The edges of character

Developing borders helped form the American experience.

July 01, 2007|By Frank Wilson, Inquirer Books Editor

How Our Borders
and Boundaries Shaped
the Country and Forged
Our National Identity
By Andro Linklater

Walker. 328 pp. $25.95

You would think that someone who had, among other things, painstakingly mapped the borders of Pennsylvania, meticulously laid out the street plan for the city of Washington, and traced the first national border of the United States would be a well-known and highly regarded figure.

But I had never heard of Andrew Ellicott before opening The Fabric of America, Andro Linklater's splendid new book. This seems even odder when you consider that Ellicott (1754-1820) was born and raised in Bucks County.

Linklater gives Ellicott the starring role in the first half of his book, and it's a wise choice, not only because Ellicott's achievements were impressive and consequential - as Linklater writes, "his lines helped define the shapes of no fewer than eleven states and the District of Columbia, as well as the southern and northern frontiers of the United States" - but also because Ellicott was an intriguing figure, and Linklater is highly skilled at character portrayal:

At the heart of Ellicott's character lay a contradiction, between his deep-seated desire for regularity and a tendency to emotional extravagance. A career devoted to mapping the unmapped expanse of the wilderness often seems to have been the only way that he could satisfactorily reconcile two conflicting impulses.

But, while Ellicott plays a crucial role in Linklater's book, The Fabric of Americais not a biography. It is, rather, an account of the extent to which clearly demarcated boundaries, of both the states and the nation, contributed to the formation of the American character. Historian Frederick Jackson Turner famously attributed that character to the independent spirit of those who settled the frontier:

"The frontier is productive of individualism," Turner wrote. "The tendency is anti-social. It produces antipathy to control, and particularly to any direct control. The tax-gatherer is viewed as a representative of oppression."

Linklater, however, demonstrates pretty conclusively that Jackson got it exactly wrong:

1 | 2 | Next »
|
|
|
|
|