How Does One Become A Great Historical Figure?

The Insight of an American Historian, H.W. Brands

Having read the work of many popular historians of American history, I've concluded H.W. Brands stands out among them. Biographers tend to fall in love with their subjects, a condition David McCullough mildly suffers from. In reading his Pulitzer-winning masterpiece John Adams, a critical thinker could not help but notice the author would have us believe politics played no role in President Adams' appointment of a large number of midnight judges, shortly before his adversary (Thomas Jefferson) was inaugurated to take his place as president. 

So what if Adams was politically motivated in stacking the courts with judges of his ideological bent the night (or weeks) before leaving the presidency? As president, he had the right to make those appointments. Yet, McCullough felt the need to defend his biographical subject, even on such a benign issue. A cynic may think the author has become the parent of his subject. Such parental protectiveness is less apparent in Brands' works of history (if it is detectable at all).

H.W. Brands is one of my favorite historians because he tackles both sides of every major controversy without imposing his judgement heavily on one side. His handling of President Andrew Jackson's role in the forced removal of the Indian nations to places west of the Mississippi, what we might today call ethnic cleansing, (without the genocidal purpose which often accompanies it) is fascinating because Brands shows us the dilemmas each of the major participants had, and what their options were. The result was that the tragedy of the Indian removal was conveyed to the reader without a biased or slanted judgement toward one party or another. I happen to believe the state of Georgia behaved shamefully and fraudulently in its instigation of that crisis, but Brands didn't force me to make that conclusion.

Recent history is the litmus test of a historical writer's even-handedness. During a time-killing walk through the history section of a local Barnes and Noble, I perused a copy of Brands' American Dreams: The United States Since 1945. Subjecting it to the ultimate test of fairness, I went straight to the chapters covering 1980 - 2009. I discovered the book is striking for its even-handedness in treating presidents as controversial as Reagan, the Bushes, and Obama. The same can not be said for other historians who have written good work on the same history, Paul Johnson and Sean Wilentz to name a few. 

Although recognizing Reagan never saw a weapons order he didn't like (contradicting his pledge to dramatically reduce the deficit), Brands conveys the Reagan presidency on all its merits, good and bad. By contrast, Paul Johnson's overwhelming praise for Reagan, and his excessive sympathy for Nixon, is matched by his dripping contempt for FDR and JFK. Nevertheless, Johnson's History of the American People is a fantastic (and vital) exploration of American history, aside from its flaws.

Sean Wilentz's Age of Reagan has the same problems, although from a liberal angle. His chapters on Reagan are chock full of stories about government corruption, yet that theme disappears when the reader gets to the Clinton chapters, as if the arrival of a Democrat president suddenly cleanses the sins of a corrupt bureaucracy. For ideological balance, Brands' work stands out from the rest. Brands is the type of writer who would come across as liberal to a conservative reader and conservative to a liberal reader, a quality unique and refreshing in an age of partisan extremes coloring information coming from today's media.

H.W. Brands has written biographies on Benjamin Franklin, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR, and is currently working on one about Reagan. Taken together, these six biographies will represent a view of the entire history of America through the prism of the presidency (excepting Ben Franklin, although he was a dominant political figure of his age).

Brands is a professor of history at the University of Texas. His students are mainly undergraduates. He is a prolific speaker at colleges across the country. Many of his public lectures are available on youtube. From listening to his lectures, one gains remarkable insight into the way a presidential historian assesses leadership qualities. Regardless of one's aspirations in life, Brands helps us understand the qualities that make someone a great historical figure.

Of particular interest is what Brands calls "the half-step rule." Have you ever realized you may be conflicted in your own views of a historical figure? For example, there are some qualities of that person's character you find admirable, and other qualities which contradict, or work against the quality you think is likeable in that character? To be more specific, let's take Thomas Jefferson's lofty words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal" with his vehement denunciations of slavery in that he "shuddered" to think "God is just" and that there will be a "reckoning" regarding slavery. Now, on the other hand, how do we square Jefferson's words with the reality that he owned well over a hundred slaves, and was dependent on their labor until the day he met the maker he knew would bring the reckoning for it?

Doesn't it seem contradictory that history is moved by some of the very people you would least expect to move it? If so, Brands' answer is the half-step rule. He explains that history moves in half-steps. For a person to become a truly great historical figure, he or she must have one foot planted in the future, while keeping the other foot rooted in the present. If both feet are planted in the future, a person's contemporaries will think he or she is out of touch with reality, or too radical, and therefore impressionable minds will not be impressed. A person who is a full-step ahead of his times will never have the opportunity to become a historical figure, at least not a great one because his impact will not be large enough. 

The key to greatness is to be a half-step ahead of the times, keeping enough common ground with contemporaries to convince them of the change you want them to accept. Future generations will struggle to square what they will see as contradictions in your character, but the fact that they will struggle with it (at all) is a testament to your impact as a great historical figure. 

If Jefferson hadn't owned slaves, he never would have been among the planter class that ruled Colonial Virginia. Therefore, Jefferson would never have been elected to Virginia's House of Burgesses. From there, it follows that he never would have been selected to go to the Continental Congress. Therefore, he never would have been appointed to the committee drafting the Declaration of Independence. Finally, Jefferson would never have set America on the ideological footing of liberty and equality for all (men), putting slavery on the permanent defensive. Other men may have accomplished this, but Jefferson would not have, had he not owned slaves. A great figure is not good in all his attributes, yet without certain (if unpleasant) attributes, he never becomes great.

Patriot Thought