What is a Historian?

[Rob Wick]

Quote:Would you consider William Herndon a "historian"?

Gene,

Absolutely. However, one would have to look at by what standard Herndon was judged under. That's because before Herbert Baxter Adams introduced the German-based seminar system into Johns Hopkins University there really was no such thing as the American historical profession, at least not as we know it today. Many universities only presented a few classes on history.

In her studies at Allegheny College as a student in the School of Science, Tarbell’s exposure to history courses was limited. As a freshman in her first term she had a class in Roman History based on Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita Libri. The remainder of the year was spent taking three classes in French, Geometry, Chemistry, Zoology, and, of all things, Surveying. More French came in her sophomore year as well as German and more Geometry and Calculus. History of English Literature was mixed in with Logic and Philosophy classes in her junior year. It was only in the second term of her senior year that Tarbell took any course relating to United States history; one on the Constitution.

Writers of history before its professionalization consisted usually of rich men (exclusively white) who had the time and wherewithal to produce material. Much of the better work was written based on research trips to various sites (hence the need to be wealthy, which still doesn't hurt in today's world either), but the distinct priority (as Bill alludes to) was telling a story. Interpretation for its own sake was not unwelcome, but not the main focus. Names like Francis Parkman and George Bancroft were household names and were the leaders of what is known as the Nationalist School. In the area of the Civil War, James Ford Rhodes was the early big name.

Herndon gathered evidence in the field. Although vocational historians put little stock into oral history, Herndon was one of the first practitioners. He sifted the evidence through. His level of objectivity was low, but again, it wasn't considered important to his work as a whole. And, I would argue, his work still has great value to historians of today. Thanks to Douglas Wilson and Rodney O. Davis and others like the late John Y. Simon, the prejudices against Herndon from Randall, Angle, Thomas and others in the Springfield clique have been washed away. That isn't to say that everything Herndon produced was gold. There's no reason Herndon can't be used as long as one maintains a critical eye.

Bill,
Your point is well taken and one area where I think its OK for vocational and avocational historians to be apart. You are absolutely correct that the interpretation is key to the vocational historian which is also why much of a paper or journal article covers the historiographical background in such detail. Avocational historians are writing a narrative that, while not lacking in interpretation, may not cover it in such a way that professors would. I think that is the gist of what Sean Wilentz had to say about McCullough's John Adams.

However, I do question that it isn't whether one historian is right or wrong, at least from the historian's perspective. One only need look at the controversy surrounding Herndon. One of the more interesting sections of historical journals that I read as an undergraduate were the replies that professors wrote when another questioned the validity of a pet theory. I had two professors walk up and down the hallway arguing over some obscure point in European history to the point where neither ended up holding their classes (we were all sitting in the hallway watching, and hopefully learning, from their display).

I wholeheartedly recommend Pressley's work, Americans Interpret Their Civil War. It's an older book, but it remains relevant to this day.

Best
Rob