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

A review of PBS’s “The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln”

“Don’t know the manners of good society, eh? Well, I guess I know enough to turn you inside out, old gal – you sockdologizing old man-trap!”

– A comedic line from the play “Our American Cousin” (1858) – spoken by an actor at Ford’s Theater in 1865, the moment before Lincoln was shot there by John Wilkes Booth

Background on John Wilkes Booth, and his unrealized plot to kidnap Abraham Lincoln

I have seen many films about the Civil War. But this film may still rank among the best, despite its relative brevity. It is only 90 minutes long, and it is brilliantly narrated by the actor Chris Cooper. It has many omissions, but it also has some great storytelling. (More about the omissions later.) After a brief introduction, they start by delving into the early life of John Wilkes Booth. They spend some time on his successful stage career, and his early sympathy with the Confederacy. Ironically, John Wilkes Booth had a pro-Northern brother, who later disowned the actions of his notorious sibling. The brother-against-brother phenomenon extended right into the Booths’ own family. But I’m getting ahead of myself here. They spend time on his growing dissatisfaction with Abraham Lincoln, which would later turn into murderous rage. Booth felt some guilt about not having fought for the Confederacy on the battlefield. Thus, he recruited people to help him in a plot to kidnap Abraham Lincoln, and bring him southward. Obviously, this kidnapping plot was never realized – partly because his accomplices pointed out that there were some slight flaws in his plan. But, eight hours before the fateful gunshots, he learned that President Lincoln would be attending Ford’s Theater that night. Thus, he worked at a feverish pace to lay the groundwork for the later events of that evening. Lincoln had few bodyguards around him, in part because no president had ever been assassinated before. That is, there were many other times where Booth could have killed Lincoln with relatively few risks to himself. But he chose Ford’s Theater instead, in part because of his familiarity with the stage. Thus, he got ready to kill President Lincoln. But he also had some accomplices remaining, as well as two other targets.

John Wilkes Booth, the man who murdered Abraham Lincoln

Booth with brothers Edwin and Junius Jr. in Julius Caesar

William McKinley: President during the Spanish-American War

In 1898, President William McKinley sent American troops to fight in Cuba and the Philippines. This conflict is now known as the “Spanish-American War.” It lasted for only six months, but had a profound influence on world affairs. The war is now controversial – but at the time, it was viewed as a great success. But only three years after the war, William McKinley would be assassinated. In 1901, he was visiting Buffalo, New York, when he was shot by the anarchist Leon Czolgosz. Who was William McKinley? What was his legacy as president? Why was he struck down at the height of his glory? And where exactly did this unknown man come from? These are the questions that this post will try to answer.

William McKinley

Andrew Johnson: The man who botched Reconstruction

An anecdote about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth …

On April 14th, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. Lincoln was at the height of his glory, having just won the American Civil War. Lincoln had just begun his second term a month earlier. But John Wilkes Booth had robbed Lincoln of the opportunity to finish out his second term. As a Confederate sympathizer, Booth hated Lincoln’s support for African American civil rights, and thus shot the President of the United States at Ford’s Theatre. Booth had also wanted to kill the vice president, a relative unknown named Andrew Johnson. Booth then believed that the vice president would be at Kirkwood House while he (Booth) was surreptitiously shooting the president at Ford’s Theatre. Thus, Booth had assigned George Atzerodt to kill Johnson at Kirkwood House. As Wikipedia puts it, “Atzerodt was to go to Johnson's room at 10:15 pm and shoot him.[footnote]  On April 14, Atzerodt rented the room directly above Johnson's; the next day, he arrived there at the appointed time and, carrying a gun and knife, went to the bar downstairs, where he asked the bartender about Johnson's character and behavior. He eventually became drunk and wandered off through the streets, tossing his knife away at some point. He made his way to the Pennsylvania House Hotel by 2 am, where he obtained a room and went to sleep.[footnotes]” (Source: Their page on the “Assassination of Abraham Lincoln”)

George Atzerodt, the man whom John Wilkes Booth had tasked with killing Andrew Johnson

A review of Ken Burns’ “The Roosevelts: An Intimate History”

A miniseries covering Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Eleanor Roosevelt

Just as the Americans remember Mr. Churchill, so do the British remember Mr. Roosevelt. But when people in Britain hear the name “Roosevelt,” they tend to think of Franklin Roosevelt, the man who led the United States during World War II. Many in Britain don’t even realize that there was another “Roosevelt” president before him. That is, there was Theodore Roosevelt, in the early twentieth century. Theodore Roosevelt is a little more famous in America than he is abroad. Nonetheless, even Americans will hear the word “Roosevelt,” and instead think of his fifth cousin Franklin Roosevelt. There were two famous divisions of the Roosevelt family, of which this documentary makes extensive note. One was the “Oyster Bay Roosevelts,” the branch that produced Theodore Roosevelt. The other was the “Hyde Park Roosevelts,” the branch that produced FDR. But there was another Roosevelt who was one of the bridges between these two branches – although there were other marriages between the branches. That is, there was Eleanor Roosevelt. She was born into the “Oyster Bay Roosevelts” as Theodore Roosevelt’s niece. But she married into the “Hyde Park Roosevelts,” when she married FDR – her own fifth cousin once removed. These are the three principal characters of the story.

Why is Chester A. Arthur now considered one of the “least memorable” presidents?

On July 2nd, 1881, Charles J. Guiteau shot the 20th President of the United States. The president was James A. Garfield, the predecessor of Chester A. Arthur. And Garfield had taken office only four months before. When Garfield was shot in the Baltimore and Potomac Railway Station, his assailant was immediately apprehended there. When a police officer asked Mr. Guiteau why he had shot the president, Guiteau did not immediately respond. But the press later revealed a letter in which Guiteau described his bizarre motives, saying that he would make his “friend Arthur President.” (See the relevant portion of the letter here.) Thus, people initially wondered if Vice President Chester A. Arthur was involved in the murder. After all, the vice president was next in line for the presidency, if Garfield should later happen to die from his gunshot wounds. Fortunately for Chester A. Arthur, it was later established that Guiteau had acted alone, and was wholly unconnected with the vice president. All of this was true, and Arthur was indeed innocent of this kind of wrongdoing. But two months after the shooting, President James A. Garfield died in his bed. Thus, Chester A. Arthur then became the 21st President of the United States. But who was Chester A. Arthur, and where did he come from? That is what this post will now attempt to explain.

Chester A. Arthur

Rutherford B. Hayes: Entering office by a margin of one electoral vote

Reconstruction had been going on for twelve years, when Mr. Hayes became president

When the Civil War ended in 1865, it was followed by another violent period of postwar reconstruction. Some historians have even described the Reconstruction Era as a sort of “Second Civil War,” and this may actually be accurate. During the early phases of Reconstruction, Rutherford B. Hayes (who was, by then, a Republican) had supported his party’s attempts to bring order to the South. But the violence was ongoing, and Republicans were starting to lose support for maintaining the presence of federal troops in the South. It was a bit like the later Vietnam War, which lost American support as the war dragged on without an end in sight. The Republican president Ulysses S. Grant had thus been forced to retreat somewhat, in his efforts to keep federal troops there. General Grant completed two full terms as president, but was not then seeking a third term of office. Thus, in 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes became the Republicans’ new presidential candidate. He faced Samuel J. Tilden, a Democrat from New York. It would be one of the most controversial elections in American history.

Rutherford B. Hayes in Civil War uniform in 1861

Benjamin Harrison: A president whose grandfather was another president

Benjamin Harrison’s grandfather was William Henry Harrison, who was the ninth president of the United States. This grandfather had served as president for 31 days in 1841. But William Henry Harrison had died of natural causes after only this month in office. William Henry Harrison had enjoyed a distinguished career as a general, especially in the War of 1812. But the grandfather, William Henry Harrison, did not live long enough to make much of a difference as president. By contrast, Benjamin Harrison would eventually serve out a full term as president. He never won the popular vote, but he still defeated the incumbent president Grover Cleveland anyway. Again, Benjamin Harrison served a full term before his fatal rematch with Grover Cleveland. Where did Benjamin Harrison come from? How did he become the 23rd President of the United States? And what exactly is Benjamin Harrison’s legacy? These are the questions that this post will attempt to answer, however briefly.

Benjamin Harrison

Grover Cleveland: Serving two non-consecutive presidential terms

At the time that I write this, Grover Cleveland is the only president to serve two non-consecutive presidential terms. That is, he was both the 22nd and 24th Presidents of the United States. Because of his rotundity, many have joked that he was also physically large enough to be counted twice for that reason. But there’s more to his story than meets the eye. He was one of only three presidents to win the popular vote in at least three different presidential elections. At that time, this had not happened since Andrew Jackson, and it would not happen again until Franklin Delano Roosevelt – nearly half a century later. Thus, an examination of his story might be in order here. I will show why the two Grover Cleveland presidencies were important, and also take a look at where this unknown guy came from.

Grover Cleveland

A review of PBS’s “The Gilded Age” (American Experience)

A portrait of capitalism (and some other things) in late nineteenth-century America

This film is a portrait of capitalism (and some other things) in late nineteenth-century America. This is the era now known as “The Gilded Age.” It’s possible to have too much regulation in an economy, but it’s also possible to have too little, and this era (in general) had too little. Corporations purchased monopolies and other special privileges from the government. This would lead to antitrust laws, designed to fight the power of “trusts” (another word for monopolies). But it would also lead to broader debates about the nature of capitalism itself. Should the government try to redistribute wealth? How should we take care of the poor? How do you prevent capitalism from turning into “robber-baron capitalism,” a phrase often associated with the economic system of this time?

Toluca Street Oil Field in Los Angeles oil district, circa 1895–1901

The Fourteenth Amendment is something of a mixed bag …

It might seem strange to say it today, but the “Bill of Rights” amendments were once understood to apply only to the federal government, rather than to the states as well. This was a particular problem when you consider that the states had (at times) denied these protections to African Americans (and others), even after the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment.

First page of the Fourteenth Amendment

A review of PBS's “Murder of a President” (James A. Garfield)

“I conceived of the idea of removing the President four weeks ago. Not a soul knew of my purpose. I conceived the idea myself. I read the newspapers carefully, for and against the administration, and gradually, the conviction settled on me that the President's removal was a political necessity, because he proved a traitor to the men who made him, and thereby imperiled the life of the Republic ... Ingratitude is the basest of crimes. That the President, under the manipulation of his Secretary of State, has been guilty of the basest ingratitude to the Stalwarts admits of no denial. ... In the President's madness he has wrecked the once grand old Republican party; and for this he dies.... I had no ill-will to the President. This is not murder. It is a political necessity. It will make my friend Arthur President, and save the Republic.”

– Charles Guiteau, in his letter to the American people, on 16 June 1881

On July 2nd, 1881, Charles J. Guiteau went to the Baltimore and Potomac Railway Station, and lay in wait for his intended murder victim. President James A. Garfield was scheduled to leave Washington D.C., and Guiteau wanted him dead before his train ever left the city. When President Garfield walked into the waiting room of the station, Charles Guiteau walked up behind him and pulled the trigger at point-blank range from behind. President Garfield cried out: “My God, what is that?”, flinging up his arms. Guiteau fired a second shot, and the president collapsed. One bullet grazed the president's shoulder, while the other struck him in the back. Guiteau put his pistol back into his pocket and turned to leave via a cab that he had waiting for him outside the station, but he collided with policeman Patrick Kearney, who was entering the station after hearing the gunfire. Kearney apprehended Guiteau, and asked him: “In God's name, what did you shoot the president for?” Guiteau did not respond. The crowd called for Guiteau to be lynched, but Kearney took Guiteau to the police station instead. (This paragraph borrows some exact wording from Wikipedia, which I should acknowledge here as a source.)

Contemporaneous depiction of Garfield assassination, with James G. Blaine at right

President Garfield with James G. Blaine in the railway station, shortly after the shooting

A review of “The Men Who Built America” (History Channel)

"The Men Who Built America" is something of a rarity in the world of documentaries, because it is one of the few history programs out there that actually focuses on the private sector. Most history programs focus on either heads-of-state or wars, and there's nothing wrong with this - public-sector history is definitely worthy of study; and it is well that our schools spend so much time teaching it. Nonetheless, there is much of importance that happens in the private sector as well; and our focus on "politics and the military" should not preclude us from talking about these things on occasion, if not frequently.

In that spirit, I set out to talk about this remarkable program; which is one of the few programs that talks sympathetically about the contributions of businessmen. When liberals talk about businessmen at all, it's usually in a negative sense, to paint them as greedy "robber barons" who will stop at nothing to make a buck. Fortunately, however, this show seems far enough to the right that they don't slow down the narrative with inappropriate rants about capitalism, and instead focus on the human story of what happened - showing the considerable accomplishments of these men, while not omitting the more sordid details of how they sometimes went about getting their massive fortunes.

A review of “TR: The Story of Theodore Roosevelt”

"If there is not the war, you don't get the great general; if there is not a great occasion, you don't get a great statesman; if Lincoln had lived in a time of peace, no one would have known his name."

- Theodore Roosevelt

It's hard to imagine an American more interesting than Theodore Roosevelt - the youngest man ever to enter the White House up to that time. He stands out as one of the most remarkable peacetime presidents in American history. Mr. Roosevelt once said that "if [Abraham] Lincoln had lived in a time of peace, no one would have known his name," and there may actually be some truth in this. Presidents who fight a war (particularly a just war) often get credit for this well beyond anything that they receive for their other policies. Moreover, few could tell you a single thing that Lincoln did that is unrelated to slavery or the Civil War, since these issues overshadow everything else for his presidency. I don't wish to take anything away from Mr. Lincoln (as he is my favorite president), but Theodore Roosevelt was no slouch himself. The fact that we still remember him - even though he was a peacetime president - testifies strongly to the visibility of his legacy; as few peacetime presidents are remembered more favorably than he is - or, for that matter, remembered at all.

Theodore Roosevelt

A review of PBS's “Transcontinental Railroad” movie

"[The Congress shall have the power] To establish post-offices and post-roads ..."

- The United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 7

It allowed a continent to be crossed in just a week, where before it had taken six months or more. It enabled fast transport for trade goods of all kinds, connecting the economies of the continent's East and West coasts. And it unleashed a wave of settlement and colonization, which would have massive effects on the population spread and distribution in the West - and by extension, the history, politics, economics, and even geography of the country.

Snow gallery (a portion of the railroad), while under construction

A review of “Reconstruction: The Second Civil War”

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void."

- Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1868), Section 4

It was the end of a civil war in which four million slaves were freed, but which failed to bring true freedom to the people on whose behalf it had largely been fought. It was called the "Reconstruction Era" because its purpose was to rebuild (and heal) a war-torn nation, but which saw almost as much violence and destruction as actual reconstruction. And it brought the vote and other rights to the former slaves of the South for a time, only to see those rights taken away almost overnight when the Reconstruction Era ended in a corrupt political deal, giving the White South almost everything it wanted.

Confederate capitol of Richmond, 1865 (the end of the war)

Reconstruction period characterized by anarchy, chaos, and even (at times) armed conflict

Much has been written about the military conflict called the "Civil War" (fought between North and South), but not as much has been written about the postwar Reconstruction period, which is perhaps even more complex politically than the war itself. Indeed, some historians have even called it the "Second Civil War," because it was characterized by anarchy, chaos, and even (at times) armed conflict. This was between former Union soldiers occupying the South, and former Confederate soldiers joining the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist organizations, who were trying to undo all that the North had fought and died for.

A review of "Crucible of Empire: the Spanish-American War"

I just finished watching "Crucible of Empire: The Spanish-American War," PBS's two-hour documentary about this time. I was generally impressed by this documentary. One of the pleasant surprises for me was that they did not just cover the American side, but also the Cuban and Filipino sides as well. They interview some Filipino historians in addition to American ones, although there are no interviews with Cubans or Spaniards. The Cuban part is more understandable, since people in this communist country cannot speak their mind freely without fear of government reprisal; but the general omission of the Spanish perspective is something of a mystery, given the pains that they took to depict other perspectives.

Map of the Americas, with Cuba highlighted in red

This war was a two-front war, fought in both Cuba and the Philippines ...

This war of 1898 was really a two-front war, with fighting in both the Caribbean and the Pacific. Thus, the geography of the war is somewhat complicated. On the one hand, Cuba is a Caribbean island close to American Florida; but on the other hand, the Philippines are way across the Pacific Ocean, with distances comparable to those traversed during the Pacific theater of World War II. Thus, the fighting in this war was somewhat spread out.

Far side of the globe, with Philippines highlighted in green

A review of “Ulysses S. Grant: Warrior President”

"The war between the States was a very bloody and a very costly war. One side or the other had to yield principles they deemed dearer than life before it could be brought to an end."

- "Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant" (1885), Conclusion

I had heard the name "Ulysses S. Grant" as a child, and knew he was important; but did not know much about him. I had heard much criticism of Grant's generalship, with the old claim that he was a butcher - an unfavorable characterization voiced by then-First-Lady Mary Todd Lincoln. I also heard some good things about Grant's generalship, and my father was a great admirer of Grant; but everyone seemed to consider Robert E. Lee's generalship superior to his. The general, it seemed, was incompetent; and a drunk to boot. I knew also of the apocryphal story about someone complaining to President Lincoln about Grant's drinking, and then hearing the response to "Find out what he drinks, and I'll send a barrel of it to all my other generals" (or something to that effect).

Abraham Lincoln

Ken Burns' famous depiction of Grant in "The Civil War"

It was in watching Ken Burns' Civil War miniseries that I got to know Grant a little better; to hear Jason Robards read quotes from him, and to hear a brief version of Grant's postwar life. Ken Burns is a little hard on Grant's presidency in the postwar episode, I think, mentioning only its failures in the brief sentence about it. He does do justice to the story of Grant's writing his memoirs, and setting it up with the business failures that prompted his writing them; but he also ignores some important context when mentioning that Grant had someone tied to a tree for several hours for mistreating a horse - the man was ordered to stop doing it, and persisted quite openly in doing so. Mentioning this insubordination would have seemed appropriate to give context; but given the other virtues of the series, I'll let this omission slide.

The definitive film on Grant is this biography by PBS

This American Experience documentary about him is the definitive film on Grant. The Western director John Ford, I am told, wanted to do a biopic about Grant; but never got to do so. A Hollywood movie would have been something, but this documentary is quite impressive as well; making good use of the many photographs of Grant, the people he worked with, and the events he was involved in. They make good use of quotes from Grant's memoirs, and benefit from having one of the most interesting stories in American history to dramatize. I think Grant may be the most fascinating man in American history, and this documentary does him justice.