American_history

Summary America’s third president was a citizen of the world. An idealist in values, but ruthlessly pragmatic when in the seat of authority. Jefferson was in public service for about fifty years, with his influence lasting directly up to Jackson’s presidency, making him one of the most effective political operatives in American history. Meacham gives a full view of Jefferson’s life from early education to his end-of-life correspondence with Adams. Jefferson cuts one of the most romantic and contradictory figures in early America. To the rest of the world, he displayed a certain sophistication many thought impossible to emerge from the Americas, whereas to history his regressive stance on slavery taints his memory: he at once acknowledged its illegitimacy yet could not bring himself to reject the peculiar institution altogether. Jefferson was the most vocal of the founding fathers in his defense of the individual rights of man (though, of course, definitions of “men” varied), and this manifested in an expressed distrust of strong federal governments. The preference for small government formed the basis for his antagonism with America’s other premier intellect, Alexander Hamilton. This disagreement ended up forming the first political parties in the US, the Federalists (Hamilton’s party) and the Republicans (Jefferson’s party). The founding gets mythologized for obvious reasons, but it is truly remarkable that two such politically fertile minds as Jefferson and Hamilton would be selected to form this country’s first cabinet. It is also a testament to Washington’s leadership that such a cabinet could exist for as long as it did. Always sure that Washington was Hamilton’s puppet, Jefferson would eventually retire to Monticello in a semi-theatrical way. His avowed aim was to put the dirty work of politics behind him, but both Washington and Hamilton suspected that Jefferson was “protesting too much.” Their suspicions turned out to be correct, he would shortly be back in office, serving a single term under the acerbic John Adams as vice president. He would then deftly create the first single-term president in US history, ascending to the highest office in the land. Once in the driver’s seat, strong centralized authority seemed useful, and Jefferson did little to curtail the powers of the executive. In fact, when Napoleon offered Jefferson the Louisiana Purchase, he was worried that the purchase of lands was not within the scope of Federal authority and would require an amendment. He ended up deciding the amendment path would open the purchase up to an extended window of debate and deliberation when decisive and quick action was needed, and so he pushed the purchase straight to Congress. This is not to say that Jefferson’s values were inauthentically held; it was more a testament to his adaptability. After Jefferson served two terms, the presidential office went to his long-term friend and ideological ally Madison. He would keep in close contact with leaders of the Republican Party for the rest of his life. ...

Summary This book follows the careers of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, focusing on the second half of FDR’s administration from 1940 to 1945. By this time, Franklin had been the U.S. President for nearly two full terms. During those two terms, he had transformed the federal government to an almost unrecognizable extent, implementing many policies we now take for granted, like Social Security, the FDIC, the SEC, and the 40-hour workweek. These policies were part of a larger platform known as the “New Deal,” which was essentially a labor reform agenda that emerged during the Great Depression. ...

Summary At 900pages in length the book not only covers the civil war but starts at a bird’s eye view of the birth of the United States zooming in closer and closer as we near the Civil War. Going fairly in depth on the US’ economic industry and its evolutions McPherson paints a picture of sprawling plantations and Yankee ingenuity. But in these developments cracks in the “United” States started to appear. The North and South started to develop in different directions. The North barreled forward (or downward? backward? depends on who you ask) into industrialized capitalism while the South who were largely agricultural stood firm in their conservative values and therefore abhorred the urbanization, automatization, that created crowded crime laden huge cities in the North. As an aside, you can get some of this sentiment playing Red Dead Redemption 2, ironically an explicitly anti-confederate game where the main characters act and view the world through a similar lens as the folks who created the Confederacy. Yet having this stance put you squarely against the march of “progress”, as such a widening gap between specialists in North and South started to appear. As such the South became more and more dependent on products from the North, whereas the North maintained only its dependence on the South’s cotton. The gap wasn’t just economic but also in ideas, most of the books, newspapers, inventors, and scientists came from the North. It was fairly common for rich Southerners to pay for their kids to go to school up north. This caused friction as the South began to feel inferiority or distrust towards the North. But even with these things, the central issue was slavery. There was a growing vocal movement of radical abolitionists, next to them was a less radical Free-Soil party who opposed the idea of expanding slavery into the new states of the west. This made southern slave owners uneasy, because for a quite some time slave owners were overrepresented in the government, but several new states with anti-slavery legislation had been added to the Union. This was starting to tip the scale of power away from the once dominant slave owners. This among other things, put these two competing ideologies on a collision course. McPherson then does a fantastic job of describing different factions and their mindsets. Just like any time in history, there was a lot going on and the stories we’re told often greatly oversimplify. He makes it very clear that you could be anti-slavery and racist at the same time. The North in general was anti-slavery but most did not view blacks as their equals. All this and the Civil War hasn’t even started. ...

Summary Follows the back-and-forth progress of “civilization” in the wild west, with an emphasis on the role Comanches played in that drama. Thoughts The strength of this book lies in the larger-than-life characters that this little bit of history provides. You have the tough as nails Mackenzie, who tenaciously chases the Comanches as they manage to outmaneuver every force the US government sends their way. You have Cythia Ann Parker, who was kidnapped by the Comanches and raised as one of their own and of course her son, Quanah, who is depicted as a fearless military genius. These characters will stay with me for a while. I am too illiterate to make comments about the historical voracity of the authors claims, but to a layman it seemed like he was even handed in his treatment of both sides. In our current cultural moment, he might have been too even handed. There are of course many things that struck me while going through this experience. One of the craziest things to me was the apparent mutation of Comanche culture when introduced to the horse. It was as if they had this latent superpower that was waiting around to be unlocked. From what Gwynne describes it sounds like their skills in horsemanship were only rivaled by the renowned riders of the Steppe. This book also made me realize that hidden in the “ugly duckling” troupe is a lie, and a somewhat insidious one at that. So you have a character that is somehow different from the group. Due to these differences that character gets mercilessly mocked and ostracized. A moment of transformation happens, not to the ugly duckling but to the ones viewing the ugly duckling. They realize that the ugly duckling is actually a swan, and as swan, in some senses their superior. The moral of the story of course is that differences are beautiful and should be embraced. Live your truth and others will eventually follow. Everyone has something that makes them special etc. etc. What I never realized is that there is a slight of hand in these stories that undercuts the moral. The real message of these stories is that group values are sacrosanct, immutable. The ugly duckling is now accepted, not because of some group realization, but from a re-categorization, that is to say that he was actually a beautiful swan the whole time. But what of the real ugly duckling? The ugly Betty that can’t take off her glasses. Herein lies the truth, to the group there is no rebirth, no accommodation. This was tragically played out in the life of Cythia Ann Parker; she is the true ugly duckling. Adopted by the same Comanches who orphaned her, she transforms into a Comanche, but when forcibly “rescued” by whites she cannot or will not transition back. As such she continues to her dying day to be a true oddity. Her son on the other hand, makes the transition into the whites’ expected vision of him. He is accepted inasmuch as he can manage to become white. This book was a really interesting read and has my recommendation.