One of my all-time favorite history books is David McCullough’s The Great Bridge: The Epic Story of the Building of the Brooklyn Bridge. McCullough wrote about the bridge as the central character of the book—as an extension of its architects, civic boosters, and the many workers who labored and even died during its construction. The book sparked my imagination and left me wanting to know even more.
"David McCullough was a young researcher at the U.S. Information Agency when he walked into the Library of Congress in 1961 and chanced upon a photography exhibit depicting the 1889 flood in Johnstown, Pa., the deadliest in American history.
“'I was overwhelmed by the violence revealed in them, the destruction,' Mr. McCullough, who was from the same area of western Pennsylvania, later told the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat. More than 2,200 people died, and a thriving coal-and-steel town was submerged in muddy debris because wealthy industrialists had neglected a dam.
"The passage of time had reduced the tragedy to a historical footnote, Mr. McCullough discovered, with little if any serious scholarly study devoted to it. Undaunted by his own inexperience — 'I imagined myself being a writer, but never a writer of history,' he said — he set out to write a book about the Johnstown flood.
"For years, he dedicated his spare time to his research, interviewing the few remaining survivors to capture their memories of sudden terror, desperate acts of self-preservation and the awful duty, in the aftermath, of identifying the dead.
"'The Johnstown Flood,' published in 1968, became a bestseller, rekindled national interest in the disaster and instantly established its author as a historian with an exceptional gift for animating history."
“I imagined myself being a writer, but never a writer of history” - that his path as a history writer began with a library exhibit makes this retired librarian very happy. Thank you, Kevin, for giving (some of) us a place to learn more about a favorite author.
I agree with George on there being both strengths and weaknesses in McCullough’s approach and how you’ve captured them well. McCullough like anyone was a product of his times with his own biases and viewpoints. Certainly a great scholar, teacher and storyteller but no one person’s view should ever be taken as the definitive on any subject. We all have our blind spots.
All that said he and his great gift for narrative will both be sorely missed. Vale.
Several years ago I asked you to provide one study that would buttress your point that students know history as well or better than those in the past using something other than your own experience. I would argue that teaching in a private school is not anywhere relative to the tens of thousands of public school students out there whose motivation in attending is far different than someone who is paying for the privilege to be there. You never could, and I suspect you still can't.
No one can argue against the fact that there are very devoted public school teachers who do all they can to make history come alive, but for everyone that describes, there are far too many teachers who have degrees in education and not in the subject matter they teach, which is part of what McCullough argued was the problem.
There is no question in my mind that McCullough did offer the consensus interpretation of history. He said so himself. But to suggest that he was mourning its loss in his assertions on historical illiteracy also needs more evidence before it can be accepted. You certainly are entitled to offer whatever historical interpretation you choose, but not everyone who believes in the consensus school does so out of a desire to silence other voices or promote the Lost Cause. In fact, many of those voices who were silenced for too long seem intent on trying to silence the voices of consensus in their own writing.
A very relevant case in point. In the New York Times review of McCullough's book "The Pioneers," Joyce Chaplin writes "And whatever praise Manasseh Cutler and his supporters might deserve, their designated Eden had an original sin: dispossession of the region’s native inhabitants — paradise lost, indeed. McCullough plays down the violence that displaced the Indians, including the actual Ohio people. He adopts settlers’ prejudiced language about “savages” and “wilderness,” words that denied Indians’ humanity and active use of their land. He also states that the Ohio Territory was “unsettled.” No, it had people in it, as he slightly admits in a paragraph on how the Indians “considered” the land to be theirs. That paragraph begins, however, with a description of the Northwest Territory as “teeming with wolves, bears, wild boars, panthers, rattlesnakes and the even more deadly copperheads,” as if the native people were comparably wild and venomous, to be hunted down, beaten back, exterminated."
So tell me, were the Native Americans born with the deed to the land in their hands? Where did they get the land from? How many battles were fought with other tribes over that same piece of ground?
Rebecca Onion in Slate writes "When it comes to representing “pioneers” as isolated and hardworking idealists fighting off “threats” from residents of the land they are taking, this book—about the settlement of Marietta, Ohio, and the Northwest Territory more generally, in the years after the Revolutionary War—is a true throwback. Its success (it is No.10 on Amazon’s best-seller list for books, as of Friday) shows how big the gap between critical history and the “popular history” that makes it to best-seller lists, Costco, and Target remains."
Her last line to me seems far more relevant. McCullough represents popular history and those you magnify do not. Read any article written by an academic historian about McCullough and they will drape it in his lack of critical observance or how easy he makes things appear in opposition to how complex life can be, but the honest ones also point out that they harbor some jealousy in the fact that one book of McCullough's will sell far more copies than every book they've ever written.
On the website History News Network, Michael Nelson wrote the following, "being called 'the nation’s
leading presidential historian' by Newsweek is “the kiss of death among academic historians.” James R. Allen, the author of the paper where Nelson's quote is located, further writes that "Nelson argues that vanity may be a factor, noting that when television shows call upon their ‘resident historian’ it is often a popular historian and “academic historians hear remarks like [those] and gnash their teeth, partly because they equate media celebrity with superficiality and partly because when the phones ring, it’s seldom the Today show calling."
I'm sure that you will say that neither Chaplin nor Onion were trying to silence McCullough, but rather were trying to offer an alternative viewpoint. Yet their points were written in such a way that tells the reader they are somehow contributing to the further oppression of minority groups if they pay for McCullough's books, or for any book that doesn't toe the new party line.
"So tell me, were the Native Americans born with the deed to the land in their hands?" The lack of a deed means that Native Americans had no rights that descendants of European immigrants were bound to respect?
David McCullough is one of my favorite authors. One of his strengths as a narrator is his "obvious affection for the subjects he chose" and his admiration for people who "put the greater good above personal ambition." (quoting the NYT obituary) These virtues are also limitations, and Mr. Wick's efforts to brand the reviews of "The Pioneers" by Chaplin and Onion as "unfair" and an effort to "silence" McCullough are unpersuasive, to put it mildly.
"I'm sure that you will say that neither Chaplin nor Onion were trying to silence McCullough, but rather were trying to offer an alternative viewpoint."
Oh, I'll cheerfully say that. Pointing out holes in a historical narrative is standard practice. What I would not do is saythat "their points were written in such a way that tells the reader they are somehow contributing to the further oppression of minority groups if they pay for McCullough's books, or for any book that doesn't toe the new party line." I would suggest that's your interpretation, and thus your responsibility.
You surely don't mean to argue that McCullough, whose books I have enjoyed, was the only historian who got flak from his peers for writing narrative history and being "too popular". James MacPherson - whose work I also enjoy - is another notable victim, and his work does include women and minorities.
I have no idea where either of you got the idea that I said anyone who writes history, be it narrative or analytical, should not be subject to criticism. My problem is when the criticism is unfair, which Onion and Chaplin's was. They didn't just want McCullough to mention Native Americans, rather they wanted McCullough to say that the savages were the white settlers who stole land, even though McCullough only pointed out what was written in contemporary journals and letters at the time. Surely neither of you have a problem with quoting historical documents correctly?
"they wanted McCullough to say that the savages were the white settlers who stole land"
They told you so? Or did you read their minds? Or did theysay that that was their opinion?
No problem whatever with quoting historical documents correctly, but using slurs without calling them slurs opens one to the danger of seeming to endorse them. As you must surely know.
The problems with this particular book are extensive. We should agree to disagree and move on given that it has nothing to do with the content of this particular post.
"Several years ago I asked you to provide one study that would buttress your point that students know history as well or better than those in the past using something other than your own experience."
That's not what I claimed in this post. Read it again. I also never suggested that McCullough agrees with the Lost Cause, but that the consensus view left plenty of room for it in our nation's classrooms and in popular memory.
I am not sure why you felt a need to reference PIONEERS. I do believe that it is problematic for a number of reasons, but that has nothing to do with drawing a distinction between popular and academic history. You can write compelling narrative and still acknowledge relevant evidence and new scholarship. Read any book by T.J. Stiles.
"I also never suggested that McCullough agrees with the Lost Cause, but that the consensus view left plenty of room for it in our nation's classrooms and in popular memory."
Ummm, Kevin, just a few months ago you suggested the very thing when you posted the speech that McCullough gave and wondered if he had changed his opinion now.
As for your comment on students today, you've made that comment dozens of times here. Just because you didn't specifically say it in this post doesn't make my point any less relevant.
I mentioned "Pioneers" because the reviews I featured, and several others, didn't review the book that McCullough wrote, but rather the book those reviewers thought should be written in order to tell the story as they want it told. My point goes toward showing that intellectual dishonesty is sometimes present in their POV.
Of course, you can write a compelling narrative and still acknowledge relevant evidence and new scholarship. But the history some of these people want is more designed to promote a cause just as much as you believe consensus history does.
Go back and reread that earlier post. I never suggested that McCullough was pushing a Lost Cause narrative.
I am happy to respond to the points that I actually made in this post today.
PIONEERS is a flawed book, not simply because it wasn't the sort of book that his reviewers would have had him write. McCullough has written some wonderful history books, but that isn't one of them.
I read the post very carefully. That's how I know what I wrote is correct.
Obviously, Kevin, there is nothing of value in my continuing this thread, so I'll let this be my last word. You are a deeply talented historian who has a lot of good things to say. I wish you well in the future.
"Now, we have the blunt conclusions of a new survey by the Education Department: The decided majority, some 60 percent, of the nation’s high school seniors haven’t even the most basic understanding of American history."
...and then I get them in my Freshmen/Sophomore Intro US History class and (SIGH) he's right. I'd bet the numbers are better at more exclusive universities, and I do get some dedicated students that are a joy to teach, but I'd bet a good portion of my salary that a solid majority of entering my freshmen who are native-born US citizens* couldn't pass the basic US history/civics test immigrants have to take to become citizens. I try to pass on my excitement about history and make ties to the world today but it is an uphill battle sometimes.
*We have a lot of international students who have, understandable, never taken a US history course before. They ask the greatest questions!!!
A fitting eulogy to a great narrative historian. Alongside Sears, he was a worthy heir to a twentieth century narrative tradition often identified with Bruce Catton’s works, which are still worth reading for their superb literary quality alone. Rick Atkinson (a former journalist) is one of the few authors writing about history today who can claim a similar mastery of prose. While there are obvious limitations to narrative history, it remains one of the best ways to engage with the reading public, and offers anyone an opportunity to sit down and enjoy a conversation (that’s how these works often feel to me) with a master of the language.
The Washington Post obituary (https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2022/08/08/david-mccullough-dead-american-history/) begins with his book about the Johnstown Flood:
"David McCullough was a young researcher at the U.S. Information Agency when he walked into the Library of Congress in 1961 and chanced upon a photography exhibit depicting the 1889 flood in Johnstown, Pa., the deadliest in American history.
“'I was overwhelmed by the violence revealed in them, the destruction,' Mr. McCullough, who was from the same area of western Pennsylvania, later told the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat. More than 2,200 people died, and a thriving coal-and-steel town was submerged in muddy debris because wealthy industrialists had neglected a dam.
"The passage of time had reduced the tragedy to a historical footnote, Mr. McCullough discovered, with little if any serious scholarly study devoted to it. Undaunted by his own inexperience — 'I imagined myself being a writer, but never a writer of history,' he said — he set out to write a book about the Johnstown flood.
"For years, he dedicated his spare time to his research, interviewing the few remaining survivors to capture their memories of sudden terror, desperate acts of self-preservation and the awful duty, in the aftermath, of identifying the dead.
"'The Johnstown Flood,' published in 1968, became a bestseller, rekindled national interest in the disaster and instantly established its author as a historian with an exceptional gift for animating history."
“I imagined myself being a writer, but never a writer of history” - that his path as a history writer began with a library exhibit makes this retired librarian very happy. Thank you, Kevin, for giving (some of) us a place to learn more about a favorite author.
Thanks, Kevin, for your interesting, nuanced comments on David McCullough. I think you've pinpointed both his strengths and his weaknesses.
Thanks for the feedback, George.
I agree with George on there being both strengths and weaknesses in McCullough’s approach and how you’ve captured them well. McCullough like anyone was a product of his times with his own biases and viewpoints. Certainly a great scholar, teacher and storyteller but no one person’s view should ever be taken as the definitive on any subject. We all have our blind spots.
All that said he and his great gift for narrative will both be sorely missed. Vale.
Kevin,
Several years ago I asked you to provide one study that would buttress your point that students know history as well or better than those in the past using something other than your own experience. I would argue that teaching in a private school is not anywhere relative to the tens of thousands of public school students out there whose motivation in attending is far different than someone who is paying for the privilege to be there. You never could, and I suspect you still can't.
No one can argue against the fact that there are very devoted public school teachers who do all they can to make history come alive, but for everyone that describes, there are far too many teachers who have degrees in education and not in the subject matter they teach, which is part of what McCullough argued was the problem.
There is no question in my mind that McCullough did offer the consensus interpretation of history. He said so himself. But to suggest that he was mourning its loss in his assertions on historical illiteracy also needs more evidence before it can be accepted. You certainly are entitled to offer whatever historical interpretation you choose, but not everyone who believes in the consensus school does so out of a desire to silence other voices or promote the Lost Cause. In fact, many of those voices who were silenced for too long seem intent on trying to silence the voices of consensus in their own writing.
A very relevant case in point. In the New York Times review of McCullough's book "The Pioneers," Joyce Chaplin writes "And whatever praise Manasseh Cutler and his supporters might deserve, their designated Eden had an original sin: dispossession of the region’s native inhabitants — paradise lost, indeed. McCullough plays down the violence that displaced the Indians, including the actual Ohio people. He adopts settlers’ prejudiced language about “savages” and “wilderness,” words that denied Indians’ humanity and active use of their land. He also states that the Ohio Territory was “unsettled.” No, it had people in it, as he slightly admits in a paragraph on how the Indians “considered” the land to be theirs. That paragraph begins, however, with a description of the Northwest Territory as “teeming with wolves, bears, wild boars, panthers, rattlesnakes and the even more deadly copperheads,” as if the native people were comparably wild and venomous, to be hunted down, beaten back, exterminated."
So tell me, were the Native Americans born with the deed to the land in their hands? Where did they get the land from? How many battles were fought with other tribes over that same piece of ground?
Rebecca Onion in Slate writes "When it comes to representing “pioneers” as isolated and hardworking idealists fighting off “threats” from residents of the land they are taking, this book—about the settlement of Marietta, Ohio, and the Northwest Territory more generally, in the years after the Revolutionary War—is a true throwback. Its success (it is No.10 on Amazon’s best-seller list for books, as of Friday) shows how big the gap between critical history and the “popular history” that makes it to best-seller lists, Costco, and Target remains."
Her last line to me seems far more relevant. McCullough represents popular history and those you magnify do not. Read any article written by an academic historian about McCullough and they will drape it in his lack of critical observance or how easy he makes things appear in opposition to how complex life can be, but the honest ones also point out that they harbor some jealousy in the fact that one book of McCullough's will sell far more copies than every book they've ever written.
On the website History News Network, Michael Nelson wrote the following, "being called 'the nation’s
leading presidential historian' by Newsweek is “the kiss of death among academic historians.” James R. Allen, the author of the paper where Nelson's quote is located, further writes that "Nelson argues that vanity may be a factor, noting that when television shows call upon their ‘resident historian’ it is often a popular historian and “academic historians hear remarks like [those] and gnash their teeth, partly because they equate media celebrity with superficiality and partly because when the phones ring, it’s seldom the Today show calling."
I'm sure that you will say that neither Chaplin nor Onion were trying to silence McCullough, but rather were trying to offer an alternative viewpoint. Yet their points were written in such a way that tells the reader they are somehow contributing to the further oppression of minority groups if they pay for McCullough's books, or for any book that doesn't toe the new party line.
The fault, dear Brutus, lies with them.
Best
Rob
"So tell me, were the Native Americans born with the deed to the land in their hands?" The lack of a deed means that Native Americans had no rights that descendants of European immigrants were bound to respect?
David McCullough is one of my favorite authors. One of his strengths as a narrator is his "obvious affection for the subjects he chose" and his admiration for people who "put the greater good above personal ambition." (quoting the NYT obituary) These virtues are also limitations, and Mr. Wick's efforts to brand the reviews of "The Pioneers" by Chaplin and Onion as "unfair" and an effort to "silence" McCullough are unpersuasive, to put it mildly.
"I'm sure that you will say that neither Chaplin nor Onion were trying to silence McCullough, but rather were trying to offer an alternative viewpoint."
Oh, I'll cheerfully say that. Pointing out holes in a historical narrative is standard practice. What I would not do is saythat "their points were written in such a way that tells the reader they are somehow contributing to the further oppression of minority groups if they pay for McCullough's books, or for any book that doesn't toe the new party line." I would suggest that's your interpretation, and thus your responsibility.
You surely don't mean to argue that McCullough, whose books I have enjoyed, was the only historian who got flak from his peers for writing narrative history and being "too popular". James MacPherson - whose work I also enjoy - is another notable victim, and his work does include women and minorities.
Right. Just because one writes narrative history doesn't make them immune from criticism.
I have no idea where either of you got the idea that I said anyone who writes history, be it narrative or analytical, should not be subject to criticism. My problem is when the criticism is unfair, which Onion and Chaplin's was. They didn't just want McCullough to mention Native Americans, rather they wanted McCullough to say that the savages were the white settlers who stole land, even though McCullough only pointed out what was written in contemporary journals and letters at the time. Surely neither of you have a problem with quoting historical documents correctly?
Best
Rob
"they wanted McCullough to say that the savages were the white settlers who stole land"
They told you so? Or did you read their minds? Or did theysay that that was their opinion?
No problem whatever with quoting historical documents correctly, but using slurs without calling them slurs opens one to the danger of seeming to endorse them. As you must surely know.
The problems with this particular book are extensive. We should agree to disagree and move on given that it has nothing to do with the content of this particular post.
Which I was perfectly willing to do yesterday.
Best
Rob
You said:
"Several years ago I asked you to provide one study that would buttress your point that students know history as well or better than those in the past using something other than your own experience."
That's not what I claimed in this post. Read it again. I also never suggested that McCullough agrees with the Lost Cause, but that the consensus view left plenty of room for it in our nation's classrooms and in popular memory.
I am not sure why you felt a need to reference PIONEERS. I do believe that it is problematic for a number of reasons, but that has nothing to do with drawing a distinction between popular and academic history. You can write compelling narrative and still acknowledge relevant evidence and new scholarship. Read any book by T.J. Stiles.
"I also never suggested that McCullough agrees with the Lost Cause, but that the consensus view left plenty of room for it in our nation's classrooms and in popular memory."
Ummm, Kevin, just a few months ago you suggested the very thing when you posted the speech that McCullough gave and wondered if he had changed his opinion now.
As for your comment on students today, you've made that comment dozens of times here. Just because you didn't specifically say it in this post doesn't make my point any less relevant.
I mentioned "Pioneers" because the reviews I featured, and several others, didn't review the book that McCullough wrote, but rather the book those reviewers thought should be written in order to tell the story as they want it told. My point goes toward showing that intellectual dishonesty is sometimes present in their POV.
Of course, you can write a compelling narrative and still acknowledge relevant evidence and new scholarship. But the history some of these people want is more designed to promote a cause just as much as you believe consensus history does.
Best
Rob
Go back and reread that earlier post. I never suggested that McCullough was pushing a Lost Cause narrative.
I am happy to respond to the points that I actually made in this post today.
PIONEERS is a flawed book, not simply because it wasn't the sort of book that his reviewers would have had him write. McCullough has written some wonderful history books, but that isn't one of them.
I read the post very carefully. That's how I know what I wrote is correct.
Obviously, Kevin, there is nothing of value in my continuing this thread, so I'll let this be my last word. You are a deeply talented historian who has a lot of good things to say. I wish you well in the future.
Best
Rob
I appreciate you taking the time to read what I write, but sometimes I just don't know how to respond to your queries. All the best.
"Now, we have the blunt conclusions of a new survey by the Education Department: The decided majority, some 60 percent, of the nation’s high school seniors haven’t even the most basic understanding of American history."
...and then I get them in my Freshmen/Sophomore Intro US History class and (SIGH) he's right. I'd bet the numbers are better at more exclusive universities, and I do get some dedicated students that are a joy to teach, but I'd bet a good portion of my salary that a solid majority of entering my freshmen who are native-born US citizens* couldn't pass the basic US history/civics test immigrants have to take to become citizens. I try to pass on my excitement about history and make ties to the world today but it is an uphill battle sometimes.
*We have a lot of international students who have, understandable, never taken a US history course before. They ask the greatest questions!!!
According to the NYTs you would have been in a similar situation in the 1940s.
Probably. I remember my freshman roommate in the mid 1970s thought Leonardo da Vinci was one of the American founding fathers.
A fitting eulogy to a great narrative historian. Alongside Sears, he was a worthy heir to a twentieth century narrative tradition often identified with Bruce Catton’s works, which are still worth reading for their superb literary quality alone. Rick Atkinson (a former journalist) is one of the few authors writing about history today who can claim a similar mastery of prose. While there are obvious limitations to narrative history, it remains one of the best ways to engage with the reading public, and offers anyone an opportunity to sit down and enjoy a conversation (that’s how these works often feel to me) with a master of the language.