Writing a volume for the Oxford History of the United States is an exercise in both synthesis and ambition. The series has long set the standard for American historical writing, and to join it is to enter a multigenerational conversation about how the ...
Writing a volume for the Oxford History of the United States is an exercise in both synthesis and ambition. The series has long set the standard for American historical writing, and to join it is to enter a multigenerational conversation about how the story of the nation’s past should be told. In the interview that follows, Peter Mancall reflects on writing for that tradition, the historians, and reading habits that have inspired and shaped his thinking.
1. You’ve spent decades studying early American history. What first drew you to this period, and what continues to hold your curiosity after all these years?
I became an early American historian during graduate school, lured into the field at first by Bernard Bailyn, who became my advisor. I had not studied this period as an undergraduate, but it sparked my interest almost immediately when I got to my PhD program. I found an arena to investigate the issues that drove me to become a historian—the chance to explore the lives of lesser-known people whose actions shaped North America.
2. Your book opens the Oxford History of the United States—a series known for reshaping historical understanding. What does it mean to you to set this foundation for the entire narrative arc of early American history?
The OHUS has a long and well-deserved reputation as a source of sparkling narratives about the American past. As a historian who had moved towards writing narrative, which I have previously done in three books that focused on what an individual’s life could tell us about a crucial topic, I could not resist the chance to write a narrative history that stretched across a continent—and beyond. Having now finished this book, I am in awe of those who wrote these earlier volumes. Each is a work of great scholarship, but just as important, compelling style. The art of history, as others have said more elegantly than I can, lies in the telling of the story as much as the contents. It is daunting to think that my book will be the first in a chronological sequence that tells a history of the nation over several thousand pages. But I hope that my emphasis on contingency and agency, the concepts that drive my approach to writing about the past, set the stage for the many unexpected and unpredictable turns told in the luminous books that follow mine.
3. The OHUS series aims to integrate narrative storytelling with rigorous scholarship. This obviously requires both a scholar’s discipline and a storyteller’s instinct. How has your approach to writing evolved over the course of your career?
I began to write narrative about 25 years ago for a book about the younger Richard Hakluyt, who, among other things, was an avid promoter of the English colonization of North America. While writing that book, which appeared in 2007, I became increasingly interested in questions central to writing narrative, especially trying to develop characters and scenes to move the story forward. That led me to two tragic figures—the explorer Henry Hudson, not during the years of his glory but instead on his last voyage when he could not escape a world he had created; and Thomas Morton, a lawyer exiled three times from early New England. In these works, I hope I have shown readers how individuals wrestle with the hands they must play, sometimes with cards they have dealt to themselves.
4. Many readers associate early American history with the English colonies, but your work ranges far beyond that. Which non-English actors—Indigenous, African, or European—do you think readers will be most surprised to encounter?
Since historians of early America have long been integrating non-English actors into our stories about the colonial era, I am not sure that readers will necessarily be surprised to find Indigenous, African, and European figures jostling in the pages of my book. They may be more surprised by my insistence that we need to tell the stories of everyone who lived in this era, which means a great deal of attention in this volume to Indigenous peoples, who outnumbered everyone else across the centuries I cover in the book. The smaller stories I tell reveal depth and complexity and, I hope, bring to life a narrative that needs to trace the arc of the story from the so-called 30,000-foot perspective. I hope I have succeeded in telling that large history through the accumulation of many intimate moments.
5. If readers take away one big idea from Contested Continent that reframes how they think about American history, what do you hope it will be—and why is that idea particularly relevant now?
I think that those who have looked at early American history have been shaped by three overarching explanations for what happened. The first emerged at the time: Europeans took control over the Americas because this was what the Christian God dictated. The second came later and became associated with scholars like Frederick Jackson Turner: the history of North America, and especially that of the United States, witnessed a clash of civilizations and cultures, with Europeans and Euro-Americans emerging on top because of the advantages they allegedly possessed. The third, the dominant narrative in recent years, emphasizes that European conquest was largely the result of the spread of infectious diseases, part of what the historian Alfred Crosby labeled “the Columbian Exchange.” Each of these narratives presumed European success in the Americas. But as I hope I reveal in Contested Continent, there was no certainty that Europeans would prevail in the contest for the Western Hemisphere. I end my book with a series of events from 1675 to 1680 to suggest that tumult, not stability, defined the American experience, and that it had for centuries.
6. Are there historians, past or present, whose work you feel especially in conversation with in Contested Continent?
I hope that my book will be looked at with other wonderful, long-form versions of early American history. I hope that my book is read alongside Bernard Bailyn’s The Barbarous Years, a brilliant narrative focused on the experience of people in eastern North America from the time of the founding of Jamestown in 1607 to the era of rebellion in the 1670s. My geographic and chronological framing is different from Bailyn’s. For example, my story starts much earlier than his. But when he wrote that book near the end of his storied career, I saw it as reflecting his uncertainty about the fate of our society. My book, too, reflects ambivalence about the future and tries to explain the causes for what some would see as our current predicament, namely the dangers that humans pose to our planet and too frequently to each other.
7. What kinds of books—historical or otherwise—do you find yourself returning to for inspiration, whether for craft, perspective, or pleasure?
I find inspiration in what many people refer to as creative non-fiction, especially stories focused on individuals or specific moments. The writers who embody this approach for me are people like Jonathan Harr, especially in A Civil Action, and Patrick Radden Keefe in Empire of Pain. Harr once gave me great advice about how to start a book, which I took to heart and have shared with many others over the years. I also turn to great works of fiction that get at issues about human motivation and character. While writing Contested Continent, I looked again at Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird and Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby—not for their plots but instead for how each, in relatively short works, was able to summon complex portraits of characters in vividly drawn scenes. Even on a large canvas, the small scenes matter.
Jon Parshall has spent his career asking big questions about how wars are remembered, argued over, and ultimately understood. Best known for his meticulous work on the Pacific front of World War II, Parshall has long been drawn to the structural questions of how wars are fought and won. His upcoming, highly illustrated book marks the most ambitious project of his career so far, distilling years of research into a single, sweeping year. In the conversation that follows, Parshall reflects on the historians who shaped him, the challenges of thinking on a global scale, and what surprised him most along the way.
1. You’ve spent decades studying World War II. What first drew you to this period, and what continues to hold your curiosity after all these years?
I’ve always been interested in ships, and building a kit of a Japanese heavy cruiser as a fifth-grader was sort of the entry point to World War II for me. What remains endlessly fascinating about it is that our understanding is constantly changing. I’m very much of the belief that history is a journey; it’s always dynamic, always evolving. That’s what keeps it fresh and engaging.
2. You’ve written extensively about the Pacific War, including the award-winning Shattered Sword. What drew you to 1942 as a standalone subject, and why do you see it as the pivotal year that defined the global trajectory of World War II?
I came out of Shattered Sword mulling the nature of “turning points” and “decisive battles” within the war and wanting to educate myself regarding the larger structure of 1942. The year begins with a global Allied dumpster fire, yet ends with the Allies on the offensive basically everywhere. How did that happen? What was going on “under the hood,” so to speak? It turns out: a LOT. There’s no simple answer. That’s what the book addresses.
3. 1942 is a year in which the balance of power shifted across multiple theaters—Pacific, Eastern Front, North Africa, and the Atlantic. Which theater or campaign did you find most challenging to narrate in a way that made sense as part of a single worldwide story?
Without question, the Eastern Front. There are two fundamental problems, the first being a lack of sympathetic characters, as we watch the minions of one horrid despot battling the minions of another horrid despot. Moreover, the enormity of the theater often means reaching for unsatisfying narrative generalities—like one army “slicing” through another army. It’s difficult to construct a story that feels personal or relatable. The solution lies in providing enough micro-views of the situation on the ground to make conveying the larger events comprehensible.
4. 1942 includes hundreds of your own maps and timelines—a rare level of visual narrative in military history. Why was it important for you to build the story of the war year with this kind of granular, visual clarity?
I’ve always loved maps. I’m a visual learner. Shaded-relief maps help to convey, even if only subliminally, things like, “Oh, yeah, the Japanese couldn’t advance this way, now could they, because there are some hella big hills over here!” Likewise, the monthly timelines help readers understand not only chronology but also the connection points between different theaters. The war was vast—it was happening everywhere all at once. Seeing events laid out temporally helps create a framework for understanding their relationships.
5. What was your motivation for making such a comprehensive account? At over 1,200 pages, do you not have concerns about inflicting muscle strain on your readers?
The fundamental problem is one of creating an engaging narrative. If you do this story at too high a level, it becomes abstract, generalized, and boring. I wanted to dedicate an appropriate level of detail to the battles. But doing that for every major battle worldwide during the year inexorably leads to more page count than I had originally hoped for! If you’re going to do that to a reader, you have to give them lively dialog, lots of maps and pictures, bits of humor (I hope!), and other Easter eggs. There’s a pertinent quote from Pink Floyd in the book, another from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and a third from J. R. R. Tolkien. Can you find them?
6. Are there historians, past or present, whose work you feel especially in conversation with in 1942?
The two that have most influenced my thinking this year are Richard Overy and my friend Richard Frank. Overy and I have similar views regarding the necessity of describing the war in its totality in order to understand its outcome. One theater or battle won’t do. You must look at the whole enchilada. Rich and I share a common understanding, forged over many years and beers, regarding the importance of the Asia-Pacific theater to the overall trajectory of the war, particularly early on when the USSR was on the ropes.
7. If readers take away one big reframing of how to think about World War II from 1942, what do you hope it will be?
Allied victory was neither inevitable nor obvious at the beginning of the year. Likewise, there was no single turning point, but rather dozens of inflection points that ultimately reshaped the war’s trajectory from one of Allied ruin to Allied triumph.
8. What kinds of books—historical or otherwise—do you find yourself returning to for inspiration, whether for craft, perspective, or sheer pleasure?
Great question! I still re-read The Lord of the Rings almost yearly. I love a good fantasy novel. Other than that, though, it’ll probably be something World War II-related—the “Need-to-Read” pile never seems to get smaller!
When one reads thousands of pages of transcripts of Henry Kissinger’s phone conversations from his time in the Nixon and Ford administrations, as I did, one gets a pretty good sense of his personality, temperament, and character. The man had an appealing sense of humor and a quick wit, which he sometimes used to break tension. One can even see his humor on display during pressure-packed crises (of which there were many). He could be charming and self-deprecating, and he was an inveterate flatterer. He heaped praise on President Nixon, who was aware that it was often phony and doubted Kissinger’s loyalty. He was invariably deferential to Nixon, always addressing him formally as “Mr. President.” His standing with Nixon was always a paramount concern.
Kissinger often affected intimacy with people (“I’m talking to you as a friend”), particularly with journalists, as if he were taking them into his confidence, which was one way he seduced them. Journalists tended to be deferential to him, and many sought his “guidance.” He had considerable powers of seduction through his charm, flattery, humor, feigned forthrightness, and sharing of intimacies. He was prone to flirting with female journalists, including Barbara Walters, who was upset by false news stories linking them, and he enjoyed his playboy reputation. Of course, his famously powerful and quick mind is evident in his phone transcripts.
Also evident is his impressive capacity to handle an enormous workload and withstand an endless series of headaches while working long hours. Kissinger seemed to have boundless stamina and to require little sleep. He was an extraordinarily hard worker. His days were long. He had superior diplomatic skills, aided by, among other things, his people skills, fortitude, brilliance, grasp of every conceivable issue, and bargaining acumen—not to mention his duplicity and double-dealing. And he was an adept bureaucratic infighter in Washington.
Kissinger could be impatient, sarcastic, and derisive with his aides, highly demanding and even abusive. He threatened firings when particularly upset. He was often arrogant, caustic about the “morons” and “lightweights” in the Nixon administration that he had to put up with, and contemptuous of them. He repeatedly threatened to resign, mainly over his difficulties with Secretary of State William Rogers, who he thought was an idiot and disliked intensely, and over his treatment by Nixon.
He was deceitful and a habitual liar; he appeared to have little hesitation about lying. Kissinger lied frequently to colleagues and journalists. A master, serial leaker, he told the journalist Mary McGrory “he does not leak anything,” and he might denounce to a colleague a news story that bore his fingerprints as “a disgrace.” And he lied repeatedly about his involvement in the Nixon administration’s secret wiretaps of officials and journalists, false-reporting system for the secret Cambodia bombing, and internal discussions about Watergate, and about his knowledge of the Plumbers extralegal investigations unit and his former aide David Young’s participation in it.
Kissinger was also a backstabber and two-faced. Not many colleagues escaped his barbed tongue behind their backs. And he was secretive and conspiratorial. It was not unusual for him to complain about people conspiring and waging campaigns against him. Like Nixon, he could appear paranoid about enemies. (He once remarked to his assistant Alexander Haig, half joking, that acute paranoia in Washington would be diagnosed as excessive complacency.)
He was strikingly callous to the deaths and suffering inflicted by his and Nixon’s policies in Vietnam. He can be found in his phone conversations exulting over all the dead Vietnamese bodies piled up following U.S. bombing strikes. He once threatened not to airlift imperiled and retreating South Vietnamese soldiers out of Laos during the disastrous 1971 invasion of Laos.
He placed great value on being “tough” and “strong,” and being willing to act “brutally” (he expressed disdain for “pansy” language). He could be ruthless and seemingly unimpeded by morality, secondary as it was to both America’s interests as he saw them and to his own interests.
Kissinger never intended for the transcripts of his phone conversations to be released publicly. He had claimed that they were his personal papers and donated them to the Library of Congress under an agreement that gave him control over them. But after the National Security Archive, an organization that fights to limit government secrecy and increase the public’s access to government records, contested Kissinger’s control of the transcripts with the National Archives and State Department and exerted legal pressure on them to recover them, the two agencies asked Kissinger to turn over the transcripts to them. Based on legal advice, Kissinger ultimately complied. It was a crowning achievement of the National Security Archive.
Kissinger was surely nervous about releasing his phone transcripts. He’d been worried about the release of Nixon’s own tapes, aware that they could be damaging to him; he had advised destroying them. But while he said that the tapes of his phone conversations had been destroyed after being transcribed, the transcripts were now out in the world, a great gift to history.
In honor of Women’s History Month, we’re celebrating trailblazing paths taken by women whose courage and vision transformed societies. This reading list features five biographies that highlight women who resisted systemic barriers, confronted entrenched hierarchies, and fought for the dignity and safety of others. From activists and reformers to scientists and cultural leaders, these stories reveal how women—often overlooked or silenced—have pushed boundaries, protected the vulnerable, and inspired movements for justice. Together, they remind us that progress toward gender equality has always been driven by those who refused to accept the limits imposed on them.
1. A Slumless America: Mary K. Simkhovitch and the Dream of Affordable Housingby Betty Boyd Caroli
In this biography, Mary K. Simkhovitch emerges as a pioneering force in the settlement house movement and a central architect of American public housing reform. Betty Boyd Caroli traces Simkhovitch’s founding of Greenwich House in 1902 and her influential role in shaping early 20th‑century urban policy, including her leadership in New Deal housing initiatives, the creation of the National Housing Conference, and co‑authoring the landmark 1937 National Housing Act. Balancing an unconventional marriage, family life, and a relentless public mission, Simkhovitch became widely admired—once even depicted as a “Wonder Woman of History”—for her ability to confront urban poverty while advocating fiercely for immigrant communities and affordable housing. This biography, rich with historical insight, positions her as an enduringly relevant figure whose work helped define the federal government’s responsibility to support low‑income families.
2. American Infidelity: The Gilded Age Battle Over Freethought, Free Love, and Feminism by Steven K. Green
American Infidelity traces the dramatic late‑19th‑century clash between a dominant evangelical culture and a rising coalition of freethinkers, feminists, and sexual reformers who sought greater personal liberty and challenged religious authority. Historian Steven K. Green follows this struggle through the activists who fought for birth control, divorce reform, and women’s autonomy, as well as the moral crusaders—including Elizabeth Cady Stanton—who worked to suppress them. Revealing how these “infidels” pushed for a more open, rational, and egalitarian society, Green shows how their movements were ultimately stifled but left a powerful legacy that continues to shape today’s debates over reproductive rights, censorship, and the role of religion in public life.
3. COMBEE: Harriet Tubman, the Combahee River Raid, and Black Freedom During the Civil War by Edda L. Fields-Black
Winner of the 2025 Pulitzer Prize for History
This book recounts the often‑overlooked story of Harriet Tubman’s 1863 Combahee River Raid, a daring Civil War operation in which she led Union spies, scouts, and two Black regiments up South Carolina’s river to destroy major rice plantations and liberate 730 enslaved people. Drawing on newly examined documents—including Tubman’s pension file and plantation records—historian Edda L. Fields‑Black, a descendant of one of the raiders, brings to life the enslaved families and communities who escaped to freedom that night and later helped shape the Gullah Geechee culture. Through this vivid reconstruction, the book reveals one of Tubman’s most extraordinary military achievements and the enduring legacy of those who fought for liberation.
4. The Things She Carried: A Cultural History of the Purse in America by Kathleen B. Casey
The Things She Carried reveals how purses, bags, and sacks have long been critical tools for women asserting privacy, autonomy, and political power in America. Kathleen Casey shows how these objects—from 19th‑century reticules to the handbags carried by immigrant workers, civil rights activists, and Rosa Parks herself—became symbolic extensions of women’s rights struggles, allowing them to navigate male‑dominated spaces, protect personal dignity, and challenge discriminatory systems. Drawing on sources ranging from vintage purses to photographs, advertisements, and legal archives, Casey uncovers how women of all backgrounds used the bags they carried to assert agency, cross restrictive social boundaries, and shape pivotal moments in the fight for gender and racial equality.
5. Frances Oldham Kelsey, the FDA, and the Battle against Thalidomide by Cheryl Krasnick Warsh
This biography tells the remarkable story of Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey, the FDA medical officer who, in the early 1960s, prevented the dangerous drug thalidomide from being approved in the United States, sparing countless Americans from catastrophic birth defects. A pioneering scientist who earned advanced degrees in an era with few female researchers, Kelsey resisted intense pressure from Merrell Pharmaceutical and spent nineteen months demanding solid evidence of the drug’s safety. Her unwavering stance not only kept thalidomide off the U.S. market but also spurred sweeping reforms in drug regulation through the 1962 Drug Amendment, which established modern clinical trials, informed consent, and stronger FDA oversight. Drawing on archival records and family papers, the book reveals her lifelong commitment to ethical science, her battles against industry hostility and institutional barriers, and her enduring legacy as a vigilant protector of public health.
Laurence Sterne, the eighteenth-century author of Tristram Shandy and A Sentimental Journey, might seem an unlikely figure to capture the imagination of early Soviet intellectuals in the 1920s and 1930s. The Bolshevik Revolution dismantled the cultural institutions of the old regime, displaced much of the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia, and set out to create a new literary canon for a new Soviet reader. From the outset, literature was subject to political control.By the 1930s, the state increasingly defined a canon of approved literary classics, while the newly-established doctrine of Socialist Realism began to dominate official literary institutions.
What place could there be, in such a system, for an eccentric Yorkshire clergyman whose popularity in Russia had peaked more than a century earlier, at the turn of the nineteenth century? And yet, in the two decades following the 1917 Revolution, Sterne’s name began to appear with notable frequency in lecture halls, private correspondence, diaries, and unpublished manuscripts. Laurence Sterne and His Readers in Early Soviet Russia: The Secret Order of Shandeans traces Sterne’s reappearance in early Soviet culture. Drawing on letters, diaries, translation drafts, marginal notes, illustrations, and editorial correspondences, the book reconstructs how Soviet readers encountered Sterne and what they sought in his writing.
In mid-1920s Leningrad, an undergraduate student Edvarda Kucherova wrote to a friend: “You cannot imagine how much I adore Sterne. In a very personal way and with such gratitude, for he helps me live. Thanks to him, it is so clear that everything that is closest and most desirable is always so far away from us. Sterne taught me to understand and endure this.”
One of Sterne’s most influential early Soviet advocates was Viktor Shklovsky, a literary critic associated with the experimental literary criticism of the 1920s. In a 1921 pamphlet devoted to Tristram Shandy, Shklovsky presented Sterne as a ‘radical revolutionary of form’ whose digressive prose anticipated the poetry of the Russian Futurists and paintings by Picasso. Sterne’s Soviet afterlife, however, was not confined to the avant-garde circles. By the 1930s, as official discourse turned against modernism, Sterne continued to be read, but attention shifted from questions of form to philosophical and psychological concerns. Despite this change, one association remained constant. Sterne was repeatedly linked, whether approvingly or critically, with artistic and inner freedom.
The book takes Sterne as a point of entry into the everyday intellectual life of Soviet translators, critics, and readers. The circulation of works by the ‘freest writer of all times’ (as Friedrich Nietzsche once called Sterne) an author with no obvious utility for the Soviet state, allows the reconstruction of a form of intellectual life that existed alongside, and partly outside, the enforced unanimity of Stalinist culture.
Readers turned to Sterne for many reasons. In 1937, the celebrated Soviet writer Isaac Babel and his wife, Antonina Pirozhkova, consulted A Sentimental Journey while searching for a name for their newborn daughter. Among those drawn to Sterne in the 1930s was Gustav Shpet, one of Russia’s leading philosophers before the Revolution. Excluded from academic philosophy under Soviet rule, Shpet turned to literary translation as a means of both economic and intellectual subsistence. In his notes to an unfinished translation of Tristram Shandy, he read Sterne as a belated Renaissance humanist, an author who sought distance from his own times by immersing himself in older comic traditions. Shpet’s fate, however, underscores the limits of such refuge. Arrested during the Great Terror, he was executed in 1937.
The book follows figures from very different backgrounds. One of them is the Ukrainian critic Stepan Babookh. Before becoming a literary editor, most notably one of the editors of the 1935 Russian edition of A Sentimental Journey, he had been a worker, soldier and Bolshevik activist. Babookh discovered English literature while being held as a POW by the British during the war, first in an internment camp in India and later in a London prison. A self-taught intellectual of the new Soviet generation, he chose to abandon a Party career in order to become a scholar of English literature.
In the late 1930s, Izrail Vertsman, a scholar of Marxist aesthetics, defended the first Soviet doctoral dissertation devoted to Sterne. Vertsman belonged to a group of critics known as “the Current”, led by philosophers Mikhail Lifshitz and Georg Lukács. These intellectuals advocated more sophisticated forms of Marxist criticism, opposing the crude (in their view) sociological approaches of the 1920s. For Vertsman, Sterne embodied the spirit of creative renewal he associated with “the Current”, yet his private letters reveal the difficulty of reconciling his deep admiration of Sterne with the intellectual constraints of the Stalinist 1930s.
Through these intertwined lives, the book reconstructs what it calls the secret order of Shandeans—an imagined community of readers ranging from literary scholars, translators, and high school students to soldiers and Gulag prisoners. For many of them, Sterne’s humour offered an imaginary escape at a time of political uncertainty and mounting restrictions on creative freedom, when public expressions of individuality were becoming increasingly dangerous.
