The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
What Hath God Wrought
AMERICAN HISTORY
>
1. WHAT GOD HATH WROUGHT- EDITOR'S INTRO, INTRO, PROLOGUE, CHAPTER 1 (xiii - xvi and 1 - 62) ~ October 29th - November 4th; No Spoilers, Please
date
newest »
newest »
message 2:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Oct 23, 2012 10:41PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
To the Memory of John Quincy Adams - Harriet Martineau (Retrospect of Western Travel - 1838)
Howe dedicates the book to John Quincy Adams with a laudatory epigraph from Harriet Martineau, and he devotes sustained attention to Henry Clay's political talent and how U.S. history might have differed if he had ever won a presidential election. Howe argues that the Whigs were more forward-looking than the Democrats in their promotion of economic development and internal improvements that did not rely on slavery, and he includes praise for Whigs' benevolent view of an American society in need of constant change for the better.
John Quincy Adams and Slavery:
A longtime opponent of slavery, Adams used his new role in Congress to fight it. In 1836, Southern Congressmen voted in a rule, called the “gag rule,” that immediately tabled any petitions about slavery, banning discussion or debate of the slavery issue. He became a forceful opponent of this rule and conceived a way around it, attacking slavery in the House for two weeks.
The gag rule prevented him from bringing slavery petitions to the floor, but he brought one anyway. It was a petition from a Georgia citizen urging disunion due to the continuation of slavery in the South. Though he certainly did not support it and made that clear at the time, his intent was to antagonize the pro-slavery faction of Congress into an open fight on the matter. The plan worked.
The petition infuriated his congressional enemies, many of whom were agitating for disunion themselves. They moved for his censure over the matter, enabling Adams to openly discuss slavery during his subsequent defense. Taking advantage of his right to defend himself, Adams delivered prepared and impromptu remarks against slavery and in favor of abolition.
Knowing that he would probably be acquitted, he changed the focus from his own actions to those of the slaveholders, speaking against the slave trade and the ownership of slaves.
He decided that if he were censured, he would merely resign, run for the office again, and probably win easily.[5] When his opponents realized that they played into his political strategy, they tried to bury the censure. Adams made sure this did not happen, and the debate continued. He attacked slavery and slaveholders as immoral and condemned the institution while calling for it to end.[5] After two weeks, a vote was held, and he was not censured. He delighted in the misery he was inflicting on the slaveholders he so hated, and prided himself on being "obnoxious to the slave faction."
Although the censure of Adams over the slavery petition was ultimately abandoned, the House did address the issue of petitions from enslaved persons at a later time. Adams again argued that the right to petition was a universal right, granted by God, so that those in the weakest positions might always have recourse to those in the most powerful. Adams also called into question the actions of a House that would limit its own ability to debate and resolve questions internally. After this debate, the gag rule was ultimately retained.
The discussion ignited by his actions and the attempts of others to quiet him raised questions of the right to petition, the right to legislative debate, and the morality of slavery.
During the censure debate, Adams said that he took delight in the fact that southerners would forever remember him as "the acutest, the astutest, the archest enemy of southern slavery that ever existed".
Later he led a committee that sought to reform Congress' rules, and he used this opportunity to try to repeal the gag rule once again. He spent two months building support for this move, but due to northern opposition, the rule narrowly survived.
He fiercely criticized northern Congressmen and Senators, in particular Stephen A. Douglas, who seemed to cater to the slave faction in exchange for southern support.
His opposition to slavery made him, along with Henry Clay, one of the leading opponents of Texas annexation and the Mexican–American War. He correctly predicted that both would contribute to civil war.
After one of his reelection victories, he said that he must "bring about a day prophesied when slavery and war shall be banished from the face of the earth."
Source: Wikipedia
Editor's Introduction
David M. Kennedy wrote the Editor's Introduction. He begins his editorial with the following quote:
"In 1844, near the end of the period covered in this volume of The Oxford History of the United States, Ralph Waldo Emerson proclaimed that "America is the country of the Future. It is a country of beginnings, of projects, of vast designs and expectations." Emerson spoke a common sentiment in that heady age of what might be called America's national adolescence."
At the time, the telegraph and the railroad were fueling the economy, revivalism rocked the churches and the possibilities of mass democracy was giving the world a lesson.
However, the country already had begun to have a "suspect past" with the heritage of chattel slavery which menaced the nation's very survival. The book opens with Andrew Jackson's victory over the British at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815. Kennedy emphasizes that "transformation" is the central theme of Howe's narrative. The three decades following the War of 1812 witnessed "diverse, deep and durable" changes in American history.
Howe does not simply focus on politics in this book or the politics of the era - but on the array of economic, technological, social, cultural, and psychological developments that were to shape the American identity.
Howe will discuss the origins of feminism and abolitionism, the Missouri Compromise and the Mexican War; the crafting of the Monroe Doctrine and the clash with Britain over the Oregon country, the emergence of the Whig, Free Soil, and Republican parties and the Lone Star Revolution in Texas and gold rush in California, the differentiation of the American economy, mechanical and cultural innovations, the household and women, and the writers of that period in American literature including some of the most well known greats.
Howe will tell the story of American religion, the Second Great Awakening, and the beginnings of Mormonism, and the fracturing of American Protestantism into "countless sects". The book also will tell of Jackson's Bank War and the forcible Indian removals. Kennedy marvels at how Jackson traveled to his inaugural in 1829 in a horse-drawn carriage and then left the capital at the end of his term eight years later by train - showing only too well the "transportation revolution". Howe discussed the Mexican War in 1846 and the impact on that war by both the railroad and the telegraph and that by war's end - the Associated Press was born - an example of another type of revolution in communications.
The history concludes with America's victory in the Mexican War which led to an enlarging of Jefferson's vaunted "empire of liberty" in the West and reopened the festering wound of slavery. Emerson proclaimed in that day, "Mexico will poison us." That prognosis according to Kennedy was bloodily confirmed a dozen years later with the Civil War. A lot to cover.
David M. Kennedy is the General Editor of the entire series: The Oxford History of the United States and the author of Freedom From Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929 - 1945
by David M. Kennedy (no photo available)
message 3:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Oct 24, 2012 01:14PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Introduction
The author writes that:
On the twenty-fourth of May 1844, Professor Samuel F.B. Morse, seated amidst a hushed gathering of distinguished national leaders in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court in Washington, tapped out a message on a device of cogs and coiled wires:
WHAT GOD HATH WROUGHT
Forty miles away, in Baltimore, Morse's associate Alfred Vail received the electric signals and sent the message back. The invention they had demonstrated was destined to change the world. For years messages had been limited by the speed with messengers could travel and the distance at which eyes could see signals such as flags and smoke. Neither Alexander the Great nor Benjamin Franklin (America's first postmaster general) two thousand years later knew anything faster than a galloping horse.
The text of Morse's demonstration message came from the Bible: "It shall be said of Jacob and of Israel, What hath God wrought!" (Numbers 23:23) Credit for applying the verse to this occastion belongs to Nancy Goodrich Ellsworth, who suggested it to her daughter Annie, who in turn provided it to Morse. (The professor was in love with Annie.) The quotation proved the perfect choice, capturing the inventor's own passionate Christian faith and conception of himself as an instrument of providence. As Morse later commented, the message "baptized the American Telegraph with the name of its author" God. Morse's invocation of the Bible typified that recurrent importance of religion which has long characterized American history. And the above is the significance attached to have this quotation become the title of this book - when he further explained that "Whatever America stood for, whether an empire for liberty or a light of virtue unto the nations, the Hand of God had wrought it. Howe felt that when Morse left off the exclamation mark and all punctuation when transmitting the quote yet later added a question when transcribing the message, he had added fuel to the fire - Howe felt that Morse's question mark unintentionally turned the phrase from an affirmation of the Chosen People's destiny to a questioning of it. Howe says that for the title - he left off the punctuation like Morse did. The author wants the title to allow readers to explore both meanings - as the book itself seeks to both affirm and to question the value of what Americans of that period did. "What God had wrought in raising up America was indeed contested, in Morse's time no less than it is today."
The first practical application of Morse's invention - to report a political party convention was no accident. And of further importance which should be noted - "No such parties with mass followings could have come into existence without the revolution in communication. So all of us in this presidential season can blame it all on the telegraph (smile).
According to the author, "This book is a narrative history of the American republic between 1815 and 1848, that is, from the end of the War of 1812 to the end of the war with Mexico.
According to the author, the most common name for the years this book treats is "Jacksonian America". He says that he avoids the term because it suggests that Jacksonianism describes Americans as a whole, whereas in fact Andrew Jackson was a controversial figure and his political movement bitterly divided the American people. These expressed opinions seem to hint at Howe's true feelings.
He goes on further in the introduction to note that "The Jacksonian movement in politics, although it took the name of the Democratic Party, fought so hard in favor of slavery and white supremacy, and opposed the inclusion of non-whites and women within the American civil policy so resolutely, that it makes the term "Jacksonian Democracy" all the more inappropriate as a characterization of the years between 1815 and 1848,"
He goes on to further reiterate if you hadn't gotten his predilections ahead of time that "the consequences of white male democracy, rather than its achievement, shaped the political life of this period. He also states from the onset that he does not like the term "market revolution" for this period either. Howe argues that there is more and more evidence that a market economy already existed in the eighteenth- century American colonies.
The author felt that "the history of the young American republic is above all a history of battles over public opinion.
message 4:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Oct 24, 2012 12:52AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
Prologue: The Defeat of the Past
One of the most important points that Howe emphasizes is that the Battle of New Orleans in 1815 should never have occurred because neither army knew that across the ocean, representatives of respective countries had signed a treaty of peace eight days earlier. Howe emphasizes the "fog" and that each army behind the curtain of fog, was active and unknowing. And how Mobile was saved by the bell. The bloodshed at the Battle of New Orleans was a tragic result of the slowness of communication at the start of the nineteenth century. Howe believes that the British were principally motivated to capture New Orleans by the prospect of plunder and the occupation of the city would have been short-lived if achieved.
The American public did not seem to care that the battle should not have been fought at all and that a treaty had already been signed - what they seized upon was the notion that western riflemen, untrained but sharp-eyed had defeated the arrogant British (according to the author). Howe did not think that the best marksmen were frontiersmen and he further explained that the smoke and fog had prevented much sharpshooting. it was the artillery and the cannons that had wrought most of the slaughter. But the American public did not want the cannons to be the heroes. And this signified the question about America's future - was it the individualistic values like the frontier marksmen or industrial- techological values exemplified by the cannons which would better serve American security and prosperity? Was it the extension of agriculture or the improvement/diversifying of the economy and its infrastructure? And there is where the Democrats and Whigs come in with their different answers.
One interesting fact that the author related was that "the city of New Orleans comprised the second greatest port in the United States (after New York), a position it would retain until surpassed by Los Angeles in the twentieth century)." Before the Erie Canal and the railroads, New Orleans constituted the gateway to the world for the whole vast area drained by the Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio Rivers.
New Orleans had been U.S. territory only since 1803, and Louisiana had been admitted to statehood as recently as 1812.
message 5:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Oct 24, 2012 03:50AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
1. The Continental Setting
Howe begins the chapter:
"In the thirty-three years following the Battle of New Orleans, the United States would extend its imperial reach across a continent vast, diverse, and already inhabited. The history of the United States can be understood only in relation to the continental setting within which it unfolded.
Howe emphasizes that "the United States in 1815 was still an open-ended experiment, mostly potential rather than actuality."
One astounding fact was that in 1815, as today, the largest metropolis on the North American continent was Mexico City. At that time it held about 150,000 people - almost as many as the two largest cities in the United States (New York and Philadelphia) put together. And yet after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, the United States would rank far larger than Mexico in both area and population. Through waging war, the United States wrought a momentous transformation in international power.
Was it Mexico City's lack of effective communication with and control over its vast northern territories which made it difficult to protect their areas against the ambitions of an expansionist United States? Howe seems to think so.
Diseases ran rampant in the missions and elsewhere. Yellow fever, malaria, smallpox, measles, influenza knew no race distinctions and the resulting mortality constituted one of the "most gigantic calamities ever to befall the human race.
What to do about the Indians and disagreement over "Indian policy" would become an important issue separating the political parties that would emerge during the coming era.
Howe went on to discuss the two territorially continuous empires which had expanded across vast continental distances - the US and Russia. Howe felt that the Russians at that time showed more willingness to accept and live with cultural diversity among their subject people. At the time - Russia was a tsarist empire with an absolute monarchy and an established church.
Another odd fact dealt with the weather conditions spawned by the volcano of Tambora. It lowered the earth's temperature and by mid 1816, snow fell in New England in June, July and August, South Carolina suffered a frost in mid May, widespread crop failures led to food shortages in many parts of North America and Europe. No one who lived through it would forget "the year without a summer."
Howe does not put much stock in the axiom which extols the good old days. He states that "life in America in 1815 was dirty, laborious, and uncomfortable." And only the most fastidious bathed as often as once a week. Sponge baths were the norm. And some bathers only once a year in the spring. And one New England doctor stated in 1832 that four our of five of his patients did not bathe from one year to the next. How wonderful was that?
During winter, everybody slept in the room with the fire, several in each bed. Privacy for married couples was a luxury. The standard of living today would only be found in the third world. Something to keep in mind: the gross domestic product per capita of the United States in 1820 was about the same as that of Ecuador or Jordan in 2002!
And everybody dreamed of a farm of their own. The American dream and the beginning of owning your home as part of that dream began during that period.
According to Howe, a family farm offered the key to a life of "virtue" - a word then used to mean wholesome, productive, public-spirited independence.
Currency was scarce in the farming community, so people paid for their purchases not with coins or banknotes but with barter. The storekeeper kept an account book. If a husband bought a tool, he was debited; when the wife brought in a surplus cured ham, she was credited. Storekeepers still kept their accounts in shillings and pence fifty years after the Revolution in many little towns.
Farmers used crude agricultural methods and their "wooden plows differed little from those used at the time of the Norman Conquest". The role of women and coverture limited their control of their own lives and the roles of men and women were defined by the work activities that each gender had to expend so that they and their family could survive.
The society was young: median age was 16, only one person in 8 was over 43. One third of white children and over half of black children died before reaching adulthood.
The American husbandman thought of himself as comparable to a European gentleman. He had an aversion to taxes, was suspicious of all authority (except sometimes that of religion) and these attitudes were expressed in the American republican ideology formulated by Thomas Jefferson. A precursor of this ideology could find its roots in England (John Locke) and the English Puritans. They asserted individual rights and equality, popular virtue and free enterprise and a deep suspicion to any pretensions to power and privilege. Ethnicity, religion and local community formed the ties. Local pressures to conformity of opinion were substantial and they regarded outsiders with suspicion especially anybody with pretentions or an attitude which displayed any elite status.
Distance was the enemy. To get from New York City to Cincinnati on the other side of the Appalacians took nineteen days in 1817. Travel by water was always faster. Most people lived on the coast. It was no accident that so many leaders of the political parties were newspapermen or that the most patronage for these parties came from the Post Office.
One interesting comment was that Howe stated that most Protestants of this period shunned celebrating Christmas because they viewed it as a Catholic corruption of Christianity. Interesting.
The next three decades found the United States dealing with these issues:
a) how to attract or mobilize investment capital
b) how to provide municipal services (police, water, fire protection, public health) for the suddenly growing cities
c) how to create and fund a system of public education capable of delivering mass literacy
d) how to combine industrialization with decent labor conditions and hours of employment
e) how to arbitrate disputes between indigenous peoples and white settlers intent of expropriating them.
f) should America expand much as it already was, or should it be a reformed and improved America that rose to continental dominance and moral leadership?
g) should America be satisfied with their society the way it was (slavery and all)?
h) should America look towards the prospect of improvement to pursue economic diversification and social reform?
i) were the choices facing America just economic or moral ones or a combination of both?
One might have asked - why slavery? As Howe points out - free land had promoted slavery - for much the same reason that the plentiful lands of Russia promoted serfdom. Slaveholders seemed to view paternalism as their rationale.
Most southern whites, whether they owned slaves or not, feared emancipation would invite black rebellion. It was fascinating that the plantation owners wanted their slaves to count in terms of representation in Congress and that is where the 3/5's rule came about (counting five of their slaves as three free persons). This enhanced the Southern plantation owners and states in terms of their representation but also the electoral college. The South in 1815 had held the presidency for twenty-two of the past twenty-six years, and they would control it for all but eight of the next thirty-four.
Dickens called Washington DC - the "City of Magnificent Intentions". The British had burned down the Capitol and the White House in 1814 and both areas were surrounded by mud. In fact America was also still more potential than realization in 1815. And of course the expansion of the country and the imperial ambitions of the country (Howe's wording) brought them into conflict with the people already living in their path; namely the Native Americans and Mexicans and also oddly enough with each other.
message 6:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Oct 24, 2012 03:11AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
message 7:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Oct 24, 2012 11:18AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
The lead off discussion questions for our book selection focus on the title of the book itself and its choice by the author. (questions are in bold)
WHAT GOD HATH WROUGHT
In the context of the Introduction - the author explained that "Whatever America stood for, whether an empire for liberty or a light of virtue unto the nations, the Hand of God had wrought it.
The author wants the title to allow readers to explore both meanings - as the book itself seeks to both affirm and to question the value of what Americans of that period did. "What God had wrought in raising up America was indeed contested, in Morse's time no less than it is today."
Howe further felt that Morse's question mark unintentionally turned the phrase from an affirmation of the Chosen People's destiny to a questioning of it.
How do the group readers feel about the author's interpretation? Do you feel that Morse was indicating anything to do with an affirmation that America was the land of the Chosen People? Or anything to do with its destiny?
Real Clear World states that the global top five for the most religious countries in the world are the following:
Number 1 was Bangladesh
Number 2 was Niger
Number 3 was Indonesia
Number 4 was Malawi
Number 5 was Sri Lanka
The Religious News Service said that the belief in God determined how religious a country was deemed and with that yardstick determined that:
The United States (60.6 percent) was ranked in the top five countries for people who said they knew God existed and had no doubts. Besides the Philippines (being the highest), the other countries were Chile (79.4 percent), Israel (65.5 percent) and Poland (62 percent). The former East Germany was at the other end of the spectrum.
Were you surprised by Howe's affirmations because the majority of the founding fathers were deists and believed in the separation of church from state? How appropriate do you find the title and what arguments do you have for the choice or the underlying rationale for choosing the quotation in the first place?
Here is the original full quotation from the Bible (American Standard Version) - other versions as Howe noted in his footnotes vary the wording:
Numbers 23 >>
American Standard Version
1And Balaam said unto Balak, Build me here seven altars, and prepare me here seven bullocks and seven rams. 2And Balak did as Balaam had spoken; and Balak and Balaam offered on every altar a bullock and a ram. 3And Balaam said unto Balak, Stand by thy burnt-offering, and I will go: peradventure Jehovah will come to meet me; and whatsoever he showeth me I will tell thee. And he went to a bare height.
4And God met Balaam: and he said unto him, I have prepared the seven altars, and I have offered up a bullock and a ram on every altar. 5And Jehovah put a word in Balaam's mouth, and said, Return unto Balak, and thus thou shalt speak. 6And he returned unto him, and, lo, he was standing by his burnt-offering, he, and all the princes of Moab.
7And he took up his parable, and said, From Aram hath Balak brought me, The king of Moab from the mountains of the East: Come, curse me Jacob, And come, defy Israel.
8How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed? And how shall I defy, whom Jehovah hath not defied?
9For from the top of the rocks I see him, And from the hills I behold him: lo, it is a people that dwelleth alone, And shall not be reckoned among the nations.
10Who can count the dust of Jacob, Or number the fourth part of Israel? Let me die the death of the righteous, And let my last end be like his!
11And Balak said unto Balaam, What hast thou done unto me? I took thee to curse mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast blessed them altogether. 12And he answered and said, Must I not take heed to speak that which Jehovah putteth in my mouth?
13And Balak said unto him, Come, I pray thee, with me unto another place, from whence thou mayest see them; thou shalt see but the utmost part of them, and shalt not see them all: and curse me them from thence. 14And he took him into the field of Zophim, to the top of Pisgah, and built seven altars, and offered up a bullock and a ram on every altar. 15And he said unto Balak, Stand here by thy burnt-offering, while I meet Jehovah yonder. 16And Jehovah met Balaam, and put a word in his mouth, and said, Return unto Balak, and thus shalt thou speak. 17And he came to him, and, lo, he was standing by his burnt-offering, and the princes of Moab with him. And Balak said unto him, What hath Jehovah spoken?
18And he took up his parable, and said, Rise up, Balak, and hear; Hearken unto me, thou son of Zippor:
19God is not a man, that he should lie, Neither the son of man, that he should repent: Hath he said, and will he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and will he not make it good?
20Behold, I have received commandment to bless: And he hath blessed, and I cannot reverse it.
21He hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob; Neither hath he seen perverseness in Israel: Jehovah his God is with him, And the shout of a king is among them.
22God bringeth them forth out of Egypt; He hath as it were the strength of the wild-ox.
23Surely there is no enchantment with Jacob; Neither is there any divination with Israel: Now shalt it be said of Jacob and of Israel, What hath God wrought!
24Behold, the people riseth up as a lioness, And as a lion doth he lift himself up: He shall not lie down until he eat of the prey, And drink the blood of the slain.
25And Balak said unto Balaam, Neither curse them at all, nor bless them at all. 26But Balaam answered and said unto Balak, Told not I thee, saying, All that Jehovah speaketh, that I must do?
27And Balak said unto Balaam, Come now, I will take thee unto another place; peradventure it will please God that thou mayest curse me them from thence. 28And Balak took Balaam unto the top of Peor, that looketh down upon the desert. 29And Balaam said unto Balak, Build me here seven altars, and prepare me here seven bullocks and seven rams. 30And Balak did as Balaam had said, and offered up a bullock and a ram on every altar.
(Source: http://asvbible.com/numbers/23.htm) - Prophecies of Balaam
More:
The King James Version: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?...
What do you feel was the role of religion in America prior to 1815, during the book's timeline and today? How is it the same or different?
Why do you think Morse chose this quotation and what was the significance of the author's choice of a quotation referencing Jacob and Israel?
message 8:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Oct 28, 2012 04:17PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
With Hurricane Sandy bearing down on me and with the promise from the electric company that we will lose power, I am opening this thread so that we can begin the conversation early in case that happens here in the Mid Atlantic States.
Be safe Bentley. I am in NYC, outside of any evacuation zone, and well supplied.On to the book:
I had some thoughts
I was impressed with his coverage of slavery and the native populations. These nasty aspects of American history should not be overlooked. The changing attitudes towards slavery and justifications of it look interesting.
On page 34, he says "and so the word 'husband' originally meaning "farmer" came to mean 'married man'". Per the online etymology dictionary http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?a... this is incorrect. "Husband" comes from old English and meant "male head of a household" as early as the 13th century.
On p. 42, he notes the pattern of people moving west to escape failure back east. This reminded me of the story of LBJ's parents as traced in
by
Robert A. Caro. On p. 43 he compares the USA of 1815 to modern developing countries. This is interesting, but there are at least a couple big differences: First, those countries mostly have no frontier anymore. Second, they have huge cities, unlike anything in America at the time. Third, I wonder to what extent current slums (in developing or developed countries) are the result of the lack of frontier.
message 10:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Oct 28, 2012 09:41PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
With our first black president, it struck me how odd it was reading about a time when that would have been impossible and how not so very long ago that was the situation. What justifications for slavery struck you as the most interesting?
I think that this is open to interpretation:
hus·band (hzbnd)
n.
1. A man joined to a another person in marriage; a male spouse.
2. Chiefly British A manager or steward, as of a household.
3. Archaic A prudent, thrifty manager.
tr.v. hus·band·ed, hus·band·ing, hus·bands
1. To use sparingly or economically; conserve: husband one's energy.
2. Archaic To find a husband for.
[Middle English huseband, from Old English hsbnda, from Old Norse hsbndi : hs, house + bndi, bandi, householder, present participle of ba, to dwell; see bheu- in Indo-European roots.]
Word History: The English word husband, even though it is a basic kinship term, is not a native English word. It comes ultimately from the Old Norse word hsbndi, meaning "master of a house," which was borrowed into Old English as hsbnda.
The second element in hsbndi, bndi, means "a man who has land and stock" and comes from the Old Norse verb ba, meaning "to live, dwell, have a household." The master of the house was usually a spouse as well, of course, and it would seem that the main modern sense of husband arises from this overlap.
When the Norsemen settled in Anglo-Saxon England, they would often take Anglo-Saxon women as their wives; it was then natural to refer to the husband using the Norse word for the concept, and to refer to the wife with her Anglo-Saxon (Old English) designation, wf, "woman, wife" (Modern English wife). Interestingly, Old English did have a feminine word related to Old Norse hsbndi that meant "mistress of a house," namely, hsbonde. Had this word survived into Modern English, it would have sounded identical to husband surely leading to ambiguities.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved
Here is another explanation:
"In the 1300s another word, “husbandman,” came to mean a farmer or a tiller of the soil, and the word “husbandry” widened to mean farming and agriculture in general, including the raising of livestock, poultry, and such.
This latest sense of “husbandry” survives today. We still speak of “animal husbandry” as a branch of farm management. However, I don’t know of a term for husband management!"
See source:
http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/200...
And an etymological reference:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?s...
It was interesting that folks moved west to escape failure - how full of gumption these folks must have been to embark on a journey with no knowledge of what they might face.
I thought the analogy he was trying to make to emerging cultures was the extent of poverty and the comparison to societies with the same issues. In some of these countries, there is a frontier of sorts although not inhabitable to a large degree - but then look at what Israel did with an inhospitable environment.
His sources are extensive but there is always room for different interpretations.
"gumption" is a good old fashioned word, I like it! My grandparents and greatgrandparents had to have it too, trekking from eastern Europe to the US - but things were not good for Jews in Eastern Europer around 1900 (or many other times).What struck me as interesting about slavery was that I did not know that the justifications of slavery as being "good for Blacks" or necessary since they were not capable, or paternal, evolved over time and weren't that common in the colonial and immediate post-colonial years.
Mod
I will try to participate in this discussion as I can, but I read this book two years ago (and loved it) and it might be tough for me to remember exactly what the author was referencing in each chapter. I'll have to bring it home so I can flip through the chapters as the discussion commences (I enjoyed the book so much I brought it to my office and I typically don't access Goodreads during my work day.)I recall it being an amazingly well-written book and learning so much during its reading. Everyone has a great reading experience in front of them.
Cheryl - Morse was definitely a believer.
Hi! I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book as my grandparents were also immigrants, though not till just before WWI, but I also admired their gumption as they never saw much of the family they left behind and it must have taken courage. The USA is still getting in immigrants who leave everything behind to find a better life and that alone is enough, I think, to lead people to idealism and hope for a better life than they had before. We are constantly repeating many of the topics of this book.
While reading the opening chapter, I appreciated the detail given to the everyday living circumstances of those inhabitants of our nation during this period of time beginning in 1815. Given how we live and go about our day at present, we sometimes forget how difficult and different living conditions were for so many of those people living on family farms where most of the population was located during this time.That said, they were all motivated by the opportunity for a better life for themselves and that seemed to be at the heart of this country’s divine inspired destiny as Howe describes in setting the stage for the great transformation fueled by advances in transportation and communication.
I particularly enjoyed Howe's decision to highlight three individuals in the opening chapter, Aaron Fuller, Jedediah Smith, and Sojourner Truth as representative of some of the prevailing thoughts and issues of this time. Fuller, the Massachusetts man and impoverished farmer whose wife has died and left him with four children writes out an account of “The Life I should like” and then proceeds to achieve that dream with his new wife by “linking agrarian virtue with small-scale commercial endeavor”. Smith, the mountain man, who explores the Rocky Mountain West like no man before him, seems to embody the frontier spirit not to mention his contribution to North American geography. And finally, Sojourner Truth, the slave woman who is freed late in life and becomes an itinerant preacher advocating for the abolition slavery and the Second Coming of Christ. Can you imagine what it must have been like to be in the crowd, to see her and hear her speak. She’s described in the book on page 51 as being “five feet eleven inches tall, with dark skin, and a muscular frame”. Although illiterate, Howe says, she spoke powerfully.
Only having read the first 35 pages or so...but would appreciate sharing initial impressions...must admit was a little put off by the title. I understand the subtle distinctions Howe may have been alluding to in regards to the lack of punctuation, but even so given (as Bentley points out) the founding fathers themselves being deists, as were many within the Enlightenment movement and others who participated in colonial ventures from England in the eighteenth century - or to whom religion was of very little concern - who emigrated to America for economic opportunity... I think that to place such religious emphasis within the title of the book itself is somewhat misplaced. I understand the critical role religion played in many founding settlements but insofar as the transformation of America is concerned, is it not (as Howe himself pointed out) developments in communication that were really pivotal? The intimation is that the manifest destiny is a religious one, one predetermined by God - what hath he wrought? And I just don't know whether that is really applicable to the emerging nation in its entirety in the early nineteenth century. Certainly religious belief was more widespread - before the scientific methodology really became established...but as a title choice it implies a nationwide adherence, as well as a broad modern sympathy that I just think isn't there. It is painting the historical account with a pre-determined religious brush. Anyway as stipulated - only halfway through the required reading so there may be points that have yet to be elucidated...just initial thoughts. Thanks for bearing with and look forward to your commentary.
Isn't the title just strictly a reference to Samuel Morse's first telegraph message and the importance it played in the time period covered by the book? I really didn't take it as any reference to religious whatsoever. I personally don't feel titles of history books are all that important; it's not like many novels that probably need the hook to bring in readers. To me, it's the same as if an author had written a biography of Alexander Graham Bell and called it, 'Watson, Come Here, I Need You'
By the way, here is a quote from the author Daniel Walker Howe on why he titled his book as he did from a 2007 interview with National Review Online:JOHN J. MILLER: Why did you choose the text of Samuel F. B. Morse’s first telegraphic message as the title for your book?
DANIEL WALKER HOWE: The quotation “What Hath God Wrought” works well for me in three ways. In the first place it calls attention to the dramatic technological changes characteristic of the years between 1815 and 1848, revolutionizing communication and transportation. In the second place, this quotation from the Bible (Numbers 23:23) illustrates the importance of religion in the history of the period. And in the third place, it calls attention to the idea that in rising to transcontinental power, the United States was fulfilling a divine providential destiny, a self-image that America shared with ancient Israel, to which the phrase originally applied.
While it's true that many of the founders were deists, it is also true that deists are not atheists. Furthermore, the founders were not representative of the general population in this regard: the vast majority of the population were Christians; most households had at most 1 book, and that book would be the Bible. I think the title is a good one. In addition to the reasons adduced so far, I think it calls attention to what must have been a sense of shock at the change. Today, with new technology cropping up every few minutes, it's hard for us to imagine how slowly technology changed in the early 19th century. As Howe points out, until the telegraph the fastest method of communication was a galloping horse - just as much for Thomas Jefferson as for Julius Caesar.
What a shock, then, for some forms of communication to now be nearly instantaneous! If you further consider that the vast majority of people had no idea how a telegraph worked, it must have seemed almost miraculous.
Thanks for your thoughts Cheryl, Craig and Peter - interesting information regarding the interview Craig -thanks for that. I do not argue that America was initially perceived, by many, as a sacred space. According to the Protestant apocalyptic tradition as it developed in Tudor and Early Stuart England, all the territories to be settled in America by the English had their predestined place in God's grand design (Cotton Mather's writings for example) but not everyone was willing to accept Mathers version of the story - others rejected the notion that old England (and by extension New England) had any manifest destiny as preordained by God,(America was really defined by a plurality of creeds and enabled and offered an endless scope for debate, disagreement and creative perspective) and of course the secularly-minded (and there were those as well) who were simply seeking economic opportunity. Many of the new immigrants to America in the late seventeenth century were indifferent to religion as Mather's commentaries lament. And Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world in any way, allowing it to run according to the laws of nature that he configured when he created all things. 'What Hath God Wrought' to me implies a certain set of beliefs by Howe (perhaps confirmed by his last comment as you transcribed in the interview, Craig?) that he then utilizes as a broad descriptive brush of this period. Yes this quote happened to be what Morse sent by telegraph - but I think that when an historian selects a title for his book he not only has to reflect the period which he or she describes but also has to find a broad basis of appeal for modern readers. In view of the plurality of religious belief in early colonial America, as well as those who were indifferent (which may very well have increased by the early nineteenth century), in view of Deistic belief in a non-interventionist God (as many founding fathers believed), and also presenting transformative effects in transportation and communication as subsumed under 'What Hath God Wrought' is to my mind inappropriate. Yes the bible was found in many households, yes religion was prevalent in America at this time, but this is not a book about religion, but about transformative technological innovations that changed the cultural and physical landscape of the country. The title, to me, suggests more religious perspective than is warranted or indeed appropriate. Anyway just my two cents on this. Don't mean to belabor the title issue overmuch, but I think titles are important - they suggest not only to the reader the broad subject matter, but illuminate what the writer believes to be the sweeping heart of the book. I must say also that I was rather expecting the writing of the book to be of higher caliber given the Pulitzer prize award - the writing is fine, just not as eloquently pieced together as expected. I do not mean to be overly negative - I am enjoying the historical insights, and certainly am proceeding apace with an open mind, looking forward to the rest of the narrative. Just my opinion thus far. Great to engage with you all!
yes! intriguing thought Cheryl!
I enjoyed Howe's perspective on the Battle of New Orleans and the psychological motivation to attribute its success to the mythologized 'frontiersmen' - and also found the transportation issue an interesting one - that in such an expansive territory the critical aspect was the prohibitive cost of land transportation (interesting aside on the incentive for whiskey production as a direct result of these cost concerns!)and the imperative for river/ocean proximity insofar as goods-to-market is concerned.
I think that religion during the period this book covers is a major element in how people in the US looked at life. It's not like they were constantly talking about God, though they did do that also, but that it was always a background in their lives. Even now there are more people in the US that have a background of religion than people in Europe, even if they rarely or never practice it. Religion was also, then and now, used to excuse practices that we find wrong. I doubt that most people, again, then and now, even if atheists not be influenced by the presence of belief in God in the culture. I also think that people now feel more free to "shop" for their beliefs, be they religious, secular or none, and the period in the book was the beginning of that. There have always been people looking outside of the beliefs they grew up with but often didn't feel free to talk about them.I found it very interesting to read about the "new" religions that popped up once people were free of the establishment religions in Europe. Along with this people in the US also felt more free to have many different political views than many of them had in the "old country".
Thanks everyone. Keep reading and posting. Bentley might have been affected by Sandy, but I am confident we will hear from him soon. Thanks.
Christopher wrote: "I also found it fitting that the opening of this book touched on themes that have and continue to pervade American culture and history: religion, technological innovation, slavery and multicultura..."I agree that it's nice to see all of these addressed in a general history of the period. Although the author risks a lot when trying to cover all those items of the proverbial "biting off more than one can chew" I think it's necessary for a good understanding of a historical period to see how various trends in religion, technology, politics, culture and the economy come together, and to his enormous credit,
Daniel Walker Howe is definitely trying to accomplish that.
More than a bit behind on this read, but finished through Chapter 1 and have enjoyed the background for the time period.
Great, Kathy, no worries about being behind. Glad you could join us.
Hi all, just popped in to say that I also am joining in this read and am so glad to be doing it! I was hesitant about getting the book because on a first and very cursory glance it looked pretty dry and tedious. Not so! I'm doing pretty well in catching up - currently well into Chapter 3 - will be through Chapter 6 later this week. It's certainly not a "trudge!"
From the Editor's Introduction we very deliberately see the main thrust already:
The railroad and the telegraph were both the principal causes and the most conspicuous emblems of the deep transformations that are Howe’s principal subjects.
In the first paragraph of Howe's Introduction we are informed as to the significance of the title in terms of the theme:
Morse... on a device of cogs and coiled wires
_ as well as the meaning of the phrase "what God hath wrought" in a very religious America.
In the Prologue we are reminded of how undeveloped the state of communications/transportation was in this era. News of the War of 1812 didn't reach some of the armies until after it was over. I knew that, but putting the information into the context of Howe's major theme is what makes it interesting.
And in Chapter 1, "The Continental Setting," we have the relevant background to a subject so broad as the advent of the great American communication / transportation revolution during the era between the War of 1812 and the War of 1848 (Mexican-American War). Howe's coverage of this multi-faceted revolution seems to be both nicely broad and deep enough for the interested layman to enjoy, yet many of the details may be new to the well read reader. He's covering socio-political and economic history as well as the military importance of the communication-transportation revolution. .
One of the details which tickled me:
Americans affirmed a resolute egalitarianism among white men. The custom of shaking hands, a gesture of social reciprocity, replaced bowing.
I'm using the Kindle edition and although the Notes come out a bit awkwardly placed, I got used to it and imo, their content is quite good for this broad type of history
The maps are excellent.
I am so looking forward to this ...
Well thanks to Becky for having just started yesterday as I am today and therefore only sort of one day behind.All your comments really lay out the content well but I would just mention that as Americans moved west it was not so often to run from failure but rather to seek new opportunities - and as pointed out - with an empty country going west for over 2,000 miles why not.
I think the whole possiblity of mobility in one's lifetime in western societies was never as high as in this time with the technology as it was and the enormous available space
Great, Vince, no worries. I couldn't image going West and seeing so much empty space.
Hi Becky and Vince - This is really a fun read. Author has done a lot of work in prep for this book, and the pacing moves right along.
Hope you enjoy it,
Paul
Hello - I just joined HBC yesterday but I would really like to participate in this group discussion. Hope I'm not too late! I love this period of American history and want to learn as much about it as I can. I will be reading this book on my Nook - plan to start it this evening :)
Welcome, no worries, jump right in.
Mod
The title, "What Hath God Wrought," appropriately ties religion into the story of America's growth in the early 19th century. You cannot discuss the actions of men, which are means to an end, without discussing the end. Religious purposes have most certainly been a primary end for many American movements, especially America's 1815-1848 expansionism.
In his discussion of the Battle of New Orleans, Howe focuses on the diversity of American forces, which included many races, classes, languages, and motives for participating in the battle. This of course is an essential part of the story, but was brushed aside as soon as the battle was won. Despite the benefits America has reaped from its diversity, the forces of racism have always been quick to white-wash (no pun intended) stories like this. Since the civil rights movement, there has been a shift in historians' discussions of race, and I think it has completely changed our perspective on the significance of race in events like the Battle of New Orleans. By learning the true role of racial minorities, we realize their importance to our history, and hopefully continue to breakdown the strongholds of racism that remain in America.
Finally, the individualist "spin" on the story of the Battle of New Orleans, which created songs like "The Hunters of Kentucky," is reminiscent of the legendary tales of the American Revolution that were written into the history books and later disproven as myths. Americans have often liked to see themselves as David, facing Goliath. You can find countless examples from every war of Americans justifying the violence with a sense of entitlement––be it individualist, religious, or imperialistic––and the view that the American forces are the underdog.
Howe has a gift for capturing the zeitgeist and sentiment surrounding each event. I am very excited to continue this reading!
Glad you joined us, Douglas! Maybe this will give me the push I need to catch up - only a couple chapters.
message 40:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Feb 17, 2013 09:04AM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mod
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Tao Te Ching (other topics)Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945 (other topics)
What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815 - 1848 (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Daniel Walker Howe (other topics)Robert A. Caro (other topics)
David M. Kennedy (other topics)
Daniel Walker Howe (other topics)
For the week of October 29, 2012 - November 4, 2012, we are reading the Editor's Introduction, Introduction, Prologue and Chapter One of What God Hath Wrought.
The first week's reading assignment is:
WEEK ONE: October 29, 2012 - November 4, 2012 (p xiii - xvi and 1 - 62)
Editor's Introduction, Introduction, Prologue: The Defeat of the Past, and 1. The Continental Setting
We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.
This book is being kicked off on October 29th. We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle. This weekly thread will be opened up today October 29th.
There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.
Bentley will be moderating this discussion.
Welcome,
~Bentley
TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL
REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS ARE EXTREMELY DENSE SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.
Notes:
It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.
Citations:
If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.
If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...
Glossary
Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Bibliography
There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author used in her research or in her notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations. No self promotion, please.
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
TOC and the Syllabus
The following is a link to the table of contents for the book and the weekly syllabus:
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
Book as a Whole Thread
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...