Jeffrey P. Brown

The Pursuit of public power : political culture in Ohio, 1787-1861

Many of the political institutions that would dominate nineteenth-century America (and the Midwest in particular) originated and first evolved in Ohio. The Pursuit of Public Power explores the origins and nature of political culture here from the American Revolution until the Civil War. Twelve essays examine topics such as voting practices, the role of the state in national economic development, the relationship between religion and politics, the rivalries between individual political leaders and between communities competing for social and economic dominance, the impact of slavery on politics, and the development of stable political systems within a rapidly changing state. Representing the mature assessments of historians who have long studied antebellum politics, this collection will appeal not only to readers interested in Ohio history, but also to those interested in nineteenth-century American politics.

Roundtable: Strategies on Learning about Public History: Three Case Examples from the NEH Summer Institute on Teaching Public History

During summer of 1984, a special Institute on Teaching Public History was held at Arizona State University. Sponsored by the National Council on Public History, it was funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities. Thirty participants, faculty members at four-year colleges and universities, were chosen from a large number of applicants to spend almost five weeks in pursuit of public history in Tempe, Arizona, one of the nations warmer summer addresses. Five historians served as teaching faculty for this assemblage of historians: G. Wesley Johnson from the University of California, Santa Barbara (director); Noel J. Stowe from Arizona State University (associate director); Michael Scardaville, University of South Carolina; Patricia M. Melvin, University of Arkansas; and Anna Nelson, George Washington University. Stowe also served as host for the meeting, which was part of NEHs summer humanities institute series. In addition, nine guest speakers were flown into Tempe from across the country so that participants could hear varied testimony by public historians practicing on a broad spectrum. About a dozen local resource specialists from the Phoenix area were included in special workshops conducted in cultural resource management (Scardaville and Melvin), business history (Stowe), and community history (Johnson). The object of the institute was to introduce different facets of public history to a varied audience. Some of the thirty participants were already doing projects in public history, others were assigned to develop public history programs and courses by their universities, and still others were doing reconnaissance for possible future involvement. All thirty shared a lively sense of curiosity and displayed a good sense of humor in the face of daily 110 degree temperatures in Tempe. The Public Historian presents here a roundtable based on reflections of three participants several years later, after the ideas, issues, and problems at the Summer Institute had become integrated into new courses, seminars, and programs. Judging from reports, questionnaires, letters, and personal feedback from participants, the institute succeeded in preparing instructors for new roles in public history at their respective colleges. It was not so clear, however, whether the institute presented any unified body of knowledge. As is often typical of a newer field of history, more questions were raised than answers given. In fact, the queries and critical comments sent the institute faculty scurrying for new insights. Now, after several years of experience, participants may understand the difficulty of implementing public history ideas. In this roundtable we sample the exposure and reaction of three participants, both to the Summer Institute and to their own development of public history afterwards. Ideas and impressions gained at the institute seemed to filter downward slowly; what occurred almost instantly was the growth of a network of persons to lend support to one another as the theory of the institute was placed next to the reality of new courses and programs. Jeffrey P. Brown,