American Creation

Another year, another book review. American Creation is a relatively short attempt to examine some of the defining events that led to the establishment of what came to be the United States, running from the Declaration of Independence in 1776 to the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. By-and-large it contains some fascinating (and sad) insights into early attempts to limit the effect of European settlement on the Native American population (in essence the government worked hard to stop it, and were completely unable to do so once people simply - and quite innocently it seems - moved beyond the designated border of the new United States), as well as topics such as the Lousianna Purchase.

American Creation also touches upon that seemingly recurring theme of good and bad governance, the good camp being led by George Washington and John Adams who, flawed as they were, believed firmly that the priority in any situation or decsion that needed to be made was one that was right for the country, not what was the most popular. The 'bad' camp is dominated by Thomas Jefferson (and i'm sure many others who I have yet to encounter in the historical narrative) and his ability to consistently see which way the wind is blowing in terms of popular opinion and match it perfectly. Thus even if it was clearly the wrong thing to do, Jefferson was there in support, right up until it was clear for all to see that it was not the right thing to do, at which point Jefferson denied all knowledge!

In developing the narrative the book takes a very pleasant and mostly informative journey through the early years of American history that is far removed from a stuffy text book. It is the product of a man named Joseph Ellis, a Pulizter winning author and a historian who achieves the next to impossible task of pushing a history book to the top of the best seller lists in the United States, and is also a historian who's style I greatly admire. Indeed, if you take a look back on this blog to 2009 you will find a positively glowing review for one of his earlier books, Founding Brothers.

However, on this occasion I'll end this very short review with cautioned criticism. On the one hand are a few personal niggles. Ellis has an uncanny nack for identifying the clear differences between good and bad governance on behalf of those men (and it is largely men at the beginning of American history) he chooses to place his focus upon. So he looks at Washington and Adams and sees and acknowledges that by and large they made the best decision at the time even though it cost them in terms of their personal reputation or the success of their governments endeavours. He even concedes a certain admiration for them. And yet he also continues to pay a near devotional hommage to Thomas Jefferson (and others such as James Madison - if you are confused then wikipedia can fill in the blanks!) for his ability to play a duplicitous hand, and is exceptionally eager to forgive Jefferson et al's folly so as to praise them for their forsighted creation of our modern world.

This is of course personal criticism on my behalf (the more I read on the period of the American Revolution the more I find myself drawn to John Adams for instance, and inevitable the formation of an Adams perspective on things forms), but I also find it supremely depressing since that opportunistic, change with a whim kind of politics seems disasterous to society and here is a historian that has a vast readership recognising the folly and then joyfully patting the fools on the back.

American Creation also seems a little troubling from the perspective of the historical evidence - at least, how that evidence was presented and used. I cannot speak for the whole book as I simply do not have the time, the resources (or perhaps the inclination!) to check each and every reference used and stated, but on at least two occurances Ellis made a statement or quoted material that was already familiar to me, and on both occurances something seemed wrong.

The first related to a letter George Washington wrote to a friend giving an insight into how he interpreted the American success in winning the War of Independence. Among other reasons, Washington clearly stated that he saw 'Providence' (ie God's hand) in the matter. Joseph Ellis on the other hand clearly believed that God played no role at all. Now that is absolutely fine - this is not about trying to say that everyone must believe God was instrumental in the American Revolution, or in history as a whole. That is a matter of opinion and perspective. However, Ellis portrayed it as basic fact, and based it somewhat in the premise that Washington only saw God's hand in things because he did not see the 'big picture' that hindsight offers. By that he meant a full recognition of all the factors evident in securing American Independence.

The problem with that is essentially two fold. On the one hand Ellis spends a great deal of time elsewhere in the book praising George Washington for his skill, ability and understanding of the wider scheme of things, and explicitly states him as the definative authority on certainly one of the factors in defeating the British that Ellis states Washington must not have known about and was only open to us later in hindsight. In other words, when it came down to the matter of God Washington knew very little about what was going on (in terms of foreign and domestic realites etc etc etc), and at all other times Washington was a master of all he saw in American and beyond. It is a very uneven and unsettling use of the evidence given to firmly push Ellis's own opinion on God and history into the realm of established fact.

The second problem is that no matter what your perspective, historical evidence should always be allowed to stand on its own, presented in such a way as to allow the reader/scholar the opporunity to decided themselves what to make of it. By all means advocate it in the light of a historical argument or discussion and absolutely adorn it with opinion, but make it clear that you are doing that so that the evidence itself can be taken aside and considered. George Washington clearly saw God's hand in what was going on in American history. Whether that makes him a Christian or not is not clear at all. But he did firmly believe that, and whether you or I or anyone else agrees is somewhat irrelevant when presenting that reality. To ignore or simply dismiss it as an unrealistic option is to ignore history itself, and where does that stop?

The second occurance that troubled me again related to Ellis' use of evidence and his willingness to omit if it did not suit. On this occasion it was a recognition of John Adams' uncanny ability to judge the public reaction to the date of American Independence in a letter he sent to his wife Abigail as the Declaration was being signed. So as to demonstrate Adams good judgement Ellis quoted the key passage from the letter, albeit ommitting one sentence. That sentence essentially stated that people should give thanks to God and acknowledge his hand in bringing America to Independence. Now, again this is not about saying that God must be accepted as being a part of the narrative, but Adams clearly believed he should. That Ellis ommitted it was odd not because he cut some text (I have done that plenty of times in essays and my thesis if it was not relevant to the argument), but that he cut that piece of text and left in the remainder of the paragraph even though much of what was left was ittle more relevant than the text about God.

I of course have something of a vested interested in this as I am a Christian and I do believe in God and his sovereignty in the world. Perhaps it was on that basis that I took more notice in what Ellis was saying here. Even so, this is not good history. That I noticed these oddities is troubling because where else has Ellis taken the opportunity to use the evidence poorly or even omit it?

In short be careful when reading Ellis' work (this is especially important since if you live in the States he sells bucket loads of books), and always try to get some good old primary material on a subject if you are reading about history (ie newspapers, diaries etc). I still greatly admire his style and eventually enjoyed the book (it seemed to settle down more towards the end), but this is not the best.