiness of God is His separateness. He is unlike anything in the universe. So this has different implications: God cannot be compared to anything in the physical universe because he is intuitively outside of anything we understand. He is separate. But it also tells us something of what God desires of us as His children. Throughout the Bible, there are commands to be unlike the world. Such analogies as “salt and light” in Matthew 6 come to mind. So just as God is separate, so we too are to be separate from the world in the sense that we run counter to it. This is not only in our behaviors and actions, but also in the moral sense. Holiness is not merely to act of following a certain pattern for your life (a separateness that defines “salt and light”), but it also entails a certain abstaining from actions that have moral implications. As God does nothing that is outside of His character, and if He is holy and righteous, this means He does no wrong. A Christian strives to be holy in the sense that he does nothing that would be inconsistent with what God prescribes for His children; that is summed up in the quintessential phrase, “Be holy as my heavenly father is holy,” said by Jesus in Matthew 5. So we too as Christians have an obligation to strive for this goal. And it’s not easy. But Ryle makes it clear that being a Christian isn’t easy. He says it is akin to swimming upstream. You fight and fight the current pulling you downward. Sometimes you get tired and let the waters take you. But then you go right back to swimming as hard as you can to maintain your current (no pun intended) direction. This book also challenged some of my thinking on this subject. In my (perhaps previous) view, holiness is something that can only be accomplished through the work of the Holy Spirit. We can only conquer sin when we allow the Holy Spirit to work through us. It would be as if you woke up one morning promising yourself not to sin in a certain area of your life; inevitably, you would fall because your thinking is preoccupied with not falling. Resting in the Holy Spirit to take control and exercise those things in Galatians 5 then, is the way to conquer sin. Ryle challenges this idea. Instead, he says both extremes are needed in the life of the Christian. We need to fight against sin; we need to swim against this current pulling us. But at the same time, we need prayer and the work of the Spirit in our lives to conquer sin. It is not done in a vacuum of just letting the Holy Spirit “magically” work out sin in our lives. It is a constant struggle. This book is a fantastic read. I highly recommend it for Christians who want to know more about this complicated topic. [...]

Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War, Charles B. Dew

January 14, 20202016This rather short book is packed with a ton of information regarding the Southern reasons for secession. Dr. Dew recounts many of the same kinds of stories that we seemed to be faced with in the introduction. For example, on the citizenship test for becoming a United States Citizen, a question is asked “Why was the Civil War fought?” The answer could realistically be either because of “states rights” or over slavery. Dr. Dew seeks to understand the reasons for secession better in this book; he wants to give clarity that the Southern states did not secede over states rights, as Southern revisionist historians in the 19th century suggested and that became mainstream as Southerns attempted to assuage their guilt over the war, but over the nasty topic of slavery. Dr. Dew demonstrates this quite skillfully in looking at a little studied piece of history in the Southern Commissioners. After Abraham Lincoln was elected President, South Carolina seceded soon after. They gathered up prominent statesmen to take their case to other Southern states to secede just as South Carolina did. The Southern Commissioners took the message of disunity to Alabama, Virginia, Maryland, Georgia, and other states. They talked most often in front of the states leading members including the governor and the legislature’s assembled body. Dew says, “From December 1860 to April 1861, they carried the gospel of disunion to the far corners of the South” (Dew, 18). What ensues is a book full of the highlights of the commissioners reports. These are public documents of their speeches, and they are candid in their explanations. There were a number of reasons for Southerns to be alarmed at the abolition of slavery and these arguments are heard in the speeches. For one, they believed that freeing of the slaves might cause an uprising amongst them, killing the slave owners and their families. They also thought that the freeing of slaves would decimate their economic progress. But at the core of it, they would be considered just plain racist in our day. They believed that white supremacy would be quashed if slaves were free. So they took to preserving their way of life by separating from the very same people who threatened them. I think the title of this book is so brilliant: the Apostles of Disunion. That’s essentially what the commissioners were. Dr. Dew says, “And by helping us to understand the ‘why’ of secession, these apostles of disunion have gone a long way toward answering that all-important question, ‘The Civil War was fought over what important issue?’” (Dew, 21). And Dr. Dew makes a convincing argument: if indeed these commissioners were making the abolition of slavery an apologetic to get other Southern states on board with secession, then it would put the argument that the states seceded on the issue of state’s rights on precarious ground. But alas, I believe we will continue to fight against this notion because in our time, it’s just not an issue that we would like to rehash. We are comfortable with the idea of state’s rights which is put in a much better light than white supremacy. Uncovering these documents and looking into what these men actually said is almost frightening and goes a long ways in explaining the fall out of the complete abolition of slavery and the systematic racism that ensued in the South for decades to come. We are still feeling the reverberations of such arguments today in one way or another. So this is an important book and an important topic that we will continue to explore. [...]

Napoleon, Felix Markham

January 14, 20202016I have always found the person of Napoleon fascinating. When I was in Paris last year, I went to a place called Les Invalides. There is a chapel there that houses some of France’s most memorable leaders. Enshrined in that place lies the grave of Napoleon that attracts millions of visitors every year. But Napoleon has been described in history as the first dictator; a tyrant; a radical; and an emperor. But what makes Napoleon so special, and why is he still considered one of France’s heros? Well I think Felix Markham presents Napoleon is a balanced way in this book, “Napoleon.” I have often wanted to read a book on Napoleon, but in order to understand Napoleon, you have to understand the French Revolution. Earlier this year, I reviewed a book for a class I had to take on the French Revolution and Napoleon. I reviewed William Doyle’s book “The Oxford History of the French Revolution” which was a great introduction to the time Napoleon found himself in. Napoleon grew up in Corsica, which was an island in the Mediterranean south of France. It was always a contested island, and the French invaded it around the time Napoleon was born. Napoleon’s father and mother were freedom fighters for the small island nation, but succumbed to French rule. Napoleon never forgave his father for this treachery. As he grew up, he went to school on mainland France and eventually found himself enrolled in a military school where he was to become an artillery officer. When he became an artillery officer, he never really had a chance to ascend through the ranks because in the old regime (see my review of the French Revolution to understand this), the nobility were the only people who could advance far into the military. When the French Revolution happened, this did away with the old regime and Napoleon won a decisive battle against the English. He was promoted to Brigadier General and eventually put in charge of the French Army that was to conquer parts of Italy. In the Italian campaign, Napoleon won victory after victory with his brilliant military tactics. The government was very poor and his troops had not been paid for some time; Napoleon won the confidence of his men by allowing them to gather the booty of Italian treasures and they charged through the land. Paintings, statues, gold, coins, ancient antiquities were all liquidated to France during these campaigns. After the Italian campaigns, Napoleon devised a plan to halt the British dominance in the Western world. It would be near suicide to invade the British mainland, so Napoleon would strike at the British colony of Egypt. In the Egyptian campaign, Napoleon again found his mark as he conquered the land. Unfortunately, his entire fleet was shipwrecked by the British, stranding Napoleon and his men in Egypt. Napoleon, seeing events in France progress to the point where a power vacuum was coming, made his way back to Paris to take advantage of the situation. Eventually Napoleon orchestrated events to where he would become the defacto dictator of the country. This stabilization was actually ultimately good for France; what was not good was the wars that ensued. Napoleon wanted complete power, and he instituted himself as Caesar of the French Empire. Following this, he took to Prussia and Russia where he won victories at places such as Austerlitz that demonstrated he was in total control. Napoleon’s fatal mistake came in his assault into Russia. He was stymied that Spring into the summer, and the cold came upon the Le Grande Armee before they reached Moscow. When they did eventually get to Moscow, there was no one there to strike up a peace deal; rather, the Russians had set fire to the city. Defeated, Napoleon set off for France as his army continued to dwindle. The cold, lack of food, and attacks from the cossacks continued to drain his numbers. Just over a million set out to conquer Russia and only around 10,000 returned. Napoleon built up another army but it wasn’t enough; he had to capitulate and was sentenced to exile in Elba. He wasn’t there for long however; he broke free of his imprisonment and set out to Paris. He regained control and fought one last decisive battle at Waterloo with a coalition of forces against him commanded by the British. He lost this last battle and was sentenced to exile on St. Helena where he died sometime later. You can see that the legacy of Napoleon is mixed; on the one hand, he somewhat strengthened and saved France from the democratic disaster of the previous decade. The French Revolution took a toll on the people and Napoleon brought stability and order to chaos. And Napoleon was in all regards a genius. He was a tactician whose skills would only be dwarfed by men like Rommel in Italy and Africa. But on the flip side, he was brutal and took massive risks that endangered the French warriors of the time. He did a lot of harm to France mixed in with the good. Napoleon’s legacy is difficult. But one thing is for sure; he is a very interesting character to study. I think Markham’s brief study on Napoleon is palatable enough for both the novice and the ardent historian. [...]

The Clockwork Universe: Isaac Newton, the Royal Society, and the Birth of the Modern World, Edward Dolnick

January 14, 20202016Edward Dolnick succeeds in his attempt to illustrate the history of the greatest minds of the 16th century: namely, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and Lebnitz. What ensues is an incredible look into the assumptions of some of the greatest minds ever. Speaking of assumptions, there are just a lot of those in terms of what intellectual level people in general held prior to the Enlightenment. We call this time period in Europe the “Dark Ages” because, as bad historians tell it, men were consumed with sorcery and not scientific principles. Therefore, nothing ever good came out of the Dark Ages right? This book does much to correct those assumptions. Another interesting tidbit I’ve seen float around the internet is that these men did not have Christian convictions. As we shall see, this too is ludicrous. The Royal Society was a gathering of scientists who met to show off their inventions. Much like painters and artists from this time period, scientists were sponsored by a patron who would pay them wages to basically entertain them with experiments and the like. Newton and others formed a society where great men of science could come together and share information about what they had discovered and to show off too. Dolnick looks not only at the scientific achievements of these men, but also at the society at large. Many things have changed about our culture since then so to put this into perspective, Dolnick takes several chapters setting the stage, as it were. For example, all men at this time believed God was real. This is not an assumption but rather a fact. The atheist was not prevalent in the 16th century. Newton himself, as Dolnick puts it, would have rather read his Bible than work on science. That challenges the second great assumption that people hold about Newton. I’ve seen first hand the accusations that Newton was not bound by Christian convictions, but this really isn’t true. Newton understood that God had created the world and that his mission in science was to understand how the world worked. The title of the book, “Clockwork Universe,” is an idea that the universe works like a mechanical clock, bound together through some kind of force. Newton believed this force was God. Dolnick also discusses the relationship between these men. For example, a lot of what is credited to Newton actually came from Liebnitz. In those days, discoveries were carefully protected, sometimes by a secret language. What is evident in this book however, is that it builds to Newton’s law of gravity. Each discovery is a conjecture that is partially right until at the end of the book (spoiler alert. Just kidding), Newton comes up with his famous theory of gravity. This is an interesting book and it’s not too out of the range for even the novice scientist. [...]