Historian's Guild discussion

I would like to suggest that we take up a group reading or a focused subject area which might involve the membership. We currently have 19 members which should be sufficient to support a sustained discussion. I just finished David McCullough's The pioneers which is an eminently readable treatment of the settlement of the Ohio territory from the early years of the Constitution to the Civil War. It reminded me of a feeling that we need a better knowledge of western United States History so that is a subject area I would nominate for study. Any ideas or suggestions?

I read it and would be happy to join a discussion. Also open to other suggestions.

Just to follow up. How about an upcoming book: "The Splendid and the Vile" by Erik Larson? Billed as "a saga of Churchill, Family, and Defiance During the Blitz" it will be released on February 25. As a historian I don't know how Larson's book stack up but his books are always informative and entertaining. Plus it's a book that, I wouldn't think, any of us would have read so we'd all be in the same boat. Just a thought. Happy to go along with anyone's recommendation, however.

I placed an order for the new Larson book.

Just to follow-up on the group reading suggestion by Jeffrey, he had suggested reading "The Pioneers" by David McCullough. Rather than let the suggestion die maybe we can jump-start the discussion with my review of "The Pioneers" from a few months back. Have at it gang!

"The Pioneers" gets a 3.75 rating which is just about right. Written with all the enthusiasm and good will that McCullough's books are known for, "The Pioneers" just isn't very interesting. When The Northwest Ordinance Act of 1787 was enacted it unleashed a land rush mostly by a number of intrepid New Englanders. Settling mainly in an area on the north side of the Ohio River the growing community named itself Marietta and proceeded to build. Since most of the settlers were God-fearing, fairly well-educated, hard-working pioneers it ensured that any settlement would result in a well planned, law abiding community. And indeed it was. It's overall successes were due to the hard work that was put in and it's setbacks resulted primarily from external disasters like disease, acts of nature and Indian raids. Settled in 1787 the territory was dedicated to religious freedom, education for all and, most importantly, no slavery. This was in stark contrast to the U.S. Constitution that punted on the issue of slavery. The territory yielded its first state, Ohio, in 1803. "The Pioneers" tells a Sim City type of story, building the houses, administration buidings, schools, roads, establishing a legislature. With the exception of occasional appearances by noteworthies such as Aaron Burr and John Quincy Adams what the book lacks is recognizable historical figures. The Aaron Burr episode provided the only excitement in the book. Fresh off the duel that killed Alexander Hamilton, Burr arrives in the Ohio Territory and either conspired with the fabulously wealthy and flamboyant Harman Blennerhasset or not, to break the Ohio territory away from the United States. Burr was eventually tried for treason and acquitted. I had once heard that the resulting territory was to be named Burrsylvania but since there was no mention by Mr. McCullough it was probably as valid as Tolstoy originally calling "War and Peace", "War: What Is It Good For?" Sing if you know the words. But what "The Pioneers" lacks in name recognition it more than makes up for with characters who exemplify courage, generosity and sacrifice. I can't say this is one of David McCullough's best works but it captures the American spirit our country once had and, sadly, now lacks.

I have started Eric Larson's The Splendid and the Vile: A Saga of ,,, Defiance During the Blitz.

In his Introduction Larsen states that the public and the war planners were preparing for an attack before the war began. He offers support for the claim that defense planners were aware of the risk of air attack from Germany and starts with Stanley Baldwin's speech of November 10, 1932. He offers plenty of support for defense planning but I wonder about public support that early. I'm thinking about Neville Chamberlain's peace in our time announcement in 1938 after he stated that he had negotiated a European settlement with Hitler. It seems that speech was wily acclaimed for a few moments. I'm wondering if there was wide spread public support for war preparations in 1932 or '33 or if the demand was to promote peace. I hope Larsen returns to this later in his book.

That doesn't sound right. Not questioning you Jeffrey and I'm sure that's what Larson is saying but I just finished the William Manchester trilogy about Churchill who spent the 1930s imploring the Prime Ministers and their cabinets to build up England's defenses. To little avail. The public was in a pacifist mood having lost so many young men during the Great War. King George VI also didn't want another war, particularly during his reign. Chamberlain appeased Hitler for these reasons but also because England was so ill prepared to oppose Hitler. Oddly enough, JFK makes these points in "Why England Slept" which he wrote just as the war was beginning. He had been in England observing and studying while his father was Ambassador to the Court of St. James. I'm going to have to jump on this book as soon as I can. When I didn't get any feedback from the group I started reading "Vicksburg". I'll catch up. Keep us posted, Jeffrey.

Jeffrey and Chris, and everyone in the group, I apologize for being inactive of late. I went through a spell of reading some historical fiction series (Hornblower and Ramage) so I didn't really have much to contribute here. I've returned to reading more non-fiction history so I'll have more to say now.

Regarding group reads, I'm afraid that I'm unlikely to join in reading specific books with the group because I have quite a back-log of books that I plan on reading in the near future.

Chris, I'm not entirely convinced that Larson is wrong about the planners. They may have been planning but all the plans in the world cannot be effective if Parliament did not fund them. I do share your doubts about public sentiment. The strongest thin Larson has said in the early pages is that Hitler made a mistake fingering Chamberlain as the chief culprit for the war (in the early war years, later he switched to Roosevelt) which promoted Churchill's popularity in England. Larson cites John Colville as source for this opinion which is a bit odd since Colville is identified as a Chamberlain supporter. In the extensive essay on his sources, Larson indicates he relies heavily on Colville's Diary which is the source for this statement, see page 652, I may at some point jump ahead and read the essay.