Inventing American History

by William Hogeland

A historian's call to make the celebration of America's past more honest. American public history—in magazines and books, television documentaries, and museums—tends to celebrate its subject at all costs, even to the point of denial and distortion. This does us a great disservice, argues William Hogeland in Inventing American History . Looking at details glossed over in three examples of public history—the Alexander Hamilton revival, tributes to Pete Seeger and William F. Buckley, and the Constitution Center in Philadelphia—Hogeland considers what we lose when history is written to conform to political aims. Questioning the resurrection, by both neocons and the left, of Alexander Hamilton as the founder of the American financial system—if not of the American dream itself—Hogeland delves deeply into Hamilton's brutal treatment of working-class entrepreneurs. And debunking recent hagiographies of Pete Seeger and William F. Buckley, Hogeland deftly parses Seeger's embrace of communism and Buckley's unreconstructed views on race. Hogeland then turns his attention to the U.S. Constitution Center in Philadelphia (the location of Barack Obama's speech on race), comparing its one-note celebration of the document to the National Park Service tours of nearby Independence Hall. The Park Service tours don't advance any particular point of view, but by being almost purely informative with a kind of hands-on detail, they make the past come to life, available for both celebration and criticism. We should be able to respect the Constitution without being forced to our knees before it, Hogeland argues; we can handle the truth about the Framers' intense politicking and compromises. Only when we can ground our public history in the gritty events of the day, embracing its contradictions and difficulties, will we be able to learn from it.

Genres: History, American History

132 pages, Hardcover

First published March 13, 2009

Reviews

[Adam G · Rating 5 out of 5]

Two of three essays are about the American Revolution and framing of the Constitution. They offer a useful corrective to more conventional narratives and cast a different light on some of the characters. The viewpoints may warrant further review. The second essay is more contemporary, being about Peter Seeger and William F. Buckley, Jr., a seemingly unlikely coupling but aptly handled.

[Fran · Rating 5 out of 5]

The essays in this slim volume are valuable, some of the points probably controversial.
But the central point that history is contested turf, usually for the purpose of shaping the present, should not be controversial.

[Michael VanZandt · Rating 3 out of 5]

William Hogeland tackles the hapless historiography of pundits and the amnesia befallen the American citizenry in three distinct essays. In his first essay, Hogeland combats the rising tide of romantic Hamiltonianism. Hamilton has become the poster-child of neoliberal economists, libertarians and fiscal conservatives. In the past decade, there has emerged a cottage industry of scholarships and literature on Hamilton as the forgotten giant of the Founding Fathers. Foremost amongst the neo-Hamiltonians is the conservative columnist David Brooks, whose myth-building Hogeland takes particularly relishes to topple. Its story that so often happens in the manipulation of history to find precedent and, hence, validation for political agendas. Lost in the cherry-picking of history is the full picture of Hamilton's ideology which does not fit neatly into our current political dichotomy. His critical analysis is exceptional in this first essay and could have easily pursued his lead for another 200 pages.

The following two essays also have their own merits. In the second, he deals with the strange cases of Pete Seeger and William F. Buckley in the work titled "American Dreamers." He deftly handles the intimate histories of both monumental figures of the Left and Right, respectively. This writer though is clearly not a polemicist but does take exception to the way in which their legacies are white-washed so that merely become monoliths devoid of their historical context and their human flaws. Similarly, he exhibits the same evenhanded in his final essay on the public history center charged with teaching the history of the Declaration and Constitution.

This is a quick but enjoyable read for anyone interested in works of politics, American history or the use of public history. There is no fine-toothed comb in his analysis; he is ruthless in his criticism of propagandists and is quick to belittle the talking heads of our society. Worthwhile read.

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

A nice little sip of Haterade. (I don't mean that in a bad way - Haterade is for that deep down body thirst.) In three essays aimed at criticizing the weakness of most public history, Hogeland punctures four popular myths that have taken root. Here is the gist of his points:

1) Alexander Hamilton was a relentless schemer primarily concerned with maximizing his own power, not with democracy as many commentators think;
2) Pete Seeger's Communist past has been whitewashed;
3) William F. Buckley's deeply racist past has been whitewashed;
4) The National Constitution Center in Philadelphia is a joke that fails to deal with the blemishes of the Framers or take any kind of critical view toward the Constitution as it was written and applied.

The question I'm left with after finishing each of the three essays is: "So what? OK, public history gravitates to promoting myths, loves quasi-hagiography, and disdains conflict. But is this a big deal, and why?" Hogeland never explores the question, which is much less banal than the points made in the book. Middlebrow thinkers frequently do bad history? Well, duh. But does middlebrow thought really matter in influencing Americans in any significant way? Hogeland either presupposes the answer is yes, takes a detached stance and considers this line of inquiry outside the scope of a historian, or maybe just didn't have room in the space allotted to explore the question. My sense is that perhaps this book was in part designed as a teaser for Hogeland's other, beefier books on early American history.

Hogeland's writing is lively and very good. Bringing in a sociological or media studies approach to analyze why these issues are important would have given his argument more punch, though.

[Laura · Rating 2 out of 5]

The second essay, on Seeger and Buckley, is the most engaging.