a nice balance between Cleveland the man and Cleveland the President. Enjoyed it ( )

While Brodsky's biography of Grover Cleveland is an entertaining read, the book is far too partisan to to be credible as a study of his life and presidency. Brodsky's greatest achievement, as a result, is to make it clear why he admires Cleveland, presenting him as a man of great conviction and character. But all too often flaws are spun as virtues, which prevents the sort of nuanced assessment necessary for a proper understanding of Cleveland and his times. ( )

Grover Cleveland by Brodsky. Unfortunately, Cleveland still awaits a great biography. Brodsky does cover Cleveland's life. He covers his meteoric rise from Mayor of Buffalo, to Governor of New York, and on to President of the United States in only three years. The chief issues in his presidency were the silver issue, high tariffs, and labor unrest. In foreign policy he dealt with Hawaii, Cuba, the Monroe Doctrine, and Samoa. Even though he was initially elected as a reformer with the aid of the Mugwumps, Brodsky fails to criticize Cleveland for never fulfilling this promise. When the Haymarket riots occurred in Chicago, he too quickly sided with Big Business. Again, although Brodsky does note this angered Labor, Brodsky does not provide other possible avenues for Cleveland. Could he have worked with both Labor and Big Business or was sending in federal troops to crush Labor really the only way? On the silver issue, Brodsky does describe how Cleveland's silver letter was a courageous act on his part. Also, his signal achievement was the repeal of the silver coinage act. But again Brodsky fails the reader by not explaining why this defeat was economically necessary. In my meager research, I was unable to find that the repeal of the silver act solved the Panic of 1893. Brodsky does show how Cleveland lost the Democratic Party to William Jennings Bryan. Brodsky says unconvincingly Cleveland did not like Theodore Roosevelt because they were different personalities. But perhaps his dislike was because Roosevelt was a Progressive and a Trustbuster which Cleveland was not. Brodsky does describe Cleveland as being just as honest a president as Truman. But Truman had many accomplishments. Cleveland had one major accomplishment -- the defeat of the silver coinage act. His other major act was an attempt to repeal the high tariff act which failed. Thus, Brodsky fails to convince this reader that Cleveland was a more significant president than either Hayes or Arthur even though he had two terms to their one. Cleveland was noteworthy as the only Democratic President Between Woodrow Wilson and James Buchanan. ( )

I thought it was very good biography, with excellent explanation of various economical and political issues Grover Cleveland had to deal with. The author tries to present an objective picture of this remarkable president. His most notable characteristics appeared to be honesty and adherence to principles. But he was also inflexible in adherence to his principles, which hurt him - and country - quite a lot. My issue with this work is how author completely disregards all the presidents between Lincoln and Cleveland, considering them non-entitities at best. I am just an amateur that likes reading about history, but I can't agree with that. For example, author mentioned how Cleveland pursued Civil service reform but completely failed to mention that this reform was initiated by Hayes and continued by Garfield and Chester. ( )

There have been two recent biographies of Cleveland taking the same tack: he was a man and a president who shames the recent incombents of the White House. The other is An Honest President: by H. P. Jeffers. I thought that this one focused a little more on the issues and Jeffers a little more on the person, although it may be simply that having read this second, the historical details made more of an impression. Despite this generalism, Frances Cleveland is more vividly portrayed in this book. Certainly I thought that Brodsky did a better job of explaining the issues, although Jeffers was a bit more readable.

My history courses in school rarely made it past the Civil War in any detail. We once expended an entire WEEK on the 20th century. Consequently, the last half of the 19th is a particularly vague time for me of robber barons, dollar princesses and nonentity presidents in the East, taking a back seat to the Indian Wars in the West. Cleveland to me was the one who's terms weren't consecutive. I am very pleased to have made his acquaintance in these two books.

Both Brodsky and Jeffers use Cleveland's life to bash recent presidents, a tactic which I don't really approve of, although I must admit to chortling in this case. Jeffers primarily goes after Clinton, which does get a bit repetitious. Brodsky is bipartisan in his complaints, although anything of the sort dates the book rapidly. In a few decades, a new edition would need footnotes explaining the peccadillos to which the authors allude. Of course, it could be argued that books become dated anyway. The readers should consider their own taste.

Brodsky certainly thinks highly of Cleveland, but he is not uncritical, even characterizing him as foolish or self-defeating at times. Brodsky includes appendixes on Cleveland's views on Black Americans and Chinese immigrants and visitors. He concludes that by our standards, he doesn't look good in either case. Brodsky thinks that although he was no better than he should be on these subjects, he did at least have a lack of malice and a sense of fair play even towards people he regarded as inferior. I would have liked a bit more about the Native Americans.

Brodsky's style is occasionally a bit quaint, as though he has picked up the speaking and writing patterns of the time. At other times it is informal, as he throws in various maxims. I mean neither to praise or blame here: it's just how he writes.

Reading this has convinced me that the Republican and Democratic parties are more historically consistent than I thought, despite the swings between what is considered to be liberal and what conservative. This isn't necessarily the good news.

The other current biographies that I am aware of are from series on all the presidents.

I am very glad, and somewhat more optimistic for making Cleveland's acquaintance. Of course, now I suppose we need the debunking bio. Still, I find Cleveland well worth learning about, and I am glad to have more history about a period that I understand too little. ( )