The middle group of American historians

Preface

History is now being written in the United States by a larger number of persons than ever before. It is also being taught and studied more extensively than ever in our schools, colleges, and universities and with excellent results. Every part of the educational machine has done its share to make this a fat age for the historian. Yet in proportion to the population history is less read to-day by voluntary readers than it was read a hundred years ago. None of our historians command the same degree of respect from the public that men like Bancroft, Prescott, Irving, Motley, and Sparks commanded in their day.

It would be difficult to name a historian who now makes a living out of his profession of historian. Most of those who are writing are able to live from personal incomes or from their salaries as professors of history. We have been used to this state of affairs so long that many intelligent people do not realize that there was once a day in which American writers could trust themselves wholly to history and not be disappointed. If in describing the careers of the men who succeeded in this field in the past century this book can at the same time give historians and the viu PREFACE

well wishers of history some more confidence in the historian's profession, it will accomplish two very desirable things.

My plan has been to throw up in large outline the most eminent of the men of the group concerned. \ Jeremy Belknap, '^ George Bancroft,-^ Jared Sparks, yV William Hickling rrescott,Sjohn Lothrop Motley, and Peter Force have been given special prominence, while the work of other men has been treated in an introductory chapter on the development of our history before the civil war. Such an introduction, it is hoped, will serve for a background against which the careers of the most eminent characters may be outlined in bold relief with advantageous results. Probably the American of to-day will derive more pleasure from such a treatment of the subject than from a book in which all the historians within the "middle period" should be treated in space allotments proportionate to their services. The present volume, also, may serve me for an outline of a larger work of the more comprehensive kind just mentioned, if health and years allow me to write it.

In one sense the "middle period" begins with the end of the revolution : in another it begins soon after the war of 1812, let us say about 1826, when Sparks began to give himself to history. The reader may choose the beginning for himself. It is certain that history writing took on a new character with the achievement of independence, and it is also certain

PREFACE IX

that Sparks's widely heralded researches infused a new spirit into the historians of the day.

The end of the period, as I understand it, lies where the scientific spirit secures domination over the patriotic school that had ruled for several decades. Possibly the organization of the American Historical Association in 1884 would be a convenient date to mark the beginning of a new period. On the other hand the Association was in some respects the result rather than the herald of a new school. From 1865 to 1884, however, history in the United States was written in the afterglow of the civil war, and it was not scientific. Keeping in mind both sides of this dilemma, we may say that the new spirit existed fundamentally in the minds of scholars about the middle of the century and that it was not revealed to public view until the cloud of sectional feeling lifted. In this view the year 1884 may well be taken as the dividing point between two periods of historical endeavor in our country.

For my purposes I have chosen to assign Parkman to the new school. While he wrote with that fine appreciation of style which was characteristic of Bancroft and the literary historians, his industry, his research among documents, and especially his detachment seem to place him among the men of to-day. On the whole, the assignment of Parkman to the new school is satisfactory to me, although other persons may not hold the same opinion of it.

X PREFACE

Each of the sketches of individuals here submitted is necessarily a unit in itself. But each man had something to do with another of the group. To give an account of each career, therefore, has made some repetition necessary. I hope a charitable reader will believe that I have sought to reduce it to the lowest terms in keeping with lucid and informing narrative.

The substance of the second, third, and fourth chapters was given in three lectures before the Institute of Arts and Sciences of Columbia University, in October, 1916 ; and a large part of the fifth chapter was read in the same month before the Massachusetts Historical Society. None of this matter, however, is published elsewhere than in these pages.

JOHN SPENCER BASSETT.

Northampton, Massachusetts, November 1, 1916.

Contents

CHAPTER

I. Early Progress of History in the United States

1. The Colonial Historians .

Chapter I Early Progress Of History In The United States

1. The Colonial Historians

The first historians in the region which is now the United States were European-born Americans, who wrote with the behef that future generations would demand the story of the beginnings of a great state. To them it was a pious duty to record the events they had witnessed. In Virginia and in Massachusetts they were especially notable. For the history of the establishment of the former colony we have Captain John Smith, William Strachey, Edward Maria Wingfield, John Pory, George Percy, Rev. Alexander ^Tiitaker, and George Sandys, all of whom wrote of the first years of the colony. After them came a pause of nearly a hundred years before historians long resident in the colony began to write. For Massachusetts we have the beginnings described by B 1

Edward Winslow, Governor William Bradford, and John Winthrop, English-trained men who were deeply loyal to the purposes for which the New England colonies were founded and who wrote in order that posterity might not forget how the early perils had been met and overcome.

Each group was grimly in earnest and very religious, but in different ways. The Virginians were members of the Church of England at a time when it was deeply inspired by the reforms of the Elizabethan age. Puritanism still dwelt within its body, but the genial influence of the Book of Common Prayer was also felt. Early Virginia zeal, therefore, was a thing fit for romantic adventurers staking their all on the favor of God and their own ability. When it expressed itself in historical literature it was freely human. Something of the same cast of thought that gave Shakspere and Ben Jonson their peculiar charm was revealed in it. The Puritan historians were rigidly devout. They belong to the period which saw the triumph of the men who taught rigid simplicity. For the resonant phrases of the Prayer Book they substituted the severe conventions of Calvin. Romance was chased out of the heart and the fear of hell was suspended like a sword over every threshold. Strict morals and godly living were instilled in the minds of young and old. Spontaneity gave place to self-restraint and human feelings were clipped and shorn of all that did not lead to pious thinking.

The Puritan was intellectual. His disputes over dogma sharpened his wits, he delighted in arguments, and his democratic form of society promoted popular education. The early Puritans, therefore, showed more interest than the Virginians in preserving their history, after the first burst of zeal was over. In Virginia idealism quickly gave place to materialism, as tobacco and land became the subjects of thinking and planning. In New England Puritan idealism lost something, no doubt, with the passage of the immediate era of migration, but it remained the strongest fact in these colonies. Thus the impulse to write history was l^pt alive, a vital thing, and historical works appeared — at great intervals, it is true — but without the long period of silence that left Virginia nearly a century with no voice raised in telling the story of her past.

Let us pursue the contrast a little further. The literary impulse in Virginia was destined to be ephemeral. It could hardly have been otherwise, since it was born of the mere zeal for planting a new dominion of the English stock. Tobacco growing and land speculation soon became the absorbing themes of conversation and striving. Prosperity came apace and a leisure class appeared; but it was not a thoughtful class. Outside nature was most genial, inviting the planters to the soft pleasures of the senses. Courtesy and pleasant manners, hospitality and the love of personal honor went into the standards of the best living ;

but severe mental discipline was not a characteristic of either planter, clergyman, or lawyer. Here was no fertile ground for the development of history writing. The first native Virginian to break through the crust of indifference was Robert Beverley, a prominent planter, who published a "History of Virginia" in 1705, He was led to write the book by accident, and not by a desire to assume the role of historian. While in London he was shown that part of Oldmixon's "British Empire in America" which related to Virginia. He was disgusted with its defects and undertook to write a better book. He had been secretary of Virginia and was acquainted with the documentary sources of its history. He did not, however, make a large use of them ; and the chief value of his work was in his wise and comprehensive views of colonial society. The other historian of this colony was William Stith. He was a man of true scholarship ; and his "History of the First Discovery and Settlement of Virginia," published as part one of a larger work, appeared in 1747. It was accurate, so far as available materials went. He had access to the records of the London Company and drew largely from them and from the works of Captain John Smith. Part one ended with the fall of the company in 1624. Stith had no sense of proportion, and his book did not please the Virginia planters, being too heavy for their taste. They gave it such poor encouragement that he did not carry his researches further. While he is entitled to credit for writing a thoroughly modern book, we can commend neither his lack of adjustment to his public nor his want of devotion to the cause of history. Had he been very earnest in his vocation he would not have been discouraged by the indifference of his compatriots. His failure left Virginia history an un worked field for many a year.

Turning to New England we find a more steady development. Bradford and Winthrop were men of great insight. The first wrote " The History of Plymouth Plantation" from the beginning to 1646, leaving his manuscript unpublished. The book has been preserved in this state, a part of it being published by Bradford's nephew, Nathaniel Morton, in his "New England's Memorial," 1669. The manuscript was in the tower of the Old South Church, in Boston, when the revolution began. It was carried off by British soldiers and was long considered lost; but it came at last to the library of the Bishop of London, where it lay unnoticed in his grace's library at Fulham Palace. Bishop Wilberforce, of Oxford, discovered it and mentioned it in 1844 in a book on the Protestant church in America. Anderson also spoke of it in his *' History of the Colonial Church," in 1848. Seven years later two gentlemen in Boston came across the reference in Anderson and took steps to establish the identity of the manuscript. The discovery caused great rejoicing in Boston literary circles. The Bishop of London refused to surrender the precious manuscript, but allowed a copy to be taken, from which the Massachusetts Historical Society published a complete edition in 1856, enriched with notes by Charles Deane. In 1896 the Bishop of London gave up the manuscript, which was deposited in the State Library, in Boston ; and in 1912 it was published by the Massachusetts Historical Society in a final authoritative form with valuable additional notes by Worthington C. Ford. Bradford's "History" is a Puritan book in the best sense. It is an earnest and sincere record in a loosely annalistic form, deriving its chief value from its accurate statement of facts and its transparent honesty. It will ever remain one of the most valuable books in the field of American history.

John Winthrop's journal, published first ^ in 1790, is generally known as "A History of New England." It deals with the period from 1630 to 1649. Winthrop, more than anyone else, was the founder of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, and he was long its governor. His book is a careful account of such transactions as he thought worth preserving. It is very full of events relating to Massachusetts, and, like Bradford's book, it abounds in incidents that the author considered manifestations of God's special care for his people. But one who reads it must gain a vivid impression of the life and problems in church and state of the founders

1 Winthrop's manuscript is in three volumes. The third was lost for a while and did not appear in the edition of 1790. It was, however, discovered in 1816, and a complete edition was published in two volumes in 1825-26 with notes by James Savage. A new edition appeared in 1853.

of New England. Though it has less unity and less charm of narration than the "History of Plymouth Plantation," it is one of the great books of our historical literature.

While some less important books belong to the early period of New England existence, we do not come to another notable group of historical works until we come to the long struggle of the settlers with the Indians. Here was a series of dramatic events which made a deep impression on the people. Other parts of the continent had their Indian wars, but nowhere else was there the same disposition to write about them. The desire to preserve heroic deeds and to attest the goodness of providence in giving victory to his servants was alleged as the object for which the writers wrote ; but it may be assumed that one object of the authors was to make money, always the most sustaining motive of popular historical efforts. These narratives were full of a spirit of severity. To the settlers of colonial times, as to the frontiersmen of the nineteenth century, the savages were the embodiment of cruelty. It was rare that one of the narrators showed tolerance for the natives, who in reality were only defending their homes from the aggression of the whites. Acts of cruelty on the part of the Indians were not wanting, but they were probably offset by the retaliation of the white men ; and the narratives that have come down to us are full of a spirit of satisfaction for the fell vengeance of the colonial armies.

The Pequot war, King Philip's war, and the long series of struggles that occurred in connection with the conflict between the British and the French in America furnished the themes. Particularly appealing were the narratives of the suffering captives taken by the Indians and carried off to Canada. Some of these narratives, notably Rev. John Williams's "Redeemed Captive returning to Zion" and Mrs. Mary Rowlandson's "Narrative of Captivity and Restoration," are extremely vivid and pathetic stories of adventure. This cycle of minor historical narratives stimulated the interest of the people in history and opened the road to more serious things.

Of the writers who wrote about the growth of political and religious life in New England two were most notable, Thomas Prince and Thomas Hutchinson. The first was a minister in Boston. In his profession he was not eminent, being a thoughtful man whose ministrations were not characterized by eloquent preaching or original theological views. But he loved the records of the past and possessed the true antiquarian spirit. He was zealous in collecting documents and works published on New England history. His valuable library was preserved in the tower of the Old South Church until the irreverent British soldiers, who held Boston against the revolting colonists until Washington drove them out in 1776, took the edifice for a riding school and left the books to the mercy of careless intruders. Some of these treasures survived the perils of the time and are now in the keeping of the Boston Public Library. But the most enduring result of Prince's devotion to history was his "Chronological History of New England in the form of Annals," the first volume of which was published in 1736. It was dull and formless, but it was written in the most careful manner. Accuracy and love of detail make it a delight to the genealogist and antiquarian. "I cite my vouchers to every passage," he said, "and I have done my utmost, first to find out the truth, and then to relate it in the clearest order." Posterity is willing to grant that he achieved his object, and it gives him a place among the most worthy of our historical scholars. The small sale of his first volume, which carried the story of New England history to September 7, 1630, caused the publisher to refuse to bring out a second volume. The author was not able to proceed at that time, but in 1755 he began a continuation in serial parts at sixpence each. This venture proved as unpopular as the first volume, and only three of the parts were published. Like Stith, in Virginia, he had not the art of pleasing the public.

Thomas Hutchinson was probably the best historian who wrote in the colonial period. He was a descendant of Mrs. Anne Hutchinson, the Antinomian, and something of her free spirit and mental acumen was in him. He graduated from Harvard when sixteen years old, became a prosperous Boston merchant, and finally was called into the service of the colony. He became lieutenant-governor in 1758, chief justice in 1760, acting governor in 1769, and governor in 1771. For a time he was very popular, but his stand in favor of loyalty in the controversy with the crown brought the whigs down upon him. The stamp act mob destroyed his house and scattered his books and papers through the streets. He tried to reconcile the king and his subjects, hoping to save the integrity of the British empire. In 1774 he went to England, never to return. The king allowed him a pension and Oxford gave him the honorary degree of doctor civilis juris, but neither money nor honor could salve a heart that bled for the sufferings of his native land. He died in 1780.

Among the articles of property recovered after his house was wrecked by the stamp act rioters was the soiled manuscript of the second volume of his "History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay." The first had appeared in 1764, bringing the history of the colony down to 1691. The second volume, so fortunately rescued, was published in 1767. It carried the narrative forward to 1750. After his arrival in London Hutchinson completed a third volume which was left unpublished until 1828. His book is not faultless. The object of abuse by the whigs, he could hardly be expected to give full credit to their motives ; but it may be said that he had a fairer sense of the twosidedness of the controversy than any other person who wrote about it for a hundred years after the revolution was over. In the earlier part of the work the treatment is broad and well balanced, details are subordinated to larger movements, and there is more detachment than in any other New England historian. As a liberal. and able man of culture, Hutchinson set out to create a picture of the colony's progress ; and he performed his task in the manner of a master.

Not all the colonial historians lived in. Virginia and Massachusetts. Outside of these colonies are a few men who would demand notice in a longer sketch than this. Among them are Dr. Cadwallader Colden and WiUiam Smith, of Xew York, Samuel Smith, of New Jersey, and John Lawson, of North Carohna, all men of fair ability. The first, second, and fourth were colony officials of high rank, men who stood out above the mass of colonists in which they Hved. The third, Samuel Smith, was a plain Quaker, industrious and conscientious. His book described the history of Xew Jersey with the pen of an average man, at a time when the difference between average men and their superiors was wider than it is to-day. It has not been entirely superseded. Of all the group only one, John Lawson, had a good Literary style.

2. The Influence oj the Revolution

The immediate effect of the Revolution was unfavorable to the writing of history. It produced a period of confusion, in which the attention of men was demanded by the more serious problems of life. A large portion of the leisure class, those who would either write or read history, were tories, some of whom were driven from the country, while the others were at variance with the spirit of the new government and were not interested in its history. The whigs, however, were zealous for their history, but their zeal oozed out at their finger tips. Ebenezer Hazard, who had in mind great historical projects, gives us the following illuminating statement :

"The war and the numerous avocations consequent upon it, have thrown every man's mind into such an unsettled and confused state that but few can think steadily upon any subject. They hear of useful designs, they give you all the encouragement which can be derived from the warmest approbation of your plan, they will even promise you assistance. Politics intrude — kick you and your designs out of their heads ; and when you appear again, why they really forgot that the matter had been mentioned to them. I have been repeatedly served so with reference to my collection." ^

This complaint was written in 1779, while war was still the chief object of interest. Soon after peace was made, historians of the glorious struggle began to appear; but their chief source of information was British. Out of the records of the thirteen colonies, badly kept and preserved in places widely remote from one another, it was a difficult task to prepare a narrative of what had been done. But in England were all the reports of operations in one collection, sent home by British officers. And out of these reports had been prepared year by year the accounts of military events in the "Annual Register" then conducted under whig

1 Belknap Papers, I, 12 (" Colls." Mass. Histl. Soc, Ser. V, Vol. II).

EARLY PR0GEE5S OF HISTORY IS

influence. At that time the British whigs opposed the American war and beKeved that the American whigs would have remained loyal Britons had they not been mistreated. Among them was Edmund Burke, who was employed to write the statements lq the '"Register"' referring to the American controversy. He wrote well, giving the facts that made the conduct of the Americans appear in a favorable Ught.

It was, therefore, to Burke, in the "Annual Register" that the first American historians turned for their information in writing about the revolution. They trusted him impHcitly : m fact, they copied large i>ortions of his narrative without quotation marks and with little or no change. Two men were particularly notable in this respect. Rev. William Gordon. D.D., and Dr. Da\'id Ram.say. The former was a clergyman Hviug near Boston during the war. He returned to England in 17S6 and in 17SS published in London his '"History of the Rise, Progress, and Establishment of the Independence of the ITnited States of America," a substantial book in four volumes. It was generally accepted as an original work and was widely read. The present generation, having discovered that most of it was taken from the "Register." holds it in slight honor. Dr. Ramsay's work, "History of the American Revolution." in two volumes, was published in 17S9. The author did not hold the view of the British whigs that the revolt was due solely to the mistakes of the tor^' government. He declared that it was a natural result of general tendencies, the growing disposition of Great Britain to unify the empire and the growing desire of the colonists to rule themselves. But for a large portion of the information in his book he drew directly from the "Annual Register." Dr. Ramsay was a resident of Charleston, South Carolina, and was more noted as an author and political leader than as a physician. He wrote several books besides his work on the revolution: in fact, he was, perhaps, the most active historian of his day in the United States ; but none of his other productions had the same vogue as the "History of the Revolution."

The desire to preserve the record of the struggle for independence ihat resulted in histories of the war led to the writing of biographies of its prominent leaders. Of this class the most famous was Chief Justice Marshall's "Life of George Washington" (5 vols., 1804- 1807). Although federalist in spirit, it was a well-constructed work, worthy of the subject and of the author's high position. It was accepted by the friends of Washington as a sufficient tribute, and was issued in several editions. Another biography that had a wide circulation, written also by an eminent statesman and dealing with one of the heroes of the revolution, was William Wirt's "Sketches of the Life and Character of Patrick Henry" (1817). In sentiment and manner it was the opposite of Marshall's book ; for it was republican in feeling and light and trivial in treatment. But the author's easy style made it an attractive book of its kind, and it was widely read. At the time these two books were written the market for literatm*e in the United States was dominated by strong personal sentiment. A man bought a biography because it set forth his own political sentiments or his ideas of noble character. Marshall wrote for people holding one kind of political views and Wirt for those holding another kind. Both paid tribute to exalted personal character, and neither wrote impartially. Hume's notable example of critical scholarship had not yet been adopted into the Uterary thought of the readers of history. We were all partisans of our own cause in the contest with Great Britain and, whether we wished to know its simple history or to read the biographies of its leaders, we demanded narratives that stimulated seK-satisf action.

Another field in which historians wrote in this period was state histories. Colonies had developed into states and hopes for their future ran high. Should not the stories of the states in their early stages of growth be written down.'* Local pride asserted itself, and the result was several works, as Belknap's "History of New Hampshire" (3 vols., 1784, 1792), Proud's "History of Pennsylvania from 1681 till after the Year 1742" (2 vols., 1797, 1798), Minot's contmuation of Hutchinson's history of Massachusetts (2 vols., 1798, 1803) and his "History of the Insurrection in Massachusetts" (1788), and Trumbull's "History of Connecticut" (2 vols., 1818). All these books were well written and have maintained places in our historical literature to this day. Of Proud and Belknap more will be said later on. There were, also, three histories of Southern states originating in this impulse; but they were, unfortunately, less respectable than those already mentioned. They were : Dr. Ramsay's "History of South Carolina" (2 vols., 1809), Burk's "History of Virginia" (3 vols., 1804, 1805), and Dr. WiUiamson's "History of North Carolina" (2 vols., 1812). These writers had more zeal than industry and were guilty of gross neglect of the sources of information.

Robert Proud has for me a pathetic interest. He was one of the first Americans to combine the functions of historian and schoolmaster.^ He was very poor and struggled hard against straitened circumstances, producing at the end a book which satisfies many of the qualifications of the modern school of history. He was born in Yorkshire, England, May 10, 1728, and by hard study secured a good preliminary education in the local schools. He fell under the influence of the Yorkshire Quakers and when he came of age settled in London as tutor of the two sons of a prominent Quaker. Being a thoughtful man he took up the study of medicine, but gave it up when he observed that most of the diseases a physician had to treat were the results of vice. Essentially moral, he shrank from a life in which he must deal with those who violated moral laws.

^ William Stith was also a schoolmaster.

In 1759 he arrived in Philadelphia, where his employment was uncertain for a time. He was a protege of Anthony Benezet.^ But in 1761 he became a teacher of Greek and Latin in an academy then just founded by the Friends. When the revolution was about to begin he became a merchant ; but as he was a tory, it was an unlucky venture, for the whigs would not trade with him. After the war he again became a pedagogue, and remained one until 1791, when he gave up teaching to complete his history.

Robert Proud was a reticent man and has left few memorials of his life. It is impossible to say when and how he began to write history, but it is certain that he was collecting materials for such a task soon after his arrival in the colony. Considerable progress had been made when the war began, but the work was laid aside because the author saw that it was no time for the people to think about their history. Six years after work was resumed, the first volume was published in 1797, the second followed in 1798.