Nothing Like It In The World: The Men Who Built The Transcontinental Railroad 1863-69 (2001) - Plot & Excerpts
Subtitled (incorrectly) "The Men Who Built the Transcontinental Railroad 1863-1869", I knew I was taking a risk reading an Ambrose book, but the subject was compelling to me. I like trains, I like history, particularly 19th Century American History, so I figured I would give this a try.Not one of my better plans.It's pretty bad when the 20 minute animated Peanuts special on the same subject is more critical of the subject material than a book for adults. But sadly, this was the case. Rather than be a historian, Ambrose is a cheerleader for men who swindled workers, contractors, and the government for what he considers a greater purpose (namely the railroad) but I consider a horrible purpose--their pocketbook.Oh sure, he will mention the excesses of the bosses, particularly Doc Durant, who was the Ken Lay of his day. But they are almost told as asides, as being off the point. Yeah, he screwed the Mormans, but who cares? They built into Utah! Hooray!For a history book written in the 1950s, this would be acceptable and forgivable. But the tome, written in 2000, has all the modern scholarship of a Bill O'Reilly book. Everyone is put in the best light possible, except for those pesky Irish demanding higher wages (how dare they?) and the Mormans demanding their money (the cads!). When the praised frequently for being docile and industrious Chinese threaten to strike, Ambrose is all about praising the bosses for using strong-arm tactics to end it. "Thus did Charles Crocker and his partners show other employers around the nation one way--theirs--of how to deal with strikes." (page 242) Thankfully, he does not mention African Americans or slavery that often, because, had the railroad been built by slaves, I could easily see him writing, "but that was the only way to get it done" just as he defends the actions of the bosses with that same lame excuse.It's obvious that Ambrose and I do not share political philosophies, and that's fine. He spends pages in his afterward decrying the way that the teachers condemn the bosses to their students. A lengthy quote from page 377 will explain why the book is written in this manner:"With regard to the government bonds, generations of American students have been offered a black and white view. The bonds when not only to the CP and the UP buy to six companies chartered to build the second, third, and so on Pacific railroads. In the textbooks, as in the lectures, the government was handing out a gift. Now, for those of us who were in college in the 1950s, the classes were taught by professors who had taken their own graduate training in the 1930s and had thus been brought up to blame big business for everything that went wrong, especially the Great Depression. Those professors who were not New Deal Democrats were socialists. They all knew that it helps then anti-big business case if you can call those bonds a gift."So yeah, this is the story of the Transcontinental Railroad as seen through the prism of Rush Limbaugh. Which is fine as far as it goes, but don't complain about black and white reporting when the only gray in your version is the faded uniforms worn by the Southern veterans who helped build the Union Pacific. Yes, there is far more to the story than just "owners evil, workers good"--I completely agree. The problem here is that Ambrose swings the pendulum so far the other way that he actually fails to see why it was wrong--by omitting any harsh words--for Huntington to be looking at the Congress to see whose vote was for sale! That's not Ronald Reagan conservatism, that's modern political "pro-business" talk, and it's sickening.Even if you are so radically pro-business that the above doesn't bother you, what will is the writing style. It feels like Ambrose dictated the text with no further editing, leaving us with so many short editorial sentences (which is why his lack of one about the bribery is so glaring) as to be distracting. This book reads like your elderly uncle telling a story after Thanksgiving dinner--long and rambling, circling back on itself, repeating information he just said a few chapters ago, and of course with no room for anyone else's opinion. Never in this book does Ambrose reference another historian's work directly (there are footnotes, but I am referring to a real quote). Never, other than his dismissive "New Deal and socialists" comment above, are other opinions given sway. And as a result of this, I find his protestations of being unable to find anything from the Chinese or Irish workers rather hollow. This is especially true because in the last ten years, there are all kinds of Civil War diaries popping up all over the place. You mean to tell me that no one who wasn't an engineer, surveyor, or boss kept a diary? Not a single one?That's Ambrose's stance, and while it may be true, his book and evidence of other, similar time periods doesn't make it very easy to believe. We are not, after all, writing a book about building the Roman Road--this is not even 150 years ago.All of this pales in comparison, however, to Ambrose's treatment of the Indians. They are never given a single chance to defend themselves. Drawing his history from Hollywood movies,. Ambrose paints them as savage terrorists (replace railroad for oil pipeline and Indian for Arab and this book wouldn't read very different, if at all) who are only shown raping, pillaging, and murdering every chance they get, except for the Pawnee, who are depicted as loving the ability to take scalps of the "bad" Indians. The Indians must submit or be eliminated in the minds of the men making the railroad and Ambrose goes right along with that, not even giving a second to go over treaties, violations, or any act of cruelty by the soldiers that might have provoked the Indians in any way. They are bad, bad, bad. It's sickening to read--a modern book, even one favorable to the railroad, should never stoop to that level.I was honestly surprised this book didn't come with a set of pop-pops in UP colors. It's all about how great America used to be, how we suck now, and how anything that got in the way of such a grand project should have just accepted the manifest destiny that was the railroad's progress. The idea that it had to be done this way, which appears to be Ambrose's view, is complete bunk. So, basically, is this book. (Library, 07/08)Trebby's Take: Take it away! Do not, I beg you, bother to read this. And please, tell me what I should read instead. I like the subject but this was really bad.
I read this for my local library's nonfiction book club. Stephen Ambrose is a fairly famous non-fiction author, but this is the first time I have read one of his books. It will probably also be the last, though I may make an exception for Undaunted Courage: The Pioneering First Mission to Explore America's Wild Frontier.Let me share the point where I literally facepalmed: "George B. McClellan's uncoded orders were captured by the Confederates before the Battle of Antietam, giving Robert E. Lee a chance to read them." (pg 292)I noticed a number of editing mistakes, but this is a flat out historical inversion of a famous event before one of the best known battles of the Civil War (LEE's marching orders were found by McClellan before Antietam). I found an online article listing numerous factual errors and unclear wording in this book: http://utahrails.net/articles/ambrose...I've heard some criticism of Ambrose in the past, but was under the general impression he was a pretty good writer. Unfortunately, this book is dreadful in many ways. Ambrose jumps around too much geographically and chronologically. He also frequently repeats himself and hammers home his subtitle ("nothing like it in the world") at a rate that reminded me of the first Spiderman movie ("With great power comes great responsibility!"). Ambrose also seems strangely enamored with Brigham Young.For all the flaws in this book, it is an adequate overview of the subject. This is the second book I've read on the transcontinental railroad; the first was a decade ago and I don't remember the name or author (but it had a yellow cover!). There were some things Ambrose gave more coverage of than I remember that other nameless book covering, such as the difficulties the Central Pacific faced in the Nevada desert. And Ambrose does give a strong sense of his theme: that the railroad was an outstanding accomplishment by the laborers who built it.Many members of the library book club deeply disliked this book, but some did enjoy it. I wont be recommending it to anyone and it has severely soured me to reading anything else by this author.
What do You think about Nothing Like It In The World: The Men Who Built The Transcontinental Railroad 1863-69 (2001)?
I can see a piece of this railway line from my office window and really enjoyed learning a bit more about its history and original construction. If nothing else, be impressed by the ambition, work ethic and feats of engineering displayed during this incredible undertaking.I am surprised by a lot of the negative reviews, particularly those who criticized the book as not being history and the writer not passing judgement against some of the players involved. I think this was supposed to be a historical narrative and Ambrose did a good job presenting his research in an entertaining way that allowed me to make my own conclusions.I certainly came away with a poor opinion of several characters, but I also wonder if whether or not completely honest men would have ever completed the project, or even started. Perhaps it was in part the potential for the sizable gains afforded by lying, deceit and crookedness that lured these men into making personal investment in what many considered an insane venture destined for failure?Sure, there could have been a bit more from the Native American perspective, but perhaps that is its own book, or perhaps there is not much written history on the subject, I don't know. The railroad was, without a doubt, one of the biggest contributors to the current state of modern America and all the good, bad, sad or otherwise that comes with it.
—Andy
I enjoy reading about American History and had never read anything about the building of the transcontinental railroad.I hadn't realized that Lincoln had helped get the project started during the Civil War and how huge an undertaking it was. The race to complete the railroad was actually an effort by 2 different groups - one building west and the other building east. What little I thought I knew, was that the railroads were financed by "railroad barons" - that was partially true, however the US government contributed a lot of land and funding as a transcontinental railroad would allow faster and less expensive movement for troops.There's a lot of good information about the building of the railroad and the excitement it created throughout the country at the time. The arrangement of the book - a chapter about the Union Pacific (buiding towards the west) and then a chapter about the Central Pacific (building from California towards the east) made sense, but if I had put the book down for any length of time, I found that I had to refresh myself as to who the major players were for each railroad group. Also due to this arrangement, the ending of one chapter didn't necessarily make me feel as though I "needed" to read the next chapter right away. I had no issues putting the book down and walking away for any length of time.I would recommend this book to people who enjoy US History or are interested in railroads.
—Stacey
A good friend recommended this because he liked it. I think the attraction would be the details of the remarkable transcontinental railroad was built. No doubt it was an amazing engineering achievement and an audacious idea. If you like to know a lot about how a railroad of such magnitude could have been built essentially without power tools, this is the book for you.Frankly, I got a bit bored with all of the details and wanted more human interest. Also, something about Ambrose's writing makes me feel like he only wants to focus on the glorious engineering of the American and make light of some of its tragic consequence. It is subtle, to be sure. Ambrose acknowledges that he wanted to focus on how the railroad was built, rather than the broader issues, but I think that decision made the story bland.It is fair enough to build a story about an amazing effort that changed the country, and to honor those who made it happen. But it is equally important to recognize the some of the offsetting negatives that come with it and far more interesting to examine the human consequences and social forces involved.For example, he makes clear that the "Indians" were a "problem" and were viewed as "savages" (even using the word without quotes), but little more. He acknowledges that the Indian way of life was being destroyed, but moves on with no commentary. Another example: Ambrose made it clear that the work was grueling, with the gandy dancers exposed to the elements six days a week, doing everything manually, and many dying. But other than a journalistic mention of it, he doesn't seem to dive into the human toll and the social consequences of workers being treated that way.
—Andrew
