Nathaniel Philbrick

I love the thoroughness Philbrick brings to his work. But he's not just a good researcher, he's an excellent storyteller as well. This re-telling of the oft-told story of Bunker Hill brings to light some interesting things you might not have known: Mob rule was a large factor in the town of Boston in the months leading up to Lexington and Concord. Thomas Gage comes across as an intelligent, dedicated man placed in an impossible situation. Philbrick clearly likes Dr. Joseph Warren, a physican show more and patriot who died at Bunker Hill. Isael Putnam comes across less flatteringly. And George Washington comes across as appalled at what he'd gotten himself into, before he settled in to the job at hand. A fine read, and an excellent addition to the popular history of the American Revolution. show less

When one picks up a book such as Philbrick's Travels with George, he or she certainly anticipates learning something more about George Washington than was gleaned from typical high school or even college survey courses in American history—and does this book deliver! Physically traveling along (as closely as is possible today anyway) Washington's routes when he visited both northern and southern states in 1790 and 1791, Philbrick regales his readers with fascinating bits of history while he show more also debunks quite a few commonly believed legends about the president—but that's not all by any means. The author frequently relates his own experiences during the trip and does so in a most amusing and engaging manner.

In this book, we also make the acquaintance of Dora, a Nova Scotia duck tolling retriever, who, along with Melissa, the author's spouse, accompanies him on the trip. In the explanation of Dora's breed, we learn a bit about the British expulsion of the Acadians from Nova Scotia in 1751 and the source of the Cajuns of Louisiana. That knowledge I did not anticipate.

To give an idea of the sorts of historical bits that I picked up for the first time (at least the first time that I can remember) in this book, I now know that the history textbooks that name Washington only as the “father of our country” tell only part of the story. He is also father of the American mule. How is that? The answer is on page 14 and involves both the Spanish king and the Frenchman Lafayette.

I do recall that my school books told me that Thomas Jefferson was with the Anti-Federalist political party, but I do not recall learning what that really meant, i.e., that the Anti-Federalists opposed the very government—a national government—that Washington was working to create. Jefferson also condemned manufacturing or apparently engaging in any work other than farming. Philbrick's quotation of Jefferson is an eye-opener: “Manufacturing, on the other hand, 'begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the design of ambition. . . . [L]et us never wish to see our citizens occupied at a workbench, or twirling a distaff . . . for the general operations of manufacture, let our workshops remain in Europe. . . .'” (Pages 78-79)

While every other American history book has probably noted that Washington was a slave owner, none that I have seen gives as accurate a picture of what that really means as does Philbrick's: “We have come to the cold pocket of horror within George Washington. This is the Washington who was capable of punishing an enslaved worker who repeatedly attempted to escape by selling him to the sugar plantations of the Caribbean. This is the Washington who in the days before leaving for the Constitutional Convention had an enslaved house servant whipped for repeatedly walking across the freshly planted lawn in front of Mount Vernon.” (Page 114)

Did your teachers tell you, as mine told me, that the Boston Tea Party was the event that initiated the rebellion of the American colonies? I suggest not insisting on that to a citizen of Rhode Island. John Brown, first treasurer of Brown University and an unrepentant slave trader, “reveled in confrontation. In 1772, the captain of the British revenue cutter Gaspee began searching Rhode Island vessels for undeclared goods. When the Gaspee grounded on a shoal in Narragansett Bay, Brown organized and led a boarding party. After capturing the crew, he and his compatriots burned the ship to the waterline, an outrageous stunt that Rhode Islanders look to today as the true start of the American Revolution, a year and a half before the Boston Tea Party.” (Page 168)

Even though, many years ago, I worked in Alexandria, Virginia for a while, I never knew before that it was originally part of the Federal City (known today as Washington, DC). Washington ensured that it would be included since he owned 1,200 acres of land there. When Congress passed the Residency Act, the value of land along this part of the Potomac increased, and “Washington raised the rents he charged his tenants in the region.” (Page 186) Why did Alexandria not remain part of today's District of Columbia? “By the 1840s, there was talk of abolishing slavery in the nation's capital, and Alexandria, home to Franklin and Armfield, one of the largest slave-trading firms in the country, wanted no part of it. So, in 1847, through a process known as retrocession, Alexandria once again became part of Virginia.” (Page 290)

Why is Washington, D.C. such a expansive city, with the Capitol and the White House being so far apart? It all goes back to pleasing (or placating) original owners of the land, and details are on page 293.

Travels with George is simply packed with such such history as the examples I've cited above, and that, plus the quite informal, conversational tone of the book—as though the author is chatting with us as we accompany him, Melissa, and Dora on the trip—underlies the five-star rating I've assigned. Yet I do have a nit to pick with the author. On page 297, he states that the War of 1812 “concluded on a surprisingly positive note with Andrew Jackson's victory at the Battle of New Orleans.” In reality, the war had been officially ended with a treaty signed in London before that battle ever occurred. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the outcome of the war, serving only to popularize the nationalistic populist Jackson, who subsequently stole the lands of the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole tribes, some of whom were his former allies in the war, and who ordered their forced removal from their tribal lands by the U.S. Army. For giving the despicable Jackson such a pass and for furthering the false legend of the importance of the Battle of New Orleans, I cannot forgive Philbrick, nor can I even understand how an otherwise exemplary writer of history could have treated Jackson with such undeserved positivity (especially since he calls out the horrors of Black slavery many places in the book).

Oops, I almost forgot: Do you know who ghostwrote Washington's Farewell Address? You'll find that revealed on page 300.

In brief, Travels with George, despite the nit I've picked about Philbrick's inexplicably positive treatment of Andrew Jackson, delivers a surprising amount of history in an entertaining, highly readable manner, and I would recommend the book to anyone who may have been put off of history by boring textbooks. Had this book existed when I was a student in the formal education system, I would have learned more of the reality of the creation of the United States and would have been able to put the many fictional legends in their proper place—and I'd love to make Dora's acquaintance. show less

It’s been years – decades really – since I read Moby-Dick. I remember, I approached it with caution, I had the vague thought that Moby-Dick was an outdated story. I suppose I was also intimidated by its size, it’s a long book. But then, can you really consider yourself a serious reader if you don’t read the most famous novel in American history?

The first 150 pages of Moby Dick is a challenge. But after that, I can tell you, everything you heard about it, that is boring, stuffy, show more etc, they are all wrong. Moby-Dick is a novel that opens up new worlds. It is, as Nathaniel Philbrick writes in his slim and wonderful book Why Read Moby-Dick?,

"nothing less that the genetic code of America: all the promises, problems, conflicts and ideals that contributed to the outbreak of a revolution in 1775 as well as a civil war in 1861 and continue to drive this country’s ever-contentious march into the future."

An exaggeration perhaps, but Philbrick’s admiration and enthusiasm about Moby-Dick is infectious. The book, is divided into twenty eight parts that can be read separately as small stories. He explores the main characters, Ismael, the narrator of the story, a loner, a drifter, with no particular family or other relations. His only friend is the harpooner Queequeg, a kind, generous, loyal and wise Polynesian. They foster an intimate friendship that transcends their differences. Through their friendship, Melville explore the wealth and the possibilities that exist in diversity. Then, there is Starbuck, a prudent and calm man. It is the voice of reason aboard the Pequod. But, in a way, he is also weak, he finally gives up by submitting to captain’s madness.

"Just like Starbuck, America’s leaders in the 1850s looked at one another with vacant deer-in-the-headlights stares at the United States, a great and noble country crippled by a lie, slowly but inevitably sailed toward its cataclysmic encounter with the source of its discontents."

And finally there is Ahab, the captain of the Pequod, a complicated, mysterious character. A man of great depth and few words, a monomaniac, a mad, a demagogue. “I’ m demoniac, I am madness maddened, he soliloquizes.”

Along the way, we get a sense of Herman Melville, the man and the writer. Philbrick explores his friendship and his admiration of Nathaniel Hawthorne. The discussions Melville had with Hawthorn had a profound influence upon the creation of Moby-Dick.

With this short and beautiful book Nathaniel Philbrick tries to start a new conversation and inspire readers to return or discover Herman Melville. You can benefit from the book even if you haven’t read Moby-Dick but to make the most of it, you really need to read Moby-Dick first. show less

After two books I have become a Philbrick devotee. I have his newest on deck and another on order. The way he strings events together, keeping tension and anticipation tight while imparting tons of information is spellbinding. Even during the third part of this book which was about King Philip's War, I was held fast and I normally skim a lot of war scenes in books.

The story of the first English colonists to wash up in New England has become a myth stripped of most of its reality. We have show more visions of dour Pilgrims in tall hats and shoes with buckles, seated at a deal table breaking bread with smiling, stoic Indians. It’s so ingrained that it requires some effort to come to grips with the reality. Here’s some things I learned -

The Pilgrims and later the Puritans were a bunch of intolerant, bloodthirsty assholes. Both sets of “christians” came to exercise their right to worship how they wanted, but neither could allow anyone else this right. Instead the both try to stamp out the other and anyone who dares to disagree; like the Indians and non-religious settlers. The Indians were appalled at the slaughter the English got up to when in battle. Normally an Indian battle was a show of force and bravado; only a few warriors were killed and never the elderly, women or children. Neither did they rape their female captives, something we know Europeans have long been enthusiasts. Eventually though, the Indians got the hang of wholesale slaughter and got pretty good at it.

Miles Standish wasn’t much more than a thug. A convenient bludgeon wielded by the Pilgrims who didn’t deign to carry out the violence they needed to keep the Indians down themselves. Instead however much they claimed to disapprove of Standish, they let him do their dirty work; inciting fights where there weren’t any or exacerbating disagreements until it escalated into bloodshed. Also he was a short guy who had to cut 6 inches off his regulation sword lest it drag on the ground. Funny.

Both the Indians and the English manipulated each other and exploited factions and divisions to further their own ends. In the case of King Philip’s War it started because the English would impose their laws on people who already had laws. Two Indians killed another and the English put them on trial and executed them. Things like that kept happening and almost against his will King Philip (aka Metacomet, sachem of the Pokanoket tribe) went to war to keep the English from taking more advantage. Because the English quickly decided all Indians were hostile and evil, a lot of other tribes got sucked into the conflict when they would rather have been neutral. Eventually the English realized that using some Indians against others was an advantage and the tribal divisions were used against them.

When the war was winding down and over, many hundreds of inconvenient Indians were sold into slavery, ending up at brutal sugar plantations in the Caribbean.

The Wampanoag tribe didn’t exist before the English colonists. It came about to bond several tribes together in the face of the English presence. Massasoit, sachem of the Pokanokets and King Philip’s father was instrumental in creating the new tribe.

We have an idea of Indians living harmoniously the the land and showing the backward colonists how to flourish in the harsh New England climate. Truth is most of them were living hand to mouth and went hungry a lot of the time. There was a visit from the Plymouth leaders to Massasoit’s village and there was no food. None for the people that lived there and none for the guests. For two days and nights the visitors ate nothing and neither did the villagers. This happened a lot and not just to one tribe.

There was no direct representative of the English crown or government until the 1690s when James II sent someone. No oversight. No governor. Nothing. Basically the settlers were sponsored by groups of merchants and were expected to pay them back in the form of goods, but they created their own laws and government, unlike Virginia and other colonies in the south. It shed a new light on why the New England colonists got so mad about the English crown once a bunch of them started to poke their noses into things.

Oh and a big Duh to me. If I’d been taught who King Philip was, I’d evidently forgotten (somehow I think I never knew), and I couldn’t for the life of me figure out which king it was. I never heard of an English King Philip. Maybe he was French or Dutch or something. But no, he was an Indian who changed his name. I didn’t know it was a common practice in Massachusetts at the time. And I wish more of the Indian place names were still in use, even though there are a lot of them that still are. Having been born in New England and lived there for 40+ years, I really liked returning to all those lovely words. Is Massachusetts the only state named for an Indian tribe? I’ll have to google. show less