THE MEALS OF LEWIS AND CLARK

A review of The Journals of Lewis and Clark edited by John Bakeless (2004)

(Rating 2 of 5)

 This has to be one most boring things I have ever read. I suppose I should blame myself for getting my hopes up, having read Julius Caesar’s Commentaries and the Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, I was expecting to read something good. Unfortunately, there is not much of that here. Out of the 382 pages in this book, there are about five to ten good and interesting letters. The rest of it is just dull. Since game was plentiful and the expedition was using only 1804 technology they did not carry many perishables. So in order to get their meat they hunted, and that is what consists of majority of their letters. ‘We went here today, shot X amount of animals from Y animal group.’ If you want to know what Lewis and Clark ate every day on their trip then this is the book for you. Towards the end of the book they run low on food, get desperate, and start eating their dogs. To their surprise they find they like eating dog for their meals. They rank dog meat as better than elk and most deer but not as good as buffalo. Lewis even mentions that they were almost never healthier! I thought about quoting some of good letters but I am not going to because after spending a week reading this book, I am really quite done with it. It is a real sleeper. The only reason I rank it a ‘2’ and not ‘1’ is I think John Bakeless did some fine editing and put in a lot of useful footnotes. However he cannot save the dullness of this boring work.

MAKING AMERICA

A review of Joseph J. Ellis’ American Creation (2007)

 (Rating 5 of 5)

 My very first history book review was on Ellis’ His Excellency, years later I am now reviewing another one of his books. American Creation focuses on six early episodes that were significant to the establishment of the Republic. Ellis’ book discusses the significance of everything that went on in 1776, the winter at Valley Forge, the Constitutional Convention, the formation of the two-party system, and the Louisiana Purchase. This book is both easy to read and very informative.

One of the things the book focuses on is the unique character not only of the Founding Fathers, but also of the era of which they lived. Ellis points out they are in a unique time because they are both immune to the bias of the old order and the new order’s bias has yet to be developed.

“The founding generation, then, had the advantage of occupying a place in time that enjoyed the benefit of post-aristocratic access to latent talent without the liabilities of a fully egalitarian society in which an elitist sense of superiority was forbidden. Living between two worlds, without belonging completely to either, the founders maximized the advantages of both.” (p.15-6)

When discussing the events of the year 1776, there were many tracts explaining the American position to what they saw as their rights within the British Empire. However, it was Thomas Paine who took to the pen and explained what the American rights ought to be as an independent power.

“Whereas Adams had defended American claims to legal sovereignty over their own domestic affairs with conspicuous erudition in Novanglus (1774), Paine clinched the argument with the observation that an island could not rule a continent. Instead of tiptoeing around the sensitive question of royal authority, thereby endorsing the illusion that George III was some distant father figure anxious to undo the misguided travesties of his own ministers, Paine launched a frontal attack on George III and the very idea of monarchy itself.” (p.42)

Thomas Paine, Author of Common Sense and foe of monarchy

When discussing what type of government that the nation needed in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention, the Founders took a bold step that stood against political tradition and wisdom. They would create a very large Republic; something that people in the past believed could not be done. The United States of America would be first to show that republican government can oversee a great power.

“Then Madison took yet another theoretical step, generally regarded by most historians and constitutional scholars as his most brilliant contribution to modern political science. The conventional assumption, most famously articulated by Montesquieu, held that republics worked best in small geographic area, where elected representatives remained close to the interests of the citizens who elected them. This prevailing assumption had in fact shaped the argument against parliamentary authority during the pre-revolutionary debates over British taxation and was the major reason why control of the purse was vested in the colonial, then state, assemblies. But Madison had just spent many pages in ‘Vices’ demonstrating that proximity to the electorate had not produced responsible political behavior by state legislators. Quite the opposite: the overwhelming evidence, as Madison read it, revealed a discernible pattern of gross irresponsibility, a cacophony of shrill voices, a veritable kaleidoscope of local interests with no collective cohesion whatsoever.” (p.105)

James Madison, believed that a large republic could work

One of the failures of the Founders, according to Ellis, was their inability to construct a just policy and settlement with the Native American tribes. Part of the reason for the failure is the average white Americans would violate any treaty their government would sign and the early American government was not yet strong enough to get them to obey the treaty laws. One of the Native leaders who the Washington Administration tried to work with was Alexander McGillivray and for a while it looked like it might work out, however in the end it would be to no avail.

“His prowess as a Creek leader derived from his intellectual rather than his physical strengths. His father sent him to Charleston to receive a classical education in Latin and Greek. McGillivray was fluent in English, Spanish, and Creek and well read in British and European history. When most Indian chiefs were confronted with the conquest explanation for their loss of standing after the Treaty of Paris, they could respond only with a mixture of confusion and disbelief. McGillivray denounced the conquest theory as a violation of international law.” (p.143)

Alexander McGillivray, Creek leader who Washington tried to work with

The early American political battles were fierce. Americans had not yet worked out, like the British, the concept of a loyal opposition. Each side literally believed the other was out to ‘undo the revolution.’ This caused a lot of extreme mistrust between the two sides. Although there is a lot of propaganda today most politicians know it is propaganda, the Founders often believed their own stories.

“By any neutral standard, the picture that Jefferson and Madison saw in their heads was a preposterous distortion. How could two men who had never fired a shot in anger during the war suggest that Washington and Hamilton, both military heroes, were in any sense of the word ‘Tories’? How could John Adams, the acknowledged ‘Atlas of independence,’ be tarred with that same brush? As for monarchial ambitions, Washington had already demonstrated his immunity to all such ambitions by rejecting the crown at the end of the war, and his efforts to define the powers of the presidency all operated within the framework of republican presumptions.” (p.171-2)

There was never an action that strengthened the power of the Federal government and the powers of the Executive branch more than the Louisiana Purchase. And Thomas Jefferson who came to the presidency trying not to do those sorts of things that would require implied powers, did it. However, in the end it was the right decision. America might have been a third rate power if he did not.

“Always an optimist about the future and the judgment of ‘the people,’ Jefferson consoled himself that ‘the good sense of our country will correct the evil of construction when it shall produce evil effects,’ meaning the constitutional precedent he was setting would not become a precedent at all, a prediction that proved wrong.” (p.226-7)

Thomas Jefferson elected President on a platform of states' rights did more to increase Federal power than any while in office

Louisiana Purchase

American Creation is a helpful little book pinpointing almost all of the most important political events in the first thirty years of our nation’s history. Joseph Ellis always does a remarkable job.

{The video is the fine work of ReasonTV.}

ONE NATION ON EARTH WITH ALL THE OTHERS

A review of George C. Herring's From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776 (2008)

Part of the Oxford History of the United States Series

(Rating 5 of 5)

Before reading this book I had read a series of history books in order to experience a march through the ages of American history. From Colony to Superpower is a march through the ages all by itself, exploring not only how America developed as a nation but also how, throughout its existence, dealt with its brother and sister nations of the world. The book begins with Thomas Paine and finishes with the Administration of George W. Bush.

In Herring's work the reader sees America as a mixture of idealism and realpolitik. Physically, America was formed as the foreign policy of another nation, Great Britain. However, in a very real sense America was born of an idea. An idea that was illustrated beautifully by Thomas Paine in Common Sense in which he proclaimed that we have the opportunity to start the world anew. That idea that was made official when Thomas Jefferson, with some edits from Ben Franklin, produced the Declaration of Independence in which they proclaimed not only their own independence but laid down what they thought were the rights of all mankind. The only major republic in a world dominated by monarchies, this idea could be heard in Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and a half century later when Woodrow Wilson asked Americans to make the world safe for democracy. Yet, even when American leaders were idealistic at their best they could lay down their dogma and be extremely practical. Whether it was John Quincy Adams writing the Monroe Doctrine or Ronald Reagan deciding to cooperate with Gorbachev, idealism had to be meet with practical reality.


(Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense)


(Writing the Declaration)

One of the common themes of this book is that isolationism is a myth invented by twentieth century politicians. The United States was always active in the world around it. Our most famous documents, such as, the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the Constitution itself were statements from the United States of America to the world of our intentions. Herring points out in this book that every American generation had at least one war. Instead of isolationism America had engaged primarily in unilateralism, acting own its own accord doing what it thinks is best. Unilateralism served the United States well in its early days and up to the start of the twentieth century. President George W. Bush would try bring back unilateralism, but that would lead only to debt and disaster.


(Although not known for being a great president, John Quincy Adams, ranks as one of the greatest secretaries of state we ever had)


(The Great White Fleet showed America to be a rising world power in the time of President Theodore Roosevelt)

Herring also discusses a lot of the negative aspects of U.S. foreign policy. The book explains some of the crazy filibustering that went on in the antebellum era, especially in the 1850s. Herring also covers a good deal about ‘blowback’ the price America pays for some of its foreign policy choices. An example of blowback is the United States' negative reputation in a great deal of Latin America due to choice alliances that we made during the Cold War. What can seem like a good and particle decision at the time can come back with deadly consequences.


(America as won of the two superpowers as MacArthur accepts Japan's surrender)


(Henry Kissinger, one of the leading architects of late twentieth century foreign policy)

Herring is extremely fair with almost all the actors in the history of American foreign policy. He treats Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, idealists, and realists the same. When evaluating them if he thinks they deserve praise he gives it and when he is critical of certain actions he writes about what they did wrong and could have done better. The end he concludes that America has to continue to remain engaged in the world it will need to act more respectful.


(Reagan and Gorbachev toward the end of the Cold War)

“Even if in decline, the United States will remain a crucial player in world affairs, and in coping with the challenges of a new and complex era the nation has a rich foreign policy tradition to draw on: the pragmatism of the peacemakers of the American Revolution; the basic realism of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams; the practical idealism of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln; the worldliness and diplomatic skill of John Quincy Adams; the remarkable cultural sensitivity of diplomats such as Townsend Harris and Dwight Morrow; the commitment to public service of Elihu Root and Henry Stimson; the noble aspirations for a better world espoused by Woodrow Wilson; the intuitive understanding of the way diplomacy works—and its limitations—and the 'world point of view' manifested by Franklin Roosevelt in World War II; the coalition-building of Dean Acheson and the Wise Men of the Truman years and the George H.W. Bush administration during the first Gulf War; the strategic vision of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger; the ability to adapt and adjust displayed by Ronald Reagan; the efforts of the countless men and women who sought to share with other peoples the best of their country and to educate their fellow citizens about the world.”(p.963)

I also want to mention that on a technical note I love the footnotes at the bottom of the page as opposed to the end of the book or chapter. This way I do not have to flip back and forth while I am reading the book.

In the end I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in history or foreign policy. It is at times tough to get through seeing that it is over nine hundred pages, however, it is well worth the effort.

INCOMING DOOM

A review of David M. Potter's The Impending Crisis 1848-1861 (1976)

Part of the New American Nation Series

(Rating 4 of 5)

David Potter died before this book was published so all the success and praise, including a Pulitzer Prize, could only be received posthumously. It is however a magnificent work that captures the over a decade period that was leading up to the Civil War. The book is part of the New American History series not the Oxford History series that I had been reading. Unlike the Oxford History volumes, it does not dive as deep into the average people as well as the elites with the same amount of elegant detail, nevertheless it is a great book. A small note to any readers that when they read this book they may to want to be aware beforehand: it was written before the term 'African-American' became widely accepted and instead uses the anachronistic word 'Negro'. It actually took me a minute to catch on because when reading about the past one comes about the word Negro quite a bit, normally I just view the term in its historic lens, but as read further the term was used quite generally referring to 'the Negro population' and to Fredrick Douglass as a 'leading Negro thinker' even when not talking from a historical perspective.


(Cartoon reflecting Northern anger and beliefs of a national conspiracy to spread slavery to the North)

This book covers the political battles of the many participants who were in the political arena in the late 1850s; the work also covers the political theories of the state of American Nationalism, and the formation of Southern Nationalism. Potter also discusses how the impact of books and literature that were written in the 1850s impacted the time period. One example of a powerful and hard-hitting book was the original The Impending Crisis that dealt with the problem of slavery from a southern prospective of non-slaveholding whites. A more famous example of strong literature is the immortal Uncle Tom's Cabin.

“In almost every respect, Uncle Tom's Cabin lacked the standard qualifications for such great literary success. It may plausibly be argued that Mrs. Stowe's characters were impossible and her Negroes were blackface stereotypes, that her plot was sentimental, her dialect absurd, her literary technique crude, and her overall picture of the conditions of slavery distorted. But without any of the vituperation in which the abolitionists were so fluent, and with a sincere though unappreciated effort to avoid blaming the South, she made vivid the plight of the slave as a human being held in bondage. It was perhaps because of the steadiness with which she held this focus that Lord Palmerston, a man noted for his cynicism, admired the book not only for 'its story but for the statesmanship of it.' History cannot evaluate with precision the influence of a novel upon public opinion, but the northern attitude toward slavery was never quite the same after Uncle Tom's Cabin. Men who had remained unmoved by real fugitives wept for Tom under the lash and cheered for Eliza with the bloodhounds on her track.”p.140

One of the things Potter discusses in the book that I was very pleased to here is the tendency for most people to look back at the past with the feeling of inevitability. This attitude does everyone a disservice because it creates a misinterpretation of the past and the people who were living in it. Although, his own title of this book helps with that narrative that he was trying to combat.

“Seen this way the decade of the fifties becomes a kind of vortex, whirling the country in ever narrower circles and more rapid revolutions into the pit of war. Because of the need for a theme and focus in any history, this is probably inevitable. But for the sake of realism, it should be remembered that most human beings during these years went about their daily lives, preoccupied with their personal affairs, with no sense of impending disaster nor any fixation on the issue of slavery.”p.145

Potter also discusses the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and while doing so he tries to cut though the legend and misinterpretations that often are made about this event. He tries to make it plain what the two opponents believed and what they were fighting for.

“The difference between Douglas and Lincoln—and in a large sense between proslavery and antislavery thought—was not that Douglas believed in chattel servitude (for he did not), or that Lincoln believed in an unqualified, full equality of blacks and whites (for he did not). The difference was that Douglas did not believe that slavery really mattered very much, because he did not believe that Negroes had enough human affinity with him to make it necessary for him to concern himself with them. Lincoln, on the contrary, believed that slavery mattered, because he recognized the human affinity with blacks which made their plight a necessary.”p354

(Lincoln-Douglas debates)



He explains the raid of Harper's Ferry and the antislavery crusader John Brown in his rather insane attempt to cause a slave rebellion. In Potter's narrative what Brown lacks as an armed rebel he excels as a martyr. The North morns his death, which infuriates the South and makes them feel more isolated. Thus after the election of Lincoln they begin their attempts to break the South away from the Union.


(John Brown, not a very good rebel but a great martyr)

Everything discussed in this review and more is covered in this incredible book. I would recommend it to people who already have a strong knowledge of the history of this country who would like to increase their understanding of this difficult time period.

{Video is taken from C-Span.}

THIS CHANGING WORLD

A review of Daniel Walker Howe's What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 (2007)

Part of the Oxford History of the United States Series

(Rating 5 of 5)

What Hath God Wrought is the third book in Oxford History of the United States series. The author, David Walker Howe, covers the remarkable transformation of nation not only in a political sense but in an entire physical and technological sense. The work begins with the story of the first official telegraph being sent by Samuel Morse in the chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States in an attempt to let his prestigious audience see the wonders of this new technology and learn of the the result of the Democratic National Convention.

As the historical narrative begins we see a nation coming to terms with the end of War of 1812, the founding generation is still the generation in charge but soon history turns and the Republic comes to the hands of statesmen of the second American generation. Men such as John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun will play the dominant leadership roles in the shaping of the nation's destiny.


(Andrew Jackson, the most famous general and statesman of the era)

As in the two previous volumes in the Oxford history series, the focus often shifts from top to the bottom. Howe focuses on not just the statesmen but the world and society that they operate in. Also there is a strong focus not only on the major players but on the minor actors and activists who perform smaller deeds but help bring about the changing of the world.

As the Madison Administration comes to an end, the Monroe Administration, the last with a president from the Founding generation, comes to power with a cabinet dominated by second generation American leaders. The shape of the cabinet sets the stage for the 'corrupt bargain' of Henry Clay giving John Quincy Adams the presidency over Andrew Jackson. As Howe points out, there was probably no actual 'deal' but the appearance of it hurt the second Adams Administration.


(Henry Clay, was one of the Triumvirate with Webster and Calhoun, was alleged to have committed the 'corrupt bargain' in order to deprive Jackson of the presidency)

Entering the 'Age of Jackson'—a term the author despises —the country goes though many changes. Among these changes are: the infamous Indian removal, the bank veto—which can disputed as good or bad—, and, the most positive change, President Jackson's handling of the Nullification crisis.

Economic factors such as the Crisis of 1819 and 1837 seriously affected the outcome of the nation’s history in many ways. The former helped turn the public against banks and made President Jackson's bank war much easier. The later hurt President Van Buren's reelection chances, against William Henry Harrison and the Whig Party.

“Under the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans, the American administrative system had served as an example of honesty and efficiency to would-be administrative reformers in Britain. However, in the years after 1829, the quality of British administration gradually improved while that of the U.S. Federal government declined, until by the 1880s, American civil service reformers opposing the spoils system took Britain as their model.”p.334

(The Trail of Tears, one of the most wicked acts in American history)

This book also looks at how modern politics started to form with the wide acceptance of political parties as becoming part of the nation's governing reality. One of the major changes that comes along with the nation's first politician president, Martin Van Buren, is the establishment of national nominating conventions to choose a parties presidential and vice presidential nominees as opposed to the strongly rejected congressional caucus method.

The end of the book focuses on the Mexican-American War that takes place under the most expansionist president we had, James K. Polk. Polk sends Generals Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor, both of whom would turn out to support Polk's political opponents, down to conquer Mexico and come out with a good chunk of it.


(U.S. gains in the Mexican-American War)



Howe also discusses how the Revolutions of 1848 affected this country, the nation was encouraged by the what went on in Europe but were almost blind to the nation's own faults. Howe ends the book looking at the infant feminist movement that was just getting organized at the Seneca Falls Convention.

Some of the reviews of this book that I have read have criticized it for being overly critical of Andrew Jackson, accusing the author of being revisionist—in the negative sense. I do admit this book does have some clear bias but it is different than most people think. Howe clearly has strong preference for the Whig Party, for example, while most authors dedicate their books to the spouses, parents, or children, Howe dedicates this book to the memory of John Quincy Adams.

“It may seem fitting that Adam's last word in Congress should have been 'No!' The former president had resisted the tide in many ways: against the popular Jackson, against mass political parties, against the extension of slavery across space and time, and most recently against waging an aggressive war. Yet Adam's vision was predominantly positive, not negative. He had stood in favor of public education, freedom of expression, government support for science, industry, and transportation, nonpartisanship in federal employment, justice to the Native Americans, legal rights for women and blacks, cordial relations with the Latin American Republics, and, undoubtedly, a firm foreign policy that protected the national interest.”p.812

(John Quincy Adams, the man to whom this entire book is dedicated)

Howe's conclusion that the Whigs were the party America's future while the Democrats were the party of the nation's white supremacist present—despite the fact the Democrats are still here and there are no Whigs—is a conclusion I have to disagree with.

In the previous volume Empire of Liberty, the reader is informed of the founding generation and the early battles between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, the author, Gordon Wood, clearly is a fan of Jefferson. However, I have always found that it is not that Jefferson was right and Hamilton was wrong or vice verse, but that they were both right and both wrong about different things. Hamilton was right about the need for a strong government and assumption, while Jefferson was right to have a healthy criticism of central government and that government giving bankers too much power over the average people is not a good thing. I take the same stand with this second generation struggle, it is not so much Jackson and the Democrats were wrong and Clay and the Whigs were right but that they were both right and wrong about different things. The Jacksonians were right about getting the 'common people' involved in government and their distrust of powerful corporate banking interests. The Whigs were right about internal improvements and right to oppose Indian Removal.

Howe, while hailing the Whigs of the party of tomorrow, forgets that they existed just to oppose Andrew Jackson—just as the Democrats existed to support him. In this sense the term Jacksonian Era really does fit. While some of the Whigs, like Henry Clay, had principled positions, most of the Whigs were just to there to oppose Jackson and his followers. But Howe sees the various anti-Jackson people as the party being 'open' to various opinions despite in the Whigs' victorious elections they did not even have a party platform.

Nevertheless, this book is a very detailed look into the one of more amazing eras in the history of nation. When Andrew Jackson went to take the oath of office he went by horse and buggy, and when he left office he went home on a train.

{Video taken from the History Channel Documentary The Mexican American War.}

AND NOW WE ARE A NATION

A review of Gordon S. Wood's Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 (2009)

Part of the Oxford History of the United States Series

(Rating 5 of 5)

Before I begin I would like to point out that I actually had the opportunity to meet Professor Wood when he was giving a lecture at the University of New England in September 2010. I was very impressed by his presentation and he even signed my copy of Empire of Liberty.

As I continue my march through the ages in which I explore all the historical eras of the United States of America, my journey takes me to the beginning of our modern government. Since I finished Robert Middlekauff's The Glorious Cause, which deals with the American Revolution and the Constitutional Convention, I now arrive as the U.S. Constitution is being implemented and the new government is just getting its metaphorical feet under its legs. As I stated in earlier posts the biggest challenge is to find books that try their best to explore from multiple perspectives to avoid just one narrow view, without at the same time surrendering a general narrative that is both readable and enjoyable. Gordon Wood’s book more than meets those qualifications.

The book begins with a discussion of the Washington Irving story of Rip Van Winkle, a story many us remember from childhood in which a man falls asleep for twenty years. Wood reminds us of political implications of that story. How Van Winkle falls asleep prior to the American Revolution and wakes up in the America of 1790s and marvels how the world has completely changed.

The historical narrative begins as the nation writes and ratifies its new Constitution and concludes at the end of the War of 1812. This book tells the tale of two generations, the Revolutionary generation of the Founding Fathers and the second generation of J.Q. Adams, Henry Clay, and Andrew Jackson. The book in way covers how the Founders governed the country in the early Republic and although the book does not feature the passing the torch from one generation to another , it clearly shows a nation where over eighty percent of its population is under the age of forty. In this narrative a young nation is still trying to find and define itself.


(George Washington as President,this was the painting that Dolly Madison saved from the fire that burnt the White House)

Early on the government under President Washington tries to mimic the British government's success without emulating its traps such as hereditary monarchy and aristocracy. The early administrations of Washington and Adams have a lot of success in helping the government find its feet by making good on treaties, establishing the public credit, kept the nation out of war, and being able to defend itself from internal problems such as the Whiskey Rebellion.

“The Senate considered itself distinctly superior to the 'lower' house, so-called perhaps because the House chamber was on the first floor of Federal Hall, while the Senate chamber was on the second floor. Although the Senate was not entirely clear about its relationship to the various state legislatures, which, of course, were its electors, it certainly did have a very high-flown sense of dignity. While the House was busy passing legislation, establishing revenue for the new government, and erecting the several executive departments, the Senate spent its time discussing ceremonies and rituals, perhaps because it had little else to do.” (p. 63)

The Washington Administration did not really appreciate how bad Hamilton's programs—no matter how successful—would look to members of the public, who are terrified of tyranny, might view a growing executive. They did not care as much as they should because their views on how the Republic was supposed to look was greatly different than others. When the Adams Administration and Congress began to oppress the people's liberty with the Alien and Sedition Acts, the people would find a champion in Thomas Jefferson.


(Thomas Jefferson, champion of the people)

After the election of 1800, the historical narrative stops and Wood takes some time to inspect Jeffersonian America by taking an in-depth look at each area of society, from the west, to the everyday people, the religious establishments, and more. This book gives you the very feel of the nation as it was in the early nineteenth century.


(The Louisiana Purchase)

The book also discusses Jefferson's greatest triumph of his presidency, the Louisiana Purchase and Lewis and Clark Expedition to explore it. Jefferson doubled the size of the nation and unintentionally secured the power of the Federal government of the United States. And while the accomplishments of Presidents Jefferson and Madison were many, they did make a good deal of mistakes such as the Embargo act of 1807 that both devastated the county and forced President Jefferson to take a line with dissenters that would have made Alexander Hamilton proud. They also allowed for ideology to cloud their judgment and lead the nation into a disaster.

“Although the Republicans in the Congress knew that the country's armed forces were not ready for any kind of combat, they nonetheless seemed more concerned about the threat the American military might pose to the United States than to Great Britain.” (p. 671)

(President Madison, great political theorist, but poor commander-in-chief)

The War of 1812 nearly brought America to its knees but critical victories at Baltimore and New Orleans helped rally the American spirit. In the end of the War of 1812, even though the capital had been lost in the fighting American nationalism soared to a new height.

In the end the Founding Fathers that lived the longest seemed to be suffering from a Rip Van Winkle symptom as they could no longer recognize the nation that they had founded forty to fifty years later. This was most true for former President Thomas Jefferson.

“Although the world of the nearly nineteenth century was spinning out of Jefferson's control or even his comprehension, no one had done more to bring it about. It was Jefferson's commitment to liberty and equality that justified and legitimated the many pursuits of happiness that were bringing unprecedented prosperity to so many average white Americans. His Republicans followers in the North had created this new world, and they welcomed and thrived in it. They celebrated Jefferson and equal rights and indeed looked back in awe and wonder at all the Founders and saw in them heroic leaders the likes of which they knew they would never see again in America. Yet they also knew that they lived in a different would that required new thoughts and new behavior.” (p. 736)

On a technical note, like the previous volume of the Oxford series,the footnotes are located at the bottom of the page they are on as opposed to either at the end of the book or the end of each chapter. I find this makes reading the book more enjoyable because that way I do not have to flip though pages to find the source of any particular fact or argument. I say again that I wish this method was mandatory.

Empire of Liberty is for the advanced reader who would like to receive an incredible amount of information about our nation in its earliest stages. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who is open to that challenge.

{Video from HBO's already classic John Adams series and the History Channel documentary First Invasion.}

MY ‘FAVORITE’ PRESIDENT

A review of Walter R. Borneman’s Polk (2008)

(Rating 5 of 5)

As a presidential history buff, I often get asked who I thought was the greatest president, and not wanting to bring up the usual suspects (Washington, Lincoln, FDR, etc.) I would calmly say ‘James K. Polk.’ There were two reasons for this, one, I wanted to say something that would shock them; and, two, he actually is one of the better presidents. He is the only president who accomplished all he set out to do*. The entire country would look rather different today if it were not for Polk.

Walter Borneman does an incredible job capturing the essence of the eleventh president. A very sick child, he had to have gallstones removed when he was only eleven. He grew up on his father’s slave holding plantation, and during his life, he would inherit twenty slaves. He would marry Sarah Childress, who would become the most active first lady politically since Abigail Adams. Polk was admitted to the bar and his first client was his own father.


(Sarah Childress Polk)

Borneman traces Polk’s incredible rise to power as one of the young politicians that strongly followed Andrew Jackson's leadership. Jackson was so found of Polk that their relationship earned the young man the nickname ‘Young Hickory.’ In 1823, he was elected to the state legislature where his speaking skills earned him his second nickname, ‘Napoleon of the Stump.’


(James K. Polk talents helped him become the Speaker of House)

In 1825, having been elected to the United States House of Representatives, he became be a loyal ally of Andrew Jackson. During Jackson’s second term, Polk was elected Speaker of House, where he earned a reputation for order and never challenged anyone to a duel. After two terms as the Speaker, Polk left Congress and was elected Governor of Tennessee in 1838; the last time Polk would win an election in Tennessee.


(President Jackson was Mr. Polk patron on his rise to the White House)

Due to an economic downturn in the Van Buren Administration, Polk was voted out of office with all the other Democrats in 1840; he tried to reclaim his lost office in 1842 and failed. Then something remarkable happened in 1844, I divided Democratic Party gave a man whose political future seemed hopeless, a new shot. Polk was able to secure the presidential nomination away from a great many better known candidates, making Polk the first ever ‘dark hoarse’ candidate**. As the Democratic nominee, Polk would go on to defeat Henry Clay in the general election. James Polk became the first president to achieve the office, before his fiftieth birthday.

“As the 1844 campaign shifted into high gear, the Whigs may well have despised James K. Polk, but at least they knew where he stood—particularly on the issue of Texas. For Clay, it was bad enough that he was repeatedly forced to deny that his same-day announcement with Van Buren against Texas annexation was merely coincidental and not evidence of another corrupt bargain. But Clay decided to clarify—as only he could—his position on annexation, it looked to some Whigs that, at best, their candidate was flirting with the increasingly popular mantel of expansionism and, at worst, trying to have the issue both ways.” p.122

(Henry Clay, was beaten by Polk in 1844, which was his last shot at the presidency)

Polk was the clearly the strongest President in between Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln. He achieves everything he set out to do. Some of his lesser-known accomplishments were the reduction of tariffs, and the Independent Treasury. The Independent Treasury allowed the Treasury Department to be responsible for keeping and managing the nation’s money itself and not have to act though any bank.


(President Polk, our most effective president)

One of Polk’s larger accomplishments was the securing of the disputed Oregon Territory without any military conflict with the British Empire. Despite the famous slogan forty-four-forty-or-fight it became, according to Borneman, forty-four-forty-or-compromise.





His most famous act came from the Mexican-American War, a war, which Mexico had been threatening since the U.S. first thought of annexing Texas. Polk put troops on the disputed territory and waited. When the attack came, known as the Thornton Affair after the young American officer in command, President Polk had his cause for war. His methods earned him many enemies, including a young Whig Congressman named Abraham Lincoln.


(Young Abe Lincoln was no fan of Polk)

“That evening at a special Cabinet meeting, there was other dissension in the ranks. Buchanan presented a draft of his proposed dispatch to American missions abroad announcing the declaration of war. The secretary of state proposed to inform foreign governments that ‘in going to war we did not do so with a view to acquire either California or New Mexico or any other portion of the Mexican territory.’ Polk for his part was incredulous. What Cabinet meeting had Buchanan been attending for the past year?” p.207

(Secretary of State James Buchanan, not the most effective cabinet officer nor president)

The war went on for two years, ending with the U.S. taking a sizable chunk of territory in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo for fifteen million dollars. When the issue of slavery came up, Polk stated he did not think slavery was possible in the new territories, but did not support the Wilmot Priviso to ban it.





In 1848, even though the Whigs were against the war, they nominated Zachary Taylor, the general, for president. Even though President Polk did not run for re-election, health and a one-term pledge kept him out, General Taylor would never attack Polk in his victorious campaign against Lewis Cass and Martin Van Buren.


(Zachary Taylor was one of the top generals of the Mexican American War and Polk's successor as president)

Polk’s post-presidency did not last long. He died after only a few months out of office, in his will he ordered that his slaves be set free when his wife died, but his wife lived all the way until 1891, which made that pledge irrelevant.

I really enjoyed this book, and I would highly recommend it to anyone. It is a fascinating book about a fascinating topic. The presidency of James K. Polk is one of the most accomplished on record.

*You could, of course, argue that Abraham Lincoln accomplished more then he set out to do.

**'Dark Horse' refers to a candidate who is not well known.

{First video is of the folk band They Might Be Giants and the song James K. Polk, the second video is the same song performed by young fans.}

OUR MOST IMPORTANT VICE PRESIDENT

A review of Edward P. Crapol’s John Tyler: Accidental President (2006)

(Rating 4 of 5)

Edward P. Crapol tells the story of one of America’s least known presidents, John Tyler. Known as ‘His Accidentcy’, John Tyler was the first person to achieve the presidency via succession rather than election. That singular action makes him important because it cemented and important constitutional precedent. Crapol ‘s narrative is at times odd; he seems to swing back in forth through different parts of President Tyler’s life throughout the work.

Crapol tells his story beginning at the birth of the future president. John Tyler was born into on the finest families in Virginia. Tyler’s father, also John Tyler, was the college roommate of Thomas Jefferson. Tyler himself, during his career, would give the oration at the funeral of Thomas Jefferson.

Tyler would be a defender of Southern principals during his career; he would defend the expansion of slavery under James Madison’s absurd ‘diffusion’ theory* and stood for States' rights against what he viewed as the entrenching Federal government.

Tyler would go on to serve in several offices, in the state legislature, the in United States House of Representatives, as Governor of Virginia, and the United States Senate. He would even serve in the office of President Pro Tempore in the U.S. Senate. After the break-up of the Democratic-Republican Party, Tyler joined the Jacksonians, but would ultimately turn to the newly forming Whig Party. He would run for vice president on one of the Whig tickets in 1836, and then in 1840 he would be the vice presidential nominee on the unified Whig ticket under William Henry Harrison. Known as ‘Tippecanoe and Tyler too,’ the pair would go on to win the election. Tyler would serve as Vice President of the United States for one month, and then President Harrison died.


(President William Henry Harrison, served only one month as president)

The Constitution did not specify what happened if the president actually died, some thought the Vice President would become President, John Adams, the first Vice President, said so himself in the beginning. Others thought that he would serve until Congress scheduled a new election to elect someone to fill in the rest of the remaining term. Tyler declared that he was the President and would not even open mail that did not acknowledge him as such. The Congress decided to side with the new President, and the Chief Justice, Rodger Taney**, swore in the tenth President of the United States.

“John Tyler made the most of having been forewarned and forearmed. He met the challenge of being the first vice president to navigate the uncharted waters of presidential succession in the young republic by establishing the Tyler precedent. From this time forward, the vice presidency assumed new importance. The holder of the formally disdained office now found himself a heartbeat away from the chief executive’s chair and, thanks to John Tyler, the presidency as an institution became independent of death. The man who had been mocked ‘His Accidency’ accomplished what he had set out to do. He ignored the objections to those who claimed the framers had not intended the vice president to become president in his own right on the death of an incumbent.” p.27

Tyler, who for years had argued for executive restraint, embodies on a policy that would get him ejected from the Whig Party***. He would veto a new national bank bill, complete the Webster–Ashburton Treaty to straighten the U.S. boarder with British Canada, and lead several foreign policy initiatives that would lead to the annexation of Texas and the opening of China. Members of the House of Representatives, led by John Quincy Adams, would try to have Tyler impeached for abusing the veto power.


(President John Tyler)

He would be nominated by no party in 1844, and thus retired from office as the first president never to be elected in his own right. During the last years of his life he tried to stop the South from succeeding from the Union; but when he failed, he stood for and was elected to the Congress of the Confederate States of America. He would die before he could serve in that Congress, but he would be the only president to die a traitor. Edward Crapol tells an incredible tale of a president most would find dull.

*Expand slavery and it will disappear.

**Years before he would disgrace himself and the court with Dred Scot.

***The only president in history to be kicked out of his own party.

A BRIEF NOTE ON JEFFERSON

A Review of R.B. Bernstein’s Thomas Jefferson (2003)

(Rating 4 of 5)

R.B. Bernstein’s biography on Thomas Jefferson packs a great deal of information into a very little space. Inside this a fewer than two-hundred-and-fifty-page work, is the life of the third president of the United States. Yet, the work has very ease flowing narrative that makes it enjoyable to read.

Thomas Jefferson’s entire life is put into to nicely fit little chapters. The Revolution starts right at the second chapter, which makes sense considering Jefferson was only thirty. The second chapter covers Jefferson’s glory years in the Continental Congress fighting for independence and authoring the Declaration. While the third and fourth chapters focus on some of Jefferson’s less than great moments, such as his disastrous governorship of Virginia to his time as U.S. Minister to France, where he to in love with the French Revolution.

https://youtu.be/QcWaCsvpikQ

The fifth chapter focuses Jefferson coming home to be the nation’s Secretary of State, under President George Washington, that he finds very frustrating and leaves after a single term. The next chapter goes into his brief exile from politics where he plots the campaign of 1796. Through a fluke in the Constitution, in 1796, he is elected his opponent's, John Adams, vice president, and in 1800 is stuck in House of Representatives battling a tie with his own running mate. These elections and his vice presidency are all in chapter seven.

Chapter eight covers his glorious first term as president. From his brilliant inaugural address to his brilliant, although accidental, purchase of the Louisiana territory. Other then the Declaration of Independence, I feel that Jefferson’s first term as President is his great accomplishment.

The next chapter covers his not-so-great-second term as President. Although he does abolish U.S. participation in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, his 1808 trade embargo caused a huge economic downturn for the nation. Unpopular though the embargo was, Jefferson’s chosen successor, James Madison, is elected to replace him. The final chapter is Jefferson in retirement, his thoughts, fears and founding of the University of Virginia.

“Unfortunately, the students showed little inclination to behave like the serious scholars whom Jefferson had hoped to welcome. Instead, they carried on in ways resembling Jefferson’s idle, boisterous classmates at William and Mary. Their favorite activities were drinking, gambling, and riots, all of which Jefferson denounced as ‘vicious irregularities.’ In particular, the students’ nighttime raids up and down the Lawn, known as ‘calathumps,’ alarmed and outraged him. Those who took part in calathumps wore masks to avoid being recognized and punished as they shouted and yelled, fired guns into the air and whirled noisemakers, broke windows, and otherwise made a ruckus.” p.176

This book is a good one-stop little biography of the nation’s third president. The book covers all that was stated in this small review and much more, it has some surprising depth for such a small book. It is a good starting point for someone who knows nothing about Thomas Jefferson.

{Video from the already classic HBO John Adams series is Jefferson being at his most silly fortunately for him James Madison would be at his side during his presidency to talk good sense to him.}