Periods and Movements Books

I have heard about Dr. Hart's work for years and find her reputation as a ground-breaking scholar with novel, but significant, ideas for research is well-deserved. This work is especially important as so many of that generation are now passing away.

Hart's book was exceptionaly weak in content, spending the majority of the time on justification of methodology. Whenever one thought that an opportunity presented itself to deal with GREECE and GENDER, immediately the reader was bounced across the Atlantic to issues of African American radicalism or culture in the United States. This could have been a great book, if it were 120 pages that actaully dealt with Greece and utilized primary sources as opposed to secondary theoretical sources. Conjecture is not history.

I'm surprised that Cambridge University Press would have published this very weak study of lesbian and gay organizing in Britian and the US. It reads like senior thesis. Instead of this book, I would recommend the serious scholarship of people like Craig Rimmerman, Steven Seidman or Mark Blasius.

THIS GUY SURE KNOWS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT AND EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS BOOK.. THREE CHEERS TO THE AUTHOR. THANK YOU STEPHEN FOR AN HONEST LOOK AT THIS TIME PERIOD

"For God and Mammon" examines the motivations behind migration to the Kansas territory following the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Dr. SenGupta argues that there were two main motivating factors that drove Northern migration: evangelical abolition (God) and free labor (Mammon). The abolitionist groups, particularly the American Home Missionary Society, helped the free labor companies in promoting migration west. These groups were only interested in settling the "right" kind of people in Kansas (i.e., whites who did not drink, gamble, or were Catholic). Southerners, she argues, migrated for "unabashed commercialism and political ambition." (28) She does give a fairly good account of "Bleeding Kansas," including the "sack of Lawrence" and the Pottawotamie Massacre.
However, she reaches too far when she starts Chapter 7. In that chapter, she argues that Franklin Pierce's handling of the Kansas conflict cost him the Democratic Party nomination in 1856. Also, the Kansas affair split the Know Nothing Party, with many of them joining the Republican Party. This set up the two party system that still exists today. She also examines the 1857 territorial election, and that rampant voter fraud led to part of the ballots being thrown out. This gave the antislavery faction in Kansas the majority in the territorial legislature, and led to Kansas entering the Union as a free state in 1861. The problem with this chapter is that it discusses all these important themes -- and takes 9 pages to do it. This is not nearly long enough to cover everything in any sort of depth, and the overall product is severely hurt by it. Had she deleted this chapter, or expanded her thesis and analyzed these events in more detail, her book would be excellent.
However, since she did not stay in Kansas, which is where the strength of her book lies, I'm afraid that "For God and Mammon" is not as good as it could have been.

It is one of the great vagaries of history that George Croghan did not become an American icon, but instead languishes in near complete obscurity. Few men in the Colonial period accomplished more for their country, and perhaps none were more influential in encouraging the westward expansion of America. Croghan was the most successful Indian trader of his era, and following that trade, was exploring Kentucky twenty years before Daniel Boone. He was the preeminent Indian negotiator of his generation, unrivalled in respect and influence among the western Indians. He was with the young George Washington when he started the French and Indian War at the Great Meadows in 1754, and a year later he scouted for Braddock's army, and with Washington, rescued the mortally wounded Braddock from the field when that army was massacred. He led one hundred natives fighting for the English at the battle of Ticondaroga in 1756, and in 1758 was with General Forbes when his army captured Fort DuQuesne at the forks of the Ohio. He traveled deep into the wild interior of the country during Pontiac's Uprising, and negotiated an end to that conflict after being attacked and taken prisoner by hostile natives. And he was one of the greatest land speculators of his day, organizing great land companies to encourage western expansion, and firing the imaginations of friends and associates such as Benjamin Franklin and Patrick Henry with the dream of western development. His fascinating life deserves a first rate, modern biography.
Until a modern biography of Croghan is written, Albert Volwiler's 1926 book George Croghan and the Westward Movement is perhaps the sole book devoted to this giant of the Colonial frontier. Volwiler's book is well researched, lavishly noted, and contains a wealth of information on its subject. However, it is unlikely to appeal to anyone who does not already have a firm interest in Croghan. The writing is generally uninspired, and often tedious. Volwiler skims past some of the most exciting episodes of Croghan's life with but a few sentences while spending chapters detailing the minutia of his many land deals.
Knowing Croghan and his accomplishments is crucial to understanding the Colonial frontier, and anyone interested in studying this period is advised to read this book. Just keep your fingers crossed that someone soon will realize what an amazing life he led, and will write a biography that will do it justice.

Theo Logos

Robert W. Johannsen's dislike of Abraham Lincoln comes roaring through in these four lectures put into print. It is the work of an experienced, thoughtful professional historian who uses sources that are many and wide-reaching, most of them primary. All that is worth 5 stars. However, if the only thing that someone knew of Lincoln came from Johannsen's fourth lecture "Lincoln and the South," he would have to conclude that it was a miracle that Lincoln was elected in 1860. According to Johannsen, no one except for a few radical abolitionists had anything good to say about him. He also believes that Lincoln never did much right except pull the wool over the public's eyes. Johannsen is a Stephen A. Douglasphile, and it shows. He wrote a near 1,000 page biography of Douglas and here even uses some of Douglas's conjectures about Lincoln as if they were facts. While not a Lincolnphobe in the awful sense of Thomas DiLorenzo, Johannsen isn't too far from it, although his arguments are much more noteworthy than those of the historically-challenged DiLorenzo. Johannsen's principle point is that Lincoln was a consummate politician and ambitious, as if we should all be shocked to hear that. Perhaps Mr. Johannsen would care to name the one person who ever ran for president who had no ambition and who never engaged in politics. He thinks that Lincoln's anti-slavery stance was almost entirely political in nature, which is to imply that Lincoln really didn't mean anything he said about slavery the 175 times he spoke of the subject between 1854 and 1858. If so, Lincoln was the bravest and shrewdest pure politician of all time, because he expressed a principle with which the majority of U.S. citizens did not concur but won anyway. Johannsen spends page after page lambasting Lincoln for not saying something soothing to the South after his election, only to finally and honestly conclude that there wasn't anything Lincoln have said anyway. By all means, read Johannsen's four lectures but follow up with James McPherson's work on Lincoln for a more balanced viewpoint.

John Brown the abolitionist (1800-59) defied the ruling assumptions of the anti-slavery movement by taking up arms against proslavery forces, blending his own brand of militancy with a devout Calvinist piety that many historians still find difficult to comprehend. In the nearly 150 years since his failed raid on the federal armory at Harper's Ferry, [West] Virginia, and his subsequent execution in December 1859, the nation has been divided over the real meaning of John Brown to the United States, and often the line that has been drawn between his critics and supporters has been nearly identical to the color line.

Sensitive to the renaissance of interest in Brown that became apparent in the 1990s, Peggy Russo, assistant professor of English at Pennsylvania State University at Mont Alto, developed and hosted a wonderful multidisciplinary symposium entitled "John Brown: The Man, the Legend, the Legacy," held on her campus in July 1996. A guiding presence at the conference was Paul Finkelman, now the President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law at Albany Law School. Among other works, Finkelman had already edited a collection of scholarly writings on Brown entitled HIS SOUL GOES MARCHING ON, published in 1995 (University Press of Virginia). A decade later these two scholars have published TERRIBLE SWIFT SWORD: THE LEGACY OF JOHN BROWN (Ohio University Press, 2005), a collection of twelve essays gathered from the contributions of conference participants.

The book is prepared in an attractive paperback format and includes some classic illustrations and a basic chronology of Brown's life--the latter being somewhat helpful although marked by a number of errors in dating. The editors have divided the essays into five sections: contemporaries and supporters of Brown, Brown defined, behavioral analyses of Brown, literary representations of Brown, and Brown and cultural iconography.

By far the best section is the first, which features excellent historical research by Dean Grodzins, who provides insight into the social and political background of one of Brown's most notable supporters, the Rev. Theodore Parker. Likewise, Hannah Geffert, an expert on the theme of black participation in the Harper's Ferry raid, shatters conventional assumptions about the interest and support shown by local enslaved people in Brown's efforts. Jean Libby, perhaps the foremost documentary scholar on Brown since the late Boyd Stutler and Clarence Gee, provides insight into the life of Thomas Henry, a leading black clergyman that Brown tried--and failed--to contact and enlist in his efforts.

Other notable contributions are made by Israeli scholar, Eyal Naveh, who explains how and why Brown's image as a martyr was undermined in the post-Reconstruction era, and by Charles J. Holden, who shows how Southern writers in the post-Civil War used their hostile portrayal of Brown to justify the defeated South and its lost cause. On the other hand, William Keeney provides an equally fascinating discussion about the use of poetry by Brown's admirers just prior to the Civil War, and how their literary efforts were designed to circumvent what they found to be difficult questions concerning Brown and his methods.

Editor Russo likewise makes a most enlightening and entertaining contribution in discussing Raymond Massey's cinematic portrayal of Brown in two Hollywood classics, "Santa Fe Trail" (1940) and "Seven Angry Men" (1955). As Russo shows, the former portrayed Brown quite negatively, raising some scholarly criticism. However Russo does not mention that one of Brown's direct descendants actually tried to bring a lawsuit against Warner Brothers for maligning her forebear, and it was undoubtedly "Santa Fe Trail" that Malcolm X later criticized for having made Brown look like a "nut." Russo shows how the social and political context had changed between 1940 and 1955 when "Seven Angry Men" was released, and although Massey reprised his role as Brown in the latter, it was a very different film for reasons both positive and negative.


Notwithstanding these notable essays, TERRIBLE SWIFT SWORD is a multidisciplinary collection and therefore bears the burden of contemporary perception and interpretation, some of it trendy more than grounded in thoroughgoing research. Most notable in this regard is the unfortunate section featuring behavioral analyses, the contributions of which are so decidedly biased, unfair, and to a degree meretricious that they have no value to those genuinely interested in studying the life of John Brown the man who lived.

Of course by including such contributions, editors Russo and Finkelman have remained faithful to their intention of presenting the range of views and interests coming out of the Mont Alto conference that, in my opinion as an attendee, included a degree of creative writing and visceral John Brown bashing. Still, the book's subtitle (The Legacy of John Brown) may be misleading since TERRIBLE SWIFT SWORD is really more about the legacy of a fascinating and well-produced conference than about the abolitionist himself.

Multidisciplinary collections like this have their place, but their value for serious students of Brown's life and times is quite limited. For too long John Brown has suffered--perhaps far more than most controversial figures in American history--precisely because the image of him created by novelists, journalists, and others has been too readily embraced as factual. After a century-and-a-half of politically charged diatribes and sloppy characterizations, this biographer hopes that the 21st century will finally mark an era when John Brown receives the kind of fair-minded attention by historical researchers that he deserves. Despite the valuable insights of its editors and several of its contributors, TERRIBLE SWIFT SWORD unfortunately extends the legacy of "knowlege production professionals" whose biases and unstudied presumptions have made a mess of John Brown historiography.

Louis A. DeCaro Jr.

Fleming is trying to write character-driven "literary" historical fiction here, and he oversteps his ability somewhat. The problems and motivations of the characters -- primarily Stapleton, the Union officer torn between two sides; his Rebel and proto-feminist "adventuress" fiancee; and the one-armed Colonel Gentry; are clearly carefully thought out. However, I found the overall premise, that of a giant Copperhead conspiracy to make the Midwest secede from the Union, improbable; though the note at the back of the book says it is historically accurate, I did not find this to ring true. Likewise, Gentry's letters, though supposedly taken from nineteenth century originals, do not sound period. Overall, the author clearly put a good deal of effort into the book, but it is a type of book which requires interesting and fresh use of language to succeed, and this is where he falls short of the mark. The writing here is mundane and somewhat flat, despite efforts at "literary" language. The book is also rather heavy on character interactions and "telling" how characters feel, while comparatively light on real action. The author makes the common error of introducing rather badly recreated historical characters from Davis to Booth. I wouldn't call the book an utter failure, but I found myself getting bored 3/4 of the way through.

A very interesting and highly readable account of the development of our modern system of passports.

Passports have not always been a requirement for crossing international boundaries. The invention and spread of the concept of a nation-state first in Europe and then around the globe has seen fluctuations in various governments' requirements for both internal and external travel documents. The mercantilist monarchies attempted to retain tight controls while New World migration required no entry documents at all. The free trade liberalism of the 1800s brought down some passport requirements such that fictional Phineas Fogg could dash off around the globe with no passport other than a carpet bag full of banknotes. The 20th Century saw the re-introduction of many formerly relaxed passport controls.

Beginnning with the French Revolutionaries' pre-occupation with travel controls, the book covers the development of passport requirements in the formation of the German nation, observes the great changes in passport restrictions following the First World War, and ends with a review of passport controls in the modern era, including the development of "international" passports for Displaced Persons.

This is an excellent study which shows how passports have fit into modern nations' changing needs to identify both their own citizens and foreigners. The author argues persausively that a nation's ability to differentiate "insiders" from "outsiders" is one of the primary definitions of a nation-state.

Great reading for those interested in the development of the modern state, in the development of travel controls, and in the history of identification documents.

Here's a book by a quite well-known sociologist that deals with an important topic -- passports in the modern world and other forms of identification. How did they emerge ? What role did they play at different moments after the late eighteenth century ? But instead of providing a good and careful analysis, Torpey's work is full of careless assertions and poor historical analysis. Archives like that of the International Labour Organization are not properly used. Charles Tilly had already pointed many errors out in a review where he notes many mistakes in dealing with France. But the problems go much beyond this. Torpey wants to cast his work in a Marxist or Foucualtist framework, and so does not see that passports can also be means of empowerment. This means that the whole analogy with labor and the expropriation of labor is flawed. Also, if the book is of so-called leftist sociology, why is the whole colonial question so neglected ? In short this is a superficial analysis and a lost opportunity.

This is considered a classic civil rights book. Dent quite literally gets into a car and starts driving, hitting many of the more famous signposts that mark the highway of American civil rights. He tracks down original players, walks the walk, talks the talk. For novices and younger people (who did not live during those times), this is a good introduction. I found his style to be a bit dry, so much so that it made it hard to keep up with the book. Some of the interviews just aren't that interesting and read more as reflections than first-person histories. A shame, really. I prefer -- and recommend -- "Eyes on the Prize," other works.

Unless you are an English PhD or a human dictionary/thesaurus...STAY AWAY!
The authors' research is superb but their over the top use of unnecessarily large words kills any comprehension of the message they are trying to convey.

Their audience was most likely not the average English speaker or even the average undergrad college student. You've been warned!