Linear and Nonlinear Rotordynamics: A Modern Treatment with Applications (Wiley Series in Nonlinear Science)

Book Description

Broad coverage of rotordynamics with an emphasis on understanding and solving vibration problems
Rotating parts are among the most common elements in modern mechanical systems and often become the main source of problematic vibrations in machinery. This volume offers wide-ranging coverage of fundamental rotordynamics in order to provide engineers with the necessary knowledge to eliminate various vibration problems. Authors Yamamoto and Ishida provide classification of rotating shaft systems and general coverage of key ideas common to all branches of rotordynamics, such as critical speed, gyroscopic movement, whirling motion, and frequency diagrams. They also provide state-of-the art analysis of dynamical problems not treated in most other books on the subject, such as nonlinear rotordynamics, self-excited vibration, nonstationary vibration, and flow-induced oscillations. Nonlinear resonances are discussed in detail, as well as methods for shaft stability and various theoretical derivations and computational methods for analyzing rotors to determine and correct vibrations. Linear and Nonlinear Rotordynamics is a professional engineer's complete resource for dealing with vibration in rotordynamical systems.

Book Description

Self-published in 1899 and sold door-to-door by the author, this classic African-American novel—a gripping exploration of oppression, miscegenation, exploitation, and black empowerment—was a major bestseller in its day. The dramatic story of a conciliatory black man and a mulatto nationalist who grow up in a racist America and are driven to join a radical movement dedicated to the creation of an all-black nation in Texas, Imperium in Imperio had a profound influence on the development of black nationalism.

States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876 (American Political Thought)

Average customer rating:

Best read after bios of Washington through JQA
Did States Rights' die with Antebellum America?
States' Rights...then and today
States' Rights & the Union: Imperium in Imperio 1776-1876
Useful, educational history with minor flaws

States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876 (American Political Thought)
Forrest McDonald
Manufacturer: University Press of Kansas
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

General | Americas | History | Subjects | Books

General | Constitutional Law | Law | Subjects | Books

General | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

History & Theory | Politics | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

ASIN: 0700612270

Book Description

Forrest McDonald has long been recognized as one of our most respected and provocative intellectual historians. With this new book, he once again delivers an illuminating meditation on a major theme in American history and politics.

Elegantly and accessibly written for a broad readership, McDonald's book provides an insightful look at states' rights--an issue that continues to stir debate nationwide. From constitutional scholars to Supreme Court justices to an electorate that's grown increasingly wary of federal power, the concept of states' rights has become a touchstone for a host of political and legal controversies. But, as McDonald shows, that concept has deep roots that need to be examined if we're to understand its implications for current and future debates.

McDonald's study revolves around the concept of imperium in imperio--literally "sovereignty within sovereignty" or the division of power within a single jurisdiction. With this broad principle in hand, he traces the states' rights idea from the Declaration of Independence to the end of Reconstruction and illuminates the constitutional, political, and economic contexts in which it evolved.

Although the Constitution, McDonald shows, gave the central government expansive powers, it also legitimated the doctrine of states' rights. The result was an uneasy tension and uncertainty about the nature of the central government's relationship to the states. At times the issue bubbled silently and unseen beneath the surface of public awareness, but at other times it exploded.

McDonald follows this episodic rise and fall of federal-state relations from the Hamilton-Jefferson rivalry to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, New England's resistance to Jefferson's foreign policy and the War of 1812, the Nullification Controversy, Andrew Jackson's war against the Bank of the United States, and finally the vitriolic public debates that led to secession and civil war. Other scholars have touched upon these events individually, but McDonald is the first to integrate all of them from the perspective of states' rights into one synthetic and magisterial vision.

The result is another brilliant study from a masterful historian writing on a subject of great import for Americans.

This book is part of the American Political Thought series.

Customer Reviews:

Best read after bios of Washington through JQA.......2005-02-14

The other reviews have fairly well covered the ground, save for the notion that the more background you bring to this book, the more sense it makes. I had just finished bios of Washington and JQA when I undertook this, thank heavens. The "meandering" criticism is, I think, misplaced. The author is simply trying to ball up the strings of attitudes, attitudes which shifted as quickly as regional economic interests.

The reviewer who asserts the book is a lightening rod for one's own opinions has a point. The past few generations have grown up with the notion that the federal government is "She who must be obeyed" (with apologies to Rumpole). But it ain't necessarily so, were it not for the fact that the feds have the guns and tanks and, as Nixon and Bush 43 have demonstrated, the willingness to use them on our own people. (Don't get edgy about Bush43 -- absolutely not in the same league with Kent State. B43 has merely run roughshod over the civil rights of all Americans in the name of protecting me from terrorism).

It had been unimaginable to me that the states would ever consider they need not obey federal law. Nor did my American History classes cause me to realize that various state factions have seriously courted secession many times. Once again, "A little learning is a dangerous thing," A. Pope. Are we about to swing back towards greater states' rights? I don't know. Certainly the current administration prefers an Imperial Presidency, but the SCt may, indeed, move towards a more balanced situation.

As the reviewers have implied, McDonald leaves one with the notion that the founding fathers had no consensus about how much power belonged where. I do not subscribe to the view that constitutional tensions were left present because our forebearers were prescient. Rather, their generation, like ours, had a wide diversity of viewpoints. As has happened many times with many laws, ambiguity has allowed for agreement, after which legislators could move on to something else.

There are no simple solutions, nor have there ever been. Politicians, from revolutionary to the current batch, pushing simplistic solutions have, when successful, succeeded in driving a wedge between regions. After reading this book, I am astonished that the US has not torn itself asunder. Little wonder the 18th century Brits did not expect the US to survive as a nation.

Did States Rights' die with Antebellum America?.......2004-08-01

~States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876~ is perhaps one of the best new contributions to the study of American constitutional history in recent years. Most history books portray the nature of sovereignty within the American body politic as being well-settled after 1787. In their mind, it was settled that the U.S. was to have a strong central government. This is reductionism at its best and history at its worst. The essence of a true federal regime has always been a diffusion of powers and a dual sovereignty, not a centralized unitary polity like France or the United Kingdom. The framers of the Constitution deliberatedly contemplated a general government with expressly enumerated powers. The contest over States Rights and the Union was almost inevitable, as the American polity was framed with an ingrained contradiction of dual sovereignty that was anathema to European conceptions of sovereignty. McDonald's book is fittingly subtitled Imperium in Imperio, which literally delineates supreme sovereignty within supreme sovereignty. Likewise, the Calvinist notion of man's innate depravity was more readily acceptable to framers who were weary and mistrustful of concentrated power. It was the springboard for fortifying Anglo-American traditions of bicameral legislatures, common law protections for the individual and adding more checks and balances. The framers rejected whimsical views about man's good nature espoused by Rousseau. "Free government is founded in jealousy," avowed Thomas Jefferson, "and not in confidence. It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power..." Much to the chagrin of modern liberals, the crux of the American polity was the nature of its dual sovereignty coupled with its corporate liberty (i.e. institutions jealously guarding their prerogatives,) not its popular representation.

Forrest McDonald chronicles the political and constitutional history of the American polity in its first century from the time of the Constitutional Convention where the states in convention assented to the formation of the Union. All of the pivotal debates about the nature of the Union are addressed. McDonald pays special attention to contests that reached a groundswell during the administrations of Jefferson and Monroe over federal appropriations for internal improvements. The ensuing Congressional fights over the Bank of the United States, internal improvements, and tariffs would deepen the vexing question over the nature of sovereignty. James Madison brilliantly asserted that the Constitution gives the general government explicit "enumerated objects" of power, and Article I, Section 8 empowers Congress to finance "post roads," though no mention is made for subsidies to railroads or building canals. The original secessionist movement was lead by New England Federalists ironically, and McDonald chronicles the saga of the Hartford Convention. The High Federalists opposed the Louisiana Purchase, because it expanded the states and they argued that while the territory could be expanded that no new states should be added. Jefferson had serious reservations about the legality of the purchase in the absence of Constitutional Amendment, but found the deal too good to pass up. The controversies leading up to the War Between the States and southern secession are discussed. Moreover, the actions of the Supreme Court in shaping the debate over States' Rights and the Union are the subject of constant discussion for McDonald. Ultimately, the Clay-Webster-Lincoln conception of the Union would work to steadily supplant the conservative Madison-Calhoun-Hayne conception of the Union. The dictatorial Lincoln regime and Reconstruction regime could only serve to set the precedent for the New Deal exploits of FDR.

States' Rights is considered an archaic concept now and is often demeaned as a mere buzzword for segregationists. Nonetheless states' rights remains a monumental pillar of the American Republic that needs to be rediscovered and not forgotten. Madison's point is simple, the federal government has expressed powers and limitations, and if there are no limitations on what that government may do than the Tenth Amendment is turned on its nose and a relic of the horse and buggy era. Modern neoconservatives seem only to argue for a renewed commitment to federalism by shifting some powers back to the states on utilitarian grounds of efficiency rather than on constitutional grounds. If you like McDonald, I think books such as _Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom_ and _The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War_ are also worth considering. McDonald is more of a constitutional storyteller who withholds judgment; those books previously, however, tell it like it is.

States' Rights...then and today.......2003-06-09

Among their many failings, U.S. history textbooks have often portrayed national sovereignty as a largely settled question following the revolutionary war, which was resurrected years later by southern states who wanted to hold slaves. What University of Alabama Professor Forrest McDonald shows in "States' Rights and the Union", is that states' rights infused the national debate of most issues in the first 100 years of the republic.

One of those issues on which McDonald provides a particularly interesting read is the issue of "internal improvements" (modern-day supporters call them "earmarks"; detractors "pork-barrel projects"). What has become commonplace today was once looked at as an unconstitutional extension of federal power. As part of the ongoing debate, McDonald chronicles the 1825 passage of a resolution by the South Carolina legislature which condemned "the taxing of the citizens in one state 'to make roads and canals for the citizens of another state.' Virginia adopted a similar resolution early in 1827, as did Georgia late in the year." Where would today's politicians be if they couldn't deliver for their constituents road and canals? (and bridges and buildings and museums and subsidies).

The book is filled with Supreme Court cases, which serves to reinforce McDonald's contention of the Court's centrality in the states' rights debate. Although today the Supreme Court is looked at with an almost sacred awe, it wasn't always that way. Indeed, McDonald notes in the epilogue that it was with the dismissal of 20th century southern segregationist laws that "the Supreme Court gained an enormous fund of moral capital in the rest of the country" which it used to consolidate its power. But due to the constant shuffle of Supreme Court Justices, the Court has been a sometime friend and othertime foe of states' rights.

The jackets says the book was "written in an accessible style", but demands some familiarity with U.S. History (which should disqualify about 75 percent of the American public). However, what McDonald has done is to write a consistent narrative of one of the most important and unique features of American democracy. Although the narrative ends in 1876, it is instructive background for many current debates in U.S. politics and the epilogue sets the stage for a much-needed sequel. In light of the extensive research McDonald put into the first 100 years of the states' rights debate, it would be fascinating to see him focus that same energy on the last 125, and especially the Rhenquist court.

States' Rights & the Union: Imperium in Imperio 1776-1876.......2002-09-28

States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio 1776-1876 written by Forrest McDonald is a very illuminating work on the vexing theme of States' Rights vs Union, a theme in American history and politics that has and will continue to elicite debate.

Forrest McDonald works both sides of the debate in this book and you'll find yourself straddling the fence here, wary of federal power or states' rights, as the Constitution gave the central government expansive powers, but it also legitimated the doctrine of states' rights, resulting in dual-sovereignty or as McDonald says, Imperium in Imperio, (sovereignty within sovereignty, supreme power within supreme power), or the division of power within a single jurisdiction. This inherent tension and uncertainty was, I think, intentionally written into the constitution to keep both sides honest. This debate seems to always keep the pot hot, only occasionally boiling over into contention.

McDonald has a pleasenly elegant narrative that is easily readable giving an insightful look at the delicate balance of dual-sovereignty. Taking us from the Federalist Era through the Jeffersonians to finally the Civil War and Reconstruction all the while giving the reader insight to the various positions each serving a purpose as authority between general and local seemed to sway in one direction or another, only to be upset anew and to move back toward the opposite position, but the contention never went away. The division of sovereignty was generally regarded as impossible, but only in America where political thinking underwent a fundamental transformation, bringing unparalleled and unprecedented constitution-making, and only until Americans devised a way of doing it, did it happen.

The Constitution did give the general government broad powers within a limited sphere and thereby institutionalized a system of divided sovereignty. Reading and understanding this book you'll find that you'll side and reside yourself as the debate goes on, from the states' righters as John Taylor and John Randolph argue the definition of tyranny is the concentration of power in some remote center, but the opposite side John Quincy Adams and Nicholas Biddle ardently argue for vigorous action at the center was vital if the nation was to fulfill its promise and its destiny among the family of nations.

This is a well balanced work of enlightenment for each position making point and counter-point and is well documented. This is a worthy read for those wanting to broaden their knowledge of why things are as they are in the United States... according to their Constitution, a form of government that empowers its people above all.

Useful, educational history with minor flaws.......2002-06-02

This book would be of interest if only for the fact that it serves as a lightening rod for the reader's preconceptions on the issues surrounding States' Rights. Read the reviews below and note that some of the reviewers tend to regard McDonald as an advocate for the States and some read him as an advocate for the Feds.
Readers will tend to find in this book evidence to support their own views. That should suggest that McDonald has succeeded in giving us a fairly objective history of the issue. I feel he has. Sort of.
The first part of the book does seem to meander. That is the nature of the beast. I have never read any comprehensive history of constitutional history that does not meander. Many different issues were argued during the first sixty years or so of our constitutional history using States Rights on one side or the other. I think you would be very hard pressed to name one major national figure in that time frame who did not argue both sides of the debate at different times in their lives or in regards to different issues. Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, Jackson, Webster, Clay and Calhoun all are associated with one side or another on the issue yet all at some point in their careers argued the other side.
Individual states showed their flexibility on these issues as well. In the chapter on the period immediately preceding the Civil War, 'Dissolving the Union', McDonald notes that the North began to preach nullification while Southerners began to praise the Court.
The latter part of the book probably seems more focused because the issues were more focused and the positions of the players more dogmatic.
I suspect that most of us still find ourselves on both sides of the debate depending on which issue we are discussing. As an Oregonian, I have been annoyed recently by the Federal government trying to contravene the wishes of the people of my State in regards to the Death with Dignity Act. On many other issues, I have supported that same Federal government when it interfered with the laws of individual States, e.g., in the case of laws nationalizing voting rights. Now, before, y'all jump all over me for inconsistency, ask yourself in you are not in the same boat. And while you are at it, ask yourself if most political issues do not involve making a decision on more than one constitutional issue. And whether how much of a role that States' Rights play in our reaction to an issue depends on our feelings about the other constitutional issues involved.
Consider that the political and economic issues debated in this country have always had that type of complexity and I believe it will be clear why McDonald's history is not a nice flowing narrative.
While I think McDonald's history is useful, I find myself questioning some of his judgments. I think he has a tendency to make statements that are not supported by evidence. On p. 120 McDonald claims, 'Jackson brought such disrepute to his office that that vital function of the presidency could scarcely be performed again for the remainder of the century'. This strikes me as a wee bit of an overstatement.
I also find his handling of certain events to be questionable, e.g., the notorious caning of Charles Sumner by Preston Brooks. McDonald seems to feel that Sumner was malingering. Maybe. Maybe I would feel like malingering too if struck repeatedly on the head with a gutta-percha cane. In any case, I remain a little skeptical about McDonald as pure historian. But don't take my word for it. I am just some schmuck who reads a lot. Read one of his books and decide for yourself.
If the issue of the relative power of the States vis-a-vis the Federal government is of interest to you then this is a useful book. If you have a strong opinion you will find additional support for either side within these pages. If your opinion on these issues is unclear, this book should be of use in sorting out some of your ideas simply by the way you find yourself reacting to the various arguments.
One final note- in evaluating what happened to the South after the Civil War, it is important to also keep in mind the monumental and systematic terrorism that was unleashed on black people during this time. The reaction of Southerners to Reconstruction is probably the strongest argument for federal intervention in the political lives of the states. The protection of minorities from the majority was one of the main reasons Madison and others pushed for the writing and ratification of the Constitution. Which minority is the focus of that protection at whatever historical moment is one of the story lines of our constitutional history. It is altogether too easy to forget this when reading a book like this one. I cannot recommend highly enough Eric Foner's great book on Reconstruction as a general background to reading about the era.

Global Triage, An Imperium In Imperio: A Nietzschean History of a Future

Average customer rating:

A Shelf of Its Own
Imperium, Postmodernism, Darn.
Craig Hulet: Urban Guide
Facinating, challanging
A Crucial Voice

Global Triage, An Imperium In Imperio: A Nietzschean History of a Future
Craig B. Hulet
Manufacturer: The Artful Nuance
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
ASIN: 0967788617

Book Description

As a sequel to "Human, All-Too-Human Hulet", Global Triage can be explained with it's subtitle "A Nietzschean History of the Future": aphorisms and poetry combine with a collection of thoughtful short essay-like aphorisms under the heading of "A New Theory Of State" regarding the process of globalization. This section has already made many predictions about the future of the corporate state which evolved with some accuracy.

Customer Reviews:

A Shelf of Its Own.......2000-04-12

It's usually pretty easy to decide whether a book belongs in the philosophy section, at the reference desk, toward the psychology materials, or with the political books. This one deserves a shelf of its own. A collection of mostly aphorisms and poetry, Global Triage embodies characteristics of history's finest thinkers.

Reflections on war, religion, love, and mankind, for instance, convey the introspective discipline of Montaigne. Observations on American-led political institutions and culture evoke the perspicacious effort of Tocqueville. But, as the title suggests, the book's honest, autobiographical style may compare best with that of Nietzsche. Indeed, this deeply personal work exemplifies artistic expression perhaps attainable only by rigorous practice of those principles taught and practiced by the German philosopher.

Readers of this book ought to be thankful that Mr. Hulet bothered not only to write it, but to make it available. The work is a coup de maitre.

Imperium, Postmodernism, Darn........2000-01-13

If you look for thinking beyond trashy talk radio, corporate news, and the disease of our culture, this book is for you. After exposing the hypocrisy of the various factions that constitute our non-culture and a political apparatus that would make a general systems theorist drool, Mr. Hulet spende a large portion of the book laying out the broad outlines of the future that a corporate empire will wield on its all too deserving populace, every selfish consumer merely a cog in the wheel.. The idea of true freedom and capacity to stand alone to figure things out for oneself are shown to be vanishing traits, replaced by every possible diversion and expressions of self in things that don't matter, like your shoes, or bungie jumping or whatever else. Of special importance is his analysis of the establishment progressive left, which feigns opposition to all that is going on yet (knowingly?) plays into the hands of the further concentration of governmental power. Example: what is the purpose of complete gun control under a government that the left often declares to be "fascist"? Hmmm. The structure of the evolving global economic regime, known to the masses as George Bush's New World Order, is laid out with some of the primary power consolidation groupings explained. It appears to be more of a momentous, managed organic process than any so called conspiracy, which is considered to be a lazy person's excuse to think about a difficult subject. The poetry at the end of the book contains a few real nuggets. There is some personal poetry about life and nature which is really nice. I heartily recommend hearing an oral presentation of "Triage" and "The Beast" done back to back by a friend or other whilst you peer out the window at the urban landscape and polish off a bottle of good wine. The spirit of the future will come wafting in the window and scare the dickens out of you. A real alarm clock for ubermenschers.

Craig Hulet: Urban Guide.......2000-01-13

Like his first book, 'Human, All Too Human,' 'Global Triage' is a bold and courageous statement by Craig Hulet. His work requires a level of maturity which embodies honesty, self-criticalness, and humor. Absent of condescension, Hulet's words resonate with the integrity of a philosopher who embraces his duty to be honest with his fellow citizens. Through aphoristic writing, Hulet exposes the deeply embedded problems within the American culture from which he comes. Yet his critical eye and concise words do not manipulate the reader's opinions into agreement, but rather serve as a catalyst for debate and introspection. He is an urban guide who points out the quirks, details, and intricacies of American society which, when exposed, ignites critical observation on the part of the reader.

Facinating, challanging.......2000-01-13

Mr. Hulet is a harsh critic of america and deftly observes the decay and disintegration of this culture.In aphoristic style describing how things are not how they should be. If you're looking for political correctness or for a particular advocacy, you won't find it here. If you're easily insulted and find critical thinking hurts your brain come on in, this books for you! The author's trenchant social analysis is concise and devastatingly accurate. He pulls no punches and no sacred cows are spared, kudos to him for kicking our collective butts. I found this book provocative, prescient and it insists readers engage in self-examination, as individuals and as a country, of our values and philosophy without pretext, lies, propaganda or vitriol. Surely, these views will be unpopular with some, but accurate. Conservatives and liberals alike will find much in these pages to incite them to apoplexy, for this I applaud Mr. Hulet, if I am correct and both liberals and conservatives seek to drive a stake through Mr. Hulets heart then he has done his job,the ability to infuriate all the demagogues means you're on the right track. Well done Mr. Hulet, Well done!

A Crucial Voice.......2000-01-12

Craig Hulet's Global Triage unleashes a crucial voice and perspective on our modern world. This incisive commentary is unsparing and unwavering in its committment to truth. Hulet captures this exact moment- a time like no other- and articulates its profound nature. He clearly demonstrates why ours is such a unique time, that we are poised at the edge of a completely different world order. He describes a world of economic interdependence driven by the greed and selfishness by those at the top that serve to benefit but also stresses that these individuals win because of the lack of vigilance of a disinterested American public who has taken democracy for granted. He holds a mirror to us- a stark, unsparing one to be sure- but one that resonates deeply because it is so clear that Hulet has first of all used that mirror on himself. His simultaneous examination of himself and the world around him proves that the inner and outer worlds are not mutually exclusive. But far from being a new-agey, navel-gazing self-help tract combined with the usual agenda-based, naive political ramblings, Hulet's take is, as the title of the book suggests, thoroughly Nietzchean. Hulet is willing to throw himself against the wall repeatedly to deliver a cold-eyed, direct view of our current political and cultural situation. The inspiring thing about reading this book, as difficult as it may be to face some of the facts and truths, is that it is so clear that Hulet cares about this country and this world and the true victims of it. He places the ordinary American at blame as much as he does the arrogant elitist. Like Nietzche, he challenges our preconceptions and encourages us to look deeper. Then, after taking us through an olympian joust with the world around and within us, he finishes off with a book of poetry, dealing out similar themes and searing self-examination in impeccable verse. Damn! Highly recommended.

Average customer rating:

Imperium Imperio
Sutton E. Griggs
Manufacturer: Ayer Co Pub
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover

Average customer rating:

Imperium in Imperio
E. Sutton Griggs
Manufacturer: IndyPublish
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Classics | General | Literature & Fiction | Subjects | Books
ASIN: 142804633X

Imperium in Imperio Study of Negro Race Problem: A Novel

Average customer rating:

Imperium in Imperio Study of Negro Race Problem: A Novel
Griggs
Manufacturer: Ayer Co Pub
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
ASIN: 0836985869

IMPERIUM IN IMPERIO. New Preface by Hugh M. Gloster

Average customer rating:

IMPERIUM IN IMPERIO. New Preface by Hugh M. Gloster
Sutton. Griggs
Manufacturer: Arno / New York Times,
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
ASIN: B000RBCORE

Imperium in Imperio: A Study of the Negro Race Problem

Average customer rating:

Imperium in Imperio: A Study of the Negro Race Problem
Sutton E. Griggs
Manufacturer: BiblioBazaar
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback

Contemporary | General | Literature & Fiction | Subjects | Books
ASIN: 1426486626

Book Description

In October of the year 1867 the year in which our story begins a white man by the name of Tiberius Gracchus Leonard had arrived in Winchester and was employed as teacher of the school for colored children.

STATES' RIGHTS AND THE UNION: IMPERIUM IN IMPERIO, 1776-1876.(Review) (book review): An article from: First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life

Average customer rating:

STATES' RIGHTS AND THE UNION: IMPERIUM IN IMPERIO, 1776-1876.(Review) (book review): An article from: First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life
Paul Carrese
Manufacturer: Institute on Religion and Public Life
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Digital

General | Philosophy | Nonfiction | Subjects | Books

Book Description

This digital document is an article from First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life, published by Institute on Religion and Public Life on June 1, 2001. The length of the article is 1914 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Citation Details
Title: STATES' RIGHTS AND THE UNION: IMPERIUM IN IMPERIO, 1776-1876.(Review) (book review)
Author: Paul Carrese
Publication: First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life (Refereed)
Date: June 1, 2001
Publisher: Institute on Religion and Public Life
Page: 55

Article Type: Book Review

Distributed by Thomson Gale

States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876.: An article from: Journal of Southern History

Average customer rating:

States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876.: An article from: Journal of Southern History
Jack N. Rakove
Manufacturer: Southern Historical Association
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Digital
ASIN: B0008FBNHG
Release Date: 2005-07-30

Book Description

This digital document is an article from Journal of Southern History, published by Southern Historical Association on May 1, 2002. The length of the article is 809 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

Citation Details
Title: States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876.
Author: Jack N. Rakove
Publication: Journal of Southern History (Refereed)
Date: May 1, 2002
Publisher: Southern Historical Association
Volume: 68 Issue: 2 Page: 438(3)

Article Type: Book Review

Distributed by Thomson Gale

Books:

Books Index

Books Home

Recommended Books