America at 1750: A Social Portrait

Throughout my reading life I have often dived into and been impressed with the book of Douglas R. Hofstadter. When reading about that Hofstadter it is often pointed out that he is different from this historian Hofstadter. So, I decided, why not read the "other" Hofstadter? I am glad I did. This brisk, accessible American history explores the pre-Revolutionary War American Colonial Era and the foundations laid there not only for that War but for much of what makes America unique. I find it really breaks along three fault lines:

1) Institutionalized Servitude
2) Middle Class socioeconomics and,
3) Evangelism.

"Institutionalized Servitude" includes not only slavery, but indentured servants and gradations between. Endemic during this era it show more seems to me this bred into the nation nativisit (anti-immigrant; Benjamin Franklin decrying German immigration) and even racist beliefs that still surface today.

The Middle Class is perhaps the least explored of the three, but is an important pillar to the American cult of personality as well as a a further key differentiation to the Old World and especially England, those broadening a gulf that opened the door to rebellion.

Evangelism around charismatic preachers in a mesh of post-Puritan sects added a curious and even hypocritical blend of openness. (Since no denomination was national, denominational pluralism supported an acceptance of contrasting [religious] ideas if implicitly only Xtian ones.) However, this division fostered regionalist tumult and a broad adherence to xenophobic fundamentalism supporting the shared belief, among other things, that Providence lights the way for America and a susceptibility to demagogue led revivalism. show less

His Pulitzer Prize consensus history rather coolly looks at troubling politically incorrect issues in a neglected time in history, that others often fear to discuss and choose to make more irrational judgments than he. He need not change your moral judgments, just your outlook. An understanding we need more of in judging history. As the author died, it seems to be a compilation of notes that needs his editing, hence, sometimes confusing and repetitive. The last 1/3 of the book delves into the Colonial religious structure that is confusing without other background and doesn't seem relevant to the earlier parts of the book.