David McCullough (author of "1776") Vanity

[soundandvision]

I happened to be watching Mr. McCullough being interviewed by Tim Russert on Russert's weekend CNBC program. Several things Mr. McCullough said struck me as odd and sounded like something many conservatives have said of the current conflict we're in.

Of note, he said that if the war in 1776 were covered by the media (presuming there were a 'media' then) the way they are covering the current conflict -- he said 'I don't think we would have the (nerve) for it'.

I have a question -- is David McCullough a conservative? I've never read his "Truman", nor "John Adams" but this strikes me as a very lucid and honest thing to observe from such a noted well though of historian.

Having seen this interview with him, I'm sure I'll be buying this book...I rarely am excited to by books. The last thing I read was William F. Buckleys Bio from last year.

[Jet Jaguar]

found this

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-1654116,00.html

History: 1776: America and Britain at War by David McCullough
REVIEWED BY FELIPE FERNANDEZ-ARMESTO
1776: America and Britain at War
by David McCullough
Allen Lane £25 pp400

IRON TEARS: Rebellion in America, 1775-1781
by Stanley Weintraub
Simon & Schuster £18.99 pp400

I despair at the daft books that seem to please readers. Plots can be foolish as long as they’re fast. Characters can be shallow as long as they’re vivid. Prose can be slovenly as long as it’s slick. And I’m not just talking about Dan Brown and the new surplice-rippers, written in advertiser’s English. Celebrity-trash and TV tie-ins tyrannise the popular non-fiction shelves. History, too, has become bunk. The easy-reading market is numbing authors’ brains.

Currently, the world’s most commercially successful historical writer is the American journalist, David McCullough. He has written creditable, predictable books. He has won prizes from his peers and plaudits from discriminating academics. He has sold millions. His new book, however, is dire.

It does not even have the virtues of That Was the Year books: there’s no attempt at a broad sweep or layered story. 1776 is a narrow-fronted narrative of the early encounters of the American war of independence. What would a good book on the subject be like? It would strip the mask from the face of battle and show the grime and gashes, the eyes narrowed with hate or staring with horror. It would take the big problems seriously: why did the war happen? Why did the rebellion succeed? How did rebels, who started fighting as “free-born Englishmen”, come to see themselves as Americans? It would tell us not just “all about the war” but also “what they fought each other for”.

It would see the war in all its complexity. This was an American civil war, in which rivals for power inside the colonies challenged each other. It was also a British civil war, recycling the rhetoric of 17th-century conflicts in which “the commonwealth” fought the crown, and congregations resisted established religion. It was the first war of resistance against black emancipation, for the banning of slavery on English soil excited black hopes and seemed to threaten a vital colonial interest. It was a revolution born of prosperity: newly rich colonials invested blood and treasure to safeguard big gains and bigger prospects. It was the colonials’ bid for an empire of their own in Native American buffer states that the British sought to preserve. Without contemplating these contexts, you cannot understand what happened.

Above all, the war was an example of the power of “continental drift”: the “creole” patriotism that edged colonies throughout the Americas towards new identities. The America that broke from Britain was a brand-new society. Population increased 10 times over in three generations. From about 1760, a rush of settlers scaled the Appalachians to found a new “land of Canaan”. The most adventurous imaginations were overstimulated by what they saw. George Washington dreamt of laying “with very little money the foundation of a noble estate” on the Ohio.

Migrants came with alienated loyalties. Those from England were almost all young — a resentful generation of budding guerrillas. Those from within Britain were mostly from Scotland and, within Scotland, mostly from the Highlands and Islands — regions lately conquered and viciously persecuted. Many “hearts and minds” in which the revolution was conceived were those of newcomers, gripped in a ferment of exciting possibilities. New Englanders drifted apart from the “mother country” by sea, just as settlers in the Ohio edged away by land. While trading with the world, they traded resentment with England, as disputes over the definition of contraband multiplied and tea tumbled into Boston harbour. British America was a colony in flux, exploding with instability.

McCullough gives readers no background and therefore makes his story unintelligible. Instead, he gives us traditional rattling-good battles, which he writes up with perfection of pace and a journalist’s eye for human interest. The approach is old-fashioned, research slapdash, scholarship neglible, the judgments inane, the characterisation childish, the tone sick-makingly patriotic. There is not an original or interesting thought in the book. The conclusion — that Washington’s unaided efforts won the war before foreign powers intervened — is unargued and indefensible.

Stanley Weintraub’s account is more ambitious, trying to cover the whole war, and better informed: he, at least, is aware of the big issues, though he sacrifices them to a breathless narrative. So my despair is complete. For a while, it seems, the taste of nerds nurtured on a surfeit of Discovery Channel docudramas will dominate history publishing. We face the Brown era in fiction and a dark age for popular history.

Available at the Sunday Times Books First prices of £20 and £15.19 (Weintraub) plus £2.25 p&p on 0870 165 8585
Print this article Send to a friend Back to top of page
ALSO IN THIS SECTION

[Andyman]

I HIGHLY recommend both 'John Adams' and 'Path Between the Seas.' Both books are very readable, highly informative, and just terrific.

[Textide]

Found an interesting article on this very subject here...

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/12452.html

[soundandvision]

Thanks for the interesting article. Also of note was his mentioning that Washington indeed was a slave master. But it's not something that became the discussion, you know? It was a flaw.. but McCullough was quickly on to other important topics about Washington, within the context of that moment, with Russert.

That really made me think 'aha! He's not harping on unflattering aspects of our founders'. That's a great thing. Mention it, move on.

[Malesherbes]

So McCullough is "sick-makingly patriotic." That seems like a positive recommendation to me.

[GodBlessRonaldReagan]

His "John Adams" book has great. I'll be picking up "1776" soon.

[ShadowDancer]

I've never read his "Truman"

Do it. I'm looking at it right now and it is still one of the best books I have ever read. You won't be disappointed.

[Miss Marple]

I also think Truman was very good, as was Path Between the Seas. I almost bought 1776 the other day, and will now do so based on what I have been reading.

[Koblenz]

John Adams was very good. Path Between the Seas was also good. I just finished that one. Another book of similar vein that I liked is Age of Gold by HW Brands.

[wastoute]

I read Path Between the Seas while stationed in Panama. I had never read history that read like fiction. It was fascinating and I spent several nights reading until 0300. I found the same with John Adams. Since I am not an
Adams historian, I can't say if the Adams one comes to know intimately in that book corresponds to the real Adams, but again, I found myself reading until 0300 because I couldn't put it down. Quite a trick for nonfiction.

[SouthCarolinaKit]

Regardless of his true political philosopy, one can rest assured that he'd never admit fo conservatism or, as David Horowitz can attest, he'd never have another best-seller.
The Old Publishing world only supports those whom they consider of like-mind with them: radical leftists. Look at the best-seller lists: 90% touchy-feely pablum that lefties love. A much better recommendation can be found at Amazon: those books with fake liberal hate-this-book reviews are sure great-reads!

[Tijeras_Slim]

Truman was great, and he also read it on the audiobook. I've read "Path Between the Seas" and "The Great Bridge" which are fantastic books about the "can-do" spirit in history. "The Johnstown Flood" is a good read.

I had a bit more trouble with "Mornings on Horseback" and "John Adams" but that may just be my taste, and I will revisit them.

I finished "1776" yesterday. Great read.

[solzhenitsyn]

I've only read "John Adams". It was wonderful.

Reading Felipe Fernandez-Armesto's nasty review of "1776" makes me want to run out and buy the book. The reviewer wants the Revolutionary War to be about anything other than patriotism, freedom, and human dignity, so he invents all sorts of other motives for the war. If Fernandez-Armesto disliked "1776" so intensely, I'm sure I'll enjoy the book. Especially the "make-sickingly patriotic" parts.

Thanks for posting this, soundandvision.

[FractalMan]

I have read "1776" and my only complaint is that it wasn't longer! I have also read "John Adams". I think McCullough has an excellent point of view. He fully respects the achievements of our Founding Fathers and appreciates their sacrifices to establish our country. He only touches on slavery as a big dividing issue (which of course the founders knew full well how divisive of an issue it was). "1776" goes into more detail about the battles in Boston, New York and Trenton than I have read in other books. Highly recommended.

[ml/nj]

is David McCullough a conservative?

A belated reply to be sure ...

I heard McCullough speak yesterday, and I was searching through old posts to see what might have been said about him here. For one reason or another, I've ignored his books to now. Maybe it's that he is a "narrative" historian, or that he is not an "academic" historian?

Anyway his speech yesterday (at Palm Beach Four Arts) was supposed to be about George Washington and 1776. Part of it was to be sure. But he ended with a commentary about the abysmal state of the knowledge of history in this country particularly among the younger generations. He noted that the major universities do not even require the study of some history as a requirement for a degree. He blasted the idea of an "Education Degree," for teachers; pointing out that it is ridiculous to expect people to teach well some subject that they have not studied themselves and for which they have no passion.

He sure sounded like a conservative to me!

The only thing I wish he had considered in his review of the low state of historical knowledge among Americans, is that this situation has, at least in part, been the result of deliberate actions by some or many. (Consider "DWMs", Black Studies, Women Studies, &c.)

ML/NJ

[Rocky]

History: 1776: America and Britain at War by David McCullough

REVIEWED BY FELIPE FERNANDEZ-ARMESTO

(Referring to review in earlier reply, above.)

Well, I don't think much of this reviewer's comments. I have read John Adams and 1776, and I think they are both excellent books.

The reviewer's main complaints seem to center around the fact that he would expect something else from a book titled "1776". I did have the thought at the time that I read it that the title was misleading, too all-encompassing. A book truly about 1776 would be encyclopedic in nature and size. But it was a great read, and I have no idea why the reviewer said it was poorly researched.

I don't know what McCullough's political views are, but I certainly had the feeling while reading John Adams that he seemed to reflect conservative values in his assessment of situations.