What do you think?
Rate this book
The History Buff's Guide to the Presidents: Top Ten Rankings of the Best, Worst, Largest, and Most Controversial Facets of the American Presidency
Did you know that Warren G. Harding played poker in the White House at least once a week? Or that Richard Nixon was a Quaker? The History Buff's Guide to the Presidents takes a peek behind the scenes, revealing everything you ever wanted to know about the families, personal habits, and social lives of the most powerful job in the world. Author Thomas R. Flagel's unique perspective on the presidents makes this an essential book for the merely curious and hardcore history buffs alike. From George Washington to Barack Obama, Flagel's top ten lists compile the most religious presidents, the biggest scandals, and more to present a comprehensive history of the American presidents. Do You Think You Know The Presidents?
512 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2007
82 people are currently reading
228 people want to read
About the author
Thomas R. Flagel
8 books20 followersDr. Thomas Flagel is an associate professor of History at Columbia State Community College in Franklin, Tennessee. He holds degrees from Loras College (B.A. History), Kansas State University (M.A., European History), Creighton University (M.A., International Relations), MTSU (Ph.D.m Public History) and has studied at the University of Vienna.
A national speaker, particularly on the Civil War, he also serves on several historic preservation boards and has worked with the Library of Congress and the National Park Service,
Originally from the Midwest, he has also lived in Austria and the Czech Republic. Among his ancestors are several American Civil War veterans, including a great, great, great grandfather from the 2nd Iowa Volunteer Infantry.
A national speaker, particularly on the Civil War, he also serves on several historic preservation boards and has worked with the Library of Congress and the National Park Service,
Originally from the Midwest, he has also lived in Austria and the Czech Republic. Among his ancestors are several American Civil War veterans, including a great, great, great grandfather from the 2nd Iowa Volunteer Infantry.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews
December 17, 2016
The History Buff's Guide to the Presidents: Top Ten Rankings of the Best, Worst, Largest and Most Controversial Facets of the American Presidency by Thomas R. Flagel is a book I think I should have loved but sadly it was just okay. Worth a read but it was full of facts stated either too boring or too opinionated. (Mainly slanted just right of center). I think it was boredom that got to me, there were tons of cool facts it was just the presentation that lacked. But fact filled it was! Opinions too. Oh, well. Got this from the library so it didn't cost me anything but my tax dollars hard at work.
July 29, 2020
I enjoyed this book because I like reading facts about the presidents. I also didn't mind the author's opinions, but think they make the book all the more interesting.
Flagel covers such topics as elections, the debt, vetoes, foreign policy doctrines, First Ladies, scandals...
The top Presidential pastime? No surprise here-it's drinking and smoking. Reading is second. A lot of presidents were readers,Teddy Roosevelt perhaps reading the most of any president. Jimmy Carter read at 2000 words a minute with 90% retention. Both Bushes rarely read...
Who were the most vexing Presidential family members? Poor James Madison's stepson, John Payne Todd, is on this list. Not only did the White House get burned down while he was president but his stepson (Dolley's son) drank, ran up heavy debts, and hung around "loose women." A lot worse than Billy Carter promoting his Billy Beer. No surprise that Mary Todd Lincoln makes the list. Was she the worst First Lady?
I found Flagel's Presidential rankings to be interesting. His ratings are based first on foreign policy, then economic policy.. #1 is T. Roosevelt #2, F.D. Roosevelt, #3,George Washington, #4, Thomas Jefferson, #5, James Polk, with Lincoln, #6. His worst president: Warren G. Harding at #43, George W. Bush coming in at #36, Obama at #26. Agree or disagree?
Flagel covers such topics as elections, the debt, vetoes, foreign policy doctrines, First Ladies, scandals...
The top Presidential pastime? No surprise here-it's drinking and smoking. Reading is second. A lot of presidents were readers,Teddy Roosevelt perhaps reading the most of any president. Jimmy Carter read at 2000 words a minute with 90% retention. Both Bushes rarely read...
Who were the most vexing Presidential family members? Poor James Madison's stepson, John Payne Todd, is on this list. Not only did the White House get burned down while he was president but his stepson (Dolley's son) drank, ran up heavy debts, and hung around "loose women." A lot worse than Billy Carter promoting his Billy Beer. No surprise that Mary Todd Lincoln makes the list. Was she the worst First Lady?
I found Flagel's Presidential rankings to be interesting. His ratings are based first on foreign policy, then economic policy.. #1 is T. Roosevelt #2, F.D. Roosevelt, #3,George Washington, #4, Thomas Jefferson, #5, James Polk, with Lincoln, #6. His worst president: Warren G. Harding at #43, George W. Bush coming in at #36, Obama at #26. Agree or disagree?
March 22, 2017
Some interesting information captured below in the quotes. Not quite what I was expecting or hoped. But it seemed to be a fair perspective.
Rest assured, we are looking at our living presidents in much the same way the first citizens of the Republic viewed theirs, with emotions ranging from adoration to loathing, and basing judgments mostly on which political faction the person belonged to. If this generation has lost anything when it comes to its relationship with the presidency, it is a sense of perspective, just like previous generations often lost theirs.
Thus is the beauty of studying history—it offers the chance to examine the phenomenon of change and to regain a sense of perspective. By no coincidence, some of the most effective chief executives diligently studied the past.
Has the presidency gained more power than could have ever been imagined? In short, yes. So have the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the general population. When it first began, the modest United States sat clutching the Atlantic coastline. It was less than a hundred miles deep, numbering a few million people, with only one in four white males empowered to vote. Today, the Republic reaches five thousand miles across a continent and into the great Pacific, contains more than three hundred million inhabitants, and guarantees every law-abiding citizen the right to register and cast a ballot from anywhere in the world. It produces and consumes a quarter of the earth’s resources, has bases and businesses across the planet, and endures as the lone super-power left after a century of global wars. In tandem, the presidency and the country have transcended far beyond their original boundaries.
Kennedy it was newspapers, piles of them, and he could read fifteen hundred words a minute, nearly as fast as Jimmy Carter at two thousand words and more than 90 percent retention.
Wilson took up golf and had a hard time liking it. He described the game as “an ineffectual attempt to put an elusive ball into an obscure hole with implements ill-adapted to the purpose.”
Contrary to popular belief, the Founding Fathers as a whole were neither devoutly religious nor agnostic. The architects of the Republic were nearly as pluralistic as their four million constituents, from New England Puritans to Maryland Catholics, from rustic revivalists to urbane skeptics.
In 1776, only one out of six Americans belonged to a particular church, and many viewed providence with a sense of wonderment rather than doctrinal certainty. But when it came time to form a more perfect union, the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia agreed that if they were to save both church and state, separation was absolutely mandatory. The United States, with its multitude of denominations, would never stay united under the guise of a national religion. In order to survive, the government had to rule through the consent of the people, not through the assumption of divine right.
Most presidents firmly believed in a supreme being, and many invoked the blessings of heaven in public. But there have been some who actively blurred the separation between God and government. Initially they were the exception. But a transformation occurred after World War II, when the country faced an archenemy in the officially atheistic Soviet Union. To demonize the opposition—a standard tactic in wartime—the White House began to resemble a house of faith, a bastion of believers against a godless foe. When the strategy proved popular among voters, faith-based government slowly became a possibility. The wrath of Vietnam and WATERGATE further enticed the electorate to seek candidates with religious conviction, and openly spiritual presidents have been in place ever since.
Initially conservative, Wilson gradually adopted the sentiments of his predominantly progressive family, who viewed social reform rather than prayer as the clearest path to salvation. As an adult, Wilson summarized his new worldview in a speech before a YMCA assembly, insisting, “If you will think about what you ought to do for other people, your character will take care of itself…And that is the lesson of Christianity.”
When given the choice, Americans do not care for gentle souls atop the executive branch. Possibly the nicest presidents were Chester Arthur, William Howard Taft, and Gerald Ford. Of these three, only Taft was elected in his own right, and none of them won a second term.
1800, the federal government was spending ten million dollars per year. In 1900, the rate was ten million dollars every two days. In 2000, it was ten million dollars every three minutes. Even with adjusted dollars, Washington at present consumes money forty thousand times faster than when it first began.
In the first year of his presidency, Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, despite the fact that he had not engineered any major peace initiatives; was commander in chief of the most powerful military force on Earth; and was heading two major wars. The prize committee may have intended the medal to be a veiled critique against his predecessor George W. Bush as much as an endorsement of Obama’s inaugural vow to choose “hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.”
The territory acquired during the four years of the Polk administration was approximately 1.19 million square miles, or greater than the land area of Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Holland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, and Portugal combined.
On FDR:
To achieve this grand strategy, he was neither haphazard (like Hitler), heartless (like Stalin), hesitant (like Churchill), nor a figurehead (like Hirohito). Throughout the conflict, the U.S. forces were the best fed and the best equipped, with twice the ratio of doctors to troops as the Germans or Soviets, three times the manpower of Britain, and ten times the combat survival rate of the Japanese.
For every American killed in the Second World War, Japan lost nine, Germany lost seventeen, China lost thirty-five, and the Soviet Union lost sixty.
The price had been high—fifty-three thousand American dead from combat and more than sixty-three thousand consumed by disease. But in a little over a year, the United States had stopped a war that was killing an average of four hundred thousand human beings per month. Millions were being maimed or starved to death. At least eight million European children were orphaned by the time the shooting stopped.
U.S. aircraft dropped approximately eight million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, making them respectively the first-, second-, and third-most bombed nations in the history of aerial warfare.
A traditionally tribal people also struggled to connect with each other, especially since most of them could not read or write; in analyzing the country’s social structure, the CIA estimated that 43 percent of males and less than 13% of females were functionally literate. Hope itself was a rare commodity, considering that even before the war began, Afghans had a life expectancy of less than fifty years and the highest infant mortality rate in the world.
the search for balance, both Martha and her husband relied on restraint. They showed respect for the office through formal dinners and upper-class attire, but they avoided behaving like royalty. The challenge for every first lady thereafter lay in finding equilibrium, to serve in an unelected, undefined position in such a manner that satisfied both right and left, prince and pauper, fellow American and foreign visitor. Most presidential spouses soon realized that they were publicly criticized no matter what they did.
the federal government holds more square miles of territory than any other nation in the world.
Per capita, the current generation of Americans consumes more food and fuel than any other before it.
An astute observer of history, John Adams once wrote of the inevitable fate of great nations: “When they have reached the summit of grandeur, some minute and unsuspected cause commonly affects their ruin, and the empire of the world is transferred to some other place.” Fittingly, he wrote this in 1755, as the subject of the British Empire. Ten years later, an imperial tax on paper would set into motion a great rebellion. Ten years after that, Adams himself would help his friend Jefferson craft the very document that would mark the birth of a new nation.
Rest assured, we are looking at our living presidents in much the same way the first citizens of the Republic viewed theirs, with emotions ranging from adoration to loathing, and basing judgments mostly on which political faction the person belonged to. If this generation has lost anything when it comes to its relationship with the presidency, it is a sense of perspective, just like previous generations often lost theirs.
Thus is the beauty of studying history—it offers the chance to examine the phenomenon of change and to regain a sense of perspective. By no coincidence, some of the most effective chief executives diligently studied the past.
Has the presidency gained more power than could have ever been imagined? In short, yes. So have the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the general population. When it first began, the modest United States sat clutching the Atlantic coastline. It was less than a hundred miles deep, numbering a few million people, with only one in four white males empowered to vote. Today, the Republic reaches five thousand miles across a continent and into the great Pacific, contains more than three hundred million inhabitants, and guarantees every law-abiding citizen the right to register and cast a ballot from anywhere in the world. It produces and consumes a quarter of the earth’s resources, has bases and businesses across the planet, and endures as the lone super-power left after a century of global wars. In tandem, the presidency and the country have transcended far beyond their original boundaries.
Kennedy it was newspapers, piles of them, and he could read fifteen hundred words a minute, nearly as fast as Jimmy Carter at two thousand words and more than 90 percent retention.
Wilson took up golf and had a hard time liking it. He described the game as “an ineffectual attempt to put an elusive ball into an obscure hole with implements ill-adapted to the purpose.”
Contrary to popular belief, the Founding Fathers as a whole were neither devoutly religious nor agnostic. The architects of the Republic were nearly as pluralistic as their four million constituents, from New England Puritans to Maryland Catholics, from rustic revivalists to urbane skeptics.
In 1776, only one out of six Americans belonged to a particular church, and many viewed providence with a sense of wonderment rather than doctrinal certainty. But when it came time to form a more perfect union, the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia agreed that if they were to save both church and state, separation was absolutely mandatory. The United States, with its multitude of denominations, would never stay united under the guise of a national religion. In order to survive, the government had to rule through the consent of the people, not through the assumption of divine right.
Most presidents firmly believed in a supreme being, and many invoked the blessings of heaven in public. But there have been some who actively blurred the separation between God and government. Initially they were the exception. But a transformation occurred after World War II, when the country faced an archenemy in the officially atheistic Soviet Union. To demonize the opposition—a standard tactic in wartime—the White House began to resemble a house of faith, a bastion of believers against a godless foe. When the strategy proved popular among voters, faith-based government slowly became a possibility. The wrath of Vietnam and WATERGATE further enticed the electorate to seek candidates with religious conviction, and openly spiritual presidents have been in place ever since.
Initially conservative, Wilson gradually adopted the sentiments of his predominantly progressive family, who viewed social reform rather than prayer as the clearest path to salvation. As an adult, Wilson summarized his new worldview in a speech before a YMCA assembly, insisting, “If you will think about what you ought to do for other people, your character will take care of itself…And that is the lesson of Christianity.”
When given the choice, Americans do not care for gentle souls atop the executive branch. Possibly the nicest presidents were Chester Arthur, William Howard Taft, and Gerald Ford. Of these three, only Taft was elected in his own right, and none of them won a second term.
1800, the federal government was spending ten million dollars per year. In 1900, the rate was ten million dollars every two days. In 2000, it was ten million dollars every three minutes. Even with adjusted dollars, Washington at present consumes money forty thousand times faster than when it first began.
In the first year of his presidency, Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, despite the fact that he had not engineered any major peace initiatives; was commander in chief of the most powerful military force on Earth; and was heading two major wars. The prize committee may have intended the medal to be a veiled critique against his predecessor George W. Bush as much as an endorsement of Obama’s inaugural vow to choose “hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.”
The territory acquired during the four years of the Polk administration was approximately 1.19 million square miles, or greater than the land area of Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Holland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, and Portugal combined.
On FDR:
To achieve this grand strategy, he was neither haphazard (like Hitler), heartless (like Stalin), hesitant (like Churchill), nor a figurehead (like Hirohito). Throughout the conflict, the U.S. forces were the best fed and the best equipped, with twice the ratio of doctors to troops as the Germans or Soviets, three times the manpower of Britain, and ten times the combat survival rate of the Japanese.
For every American killed in the Second World War, Japan lost nine, Germany lost seventeen, China lost thirty-five, and the Soviet Union lost sixty.
The price had been high—fifty-three thousand American dead from combat and more than sixty-three thousand consumed by disease. But in a little over a year, the United States had stopped a war that was killing an average of four hundred thousand human beings per month. Millions were being maimed or starved to death. At least eight million European children were orphaned by the time the shooting stopped.
U.S. aircraft dropped approximately eight million tons of bombs on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, making them respectively the first-, second-, and third-most bombed nations in the history of aerial warfare.
A traditionally tribal people also struggled to connect with each other, especially since most of them could not read or write; in analyzing the country’s social structure, the CIA estimated that 43 percent of males and less than 13% of females were functionally literate. Hope itself was a rare commodity, considering that even before the war began, Afghans had a life expectancy of less than fifty years and the highest infant mortality rate in the world.
the search for balance, both Martha and her husband relied on restraint. They showed respect for the office through formal dinners and upper-class attire, but they avoided behaving like royalty. The challenge for every first lady thereafter lay in finding equilibrium, to serve in an unelected, undefined position in such a manner that satisfied both right and left, prince and pauper, fellow American and foreign visitor. Most presidential spouses soon realized that they were publicly criticized no matter what they did.
the federal government holds more square miles of territory than any other nation in the world.
Per capita, the current generation of Americans consumes more food and fuel than any other before it.
An astute observer of history, John Adams once wrote of the inevitable fate of great nations: “When they have reached the summit of grandeur, some minute and unsuspected cause commonly affects their ruin, and the empire of the world is transferred to some other place.” Fittingly, he wrote this in 1755, as the subject of the British Empire. Ten years later, an imperial tax on paper would set into motion a great rebellion. Ten years after that, Adams himself would help his friend Jefferson craft the very document that would mark the birth of a new nation.
Read
August 2, 2019This book took me over 2 months to read and I’m glad I finally finished it. The book was very informative and provided me with information I didn’t know before. The author shows each president in an honest and truthful way and doesn’t shy away from revealing the mistakes and flaws in some of America’s greatest leaders. I also loved the writing in this book. It was fun and interesting and even a bit sarcastic at times which made fun to read. If you are in the learn more about American history, the book would be a good place to start.
April 4, 2018
Simple, but not simplistic, this is the perfect book for anyone who is interested in the presidents as a whole, and would like to dive more into individual topics. I've gotten to deep dive into certain presidents, but this book I found a huge boon for helping me decide who I might want to look into next based on multiple lists and rankings... and it has a list of all the presidential museums in the back, for planning future trips!
Highly recommend.
Highly recommend.
June 28, 2018
Strange book. Nothing necessarily wrong, but some strange choices on how to characterize events, people, etc. Inconsistent on the names/nicknames used to refer to the same. Bizarre lapses in mentioning things, like focusing on describing someone without ever saying their name. Also, a lot of the lists are inherently subjective. But for pop history, not terrible, a decent way to briefly introduce topics readers can then explore further in more legit academia.
March 24, 2021
This book was fascinating. It covers virtually every aspect of the Presidency, from their families, First Ladies, favorite pastimes, to their success or failure in different areas of their Presidency, to the elections themselves and scandals that took place during their time in office. It was fascinating reading, comparing how some of the Presidents managed in early years compared to how things are done now. It was an informative read.
June 2, 2018
I found the misspelling of important political figures names kept me from wondering how much of the information in this book that I wasn't aware of was accurate as well. I don't know if the book was poorly edited or if the author made the mistakes himself in which case I would highly doubt the accuracy of this book.
October 20, 2020
An eclectic mix of Lists of Ten concerning American Presidents in five areas: Character, Elections, Domestic Affairs, Foreign Affairs, and Associates. Notably, Eleanor Roosevelt heads the “Top Ten Most Influential First Ladies,” and surprisingly, Dwight D. Eisenhower heads the “Top Ten Overtly Religious Presidents” ... lots of interesting details included ...
July 15, 2018
This book was presented as Top Ten Lists. Each chapter included lists such as Top Ten biggest scandals, closest races, who vetoed the most, influential first ladies to name a few. The book gave information about each president who made the list and why. Well-researched!
October 18, 2018
This is the second book I've read in the History Buff's series and I really enjoyed it. The format is great with a small intro section and then top ten lists that give a good overview of the subject and enough detail to keep you engaged, but not drowned in specifics.
August 17, 2025
3.5 stars for this well-researched book of lists with all kinds of fun facts and longer histories about the presidents. It deserves to be updated to include Michelle Obama in the influential First Ladies list, and I think there’s a few more scandals to add to that list, too.
February 1, 2019
I love well written history books. This, unfortunately is not one of them. I found it to be disorganized and not that well written. I was not able to finish reading this book.
March 21, 2019
If you're looking to feel better about our current political climate, this here will do it.
April 14, 2020
Great presidential read!!
April 19, 2020
No one recent on any list - too bad. Lots of material.
March 2, 2021
This was trite and judgemental. I didn‘t find the author did enough to engage the reader’s interest in learning the history.
April 12, 2021
Found out some interesting things although the author is an obvious atheist.
November 17, 2022
It's ok if u are interested in history.
December 24, 2023
My only criticism is I wish it were longer.
March 16, 2020
Part way through, noticing a decidedly conservative bent. It's okay, but a person could do better by seeking out biographies by Doris Goodwin or Stephen Ambrose.
April 1, 2023
It’s just okay, I was hoping for some more stuff on some of the more obscure presidents and I found it pretty dull. Very surprised he didn’t include a top 10 best and worst of the Presidents. Some sections are much better then others but nothing of real substance here. His WWII and Civil War books are better.
February 27, 2013
I feel like I really overuse the word "fascinating" in my Goodreads reviews. But, come on - I'm going to read nonfiction books on topics that interest me for pleasure, rather than otherwise, so I'm not going to apologize too much for being a bit repetitious.
So this book was fascinating, & very nostalgic for a person who was That Nerdy Kid in elementary school who memorized all of the presidents & first ladies in order. It's an interesting & workable format, & makes for a book that can either be read at one time, or picked up here & there as the spirit moves you to read about one top ten list or another. It's a popular format because of its brevity, & that comes across here, but the author's meticulous research keeps the maximum amount of information in the punchy style.
Of course, one of the reasons to like historical information presented in "top ten" formation, like this, is that it gives people a great conversation starter topic: everyone is going to have opinions on things, & although many of the lists, being in chronological order, are hard to disagree with, people will probably either strongly agree or disagree with some of the other placings. The nature of American politics is to try to get the general public engaged in the conversation, & this does that.
My personal note is that, due to the nature of top tens, it feels like most of the information covers either the founding fathers or the last thirty years, & especially the "main offenders": the presidents whose terms saw real change or cataclysmic occurrences. Although there is a lot here that wasn't covered in my high school American History classes, there was also a lot that was. So, in a strange way, I guess I'm asking the author for a book of new lists as a companion to this one, & I'll even throw out some possible headings - how about "top ten most uneventful presidencies" or "top ten most obscure or little discussed presidents"? I'd also like some more lists about personal lives. Just a thought. Still, a solid overview of one of America's institutions.
So this book was fascinating, & very nostalgic for a person who was That Nerdy Kid in elementary school who memorized all of the presidents & first ladies in order. It's an interesting & workable format, & makes for a book that can either be read at one time, or picked up here & there as the spirit moves you to read about one top ten list or another. It's a popular format because of its brevity, & that comes across here, but the author's meticulous research keeps the maximum amount of information in the punchy style.
Of course, one of the reasons to like historical information presented in "top ten" formation, like this, is that it gives people a great conversation starter topic: everyone is going to have opinions on things, & although many of the lists, being in chronological order, are hard to disagree with, people will probably either strongly agree or disagree with some of the other placings. The nature of American politics is to try to get the general public engaged in the conversation, & this does that.
My personal note is that, due to the nature of top tens, it feels like most of the information covers either the founding fathers or the last thirty years, & especially the "main offenders": the presidents whose terms saw real change or cataclysmic occurrences. Although there is a lot here that wasn't covered in my high school American History classes, there was also a lot that was. So, in a strange way, I guess I'm asking the author for a book of new lists as a companion to this one, & I'll even throw out some possible headings - how about "top ten most uneventful presidencies" or "top ten most obscure or little discussed presidents"? I'd also like some more lists about personal lives. Just a thought. Still, a solid overview of one of America's institutions.
February 7, 2017
As a fan of any kind of history, I was excited when this book was dropped into my lap. I could not wait to devour this book when I had my day off. Here was a book about the Presidents. Perhaps this book would contain information not set forth in other books that complied together all presidents.
I was disappointed.
Although this was could be considered a light read, the entire thing failed to capture any sort of my attention. I even tried several times to come back to the book after chores but I could not find a single thing that would draw my attention long enough.
The author seemed to favor one political party over another and pointed out things about that party he cared nothing for seem to be one of the worse. Of course we are going to have good and bad presidents from both. It will be history to decide on which side they will be on, not a single author should be a loud to do that.
Another thing that bothered me about this book is the oddly fact organization. For example, who was a lawyer or who liked playing cards on the weekend. This could have been a fun way of organizing something but it held little information or even a fun fact about any of the presidents that were listed. Of course, there might be a mention of one or two presidents but the others that had been listed were vague or there was nothing at all.
Will I pick this up again later on in the future? I don't know. I might try again but for now I think this book is better left in my unfinished pile.
I was disappointed.
Although this was could be considered a light read, the entire thing failed to capture any sort of my attention. I even tried several times to come back to the book after chores but I could not find a single thing that would draw my attention long enough.
The author seemed to favor one political party over another and pointed out things about that party he cared nothing for seem to be one of the worse. Of course we are going to have good and bad presidents from both. It will be history to decide on which side they will be on, not a single author should be a loud to do that.
Another thing that bothered me about this book is the oddly fact organization. For example, who was a lawyer or who liked playing cards on the weekend. This could have been a fun way of organizing something but it held little information or even a fun fact about any of the presidents that were listed. Of course, there might be a mention of one or two presidents but the others that had been listed were vague or there was nothing at all.
Will I pick this up again later on in the future? I don't know. I might try again but for now I think this book is better left in my unfinished pile.
March 7, 2013
This is the kind of book I should have loved. I love trivia books and am particularly fascinated by the presidents. Unfortunately, I found the underlying partisan tone of the writing right of center instead of more objective (Lincoln was in over his head! Teddy Roosevelt was a bully! G.W. Bush and Obama have a lot in common!). I was also annoyed by the sometime lack of fact checking. For instance, and I am aware this may sound petty, but the demonstration and ensuing riot across the street from the 1968 Chicago Democratic Convention was in Grant Park, not Lincoln Park. Little things like this stick in my craw, especially since this is readily available and easy to confirm recent history. Still, I found a few nice tidbits I didn't know about the more obscure Nineteenth Century presidents, in particular their families. I knew Mrs. Lincoln was bats, but who knew Mrs. Pierce was such a shrew? I knew Dolly Madison's son was a spoiled spendthrift, but Andrew Jackson's adopted son was cut from the same cloth... Overall, I liked the book, but It could have been better.
June 21, 2009
This was a fun read! It's chock full of short, informative articles on the various leaders of our nation, their spouses, their relatives and other information. The book is organized in a series of top 10 lists: top 10 scandals, top 10 largest budgets, top 10 veto'ers, top 10...you get the picture. It's not unbiased, and the top 10 lists are, of course, subjective and debatable. But that's what makes this book fun and entertaining, and not some dry fact-spewing. What I also liked, however, is how it puts our history in perspective, and how many obstacles we faced as a country in preserving our sovereignty. It's tempting to wring our hands over today's woes, but scandal and bad times are not unknown. Who was it that said there is nothing new under the sun? At any rate, history buffs will want to get their hands on this one.
December 16, 2015
I really enjoyed reading this book. I learned so much and it was written in an unbiased manner, which was refreshing. I read it chapter by chapter, so I could better digest what I read. As I read, I was surprised that the problems we have today are not that unusual from those of other presidential eras. There were scandels before and there will be scandels in the future. Some things that are important now were not important in the past...like the president's religion or beliefs. Exaggeration of a military record...more important now. I found that even what I thought I lived through was not necessarily the way historians saw it. Of course, this was just an overview, but I would recommend it.
May 11, 2013
Odd facts and oddly organized, i.e. around top ten pastimes it seems that drinking and card games loom large as pastimes. Well, I guess the presidents don't have a lot of time to get out and play . . . I found the way the book is organized to be difficult to read, but if you really know your presidents it might be easier to use this book as a supplement of interesting information.
July 28, 2020
Ranking of presidents (ex. Top 10 Presidential Pastimes, Top 10 Most Controversial Elections, etc.) with fun facts like Harding played poker in the White House weekly, Nixon was a Quaker, and Polk was the only speaker of the house later elected president
March 13, 2016
Entertaining and informative but I almost deducted a star for getting at least one basic fact wrong. (France attempted to dig a canal in Panama, not Nicaragua). Best chapter is the one on vexing presidential relatives.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 48 reviews