This week there's a review of Who Cooked Adam Smith's Dinner? (Portobello Books) written by Katrine Marcal and translated by Saskia Vogel in the New Statesman.Lucy Stone: An Unapologetic Life by Sally G. McMillen (Oxford University Press) is reviewed by Janet Napolitano in the Los Angeles Times.
"Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott and Susan B. Anthony are memorialized as leading suffragists in a marble statue in the Rotunda in our nation's Capitol. In this thought-provoking new biography, Sally G. McMillen argues persuasively that one person is missing from that Mt. Rushmore of women: Lucy Stone."Napolitano has another review in The Washington Post, "Higher education isn't in crisis," which reviews two books: Ryan Craig's College Disrupted: The Great Unbundling of Higher Education (Palsgrave) and Kevin Carey's The End of College: Creating the Future of Learning and the University of Everywhere (Riverhead).
Leonard L. Richards's Who Freed the Slaves? The Fight Over the Thirteenth Amendment (University of Chicago Press) is reviewed by the Washington Independent Review of Books.In Salon there is an excerpt, "Religious Ignorance kills kids: How two Richard Nixon aides sneakily altered a law that still costs children's lives," from Bad Faith: When Religious Belief Undermines Modern Medicine (Basic) by Paul Offit.
There's a new issue of Common-Place up online here, with a review of Cornelia H. Dayton and Sharon V. Salinger's Robert Love's Warnings: Searching for Strangers in Colonia Boston (University of Pennsylvania Press).
Barney Frank's memoir, Frank: A Life in Politics From the Great Society to Same-Sex Marriage (Farrar, Straus and Giroux) is reviewed in The Washington Post."Historians have perceived warning, which was distinctive to New England, as an expression of the region's distaste for outsiders and stinginess with relief for the poor. Some scholars have interpreted the concept literally—as physical banishment of those who did not have legal habitancy in the towns from which they were being warned. Other scholars have recognized that warning did not require eviction, but they have nonetheless misunderstood its purpose, presuming that declarations like Love's were intended to inform sojourners that they were not legal inhabitants of the town and therefore could not receive poor relief. Dayton and Salinger, however, expose the limits of these conventional interpretations of warning. New Englanders were no xenophobic penny-pinchers, they argue; on the contrary, the region's warning system was integral to what was arguably the most generous welfare system in the British Empire."
