Customer Reviews:
 Good Government Is a Rare Thing October 27, 2006
9 out of 14 found this review helpful
Historians write with a slant. Sometimes it's hard to detect, but in this book it screams out from the page. The writer is a Leftie. Nothing wrong with that, so long as it's either disclosed or obvious, and it's obvious here. We read about the rotten politics of the Gilded Age from the point of view of the Blacks excluded from society and the ballot. We read about the Progressive Era from the point of view of the labor unions. All their struggles were immensely harrowing, with most of the country opposed to their interests, and armed men of all descriptions eager to kill them. We also read about the economic status of the country, heavily emphasizing the Panic and depression of the 1870s and 1890s, the arrogance of the wealthy "captains of industry" who refused to set an 8-hour day, eliminate child labor, or recognize unions, and how big corporations "owned" legislatures before U.S. senators were elected by the people. For every amelioration wrought by an administration, such as Teddy Roosevelt's against the "trusts" or Woodrow Wilson's provision of a progressive income tax, there were offsetting events, riots, lynchings, segregation, and cries of disloyalty from the Right.
A more current edition would no doubt take note of Wilson's stroke, his instability, stubbornness, and mental incapacity years after he came down with the flu during the pandemic, because these factors gravely influenced the defeat of the League of Nations portion of the Versailles Treaty. We know now that impairments showed up in many people long after they recovered from the acute state of the disease. Finally, the book, it seems to me, too heavily stresses upheavals, crashes, and widespread distress. Isn't this the era that the Reaganites and the Disneys wanted us to revive and return to? A personal note: as an undergraduate at UC Berkeley, I took a course in International Relations taught by a Professor Russell, who as a young man had attended the Versailles Peace Conference. Guess I'm getting old!
 Tendentious and scattered March 26, 2006
10 out of 24 found this review helpful
I am an academic, but US history is not my field. I wanted to read a good general history of the US from the end of reconstruction to the end of WWI and so I picked up this book. I can't say I much cared for it. It is hard to turn issues like bimetalism and greenbackism into a compelling story, so it is not surprising that Painter falls short. But his obviously leftist account struck me as too biased -- despite the fact that I share his political beliefs. The book attempts to cover a little bit of everything that happened in this period, but ends up feeling more scattered than comprehensive, with very brief one and two page sections on various subjects crowded together in chapters with very little to hold them together. The prose is clear and readable, but hardly elegant and engaging. If you want an engaging general history of this period, I would advise you to look elsewhere.
America's Greatest Hits, 1877-1919 April 3, 2000
35 out of 46 found this review helpful
Standing at Armageddon, by Nell Irvin Painter, covers American history from Reconstruction to the end of World War I, outlining American progress many fronts. At different times, it works as pieces of social, political, and economic history. Painter's attention to detail informs the reader with razor-sharp accuracy, but also at times provides too much information, revealing Painter's personal biases. In outlining this period of American history, Painter asserts that America was performing a tight-rope walk on the brink of destruction. America's omnipresent danger of collapse is portrayed through looks at social, economic, and political history, but the three are sometimes interconnected and some are presented more than others. In the mix, reform and inequality are paramount. Painter belabours the plight of women and blacks especially, devoting a chapter to each. Using many resources, Painter explores the aspects of social reform, including comprehensive reports of the working class, and the struggle for reform, this book is easily called social history, perhaps at the expense of political and economic history. Painter discusses the plight of women with especial detail, showing all sides of suffrage and oppression. Her female subjects range from Jane Addams to Emma Goldman, displaying convictions, goals, and accomplishments of each. Her thoughtfulness in this type of integration shows she has a flair for demonstrating societal matters. As a work of political history, SAA is fine. Important acts of legislation and politicians are not left out of the mix, and are integrated well with social aspects. With regard to legislation, no important bill is left out. The book nicely traces the rise and fall of the Civil Rights Act of 1975 and then follows up, discussing the "separate but equal" and Jim Crow laws that followed. Seamlessly, Painter follows up with the effects of said laws on society, furthering this book as a piece of social history. Economic history is present in this book, but is the servant of social and political history. For example, the bimetallism debates of the late 19th-century are explained with regards to society, such as farmers and rural citizens, and politics, such as the international effects of bimetallism, but the book does not speculate on bimetallism itself. The book also discusses economic factions such as the Greenbackers, but does so with regard to the groups themselves, instead of their economic principles. This book is not a work of economic history, but it does effectively integrate it with other subject matters. SAA covered a great many different topics within its time period, but concentrated most heavily on social history. Political history is also used, discussed, and mentioned. However, the economic history as a servant to the other two lessens its value as an independent topic, though it is nonetheless worthwhile. Though Painter tries mightily to cram a lot between the covers of this book, she doesn't spend as much time on some topics as one might expect. For example World War I is crammed into about 25 pages, whereas the 1890's depression, women's suffrage, and racial inequality are all discussed in more detail. This can be construed as a shortcoming, but considering the number of other books on World War I, and the relative scarcity of books combining information on suffrage, racial tension, and the 1890's depression, it is understandable. It is important that Painter's book is not a comprehensive report of 1877-1919, rather, a selection of various topics from that period. All subjects can be discussed in either more or less detail, and with only a few discrepancies, Painter strikes a nice balance. While reform is an omnipresent theme, especially in the era of SAR, Painter sometimes leaves gaps. Her treatment of the conservation movements of the early 20th century are interesting, but she leaves out looming subjects, including the Hetch-Hetchy debate. She also discusses strikes, but never puts them into perspective with eachother. That weakness is also evident in her handling of the topic of the International Workers of the World - it is often mentioned but little-discussed. However, the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union is revealed in great detail. Painter's feminine bias towards history, revealed in the way she attaches a feminine viewpoint to everything, is usually interesting, but rarely in perspective with larger issues. Perhaps the best thing about SAA is topic selection. While at certain moments they seem illogical and myopic (25 pages for WWI! ), they ultimately provide a clear view of SAA's time period and act as excellent intellectual springboards, informing you of a topic, telling you important details and piquing your curiosity should you choose to pursue a subject further. On any topic, SAA provides a fair idea of whatever the subject is, inasmuch as 30 or so pages will allow. Aside from that, there are no great shortcomings to SAR. As a whole, SAA is pretty optimistic. No matter what topic, one gets a sense of hope. Painter allows for a subjective look at history, although emphasizing the good over the bad. For instance, even the coverage of the depression of the 1890's quickly gives way to the hope and good fortune of "Coxey's Army," and sums up with the fact that Jacob Coxey died that the age of ninety-seven, completely vindicated. SAA is not a tragedy. It describes the hard times, scandals, and evils that accompanied this period, but never despairs for healthy resolution. SAA hopes for the best, and describes it. All in all, Standing at Armageddon is an impressive work. Tackling topics ranging from Bolshevism to the Spanish-American War is no small feat, and Painter succeeds. Aside from a few grievances (unequal coverage of topics, etc.,) SAA offers a sweeping view of 1877-1919 that is practically comprehensive. More information would make the book bulky and unwieldy, and less would be inadequate. Nell Irvin Painter should congratulate herself on writing a book deftly covering so much between covers that are so close together. In the end, Standing at Armageddon walks the same tight-rope that America did at the turn of the 20th century and rarely
 I LOVE books! December 1, 1999
7 out of 66 found this review helpful
When I was a young boy my father used to read me lots and lots of books as I lay in bed on a cold winters night. I like this one the best.
This book was good.I read a lot of books and I like this one November 3, 1999
4 out of 52 found this review helpful
This book was good. Painter is a good author
|
