THE ORIGINALITY OF GEORGE BANCROFT’S INTERPRETATION OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

Citation preview

Microfilmed by Department o f Photoduplication The University o f Chicago Library Swift H all Chicago 37, Illinois OQDGyiJCaQB I3[3 j >CI3®CDQDC§TP[KDE3 ®Bee also, Frederick sutler, A gomplete__81gtory of the United States of America. Embracing the

19 O n # « « r l y w r l t * r 1;ov«ra a b o v e a l l o t h e r * la h i s e f f o r t to e x t o l the R e v o l u t i o n a r y p a t r i o t ••

He a l o n e a p p r o a c h e s

Bancroft

In the f l o r l d l t y o f h i s style, a n d in the f r e q u e n c y a n d I n t e n s i t y o f h i s a t t e m p t s to p r a i s e the " f a t h e r s . " fir s t n a t i o n a l h e r o e s w o u l d r e m a i n he p r o c e e d s

to c o m p a r e

globe," a f t e r

P r e d i c t i n g t h a t America* e

"lofty l a n d - m a r k a of h i s t o r y , "

them in subli m i t y to the

"the d e l u g e h a d

subsided."1

ing A m e rica* a great m e n a b o v e all

" m o u n t a i n s of the

Not c o n t e n t w i t h p l a c ­

their contern: oraries,

Tudor must

e x a l t h i s c o u n t r y m e n b y c o n t r a s t i n g them w i t h r e v o l u t i o n a r y l e a d ­ ers In o t h e r lands a n d

In o t h e r times.

is p r o p h e t i c of Bancroft, he paeans to the

"company o f

In a f l o w e r y p a s s a g e

rivals all those w h o have e v e r

that shouted

*76."

. . . .some idea m a y be f o r m e d of their v a l u e , by c o n s i d e r i n g the m i s e r a b l e sc e n e s of rapine, cruelty, fIo n i a n © a s , a n d a p ­ o s t a s y , that have b e e n e x h i b i t e d by the v a r i o u s a c t o r s In r e v o l u t i o n s b e f o r e the e y e s of the p r e s e n t fp. xlii] g e n e r a ­ tion. The r e v o l u t i o n a r y p a t r i o t s of A m e r i c a w e r e c o u r a g e o u s , m o d e r a t e , plain, a n d I n c o r r u p t i b l e , and I m b u e d w i t h a d e e p sense o f religion, w h i c h g u i d e d and g u a r a n t e e d all t h e i r c o n ­ duct. T h ey were, in fact, *the men of r l u t a r o h , ' f o r m e d In a s c h o o l of p r i m i t i v e s i m p l i c i t y and u n y i e l d i n g p r i n c i p l e , w h i c h m a d e them the o r n a m e n t s of their o w n age, and w i l l secure to t h e m the a d m i r a t i o n of p o s t e r i t y . 2 pp. x l l — xlii.

20 Ho otluvr v r i t a r equalled tills a f f o r t of Tudor*a before 1234; It la o l a a r to

oq«

but

w h o reads the early historians of the Revolu­

tion that inherent In their works lie the ideas that Tudor, and then Bancroft,

formed into such dazzling patterns.

Only a worthy oause oould call forth auoh perfect leader­ ship.

Implies it in the picture of virtuous leaders drawn by these

first historians of America is this idea of a cause w o r t h fighting for,^

One needs but to read cursorily in Bancroft to find his p passages extolling the Revolution. ' He would not let the nature of e ither the men or the movement escape the consciousness of his readers;

little is left to inference and

supposition in h i s pages.

-lth the men who wrote before him, however, otherwise.

it was frequently

The praises they lavish upon the Revolutionary patriots

quite often give the impression that it Is unnecessary to say much more about the things for which they fought. to assume

The reader Is expected

that th© matters which led them to call on their fellow-

citizens to pledge their lives, were of great importance.

fortunes, and “most sacred honor"

liuch men would not sacrifice

arid their countrymen for light reasons.

themselves

Jedldiah Morse, however,

did not leave even this to the imagination,

for he spoke of the

drama of "illustrious characters and events,** wh i c h was opened by 3 the battle of Lexington. The young nation, then, could well be l y lrt,

op

. o l t . . p. 103.

2 S u p r a . p.

5.

3J e d idiah Morse, Annals of the American Revolution; or a Record of the Gauss a a n d Kvents w h i c h Produced M d Tersaina ted in th« Establishment and Independence of the Ameri c a n Republic. In­ terspersed w ith numerous Appropriate Documents and Anecdotes. To which l s Prefixed a inpayor Account of the Pira t_Sg.t tie meat, .of ,_tEg Country, and 3oae o f t h e Principal Indian ^ars. which Have at Suc­ cessive l e r l Q d s A f f l i c t e d lta_Inhabltents. T p b h l o h is idded Re­ mark* an the Principles and Comparative Advantages of the Constitution o f our ilational Covernaentt And a n Appendix: Contain i n g a Instruments in A c h i e v e i n g our Inds p s a d e n Q g . C o m p i l e d frost of Authentic D o o u m e n t s a n d A r r a n g e d l n C h r o p o l o g i c a l a n d H i s t o r i c a l O rder (Bart fbSrds n. p u b . , 1824), p. 230.

21 proud of the manner of it# birth; for it ‘originated in the noblest efforts of wisdom, fortitude, and magnanimity.1,1 When sen look upon the early scenes of a nation's history and portray the events and the leaders thereof In such bright col­ ors, it is logical to find them attributing these events to inex­ orable forces.

A keynote of the Bancroft Interpretation is his

inslstanoe on the inevitability of the happenings which led to the O American Revolution. This approach of inevitability has never departed from American thought; even today there are those who vigorously support the idea.

It is not surprising to find that

several historians had espoused this interpretation before 1334. In the very establishment of the colonies the germ of independence was said to have originated, and the political end mercantile aelflshneas of Britain nourished its growth.1

Only an occasion was 4 needed to bring that break which could have only one result. Dis­ tance from the "mother country,* and the rapid growth of the col­ onies aided in bringing about Independence aa a natural consumma­ tion of American progress. Their great and rapid advancement in population, end the vast distance by which they were disjoined from the parent state, cooperated with other causes to awaken and nourish Ideas of independence in the minds of their inhabitants, and portended ^Graharae,

o p

. clt. . I,

lix.

2 Supra, p. 6 . 3 Morse, OP. C i t ., p. 60. 4A. H. L. Heeren, History of the Political System of Burope. and its Colonies, from the Discovery of America to the Independence of the American Continent, trana. by Geo. Bancroft (Northampton. Mass.: 3 . Butler and Son, 1329), II, 81. Heeren had been one of Bancroft's professors when he was in Germany. Bancroft may have gotten one of the impulses which led to his determination to write American history from his work of translation of the Heeren works. In any event, he got little in interpretation from these volumes. The instance cited above is one of the rare parallels of interpre­ tation to be found in Heeren and then in Bancroft.

22 an inevitable, though, In point of tine an Indefinite, H a l t to the connection between the two countries. A separate and Independent political exlstenoe was the natural and reason­ able consummation to which the progress of soalety In America was tending.1 Inevitably destined to fight and to win, these virtuous leaders and their followers in this worthy cause, must surely have the strength that results from unity of purpose.

References to

the united action of all men In all the colonies dot the pages of Bancroft; for he chose to present the greatly-to-be-desired plc2 ture of an entire nation standing shoulder to shoulder in arms. ' That this optimum situation was known to have not existed matters not at all for the purposes of this study.

Many men who wrote

before George Bancroft also saw a united nation where none really existed.

From the anonymous report which appeared in the Annual

Register for 17743 to the references which occur in ur&hame con4 cernlng the *one common sentiment* existing In America, the con­ sensus of historical opinion supported the idea of early and al­ most complete unity. In some Instances this unified action was attributed to righteously Indignant reactions to one or another of Britain's measures against the colonies.

More than one author spoke of the

Intercolonial comradeship called forth by beleaguered Boston's situation after the passage of the Boston Fort Bill.

The lnjus-

1Grahame, op. oil., IV, 168. 2 8ucra. p. 6.

5Annual Register. XVII (1774), 49, 59.

4Grahams, oc. olt., IV, 342. ^Mention of the Boston Fort Bill as a cause for unity can be found In the following works* Warren, or. olt. , I, 133; Annual Register. XVIII (1775),3; Mason Locke Weems, A His tory of the Life and Death. Virtues and Exploits of Gene r a l G e o r g e Washington ("Amer­ ican Bookshelf Series*] n.p.i Maoy-Maaius, 1927), p. 113; David Ramsay, The History of thg~American Revolution (Lexington, Ky.:

365,

ties of the Ttrlova

b

inletsrial taxing piano vaa a a a i p a d ito

plaoo in the move toward unity,1 and novo of tho battle of Lexing­ ton vaa frequently oited as the final toooin which drove all to stand together as defenders of their rights.2

bob

Early historians

found other reasons beside those supplied by the specific events #

mentioned a b o v e , to Justify their statements that union prevailed among Americans in the days that immediately preceded the final "appeal to heaven."

General reiterations of that idea are plenti­

fully scattered throughout the pages of early histories.

General­

isations, all more or less to the effect that "the colonies had become one great body, actuated by one soul, and that soul.

. . .

inspired by the spirit of liberty,1,3 are characteristic of many authors.

Virtue, courage, self-sacrifice, forbearance, are all

remarked upon in a manner of awe and admiration.

Bo many authors

had established the myth of the unity of the colonists in 17764 "Hrhe various ministerial plans are indicated in the follow­ ing works: A n n u a l E e g l s t e r . XVII (1774), 55; william Gordon, The History of the Rise. Progress and •■atablishment of the Independence Of the United States of America: Including an Account of the Late M&ri—and of__th« ,Thirteen- Colonies from their O rigin to that Period (New York: Hodge, Allen, and Campbell, 1789), I, 270; Ablei Holmes, A m e r i c a n A n n a l s , or a Chronological History of A m e r i c a . f r o m Its Discovery I n ^ c d O C X C I I to M P C C O V I (London: Chaa. Taylor. 1808). II, 253; Ramsay, HAfftara ,§P,qtfr Carolina. I, 231; Wirt, op. olt. , p. 101, Grahams, pp. olt. . IV. 342. 2Andrews, o p . olt. . I, 292-93; Wirt, op. olt. . p. 153; 5 utl®r* X U . 147; Jared Sparks, the Erankiln i ^Containing Several Political and Historical tracts not Ing.IMftd. lh any Foraer Editions, and Many U t t e r s Official and m y a - t c no^Jiltherto E M M l s h s d i „ w l t h Sote» and a Life of the Author (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, and Company, 1836-1840), I, 393. These authors aentlon the battle of Lexington as a unifying force. 3Butler, pp. olt.. Ill, 89. 4 An exposition of this belief of the unity of the colonies appears in the following works; Gordon, o p . c lt. . I, 270; David Hamsay, The. History of the_Rcvolatlon_J>f__South Carolina. from a $£3,SAflfrEraglgOf. . . J M IffllSPcndent State (Trenton: Isaac Collena. 1785), I, 79; Ramsay, X* X?9i Xudor, o p . olt. . p. 339; Pitkin, o p . olt.. I. 301: Qrahaae. o p . olt.. IV, 138-39. Charles Botta, History o f t h e War of the Independence o f the Baited

24 that It Is no wonder that non of the nineteenth oentury, like Bancroft, perpetuated that belief.

It has taken over a century

to establish la place of this flotion the truth that an actual civil war existed in 1776 in the thirteen colonies; yet, even to­ day, for •patriotic purposes'* the united determination of all men and classes in 1776 la affirmed with the same credulity that marked Bancroft and the goodly company that wrote before him.

As a contrast and foil for the small band of united free­ holders of America, waging a battle for their birthright of liberty, a villain of gigantic proportion was needed.

A stubborn English

king, advised by Jealous and tyrannical ministers was Bancroft's answer to this need.

Emphasising the same set of circumstances

that were drawn upon by the Revolutionary •fathers,* he presented a series of events that build up In their intensity to a conspiracy of tyranny.1 No historian can ever completely omit the detailed account of events that are usually labelled "Immediate causes'* of an Im­ portant movement, and the men who first celebrated the American Revolution in historical writings did not neglect these steps lead­ ing up to the use of force.

Many of them made the English crown

and its servants appear. In the telling, as the "villain of the piece.*

The story of the years 1763-1776 is too well known to re­

quire an elaboration here of those matters whloh were used to il3tatsa of America, trans. by Oeo. A. Otis (4th e d . ; New Haven: Nathan Whiting, 1 8 3 4 ) , I, 344. Jared Sparks, The life of Qoverneur Morris with Selections from his Correspoodeaee a n d M l s o e l l a n e o u s

ngM*

t&« AmxtoM* BygWtaBs jfrfjfpnch

Revolution, and in t h e P o l i tical History of the United States (Boston? I r a y a n d B o w n , 1032), 1 , 29. * Hurra, p. 6.

25 lustrate the oppressive policy leading to the war. Stamp Act was

cited at the ‘prelude and

Usually the

occasion of all the sub-

•equent storms,** and many authors pointed to It

as the beginning

9

of tyranny.

The ‘mercantile s y s t e m * as praotloed b y the British

in the Navigation Acte*

‘must in process of time have occasioned

the disruption of the American provinces from the British e m p i r e , 1* t it does not occur in as many of them as did some of the other interpretations present in Bancroft.

Although the lessons of the years 1776 to

1820 had not imparted to them the semi-omniscience which they gave to Bancroft in regard to the political changes then in progress, Banoroft'a predecessors told of the young nation’s leading r&le as the parent of the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century upheavals. At an early date one of the two feminine historians of the revolution sounded the note of American leadership in a progressive revolutionary era.

Mercy utis

arren was proud of the .art her

husband and brother had played in the birth of the United state s. ;>he was also proud of the great significance our revolt could have for the world. Her principles were disseminated: the seeds sown in America ripened in the [p. 1413 more cultivated grounds of Europe, and inspired ideas among enslaved nations that have long trembled at the name of the bastlle and the bastinado. This may finally lead to the completion of prophetic predictions, and spread universal liberty and peace, as far at least as is compatible with the present state of human nature.2 America had advanced to this position of leadership almost 3 without Europe’s awareness of her progress; consequently to America 1i m » 2warren,

op.

clt. . I, 140-41.

3Kamsay, Arnerloan Revolution. I, 48.

54 nutt accrue the w r i t of bo lag tho prise eorer of tb* groot fight •galoot tyranny.

Ours vas attested to be th# first la the sorleo

of revolutions which begaa at the oad of the eighteenth century and whloh shook the foundations of governseat throughout Europe and America*2

We were the leaders In the moot remarkable period,

politically speaking, In the world*a history.' The minds of men were every where exalted to Investigate their olvil and political condition. . . . .The struggle that ensued from this revival, produced the American revolution first, and afterwards that of France*4 The United States were, thus early, closely associated with Europe's fight for olvll and political freedom.

Indeed, the rSle played

by the young nation was more than that of a leader; It was also that of a benefactor of mankind. To the mind of nineteenth century democrats those struggles which occurred in the Americas and In Europe for llbertd. e&allte. and fraternity, were enlightened and progressive In their nature and objectives.

If the forces of tyranny and of exploitation In

government were supplanted by those of freedom and of democracy, progress was certainly made, and mankind was benefited.

The Amer­

ican Revolution had accomplished this desideratum for the inhabi­ tants of the former thirteen English colonies.

By their forceful

actions they were acknowledged to have ushered In a new epoch In the world's history.

This period had brought pain and death to

thousands, but It had also brought the world many steps nearer 1Burk, pp. olt.. IV, 7-8. 2The north American Review. XIII (July, 1821), 173. This reference was In a book review of Botta* a History of the American Tudor,

o p

. clt. , p. vii.

Ideal ooadltioRt of government and society*

Clearly the originator

or this great movement bad done a great deal to benefit mankind. George Bancroft had surely used sons an oh reaaoning as that outlined above, for he eane without equivocation to thla con­ clusion.

Human freedom had found a new champion, who, by taking

up the oudgels in its own behalf, had In r e a l i t y taken them up In the lntereat of all the w o r l d .1 In the days when Americans were busy fighting against Great Britain, John A d a m s wrote of America* a role as a benefactor of mankind.

In his fourth and fifth volumes Bancroft has cited

Adams as one of the sources from whence he obtained his support for this particular point of view.

2

Adams wrote in his diary that

he had considered America*s settlement ae part of a design by Irovidence which would aid In the emancipation of “the slavish part of mankind all over the e a r t h . “* John Adams*

kinswoman, Hannah Adams, found little apace

in her shortened history of the Hew England states Intended for the instruction of the young, for material of an interpretive na­ ture.

Yet, on her pages she did embrace the opportunity to tell

of the important consequences for mankind of "one of the most exA

traordinary revolutions in history. *

Clearly Piss Adams felt

her young readers should not leave their schoolrooms unenlightened in this regard.

Over a decade later a fellow-Nev Englander again

emphasised America* s right to recognition as a benefactor of all the world* s people.

William fu&or incorporated in his biography

1 S u p r a , p. 8. 2 Bancroft, Hist o r y . IV, p. 55; V, 228-29. 3 John Adams, as quoted by Bancroft from MBS sources in » V, n. 229. 4 Adams, op. c l t . . p. 145.

3* of James O t is many of the Interpretations later used by Bancroft; u»ag

then was this Idea that the Aaerloan Revolution h a d results

w h i c h b r o u g ht advantage to the world at large*

He felt that the

leaders of the Revolution h a d earned a h i g h place In the world's e s t e e m ,1 and that the admiration that was their due should not *be confined to Americans, but may b©

Justly felt by liberal men of o every country since it was the cause of all m a n k i n d . * * A great drama unfolded In the years following 1765, and the nations of the earth were the rapt audience. The whole action advanced w i t h a slowness of movement, and progressive increase of interest, that were suited to the grandeur of a drama, whose speotators were all the nations of Europe, and the consequences of whioh were to have a w i d e r bearing on the welfare of mankind, than any event in modern, or perhaps in ancient times.3* Of the secondary writers on the Revolution only Ha n n a h Adams and William 1‘udor strike this theme of the welfare of mankind which Georg© Bancroft boldly proclaimed.

(acknowledging John Adams*

influence)

so

Those critics who feel sure that the effects

of “Jacksonian Democracy* may be observed In Bancroft* s works might argue that this absence of many references to America as a bene­ factor of the world, ceding Bancroft,

in books about the American Revolution pre­

Indicates that & new Influence, not at w o r k ear­

lier, p l a y e d upon him when he worked In the 1 8 3 0 * s. however, w o uld not be

tenable on closer examination.

Adams, who Bancroft quotes,

or Hannah Adams,

Neither John

could possibly have

been touched by the spirit that has been labelled Democracy.*

This position,

“Jacksonian

Sudor, although w r i t i n g at a time not as far removed

from the 1 8 3 0 * e as had the Adamses, 1Tudor, op.

o l t . , p. xii.

8 Ibld* . p. xl. 3 I b i d . . p. 2 .

is sufficiently separated from

thkt deoade to Ism uninfluenced by its democratic spirit.1 It is not possible, or necessary, to give an explanation of the partial abssaee of mention of this last of the world*-thsae interpretations found in Bancroft from the pages of early second­ ary writers.

It might be pertinent to point out, however, that

often the further one moves out from an event, the greater and more beneficial its consequences tend to appear.

Early writers

lacked the sufficient time perspective whloh would have enabled them to see the magnitude of America* s accomplishment on behalf of mankind.

By the 1830* s Bancroft could view the Revolution in

all of ita Implications be they American, English, international, or divine.

Moat magnificent of all the ideas Bancroft expressed in relating the coming of America* s Revolution, la that which asserted God’s close supervision of America’s doings and destinies.

The

belief that God’s hand hovered In guardianship over the American colonies is an old one in American thought.

From the days when

Englishmen first came to the shores of North America to make homes for themselves, they recorded their faith in the protection that they knew their God was granting to them.

It is not any break

from & long tradition In American thought, therefore, to find Bancroft telling of God*s connection with many phases of the coming william I’udor was born in 1779, and he died in 1830. He gained a literary reputation because of his connection with the North American Review and other periodicals. The life of Otis was published in 1828. In the next year, 1823, he accepted an appoint­ ment in the United 3tates' consular servloe from President Monroe. This oould not have any connection with the then half-nascent polotloal power of the Jacksonian Democrats. For the remaining years of his life he was out of the country, and so, in those days of slow and Imperfect communications, relatively free of the in­ fluence Jackson's rise to power is said to have worked on others. Eventually the climate at Bio de Janiero helped to bring about his death, four years before Bancroft published, and eight years after *udor had finished his most important historical work.

m of t&e Revolution.

He r l M i with dignity and a suggestion of

prldi to ttli those, and he atreeeee that the appearance of the will of God enabled this new 11oho sen people" to attain their In­ dependence*^ Irevlous writers on the American Revolution had not departed from the old tradition of God's abiding Interest in the oonoerns of America,

^hey too, had been schooled in the Idea that the pro­

tecting and benevolent hand of the Father constantly lingered over them; their books reveal this belief.

When the frequent references

to the Divine will and protection which occur in so many of the early Revolutionary histories are taken together they snake a com­ posite picture whose many facets reveal the long-continuing and diverse Interest of God in His American children. If man believes in and seeks to trace the Intervention of God in his affairs he is apt to examine the fundamentals and the beginning of any given action.

It Is, therefore, to the discovery

and the settlement of North America that several of the early writers first turn.

The continent itself, with all of its natural

wealth ,nd beauty, was so superior to all else in the world that 2 only great men and great deeds could have been designed for it. Providence was said to have been conspicuously

present in the

discovery, settlement, growth, and protection of the new world.

3

Clearly, the preoeption came to some men of l

Supra. p. 9.

2Mason Locke Weems, A History of the Life and Death. Vir­ tues and Exploits of General George Washington (American Bookshelf Series, Mark Van D o w n , ed. ; n.p. ; Maoy-Maslns, 1927), p. 15. '^Benjamin Trumbull, A General History of the United States of America from the Discovery In 1492 to 17921. . . . .(Boston} Farrand, Mallory and C o . , 1810), I, 2.

39 Us# c p M U l dtclgnt of 9od In laying the foundations of a grttl notion, in tJb# wilds of America, and in bringing forward tbo Unitad States to tbat elevated rank they now possess among the free and enlightened nations of tbo earth......... 1 Numerous ether instance a of the Father's direct aid and intervention can be found on the pages of the first As#rloan his­ tories*

One pious historian saw God's will in the Treaty of 1763.

The terns respecting all phases of colonial interest were so singu­ larly favorable to the colonies, even though natters relative to the parent country were not always so advantageous to it, that "pious people could discover something very providential,

that

though the colonies had no hand nor influence in the treaty, yet that it was more favourable for them, than it was for the nation in general."

Another evidence of Divine guidance and help for

Americans in their fight against England was asserted to be the considerable work of the clergy in behalf of the common cause.^ Yet a different interpretation was that the courage to proceed in the days when the men of the Continental Congress "looked to each other for consolation and conf idence" came to them from * the God a of nations.’1 And in the first great moment when Americans could do naught but take up arms and make an "appeal to heaven,tt their fortunes aeesn to have been moat assiduously watched over. . . . .heaven seemed to have assumed the protection of the Injured and Insulted colonies, and signally to have appeared ^Butler,

o p

. olt., I, iv.

^Trumbull, Conn. . II, ."584. Jedldlah Morse in his Annals, p. 83, has a passage which is so like that in Trumbull that one must conclude that it was either oopled from it, or that both were taken from a common source. As Trumbull precedes Morse in date of publication, he Is given the nominal "credit." 3 Jedidiah Morse, The American Geoiscraphys or a View of the tresent Situation of the United States of America: 2d edition {London} John iitockdale, 1792), p. 100. 4Allen,

op

* Pit., I, SOB

40 in their fewor, when la the. • . .tettl* of Lexington* six hundred raw, undisciplined provincials land defeated treble that number of n g s l t r troop* and pursued them Into their oamp. * If these Americana emerged as God* e new ohoaen people in the concept of the early historians of the Aaerioan Revolution, so also their leader was one who had messianic qualities and was designated for his exalted station by God.

The idea of Washington

as a savious whose appointment was God—directed and blessed did not have to wait for expression until half a century had elapsed after 1775.

The ebullient Weems would naturally be expected to

include this item in his adulation of his hero;

2

but other histor­

ians whose style and context were more restrained used the same interpretation.*

There Is an Infinite variety in the means whereby

God and Washington were linked by these patriot-hlstorians, but one of the earliest of their number in dealing with the Virginian and his leadership In the Revolution seems to have struck a key­ note that characterized much that was written on this subject to the days of Bancroft, and even beyond. He raised up a man In Virginia,......... And through eight perilous campaigns he was preserved in safety and health, was enabled to unite reason and resolution, authority and mild­ ness, until his country was delivered from the most imminent dangers, and peace restored to the nations......... 4 G o d ’s most urgent desire and most inflexible will was that these thirteen English colonies should become an Independent naPrancois Xavier Martin, The History of North Carolina from the Earliest Period (New Orleans: A. T. Fenniman and Co., 1829), II, 357. 2weems, op. olt. , pp. 72-73. ^Morse, A n n a l a . p. 235; Butler, op. olt. , III, 131; Allen, op. olt.. I, 255. 4 Xsaao Backus, A History of New England with Particular Reference to the Denomination of Christians called Baptists: Re­ print e d . ( N e w t o n , Mass.: Backus Historical Society, 1 8 7 1 ) , II, 196. The original edition was published in 1777; the second edi­ tion, from which this copy was made, was published in 1784.

41 tlott*

Bis protection over the Colonies*

settlement; His eld In

scouring adTcatagcs for America at various crucial sosente In their development; His careful selection and nurture of a leader fit to lead their hattle for freedom;

these were all but part of the pre­

lude to the drama of this divinely ordained and led struggle, irovldenoe worked its will so rapidly and Inexorably that the per­ iod of Independence arrived "even before America was conaolous of her maturity.**1

Every event, by G o d ’s intervention, was rendered

subservient to the great end of the liberty and independence of o the United dtates. The colonists themselves had not a sec arete political existence as their aim at the beginning of the dispute 3 with England. Even ao, the prophetic notion suggested to the people of New England in the early eighteenth century when Great Britain failed in repeated attempts to wrest Canada from the french, •that it was not the will of Providence that North America should 4 be subject to the sole dominion of one European state..........* , •as commonly held.

Many historians preceding Bancroft were con­

vinced that this was so, and happy in the thought of their nation*a special place in G o d ’s scheme of things, made sure that their fellow-Amerleans were also cognizant of their singular good fortune. 5 1

Warren,

op

. olt. , I, 176.

2

Adams,

op

. olt. . pp. 178-79.

* Grahams, o p . olt. , IV, 435. 4 Grahams, ibid. . p. 167. Thomas Paine, had effectively voiced this idea in 1776 in Common Sense. *. . . .There is some­ thing absurd, in supposing a Continent to be perpetually governed by an island. In no instance hath nature made the satellite larger than Its primary planet; and as England and America, with respect to each other, reverse the common order of nature, it is evident that they belong to different systems. England to Europe: America to itself.* Thomas Paine, Common Sense on the Origin and Design of Government in Generali withZsonoiee Remarks on the English Con­ stitution (New York: Q . P . Putnam’s Sons, 1912), p . 92. Among those who celebrated God's aid in securing America’s independence were the following: Backus, op o l t . , II, 192; Gordon, o p . c l t . . II, 105; Weems, o p . olt. . pp. 115-13; Adams, o p . clt.. p p . 177-78; Bamsay, American devolution. I, 179; Marshall, o p . c l t . .t . iv.

.

42 Long r«ara btfort 1854, then, H a

and vosea were thinking

of, sad writing about the Amor loan Revolution In its relation to the world-at-large and Clod, the Father.

Not every idea need by

Bancroft In this connection appears in eaoh of his predecessor*. In fact no work previous to Bancroft includes all of the lines of approach to the Revolution discernible in his History.

A reason­

ably complete picture incorporating these elements does, however, emerge from all of the pre-Bancroft interpretations taken together. It can be said that no definite break in the explanations of the coming of the American Revolution can be seen between Bancroft and his predecessors.

Perhaps the difference some critics of Bancroft

professed to have seen, and whioh they ascribed to those currents of public emotion and thought called by historians, Democracy," does not actually exist.

"Jacksonian

At any rate, its value seems

to need re-examination and a fresh appraisal.

To approach this

task It becomes necessary to draw up as close an approximation of a "balance sheet" aa the nature of the evidence and the subject permits.

CHAPTER IV THE BALANCE SHEET An effort to reach a new evaluation of George Bancroft In relation to American historiography through the preparation of a "balance sheet" neoeasltates the inclusion of many and varied ma­ terials.

Points of similarity and of difference between Bancroft

and his predecessors must be assigned their proper places on the debit or credit side of the ledger.

Only when as many factors as

possible have been taken into consideration can a "final accounting" of his interpretation be attempted in terms of its relation to the vague term,

"Jacksonian democracy."

The result obtained after the

likenesses and divergences between Bancroft and his forerunners nave been assessed and balanced will serve aa a standard whereby the validity of what critics have usually said about the "father of American history" may be

Judged.

In the foregoing pages the originality of Bancroft's in­ terpretation of the coming of the Revolution has been considered, w© h&ve seen that In every important aspect of his thesis he has been anticipated In the pages of one or another of the historians who wrote before him.

A few of hie points of view were expressed

by only one or two earlier historians,'1’ but, usually the number of his forerunners who voiced ideas akin to his was large.

There is

no doubt that a major point of similarity between Bancroft and his predecessors is this foreshadowing on their part of so many Inter1 Burra, pp. 35-36.

43

44 p n t e t t T « themes later appearing la his writings. The composite picture emerging from a comparative study of these early American historians also significantly resembles the outlines of the Bancroft pattern in something besides inter­ pretations of the Revolution.

Noticeable in Bancroft was his

predilection for New E n g l a n d , especially Massachusetts.

He scanned

the horizon of the Revolution from the "tower of the Old North Church."

Frequently he described, at considerable length, events

he perceived at a distance; always one is aware that he

lid not

leave his stanoh, righteous, and Christian, Massachusetts vantage point.*

It is a commonplace in American historiography to say

that because so many sons and daughters of New England have written our history, it has been perceptibly flavored by their outlooks and prejudices.

This process seems to have begun with the first

pioua writings In the seventeenth century.

By the end of the

eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries,

the prac­

tice of espousing the "Massachusetts point-of-vlew•• was in full swing. An effective method of magnifying Massachusetts' r&le was the "excursion" technique.

Bancroft used this to perfection, but

others had previously utilised It almost as adequately.

Through­

out B a n croft’s works the impression is given that New England was the center of action.

Several earlier writers also make

their

discussions of other places and their affairs seem like digressions from the main thread of events.

2

Whether they or Bancroft used

this device consciously, is a moot question.

There can be no doubt,

1 3 u pra. p. 4. 2 The following authors are among those who leave this im­ pression: Andrews, o p 7 o i t . , passim; Gordon, op. olt. , pa s s i m ; Holmes, o p . clt. . II, passim: Pitkin, fi£*_jalt- * I,

4© tomtr,

that it left many of their readers with the Idee that New

England** oontributloa toward the winning of the Revolution towered above that of all other seotlons. Hot all of the first writers on the Revolution used these Indirect means to heighten the glory of the Bay state's rSle. Positive affirmations of Massachusetts'

importance are to be ex­

pected from oitizens of that commonwealth.

One writer rational­

ised the large emphasis she placed on this colony by insisting that because "Massachusetts was still the prinoip&l butt of minis­ terial resentment.

It la therefore neoesaary yet to continue a

more particular detail of the situation of that p r o v i n c e . D e ­ claring that in this state "the fire raged with increased violence,* another son of New England insisted that the "focus of the revolutlon" was located in Massachusetts.

2

In William Audor's preface

to his biography of James Otis, the author traced the origins of the Revolution to the ministry's determination to try out the issue of taxation in Massachusetts. This long and momentous struggle began in Massachusetts, and her capital witnessed most of the leading measures, till it terminated in actual war. There, the innovations rr°Rented by the ministry. Inflicted the greatest Injury; there, the most active and able of their partisans were stationed, and the main body of their forces was concentrated; there In fine, from various circumstances, the ministry and the sovereign resolved 'to try the question.'3 One might well expect that these forthright assertions of the New England point of view would be confined to the writings of men and women of that section.

duch an assumpt ion would be

false, for there were foreigners as well who took their position ■^Warren, ot>. olt. . I, 71. p Butler, op. olt.. Ill, 43. 3Tudor, op. clt.. p. x.

The Italics are ostler's.

46 on this "rooky ground."

Much of John A a d m i '

sotting for his

History of ths tfar la America. sto. was laid in How England, and ha asssrtsd that ths disposition to protsst, common to all colon­ ials, "was conspicuously evident in ths Provinces of Mow England.*1 His purpose in writing hia book was not to uphold the colonial oause but voether British historians blamed or blessed the new nation, they saw New Englanders as the ohief instigators of the late troubles.

From Scotland came a four volume work on the United

states which was decidedly favorable to our country.

In it the

ooourrenoes in New England received more than a fair share of at­ tention.

Its author asserted th&t It was well that the first

bloodshed took place in that section, "where the people were so much connected with each other by consanguinity and similarity of manners, condition, and of religious and political sentiments, that the slaughter of & single individual was resented with wide-spread o concern and Indignation.9 " The inference that ill feeling would not have been as strong elsewhere, can hardly be escaped.

Massa­

chusetts, and especially Boston, was pointed to as the "centre of resistance *3 by still another European historian.

This man was

the noted German, Arnold Hermann Beeren, under whom Bancroft had studied and some of whose works he translated,

Clearly not only

New ^nglandera were prone to view themselves as the storm-center of the Revolution.4 ^Andrews,

op

. clt. , I, 131.

2 Grahams, op. olt. . IV, 398. 3Heeren, op. clt.. II, 82. 4 Parson Weems also lauded New England*s "heroic spirit," o l t . . p. 121. Whether this was the result of a deep conviction on his part, or an attempt to make his book as all-inclusive as possible, for reasons of business, cannot be ascertained. op.

4? Uat

the lapr« ••Ion b« o m t a d

that only X a s M O h v a s tt«

and Haw E n g l and had o h M p i o n a of their special heroism it must be reoor d e d that other o o I o n lea had their fervent looal histor i a n s i as well. It is tree that beeause most history w a s w r i t t e n by the Mew E n g l a n d group the m a n y boobs published before 1S34 leave the general Impression of a strong partiality in favor of that section.

There were, n e v e r t h e l e s s , several enthusiastic advocates

of o ther states and colonies.

Burk*a History of Virginia and Kam-

say* s H i s t o r y of South Carolina extol the unique virtues of those states.

Perhaps a b e t t e r example of partisanship la to be found

in W i r t ’s Life of P a t r i c k H e n r y .

He upholds Virginia's claim to

the d i stinction of b e i n g the originator of the Revolution because P of Henry* s Stamp Act R e s o l u t i o n s . " This claim started a literary argument b e t ween the advocates of Massachusetts and those of Vir­ ginia w h i c h lasted for several years.

In fact it even caused cer­

tain North Carolinians to declare that neither Virginia nor Massa­ chusetts could aspire

to the first position, because North Carolina,

through the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence of May,

1775,

undisputedly occupied

so

that place.

These controversies were

eloquent and heated in the early nineteenth century that by the time Bancroft published his first volume many precedents ha d been set for emphasizing the special claims of one state in preference to all others. predecessors.

Once again, Bancroft adopted the practice of his By buil d i n g his History on a firm Massachusetts

foundation he could lay no claim to originality. Before turning from the items of similarity between Ban­ croft and his predecessors to the points wherein he differs from 1 S u p r a , p. 18. g wirt, op. o l t . . pp. 84— 85; p. 103; p. 433.

them, It is interesting to note an early statement by the man himself which anticipates points of view later expressed by his in his History. Q*

In the preface to his translation of Heeren*s History

Foiltloal System of Burope.etc, he yoioed many views in

regard to America* s relation to the world scheme which are iden­ tical with those appearing years later in his own great work. We may study the history of the last three centuries, with pride;. . . . .It Is well for us also, sometimes to consider our country as a link in the great chain of olvil order; to observe its connexion fa i d with the destinies of the world; to quicken the sentiment of patriotism by remembering the in­ fluences of our system on mankind; to estimate the importance of the establishment of our constitutions, the freedom of our laws, and the extension of our territory, as events that are a benefit to all the nations of the earth; and, finally, to cherish purer gratitude for the great and good among our fa, there, who were the benefactors not of us only but of humanity. That this preface was written in 1823 Is of some significance. Jackson was only then coming to power.

Bancroft had not yet be­

come an open adherent of the Democratic party In Massachusetts. ¥hat his private views at the time were It Is impossible positively to ascertain.

But whether he was already committed in general to

the Jacksonian side Is not as Important as ia the fact that at this early date, before the fervor of the movement had had the op­ portunity of playing upon him for six years, he was as eloquently patriotic as he would be in 1834.

Here again the weakness of a

close correlation of "Jacksonian democracy* with Bancroft, the historian, is apparent. Mo charge that Bancroft plagiarised his predecessors Is Intended when the similarity of his interpretations to theirs is pointed out.

The effort has rather been to show that the Ideas

expressed by this scholar, who began writing history In the "reign of King Andrew," are not new ones, born of that era. ^Heeren,

op.

But neither

olt. . preface by George Bancroft, p. lv.

are they original to the croft.

Som

m

& and

v o m u

who used than before Ban­

of then la their origin certainly can be traced back

several centuries.

For our purposes it is sufficient to see that

■tost of then were held by the Revolutionary •fathers" themselves. Bancroft, in the 1030's, accepted their view of why the Revolution had come; it is from their writings that

he moat obviously takes

his interpretations. Ample evidence to support the picture (as drawn by the historians) of a virtuous group of freeholders battling to pre­ serve their birthright of liberty can be gained by reading a few of the documents of the Revolution.

New York*a *3ons of Liberty"

in their resolutions against the importation of tea on November 29, 1773,firmly maintained the position that they were merely trying to preserve the liberties that had been handed lown to them by their ancestors.^*

The men of the Continental Congress were not

unaware of the sacrifices their forefathers had made in coming to Amerioa.