American History

damn lies, and not even statistics. fabrications and revisions. if it’s truth you seek, seek it elsewhere.

tlt-
Rating: 1 / 5

“…the historian’s duty is to understand, not simply condemn” (p. 590).

“This book tells a story; it does not argue a thesis” (p. 849)

These boasts apparently signify Daniel Walker Howe’s understanding of his “duty” and his book “What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848.”

They are also an unmistakable sign that Howe is delusional not only about American history, but also about himself and his work.

This work, which is so awful and so offensive that it is beyond my ability to express it in words, is about 850 pages of this so-called historian simply condemning ante-bellum America on his thesis that its actions and policies were comprehensively, exclusively motivated by racism and imperialism, resulting in evil and genocide.

Perhaps the most obnoxious aspect of all is Howe’s persistence in referring to American leaders including James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, W.H. Harrison, James K. Polk, as “white supremacists” and their policies as “white supremacy” – why not just go ahead and call them “skinheads” or “Nazis” while you are at it? The use of this terminology is anachronistic and puerile – what one would expect from an excitable collegiate term paper, not from the work of a Professor Emeritus (although, I guess, today there is little to distinguish them).

This book is not history; it is an amalgamation of distorted facts and extremely selective references constructed to support the author’s antipathy toward America’s past. To anyone thinking, this book is not so much of a damning indictment of our past as our present universities and educators.

There are, of recent vintage, much more balanced and informative histories of America during this extremely interesting period (“Waking Giant”, “Throes of Democracy”) and biographies of Jackson and Polk, among other. On the other hand, if you are someone titillated by reading words that tell you that America is a fundamentally racist, oppressive – even genocidal – force of history, then, this is your book.

Rating: 1 / 5

When James K. Polk became president in 1845 he had a secret agenda: The acquisition of a large part of Mexico, including present-day California with its abundant natural resources and strategic location. Mexico would never part with the land willingly, and public opinion would not support naked aggression. So Polk ordered troops into the disputed border area between Texas and Mexico, hoping to bait the Mexicans into attacking. When they did, he used the supposed threat to American security to demand a declaration of war. The opposition Whigs, and many of Polk’s own Democrats, had no interest in fighting a war to that would interfere with their domestic priorities. But, feeling honor-bound to support the troops in the face of enemy aggression, they reluctantly went along with the President.

Polk expected the war to be over in a few months; he had secretly negotiated a deal to help former Mexican dictator, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, return to power in exchange for Santa Anna’s promise to negotiate a peace treaty ceding California. But after Polk gave Santa Anna money and allowed him to slip through an American naval blockade, Santa Anna doublecrossed Polk, and rallied his countrymen to battle the invading gringos. News of the deal leaked out, undermining Polk’s claims that he sought no new territory and that Mexico had been the aggressor. The fighting dragged on for nearly two years, as the hostile climate and the natives’ determination not to yield to the invaders neutralized the Americans’ financial strength and technological superiority. The war proved unpopular outside of the deep South, and cost the Democrats control of Congress. Ultimately, Polk was able to bludgeon a crumbling Mexican government into a treaty giving the U.S. the territory Polk desired – which Polk justified as an “indemnity” owed by Mexico for starting the war. The legacy of Polk’s war? More than 12,000 American lives lost; and the re-ignition of the battle over the extension of slavery.

I knew none of these details about our war with Mexico before reading “What Hath God Wrought, Daniel Howe’s new history of the U.S. between 1815 and 1848. Howe frequently made me aware of parallels between the events of that time and those of today. In the case of Polk’s Mexican escapade, I was struck by the similarities with the way in which we became embroiled in our current war with Iraq: the belief that military superiority will overcome any obstacles; a president’s willingness to distort the truth to justify the use of force; an arrogance that allowed the U.S. to be manipulated by a foreign dictator; and a Congress too concerned about appearing patriotic to stand up to the executive branch. Why is it, I wondered, that no one ever mentioned these similarities as we bumbled our way into war with Iraq? According to Howe, the war with Mexico was “conveniently forgotten” because “Americans preferred to believe that their national expansion occurred automatically, as the fulfillment of an inevitable and plainly manifest destiny.”

Howe uses 855 pages to depict the development of the United States between 1815 and 1848. His narrative alternates between social trends and events, such as the rise of Evangelical Christianity, The persecution of Mormons and Catholics, and the history of the era’s numerous various utopian movements, and economic developments, such as opening of the Erie Canal, the coming the telegraph and railroads, and the transformation of the South – and of slavery – by the rise of cotton. Each stands as a fascinating story in itself, and Howe weaves them together in his narrative of political events, such as Andrew Jackson’s rise to the presidency, and the bitter disputes over government funding for infrastructure, the removal of Indians from the Southeast, and the future of slavery.

For example, Howe maintains that the communications and transportation “revolutions” were more responsible for the spread of the participatory democracy that carried Andrew Jackson to the White House than was the liberalization of qualifications for voting. The era saw an explosion in the number of newspapers, spurred by improvements in printing technology, and by the extraordinary expansion of the postal system. Newspaper, which accounted for the bulk of mail deliveries, were mostly published by political parties or factions – not to make money, but to propagate a point of view. As such, they played a crucial role in creating an informed and involved electorate, as well a key for party organization. These same factors played a key role in the rise of reform groups like the Abolitionists, who greatly expanded their influence through the widespread circulation of books, pamphlets, and newspapers.

Howe’s approach results in a book that successfully conveys a sense of the complex interplay of factors that affected the nation’s development. He also succeeded in making me feel the contrast between the era’s rapid technological and economic progress, and – best exemplified by his telling of the battles over religious intolerance, the treatment of Indians, and slavery – the seemingly glacial pace of our moral progress.

More importantly, as with his history of the Mexican War, he provides us with a valuable perspective on problems, social groups and political institutions that are prominent today. For example, he tells us that Whigs and Democrats, like present-day Republicans and Democrats, battled continuously over whether and how the government should regulate business — particularly the banking system. Then, as now, Democrats were suspicious of corporations in general, and banks in particular, as recipients of special privilege. Andrew Jackson, the great champion of the common man, vetoed a bill to renew the charter of the Bank of the United States, which was the closest thing there was in America to a central bank. Yet he failed to offer a viable alternative; and, in the absence of effective government oversight, banks made progressively riskier loans. Ultimately, the lack of a sound banking system played a key role in magnifying an economic downturn into a multiyear depression.

Howe also allows us to appreciate the ways in which social and political groups change over time. Today, many dismiss Evangelical Christians as social conservatives, who teach creationism and sometimes militantly oppose the performance of abortions. Yet, as Howe explains, in the early 19th century, it was evangelical Christians who created the concept of the reform movement: In addition to promoting temperance, Evangelicals also launched movements supporting literacy, prison reform, and proper care for the mentally ill. Evangelical groups also provided women with their first opportunity to become involved in political and social issues; and a group of radical Christians formed the core the era’s most extreme single-issue activist group – the Abolitionists. In contrast, Howe stresses that the pre-civil war Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson was a bastion of racism.

While the length of the book may seem daunting to many readers, the insights it offers make it worth reading.
Rating: 5 / 5