African Americans on the Great Plains: An Anthology Book

Subtitled (incorrectly) "The Men Who Built the Transcontinental Railroad 1863-1869", I knew I was taking a risk reading an Ambrose book, but the subject was compelling to me. I like trains, I like history, particularly 19th Century American History, so I figured I would give this a try.

Not one of my better plans.

It's pretty bad when the 20 minute animated Peanuts special on the same subject is more critical of the subject material than a book for adults. But sadly, this was the case. Rather than be a historian, Ambrose is a cheerleader for men who swindled workers, contractors, and the government for what he considers a greater purpose (namely the railroad) but I consider a horrible purpose--their pocketbook.

Oh sure, he will mention the excesses of the bosses, particularly Doc Durant, who was the Ken Lay of his day. But they are almost told as asides, as being off the point. Yeah, he screwed the Mormans, but who cares? They built into Utah! Hooray!

For a history book written in the 1950s, this would be acceptable and forgivable. But the tome, written in 2000, has all the modern scholarship of a Bill O'Reilly book. Everyone is put in the best light possible, except for those pesky Irish demanding higher wages (how dare they?) and the Mormans demanding their money (the cads!). When the praised frequently for being docile and industrious Chinese threaten to strike, Ambrose is all about praising the bosses for using strong-arm tactics to end it. "Thus did Charles Crocker and his partners show other employers around the nation one way--theirs--of how to deal with strikes." (page 242) Thankfully, he does not mention African Americans or slavery that often, because, had the railroad been built by slaves, I could easily see him writing, "but that was the only way to get it done" just as he defends the actions of the bosses with that same lame excuse.

It's obvious that Ambrose and I do not share political philosophies, and that's fine. He spends pages in his afterward decrying the way that the teachers condemn the bosses to their students.

A lengthy quote from page 377 will explain why the book is written in this manner:

"With regard to the government bonds, generations of American students have been offered a black and white view. The bonds when not only to the CP and the UP buy to six companies chartered to build the second, third, and so on Pacific railroads. In the textbooks, as in the lectures, the government was handing out a gift. Now, for those of us who were in college in the 1950s, the classes were taught by professors who had taken their own graduate training in the 1930s and had thus been brought up to blame big business for everything that went wrong, especially the Great Depression. Those professors who were not New Deal Democrats were socialists. They all knew that it helps then anti-big business case if you can call those bonds a gift."

So yeah, this is the story of the Transcontinental Railroad as seen through the prism of Rush Limbaugh. Which is fine as far as it goes, but don't complain about black and white reporting when the only gray in your version is the faded uniforms worn by the Southern veterans who helped build the Union Pacific. Yes, there is far more to the story than just "owners evil, workers good"--I completely agree. The problem here is that Ambrose swings the pendulum so far the other way that he actually fails to see why it was wrong--by omitting any harsh words--for Huntington to be looking at the Congress to see whose vote was for sale! That's not Ronald Reagan conservatism, that's modern political "pro-business" talk, and it's sickening.

Even if you are so radically pro-business that the above doesn't bother you, what will is the writing style. It feels like Ambrose dictated the text with no further editing, leaving us with so many short editorial sentences (which is why his lack of one about the bribery is so glaring) as to be distracting. This book reads like your elderly uncle telling a story after Thanksgiving dinner--long and rambling, circling back on itself, repeating information he just said a few chapters ago, and of course with no room for anyone else's opinion.

Never in this book does Ambrose reference another historian's work directly (there are footnotes, but I am referring to a real quote). Never, other than his dismissive "New Deal and socialists" comment above, are other opinions given sway. And as a result of this, I find his protestations of being unable to find anything from the Chinese or Irish workers rather hollow. This is especially true because in the last ten years, there are all kinds of Civil War diaries popping up all over the place. You mean to tell me that no one who wasn't an engineer, surveyor, or boss kept a diary? Not a single one?

That's Ambrose's stance, and while it may be true, his book and evidence of other, similar time periods doesn't make it very easy to believe. We are not, after all, writing a book about building the Roman Road--this is not even 150 years ago.

All of this pales in comparison, however, to Ambrose's treatment of the Indians. They are never given a single chance to defend themselves. Drawing his history from Hollywood movies,. Ambrose paints them as savage terrorists (replace railroad for oil pipeline and Indian for Arab and this book wouldn't read very different, if at all) who are only shown raping, pillaging, and murdering every chance they get, except for the Pawnee, who are depicted as loving the ability to take scalps of the "bad" Indians. The Indians must submit or be eliminated in the minds of the men making the railroad and Ambrose goes right along with that, not even giving a second to go over treaties, violations, or any act of cruelty by the soldiers that might have provoked the Indians in any way. They are bad, bad, bad. It's sickening to read--a modern book, even one favorable to the railroad, should never stoop to that level.

I was honestly surprised this book didn't come with a set of pop-pops in UP colors. It's all about how great America used to be, how we suck now, and how anything that got in the way of such a grand project should have just accepted the manifest destiny that was the railroad's progress. The idea that it had to be done this way, which appears to be Ambrose's view, is complete bunk. So, basically, is this book. (Library, 07/08)

Trebby's Take: Take it away! Do not, I beg you, bother to read this. And please, tell me what I should read instead. I like the subject but this was really bad.