I think this forum needs a book club.

I mean, we've already got our noses in books anyway. With a club, we could have planned readings and substantive discussion.


Let the nominating begin!

I love discussing the books I've read recently and don't get much opportunity to do that among my circle of friends. When I try to do so, they either blink randomly or change the subject.

I still haven't decided what I'm going to nominate. Most of the stuff in my library is rather dense.

If tradition holds, I'll have a pile of books to read then. Hopefully one or two of them won't be garbage.

As far as dense is concerned, I could nominate Holt's _Rise and Fall of the Whig Party_. Of course we'd have to agree to find a time to start discussing it next summer when everyone has had enough time to get half way through. ;-)

If we're interested in applying the study of the past to the study of the present, this would be an excellent resource for shutting up doomsayers who claim the Democrats are being wiped out or are 'lost in the wilderness' or other such nonsense.

A sense of history goes a long way toward getting through difficult times. If one understands the Whigs -- and I think Holt must understand them better than any human being alive -- one understands a great deal about how American politics evolves.

I've actually had it for a few years... finally started reading it last year but set it aside when campaign stuff started to eat up all my spare time.

I don't know if it's "US History" as much as it is "North American History", but there is a book titled '1421: The Year China Discovered the World' or something similar (sorry im at work now) that explains evidence that China had explored and traded with Native Americans long before Christopher Columbus in 1492.

It looks really interesting to me anyway!

The author (Menzies?), sadly, seems not to have done that good a job. He makes a case for Chinese discovery of the Americas from the east in a grand circumnavigation. Few critics have had a hard time tearing it apart. For example, among the things he cites as evidence is the Newport Tower--which all archealogical evidence suggests was built in the 17th century, two hundred years after the 1421 date.

There's probably a better case to be made for much earlier Chinese exploration of North America from the west.

Thanks for the input.

I haven't read much of it yet, other than at the book's website, and so haven't had a chance to tear it apart myself.

I do believe there is enough evidence to say that Chinese culture led to some of the cultural ideas of Native Americans, but whether this was carried over the land-bridge as officially theorized or by boat at a later time is still up for grabs in my mind.

I find this topic VERY interesting. When I do finally read the book I will remember to use my skeptic-spectacles.

In the way that Creationism is pseudo-science. Too many leaps of logic and not enough sound evidence.

As is much in American history before the Europeans "discovered" it, as is much of any archaelogist's recreations of dinosaur habits/ecology, etc.

Sometimes a leap in logic, as much as a leap in faith, is required.

Any other ideas for a book?

But if we can nominate something we've already read, I'd like to mention Icons of Democracy by Bruce Miroff. It came out about 12 years ago, but it's still quite instructive. It attempts to categorize American leaders in four groups.


Aristocrats: Alexander Hamilton & John Adams are the examples of leadership that assumes it has a "natural merit" that the rabble lacks. These kinds of leaders strive for a disinterested policy in the general interest, but are prone to vanity. Al Gore, despite his clumsy attempts at populism, falls into this category, as would Dick Cheney.

Democrats: By the author's reckoning, these are the best types of leaders--combining both the "masculine" aspect of upholding the society's core instutitions and traditions and the "feminine" aspect of nurturing and consoling the national community during its times of suffering. I'd say that Clinton and (intriguingly) Reagan fit this mold. The author's prime examples are Abe Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.

Dissidents: Leaders who speak against the injustices of the established order include Martin Luther King, Eugene Debs, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. These are leaders from outside the established order who draw attention to the disconnect between American ideals and political realities that depend upon. Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, and even Jerry Falwell fit this type. The downside of this leadership style is best seen in Cady Stanton's sad attempts to build up her cause's support by playing on the racial prejudices of her era.

Heroes: Teddy Roosevelt & John Kennedy are his examples of the "macho display" type of leader. Kennedy hybridized the form, somewhat, with "democrat" tendencies. The title of the Teddy chapter is "Theodore Roosevelt: Herioc Leadership and Masculine Spectacle." We all know who the prime exempler of masculine spectacle is in our day. But one thing we could discuss is if Howard Dean fits into this mold, altho John Kerry does seem to fit it pretty clearly.

It looks discussable and, again, it won't be hard to get a copy of it.

but I'll read anything if it's written well.

Great Man theory posits that history is decided by the actions of great men, sometimes called "a man on a horse." Carlyle argued this thesis--his famous quote is something like "history is the biography of great men." It's the polar opposite of the "Determinism" school of thought (what Beard, Spencer, and Marx suggest) that history is a function of economics and social trends.

Icons of Democracy doesn't seem to fall into either thought trap. It only is a look at personal leadership styles and how they influence (not determine) events. Rather than saying, as the Great Man Theory goes, that these people shaped history, it seems only to suggest that the decisions and styles of these leaders matter somewhat.

The Jacksonian Era, 1828-1848
Glyndon van Deusen

Why?

1) It covers a time when the United States changed direction radically, becoming, for both better and worse, more democratic. You might be able to find branches of both the positive energy and the dark side in the American character. It's fun to look for that kind of stuff, anyway.

2) He's a good writer, and at ca. 300 pages he won't wear you down.

3) It's still in print, and goobers of used copies are floating around bookfinder.com.


(I'm currently digesting Origins of the American Revolution, by John C. Miller. It's excellent, but at 500 pages I don't really want to nominate it.)

The Hungry Years: a Narrative History of the Great Depression in America, by T.H. Watkins

It reads a little more like a text than any other narrative history I've read. However, it is rich with well placed anecdotes that make the Great Depression come more alive than in any other text I've read.

Amazon product description: In a single, comprehensive volume, The Hungry Years tells the story of the Great Depression through the eyes of the people who lived it. Less concerned with the power brokers in Washington than with the daily struggles of ordinary people at the grassroots across America, it draws on little-known oral histories, memoirs, local press, and scholarly monographs to capture the voices of men and women in a time of extreme crisis. The result is a richly detailed narrative that traces the stages of the disaster chronologically without losing touch with the personal wounds it inflicted or the ways in which people responded.

Depression.

be all over the board (as they already are).


My vote is for the Great Depression. I've already seen a few for the early 1800's.

Sounds like an interesting choice for era...

Although I am more interested in the early to mid 19th century leading up to the civil war, a read about the Great Depression may be more fitting for the current times!

I'm a bit of a nut about late 18th century politics, but it seems most suggestions here run to two choices: the Jacksonian/antebellum period and the period between the world wars. I think we could maybe pick our first two books now, take one to read for January/February discussion and then take the next one to discuss for March/April.

So maybe read first The Jacksonian Era by Glyndon van Deusen and then The Hungry Years by T.H. Watkins? Or maybe we should discuss other nominations first.

One era I think we don't need to be discussing is the Founding/Federalist period. 18th Century discussions tend to get too theoretical and it was an era of great leaders. We're definitely not in an era of great leaders (and I count Democrats in that generalization). Unlike the Founding era, or the 1940s-50s, or the Progressive Era, we're in an age of small well marketed men and women who are swept up by events, rather than leading them.

In that, I think we're closer to the temperament of the Jacksonian era, or the period of the robber barons, or especially the 1920s. So I'd suggest that these are the first periods to discuss. But my suggestion is based a lot on where I am myself. I'm personally tired of being theoretical and would like to spend time talking about pragmatic politics and common sense economic issues.

We'll all obviously not have them read at the same time, so someone can start the thread and it'll be discussed as people get it read. This forum isn't quite the lounge, so I doubt the thread would be "buried" even after a week of being idle.

I'm planning on starting the Jacksonian Era as soon as I finish Plot Against America.

into how a massive population wipe-out might affect history...socially/politically, in a fundamental way.

I started wondering about this in relation to the recent tsunami after I'd read that the plague wiped-out about one forth of the population of europe.

This led me to speculate that maybe we wouldn't have had the enlightenment in europe without the plague because the plague was indiscriminate about who it killed and by killing so many of those in power it may have loosened the control they exerted on thier society enough to allow new thoughts to percolate.

I then read a thread in GD about the value of the rich to society and I again thought along the lines of structure.

There also seems to be an underlying value given to "culling" mostly with respect to over population and mostly assuming the culling of the underclass (culling seems to have a built-in bias of removing the inferior which those in power assume to be those with less station in life). I thought of the idea of culling because of a thread in the lounge that gave the population growth indicating how long it would take the world to replace those who lost thier lives in the tsunami...not long.

Also, I wonder if the enlightenment only occured in the regions effected by the critical loss of people in positions of authority where it could cause a stagnate and rigid structure to crumble. I'm aware about the ideas of the trade routes and crusades etc. opening europe up but was the loss of population critical to allowing these ideas to flourish?

I wish I could say this better but I'm not very educated about history but my interest is picqued and I would appreciate any recommendations for a way to gain more insight into this.

Thank you history people.

gives a readable overview of the effects of the plague on 14 century Europe. The title evoked her effort to understand -- through an examination of a catastrophic period in history -- what the results of a nuclear exchange might be on present-day world affairs. I didn't think she presented much a case there, but the examination of the 14th century was fascinating.

Europe" is a great book about the cultural, political, economic changes in a society facing such a situation. Its by Robert Gottfried. While it doesn't in and of itself treat any issues like nuclear disaster, it still clearly points out the historical changes brought about by the plague. A book club is a great idea. I will mention this site and this group to my brother who is getting a PHD in History.

I'm on several Medieval academic lists and they have thoroughly debunked this book as a piece of shoddy scholarship.

L-

Or dubious facts marshaled into the service of a theory that may not be wacky? Or somewhere in between? I did medieval in college, but that was a while ago....

be better suited to answering your question :hi:

Closest events the U.S. has is wipe out of Native Americans during Columbian exchange; Spanish Influenza in 1918-1919; more regional outbreaks of disease in major cities in the second half of the 19th century.
I don't think any of those instances is quite what you're looking for.

and when I didn't see any responses I thought I might haved asked such a fundamentaly stupid question that it didn't deserve an answer. History is becoming an acquired taste for me. Thanks for responding...I'm off to check-out the books mentioned. :)

I nominate (and just bought) Thomas Paine, "Common Sense, Rights of Man, and other essential writings." Signet Classic --- Introduction by Sideney Hook, foreword by Jack Fruchtman Jr. --- $5.95 at my local bookstore. I've always wanted to read it. Has everyone but me already read it?

It seems to me it's always good to start at the beginning, and Thomas Paine was one of the first Americans to write about American values.

He was born in England in 1737. Didn't arrive in the US until 1774. Lived in Paris during the Revolution (was imprisoned for a while) and didn't return to the U.S. until 1802. He also didn't want to go back because of emotional baggage: quit apprenticeship under his father at 19, went to sea as a privateer in 1756 and hated it, got fired twice as an excise officer, first wife died within a year of marrying, second wife divorced him after he lost his excise officer job a second time in 1774, then declared an outlaw in 1790's after writing .

I was hoping to do secondary sources, but maybe primary sources like your nomination would be a great idea. Not enough people read them.

I am not a historian -- just like to read American history -- when I have the time to do so, which is not very often. I have a couple of volumes of Lincoln writings and speeches. I am puzzled by the Lincoln/Douglas debates. I have not read them through and through -- just bits and pieces, but I have the impression that Lincoln had certain beliefs but was actually developing them, actually learning, as he proceeded through the debates. What a contrast with today's politicians who are manicured, rehearsed and brought out like Lippizaner horses to perform choreographed dances in front of their audiences in "debates" and press conferences. I'd like any information any more knowledgeable people have about what was going on there. What's the scoop on the Lincoln/Douglas debates?

One thing that is so interesting about them is that despite them being so high profile- at the time and now- is that they were strictly regional. I don't think Douglass even finished second in that election, because he was trounced by Lincoln in the North.

In the South, Douglass got next to no votes and Lincoln didn't even appear on the ballots in a few states.

As far as the substance of the debates themselves, you'd need to brush up on the events of the time, which are usually obscured in history classes by the looming war. Reading some Cliffs Notes versions of their contemporary philosophers would help.

1,380,202 compared to Lincoln's 1,865,908 but fourth in electoral votes.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1860#Election_Results

Common Sense is one of my favorites. I prefer to read primary sources. After processing it all and mulling it over in my own mind, then I read the secondary sources to see what "they" think about it.

I think you will enjoy Common Sense, it gave me a great feel for what it must have been like to be alive in such interesting times.

I had a book at one time that was a compilation of Benjamin Franklin's writings. It included his personal letters, articles, essays, etc. It was an awesome book (and HUGE), but I can't seem to find it anymore.

that few people know about and that has only recently been explored: the eugenics movement of the early 1900s is detailed in the book "War Against the Weak" by Edwin Black. I have bought 3 copies and each time I end up giving it to someone to read and they pass it on. The last copy is staying in my library! This book would be of interest to readers who are studying the Nazi movement, a history of eugenics, history of our treatment of people with disabilities, minorities and the poor. I studied history in college and NOT ONE WORD was said about the contents of this book.

It really fizzled out with World War II. Apparantly it took the Holocaust for many to realize what eugenics REALLY means.

I was amazed by some of the people who spoke on behalf of eugenics. Justice Brandeis wrote a famous opinion about it in a case involving forced sterilization.

or, Party of the People, History of the Democrats