• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Current
  • Home
  • About
    • About Current
    • Masthead
  • Podcasts
  • Blogs
    • The Way of Improvement Leads Home
    • The Arena
  • Reviews
  • 🔎
  • Way of Improvement

Academic historians debate the legacy of David McCullough

John Fea   |  August 31, 2022

Before the whole James Sweet presentism thing went down, American historians were on Twitter arguing about David McCullouugh. Over at History News Network, Rebecca Brenner Graham calls our attention to the debate that took place in the immediate wake of David McCullough’s death.

Here is a taste:

Earlier this month, award-winning and best-selling author David McCullough died at the age of 89. Following his death, historians on Twitter shared condolences, memories, and critical reflections on McCullough’s role in shaping historical narratives and the professional motivations of individual historians. Perhaps not surprisingly, the confluence of personal experience, critique, and the politics of historiography and of speaking of the deceased came together in ways that occasionally became contentious. Yet, this contentiousness is important to consider.

In one exchange, Lindsay Chervinsky penned a Bulwark essay about how McCullough’s John Adams was so artful to her that she dropped her law school applications in pursuit of the historical profession. She thoughtfully included a paragraph criticizing McCullough’s last book Pioneers for its settler-colonialist assumptions. David Waldstreicher posted on Twitter that McCullough’s previous work was not so innocent, that it also perpetuated settler-colonialist assumptions, and that paying homage to McCullough’s body of work upon his death constitutes “founders chic.” Some Twitter fighters pointed out more positively that McCullough was a “gateway drug” whose books originally attracted current historians to pursue the profession, and for good measure some noted that Waldstreicher’s wording came across as sexist in the context of a woman historian’s discussion of her professional development.

Read the rest here.

Here is the twitter discussion:

In which Chervinsky fails to note that the problem with the pioneers book she admits was lame was the same as in the Adams book she loved: founder worship and character-driven narrative and lack of attention to contexts other historians have labored to explain. #founderchicagain https://t.co/GdPD4SXVHW

— D Waldstreicher (@DWaldstreicher) August 9, 2022

If anything dedicating an entire JER issue to one pop history book only proves LC correct in the vast impact of DM's work.

— Craig Bruce Smith (@craigbrucesmith) August 10, 2022

Her piece as I read it was that high-schooler LC found certain things in John Adams that inspired her career, which is true for lots of people. I can’t vouch for what she’d write in a critical review of the JA biography, but that wasn’t the charge for this essay.

— Joseph M. Adelman (@jmadelman) August 10, 2022

Some folks used to excuse silence by saying DM was supportive of scholarly institutions like the FF Papers projects & the AAS. And i conceded his niceness already. You can think I criticize too much, but there is a politics to who we praise, too. So much mutual fawning, here.

— D Waldstreicher (@DWaldstreicher) August 10, 2022

Because in this case, people don't know that those works were problematic because we didn't do our job of critically reviewing, debunking them. He got a free pass as it were, like nice old white guys did, and it gets worse when professionals praise him for writing well ad nauseum

— D Waldstreicher (@DWaldstreicher) August 10, 2022

Fascinates me how this defines a chosen preference or viewpoint – to define academic in a certain way – as "reality." Sounds like gatekeeping to me. Cool kids only invited to the public history show, and hands off, you stuffy professors, we're talking to the People. Nice othering https://t.co/Wh1LBm66BK

— D Waldstreicher (@DWaldstreicher) August 10, 2022

Exactly. And there but for the grace of few went I. https://t.co/AVA8qjyHpq

— D Waldstreicher (@DWaldstreicher) August 10, 2022

This is kind of personal, and it's an outsider story, but in the context of some fairly heated discussion on here today about the McCullough legacy, I'm unlocking it: https://t.co/9DwAKUd60o

— William Hogeland (@WilliamHogeland) August 11, 2022

"McCullough has to ignore several generations of progressive historiography to make Adams a champion of democracy." Interpretive differences indeed: I'm doing my job. "Founders Chic as Culture War," Radical History Review 84 (Fall 2002), 185-94. DM me for a pdf.

— D Waldstreicher (@DWaldstreicher) August 10, 2022

I know you reviewed John Adams and used the term “Founders Chic,” but I had trouble finding it when I looked for it months ago despite knowing it exists and with access to all the appropriate databases. So most people don’t know what you as a senior scholar in our field thinks.

— Joseph M. Adelman (@jmadelman) August 10, 2022

"McCullough’s ultimate subject is less John Adams than it is a certain sort of heroic greatness. Adams is of course not an arbitrary choice… war-embracing conservatives like Adams and Hamilton are up; pandering idealist peaceniks… tainted by racial politics are down." [2002].

— D Waldstreicher (@DWaldstreicher) August 10, 2022

if that is the case, it is not because it is hard to find. Radical history review is in 5 databases CUNY has and, ahem, it has been often cited. There it is in the footnotes of Historians on Hamilton, in which you have an essay! what is up with that joe?

— D Waldstreicher (@DWaldstreicher) August 10, 2022

So I think i understand (metastasizing) academic precarity, but not this (leading) public historian fragility that cuts off its hand to feed itself while creating a new club. Same thing? mutation? or revolution? all three? Would someone please write that essay?

— D Waldstreicher (@DWaldstreicher) August 10, 2022

This is kind of personal, and it's an outsider story, but in the context of some fairly heated discussion on here today about the McCullough legacy, I'm unlocking it: https://t.co/9DwAKUd60o

— William Hogeland (@WilliamHogeland) August 11, 2022

I’m not sure how to respond to this discussion. I’ve told my McCullough story here. I appreciated him as a stylist. And few historians have taught me as much as David Waldstreicher. He has spent a good part of his career challenging founders chic. I also feel bad for Lindsey Chervinsky who got caught up in all of this drama.

Filed Under: Way of Improvement Tagged With: David McCullough, David Waldstreicher, Founders Chic, historiography, John Adams, Lindsey Chervinsky