Robert J. Samuelson: Our History by the Numbers
Let us now praise the newest edition of "Historical Statistics of the United States," whose five volumes and 1,781 tables are about to hit libraries and universities all over the country. We study history for many reasons: (1) it's interesting; (2) it helps explain who we are and how we got this way, and (3) with luck, we may learn from the past. But the discovery of history is always an exhausting project—part adventure, part ordeal—because the past is shrouded in its own secrets of time, place, belief, motivation and personality. The new edition of "Historical Statistics," the first since 1975 and 11 years in gestation, makes the search a bit easier.
You may regard numbers as drab, but they can fascinate by illuminating the past in two ways. One is to confirm, qualify or contradict things we think we "know." For example, we all "know" that the Civil War was hugely murderous. But do we grasp how murderous? In 1860 the United States had 31.5 million people. In the next five years 364,511 Union soldiers and sailors died; Confederate deaths (including those in prison camps) totaled at least 159,821. Now skip to World War II. By 1940 the population was 132.6 million; U.S. war deaths were 405,399. As a share of population, the Civil War was more than five times as deadly.
The other way that numbers inform the past is to raise questions about it. We stumble across an intriguing statistic and ask: why was that? Since World War II, no president has outdone Dwight Eisenhower in successfully vetoing congressional legislation. He vetoed 181 bills and was overridden only twice. By contrast, Ronald Reagan vetoed 78 and was overridden nine times; Bill Clinton's numbers were 36 and two. What explains Eisenhower's record? (The veto champion was Franklin Roosevelt, with 635 and nine overridden. The current president hasn't vetoed any bill; if he never does, he'd be the first president to do so since James Garfield in 1881.)
If you peruse "Historical Statistics," you'll encounter many revealing numbers:
***During the past century, religion has become more organized in the sense that more people have joined a formal church. In 1890 only about 34 percent of Americans belonged; by 1989 that share was 60 percent, down slightly from its peak of 64 percent in 1970. This decline may reflect the rise of small storefront congregations, which are missed by membership surveys....
Perhaps you doubt you'll peruse "Historical Statistics," especially at a drop-dead price of $825 from Cambridge University Press. Well, for numbers buffs, there's another choice. Unlike earlier editions, this "Historical Statistics" also comes in an online version that, presumably, will be purchased by most universities, colleges and many libraries. Many ordinary students and scavengers of facts—not just academics—should be able to tap this treasure of figures....
We always need to know more. History is an endless blending of fact and imagination. Since the last "Historical Statistics," the data on America's past (from obscure sources) have grown enormously. When the Census Bureau couldn't find the funds for a new edition, a group of academics—guided by the husband-wife team of Richard Sutch and Susan Carter from the University of California, Riverside—decided to fill the gap. The resulting compilation enlarges our rearview mirror and, perhaps, hints where we're headed.
Read entire article at Newsweek
You may regard numbers as drab, but they can fascinate by illuminating the past in two ways. One is to confirm, qualify or contradict things we think we "know." For example, we all "know" that the Civil War was hugely murderous. But do we grasp how murderous? In 1860 the United States had 31.5 million people. In the next five years 364,511 Union soldiers and sailors died; Confederate deaths (including those in prison camps) totaled at least 159,821. Now skip to World War II. By 1940 the population was 132.6 million; U.S. war deaths were 405,399. As a share of population, the Civil War was more than five times as deadly.
The other way that numbers inform the past is to raise questions about it. We stumble across an intriguing statistic and ask: why was that? Since World War II, no president has outdone Dwight Eisenhower in successfully vetoing congressional legislation. He vetoed 181 bills and was overridden only twice. By contrast, Ronald Reagan vetoed 78 and was overridden nine times; Bill Clinton's numbers were 36 and two. What explains Eisenhower's record? (The veto champion was Franklin Roosevelt, with 635 and nine overridden. The current president hasn't vetoed any bill; if he never does, he'd be the first president to do so since James Garfield in 1881.)
If you peruse "Historical Statistics," you'll encounter many revealing numbers:
***During the past century, religion has become more organized in the sense that more people have joined a formal church. In 1890 only about 34 percent of Americans belonged; by 1989 that share was 60 percent, down slightly from its peak of 64 percent in 1970. This decline may reflect the rise of small storefront congregations, which are missed by membership surveys....
Perhaps you doubt you'll peruse "Historical Statistics," especially at a drop-dead price of $825 from Cambridge University Press. Well, for numbers buffs, there's another choice. Unlike earlier editions, this "Historical Statistics" also comes in an online version that, presumably, will be purchased by most universities, colleges and many libraries. Many ordinary students and scavengers of facts—not just academics—should be able to tap this treasure of figures....
We always need to know more. History is an endless blending of fact and imagination. Since the last "Historical Statistics," the data on America's past (from obscure sources) have grown enormously. When the Census Bureau couldn't find the funds for a new edition, a group of academics—guided by the husband-wife team of Richard Sutch and Susan Carter from the University of California, Riverside—decided to fill the gap. The resulting compilation enlarges our rearview mirror and, perhaps, hints where we're headed.