The Books of My Life: Manifest Destiny (McNaught et.al.)

History may or may not be written by the victors. It is generally written by both and is almost always written, in these modes, in nationalist religious terms. Most histories, however, are mostly written by insiders and critical insiders. Mormon insider-insiders, true believers in the LDS faith, and insider-outsiders, true believers often nutted by some degree of reality, are usually the ones who write Mormon history. Jewish insider-insiders and insider-outsiders are usually the ones who write Jewish histories. American insider-insiders and insider-outsiders usually write United States history.

There are exceptions to this general rule, of course. A number of mostly Canadian scholars have written comparative analysis of Canadian and American history and aspects of Canadian and American history from settlement to today. Across the pond British scholars David Reynolds and Maldwyn Jones have written general histories of the United States. In the Great White North noted University of Toronto Canadian historian Kenneth McNaught, along with John Saywell and John Ricker, have written a general history of the United States, Manifest Destiny: A Short History of the United States (Toronto: Clarke, Irwin and Company, revised edition, 1980). 

It is always interesting to read books on American history and national histories in general by outsider-outsiders or outsider-insiders rather than insider-insiders and insider-outsiders for a variety of reasons including the potential ability of insider-outsiders and outsider-outsiders to escape, to some degree, the socialised for conformity sacred and profane civil religion boxes most citizens of every country are placed within and from which they cannot generally escape. In this context McNaught et.al's history of the US is a fascinating and interesting read.

McNaught’s outsider-outsider history of the United States is organised around a broad theme, manifest destiny, something that gives the book narrative coherence. McNaught et.al. trace American manifest destiny or imperialism in its multiple forms from 1763 to 1980, just before the election of Ronald Reagan as president of the United States. They explore American geographic or colonial imperialism, an impulse grounded in the belief that the US had by divine or nature’s right the land that stretched from sea to shining sea. They explore American cultural imperialism with its notions that American “democracy”—itself a fiction—and the American economic system-- usually Ebenezer Scrooge or Mister Potter style capitalism—was god’s gift or nature’s gift to mankind and that humankind should, whether they want it or not, be given that gift through “convincement” or by coercion. 

McNaught et.al's brief or short history of the United States has a lot going for it. It is a coherent text written largely by a single author organised around a common and consistent theme. It eschews the great men approach to history, though it doesn’t ignore important political and economic and to a lesser extent, cultural figures in US history, in favour of a history cognisant of the broader political, economic, cultural, and demographic forces impacting US history and placing boundaries around most of those embedded in it. It explores the connections between economic elites and political elites (one of the reasons the US is an oligarchy rather than a democracy) that have long dominated American politics and American political culture. It makes relevant comparisons between Canadian and US History.

Not everyone will be happy with McNaught et.al's approach to American history including those wedded to the great men approach to American history, an approach that is generally more mythical and religious like than empirical. Others will find McNaught et.al’s  analysis of, for example, Reconstruction outdated in light of post-1980s historical and sociological scholarship on Reconstruction Still others will decry the lack of attention to contemporary identity that one finds in so many of the everything but the kitchen sink behemoths that pass for college textbooks today. What none of the critics can deny, however, is how much substantive punch McNaught puts into 371 pages. 

Finally, the question must be asked as to whether McNaught et.al’s outsider account of American history is all that different from critical insider empirical accounts of US history? I don’t think it is. Like them its interpretations are grounded in empirical reality, something mythic insider accounts rarely are. I suppose this should give comfort to those, like myself, argue that we can have dispassionate social sciences, a position that is on the outside looking into a world where culture and ideology often construct the political, economic, and demographic “realities” of many if not most.

Recommended for those seeking a critical history of the US that nicely outlines the significant events that are at the heart of American history even though it is a bit dated here and there.