Scan barcode
socraticgadfly's reviews
972 reviews
The Fall of the House of Dixie: The Civil War and the Social Revolution That Transformed the South by Bruce Levine
adventurous
challenging
dark
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
Add this to your Civil War reading list. I'm going to give a long review, but one that nonetheless still just gives the backbone of the book.
Lincoln once said that “somehow” the war was about slavery, even though most the North, including him, denied it at the start.
Most of the 11 Confederate states’ ordinances of secession admitted it, though. So, too, did the Confederate Constitution.
So, Bruce Levine starts there, in “The Fall of the House of Dixie.” (You know this book is good, beyond that, when Eric Foner is among those named in the Acknowledgements.)
As in, starts right there on page 4, with states from the 1860 US Census.
In all 15 slave states, 1 in 4 whites were slaveowners. (Levine later notes that in the 11 seceding states it was 1 in 3, so adjust the below accordingly.)
The typical master owned 4-6 slaves, he says. But, that was just the bottom rung of the highly capitalistic slaveowning South.
One in eight Southern masters had 20 or more slaves, and thus officially counted as “planters” according to the Census. The math says that’s 3 percent of Southern whites. In the seceding states, about 5 percent.
Next tier? The “ten thousand families” that owned 50 or more slaves, and now it gets more fun because Levine starts naming names. Allegedly “good master” Robert E. Lee and his wife were here; he and Mary Fitzhugh Custis Lee inherited 60 slaves with their Arlington mansion from her father, George Washington Parke Custis. (And that name should remind you of Lee’s connections.) Edmund Ruffin is in this group. So are two couples cited extensively in this book.
Next tier? The 1 in 15 planter families who owned 100 or more slaves, or 3,000 families. Jeff Davis and Robert Toombs were among this small group.
The semifinal cut for Levine? Those owning 250 or more slaves. Davis’ brother Joseph is here. So is Howell Cobb. So is the vile James Henry Hammond and the incendiary Robert Barnwell Rhett Sr. As is James Chesnut Sr., father-in-law of noted Confederate diarist Mary Boykin Chesnut.
The final cut? 500. Here, the father of the wife of one couple in the 50-plus class is here.
Add in, on the photo plates pages, the 1860 Census map of slave ownership percentages by county, and we’re good to go with the basic story.
Levine, lumping 1861 and 1862 together, does a yearly overview of the North’s military progress combined with the South’s reaction, much of it from people named in the various levels of slave ownership above. “Poor whites,” whether slaveless or the 4-6 class are also cited in detail. So are the two most states-rightists governors, Joseph E. Brown and Zebulon Vance, along with others noting the Confederacy’s internal contradictions.
Those contradictions culminate when Davis pushes a version of Patrick Cleburne’s proposal to arm slaves in exchange for (limited) freedom. Besides the argument that this would shatter the Confederacy’s basic operating principle, Levine notes that some planters still rejected the idea that slaves could fight. Others, on the other hand, thought they would — and for the Union, as soon as you gave them a Southern gun.
Of the many other things in this excellent book, one more needs to be cited.
And, that is Levine’s documentation of Lincoln’s war-long reticence over land redistribution. Reconstruction would of course gone better with him still alive. He would have reacted to the Klan, Knights of the Camilla etc. much more rapidly than Andy Johnson. Example? The Second Confiscation Act of 1862 gave him the formal right to seize not only slaves of disloyal owners, but their other property. However, and as Levine notes, AT LINCOLN’S INSISTENCE, on the death of said rebels, all property except their slaves would revert to their heirs. Rich Northern whites might pay to rent it under such terms; poor blacks couldn’t afford to touch it.
In a related matter, in the reconstruction of Louisiana’s beginnings, Lincoln ignored Salmon Chase’s cries not to allow its new state government to pass “as a temporary arrangement” special laws governing the newly freed slaves as a “laboring, landless and homeless class.”
Levine doesn’t tackle the colonization issue, but the two paragraphs above should refute the likes of David Reynolds and James Oakes about just how high-minded Lincoln was, or was not, about the future of freed slaves after Jan. 1, 1863. Was he continuing to evolve? Yes. Might have continued to evolve further, had he lived? Yes. Did he also, as I have noted to those two gentlemen, likely discuss the colonization issue with Spoons Butler the day before his assassination? Yes.
Lincoln once said that “somehow” the war was about slavery, even though most the North, including him, denied it at the start.
Most of the 11 Confederate states’ ordinances of secession admitted it, though. So, too, did the Confederate Constitution.
So, Bruce Levine starts there, in “The Fall of the House of Dixie.” (You know this book is good, beyond that, when Eric Foner is among those named in the Acknowledgements.)
As in, starts right there on page 4, with states from the 1860 US Census.
In all 15 slave states, 1 in 4 whites were slaveowners. (Levine later notes that in the 11 seceding states it was 1 in 3, so adjust the below accordingly.)
The typical master owned 4-6 slaves, he says. But, that was just the bottom rung of the highly capitalistic slaveowning South.
One in eight Southern masters had 20 or more slaves, and thus officially counted as “planters” according to the Census. The math says that’s 3 percent of Southern whites. In the seceding states, about 5 percent.
Next tier? The “ten thousand families” that owned 50 or more slaves, and now it gets more fun because Levine starts naming names. Allegedly “good master” Robert E. Lee and his wife were here; he and Mary Fitzhugh Custis Lee inherited 60 slaves with their Arlington mansion from her father, George Washington Parke Custis. (And that name should remind you of Lee’s connections.) Edmund Ruffin is in this group. So are two couples cited extensively in this book.
Next tier? The 1 in 15 planter families who owned 100 or more slaves, or 3,000 families. Jeff Davis and Robert Toombs were among this small group.
The semifinal cut for Levine? Those owning 250 or more slaves. Davis’ brother Joseph is here. So is Howell Cobb. So is the vile James Henry Hammond and the incendiary Robert Barnwell Rhett Sr. As is James Chesnut Sr., father-in-law of noted Confederate diarist Mary Boykin Chesnut.
The final cut? 500. Here, the father of the wife of one couple in the 50-plus class is here.
Add in, on the photo plates pages, the 1860 Census map of slave ownership percentages by county, and we’re good to go with the basic story.
Levine, lumping 1861 and 1862 together, does a yearly overview of the North’s military progress combined with the South’s reaction, much of it from people named in the various levels of slave ownership above. “Poor whites,” whether slaveless or the 4-6 class are also cited in detail. So are the two most states-rightists governors, Joseph E. Brown and Zebulon Vance, along with others noting the Confederacy’s internal contradictions.
Those contradictions culminate when Davis pushes a version of Patrick Cleburne’s proposal to arm slaves in exchange for (limited) freedom. Besides the argument that this would shatter the Confederacy’s basic operating principle, Levine notes that some planters still rejected the idea that slaves could fight. Others, on the other hand, thought they would — and for the Union, as soon as you gave them a Southern gun.
Of the many other things in this excellent book, one more needs to be cited.
And, that is Levine’s documentation of Lincoln’s war-long reticence over land redistribution. Reconstruction would of course gone better with him still alive. He would have reacted to the Klan, Knights of the Camilla etc. much more rapidly than Andy Johnson. Example? The Second Confiscation Act of 1862 gave him the formal right to seize not only slaves of disloyal owners, but their other property. However, and as Levine notes, AT LINCOLN’S INSISTENCE, on the death of said rebels, all property except their slaves would revert to their heirs. Rich Northern whites might pay to rent it under such terms; poor blacks couldn’t afford to touch it.
In a related matter, in the reconstruction of Louisiana’s beginnings, Lincoln ignored Salmon Chase’s cries not to allow its new state government to pass “as a temporary arrangement” special laws governing the newly freed slaves as a “laboring, landless and homeless class.”
Levine doesn’t tackle the colonization issue, but the two paragraphs above should refute the likes of David Reynolds and James Oakes about just how high-minded Lincoln was, or was not, about the future of freed slaves after Jan. 1, 1863. Was he continuing to evolve? Yes. Might have continued to evolve further, had he lived? Yes. Did he also, as I have noted to those two gentlemen, likely discuss the colonization issue with Spoons Butler the day before his assassination? Yes.
The Training Ground: Grant, Lee, Sherman, and Davis in the Mexican War, 1846-1848 by Martin Dugard
fast-paced
2.5
I have of course heard of Dugard as co-author of all of Bill O'Reilly's "Killing (Your Brain Cells [Part X]) books and wanted to see what he did on his own.
And? He didn't do a lot.
First, he stretches the idea of "training ground," given that Sherman never saw a day of combat, despite his best efforts otherwise.
Second, his descriptions of the efforts of Grant, Lee, Davis and others who become famous in the Civil War is explicated in more detail in full-blown accounts of the Mexican War.
Third, his Epilogue of notes on post-Mexican War history of leading characters is sadly lacking, if not flat wrong.
First, Grant. He claims that drunkenness being the cause of his resigning his commission are highly exaggerated. Wrong. It's true it wasn't the only issue, but it WAS an issue. And, his claim that Grant "was known for his inability to drink more than a few sips of alcohol owning to his light weight and diminutive stature" is laughable. First, that would mean exactly he was more susceptible to hooch. Second, we know Tricky Dick Nixon got drunk on relatively low amounts of alcohol. Third, we know that John Rawlins was assigned to be his "sobriety security" during the Civil War. Fourth, we know he got drunk in the winter of 1862-63 when bogged down before Shiloh, and in turn, this was indirectly connected to Julia nearly being captured by Confederate raiders. Fifth, we also know that, out of boredom or whatever, Grant got snockered when Andy Johnson dragooned him into accompanying him in his "around the circle" campaign stump speech tour in 1866. He also never mentions Grant being a slaveowner, as reluctant as he may have been.
Second, Lee. He never mentions his post-Civil War hypocrisies on Reconstruction. (Lee claimed after the war to have "always been in favor of emancipation of the negros," despite the Army of Northern Virginia hunting down blacks in Pennsylvania in 1863, and not even caring whether they were escaped slaves or blacks born free. (See also the AoNVa's behavior at the Battle of the Crater, Lee's silence on Fort Pillow, etc.)
Sherman? The racism that he maintained basically throughout the entire Civil War (yes, even on his March through Georgia) never gets mentioned.
So, you can skip Dugard, folks.
And? He didn't do a lot.
First, he stretches the idea of "training ground," given that Sherman never saw a day of combat, despite his best efforts otherwise.
Second, his descriptions of the efforts of Grant, Lee, Davis and others who become famous in the Civil War is explicated in more detail in full-blown accounts of the Mexican War.
Third, his Epilogue of notes on post-Mexican War history of leading characters is sadly lacking, if not flat wrong.
First, Grant. He claims that drunkenness being the cause of his resigning his commission are highly exaggerated. Wrong. It's true it wasn't the only issue, but it WAS an issue. And, his claim that Grant "was known for his inability to drink more than a few sips of alcohol owning to his light weight and diminutive stature" is laughable. First, that would mean exactly he was more susceptible to hooch. Second, we know Tricky Dick Nixon got drunk on relatively low amounts of alcohol. Third, we know that John Rawlins was assigned to be his "sobriety security" during the Civil War. Fourth, we know he got drunk in the winter of 1862-63 when bogged down before Shiloh, and in turn, this was indirectly connected to Julia nearly being captured by Confederate raiders. Fifth, we also know that, out of boredom or whatever, Grant got snockered when Andy Johnson dragooned him into accompanying him in his "around the circle" campaign stump speech tour in 1866. He also never mentions Grant being a slaveowner, as reluctant as he may have been.
Second, Lee. He never mentions his post-Civil War hypocrisies on Reconstruction. (Lee claimed after the war to have "always been in favor of emancipation of the negros," despite the Army of Northern Virginia hunting down blacks in Pennsylvania in 1863, and not even caring whether they were escaped slaves or blacks born free. (See also the AoNVa's behavior at the Battle of the Crater, Lee's silence on Fort Pillow, etc.)
Sherman? The racism that he maintained basically throughout the entire Civil War (yes, even on his March through Georgia) never gets mentioned.
So, you can skip Dugard, folks.
Conspiracy: Why the Rational Believe the Irrational by Michael Shermer
fast-paced
1.25
Horrible book, not on the conspiracy theories, which I don't need Shermer to tell me, but on him totally getting wrong the one actual conspiracy he discusses, which is why this is 1-starred on a grok.
Rather than there being JUST and ONLY an Austrian conspiracy against Serbia in 1914, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand instead traces directly through one "Apis," head of both Serbian military intelligence and the secret society named The Black Hand, and also directly or semi-directly through confederates of Apis in the nationalist organization Narodna Odbrana, to Serbian Prime Minister Pasic. All of this and more is documented by Christopher Clark in the excellent book "The Sleepwalkers," which Shermer ACTUALLY REFERENCES and then ignores for Tim Butcher's "The Trigger," which is
A. A piece of crap and
B. Only about 10-20 percent about lead assassin Gavrilo Princip and 80-90 percent directly or indirectly about Tim Butcher.
Shermer's right that this is arguably the world's deadliest conspiracy. He's dead wrong about where the conspiracy started.
==
The rest of the book, without this egregious ax-grinding, would probably be 3 stars, no more, so, even without this, it's not worth a read. It's a basic definition of conspiracy vs conspiracy theories, basic overview on why many people believe in conspiracy theories, and how to try to talk to them.
But, surely Shermer could have found something else to discuss as a true conspiracy. Rather, it appears that, following in Butcher's footsteps despite having read Clark's documenting the likely ties to the Serbian government, and despite mentioning the Black Hand, even in an overall superficial treatment (and even talking about an assassination conspiracy, though trying to limit it to just the Black Hand, if that), he thought he could use some intellectual judo to show an Austrian conspiracy.
In reality, despite Conrad having been pushing for pre-emptive war with Serbia for years, even after the assassination, the Dual Monarchy was divided on going to war. And, trying to treat its Byzantine turns in just a few pages will be a good way to get superficial treatment even if not wrong — which, of course, Shermer is. And, I can say that as having read "The Sleepwalkers" TWICE.
Rather than there being JUST and ONLY an Austrian conspiracy against Serbia in 1914, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand instead traces directly through one "Apis," head of both Serbian military intelligence and the secret society named The Black Hand, and also directly or semi-directly through confederates of Apis in the nationalist organization Narodna Odbrana, to Serbian Prime Minister Pasic. All of this and more is documented by Christopher Clark in the excellent book "The Sleepwalkers," which Shermer ACTUALLY REFERENCES and then ignores for Tim Butcher's "The Trigger," which is
A. A piece of crap and
B. Only about 10-20 percent about lead assassin Gavrilo Princip and 80-90 percent directly or indirectly about Tim Butcher.
Shermer's right that this is arguably the world's deadliest conspiracy. He's dead wrong about where the conspiracy started.
==
The rest of the book, without this egregious ax-grinding, would probably be 3 stars, no more, so, even without this, it's not worth a read. It's a basic definition of conspiracy vs conspiracy theories, basic overview on why many people believe in conspiracy theories, and how to try to talk to them.
But, surely Shermer could have found something else to discuss as a true conspiracy. Rather, it appears that, following in Butcher's footsteps despite having read Clark's documenting the likely ties to the Serbian government, and despite mentioning the Black Hand, even in an overall superficial treatment (and even talking about an assassination conspiracy, though trying to limit it to just the Black Hand, if that), he thought he could use some intellectual judo to show an Austrian conspiracy.
In reality, despite Conrad having been pushing for pre-emptive war with Serbia for years, even after the assassination, the Dual Monarchy was divided on going to war. And, trying to treat its Byzantine turns in just a few pages will be a good way to get superficial treatment even if not wrong — which, of course, Shermer is. And, I can say that as having read "The Sleepwalkers" TWICE.
Pegasus: How a Spy in Your Pocket Threatens the End of Privacy, Dignity, and Democracy by Laurent Richard, Sandrine Rigaud
adventurous
dark
informative
medium-paced
4.25
This is a very solid overview of the rise of the NSO Group, as well as a little backstory on earlier companies that overlapped with its early days in the dark arts of cybersnooping on smartphones.
And, though NSO itself crashed as a company after the hardcore journalism revealed here, the ideas, the concepts, did not.
In fact, the epilogue notes that the UAE hired some of NSO's staffers and now has its own state-run phone-snooping agency.
Even if the NSO had started with even more pristine intentions, it probably would have ended at the same point. Look at Google and its original "Do No Evil" motto. Some small "hook" on that was missing, especially when the book did note the UAE picking up the ball and running with it.
The second thing to note is that while heavy-duty tech work was involved with sussing out all the hacked phones, this was ultimately investigative journalism, not tech journalism.
The third thing is citing Edward Snowden when Russia of course has similar tools. Maybe in their next book, Richard and Rigaud can ask him how he feels about Glenn Greenwald not publishing 90 percent of what he gave him, and similar items.
Otherwise, though, no, one need not know massive amounts of technology to read this book. You can skip the file names and such, and just note the programs that were hacked. Speaking of, will Apple tighten up some apps, as its expansion of what all iMessage could do led to it becoming one of the last back doors Pegasus targeted?
And, though NSO itself crashed as a company after the hardcore journalism revealed here, the ideas, the concepts, did not.
In fact, the epilogue notes that the UAE hired some of NSO's staffers and now has its own state-run phone-snooping agency.
Even if the NSO had started with even more pristine intentions, it probably would have ended at the same point. Look at Google and its original "Do No Evil" motto. Some small "hook" on that was missing, especially when the book did note the UAE picking up the ball and running with it.
The second thing to note is that while heavy-duty tech work was involved with sussing out all the hacked phones, this was ultimately investigative journalism, not tech journalism.
The third thing is citing Edward Snowden when Russia of course has similar tools. Maybe in their next book, Richard and Rigaud can ask him how he feels about Glenn Greenwald not publishing 90 percent of what he gave him, and similar items.
Otherwise, though, no, one need not know massive amounts of technology to read this book. You can skip the file names and such, and just note the programs that were hacked. Speaking of, will Apple tighten up some apps, as its expansion of what all iMessage could do led to it becoming one of the last back doors Pegasus targeted?
1918: War and Peace by Gregor Dallas
challenging
slow-paced
1.5
RIDDLED with errors of both fact and interpretation.
Long-time followers of mine know that I'm a serious WWI buff. When I saw this hefty book at the library, I figured it was definitely worth a read.
It's not.
On the errors of interpretation? Seeing, around page 180, his assumption that Germany’s stated war aims pre-1918 were non-negotiable flipped on a light bulb. On this and “belligerent Germany,” he appears to rely way too much on Fritz Fischer, partially to totally rejected by many modern historians who have written about World War 1 in the 21st century. Both he and Fischer’s top disciple, Imanuel Geiss, are in his bibliography.
Errors of fact?
Dallas first claims France’s 1914 parliament was the most peace-loving in history, and also talks up President Poincare. He totally ignores, or deliberately shunts aside that Poincare totally worked around Prime Minister Viviani (and the Foreign Ministry) during the July Crisis.
He next talks about how peace-loving Britain was at this time. Not so much. The Liberal Imperialist government, from Campbell-Bannerman on in the late 1900-aughts, had been shoveling money to Belgium to pay for its rearmament. Ignores also that the most Eurocentric members of the 1914 Cabinet, led by Grey, wanted to declare war even without a German invasion of Belgium.
Back to errors of interpretation, but also partially errors of fact? About 50 pages later? The claim that the “glue” for the Entente before WWI started, in the last couple of years before it started, was fears of German warmongering. In reality, right up to the July crisis, relations within the three Entente nations remained fluid.
He has errors outside of WWI as well. Writing in 2001, Dallas claims that only two US midterm congressional elections were earth-shaking: 1866 and 1918. He had 6-7 years of insight to analyze 1994 by this point. Anyway, post-2001, he’s even more clearly wrong.
And no, Hughes didn’t outpoll Wilson by half a million votes in 1916. Rather, it was the other way around.
The capper, at which point I stopped reading?
Dallas said that the House of Windsor was the House of Hanover pre-1917. This would of course be news to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, his wife Queen Victoria, their son King Edward VII, and his son, King George V, who changed the family name specifically because of its German sound.
I stopped reading at this point.
Long-time followers of mine know that I'm a serious WWI buff. When I saw this hefty book at the library, I figured it was definitely worth a read.
It's not.
On the errors of interpretation? Seeing, around page 180, his assumption that Germany’s stated war aims pre-1918 were non-negotiable flipped on a light bulb. On this and “belligerent Germany,” he appears to rely way too much on Fritz Fischer, partially to totally rejected by many modern historians who have written about World War 1 in the 21st century. Both he and Fischer’s top disciple, Imanuel Geiss, are in his bibliography.
Errors of fact?
Dallas first claims France’s 1914 parliament was the most peace-loving in history, and also talks up President Poincare. He totally ignores, or deliberately shunts aside that Poincare totally worked around Prime Minister Viviani (and the Foreign Ministry) during the July Crisis.
He next talks about how peace-loving Britain was at this time. Not so much. The Liberal Imperialist government, from Campbell-Bannerman on in the late 1900-aughts, had been shoveling money to Belgium to pay for its rearmament. Ignores also that the most Eurocentric members of the 1914 Cabinet, led by Grey, wanted to declare war even without a German invasion of Belgium.
Back to errors of interpretation, but also partially errors of fact? About 50 pages later? The claim that the “glue” for the Entente before WWI started, in the last couple of years before it started, was fears of German warmongering. In reality, right up to the July crisis, relations within the three Entente nations remained fluid.
He has errors outside of WWI as well. Writing in 2001, Dallas claims that only two US midterm congressional elections were earth-shaking: 1866 and 1918. He had 6-7 years of insight to analyze 1994 by this point. Anyway, post-2001, he’s even more clearly wrong.
And no, Hughes didn’t outpoll Wilson by half a million votes in 1916. Rather, it was the other way around.
The capper, at which point I stopped reading?
Dallas said that the House of Windsor was the House of Hanover pre-1917. This would of course be news to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, his wife Queen Victoria, their son King Edward VII, and his son, King George V, who changed the family name specifically because of its German sound.
I stopped reading at this point.
Myth America: Historians Take On the Biggest Legends and Lies About Our Past by Kevin M. Kruse, Julian E. Zelizer
medium-paced
2.5
Following Kevin Kruse on Twitter, I thought this book would interesting when I first heard about it.
Then I saw <a href="https://slate.com/culture/2023/01/myth-america-kevin-kruse-julian-zelizer-review.html">this review</a> on Slate, and realized, "no it ain't." If Charlie Sykes is blurbing it positively on the back of the dust cover? Well, then, per that review, the obvious target is modern — presumably neoliberal — Dems plus never-Trumper Republicans.
Going beyond that? If you were expecting a, say, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/8458.James_W_Loewen">James W. Loewen</a>, this ain't even close. It might get 2.5 stars on StoryGraph, but I can't give it 3 here.
Howlers include one from Joshua Zeitz, in his chapter on "The Great Society." He notes that, in her campaign memoir, Hillary Clinton says she came very close to proposing a basic income. Sure she did, but Zeitz appears to take this claim at face value.
Some chapters are good, like the one on "good protests" and the one on "police violence." Others are ... OK. Akil Reed Amar's chapter is good for noting "democracy" and "republic" were used interchangably back in the day. He doth protest too much about Madison not being "The Father of the Constitution." As I've understood it, Madison got that moniker from the Bill of Rights about as much as Philadelphia 1787. Besides, liberal originalism is warmed-over shite. Immerwahr's chapter on American imperialism is of course good, but — most of the Kruse target audience, both neoliberal Dems and never-Trumper Republicans — likely either rejects the idea, or says that an "American exceptionalism" empire is different. Speaking of?
Bell's chapter on the history of American exceptionalism? I didn't realize the idea originally came from Stalin, and has transmuted. That said, the idea that Trump rejects American exceptionalism? He may reject the phraseology, but the idea? No, he's totally behind it.
Sarah Churchwell's America First chapter gets Henry Cabot Lodge wrong and thus itself perpetuates a myth. He was OK with the League of Nations as long as the Versailles Treaty included the well-known "Lodge reservations" — which Wilson refused to accept. He was NOT William Randolph Hearst on this. She also seems to state that Pat Buchanan created the Reform Party. He hijacked it, of course, but didn't create it.
Per the Salon link? Yes, Slickster Bill Clinton arguably DID do more to peddle neoliberalism in America than did Milton Friedman. Oreskes and Conway miss this, peddling deregulation and similar issues as Republican-only.
Michael Kazin on socialism? Yeah, wrong. Plenty of Democrats hate socialism — half of House Democrats voted to condemn it (and yes, socialism, not "just" communism) just a month ago.
Summary? If your voting history is Bernie Sanders or leftward, you can take a pass on this book and not miss a lot.
Then I saw <a href="https://slate.com/culture/2023/01/myth-america-kevin-kruse-julian-zelizer-review.html">this review</a> on Slate, and realized, "no it ain't." If Charlie Sykes is blurbing it positively on the back of the dust cover? Well, then, per that review, the obvious target is modern — presumably neoliberal — Dems plus never-Trumper Republicans.
Going beyond that? If you were expecting a, say, <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/8458.James_W_Loewen">James W. Loewen</a>, this ain't even close. It might get 2.5 stars on StoryGraph, but I can't give it 3 here.
Howlers include one from Joshua Zeitz, in his chapter on "The Great Society." He notes that, in her campaign memoir, Hillary Clinton says she came very close to proposing a basic income. Sure she did, but Zeitz appears to take this claim at face value.
Some chapters are good, like the one on "good protests" and the one on "police violence." Others are ... OK. Akil Reed Amar's chapter is good for noting "democracy" and "republic" were used interchangably back in the day. He doth protest too much about Madison not being "The Father of the Constitution." As I've understood it, Madison got that moniker from the Bill of Rights about as much as Philadelphia 1787. Besides, liberal originalism is warmed-over shite. Immerwahr's chapter on American imperialism is of course good, but — most of the Kruse target audience, both neoliberal Dems and never-Trumper Republicans — likely either rejects the idea, or says that an "American exceptionalism" empire is different. Speaking of?
Bell's chapter on the history of American exceptionalism? I didn't realize the idea originally came from Stalin, and has transmuted. That said, the idea that Trump rejects American exceptionalism? He may reject the phraseology, but the idea? No, he's totally behind it.
Sarah Churchwell's America First chapter gets Henry Cabot Lodge wrong and thus itself perpetuates a myth. He was OK with the League of Nations as long as the Versailles Treaty included the well-known "Lodge reservations" — which Wilson refused to accept. He was NOT William Randolph Hearst on this. She also seems to state that Pat Buchanan created the Reform Party. He hijacked it, of course, but didn't create it.
Per the Salon link? Yes, Slickster Bill Clinton arguably DID do more to peddle neoliberalism in America than did Milton Friedman. Oreskes and Conway miss this, peddling deregulation and similar issues as Republican-only.
Michael Kazin on socialism? Yeah, wrong. Plenty of Democrats hate socialism — half of House Democrats voted to condemn it (and yes, socialism, not "just" communism) just a month ago.
Summary? If your voting history is Bernie Sanders or leftward, you can take a pass on this book and not miss a lot.
Hitler's Girl: The British Aristocracy and the Third Reich on the Eve of WWII by Lauren Young, Lauren Young
fast-paced
0.25
The ONLY two reasons I can think of this extended-pamphlet screed being published by a reputable publisher are to cash in on:
A. The notorious cover photo of The Sun showing Edward teaching the future Elizabeth II the Nazi salute and
B. The warmongering related to the Russia-Ukraine War (and a sidebar on Brexit, in the UK).
This book is crap, and yes, at its small page count plus large font and even larger leading, it's an overblown pamphlet.
Calls Edward the "Duke of Windsor" before his abdication, when he was of course Prince of Wales before becoming king.
Calls the pre-1917 House of Windsor "the House of Battenberg" rather than actual Saxe-Coburg-Gotha," EVEN THOUGH mentioning Edward's cousin, the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha!
Beyond errors of fact? As MShelton notes in detail at Goodreads, Young will make second or third references to a person and write as though she had never mentioned them before. Also, she misframes what appeasement was about under Chamberlain. (That's in addition to getting dates wrong.) So do many warmonger liberals in the US and UK in the past 12 months. By speaking at Munich, Zelensky played these people like putty. (Apologies, of a sort, to non-leftist liberal friends on this list, but I'm calling this one as I see it.)
The idea of the suicide attempt as a fake? Definitely refuted, per Unity's Wiki page and the aftereffects of the shooting. While not positively falsified, the idea of "Hitler's baby mama" is also undercut.
This is one of those reviews where I conclude by saying: "Don't read this author again."
A. The notorious cover photo of The Sun showing Edward teaching the future Elizabeth II the Nazi salute and
B. The warmongering related to the Russia-Ukraine War (and a sidebar on Brexit, in the UK).
This book is crap, and yes, at its small page count plus large font and even larger leading, it's an overblown pamphlet.
Calls Edward the "Duke of Windsor" before his abdication, when he was of course Prince of Wales before becoming king.
Calls the pre-1917 House of Windsor "the House of Battenberg" rather than actual Saxe-Coburg-Gotha," EVEN THOUGH mentioning Edward's cousin, the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha!
Beyond errors of fact? As MShelton notes in detail at Goodreads, Young will make second or third references to a person and write as though she had never mentioned them before. Also, she misframes what appeasement was about under Chamberlain. (That's in addition to getting dates wrong.) So do many warmonger liberals in the US and UK in the past 12 months. By speaking at Munich, Zelensky played these people like putty. (Apologies, of a sort, to non-leftist liberal friends on this list, but I'm calling this one as I see it.)
The idea of the suicide attempt as a fake? Definitely refuted, per Unity's Wiki page and the aftereffects of the shooting. While not positively falsified, the idea of "Hitler's baby mama" is also undercut.
This is one of those reviews where I conclude by saying: "Don't read this author again."
Content Warnings
This book is crap
John Brown, Abolitionist: The Man Who Killed Slavery, Sparked the Civil War, and Seeded Civil Rights by David S. Reynolds
dark
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.75
Solid, fairly good, but not quite great.
Reynolds is very good on Brown the man in many ways, and not just Brown the abolitionist. He notes Brown as a totally inept businessman because of his general total rectitude on dealings and ineptitude on emerging modern capitalism.
On Brown as abolitionist, it's detailed about how it ran in the family, Brown's pre-Kansas work, his Kansas and post-Kansas work and of course Harper's Ferry.
It's possibly at its best on Brown the egalitarian. His including in his plan that a Black man should take the Frederick the Great sword of Lawrence Washington is one small gem here.
It's good on Brown's failures of imagination on Harper's Ferry, and also on him being totally sane. Behind that, it has a good look at Brown's "Secret Six" backers, and some of their ties to transcendentalism.
That said, Reynolds never speculates whether part of Brown's mind was hoping for a martyrdom failure just like he got. And, while some of the lies were to protect himself, he doesn't inquire about all of Brown's slips in rectitude over his Kansas actions. In other words, the bio is perhaps a bit too hagiographic at times.
Also, Puritans were in general NOT antinomian. Anne Hutchison et al lost the Antinomian Controversy, which is why many of them were booted out of Massachusetts Bay.
There's also minor errors scattered here and there. Pierce wasn't elected president in 1854. Kansas didn't become a state in 1858, though that was later corrected. And, not an error, but a few more pages here and there on what all else was happening in Kansas would have been nice.
And, on the national big picture? Reynolds eventually mentions Seward's "irrepresible conflict" near the end, as to why he didn't get the GOP nomination. Would have been better a couple hundred pages earlier, with first real discussion of Seward. Again, things like this tend to put one foot of the bio in hagiography.
Reynolds is very good on Brown the man in many ways, and not just Brown the abolitionist. He notes Brown as a totally inept businessman because of his general total rectitude on dealings and ineptitude on emerging modern capitalism.
On Brown as abolitionist, it's detailed about how it ran in the family, Brown's pre-Kansas work, his Kansas and post-Kansas work and of course Harper's Ferry.
It's possibly at its best on Brown the egalitarian. His including in his plan that a Black man should take the Frederick the Great sword of Lawrence Washington is one small gem here.
It's good on Brown's failures of imagination on Harper's Ferry, and also on him being totally sane. Behind that, it has a good look at Brown's "Secret Six" backers, and some of their ties to transcendentalism.
That said, Reynolds never speculates whether part of Brown's mind was hoping for a martyrdom failure just like he got. And, while some of the lies were to protect himself, he doesn't inquire about all of Brown's slips in rectitude over his Kansas actions. In other words, the bio is perhaps a bit too hagiographic at times.
Also, Puritans were in general NOT antinomian. Anne Hutchison et al lost the Antinomian Controversy, which is why many of them were booted out of Massachusetts Bay.
There's also minor errors scattered here and there. Pierce wasn't elected president in 1854. Kansas didn't become a state in 1858, though that was later corrected. And, not an error, but a few more pages here and there on what all else was happening in Kansas would have been nice.
And, on the national big picture? Reynolds eventually mentions Seward's "irrepresible conflict" near the end, as to why he didn't get the GOP nomination. Would have been better a couple hundred pages earlier, with first real discussion of Seward. Again, things like this tend to put one foot of the bio in hagiography.
Code Talker: The First and Only Memoir By One of the Original Navajo Code Talkers of WWII by Judith Schiess Avila, Chester Nez
emotional
informative
lighthearted
reflective
fast-paced
4.5
hester Nez was one of the "original 29" Code Talkers. For people who may not know the basics, the Marines used Navajos to do coded transmissions during WWII. (Comanches and others had been used during WWII, but the Japanese knew that.) Within that, the Navajos disguised some of the military items they were talking about in Navajo, and also used Navajo words to substitute for individual letters when some items needed to be addressed alphabetically. The end of the book has the full code.
The irony — and why this is a MEMOIR of Nez's life, not just a battlefield story — is that Nez, like many other Navajos, and many American Indians of his day and age and further back, was at boarding schools that still generally had a "kill the Indian" mentality. Part of this was an "English only" policy at boarding school, complete with the actual "having your mouth washed out with soap" as though American Indian language was one big four-letter word. His second boarding school has this irony in further detail, in that two of his matrons there were of at least partially American Indian heritage themselves, a half-Laguna and a full-blooded Pima.
Eventually, Philip Johnston, the son of a missionary couple who had served on the Big Rez, sold the Marine Corps on it. In early 1942, they started recruiting, and Nez and a select group, which included a few friends of his, became part of the original group of Code Talkers.
From there, Nez details his Marine service from basic training through the several significant battles he served in: Guadalcanal, Bougainville, Guam, Peleliu. He got his "points" and rotated home just before Iwo Jima.
The last part of the book is about his post-war life, which included a call-up, without action, during Korea. Because the Code Talker work was classified until 1968, Nez and his fellows couldn't talk to the outside world. Nor to their fellow Navajos, even, though he did share bits and pieces with his sister.
This surely intensified the PTSD he had. He addressed this at one "sing" just a couple of years after the end of the war. He went to another, decades later, and this in Chinle, not his home, because his sister talked about how much "magic" it had.
==
For me, growing up in Gallup, New Mexico, this book was reflective. I've never been in/at Chi Chil Tah, the more correct spelling today. But, as a kid, I traveled down what was then NM 32 from Gallup to Zuni many a time. Several time, with my dad, it wasn't going all the way to Zuni, but turning east at Vanderwagen to take back roads to the McGaffey area in the national forest. (That's approximately where you turn west to go to Chi Chil Tah.) The "Checkerboard," junipers and piñons, all wring true.
Nez is straightforward and honest, including about things like the sheep cull John Collier did during the Great Depression. He admits that many Navajos had badly overgrazed the land. He just notes that it seemed to be enforced unevenly, and wonders why the hides, wool and meat weren't put to use.
The reason(s) this isn't a full 5-star is that, given his background, I can't buy into the degree of American exceptionalism that quietly runs through parts of this book. On the other hand, that's Chester Nez's story. And, yes, per what I note above, to the degree he was open to telling it, I think Judith Schiess Avila told it pretty well.
The irony — and why this is a MEMOIR of Nez's life, not just a battlefield story — is that Nez, like many other Navajos, and many American Indians of his day and age and further back, was at boarding schools that still generally had a "kill the Indian" mentality. Part of this was an "English only" policy at boarding school, complete with the actual "having your mouth washed out with soap" as though American Indian language was one big four-letter word. His second boarding school has this irony in further detail, in that two of his matrons there were of at least partially American Indian heritage themselves, a half-Laguna and a full-blooded Pima.
Eventually, Philip Johnston, the son of a missionary couple who had served on the Big Rez, sold the Marine Corps on it. In early 1942, they started recruiting, and Nez and a select group, which included a few friends of his, became part of the original group of Code Talkers.
From there, Nez details his Marine service from basic training through the several significant battles he served in: Guadalcanal, Bougainville, Guam, Peleliu. He got his "points" and rotated home just before Iwo Jima.
The last part of the book is about his post-war life, which included a call-up, without action, during Korea. Because the Code Talker work was classified until 1968, Nez and his fellows couldn't talk to the outside world. Nor to their fellow Navajos, even, though he did share bits and pieces with his sister.
This surely intensified the PTSD he had. He addressed this at one "sing" just a couple of years after the end of the war. He went to another, decades later, and this in Chinle, not his home, because his sister talked about how much "magic" it had.
==
For me, growing up in Gallup, New Mexico, this book was reflective. I've never been in/at Chi Chil Tah, the more correct spelling today. But, as a kid, I traveled down what was then NM 32 from Gallup to Zuni many a time. Several time, with my dad, it wasn't going all the way to Zuni, but turning east at Vanderwagen to take back roads to the McGaffey area in the national forest. (That's approximately where you turn west to go to Chi Chil Tah.) The "Checkerboard," junipers and piñons, all wring true.
Nez is straightforward and honest, including about things like the sheep cull John Collier did during the Great Depression. He admits that many Navajos had badly overgrazed the land. He just notes that it seemed to be enforced unevenly, and wonders why the hides, wool and meat weren't put to use.
The reason(s) this isn't a full 5-star is that, given his background, I can't buy into the degree of American exceptionalism that quietly runs through parts of this book. On the other hand, that's Chester Nez's story. And, yes, per what I note above, to the degree he was open to telling it, I think Judith Schiess Avila told it pretty well.
The Origins of Judaism: An Archaeological-Historical Reappraisal by Yonatan Adler
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
5.0
Simply a great book. Aharon’s look at archaeological and related evidence for when various practices commanded in the Torah of the Pentateuch became widespread is simple, and has more and more data to be researched today.
First, the exact phrasing above? Aharon uses “Pentateuch” for the five books “of Moses.” Torah is used for the “teaching,” which often was law or “nomos,” within them, to then ask where it was discussed literarily centuries later, ie, Christian New Testament, Qumran, Josephus, apocrypha, etc. That’s his terminus ad quen. Therefore, he does not use the Mishna; sayings attributed to 1st century CE rabbis by the second century may not hold up.
Then, as noted, he also looks at archaeological digs and related for their evidence.
He looks at several areas of Torah: Dietary laws, ritual purity, “graven images,” tefillin and mezuzin, all of which get longer treatment, the synagogue’s existence, and a group of items under “miscellaneous practices.”
The conclusion he has is that based on the “lived experience” of practitioners of what became Judaism, none of these were widespread before the start of the Hellenistic area, and in most cases, it wasn’t until Hasmonean times. In fact, that’s his summary — that the Torah as prescriptive not descriptive was pushed and promulgated as a Hasmonean unity document or constitution of sorts.
Notes below are my observations and stimulations, as well as what I learned. (Most all if it is behind spoiler alerts, as this is even longer than Israel Drazin’s review!
Here's the meat!
===
DIETARY
I’d already heard about the catfish bones outside Jerusalem in approximately Davidic times. 20 percent or more of all fish bones.
RITUAL PURITY
The ritual purity chapter was great, and especially the immersion bath subsection. Aharon shows this likely didn’t become widespread until the start of the 1st century BCE. He said it may have been aided from the start of the Hellenistic world by the rise of its hip bath. The photos involved, plus quotes from Josephus as well as the New Testament? Make clear how big of a deal this was.
I also think of Paul calling out Peter for his dining hypocrisy. Maybe this was instead a “weaker brother” thing on Peter’s part, where he was OK with ignoring ritual purity concerns when by himself with Gentiles, but didn’t want to upset other Jewish Jesus-believers when they were around.
==
GRAVEN IMAGES
This includes mosaics and such like the famous synagogue at Dura-Europus, which is well outside the end date of Aharon’s focus. Mainly, though, beyond figurines to Yahweh or other goes, the focus is on human or animal depictions on coinage. Pre-Hasmonean times, the circulation of coinage with images, even if not human ones, is attested in the land of Israel; Aharon shows examples from Ptolemaic times.
===
TEFILLIN/MEZUZOTH
Tefillin. Per the various texts that were commanded to be bound, could a little box really hold that much?
Not sure why Aharon thinks Exodus 13:1-16, the consecration of the firstborn, is inappropriate for a mezuzoth to be nailed to a door, only a tefillin.
SYNAGOGUE
Attested for 1 CE by Philo, Josephus, archaeology. One excavation puts one synagogue as having an earlier phase in 1 BCE. 3 Mac MAY attest to earlier. Philo and Josephus referencing or citing Augustus MAY attest to 1 BCE, too. That's it. Nothing at Qumran.
MISCELLANEOUS PRACTICES
First is circumcision. Aharon notes that outside the Pentateuch, Philistines are called "uncircumcised." But, no indication is given as to why Israel was, nor is it noted that other West Semites were as well. And, they’re the only people identified as such outside of it.
Second is Sabbaths. Aharon notes a 1 Maccabees exemption for self-defense but tale in 2 Maccabees appears to reject this exemption, the Jews killed in the cave. Sabbath restrictions are outside of the Pentateuch in the Tanakh as far as any acts being barred on Sabbath, except Nehemiah, who talks about people treading grain and such, and in another verse, promises to bar the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath, plus a lesser verse from Jeremiah. Ezekiel talks about profaning Sabbaths, but no details; ditto 2nd Isaiah. In both cases, this appears about Sabbaths as religious holidays, not specific proscriptions.
Sabbath work restrictions were an intense matter of deliberation at turn of eras, especially with Qumran barring bad words and thoughts, too. Aharon that before the 2nd century BCE, there's not even clear evidence of a 7-day week for Jews and that Sabbath was more likely a general religious holiday; see above on Ezekiel and 2nd Isaiah. And, even if it were, clearly it wasn't being generally observed much before Hasmonean times.
The third is Passover and Unleavened Bread. Unleavened Bread festival of some sort is referenced in Joshua. 2 Chronicles 30 talks about Hezekiah having a big Passover blowout and TWO seven-day periods after that. 2 Kings 23 talks about Josiah’s Passover, with more in 2 Chronicles. Elephantine writings talk of Passover circa 420 along with Unleavened Bread, but no details on observances.
Next? Yom Kippur. No Tanakh cites outside the Pentateuch. One Josephus reference and a couple of apparent Qumran ones. 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah, by silence, are unaware of it, as both talk about Sukkoth, which comes just after, without reference to Day of Atonement. Ditto Ezekiel. This is not mentioned in New Testament gospels, either, not even in John, which mentions the three great festivals. Hebrews does have an apparent citation in Chapter 9, but it’s a reference to the priestly action of the Pentateuch and not anything communal, not even the Leviticus 16:29 or 23:27 actions. Aharon misses a small trick by not noting that.
That means that Yom Kippur as observed today is almost certainly Rabbinic in the “push” for it, and not Hasmonean, and likely was a substitute with the destruction of the Second Temple, to go beyond Aharon.
Sukkoth is in Temple Scroll and Jubilees, and may well have been actually practiced in early Hasmonean times. Neh. 8 has the one reference outside the Penteteuch, though its "four species" greatly differ from Leviticus.
Menorah? The Pentateuch-prescribed version has no attesting elsewhere pre-Maccabean.
REASSESSMENT
Goes beyond the data of earlier chapters to analysis and conclusions.
Persian era
First, notes Ezra and Nehemiah are both composite texts. Then rejects on various grounds that their narratives reflect the idea that the Pentateuch was established based on Achaemenid decree. Next looks at actual archaeological and epigraphic evidence from this area about Judeans in the heimat, in Babylon, and in Elephantine.
Athena identified with Anat by West Semites. Anat venerated at Elephantine. Also notes Persian era Yahweh coin with second deity on it. Both these coins also NOT aniconic!
Elephantine writings do not have the word "Torah" or its Aramaic. Nor do they reference "Moses." Inhabitants there swore oaths to other gods. One was Anathyahu.
Notes that after Egyptian priests destroyed this temple in 410, the Jews there asked for help in rebuilding it from the Jerusalem priests, which surely undercuts the "one place" idea.
Babylonian Judeans ca 525-475 also appear to know nothing of a Pentateuch.
Early Hellenistic, to the revolt
Notes 1 BCE Diodorus Siculus was apparently truly citing from now-lost 4 BCE Hecataeus of Abdera (not H of Miletus as DS claimed), but that it was not from Hecataeus alone and there's little to glean.
Letter to Aristeas? Scholars date it no earlier than the start of the Hasmonean era. Pentateuch likely translated 3 CE. Notes that translator(s) chose "nomos" for "torah" rather than "didache" or "didaskalia." Says not to read too much into this.
"Traditions of the ancestors" cited in letters and proclamation by Antiochus III ca 200 BCE. Says not all may be genuine, or at best, have genuine cores with later editing.
Ben Sira talks about Torah/nomos, but it’s unclear what he meant.
Conclusion to this subsection? The Pentateuch existed at this time, but might not have been finalized, and its Torah was probably not observed by, nor of interest to, the masses.
Greek law codes as model?
Looks at hypothesis by Michael LeFebvre that they served as both model and spur, and started as descriptive, not prescriptive.
Hammurabi, etc., were purely descriptive. Greeks, in writing their law codes out, were doing so with a more prescriptive mindset. These codes, contra Babylon, etc., contained commands for sacred observances, etc., as well as "civilian" prescriptions.
LeFebvre says Torah developed as descriptive and shifted to prescriptive under Ptolemaic influence. Ptolemy II gave Greeks and Egyptians separate courts, and subordinated both their codes to royal law.
Aharon considers this "plausible."
Hasmonean era
Daniel 9-11 may reflect attacks on Temple court, not whole Torah. 1-2 Maccabees name Torah, not just "covenant" as in Daniel. They cite many specific commands, like Nazirite vows, first fruits, tithes, etc., that rebels observe.
I Maccabees was quite possibly written in time of Jannaeus, per Aharon and others? II Maccabees dating from mid 2 BCE-mid 1 CE with some uncertainty.
Notes contra voice of Sylvie Honigman that revolt was economic and no real religious persecution. (Note Hanukkah was originally pagan.) Torah as binding thus a result, not a cause.
CONCLUSION
Unity document
Even if the persecution was real, it may well have targeted just the temple cult, per Daniel. The Torah was elevated in Maccabees as part of Hasmoneann unity program. John Collins and Reinhard Kratz propose this. Hyrcanus coercing Idumeans to support "the whole law" may support this. So may the rise of Jewish sectarianism upon independence.