Grand unified books thread

[Syt]

This reminds me that I should probably finish Lepore's These Truths at some point.

[Sheilbh]

Is Parkinson able to show that news creating fear of a slave revolt was more prevalent in ant-British than pro-British newspapers?  The big obstacle I see to my accepting his hypothesis in toto is that the areas with the most to fear from slave revolts seemed to be the areas that most supported the British.

I think that the case for fear of native attacks is much more easily made, if more noted by the standard accounts.

Did that shift with the British offer of freedom to slaves who signed up to fight for the British?

[Oexmelin]

Is Parkinson able to show that news creating fear of a slave revolt was more prevalent in ant-British than pro-British newspapers?  The big obstacle I see to my accepting his hypothesis in toto is that the areas with the most to fear from slave revolts seemed to be the areas that most supported the British.

I think that the case for fear of native attacks is much more easily made, if more noted by the standard accounts.

I am obviously not doing justice to Rob's argument in a few lines, while he spends about 700 pages developping the matter.

One thing to note: it's extremely difficult to make causal arguments when discussing ideas, the press, and reception of the article. I don't think Parkinson's book makes a strong causal argument, i.e., he's not saying, by virtue of the prevalence of racial motifs in the minds of a lot of northern patriots, it moves anything one way or another. What it does show is precisely how prevalent the motifs of interracial violence was in the minds of these revolutionary actors, at least enought to lead them to feed regular articles about it to revolutionary presses, to censor news that could contradict that narrative, including downplaying the achievements of black people during the war. Indeed, there are a quite a few interesting passages about the treatment of Hessians and Loyalists, who did unleash violence, but were carefully reintegrated in the patriot's narratives.

Ultimately, I think the book serves as a reflexion on the process by which something which was indeed prevalent in the minds of central actors, becomes almost entirely erased from the canonical, celebratory literature. This is something that has a long legacy, and explains why his editor pushed for a second, shorter version.

[Oexmelin]

Did that shift with the British offer of freedom to slaves who signed up to fight for the British?

Actually, Dunmore's proclamation came very early, in 1775 - which indeed shook planters, pushing a lot of them into the arms of the Rebels, for fear that the Brits would emancipate their slaves (plus increasingly noisy abolitionists in England). During the rest of the war, the Brits were a lot more ambivalent, but Dunmore's proclamation remained a constant refrain for patriot slavers. British officers only armed a few black troops, because to do more would have been to jeopardize the support they were able to secure; they couldn't deploy them too much, because Patriot troops in the South were known to massacre black troops.

There is, I think, a misconception that, because the British secured militarily the South, these were colonies that supported them. Loyalists and Rebels were a lot more spread out, with important pockets of Loyalists in West Virginia, West Pennsylvania, Connecticut. New York was also a Tory stronghold, and yet it largely succeeded in shedding that reputation (despite somehow embracing "Empire State"...). The South was easier to initially hold, but harder to campaign in for the Brits, so they held the cities and relied on naval support.   

[grumbler]

Is Parkinson able to show that news creating fear of a slave revolt was more prevalent in ant-British than pro-British newspapers?  The big obstacle I see to my accepting his hypothesis in toto is that the areas with the most to fear from slave revolts seemed to be the areas that most supported the British.

I think that the case for fear of native attacks is much more easily made, if more noted by the standard accounts.

Did that shift with the British offer of freedom to slaves who signed up to fight for the British?

The original offer was by the Royal Governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore.  It had little effect as Dunmore had fled the colony and had no way of promulgating it widely.  Clinton's 1779 order freeing all slave held by Revolutionaries had more effect, but I don't know what effect it had on the Loyalists.  It did come well before the high tide of the British war effort in the South, however, so its impact couldn't have been disastrous for the Loyalists.

[grumbler]

I am obviously not doing justice to Rob's argument in a few lines, while he spends about 700 pages developping the matter.

One thing to note: it's extremely difficult to make causal arguments when discussing ideas, the press, and reception of the article. I don't think Parkinson's book makes a strong causal argument, i.e., he's not saying, by virtue of the prevalence of racial motifs in the minds of a lot of northern patriots, it moves anything one way or another. What it does show is precisely how prevalent the motifs of interracial violence was in the minds of these revolutionary actors, at least enought to lead them to feed regular articles about it to revolutionary presses, to censor news that could contradict that narrative, including downplaying the achievements of black people during the war. Indeed, there are a quite a few interesting passages about the treatment of Hessians and Loyalists, who did unleash violence, but were carefully reintegrated in the patriot's narratives.

Ultimately, I think the book serves as a reflexion on the process by which something which was indeed prevalent in the minds of central actors, becomes almost entirely erased from the canonical, celebratory literature. This is something that has a long legacy, and explains why his editor pushed for a second, shorter version.

I hope to see the shorter work soon.  750+ pages is more than I can spare time for.

Parkinson's main idea seems almost like a "duh" argument given that the prosperity of most British colonies was anchored in racism, but you are correct that the celebratory story ignores that aspect of the founding of the US, preferring to focus all of the attention paid to blacks on Crispus Attucks.  It's very much the story of systemic racism writ small.

[Oexmelin]

The original offer was by the Royal Governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore.  It had little effect as Dunmore had fled the colony and had no way of promulgating it widely.

On the contrary. It had profound effect. Dunmore hadn't fled the colony. He simply had fled Williamsburg, and had established his HQ in Yorktown - not very far. It didn't have much of the *intended* effect - few, albeit some, enslaved people answered the call (many of their descendents now live in Nova Scotia), but it sure incensed the slavers in the South and led them to support independence. It was used as a anti-british propaganda for most of the war - at least until the Philipsburg proclamation, which seemed to realize the southern patriot's worst fears. 

[grumbler]

The original offer was by the Royal Governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore.  It had little effect as Dunmore had fled the colony and had no way of promulgating it widely.

On the contrary. It had profound effect. Dunmore hadn't fled the colony. He simply had fled Williamsburg, and had established his HQ in Yorktown - not very far. It didn't have much of the *intended* effect - few, albeit some, enslaved people answered the call (many of their descendents now live in Nova Scotia), but it sure incensed the slavers in the South and led them to support independence. It was used as a anti-british propaganda for most of the war - at least until the Philipsburg proclamation, which seemed to realize the southern patriot's worst fears.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about whether Dunmore's proclamation had the effect of causing the slaveowners to support independence (your argument), or whether it had little impact and it was the propaganda about it that caused the slaveowners to support independence (my argument).

And Dunmore did flee the colony, taking refuge on HMS Fowey.  He later returned, left, and returned, before leaving for the UK when the US declared independence.

[Oexmelin]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about whether Dunmore's proclamation had the effect of causing the slaveowners to support independence (your argument), or whether it had little impact and it was the propaganda about it that caused the slaveowners to support independence (my argument).

My argument is simply that Dunmore's proclamation had a profound impact, by signalling very clearly that Dunmore was ready to arm former slave, and emancipate them, if they were willing to aid him in seizing back Williamsburg. It was published immediately by Virginia and Maryland newspapers, and reprinted very quickly elsewhere. This crushed any hope of reasoning with the Patriots who had seized government in Williamsburg, many of whom were in fact quite anxious about the future, and for whom support in Virginia was far from consensual. It clearly marked a turning point in deciding the "sides" in the early moment of the Revolutionary war.

I recommend having a look at Woody Holton's Forced Founders.

And Dunmore did flee the colony, taking refuge on HMS Fowey.

Yes, the HMS Fowey, anchored in Yorktown. From which he would remove to Norfolk, VA and from which he would direct operations in Virginia throughout 1775. Including after his proclamation, in November 1775. He returned to Britain in 1776.   

[The Minsky Moment]

Thanks for the detailed response, I'll pick up 13 clocks.

[The Brain]

Is there a good Franz Joseph biography around?

[Eddie Teach]

I'm not sure what would be appealing about a book about black children who have terrible lives/sometimes enslaved by white people and written in the author's take on AAVE.

I missed the part where they mention race. 

[garbon]

I'm not sure what would be appealing about a book about black children who have terrible lives/sometimes enslaved by white people and written in the author's take on AAVE.

I missed the part where they mention race. 

I didn't decide to just read that review uncritically, but rather consulted other sources.

[Sheilbh]

2021 Wolfson History Prize announced - winner is Black Spartacus, a biography of Toussaint Louverture (which sounds fascinating).

The short list has a few I'm interested in List and link with summaries:
https://www.wolfsonhistoryprize.org.uk/past-winners/2021-winners/

'Survivors:
Children's Lives after the Holocaust'
Rebecca Clifford

'Black Spartacus:
The Epic Life of Toussaint Louverture'
Sudhir Hazareesingh

'Ravenna:
Capital of Empire, Crucible of Europe'
Judith Herrin

'Double Lives:
A History of Working Motherhood'
Helen McCarthy

'Burning the Books:
A History of Knowledge Under Attack'
Richard Ovenden

'Atlantic Wars:
From the Fifteenth Century to the Age of Revolution'
Geoffrey Plank

[Savonarola]

For my birthday my wife got me a 100 years 100 buildings type book that lists one architecturally significant building per year from 1916-2015.  (The book does try to portray the great villains of modern architecture, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (glass box building on a plaza in the city) and Le Corbusier (tower in the park "Urban renewal) as not personally responsible for the damage they did, but merely followed by incompetent imitators.  So take the following for what it's worth.)  To my surprise there were two buildings in the Detroit area,  the Cranbrook Art Museum (1942):



(The sculpture is Orpheus escaping Hades; except in this version the sculptor didn't include Orpheus (he had in a previous version) so it's just the souls escaping Hades.  The figure with his hands stretched above his head on the left is Beethoven, who is straining to hear the music.  The other figures are simply generic.  It's either fitting or ironic given the then exhibition; since the figures are listening, but there is, in fact, no one to hear.)

And the Dymaxion house, which is today at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, MI:



These were designed by R. Buckminster Fuller to be a cheap, mass produced house.  The airline industry was interested in retooling to build the houses after the Second World War since they used the same materials used to make bombers (and since there was an anticipated housing demand from returning GIs.)  The houses are strong, light (3000 lbs or 1400 Kgs), could be easily installed since everything rested on a single pole and space efficient.  Fuller designed a water collection system on the roof, vents on the floor for passive cooling and a self composting septic system.  He also wrote (and sang) a jingle for them Roam Home to a Dome  (warning, R. Buckminster Fuller was not a professional singer.) 

Only one of these was ever built; Bucky, being Bucky, kept changing the design and wouldn't release them to the public until he felt it was ready.  The Wichita House was a modified prototype built by one of his backers.  It stood in Wichita for over 40 years before being moved to the Henry Ford Museum in 1992.  There's some more information about it here at the Buckminster Fuller Institute; ("The incumbent herd of insolent, astoundingly filthy raccoons" is currently my favorite phrase.)