perfidy

I'm in the middle of reading Paul Johnson's "A History of the American People" and I feel compelled to share a few thoughts.

I'm very glad I chose to read the end of the book first. Since the book was published during the Clinton years, and covers all of American history to that point, the last few chapters are very helpful in pointing out Johnson's biases. In a nutshell, Nixon gets off incredibly easy, the press gets pilloried, and Clinton is depicted as a randy purple-assed baboon mistakenly elected thanks to Old Man Bush's inability to put a sentence together and let loose to run the corridors of power murdering aides and porking the secretaries. I mean, that's not exactly inaccurate, but Jesus!

That being said, it's refreshing to read a British account of American history.

[update Aug 18] Had to quit on page 300-something. As noted in my comment attached to this review, the questionable assertions piled up, matured into howlers, and finally burst into full adulthood as parallel-universe fantasy. Good writing, though. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming, with annotations.

The British have such a way with grand sweeping narrative! Johnson's writing is clear and intelligent, his insights are [often] pungent, and his sense of drama impeccable. Speaking as someone who has had to actually TEACH US history 1492-1872, it's a readable and accomplished account, [at least to the point when his Whiggish thesis overbears the material. What I mistook for narrative drive eventually proved to be historical determinism]. He does great things with the Puritans, clearly marks out the coming problems of slavery long before the nation is even founded, and deals adroitly with the revolving cast of characters. If John Adams is reduced to a bitter snarling dragon and Jefferson to an absentminded and contradictory polymath, John C. Calhoun's person is filled out far beyond the one dimensionally rabid states-righter that usually makes it into the history books, and Andrew Jackson is handled with flaws intact.

I do wish, however, that Jackson's removal of the Cherokee could have used the words "Trail of Tears" at least once, though. Johnson has a tendency to underplay the perfidy of individuals when it would undercut their heroic qualities. (Ditto with Washington's land speculation in the Ohio Valley, [the doublethink behind the various compromises engineered by Henry Clay]...).

Johnson also tends to minimize the spread of American industry in the antebellum era, and deals with the Second Great Awakening almost a hundred pages before dealing with industry. This is a very misleading mistake. The SGA was intimately tied to the Industrial Revolution and the geographic, social, and demographic changes it caused to the landscape. Not for nothing was Upper New York State was referred to as the "Burned Over District." This is even more puzzling because one of Johnson's major crusades is to illustrate the deep ties that bind the US and its government to Christian religion. He does this a few other places as well, for example by mentioning the "Era of Good Feelings" but not exploring the fact that it was manifestly NOT an era of good feelings at the state and local levels where all the important battles were being fought 1842-1860 [I do need to point out at this juncture that my counter-arguments are not particularly questionable history. Discussing the Second Great Awakening without dicussing the Erie Canal and industrialization would be like discussing World War II without a mention of the Treaty of Versailles or National Socialism. It was at this point in my reading that I began to notice the argument coming apart, which resulted in my putting the book down about a hundred pages later. I mean, look at a Map! Major cities along the Erie canal: Albany, Syracuse, Buffalo, Oswego, Oneonta. Major sites of religious ferment: Albany, Syracuse, Buffalo... you get the picture.]

But in general this is a very good book indeed [through about 1820]. My mind boggles that I managed to make it all the way through graduate school (in history!) without once being asked to read or construct a complete narrative account of US history itself. This is a shocking omission and one that is entirely my fault. Luckily, I'm older now and have time to correct such shortcomings. I feel a little better about things because before starting this book I have accrued a basic understanding of American history soup to nuts (though I prefer a fruit course with port to follow to close a meal, but I digress), and am therefore able to shrug off the most outrageous editorial volleys [and, better yet, know when to quit].

Ahhh...whatever. It's Friday. I'm gonna drive out to the Berkshires and drink mint juleps with my German friend and his wife. Mmmmmm. [Beer did just as well. Mmmmm.... cask ales.....] 

4 fresh Mint sprigs
2 1/2 oz Bourbon
1 tsp Powdered sugar
2 tsp Water