Reviews for The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2004

The average rating for The Making of the Presidential Candidates 2004 based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2020-10-03 00:00:00 Sergey Korolev Bancroft's sanguine chauvinism is as unbearable as his style is impeccable: "...it is but little more than two centuries, since the oldest of our states received its first permanent colony. Before that time the whole territory was an unproductive waste. Throughout its wide extent the arts had not erected a monument. Its only inhabitants were a few scattered tribes of feeble barbarians, destitute of commerce and of political connection. The axe and the ploughshare were unknown. The soil, which had been gathering fertility from the repose of centuries, was lavishing its strength in magnificent but useless vegetation. In the view of civilization the immense domain was a solitude. It is the object of the present work to explain how the change in the condition of our land has been accomplished; and, as the fortunes of a nation are not under the control of blind destiny, to follow the steps by which a favoring Providence, calling our institutions into being, has conducted the country to its present glory." For anyone who knows the basic outline of Native American history or doubts the idea that America is God's chosen nation(!) this is truly stunning stuff. Reading this book was a thoroughly ambivalent experience for me. I enjoyed its literary quality, and even sympathized with some of Bancroft's views. Then suddenly the 19th century prejudices would emerge out of the mist and remind me that I was in a time machine which had traveled back to 1834. Bancroft's disdainful and callous attitude towards America's indigenous people is often palpable. While narrating the story of the Fort Mystic massacre during the Pequot War, he betrays little sign of moral outrage. At the conclusion of the war itself, which nearly wiped out the Pequots, he merely states "A nation had disappeared from the family of man. The vigor and courage displayed by the settlers on the Connecticut, in this first Indian war in New England, struck terror into the savages, and secured a long succession of years of peace." Bancroft's lack of sympathy for Native Americans contrasts with his enthusiastic anti-slavery outlook. He dedicates an entire chapter to slavery's history since antiquity and deplores its arrival in America: "... a Dutch man-of-war entered the James River, and landed twenty negroes for sale. This is, indeed, the sad epoch of the introduction of negro slavery in the English colonies...." It is strange to me that one can hold such selectively humanitarian views towards slaves yet feel the barest sympathy for Indians. Bancroft is also a passionate supporter of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. He deplores the persecutions that took place during the wars of religion and inveighs against the evils of Europe when compared to the relative tolerance and freedom of the English colonies. To this end, he draws very sympathetic portraits of Lord Baltimore, Roger Williams, and Anne Hutchinson. In a somewhat bizarre fashion, however, Bancroft cannot bring himself to see Puritan New England as anything like the backwards theocratic states of Europe. In spite of the colony's persecution of religious non-conformists, it appears to him to hold the seeds of American progress: "The Effects of Puritanism display its true character still more distinctly. Ecclesiastical tyranny is of all kinds the worst; its fruits are cowardice, idleness, ignorance, and poverty: Puritanism was a life-giving spirit; activity, thrift, intelligence, followed in its train; and as for courage, a coward and a Puritan never went together. 'He that prays best, and preaches best, will fight best'; such was the judgement of Cromwell, the greatest soldier of his age." Bancroft goes on to list the other merits of the colony. In his view it possessed an exceptional educational system, a much milder criminal law code than any in Europe, common purpose due to social cohesion, and a long average life expectancy. One other section of the narrative stood out to me and that was the portrayal of Captain John Smith. Bancroft pays a great deal of attention to Smith's conflict with the English nobility. As a commoner and an accomplished soldier of fortune, Smith had to tolerate and often overcome the arrogance of his social betters who turned out to be very poor colonists and managers. The population of Jamestown was almost exclusively made up of noblemen when it was founded, and they preferred searching for gold to planting crops. When Smith took charge of the colony, he required everyone to work 6 hours a day or go without food. His success in keeping Jamestown afloat, so to speak, and in his exploratory ventures went totally unrecognized by the Virginia Company of London and the Aristocracy. Given Bancroft's sympathy for Jacksonian democracy, it seems probable that he viewed Smith as an early example of a common man who challenged privilege (with varying degrees of success). I suspect he intended to cast Smith as a sort of prototype for the self-made Jacksonian man. If you are interested in American history and not put off by the language or 19th century prejudices, this is well worth the read.

Review # 2 was written on 2014-05-05 00:00:00 Paul Marsh As a writer I've long assumed that First Amendment rights were enshrined in the Constitution. However, after readying Christopher M. Finan's history I realized for the first time just how tenuous those rights are in U.S. history. It is truly amazing to read a book that attempts to compile in one place all of the efforts to restrain free speech and the free press. I was familiar with many if not most of the individual incidents but to have them covered at one time certainly leaves an impression that there has been a segment of U.S. society willing to muzzle this freedom based on real or imagined threats. My only reservation about the book is the quasi political bent it takes toward the more recent censorship efforts. I had the impression the author was attempting to make a political point that certain parties are more prone to abandon the First Amendment of the Constitution. Perhaps this is true although the treatment in this book compromises the unbiased quality of the historical research. Books such as this one are a reminder the Constitution is under constant threat and requires constant vigilance by all citizens.