Book Description
The bitter and protracted struggle between President Thomas Jefferson and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall defined the basic constitutional relationship between the executive and judicial branches of government. More than one hundred fifty years later, their clashes still reverberate in constitutional debates and political battles.
In this dramatic and fully accessible account of these titans of the early republic and their fiercely held ideas, James F. Simon brings to life the early history of the nation and sheds new light on the highly charged battle to balance the powers of the federal government and the rights of the states. A fascinating look at two of the nation's greatest statesmen and shrewdest politicians, What Kind of Nation presents a cogent, unbiased assessment of their lasting impact on American government.
Customer Reviews:
Thomas Jefferson v. John Marshall.......2006-10-15
James Simon, Dean Emeritus of the New York Law School, has written a seminal work on the history of the early republic, comparing titans Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall--Virginians, cousins, lawyers, and political enemies. What Kind of Nation recounts the struggle between America's first political parties, Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans and Marshall's Federalists, over the future of the federal judiciary and the future of the democratic experiment called the Unitied States.
After losing the 1800 election to Jefferson, John Adams attempts curb Jefferson's Republican influence by filling the judiciary with faithful Federalists. His most influential and lasting appointment was John Marshall as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Over thirty four years leading the Court, Marshall secures the independence of the federal judiciary through brilliant legal arguments and skilled political maneuvering.
In Marbury v. Madison, Marshall led a unanimous court in securing the right of judicial review of the consitutionality of all actions of both the executive and congressional in a case that on the surface was a loss for the Federalists. In deciding the case against Adams' midnight appointments for lack of jurisdiction, Marshall makes the the Supreme Court the arbiter of consitutionality for all time to come. Jefferson had argued that consitutionality was the domain of all three branches of government, and in his Kentucky Resolution he contended that states could determine a federal law to be null and void if it was unconstitutional. Marshall's interpretation stands to this day.
Simon is one of the few scholars who sees Jefferson for what he was, a stalwart party man whose hyperbolic condemnation of his opponents though successful in the short term, was ultimately rejected along with his vision of America. Jefferson saw the United States as a loose confederation of powerful states, all pursuing a bucolic ideal of an agrarian economy that rejected banks, paper money, and all things industrial. Instead, the vision of Hamilton and Marshall, the chief representatives of the Federalists, comes to be. The industrial revolution takes hold in the Northeast and the backward looking vision of the agrarians is finally put to rest after the South's defeat in the Civil War.
In reading What Kind of Country, one comes to realize that Jefferson is not a true progressive visionary. In fact, he is the reactionary in this morality play. Industrialization was the future in the early 19th century; agriculture was the past. Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, envisioned a country of political freedom but economic and indealistic bondage to the land, which in point of fact, would never allow true political freedom.
Intriguing!.......2005-08-31
This is a most relevant book. It is the story of two cousins who consistently and relentlessly clashed over just what kind of nation the United States would become.
Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall were political polar opposites. Jefferson, the Republican, was a fervent believer in State's rights. He held forth strongly that unguarded concentrations of power within the Federal Government would ultimately lead to the destruction of the United States. He was right.
John Marshall's views were just the opposite. Marshall subscribed to a strong central government. He passionately believed that left to themselves, each State's regional self interest would lead to the destruction of the United States. He was also right.
Therein lays the conundrum that faced the early republic and led to the formation of the first political parties. Both sides were right and both sides were wrong. Both men lived to see their fears of unchecked concentrations of power in the Federal Government or in the States lead to exactly the assaults on liberty that each feared. But in a larger sense both men, probably without realizing it, truly lived the concept of checks and balances both subscribed to and cherished within the Constitution.
This is an amazing story of continual, unrequited confrontation. Make no mistake; these men did not like each other. Each defined the other as what was wrong with the early republic. Ultimately, John Marshall prevails in his bid to establish the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the Constitution and the authoritative voice for the constitutional supremacy of the federal government over the states. More than 150 years after Jefferson's and Marshall's deaths, their words and achievements still reverberate in today's constitutional debate and political party battles. You will be fascinated by this work. Theirs was a confrontation that continues to define just what kind of nation the United States should be.
An illuminating discussion of a crucial episode of the early republic.......2005-08-17
John Marshall isn't often mentioned in the same breath as figures such as Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, or Thomas Jefferson, but Simon makes a very good case for doing so. Just as these other figures played crucial roles in determining the shape of the nation, Marshall is perhaps the key figure in establishing the practical role that the Supreme Court was to play in U.S. history, and the key figure in making the judiciary truly independent. The latter cannot be emphasized too strongly, for as Simon demonstrates, Jefferson had a vision of the judiciary that would have made if subservient to the executive and legislative branches. Jefferson wanted to be able to replace judges with relative ease--a move that would have created a permanent timidity on the part of the courts and would have made them the easy toy of party politics--and he wanted the notion of popular democracy to extend to the courts. No matter how one feels about Jefferson on other issues, and no matter how one feels about such issues as judicial activism, I would imagine that most Americans are relieved and grateful that Marshall's vision and not Jefferson's prevailed. The system of checks and balances works because each branch of government has the genuine capacity to precisely that, whereas if Jefferson had succeeded, the courts would have of little or no consequence.
Simon tells the story of the struggle between John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson through discussing the ins and outs of several key judicial controversies. The most important of these was, of course, Marbury v. Madison, in which the U.S. Supreme Court found for the defendant, Secretary of State James Madison, but in doing so established the precedent of assuming for the Court the ability to adjudicate the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. This precedent vastly outstrips all of the issues of the case itself, and could very well be seen as the charter for all else that the Court would do in subsequent centuries.
There is an image in Wittgenstein's Preface to his PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS that I often think of when reading books on early American history (or, for that matter, on any subject area to which one returns). Wittgenstein states that the issues he is going to explore need to be approached from a number of different viewpoints, so that in the end investigating his subject is very much like exploring a landscape, approaching once from this direction and then from another. Reading about the founding of the United States is unquestionably like this. Studying it by on one occasion reading a biography of Hamilton, another by reading about the Constitutional Convention, another by reading about the writing of the Declaration of Independence, another by reading about the FEDERALIST PAPERS, another by the age of the Federalist party, or reading a book about the Adams-Jefferson correspondence or the correspondence itself, or by reading a book about the struggle between Jefferson and Marshall on the limits of the judiciary are all ways of going over the same intellectual landscape, and the more ways that one finds to traverse the region, the stronger one's grasp. Simon's book is especially valuable because it approaches an important issue and focuses on it in a way that sometimes is obscured by more popular issues. Reading about Marbury v. Madison is simply not as exciting as reading about the mutual slandering that occurred in the 1800 election between Adams and Jefferson.
As a side note, I read this book while commuting to and from work each day to my job in the Loop in Chicago. Each evening as I ride the Brown Line home my train would pass by the John Marshall School of Law, established to honor the chief justice who was crucial in maintaining the long-term integrity of the rule of law in America.
A debate that resonated deeply.......2005-08-07
The clash between Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall over the kind of nation the United States was to become was sharp and bitter. It was a battle between two of the most influential men in the early Republic, and revolved around some of the most important constitutional issues of the time. The fact that the protagonists were blood relatives (second cousins descended from the Randolph family), that both were Virginians, and that both were dedicated to the ideals for which the American Revolution was fought, adds irony to their differences.
Jefferson was an uncommon man, an aristocrat by birth and lifestyle who achieved wide popularity by preaching the virtues of common men and the political ideals of self-government. Marshall was more modest, able to mingle easily with ordinary men and women, but convinced that the United States was destined to become a strong nation and that the Supreme Court could play a key role in achieving its destiny. The legacies of Jefferson and Marshall are both alive in the United States today, though Marshall's ideas have had a much more practical influence, while Jefferson's legacy is perhaps more idealistic and philosophical.
The debate resonated deeply in the early republic. It is still relevant today, as Americans continue to argue about the proper roles of the federal government and the states in shaping our political life, and of the Supreme Court in deciding questions of national concern. Much of the debate, however, is frankly over, for no one today can realistically envision a country like the one Thomas Jefferson imagined, in which most Americans are engaged in agriculture not business, in which the states and the federal government are equal sovereigns, with neither able to resolve differences between them, and in which loyalties to one's state trump one's loyalties to the federal government. John Marshall won much of the old debate, and the result is frankly accepted by most Americans.
Simon is a law professor and veteran journalist who writes clearly and engagingly.
A fine approach to the study of these two giants........2004-09-11
Lawyers often make poor historians. That might strike some as counter-intuitive as precedents are by their nature `historical'. But legal precedents are a narrow technical field and though they can encompass the political, economic and social issues of their day the legal logic and argument that surround them are usually- with some major exceptions- divorced from them. And perhaps it's that their [the lawyer as historian] early years have been shaped by legal reasoning and in spite of exposure to history such as an undergrad or grad degree, this legal mindset often limits a more holistic approach to the subject matter.
Not so with James F. Simon's "What Kind of Nation". Simon writing eschews the sort of legal analysis best left to law textbooks in favor of a clear, fairly encompassing and biographically based approach. And a fine approach it is. With healthy portions of legal analysis but an even finer biographer's paintbrush Simon comes close to bringing to life many of the individuals and their ideological stands.
At the center is of course Jefferson and Marshall. Both get sympathetic, but honest treatment from Simon. Jefferson, the idealist, strongly holding the belief that favored the limiting of government and the Federalists as the greatest threat to liberty in the young nation. His horror at the Sedition acts and the steps taken by the Republicans are highlighted as are the equally strong beliefs and actions taken by the Federalists to implement them.
Marshall is painted in an even finer light I think. Perhaps it's because Jefferson's more volatile temper got the best of him at times or perhaps Marshall's nature was to be a more moderating influence, he comes across a intelligent and subtle thinker. Read his approach to Marbury, where he takes the long road to come to his final conclusion. It was an approach that made upheld many of the Federalist tenets yet gave the victory to Jefferson. Masterfull.
Simon does a great job in describing two important events in that era. The first is the impeachment of Samuel Chase a justice on the Supreme Court. Simon presents the legal arguments in clear precise prose. But he does more than that, he describes the individuals involved-their strengths and weaknesses, the drama behind the scenes and sets it all in the context of the political mechanizations of the era. Equally compelling is the description of Burr's fall from grace and subsequent trial for treason. Marshall and Jefferson's role in both events are given in some detail and their rationales analyzed within the framework of the issues each was faced with.
James F. Simon has given a well written and immensely interesting picture of the dynamics between Jefferson and Marshall and the era in which they lived. With a clear, precise and entertaining writing style and with one foot firmly planted what seems like a historian's mindset I'm anxious to read more of his works. I would love to read a more in depth study of Chase or Burr- for example- written by Simon.
Highly recommended.
Book Description
It had all the ingredients of a movie drama:a scandal that grips Washington and touches the White House; bitter battles and backroom intrigue at the highest levels of the U.S. military; glamorous women who make or break the careers of powerful men; a high-stakes trial with a celebrity defendant who captures the nation's attention ...
A Question of Loyalty plunges into the seven-week Washington trial of Gen. William "Billy" Mitchell, the hero of the U.S. Army Air Service during World War I and the man who proved in 1921 that planes could sink a battleship. In 1925 Mitchell was frustrated by the slow pace of aviation development, and he sparked a political firestorm, accusing the army and navy high commands, and by inference the president, of treason and criminal negligence in the way they conducted national defense. He was put on trial for insubordination in a spectacular court-martial that became a national obsession during the Roaring Twenties.
Douglas Waller has crafted a compelling new biography of the daring Billy Mitchell, a larger-than-life figure remembered as much for his outspokenness as for his innovations in the use of airpower. Waller has uncovered a trove of new letters, diaries, and confidential documents that have enabled him to capture in detail the drama of the court and to build a rich and revealing biography of Mitchell, one of the army's most controversial and flamboyant generals.
Born to a millionaire Midwest family at the end of the 1870s, Mitchell joined the military at the age of eighteen and became one of its rising stars. During World War I, he led the largest armada of airplanes ever to attack an enemy force and returned to the United States a dashing young general with a chest full of medals and a radical vision of airpower as the only decisive instrument for future wars. But as the military shrank in the postwar years, Mitchell became increasingly impatient and vocal, lashing out at bureaucratic enemies he accused of impeding airpower's progress. After a tragic airship accident that shocked the nation, he publicly blasted the War and Navy Departments for their handling of aviation and was put on trial for it.
A Question of Loyalty is a story about Washington politics, about love and betrayal, about heroes in battle, about determined lawyers and powerful military men pitted against one another in a courtroom.
Customer Reviews:
The Great Air Power Innovator.......2004-12-29
The Air Force is the brashest arm of the armed forces. It is far newer than the Army or Navy, and more reliant on the latest in technology. There is an image of the flyboy as handsome, heroic, and rule-bending if not rule-breaking. The archetype of such an image is General Billy Mitchell, whose most famous act was getting a court-martial in 1925 for speaking up about how he felt air power ought to be developed. His is a story that has been told before, even (badly) in the movies, but in _A Question of Loyalty: Gen. Billy Mitchell and the Court-Martial that Gripped the Nation_ (HarperCollins), Douglas Waller has retold the story with a wealth of new information and the help of the Mitchell family. Mitchell's story was a sensation during his trial, and as part of the universal drama of the iconoclastic genius against the system, presents issues for current times, besides being a lesson in how big organizations change or resist change.
The trial was the climactic event in Mitchell's life, and Waller has told it in lengthy detail, interspersing facts of Mitchell's earlier life and career within it. Mitchell didn't think his trial was the most important event in his life; he would have listed his role in WWI and his successful demonstration in 1921 that aircraft could sink a ship. Mitchell loved being a populist, skillfully using the media to enlist the support of the public for his causes. In September 1925, the Navy's dirigible _Shenandoah_ crashed in a thunderstorm, killing fourteen of its crew. Mitchell wrote a 6,000 word statement and issued it at a press conference, listing the _Shenandoah_'s demise specifically and other general ailments that he said "... are the direct result of the incompetency, criminal negligence and almost treasonable administration of the national defense by the Navy and War Departments." Mitchell was ordered to stand court-martial in Washington on catch-all charges that he had violated Army order and discipline and brought discredit to the military. The trial proved to be a sensation, studied daily and argued over by people who would have otherwise had no interest in air defense. The outcome is unsurprising; even if Mitchell had had ever fact correct in detail, he still would have been insubordinate. Hap Arnold, who admired him and commanded the Army Air Forces during World War II, said simply, "In accordance with the army code, Billy had it coming."
He died in 1936, so he did not live to see his vindication in World War II. Mitchell had predicted, for instance, that the Japanese would bomb Pearl Harbor from the air. Like any prophet, he didn't get all the details right, but his predictions about blitzkrieg, strategic bombing of cities, and others proved his thinking on the issues to be far more firmly grounded than his accusers. He has been vindicated in many ways. Of course the Air Force eventually became an independent part of the military as he had wanted. The "Mitchellites", those who had been his disciples, put his theories into practice during the war he knew was coming. Congress posthumously awarded him a special medal. The Air Force Academy's dining hall is named for him, and its class of 2001 selected him as the man they most wanted to emulate. It is a curious choice for our times. Waller clearly shows in this full biography that Mitchell was a brilliant and innovative leader and a daring commander in combat, as well as being a visionary on the future of air power, but he was during his lifetime mostly a pain in the neck for those he worked with. In the current atmosphere where questioning governmental decisions quickly leads to charges of supporting liberals or terrorists, any Billy Mitchell that is rising in the ranks could expect no better treatment from the military.
A very good biography of a controversial person.......2004-12-18
This is a very good biography of one of the 20th century's controversial figures; Army General Billy Mitchell. Prior to his court-martial in 1925, Mitchell had served in combat in the Spanish-American war and rose to Brigadier General in World War I as Pershing's Air Commander. Mitchell is best remembered for his demonstration of aircraft sinking a battleship. The movie "The Court- martial of Billy Mitchell" staring Gary Cooper glamorized the sinking and the court-martial. The battle ship was stationary and it took two days and many bombs to sink it. But, Mitchell proved correct about the vulnerability of capitol ships, as demonstrated in World War II. Mitchell liked to live the good life and to supplement his income, he did a lot of writing that cut against the grain of the mind set of the military commanders. What really got him in trouble was his press release after the disastrous loss of the airship Shenandoah and the loss of a Navy seaplane attempting a nonstop flight from San Diego to Hawaii. His press release was so scathing of the military command, there was no option but a court-martial for insubordination. Mitchell had many good ideas, but he went about pushing them forward the wrong way. He had a big mouth and no patience and in the end, got what he deserved.
A couple of interesting facts. Eddie Rickenbacker, famous WWI ace, was Mitchell's driver and Mitchell put him in the air. Douglas McArther was a member of the court-martial board. When asked after he had read the screenplay for the Mitchell movie if he could accurately play Mitchell, Gary Cooper replied, "I get paid to play myself".
Aviation History.......2004-09-09
In another century another age we forget how far American aviation history and the American military has progressed since the World War I era. Waller creates a vivid picture of the Billy Mitchell trial during the period that gripped the nation. The book provides interesting background on the man who challenged the Washington establishment and gives a view of military policy and capability just before and after World War I. Given the amount and length of the trial material Waller does a good job of presenting the both sides evenly. Mitchell was a compelling but flawed man who argued for an aviation future while living values more akin to his time.
Average customer rating:
|
Reimagining The Nation-State: The Contested Terrains of Nation-Building (Contemporary Irish Studies)
Jim Mac Laughlin
Manufacturer: Pluto Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
 Constitutions
| Government
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
History & Theory
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Nationalism
| Movements
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Nationalism
| Political Doctrines
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Non-US Legal Systems
| Perspectives on Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| England
| Europe
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Ireland
| Europe
| History
| Subjects
| Books
Troubles
| Ireland
| Europe
| History
| Subjects
| Books
Regional
| Geography
| Earth Sciences
| Science
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 0745313647 |
Book Description
Traditional approaches to nationalism tend to exaggerate the antiquity of the nation-state while ignoring the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century origins of nation building in Western Europe and North America. Jim Mac Laughlin argues for a more grassroots, place-centered approach to understanding nation building. Mac Laughlin assesses competing models of nationalism and nation building in the works of key theorists such as Gellner, Hecter, and Nairn, and puts forward an alternative dialectical model grounded in historical and geographical specificity. Using Ireland as a case study, he locates Irish nationalism and Ulster unionism in a variety of clearly defined regional and social class contexts. Emphasizing the strategic and symbolic significance of "place," Mac Laughlin identifies certain areas as nationalist or unionist heartlands while others remain contested terrain over which both sides continue to disagree.
Book Description
Right Wing Justice raises the alarm about the creeping conservative campaign to “pack” America’s courts with judges more identified with their ideological affiliation than their skill or regard for the Constitution. The consequence is that the rule of law is taking a terrific beating from the Supreme Court. Who can forget the debacle of Election 2000? But the consequences of the campaign go far deeper than that, impinging on the daily lives of ordinary Americans who are at the receiving end of attempts to overturn or erode Supreme Court rulings on abortion, school prayer, civil rights, criminal justice, and economic regulation. As the author shows, the problem does not end at the Supreme Court—it filters down to the lowers courts and circuits. Right Wing Justice gives an alarming account of how this has come to pass over the last two decades, how conservative activists hatched this strategy in the 1960s only to see it really come of age during the Reagan revolution and the successive Republican administrations. Combining a scholar's sense of history with the immediacy of eyewitness testimony, Right Wing Justice will come not only as a sobering reading to many concerned Americans—but also as a call to wake-up.
Average customer rating:
|
Two States--One Nation?
Gunter Grass
Manufacturer: Harvest Books
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
General
| World
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Germany
| Europe
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 0156920603 |
Book Description
As the Berlin Wall crumbled and the two Germanys became one, Grass was one of a few who spoke out against reunification. In this collection of speeches and debates on the factors destined to reshape Europe, he is caustic, indignant, reflective, and compelling. Translated by Krishna Winston with A. S. Wensinger. A Helen and Kurt Wolff Book
Average customer rating:
|
Nations Divided: America, Italy, and the Southern Question
Don Harrison Doyle
Manufacturer: University of Georgia Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
United States
| Americas
| History
| Subjects
| Books
| 19th Century
| 20th Century
| 21st Century
| African Americans
| Civil War
| Colonial Period
| General
| Revolution & Founding
| State & Local
General
| England
| Europe
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Italy
| Europe
| History
| Subjects
| Books
Cultural
| Anthropology
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Sociology
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Nationalism
| Movements
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Nationalism
| Political Doctrines
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 0820323306 |
Book Description
In Nations Divided, Don H. Doyle looks at some unexpected parallels in American and Italian history. What we learn will reattune us to the complexities and ironies of nationalism. During his travels around southern Italy not long ago, Doyle was caught off guard by frequent images of the Confederate battle flag. The flag could also be seen, he was told, waving in the stands at soccer matches. At the same time, a political movement in northern Italy called for secession from the South. A historian with a special interest in the long troubled relationship between the American South and the United States, Doyle was driven to understand the forces that unite and divide nations from within.
The Italian South had been at odds with the more prosperous, metropolitan North of Italy since the country's bloody unification struggles in the 1860s. Thousands of miles from Doyle's Tennessee home was an eerily familiar scenario: a South characterized in terms of its many perceived problems by a North eager to define national ideals against the southern "other." From this abruptly decentered perspective, Doyle reexamines both countries' struggle to create an independent, unified nation and the ongoing effort to instill national identity in their diverse populace. The Fourth of July and Statuto Day; Lincoln and Garibaldi; the Confederate States of America and the secessionist dreams of Italy's Northern League; NAFTA and the European Union--such topics appear in telling juxtaposition, both inviting and defying easy conclusions. At the same time, Doyle negotiates the conceptual slipperiness of nationalism by discussing it as both constructed and real, unifying and divisive, inspiration for good and excuse for atrocity.
"Americans like to think of themselves as being innocent of the vicious ethnic warfare that has raged in the Old World and over so much of the globe," writes Doyle. "Europeans, in turn, enjoy reminding Americans of how little history they have." This enlightening, challenging meditation shows us that Europeans and Americans have much to learn from the common history of nationalism that has shaped both their worlds.
Book Description
This volume is produced from digital images created through the University of Michigan University LibraryÕs preservation reformatting program.
Amazon.com
"What European country ruled the 13 original American colonies?" "Is Oregon's chief industry based on timber or coal?" "Did George Washington Carver discover important new uses for apples, peanuts or potatoes?" Brain Quest, the remarkable series of educational quiz cards, says, "It's o.k. to be smart!" In this two-deck, 850-question game, kids age 9 and older are challenged on their knowledge of America. Each card (they're attached so they fan out on a hinge) is divided into six categories: Famous Americans, From Sea to Sea, Law of the Land, Words & Music, Turning Points, and Here & There. Participants can play any number of ways--with a partner, in teams, by themselves, keeping score or not, choosing a favorite category, or playing the whole card. The questions are challenging--yet shouldn't be over the heads of most young participants. Here is the perfect antidote to a long car trip or a boring Sunday afternoon. And for younger or older siblings, math whizzes, geography geniuses, history buffs, or pretty much anyone with a thinking cap on, there's a Brain Quest out there for you, too. (Ages 9 and older) --Emilie Coulter
Book Description
Introducing the newest title in the bestselling educational series that has over 20 million copies in print: Combining the curriculum-based subject matter of traditional Brain Quest with the take-it-anywhere fun attitude of Brain Quest for the Car, BRAIN QUEST AMERICA presents 850 questions and answers all about the U.S.A.
Meant for kids ages 9 and up, AMERICA inspires and informs about all aspects of American history, culture, milestones, ingenuity, and spirit. The two decks are broken down into six categories, including Famous Americans: What leader was "first in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen"? and whom does this describe: She led so many slaves to freedom that her people called her "Moses." What was her real name? From Sea to Sea: Name the only state whose capital city is located on the Mississippi River. Turning Points: What war broke out after the U.S. battleship Maine blew up during a visit to Cuba? Words & Music: Can you name the most famous whale in American literature? Law of the Land: What do we call the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution? Plus a Here & There grab bag: Do even-numbered U.S. interstate highways run east-west or north-south?
With its smart and appealing historical collage cover, America is the perfect extra for schools and a natural for families, whether at home or on the road. As the Chicago Tribune writes: "There's a game out there that doesn't need batteries-it runs on brain power. It's called Brain Quest and it proves that being smart can also be fun."
Books:
- Windows on the World Economy with Economic Applications
- "Yes" or "No": The Guide to Better Decisions
- A Game as Old as Empire: The Secret World of Economic Hit Men and the Web of Global Corruption (BK Currents)
- Action Coaching: How to Leverage Individual Performance for Company Success
- Active Portfolio Management: A Quantitative Approach for Producing Superior Returns and Controlling Risk
- America's Financial Apocalypse: How to Profit from the Next Great Depression
- Applied Regression Analysis: A Second Course in Business and Economic Statistics (with CD-ROM and InfoTrac®) (Applied Regression Analysis: A Second Course in Business & Economic)
- Bitter is the New Black : Confessions of a Condescending, Egomaniacal, Self-Centered Smartass,Or, Why You Should Never Carry A Prada Bag to the Unemployment Office
- Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management
- Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New Consumer Culture
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- Savage Kingdom: The True Story of Jamestown, 1607, and the Settlement of America
- History: Fiction or Science
- Blood Substitutes: New Challenges
- Felice Varini: Point of View
- Galapagos: The Islands That Changed the World
- Leadership By Encouragement
- Hot Target: A Novel
- Looking Around: A Journey Through Architecture
- Color, Environment, & Human Response
- Complete Book of Southern African Mammals
John Marshall: Definer of a Nation
Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers
John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court (Southern Biography Series)
The Great Chief Justice: John Marshall and the Rule of Law (American Political Thought)
The Other Founders: Anti-Federalism and the Dissenting Tradition in America, 1788-1828 (Omohundro Institute of Early American History & Culture)
