What do you think?
Rate this book
Ohio: A History of the Buckeye State
A History of the Buckeye State explores the breadth of Ohio’s past, tracing the course of history from its earliest geological periods to the present day in an accessible, single-volume format.
Features the most up-to-date research on Ohio, drawing on material in the disciplines of history, archaeology, and political science Includes thematic chapters focusing on major social, economic, and political trends Amply illustrated with maps, drawings, and photographs Receipient of the Ohio Geneological Society's Henry Howe Award in 2014
Features the most up-to-date research on Ohio, drawing on material in the disciplines of history, archaeology, and political science Includes thematic chapters focusing on major social, economic, and political trends Amply illustrated with maps, drawings, and photographs Receipient of the Ohio Geneological Society's Henry Howe Award in 2014
- GenresHistoryAmerican History
546 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2013
19 people are currently reading
49 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
November 7, 2014
While an incredibly informative book it was quite an undertaking to get through the whole thing. I especially enjoyed the early chapters outlining the earliest history of the area through to statehood. From there the book lost my interest as it delved deeper into the political histories of the later years.
March 13, 2024
I can tell you why Ohio is perennially at risk of “falling behind” in some category or other: it’s because of “historians” like Kern and Wilson who spew rubbish in university-level textbooks like this one. Having taken Ohio History in about 8th grade some decades ago, I had expected that it might be fun to meet up again with Dirty Girty…and it was. I also enjoyed the first two chapters of this book, one on the geology of Ohio the other on its prehistory. But with few exceptions, it was pretty much all down hill once people actually started to enter the scene. The ignorance (of economics, of banking, of capitalism, of socialism, to name just a few areas) of these two professors is difficult to fathom, although I recognize that their ideological blinders render it impossible for them to even conceive of some of the questions that cry out to be asked (even if not answered) and the analyses that, like the proverbial elephant in the room, beg to be acknowledged.
Here’s one: Look at Table 17.1, p.453 Total Population Ohio and Central Cities 1970-2020.
(This is one of the few items (photographs and such) that are presented without the authors’ extensive and usually insipid comments.)
One sees immediately that total Ohio population grew from 10.6 to 11.8 million, or 10.8%. One also notes that of the 8 cities listed, all declined significantly (precipitously the authors might say), except for a single one that experienced steady and tremendous growth: Columbus, up 67.8%!
How could that be? Does it have something to do with the growth of government (now unionized)? How has the state budget including state employment grown over the same time period? These kinds of questions never seem to even enter the authors’ minds!
In any case, further examples of the authors’ ideological blinders which render some (painfully obvious!) questions and analyses “Off Limits” are not hard to find. In short, this book is not “History”.
An example of a different sort that I find sophomoric and, at best, unprofessional are the multiple pages (414 and beyond) of sputtering vitriol spewed out against James Rhodes. From sneering at his “Appalachian” background to the condescending contempt of his academic record (what would Obama say about publicly releasing a politician’s college transcripts?), one would think that Rhodes was not perhaps the most-popular governor Ohio ever had, despite an unprecedented and never-repeated four terms. (Or maybe the authors’ contempt is really and not-so-subtly directed at the Ohio voters who would dare to vote, repeatedly, for someone so despised by the state’s elite, incarnate in its professoriate.) (I’m inclined to think Rhodes maybe had these authors in mind when he railed against the “snobbery” of “pointy-head intellectuals”.) (p 418)
The growth of government since, say, the Progressive Era is actually an important topic that I’ve yet to see intelligently treated in any of the six state histories (5 Deep South plus Ohio) that I’ve read recently. I mention this to draw attention to one glaring omission in the Ohio text, that being Willard v Filburn in 1942. Look it up.
There are so many things to criticize in this text, I’ll limit myself to only a couple more examples. The apotheosis of Louis Bromfield (see photo p 375) is laughable. He made some money writing, didn’t know what to do next, went to Paris, went to India, then came back to Ohio to throw away what money he had left in a monument to his own vanity that failed miserably. Lots of farms actually do well in Ohio, but not Malabar. Clearly, Bromfield is one of Ohio’s finest, most worthy of memorialization, at state expense…
In a more positive vein, I like the authors’ limited attempt (3 chapters) to take a thematic approach (as opposed to chronological) to history. It’s a decent idea, though I don’t think it was very successful. Still, this is the first time I’ve seen it tried in any of the history texts I’ve read recently. I also liked the parallel presentation of the Sharon Statement and the Port Huron Statement. Although neither was written in Ohio or by Ohioans, it was actually refreshing to see an attempt at being even-handed in setting the context for some of the right-left dichotomy in late 20th century politics. Frankly, I think including the texts of the two statements would have been a useful addition, except that, while the Sharon Statement is 400 words of concise thought, Port Huron is 66 pages of rambling Marxist gibberish…but would anybody notice?
Here’s another question: How much money did Crosby Stills and company make from their hit record about the Kent State shootings? Did it really merit being quoted? There’s something about profiteering in that way that doesn’t sit well with me. Meanwhile, the exclusion of even a bibliographical mention of James Michener’s book “What Happened and Why” strikes me as, relatively speaking, odd. And does Ohio have its own Poets Laureate, or are we only allowed to praise the one selected by the Commonwealth of Virginia because she happened to have been born in Akron? There are many choices made by these authors that are not, to my way of thinking, justifiable.
Repeating a suggestion I’ve made elsewhere, writers of history really need to hire a mature, capable, grown-up editor who will go through a text and ask, “What do you mean by that?” or “Is this really what you want to say?” or simply, “So what?” There’s so much filler in this book.
I think more and more that writers of history (at least American history) should approach their work as if they were writing a text on Problems of Democracy. At various times, the people who happen to live in a particular area are confronted with Problems (variously defined from varying perspectives) and, bringing the totality of their cultural contexts with them, those people or peoples attempt to solve those problems. By and large, each of those perspectives (and the proposed solutions) has an internal logic, and the objective of written History should be to expose that logic and put those differences on display. In so doing, readers would be given the chance to exercise their own critical faculties and to understand the choices with which people have been faced over time. In short, history books should be designed so that readers can experience (and learn, perhaps) “How to Think”, not simply “What to Think.”
Unfortunately, this text does mostly the latter.
Here’s one: Look at Table 17.1, p.453 Total Population Ohio and Central Cities 1970-2020.
(This is one of the few items (photographs and such) that are presented without the authors’ extensive and usually insipid comments.)
One sees immediately that total Ohio population grew from 10.6 to 11.8 million, or 10.8%. One also notes that of the 8 cities listed, all declined significantly (precipitously the authors might say), except for a single one that experienced steady and tremendous growth: Columbus, up 67.8%!
How could that be? Does it have something to do with the growth of government (now unionized)? How has the state budget including state employment grown over the same time period? These kinds of questions never seem to even enter the authors’ minds!
In any case, further examples of the authors’ ideological blinders which render some (painfully obvious!) questions and analyses “Off Limits” are not hard to find. In short, this book is not “History”.
An example of a different sort that I find sophomoric and, at best, unprofessional are the multiple pages (414 and beyond) of sputtering vitriol spewed out against James Rhodes. From sneering at his “Appalachian” background to the condescending contempt of his academic record (what would Obama say about publicly releasing a politician’s college transcripts?), one would think that Rhodes was not perhaps the most-popular governor Ohio ever had, despite an unprecedented and never-repeated four terms. (Or maybe the authors’ contempt is really and not-so-subtly directed at the Ohio voters who would dare to vote, repeatedly, for someone so despised by the state’s elite, incarnate in its professoriate.) (I’m inclined to think Rhodes maybe had these authors in mind when he railed against the “snobbery” of “pointy-head intellectuals”.) (p 418)
The growth of government since, say, the Progressive Era is actually an important topic that I’ve yet to see intelligently treated in any of the six state histories (5 Deep South plus Ohio) that I’ve read recently. I mention this to draw attention to one glaring omission in the Ohio text, that being Willard v Filburn in 1942. Look it up.
There are so many things to criticize in this text, I’ll limit myself to only a couple more examples. The apotheosis of Louis Bromfield (see photo p 375) is laughable. He made some money writing, didn’t know what to do next, went to Paris, went to India, then came back to Ohio to throw away what money he had left in a monument to his own vanity that failed miserably. Lots of farms actually do well in Ohio, but not Malabar. Clearly, Bromfield is one of Ohio’s finest, most worthy of memorialization, at state expense…
In a more positive vein, I like the authors’ limited attempt (3 chapters) to take a thematic approach (as opposed to chronological) to history. It’s a decent idea, though I don’t think it was very successful. Still, this is the first time I’ve seen it tried in any of the history texts I’ve read recently. I also liked the parallel presentation of the Sharon Statement and the Port Huron Statement. Although neither was written in Ohio or by Ohioans, it was actually refreshing to see an attempt at being even-handed in setting the context for some of the right-left dichotomy in late 20th century politics. Frankly, I think including the texts of the two statements would have been a useful addition, except that, while the Sharon Statement is 400 words of concise thought, Port Huron is 66 pages of rambling Marxist gibberish…but would anybody notice?
Here’s another question: How much money did Crosby Stills and company make from their hit record about the Kent State shootings? Did it really merit being quoted? There’s something about profiteering in that way that doesn’t sit well with me. Meanwhile, the exclusion of even a bibliographical mention of James Michener’s book “What Happened and Why” strikes me as, relatively speaking, odd. And does Ohio have its own Poets Laureate, or are we only allowed to praise the one selected by the Commonwealth of Virginia because she happened to have been born in Akron? There are many choices made by these authors that are not, to my way of thinking, justifiable.
Repeating a suggestion I’ve made elsewhere, writers of history really need to hire a mature, capable, grown-up editor who will go through a text and ask, “What do you mean by that?” or “Is this really what you want to say?” or simply, “So what?” There’s so much filler in this book.
I think more and more that writers of history (at least American history) should approach their work as if they were writing a text on Problems of Democracy. At various times, the people who happen to live in a particular area are confronted with Problems (variously defined from varying perspectives) and, bringing the totality of their cultural contexts with them, those people or peoples attempt to solve those problems. By and large, each of those perspectives (and the proposed solutions) has an internal logic, and the objective of written History should be to expose that logic and put those differences on display. In so doing, readers would be given the chance to exercise their own critical faculties and to understand the choices with which people have been faced over time. In short, history books should be designed so that readers can experience (and learn, perhaps) “How to Think”, not simply “What to Think.”
Unfortunately, this text does mostly the latter.
July 15, 2018
This is definitely a textbook, but it’s well written and for me it was worth the effort to read. I’m a pretty new resident of Ohio and this helped me feel a lot more in the know about general trends in my new home. It’s fascinating to read about how well Ohio seems to have mirrored patterns in the nation, throughout its history.
The book starts with deep geological history and works itself all the way to the 2010’s. I liked the natural, Native American, and early statehood histories the best. The latter half of the book is very heavy on politics on a wide range of issues and especially labor disputes, and this is where it gets tough to read because it feels like a whirlwind. However, I found the entire book worthwhile.
The book starts with deep geological history and works itself all the way to the 2010’s. I liked the natural, Native American, and early statehood histories the best. The latter half of the book is very heavy on politics on a wide range of issues and especially labor disputes, and this is where it gets tough to read because it feels like a whirlwind. However, I found the entire book worthwhile.
June 18, 2020
Overall not a bad primer/ textbook of a summary of the literature on Ohio and its role as a state. The price tag is a major turnoff- any book by Wylie-Blackwell is in the same problem. However the extensive bibliography at the end of each chapter more than makes up for that slight. A good resource at being conscious and in depth enough.
November 4, 2023
Project Read-a-History-of-Every-State-in-Order-of-Statehood #17
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews