A review of Ric Burns’ “New York: A Documentary History”

“Whereupon the Citty and Fort Amsterdam and Province of the New Netherlands were surrendered under His Most Exct. Mat’s. Obedience, made and concluded the 27th. day of September 1664.”

– “Articles of Capitulation on the Reduction of New Netherland,” better known as the “Articles of Surrender of New Netherland” (signed on the 29th of September 1664) – the document that transformed the Dutch-speaking “New Amsterdam” into the English-speaking “New York City”

A television history of New York City, the largest city in the United States

It is the great paradox of New York City. On the one hand, it is a historic city, where many great historical events have taken place. But, on the other hand, very little of it looks anything like it once did. Most cities have made inroads upon the local environment, turning natural wildernesses into sprawling urban landscapes. But even the more urban landmarks of New York City are often destroyed, to build something else in their place. And, on a different note, the city’s history is, in many ways, a microcosm of the larger history of the United States. In the history of this one city, you see conflict between different groups – between long-standing families and relatively recent immigrants. You see conflict between management and labor, between city and state concerns, and between local and national concerns. And you see national economic trends realized on the local level – from the Gilded Age and the Progressive Era, to the “Roaring Twenties” and the Great Depression. Most of the greatest conflicts of American history can, to some degree, be seen here in the history of this one city. Thus, PBS gave filmmaker Ric Burns the green light … to produce a television history of the city. In the DVD set that I’ve been watching, I have seen 17 hours of great storytelling. They cover the city’s initial seventeenth-century colonization by the Dutch to the 9/11 terrorist attacks of 2001 – and beyond! It is an engrossing yarn, and might merit a brief overview in this blog post.

New Amsterdam in 1664 – the predecessor of New York City

Warren G. Harding: Popular in life, unpopular in death

Warren G. Harding is now known as one of the worst presidents in American history. Many today would even consider him the very worst, although he has several painful contenders for this dubious distinction. But, surprisingly, he was quite popular during his lifetime – and during his presidency. The scandals of his administration only surfaced after he died of a heart attack while in office. Why was he popular in life? Where did he come from, and how did he get to the White House? And how did his presidency become such a train wreck, living in posthumous infamy until the present day? These are the questions that this post will attempt to explain. This post will give a brief overview of the career of Warren Gamaliel Harding, a bitter train wreck of a president.

Warren G. Harding

Herbert Hoover: More interventionist than he’s remembered

How much of the blame for the Great Depression belongs to Herbert Hoover?

Herbert Hoover had been president for only seven months, when the American stock market crashed in October of 1929. The Wall Street Crash of ‘29, sometimes called the “Great Crash,” is often marked as the beginning of the Great Depression. But this nation has had several other stock market crashes in its long history, and recovered much more quickly from most of these other crashes. Thus, I’m not entirely convinced that the 1929 Crash is what “caused” the Depression, although it was certainly a catastrophe of gargantuan proportions. Regardless, Herbert Hoover got the blame for the crash, and for the truly Great Depression that soon followed it. Many homeless Americans then lived in shanty towns that came to be called “Hoovervilles,” named (with some bitterness) after him. But how much of the blame does Herbert Hoover really deserve for this (and he does indeed deserve some)? What is the legacy of Herbert Hoover’s presidency? And just where did Mr. Hoover come from? These are the questions that this post will attempt to answer.

Herbert Hoover

Calvin Coolidge: One of our greatest presidents

Wikipedia gets the presidency of Calvin Coolidge badly and wildly wrong …

Calvin Coolidge may be one of the greatest presidents in American history. But, strangely enough, Wikipedia notes that “Scholars have ranked Coolidge in the lower half of U.S. presidents. He gains nearly universal praise for his stalwart support of racial equality during a period of heightened racial tension in the nation,[footnote] and is highly praised by advocates of smaller government and laissez-faire economics; supporters of an active central government generally view him far less favorably.” (Source: Their page on “Calvin Coolidge”) I agree that this is why his critics have tended to view him a bit less favorably. And, regarding other presidents, I have sometimes tended to agree with the general consensus of historians. But I feel that these historians have gotten this call badly and wildly wrong, and seriously underestimated the benefits of President Calvin Coolidge. Their ratings seem to have come from a bloated belief in the value of big government, and from fundamental misunderstandings of economic principles to boot. Thus, it may be time to challenge this popular view of Calvin Coolidge, and give a more accurate picture of the Coolidge administration.

Calvin Coolidge

A review of PBS’s “The Perfect Crime” (American Experience)

Leopold and Loeb had committed the “perfect crime” … or had they?

In 1924, one of the most infamous murders in American history was committed. 19-year-old Nathan Leopold and 18-year-old Richard Loeb (better known as “Leopold and Loeb”) murdered a 14-year-old boy named Bobby Franks. The boy was Loeb’s second cousin and across-the-street neighbor. Bobby Franks had played tennis at the Loeb residence several times. The two men tried to lure him into their car as he walked home from school. The boy seems initially to have refused, because his destination was only two blocks away. But Loeb successfully persuaded the boy to enter the car, to discuss a tennis racket that he had been using. As Wikipedia puts it, “Loeb struck Franks, who was sitting in front of him in the passenger seat, several times in the head with [a] chisel, then dragged him into the back seat and gagged him, where he died.”

A review of Ken Burns’ “Prohibition” (PBS)

“After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

“This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the Legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.”

– Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1919), later repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment in 1933

At the time that I write this, I have watched more than 20 documentaries by Ken Burns. These include some of his better-known films (like “The Civil War,” “Baseball,” and “Jazz”), and lesser-known films like “Huey Long,” “Frank Lloyd Wright,” “The Dust Bowl,” and “The Shakers: Hands to Work, Hearts to God” (one of his earliest films). I am a big fan of many of them, but my reaction to his series about Prohibition was somewhat more mixed. As storytelling goes, the film definitely works, since it tells everything from the story of the two amendments that are relevant to this story, to the gang violence of infamous mobsters like Al Capone (whose story makes for great television). I am also fascinated by the “Jazz Age” that was going on concurrently with Prohibition, so I thus love the soundtrack for this film. (It includes both period recordings, and original jazz pieces from Wynton Marsalis and his group.) But I also found this film somewhat biased, since it ignores much evidence that Prohibition was actually working at this time. The traditional telling of Prohibition is that it “didn't work,” and that making alcohol illegal also increases the amount of “crime” associated with it. Ken Burns' telling is decidedly in this tradition, and comes across as anti-Prohibition propaganda, which is not always objective in its conclusions.

A review of Ken Burns’ “Jazz” (PBS series)

"Jazz is the assassination, the murdering, the slaying of syncopation. I would even go so far as to confess that we are musical anarchists."

- Nick La Rocca, leader of the first jazz band to make a record

An opinion from a longtime fan and (amateur) musician ...

I should preface this review by saying that I am a longtime fan of jazz music, as well as a longtime fan of both history and the Ken Burns documentaries about it. I freely acknowledge that I am not an expert on music history (jazz or otherwise), and do not consider myself to be a true musician - much as I would like to call myself by this distinguished title. I have played piano for a long time, it is true, and I have played jazz (and other styles) by ear. But I am neither a professional musician nor particularly talented in my performance, and consider myself only an enthusiastic fan with a sometime musical hobby. That being said, I am entitled to my opinion about it as much as anyone else, and so offer this review to any who might enjoy it.