What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of Georgia
First published in 1977, A History of Georgia has become the standard history of the state. Documenting events from the earliest discoveries by the Spanish to the rapid changes the state has undergone with the civil rights era, the book gives broad coverage to the state's social, political, economic, and cultural history.
This work details Georgia's development from past to present, including the early Cherokee land disputes, the state's secession from the Union, cotton's reign, Reconstruction, the Bourbon era, the effects of the New Deal, Martin Luther King, Jr., the fall of the county-unit system, and Jimmy Carter's election to the presidency. Also noted are the often-overlooked contributions of Indians, blacks, and women. Each imparting his own special knowledge and understanding of a particular period in the state's history, the authors bring into focus the personalities and events that made Georgia what it is today.
For this new edition, available in paperback for the first time, A History of Georgia has been revised to bring the work up through the events of the 1980s. The bibliographies for each section and the appendixes have also been updated to include relevant scholarship from the last decade.
This work details Georgia's development from past to present, including the early Cherokee land disputes, the state's secession from the Union, cotton's reign, Reconstruction, the Bourbon era, the effects of the New Deal, Martin Luther King, Jr., the fall of the county-unit system, and Jimmy Carter's election to the presidency. Also noted are the often-overlooked contributions of Indians, blacks, and women. Each imparting his own special knowledge and understanding of a particular period in the state's history, the authors bring into focus the personalities and events that made Georgia what it is today.
For this new edition, available in paperback for the first time, A History of Georgia has been revised to bring the work up through the events of the 1980s. The bibliographies for each section and the appendixes have also been updated to include relevant scholarship from the last decade.
480 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1990
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
December 28, 2023
Initially published about 1977 and updated a bit in 1991, it scarcely needs to be said that it’s time for a new history of Georgia. The approach that this text takes—having different “experts” write separate sections on distinct chronological periods—is probably more sound than having one person try to cover 200+ years single-handedly. However, the role of the overall Editor thus becomes critical, and I would fault the editor of this volume for, at a minimum, laziness, or apathy. For example, I feel very strongly that nearly every single paragraph in a proper history textbook should bear a footnote, giving specific references for any substantive assertion made in that paragraph. The short “narrative” approach to references taken here just strikes me as…laziness. I also think a proper bibliography listing at least every work cited is a minimum requirement for the serious professional historian. I hope someone is already at work on such a project.
In terms of more specific criticisms, the Colonial Period (by Phinizy Spalding ) was perhaps the most satisfactory. However, there really could be a separate section strictly about Georgia in, for example, 1491. Relatedly, subsequent parts of this book don’t do justice to the “Indian question” and to both Georgia’s and the federal government‘s handling of same. The use of the rather sanitized term “cessation” to refer to how Indian lands became Georgia doesn’t really throw much light on the “process.” It was pretty ugly. The topic deserves a separate chapter. (I’m not sure if ‘Trail of Tears’ is even cited.)
I am also increasingly convinced that historians rarely understand economics and even less do they understand banking, capital markets and capitalism generally. There are exceptions, but not many in this text. And as for taxes, do all historians believe that more and higher is by definition better? I’m equally frustrated when I see uncritical and one-sided accounts of FDR’s New Deal. Are all historians oblivious to the failures thereof, or totally unaware of the economically and philosophically sound and principled objections to central planning? (I know it was in vogue from the earliest years of the Soviet Union, and remains popular and fashionable in academia today, but a minimal fidelity to objectivity would suggest a less fawning approach.) What I expect of a history book is that it fairly frames the issues and the relevant context and helps me understand how whatever happened happened. I don’t want the historian to tell me what to think. (The Ideal Historian should be sufficiently knowledgeable so as to be able to debate, and win, either side of a historical controversy.)
Finally, the single most important improvement that could be made in a new history of Georgia would be a strong editor who simply asks the question, “So what?” Much of this reads like a travel brochure for tourists. There are pages and pages of “stuff” that seems to be included simply because, well, that’s the kind of rubbish historians always put in history books. Somebody needs to critically ask the question, of every word, phrase, sentence, and paragraph, “Is this really necessary? Does it add value?”
And of course this hypothetical Uber-Editor needs to repeatedly ask, “Is this History, or merely the personal narrative preference of the particular writer?”
Obviously, I think the editor of the existing volume did not adequately ask such questions.
It’s time for a new History of Georgia.
By the way, I found the chapter on the civil rights movement very informative (though not without flaws.) But MLK probably deserves a chapter all to himself. After all, is there another Georgian who got his own national holiday?
In terms of more specific criticisms, the Colonial Period (by Phinizy Spalding ) was perhaps the most satisfactory. However, there really could be a separate section strictly about Georgia in, for example, 1491. Relatedly, subsequent parts of this book don’t do justice to the “Indian question” and to both Georgia’s and the federal government‘s handling of same. The use of the rather sanitized term “cessation” to refer to how Indian lands became Georgia doesn’t really throw much light on the “process.” It was pretty ugly. The topic deserves a separate chapter. (I’m not sure if ‘Trail of Tears’ is even cited.)
I am also increasingly convinced that historians rarely understand economics and even less do they understand banking, capital markets and capitalism generally. There are exceptions, but not many in this text. And as for taxes, do all historians believe that more and higher is by definition better? I’m equally frustrated when I see uncritical and one-sided accounts of FDR’s New Deal. Are all historians oblivious to the failures thereof, or totally unaware of the economically and philosophically sound and principled objections to central planning? (I know it was in vogue from the earliest years of the Soviet Union, and remains popular and fashionable in academia today, but a minimal fidelity to objectivity would suggest a less fawning approach.) What I expect of a history book is that it fairly frames the issues and the relevant context and helps me understand how whatever happened happened. I don’t want the historian to tell me what to think. (The Ideal Historian should be sufficiently knowledgeable so as to be able to debate, and win, either side of a historical controversy.)
Finally, the single most important improvement that could be made in a new history of Georgia would be a strong editor who simply asks the question, “So what?” Much of this reads like a travel brochure for tourists. There are pages and pages of “stuff” that seems to be included simply because, well, that’s the kind of rubbish historians always put in history books. Somebody needs to critically ask the question, of every word, phrase, sentence, and paragraph, “Is this really necessary? Does it add value?”
And of course this hypothetical Uber-Editor needs to repeatedly ask, “Is this History, or merely the personal narrative preference of the particular writer?”
Obviously, I think the editor of the existing volume did not adequately ask such questions.
It’s time for a new History of Georgia.
By the way, I found the chapter on the civil rights movement very informative (though not without flaws.) But MLK probably deserves a chapter all to himself. After all, is there another Georgian who got his own national holiday?
November 19, 2011
A little dry and too few graphics for my taste. However, the fact that Jimmy Carter commissioned UGA scholars to write a new comprehensive history of Georgia gives this book more of a source material feel and less of a textbook feel.
June 11, 2013
Hard to read boring
August 1, 2016
This is a really good read but super intense. Lots and lots and lots of information to digest. Don't expect to remember it all.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews