Forrest McDonald - Recovering the Past: A Historian's Memoir

I picked up too late on Professor McDonald, long-time faculty member at the University of Alabama now retired.  He calls himself a conservative historian.  We could have argued.

One problem with this book is that nowhere in the pages does he define what he means by "conservative historian."

The book has pictures of McDonald with Presidents Nixon, Bush, and Reagan.  Ugh!

"And that is where the Germans went wrong.  History is a mode of thinking that wrenches the past out of context and sequence, out of the way it really happened, and reorders it in an artificial way that facilitates understanding and remembering."  P. 5

He supported Goldwater in 1964.  LBJ's administration was a disaster.  Really, Dr. McDonald?  Viet Nam yes.  You think Goldwater would have done better?  What about Medicare, the '64 civil rights act, and the voting rights act.  Yes, you are right-winger, sir.  P. 110

John Hope Franklin's interpretation of Reconstruction was in line with the Dunning's 1907 version?  I. don't. think. so.  P. 117

Agrees with Hamilton that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary and pernicious.  P.153

Justifying "states rights."  P. 156

In his book We The People: The Economic Origins of the Constitution, McDonald argued that Charles A. Beard (in his book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States) had misinterpreted the economic interests involved in writing the Constitution. Instead of just two interests, landed and mercantile, which conflicted, there were three dozen identifiable interests that forced the delegates to bargain.
McDonald and the late Grady McWhiney presented the "Celtic hypothesis" stating that the distinctiveness of Southern culture derives largely from the majority of the Southern population being descendants of Celtic herdsmen while the majority of the Northern population was the descendants of farmers.  (From Wikipedia)

McWhiney was once head of the League of the South.  OH, my!

This Celtic Thesis business is the scholarly essence of Southern apology.

Now I know my old Winfield Dr. Michael Hill got his racism.

McDonald certainly has a high opinion of his views.

The 1780's leading up to the Constitution were a complicated time.  I doubt I can come to a conclusive understanding of those years.  P. 12

Criticizes Stampp's interpretation of Reconstruction published in 1965.  McDonald is clearly out of the mainstream of contemporary scholarship on the Reconstruction period.  He has no mention of Eric Foner.  P. 118

Southern slaves were better off than Northern free industrial works.  Ha, ha, ha.  As soon as you read something like this, you know you're dealing a person who refuses to come to terms with America's history of slavery and segregation.  P. 119