Eric A. Byar Lincoln-Way East High School

Carl Abbott's book, Political Terrain, is an urban study in the history of the city of Washington D.C.; trying to define its role as a "national" city as opposed to a "regional" one. In doing so, Abbott's thesis seems to be that it is both. His idea that there is a "layering" of the influences upon Washington from regional (southern) in its birth, to national in the aftermath of the Civil War with the Radical Republicans and at the start of the New Deal. The idea that the city of Washington has evolved over time to a truly national, urban, cosmopolitan, and modern city is not entirely true according to Abbott because of this layering.

The chapters of the book are mostly split into periods of time where changes in our country's history affected Washington D.C., except for the first and the last chapter. The first chapter discusses previous and recent literature on urban history and how it deemphasizes the role of region. The more modern the city has become, according to these authors, the more of its regional, social, and cultural biases of Washington has gotten wiped out. Abbott argues that cities such as Washington tend to retain their regional tendencies even after modernization, and this is where the term "layering" comes in. Also, the author focuses on the dueling of the north and east versus the south in trying to claim the identity of the city. It has been widely written (David McCullough in Truman, for one), that Washington changed to a truly national city when the New Deal came to bear on our nation's capital, and became a firmly established one during World War II. Abbott contends that the North has used Washington from this point forward as their vehicle to put their stamp on the identity of the capital. The last chapter reinforces Abbott's belief that the city is inherently southern by nature, yet the capital region remains national. This apparent fracturing of city and capital in Washington seems to be the best way of looking at Washington D.C. today.

The remaining chapters speak of the history of the District of Columbia in the 200 years from its birth around 1800 to 2000. The Alexander Hamilton deal with Thomas Jefferson to allow the new capital to be along the Potomac River to appease the southerners for their support of Hamilton's economic plans is explained. Abbott makes the argument, however, that the District of Columbia was as much western and central as it was southern, and looking at a map at this time I have to agree. The thought that the District of Columbia would be become a major trade center because of its proximity as a tidewater town to the coast from the Ohio River is promoted. (This thought was extinguished when the canals linking the Ohio and the Potomac fell short and the commerce went to New York instead.) As the time of the Civil War loomed ahead, the city was seen not as a commercial center but as a dividing line between the north and south. After the Civil War during Reconstruction, the Radical Republicans tried to put a northern influence on the city with a huge public works project which bankrupted the territorial government. Self-rule was then taken away from D.C., only to be returned in the 1970s. As in most of the south, when the influence of the Radical Republicans waned and Reconstruction ended, segregation took hold in the nation's capital, creating a contradiction in democracy for the center of our government. Southern ties grew strongly during this time. An example Abbott gives us is that the Southern railroad (with its "Gateway to the South... logo) put their corporate headquarters in Washington. As time went on, the capital grew in terms of educational and scientific endeavors, providing the "information" center of the country. As stated before, Washington D.C. became larger both in population and in northern influence with the advent of the New Deal, to be accentuated with World War II. The "split" between southern-influenced city and northern-influenced capital came about.

I found this book compelling as it made me look at the history of Washington D.C. as well as other cities and regions in a different light. To tell you the truth, I thought the the thesis was too narrow to bring about a compelling study, but the plethora of social and cultural themes and examples, as well as the political ones, made the case for regional bias as a determinate for the soul of the city, which in turn made the topic viable. As a high school teacher, excerpts of the book could be used in my class to embellish the subject matter of different times of American history. I found the examples given in the book concerning race and the post-Reconstruction period compelling as an example of the contradiction in American liberty due to segregation in the nation's capital. I found the discussion of the deal that Hamilton and Jefferson made to bring the capital to the Potomac region had implications on this topic to make it worthy to discuss in my American History classes. One question I have is: Why wasn't the achievements of Benjamin Banneker, the African-American mathematician and inventor who surveyed the city for Pierre L'Enfant, mentioned in the book? The book itself is a wonderful supplement to any high school or college history or urban study class. I enjoyed it immensely.

Return to Reactions to Assigned Readings index