Young attempts to answer several in what is part historiography, part biography, and part history: How is memory of an event created? Under what circumstances and for what motives do people latch onto and reform what he terms "private memory" into "public memory"? How much of our American historical memory is embellishment, glossed over, colored to fit an idealistic picture of our Forefathers and...
more Young attempts to answer several in what is part historiography, part biography, and part history: How is memory of an event created? Under what circumstances and for what motives do people latch onto and reform what he terms "private memory" into "public memory"? How much of our American historical memory is embellishment, glossed over, colored to fit an idealistic picture of our Forefathers and their Patriotic Good Deeds?
Young's book is split into two parts. In the first he investigates the life of George Robert Twelves Hewes, a poor Boston shoemaker whose long, curious name was even more comical when applied to his 5'2'' frame. Hewes was nothing special - in fact, he fits the archetype of the "everyman" of the Revolution to a tee. He was of low social status, virtually no means, yet in the main events leading up to and including the Revolution, Hewes was present as witness (sometimes less directly than others). In the second part, Young takes a look at the reasons behind the reevaluation, revision and recapturing of the memory of specific events of the Revolution to fit various motives.
What led Young to start his investigation into the memory of the Revolution and the Tea Party in particular were two biographies about Hewes that appeared in the mid-1830's: James Hawkes' A Retrospect of the Boston Tea-Party and Benjamin Bussey Thatcher's Traits of the Tea Party. In his research, Young discovered that up until that point the phrase "tea party" had not been used in print. Young's question: If this was indeed the first instance of the phrase in print, why?
To a large degree, Hewes' position as the "sole survivor of the Tea Party," so to speak, was simply due to his longevity. He was nearly 100 years old at his death; in the 1830's his excellent health and mental acumen allowed his private memory of the Revolution to be developed into an altogether new public memory. For much of the fifty years or so that had passed since the Boston Massacre, the Tea Party, etc., the events were not held in the same reverence as they are today. The reasons for this were several and rather fascinating, and Young does a good job of answering the questions he raises.
Basically, "Shoemaker" is about how an ordinary man's memory becomes extremely valuable as a reference due to his merely outliving his peers, and how and why posterity sometimes grabs hold of the past for use in the present. Were Hewes' memoirs valuable as contribution to public memory of the Tea Party and the Revolution? Certainly. At the same time, was his private memory affected by the passage of time and the idealism which tends to coat the events of the past? Almost undoubtedly so. A concise, easily digestible book written in a clear style, Shoemaker is an interesting metahistorical investigation into our collective American historical memory.
hide