Best Source for Publications that Correctly Explain American History?

Status
Not open for further replies.

guitartguy

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
20
Location
American Redoubt
I have a strong desire to be equipped to accurately educate my daughter ( who will turn 1 year old this week) about American History and the real philosophy of the founders. There seems to be so much revisionist writing out there, that I feel I need to be grounded in "who did what" "why they did it" and most importantly "who they were as people?" and what principles did they live by and adhere to that governed their reasoning.

Are there particaular writers that are reccomended and at the same time are there particular writers/publishers to avoid?

Thanks for your help and Happy New Year.
 
Hoo boy.

For who did what, I would start by reading "Patriots: The Men Who Started the American Revoloution" by A.J. Langguth. Available from Amazon.

"John Adams" and "1776" by David McCullough, for people and personalites.

"Common Sense" by Thomas Paine is gauranteed to get you P.O.'ed at George lll.

All available from Amazon; they would provide a pretty good grounding.

American Heritage Magazine is lots of fun and always a good read.
http://www.americanheritage.com/

That should hold ya for a while,
Happy New Year and welcome to the forum,

Jeff
 
The Passion of the Western Mind:
Understanding the Ideas that Have Shaped Our World View

by Richard Tarnas.

Not specifically "American" history per se,
but the context within which "America" emerged,
and the ideas which influenced "American" history.

IMO, any version of "American" history is
best understood from within the context that Tarnas describes.

I don't like (in fact, strongly dislike) some of his other interests :barf: ,
but find his description of western history compelling.

YMMV.
 
A heavy read that goes beyond the cliff notes version by going directly to
the original docs of the time:

"The Spirit of Seventy-Six" (edited by Commager and Morris)

Has a lot of complete letters from the Founders. Here are a few very short
examples:

John Adams to Patrick Henry

Philadelphia, June 3, 1776

My Dear Sir,
...The dons, the bashaws, the grandees, the patricians, the sachems, the
nabobs, call them by what names you please, sigh and groan and fret, and
sometimes stamp and foam and curse, but all in vain. The decree is gone
forth, and it cannot be recalled, that a more equal liberty than has prevailed
in other parts of the earth must be established in America. The exuberance
of pride which has produced an insolent domination in a few, a very few,
opulent, monopolizing families, will be brought down nearer to the confines
of reason and moderation than they have been used to. This is all the
evil which they themselves will endure. It will do them good in this world,
and in every other. For pride was not made for man, only as a tormentor.

------------------------

George Washington to Joseph Reed

December 12, 1778

It gives me sincere pleasure to find that
there is likely to be a coalition of the
Whigs in your State, a few only excepted,
and that the assembly is so well disposed
to second your endeavors in bringing those
murderers of our cause, the monopolizers,
forestallers, and engrossers, to condign
punishment. It is much to be lamented that
each State, long ere this, has not hunted
them down as pests to society and the greatest
enemies we have to the happiness of America.
I would to God that some one of the most
atrocious in each State was hung in gibbets
upon a gallows five times as high as the one
prepared by Haman. No punishment, in my opinion,
is too great for the man who can build his
greatness upon his country's ruin.

-----------------------

Alexander Hamilton to John Holt

October 19, 1778

Sir,

While every method is taken to bring to justice
those men whose principles and practices have
been hostile to the present revolution, it is
to be lamented that the conduct of another class,
equally crimininal, and, if possible, more
mischievous, has hitherto passed with impunity,
and almost without notice. I mean that tribe,
who taking advantage of the times, have carried
the spirit of monopoly and extortion to an excess
which scarcely admits of a parallel. Emboldened
by the success of progressive impositions, it
has extended to all the necessities of life.
The exorbitant price of every article, and the
depreciation upon our currency, are evils derived
essentially from this source. When avarice takes
the lead in a state, it is commonly the forerunner
of its fall. How shocking it is to discover among
ourselves, even at this early period, the strongest
symptoms of this fatal disease!...

When a man appointed to be the guardian of the state
and the depositary of the happiness and morals of
the people, forgetful of the solemn relation in
which he stands, descends to the dishonest articles
of a mercantile projector and sacrifices his conscience
and his trust to pecuniary motives, there is no
strain of abhorrence of which the human mind is
capable, no punishment the vengeance of the people
can inflict, which may not be applied to him with
justice. If it should have happened that a member
of Congress had been this degenerate character, and
has been known to turn the knowledge of secrets to
which his office gave him access to the purpose of
private profit, by employing emissaries to engross
an article of immediate necessity to the public
service, he ought to feel the utmost rigor of public
resentment and be detested as a traitor of the worst
and most dangerous kind.

The quote below is also from the book.....
 
Best Source for Publications that Correctly Explain American History?

The question can't really be answered. History is not math. There is no "correct" history. Even heavily documented recent events can show you that. What's the "real story" about OJ or Princess Diana or JFK? And those are events that happened after there was recording media everywhere. Trying to really understand what George Washington said in a Cabinet meeting is a whole quantum level harder. Maybe there were notes taken at the time. Or maybe different people wrote down what they remembered later. Even if their notes are 100% accurate, that still can't tell us what Washington was actually thinking and planning at the time. If you get every single event and date totally right, you still can't know the minds of the participants. Why did they do what they did? What were their intentions?

History is an inherently biased enterprise. Everybody wants a "correct" history as long as it agrees with their preconceptions. If somebody then unearths some personal letters that show those conceptions to be false, the cry of "revisionist history" goes up.

As a person who majored in PolSc and minored in History, you have to realize how much history has changed since WWII. Yes, there will always be people who are on the left or the right who will try to bend the historical record just to comply with their viewpoint. But that's a small group. Mostly what has changed is that historians don't buy into the whole "great man" theory of history anymore. Washington was an important figure (for instance) but if he had never existed at all, it is most likely that some other figure would have emerged and that history wouldn't be much different. History tends to develop in a predictable way. It is VERY rare to look at a historical movement and conclude that the whole thing wouldn't have happened at all except for one man.

Let's use an extreme example: Hitler and WWII. I've heard alternative history people say that somebdoy could go back in a time machine and kill Hitler in 1923 and therefore the Nazis wouldn't have risen to power and there would have been no WWII. That totally ignores the reality on the ground in Germany after WWI. They were desperate and becoming more desperate year by year. If Hitler hadn't existed, one of the other Nazis would have emerged as the leader. He might have been "better" or he might have even been worse. There is a historic inevitability to Germany in the 1920's and 1930's that would have been very hard to change.

It's like the potential energy in a tightly compressed spring. You can push it down to the very bottom of its travel and carefully lock it in that position. But that potential is still there, pushing against the block. Waiting for its time to come sproinging out. A lot of history is like that spring. Things build up over time in one direction until some person or some group of people release it. Just studying who finally removed the block ignores how all that pressure got there in the first place.

Gregg
 
If your community has a second hand or 'friends of the library' bookstore, you might try shopping for old (pre 1950's) history textbooks.

It's amazing the quality, quantity and tonal differences between these and textbooks of today.
 
tulsamal goes right for the s-level history. A lot of that was good stuff, but revisionism is a dirty word around here.

neoncowboy - a lot of the 'differences' that you note between modern textbooks and pre-1950's textbooks are because of a number of things. One, there is modern scholarship, which does revise older scholarship. A writer telling of events that he may even have witnessed, or lived much nearer to than you or I may not give the best account of what occurred. He brought his preconceptions to the table too. A later scholar can give a truer picture. Bad scholarship is bad scholarship and it existed before 1960. Besides, a lot has actually come to light and is still coming to light.

Which leads me to something I think is important. If you're concerned about 'indoctrination' in public schools or modern culture, the answer isn't to indoctrinate your preferences into your children, personally I don't think it would reflect well on you if your child refuses to study 'The American Revolution, a modern perspective' because daddy said it was a bad book.

The answer is to teach your children to read widely and think critically, but of course that isn't going to happen young.
 
I'll have to disagree with the poster who says the 'great man' theory doesn't apply anymore. I can think of a number of people who, had they not existed, would have drastically altered history.

- George Washington: had someone else taken his place and accepted the kingship that the new nation intended to install in him, we'd never have had a 2nd 'President'
- Had someone other than Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin been those people, we'd not have had a Declaration of Independence

Heck, if any number of people in history had had a slightly different point of view, or had a moment of weakness in judgment and made a different choice at a critical junction in history (giving into their personal whims - or not), things would be drastically different. What if Abe Lincoln had decided to preserve the union - by enforcing the states' rights to do as they please? I imagine that there'd have been some conflict, but doubtfully widespread civil war as there was. Slavery would've trickled to extinction within 40 years anyway.
 
Iian - it's important to keep an open mind, but not one so open that your brain falls out.

A worldview has to start somewhere; it's important for parents to instill in their children something from which they can start. I would say instilling the most accurate, healthy worldview possible is a good philosophy, because other
 
(I was just about to toss that gasoline on the fire.)

Gotta say the subtext of "correctly explain" history gives me the heebie-jeebies.

But then I've never understood the horror at 'revisionist' history - history should be revised in accordance with the broader scope hindsight allows. History is, of course, written by the victors - hopefully distance gives us the opportunity to say the victors were full of it.
 
In response to Wooderson's following comment:

"Gotta say the subtext of "correctly explain" history gives me the heebie-jeebies.

But then I've never understood the horror at 'revisionist' history - history should be revised in accordance with the broader scope hindsight allows. History is, of course, written by the victors - hopefully distance gives us the opportunity to say the victors were full of it."


My initial question starting this thread was not one of seeking for a historical record that fits within a frame work that "sits right with me", but rather one of trying to find respected resources that present the facts as accurately as possible without an inherrent bias in any particular direction. This stemmed from my reading about American History in a coffee table book "The History of the World" which I received as a gift. In particular, one section made a statement regarding the underlying motivations of some of the founders that just didn't ring true to me. This made me realize that my own knowledge is somewhat weak and needs to be improved upon. I have a limited amount of time I can invest in this pursuit and I just want to make sure that I invest my time with the best sources of information.

While we can never know exactly what the founders may have been thinking at each moment, I believe that many of us, myself first and foremost can have a better understanding of who they were as people and what principles and convictions they held to as they guided the formation of our republic.
 
I say go to all the original writings.

One of the requisites of being any kind of historian is to be an excellent researcher. A lot of cross-checking facts in different references. Scour all the originals you can. Strip all the politically correct bologna and then you can get a real feel for what the author is trying to convey what is the state of things in that era.

I know, I got the seriously abridged and sanitized version of history in school too. Also the inanely idealized version. No wonder students fall asleep in history class.
Why can't they trust students to just learn it all???:rolleyes:
 
I'd recommend "A Few Bloody Noses" - The Realities and Mythologies of the American Revolution" by Robert Harvey. It gives both the British and American sides of the Revolution, very readable, he gives a great description of Washington, what he was like, etc.

Your library will have it or can get it for you, after I first read it, I bought my own copy.
 
guitarguy,
Try reading for yourself Gordon S. Wood's The Creation of the American Republic and Bernard Bailyn's The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Both are good books that explain the whys and wherfores of the American Revolution and the background events related to it. I would also recommend Jackson Turner Main's The Antifederalists: Critics of the Constitution as a primer in the debate on the constitution.
Stonewall34
 
The Federalist Papers is the Founder's ideas in their own words.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution should not be ruled out.
Common Sense by Thomas Payne is a good read.

Other than that, read as many different sources as you can (old and new) to get different perspectives on some events.

Also, there are US Military History books you can get. These will often approach the same time periods and events with a different perspective and different information, especially revolutionary thru WWI military history. Your library should have some of that. I am mainly referring to the periods between wars and the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. You can get caught up for years on the world wars and the civil war.
 
The question can't really be answered. History is not math. There is no "correct" history. Even heavily documented recent events can show you that. What's the "real story" about OJ or Princess Diana or JFK? And those are events that happened after there was recording media everywhere. Trying to really understand what George Washington said in a Cabinet meeting is a whole quantum level harder. Maybe there were notes taken at the time. Or maybe different people wrote down what they remembered later. Even if their notes are 100% accurate, that still can't tell us what Washington was actually thinking and planning at the time. If you get every single event and date totally right, you still can't know the minds of the participants. Why did they do what they did? What were their intentions?

History is an inherently biased enterprise. Everybody wants a "correct" history as long as it agrees with their preconceptions. If somebody then unearths some personal letters that show those conceptions to be false, the cry of "revisionist history" goes up.

As a person who majored in PolSc and minored in History, you have to realize how much history has changed since WWII. Yes, there will always be people who are on the left or the right who will try to bend the historical record just to comply with their viewpoint. But that's a small group. Mostly what has changed is that historians don't buy into the whole "great man" theory of history anymore. Washington was an important figure (for instance) but if he had never existed at all, it is most likely that some other figure would have emerged and that history wouldn't be much different. History tends to develop in a predictable way. It is VERY rare to look at a historical movement and conclude that the whole thing wouldn't have happened at all except for one man.

Let's use an extreme example: Hitler and WWII. I've heard alternative history people say that somebdoy could go back in a time machine and kill Hitler in 1923 and therefore the Nazis wouldn't have risen to power and there would have been no WWII. That totally ignores the reality on the ground in Germany after WWI. They were desperate and becoming more desperate year by year. If Hitler hadn't existed, one of the other Nazis would have emerged as the leader. He might have been "better" or he might have even been worse. There is a historic inevitability to Germany in the 1920's and 1930's that would have been very hard to change.

It's like the potential energy in a tightly compressed spring. You can push it down to the very bottom of its travel and carefully lock it in that position. But that potential is still there, pushing against the block. Waiting for its time to come sproinging out. A lot of history is like that spring. Things build up over time in one direction until some person or some group of people release it. Just studying who finally removed the block ignores how all that pressure got there in the first place.

Gregg

What a superb post that is, though I must say I disagree with the notion of anything being inevitable; IMHO history is shaped by individuals (or small groups of them), and not processes.
 
If you want a book that doesn't turn Jefferson into a demigod, try "American Sphinx" by Joseph Ellis. He also has one on Adams, and won the pulitzer on Sphins and Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. I only read American Sphinx so I can't vouch for the others. Jefferson seems to be a hot topic with both sides trying to hijack his support for thier agendas. You'll come to realize the founding fathers, presidents, ect didn't govern by their ideal principles, rather they fought, bickered, and compromised their own beliefs to accomplish their goals not unlike what we see today in our political arena.
 
I agree that Tulsamal did a great job except for the inevitability of history. Millions of lemmings are not going to create a republic, neither is a battery of monkeys with a roomful of IBMs going to rewrite shakespeare. There are millions of random chances for America to happen, yet it only has happened once. Why?

I still believe in the Great Man theory, because, there are several "great men," who, if they never existed there never would have been a chance for an America to come into being to have a history.

One was Leonidas whose sacrifice at Thermopylae prevented assimilation of the Hellenes, the fathers of Western Civilization of which America is but the flower, by the Persians. Another was Charles Martel, who wrote finis to the expansionism of the Saracens, again a world-shaking event. There were several more great men through history but these guys made it possible that someday an America could emerge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top