The Birth of the Republic
Edmund S. Morgan
While this book was entirely disappointing, I was at least expecting a nice refreshing break from the heavily academic books often faced by the history major. This, however, does not excuse poorly written (and often ungrammatical) literature. Morgan writes with confidence if nothing else, and with an eye for the common man's understanding. Unfortunately, Morgan confuses simplicity with condescension and his book often dips towards the latter in its oscillation between assumption and unnecessary clarification.
The book itself is a simplified look at the years 1763-1790 (though the cover says it only goes up to 1789, but don't get me started), in which America moved from the idea of reconciliation with Britain through war (one entire chapter of the book) and up to the ratification of the Constitution. That that sentence was mitigated by the parenthetical remarks says something about the book's composition, which is often somewhat schizophrenic. Morgan will speak to readers as though they have a working knowledge of the events, going in depth and exploring events previously unknown to the great bulk of Americans, but he will turn around a paragraph later and explain something incredibly fundamental. If the progression was gradual throughout each chapter, perhaps this approach could work. Morgan, however, comes off as unorganized and inconsiderate of his readers. He gets awfully preachy at times, reminding us that as the academic he knows best.
The passage that I believe illustrates all of the faults of this book perfectly occurs right at the end. Morgan, in order to show his intellectual prowess and knowledgability about his subject matter, brings up Charles Beard's famous interpretation of the Constitution (An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, if you're interested). While I was initially pleased that Morgan was paying attention to the Marxist point of view, I was only disappointed. He played it up well and appeared to be agreeing with Beard, only to attempt feebly to smash him to pieces a couple of pages later. If this book is meant for the ordinary reader, which its simplistic style suggests, why bring up this argument, only to treat it as a bastard interpretation? Morgan cannot decide what to do with Beard or, for that matter, any historical disagreement about the intentions of his founders.
If Morgan's intention at the beginning of the book is to paint a picture in the mind of the reader, it is forgotten after the first chapter, which doesn't even manage the feat. The last sentence of the book is pointless and only invites more dispute and, in my case, scorn. Morgan does such a good job of remaining neutral until the bitter end of the book, when he feels the unfortunate compulsion to distance himself from any radical thought whatsoever and needlessly fly the flag of politically correct, Bush-friendly patriotism. It is this compulsion that prevents him from exploring any of the really interesting debates surrounding the Constitution in any sort of depth, which is unfortunate because the debate about slavery is much more important than the cursory glance it gets.
As a very general introduction to the time period, perhaps the casual reader can ingest Morgan's book and make some sense of it. Anyone with a reasonable education, however, is likely to be offended when reading it at all in depth. Morgan's portrayal of events is accurate and informative enough until matters begin getting serious and he realizes it is time to inject some patriotism into the mix. I had high hopes for this book, but (as most history books do), in terms of literary quality it is so horrible as to detract from the extraction of meaning. How unfortunate for the field.
Grade: C
Edmund S. Morgan
While this book was entirely disappointing, I was at least expecting a nice refreshing break from the heavily academic books often faced by the history major. This, however, does not excuse poorly written (and often ungrammatical) literature. Morgan writes with confidence if nothing else, and with an eye for the common man's understanding. Unfortunately, Morgan confuses simplicity with condescension and his book often dips towards the latter in its oscillation between assumption and unnecessary clarification.
The book itself is a simplified look at the years 1763-1790 (though the cover says it only goes up to 1789, but don't get me started), in which America moved from the idea of reconciliation with Britain through war (one entire chapter of the book) and up to the ratification of the Constitution. That that sentence was mitigated by the parenthetical remarks says something about the book's composition, which is often somewhat schizophrenic. Morgan will speak to readers as though they have a working knowledge of the events, going in depth and exploring events previously unknown to the great bulk of Americans, but he will turn around a paragraph later and explain something incredibly fundamental. If the progression was gradual throughout each chapter, perhaps this approach could work. Morgan, however, comes off as unorganized and inconsiderate of his readers. He gets awfully preachy at times, reminding us that as the academic he knows best.
The passage that I believe illustrates all of the faults of this book perfectly occurs right at the end. Morgan, in order to show his intellectual prowess and knowledgability about his subject matter, brings up Charles Beard's famous interpretation of the Constitution (An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, if you're interested). While I was initially pleased that Morgan was paying attention to the Marxist point of view, I was only disappointed. He played it up well and appeared to be agreeing with Beard, only to attempt feebly to smash him to pieces a couple of pages later. If this book is meant for the ordinary reader, which its simplistic style suggests, why bring up this argument, only to treat it as a bastard interpretation? Morgan cannot decide what to do with Beard or, for that matter, any historical disagreement about the intentions of his founders.
If Morgan's intention at the beginning of the book is to paint a picture in the mind of the reader, it is forgotten after the first chapter, which doesn't even manage the feat. The last sentence of the book is pointless and only invites more dispute and, in my case, scorn. Morgan does such a good job of remaining neutral until the bitter end of the book, when he feels the unfortunate compulsion to distance himself from any radical thought whatsoever and needlessly fly the flag of politically correct, Bush-friendly patriotism. It is this compulsion that prevents him from exploring any of the really interesting debates surrounding the Constitution in any sort of depth, which is unfortunate because the debate about slavery is much more important than the cursory glance it gets.
As a very general introduction to the time period, perhaps the casual reader can ingest Morgan's book and make some sense of it. Anyone with a reasonable education, however, is likely to be offended when reading it at all in depth. Morgan's portrayal of events is accurate and informative enough until matters begin getting serious and he realizes it is time to inject some patriotism into the mix. I had high hopes for this book, but (as most history books do), in terms of literary quality it is so horrible as to detract from the extraction of meaning. How unfortunate for the field.
Grade: C
1 comment:
"American Slavery, American Freedom" and "The Puritan Family" are what made Morgan great. Read those and you will NOT be disappointed despite their age.
Post a Comment