C. Vann Woodward is arguably American's greatest historian of the 20th Century. For sure he is the most acclaimed and recognized Southern historian of the 20th Century. This is the first full blown biography of which I am aware. James C. Cobb, Univ. of Georgia, is a great historian in his own right.
In the preface the author says that Woodward's star somewhat dimmed in his latter years as he seemed to get more conservative Also, Woodward did not warm to multiculturalism. I wonder if he approved of Black History Month. He was a strong integrationist. We are all one in America.
His early interest was literature, not history. He slowly ambled his way into becoming an historian. He was a good writer from the get-to, but not a good public speaker.
A native of Arkansas, Woodward began his academic career at a small Methodist college Henderson-Brown in Arkadelphia, Arkansas. From there he migrated to Emory. He was a voracious reader, a real book-worm. His father was not an intellectual, but his uncle was and the uncle was the reason he moved from Arkansas to Emory University. At a young age he visited Europe. His horizons were broad early: No way he was going to stay in Arkansas.
C. Vann Woodward was a legendary historian up there with the greats of the 20th Century. P. 1
His Phd was ubdifferenrtly acquired at UNC. P. 3
Comer Vann Woodward was born in Vandal, Cross County, Arkansas, on November 13, 1908. P. 9
Details of his family history do not really interest me.
From Henderson-Brown in Arkansas to Emory to UNC.
Woodward was involved in issues and politics in Georgia while at Emory. The author's details are confusing and not worth my reading time to follow. P. 28
I am mostly interested in this book for commentary and evaluation of his work within the historical community.
How Woodward came to write a biography of Tom Watson. P. 32
To Chapel Hill. P. 37
This book is loosely written.
As he began his graduate work at UNC the fall of 1934 he was discouraged to discover stale Southern thinking in Chapel Hill as if the faculty were only interested in traditional Southern historical defense. P. 39
As Woodward began his graduate work at UNC the Dunning School was in full control in the South.
The author does a good job of describing the hold the Dunning School had over Southern historiography in the 30's. He sort of insinuates that Woodward disagreed but I am not sure if did disagree in fact.
Woodward was an ideas person, not a nuts and bolts person. P. 45
Despite being a Southerner and literature being his first love, he could not finish Faulkner's Sound and Fury. Nor Margaret Mitchell though he adored Thomas Wolfe. P. 46
It seems that Woodward barely passed his PHD oral exams as if he were almost indifferent to it. He was not perhaps an historian's historian. P. 50
He seems to have ignored and/or confused great swaths of history. P. 50
In his Phd exams he was long on promise and long on generalizations but short on details. He did not know many facts. P 50
His dissertation on Tom Watson was supervised by Howard K. Beale.
Fascinating that he started preferring literature over history which to me explains his carelessness over historical facts. Perhaps he put some literature storytelling in the Watson book.
No comments:
Post a Comment