What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848

The real drawback for me of Daniel Walker Howe's early 19th century American history was not the writing, but the narrator. There were times that I wondered if the reader was a computer or a human. So monotone at different points it was almost enough to get me to turn it off. But Howe's writing was good and the topics/tales/history that were told were very interesting. Mix that with the turbulent times and exciting and unbelievable characters Walker Howe had a great canvas with which to work. So good as a book, didn't quite reach that level as a audiobook. Still, I would recommended it, well worth the time.

In WHAT HATH GOD WROUGHT, Daniel Howe has managed to create an animated verbal film depicting a still-new nation writhing in the throes of its growing pains, still undecided as to its political structure, the extent of its religious toleration, its attitude toward currency and banking, or even its desire for a standing army.

As immature boys reacting to growing testosterone levels, various national leaders, supported by a goodly (though never unanimous) part of the country, charged blindly ahead toward their various egocentric goals of driving earlier inhabitants from their lands to make way for the "superior" white, male-dominated culture and to take what lands they wished from inhabitants who could not defend them from avaricious show more greed. Similarly, as with youth who have not yet lived long enough to have learned from life's lessons the meanings of "equality," "freedom," and "humanity," the young nation felt few pangs of guilt over human slavery or the belittling subjugation of women.

Perhaps the most beneficial result of reading about the country as it was only about 180 years ago (not long at all in terms of human civilization) is the realization that the nation that most of us readers were born in was not as we see it today and that our public school history books may not have been adequate to teach us all that we should know about our collective younger self. Howe is very adept at showing us truths about our historical selves, and he is equally adept at using the English language effectively and, at times, entertainingly, to do so. With this book, the author has created a motion picture in words--shall we call it a documentary film in print?--to explain a three-decade period in the "growth spurt" of the United States (which, as one comes to realize, were not all that much united at the time).

Some reviewers criticize Howe's work as drawing unflattering parallels between old presidents such as Andrew Jackson and James Polk and modern heads of state such as George W. Bush. First, let's dispense with this specious criticism by noting that Howe draws no parallels. Nowhere in the entire book is there any comparison with contemporary figures. On the other hand, if unilateral, ill-defined, and inadequately-justified acts characterize presidential administrations that are 180 years apart, the reader is perfectly free to infer whatever comparisons may come to mind. And this does bring up another thought: whether to be reassured that the nation has endured despite the selfish and bullying acts of former presidents and weak congresses, or whether to be dismayed that more than a century-and-a-half of progress has not freed the country from self-serving leaders. Howe's historical recitation may well leave the reader very conscious of this ambiguity as well as with a better understanding of the rocky roads traversed (jerkily and painfully at times) by the nation in the decades preceding the Civil War.

Another thought that Howe has left with me is the high irony of having Andrew Jackson pictured on the $20 bill. Sandwiched in with his racist imperialism is the fact that Jackson steadfastly opposed "soft" money or allowing the Federal government to issue currency of any sort! This militarist, who needlessly picked a battle with British forces near New Orleans in 1815 after peace had been declared (okay, admittedly he wasn't aware that the U.S. and Britain were no longer at war), would find today's system of currency and of national banks and of the FDIC itself abhorrent and would most likely disavow any connection with them. I shall probably never look again at a $20 bill without thinking of Howe's book.

WHAT HATH GOD WROUGHT is a heavy tome of 855 pages not counting the bibliographical essay and index, at least in terms of physical weight. However, it is far from heavy in terms of readability. The little irony of Andrew Jackson and the $20 bill is but a small sample of the fascinating "factoids" that the reader gleans from this book. Is it a totally objective picture of the nation during the first half of the 19th century? No indeed. How utterly boring that would be! Besides, what artist even pretends at total objectivity? I believe that most artists will tell us that the true artistry of their creations lies in their interpretation of the subject matter. In this instance, Howe applies the artistry of his expertise as a professional writer and historian to bring what, in other hands, might have been dreary facts to vibrant life and to help the 21st century reader see, understand and appreciate the 19th century picture he is viewing. When I was a student, I generally found history a boring subject. Not so now with books such as this one, and I heartily recommend WHAT HATH GOD WROUGHT as a fascinating and instructive read for anyone who cares at all about how this nation came to be as it is today and who just might care to help it avoid some of the pitfalls that befell it in its youth. show less

I would probably rate three stars the print edition. Narrator John Lescault is so monotone and rushed (I actually checked my app to make sure it wasn't sped up) that the textbook-like material lost any liveliness it had. Still, the subject matter is intensely interesting in appreciation the evolution of the United States. Historian Daniel Walker Howe illuminates the period from the battle of New Orleans to the end of the Mexican-American War, the transition out of the age of the Founding Fathers covering these presidencies:

James Madison (1809-1817)
James Monroe (1817-1825)
John Quincy Adams (1825-1829)
Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)
Martin Van Buren (1837-1841)
William Henry Harrison (1841)
John Tyler (1841-1845)
James K. Polk (1845-1849)
Zachary show more Taylor (1849-1850)

This was an era of revolutionary improvements in transportation (Jackson rode a horse into his populist and militarist reign of Indian Removal and left on a train) and communications (telegraph and daily newspapers) that accelerated the extension of the American empire. That acceleration is largely detailed in the merciless militarist imperialism of expansionist Polk who did more than Jefferson to extend the States. He examines the era's politics in an era when party politics evolved from reactionary organizations such as anti-Freemasons founding the Anti-Masonic Party in thw wake of assassinations and supposed conspiracies and the violent, nativist Know-Nothings and the factional Whig promoters of the American System. During this time there was a power of religion to shape many aspects of American life during this period, including slavery and antislavery, women's rights, and other reform movements. This is the era that led to -- relentlessly -- the Civil War and was thus the defined antebellum era between its idealistic founding and berfore its bloody maturity. show less

This is an outstanding history of the US between 1815 and 1848. Before I started this book, I had thought of this period as a tedious time when too little of interest occurred. As a result of Howe's book, I found this period to be full of exciting and important events. Although the book is 900 pages long (i.e. 300 pages per decade), I found the book to be such an appetizer that I now have a long list of other books I want to read. Howe's coverage is broad with discussions on the political, economic, military and cultural histories of the period as well as good overviews on slavery, native Americans, and Mexican Americans. The book was a pleasure to read.

A well written, comprehensive history of America between the War of 1812 and just before the Civil War. The book maintains a general chronological narrative, but chapters are organized thematically, alternating between politics, religion, and education/culture/technology. The chapter on literature was quite interesting; apparently, the United States only recognized U.S. copyright laws, so literature from Britain was printed en masse royalty free and almost pushed American authors out of the business entirely. This was cited as one of the reasons so many authors who are famous today (Poe, Melville, etc) died dirt-poor.

What I learned: everything old is new again. All of the outrages committed today, especially under the Bush show more administration, were perfected during this period of American history. If you think the Iraq War is a sham, just read the excuses James K. Polk used to declare war against Mexico and grab two-thirds of its territory. Then, as now, politicians and citizens were alarmed at these excesses in the use of executive power, but just as in today, these concerns didn't prevent anything.

I would have given this book a 4.5 if it was possible. It is definitely deserving of winning the 2008 Pulitzer Prize for history. show less

Really excellent overview of the period. Howe's obvious distaste for Andrew Jackson is a welcome corrective to our culture's celebration of the first truly, deeply authoritarian president; an overrated blowhard if there ever was one. Likewise, he rescues John Q. Adams and some other important but easily forgotten figures like Winfield Scott from their relative obscurity.

Howe argues that the revolutions in transportation (canals, railroads) and communication (telegraph especially) did more to transform antebellum America than the market revolutions typically put forward by other historians. I have a lot of sympathy with this view, especially since a burgeoning market economy is traceable in America much earlier than the period covered show more in this book.

The book can repeat itself at times, and Howe places an enormous emphasis on religion, especially on Protestant revivalism. While pointing out that it did a lot in the fight for abolition, Howe is a little too rosy and a little too sympathetic. He yammers on about its importance in the fight for reform movements, but never once mentions any downsides or drawbacks to the overheated religious climate.

I would also be embarrassed to be a professional historian and to have written the following about the US seizure of California:

"In the long run of history, however, in some respects, the seizure of California by the United States did work, as Polk expected, for "the general interests of mankind." For example, it enabled a strong stand [...] against the aggressions of Imperial Japan in the 1940s. God moves in mysterious ways, and He is certainly capable of bringing good out of evil (811)."

Puke. Though Howe spends more time discussing religion than most other historians of the period writing primarily narrative history, the treatments of non-evangelical Protestants, Catholics, and the small but growing free-thought movement are disappointingly breezy by comparison. On a positive note, he spends an appropriate amount of time talking about the growth and development of Mormonism, though he places himself in the odd position of justifying some of its more reprehensible practices, namely polygamy.

All of these are relatively minor squabbles with a masterful work of history. show less

A massive but not over-stuffed guide to a short but extremely active period in American history, and one often overlooked. This period saw the transition from the nation founded along the Atlantic to the one which spanned the continent, from a basically agricultural economy to a burgeoning industrial power. This period also saw the development of religious and social movements which are still active today, and also laid the groundwork for much of the current US political system. Howe's approach is, as he says in his conclusion, to tell a story, not to argue a thesis. He does not present an overarching Theory Of American History into which all of the events detailed can be shoehorned. Instead, he presents threads which seem to be related show more (a covert theory of history, but an unavoidable and uncontroversial one) and follows them in an order which is roughly chronological, but only very roughly. One of the advantages of Howe's approach to the material for the amateur historian (like myself) is that he is not afraid to revisit events, to plow over the ground from several angles. This allows the reader unfamiliar with the period (such as myself) to develop a more firm understanding of the overall picture than would be obtained by a more linear path. Quite worth the reading. show less