40 pages • 1 hour read
Sarah VowellLafayette in the Somewhat United States
Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2015A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Summary
Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Key Figures
Themes
Symbols & Motifs
Important Quotes
Essay Topics
Tools
BetaThemes
American Mythology
Part of Vowell’s aim in Lafayette is to show that the revered Founding Fathers were just men, despite the almost godlike status with which Americans regard them today. The tale of the revolution is often told as a gritty victory won by fierce, untrained colonists who were reporting to infallible, insightful commanders. The truth is that the war’s first few years were largely failures.
In the example of Valley Forge, the starving, almost-naked men who suffered through the winter are spoken of as examples of American toughness, and many view their trials as an example of their devotion to the cause of independence. However, Vowell quotes source material demonstrating that the suffering of Valley Forge was a matter of bureaucratic mismanagement. Some of the difficulties experienced by the soldiers were a result of poor, or nonexistent, planning.
Vowell’s history books often work as counter narratives to the widely accepted stories one might learn in school. In Lafayette, she pays special attention to the fact that French forces saved the Americans more than once. Without the thousands of reinforcements supplied by France, America most likely would have lost the war and remained a part of the British Empire.
War as an Opportunity
Lafayette was unabashed in his pursuit of personal honor and glory. Knowing that abandoning his wife and family would be met with disapproval, he asserted that he “did not hesitate to be disagreeable to preserve my independence” (33).
The Frenchmen who traveled with him from Charleston had also come to America “expecting to be rewarded with rank and riches” (76). Vergennes used the war as an opportunity to nurture his longstanding grudges with the British. On a larger scale, Vowell calls the enmity between the British and French “a bottomless, interminable, renewable resource of hate” (38) for which the war provided structure.
Others, such as George Washington, served out of a sense of duty, even though the war would also afford him profound leadership opportunities as the commander of the army and then as the president.
The Disagreeable Nature of Politics
While discussing a disagreement between the Quaker John Dickinson and John Adams, Vowell writes:
How sad is it that this tiff sort of cheers me up? If two of the most distinguished, dedicated, and thoughtful public servants in the history of this republic could not find a way to agree to disagree, how can we expect the current crop of congressional blockheads to get along? (46).
Despite the status with which Americans view the Founding Fathers today, they were fallible, often impatient, men who were susceptible to petty arguments and poor judgment. Whenever Vowell illustrates a conflict between two of the figures in the book, she reminds the reader that anyone who believes modern American politics has reached a level of venom never been seen before is mistaken. Partisanship has existed in America ever since there have been politicians.
Learning the Wrong Lessons from History
Vowell encourage the study of history but also of working to learn the most useful lesson from history. In Lafayette, she uses the Boy Scout Jamboree at Valley Forge as an example of learning the wrong lesson. The Jamboree is marketed as helping the boys “take away from Valley Forge a greater understanding of what makes America the greatest nation in the world today” (151). Whether any nation is the greatest nation is debatable, but Valley Forge is, to Vowell, an example of governmental incompetency.
The Quaker man, Densmore, argues that Americans see history as a chronicle of endless war. He believes Americans erroneously learned that war was the only way to achieve independence and that the Revolutionary War is an example of American greatness.
Vowell presents the American focus on independence from Britain as a tool that distracted—and may continue to distract—Americans from pondering the lessons of slavery. To assume that the American victory was proof that America valued independence above all else is to ignore that Americans were hypocritical because they excluded slaves from their definition of independence.
For history to be useful, it must be interrogated. Vowell’s friend Wesley quotes an influential history teacher who “challenged the entire class to find mistakes in the textbook. You don’t just accept anything as truth. You challenge it” (114). Challenging history means to engage with it and study diverse source material. To accept one narrative without questioning it or comparing it to other perspectives is almost to guarantee a lack of understanding.
