December 5, 2006
In Defense of Eric Foner Posted by Joshua Zeitz at 02:45 PM EST John Steele Gordon claims that Eric Foner characterized the Mexican Cession “as egregious imperialism.” In fact, in his Washington Post op-ed, Foner claimed no such thing. Assessing the Presidency of James Polk, Foner wrote: “Polk should be remembered primarily for launching that unprovoked attack on Mexico and seizing one-third of its territory for the United States. Lincoln, then a member of Congress from Illinois, condemned Polk for misleading Congress and the public about the cause of the war—an alleged Mexican incursion into the United States.”
Foner’s argument is not that the Mexican Cession was an example of brutal imperialism, but rather that it was a land grab initiated on a lie. He’s comparing George W. Bush’s spurious claims that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and ties to Al Qaeda to Polk’s claim, likely inaccurate or false, that Mexican forces had initiated an attack on American soil.
In an earlier post, Mr. Gordon snidely accused Foner of “historical malpractice,” which is a little bit funny, as Foner, who is regarded as the leading scholar of Reconstruction, is a Bancroft Prize winner with a Ph.D. from Columbia University, where he studied with Richard Hofstadter and now holds a chair in history. When Mr. Gordon wins his first Bancroft, he should feel free to judge Foner’s fidelity to the historical profession. Until then, he might want to feign a little more modesty.
“History, after all, deals with the past,” Mr. Gordon chides, “not the present, let alone the future. And history can turn on a dime.” In fact, Foner was careful to note exactly this point, explaining that Andrew Johnson was once regarded as a highly successful President, whereas today he is regarded as an abject failure. “It is impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050,” Foner admits. “But somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history.”
I would remind Mr. Gordon that he recently participated in an exercise that required him to rank in order of overall influence 100 Americans, including many who are still alive and whose work is not yet complete. (Hypocrisy?) If one of the best American historians of our time isn’t qualified to rank George W. Bush after his first six years in office, who is? Surely John Steele Gordon isn’t peerless.
|
