Ohio History Journal

CALEB ATWATER AS HISTORIAN

by PHILIP SKARDON Caleb Atwater, whose A History of the State of Ohio, Natural and Civil, published in 1838,1 was the first lengthy survey of Ohio's development, has remained relatively obscure to this day despite a multi-faceted career with several exceptional achievements. He has been credited variously with pro- ducing the "earliest systematic and well authenticated account" of the pre- historic Indian remains in the Ohio Valley,2 and with being a founder of Ohio's public school system.3 In addition to having been a historian, anti- quarian, and educator, Atwater was a Presbyterian minister and a lawyer. Indeed, he was "one of the intellectual pioneers of the West."4 Moreover, at one time or another, he was postmaster of Circleville, representative to the general assembly from Pickaway County, prosecutor for that county, and an Indian commissioner.5 When Atwater died on March 13, 1867, in Circleville at the age of eighty-eight, his career was far behind him. His last published work had appeared nearly a fourth of a century before. He had ceased many years previously to be active in politics. Apparently his law practice never was extensive; and he had given up the ministry for reasons of health as a young man. Yet Atwater was remembered in one quarter for the work he had done. A spokesman for the American Antiquarian Society recalled during the annual meeting in October 1867 at Worcester, Massachusetts, that in 1820 the society had published Atwater's earliest important study, "Description of the Antiquities Discovered in the State of Ohio and Other Western NOTES ARE ON PAGES 58-59

• 1
 

28                                                OHIO HISTORY

 

States,"⁶ adding that "its author did not obtain at home the full credit to

which he was entitled for his fidelity and painstaking industry, his dis-

criminating judgment, and his comparative freedom from visionary the-

ories."⁷ Commentary on Atwater's life and work has been sparse; and it

may be that he has never received "full credit" for his other achievements,

especially the 125-year-old History of Ohio.

Atwater projected the History of Ohio as early as December 1818. In a

prospectus bearing that date, and published in the Portsmouth Gazette in

early 1819,8 Atwater wrote that "this work will contain at least 400 pages

octavo, and will be put to press early in the next summer, if it receive

patronage sufficient to defray the heavy expenses which it will cost its

author."

What Atwater was contemplating in 1818 was much different from what

appeared in print almost exactly twenty years later. The prospectus dis-

closes that natural history would have made up the bulk of the proposed

work, had Atwater proceeded according to plan, and that a "succinct"

civil history of the state would have covered the period "since it [Ohio]

was first visited by the white people." In the completed volume the natural

history constitutes about a fourth of the total contents. Atwater explained

in the preface that he had altered his plans for this portion of the work:

"The Natural History has been greatly abridged from my original manu-

scripts, with the hope of rendering that part of my work, acceptable to

common readers."

That chapters Atwater originally had prepared for the History of Ohio

were used instead in his "Antiquities" is evident; for at another place in

his preface he stated that "two portions of the original history have been

already published, relating to our 'ancient works,' and to the 'Indians.' " It

is reasonable to assume that Atwater's delay in publishing the History of

Ohio, or, as he referred to it in the prospectus, Notes on the State of Ohio,

had been necessitated by his inability to raise enough money through ad-

vance subscriptions to continue immediately with its preparation. Perhaps,

too, the Ohio story had not advanced sufficiently for full-length, balanced

treatment.⁹ It should be pointed out, also, that between 1820 and 1838

Atwater published two other pieces besides the "Antiquities."¹⁰ A busy

person, he could have worked only intermittently on the History of Ohio.

Maybe above everything else the versatile Atwater was an antiquarian

-natural historian. One authority asserts that "Atwater's predilection

for natural history and antiquities was shared by most of his contempora-

ries."1l Atwater's special interest in these subjects obviously explains why

natural history plays such a prominent role in the History of Ohio. It could

also explain why, when Atwater migrated to Ohio from New York in

1814,12 he settled in Circleville, the location of a famous prehistoric circular

earthworks. He soon undertook the practice of law and set out to collect

data on the state's natural and ancient phenomena. It is unlikely that any-

one preceded him in most of these investigations. However, Atwater was

not the first person to report the existence of earthworks at Circleville.l3

• 2
 

CALEB ATWATER                                                     29

 

The results of Atwater's diligent efforts eventually found their way into

the History of Ohio. To such a person--curious, scientific, scholarly--Ohio

must have seemed a treasure-trove. "The whole valley of the Mississippi,

is what Geologists denominate 'a secondary formation,'" Atwater wrote

enthusiastically in the prefatory remarks to "Part First" of his book, the

natural history. "This whole valley," he continued, "is covered, to vast

depth, with the ruins of a former world. This is the greatest valley, and

the largest tract of secondary formation, in the whole world. This vast

field has been but recently visited by geologists, and books can afford us

very little aid."

Atwater evidently understood well the close bond between natural history

and prehistory, on the one hand, and civil and political history--to use his

terms--on the other. His beginning the History of Ohio with an account of

the state's natural history was unquestionably the most felicitous feature

of the book traceable directly to the 1818 prospectus. Regrettably, less

attention was paid to antiquities than might have been the case had the

prospectus been adhered to more faithfully. Part First would have gained

from inclusion of those portions on ancient works and Indians published

elsewhere.

There are forty-four entries listed under the table of contents for Part

First of the History of Ohio. They include, among other items, discussions

of Ohio's rivers, Lake Erie, organic remains, fishes, wild animals, reptiles,

native trees, flowers and fruits, naturalized trees and plants, grasses, di-

seases, stones, ores, clays, alluvial deposits, mineral springs, climate, and

birds (Atwater characterized the brown thrush as "this Shakespeare

among birds").

A steady utilitarian undercurrent flows through Part First: "As we have

all the materials which enter into the composition of this [Liverpool] ware,

let us hope, that the ware will soon be made here"; "We do not regret the

disappearance of the native forests, because by that means, more human

beings can be supported in the State"; "The production of the articles of

food--meat and bread, for hungry laborers of the east, best suits our pre-

sent conditions"; and "Our Indian corn. . . excels all other corn, in sweet-

ness, and produces two quarts more Whiskey to the bushel, than the New

York corn." He recounted that Ohio's commercial crops also consisted of a

good strain of yellow-leafed tobacco (grown in Fairfield, Hocking, Perry,

Licking, Guernsey, Belmont, Stark, Muskingum, and other hilly counties),

cotton (grown in Lawrence County), hemp, and flax.

At the conclusion of Part First, we catch our initial glimpse of Atwater

wearing the mantle of the prophetic historian: "To all human appearance,"

he ebulliently forecast in a bracketed last paragraph, as if it were an

afterthought, "this great valley is intended by its great, good, and wise

Author, for a vast number of people in which to live, move about, and act,

and eventually, to control forever, the destinies of the most powerful nation

on the globe." The state's natural abundance had stirred Atwater's imagi-

nation. His bright, hopeful vision of the future was to fade, however, and

• 3
 

30                                                 OHIO HISTORY

 

then take a turn that would cast a shadow over the entire History of Ohio.

Political and civil history, comprising three-fourths of Atwater's book,

is divided into six periods: Period First, 1680-1788 (the discovery of Lake

Erie by the French to the settlement of Marietta); Period Second,

1788-1803 (the settlement of Marietta to the admission of Ohio to the

Union): Period Third, 1803-1812 (the organization of state government);

Period Fourth, 1812-1815 (the War of 1812 in Ohio); Period Fifth, 1815-

1825 (general events in the state's history, encompassing establishment of

the common school system, measures leading to the construction of canals,

and DeWitt Clinton's 1825 visit to take part in ceremonies commemorating

the start of that construction); Period Sixth, 1825-1837 ("Civil History"--

internal improvements, education and educational institutions, religious

sects, trade and commerce, benevolent societies, cities and towns, and

state officials). The appendix includes the Northwest Ordinance and the

Ohio constitution. Altogether, there are 403 pages in the History of Ohio.

The civil and political history delineates the author's frame of mind more

incisively than Part First; the Atwater ultimately emerging from the

History of Ohio, besides displaying many admirable attributes, gives signs

of having been perturbed by the course of everyday affairs. The reader's

suspicion that Atwater was not so much at ease in practical pursuits as

among nature's marvels and the ruins of time is thereby fortified. Other

evidence of this sort exists. It enables us to conclude that Atwater was a

maladroit politician.14 He was a failure at business not long before moving

to Ohio.15 His income from the law and authorship was meager, presum-

ably.16 As a rule, Atwater did not allow displeasure or setbacks to affect

his History of Ohio, except, perhaps, in those infrequent passages dealing

with his speculations. Then he exposed his feelings, intentionally or not.

Atwater's belief in the future, so majestically expressed in his praise

for "this great valley" at the end of Part First, is subjected to severe re-

examination in the dedication. Here, as the book went to press, Atwater

wrote: "I have every where, spoken exultingly of the future, but... candor

compels me to confess, that all such passages, in my writings, of late years,

have been written with a heavy heart."

The change in Atwater was most poignantly illustrated by his disaffec-

tion from party. An admirer and friend of President Jackson, but upset by

the Van Buren administration, Atwater had allied himself with Whiggery

by 1840.17 It is plain that deep disillusionment afflicted him before then.

Largely unrewarded in any way, Atwater apparently supposed that others

shared his fate. It is probably no coincidence that three heroes of his book--

Wayne, Clinton, and Fulton--had been meted out the worst abuse pos-

sible, in his view: to be disregarded officially for magnanimous service.

Atwater had to contend not only with obstacles inherent in his makeup

and career in order to complete the History of Ohio, but with other for-

midable circumstances as well. First, if he were to present a report on

Ohio's civil and political history at all, he had to work with events of re-

cent occurrence. Nevertheless, he was able to write of the present and near-

present with historical perspective. By doing so, Atwater proved that he

was a current historian of merit rather than merely a dutiful recorder.

• 4
 

A second, equally nettlesome, circumstance was the absence of reliable authorities on whom to fall back for interpretive guidance. The upshot was that Atwater had to call upon his varied specialties--the law and education, in particular--to infuse his discussions of such matters as the Ohio con- stitution and the public school system with understanding. His handling of both items was especially perceptive, incidentally. Third, there was little precedent upon which to base the History of Ohio. The gravest circumstance facing Atwater was the relative unavailability of information about Ohio. He had to rely on his own searchings. The data collected for the History of Ohio was impressive in scope and resulted in some unique and valuable accounts--for example, Wayne's western cam- paigns and the death of Tecumseh. Considering the conditions under which Atwater labored, it is a wonder that he finished the History of Ohio when he did. He had met every challenge forthrightly, albeit with irregular success. Thus did Atwater earn whatever acclaim he has received for this feat. Criticism of Atwater's History of Ohio has ranged from total rejection to unreserved acceptance. In 1838 The Hesperian or Western Monthly Magazine, published in Columbus, said: "Ohio's Pioneers, her wars, her resources, her institutions--in short her perfect history, natural and civil-- because constituting a great, a master subject, should . . . be untouched,

• 5
 

32                                                 OHIO HISTORY

 

save by a master hand. As a literary production, Mr. Atwater's book is

deplorably deficient."¹⁸ Three years later the North American Review

observed that the History of Ohio included "some details which are not

facts," but did not advise against it.19

Two estimates in our century have been laudatory, a third unfavorable--

all in this magazine. "The book was well received and hearty encourage-

ment was given it by the best people of the day," Clement L. Martzolff

wrote in 1905.20 Henry C. Shetrone, attempting a reappraisal of Atwater

in 1945, referred to the History of Ohio as Atwater's "most pretentious

literary product." "It was this volume," he continued, "which won for

him the title of Ohio's first historian. His travels over the State and his

observation and study of its geology, geography, flora and fauna, had

fitted him well for a report on the natural history of the area, while his

active participation in civic affairs left little to be desired in preparing

him for the task of recording Ohio's civil history up to that time."21

The views of Francis P. Weisenburger, a well-known author of Ohio

history, are contained in an issue of 1959: "Atwater . . . was impetuous

and lacked the patience to revise carefully his manuscripts," Professor

Weisenburger says of Atwater's authorship. "His literary style, moreover,

was animated but often diffuse and not always accurate." He adds that

Atwater's "frequently careless, undisciplined manner of writing . . . had

detracted seriously from his effectiveness as an author."22

Since Atwater was an early historian, in American terms, it was inevit-

able that he should commit numerous errors involving style, technique,

substance, and judgment. The History of Ohio does lack literary grace.

Moreover, Atwater repeated himself, jumped from topic to topic, treated

at length irrelevant material, obstructed the pace with excessive detail,

permitted sentimentalism to frustrate historical detachment, cited refer-

ences at random, and used poor punctuation practices.

If there are serious substantive errors in the History of Ohio--and there

may be none--they should be overlooked by modern critics insofar as

they were not caused by carelessness; for history constantly is in the

process of being corrected by more history. Even so-called "errors in

judgment" should not detract where they are based on sufficient research

or experience, and sincere evaluation. But when there is flagrant distor-

tion that is inexcusable because of the author's background, he must be

chastised and his opinions condemned. Applying this measure, we must

adjudge the least worthy portion of the History of Ohio to be Atwater's

discussion of the slavery issue.

 

As a state, it is our interest, in Ohio, to have slavery continued

in the slave-holding states, for a century yet, otherwise our growth

would be checked [Atwater wrote on page 331]. The broad and deep

streams of wealth, numbers, enterprise, youth, vigor, and the very

life blood of the slave holding states, now rolling into Ohio like mighty

floods, would be stayed; and even roll back to their sources, rendering

• 6
 

CALEB ATWATER                                                  33

 

those states, not merely our equals, but even our superiors, in num-

bers, wealth and political power. No. We have adopted a policy which,

for a century yet, requires slavery in the states south of us, to be

continued, until they become deserts, (that is none of our business)

while we have twelve millions of people in Ohio; until, indeed, this

whole state, becomes one vast, lovely paradise: all cultivated, inter-

sected every where, by roads and canals; covered with cities and

their splendid domes.

 

In putting forth these views Atwater was writing something akin to

"history of the future," usually not considered history.²³ Then, by equat-

ing Ohio's well-being to continuation of an inglorious institution, he proved

to be a dismal prophet, and, as a consequence, very nearly destroyed the

credibility of the History of Ohio. Furthermore, while he acknowledged

that slavery was inimical to the South's material advancement (not an

uncommon opinion in the North),24 in thinking this beneficial to Ohio he

failed to see that slavery was detrimental to the general welfare. Economic

provincialism had blinded him to the broader moral issue at hand. The

paradox is that Atwater had spoken with rare discernment on economic

matters until he introduced the slavery issue into his theorizations about

Ohio's development. In a moment the strongest thread woven into the

History of Ohio is broken. The effect is highly injurious.

It seems as though the question whether Atwater was a competent

overall historian can not be resolved wholly in his favor; for, if in one

instance he had shown remarkable ability, in another he had been dis-

turbingly deficient. Inconstancy is the most troubling feature of his book,

in fact. When that defect is coupled with Atwater's tendency to be polem-

ical on occasion, the reasons are clear why author and book alike have been

as much censured as honored.

Still, it is impossible to diminish too greatly the credit due both. Caleb

Atwater, after all, was the pioneer historian of the Ohio scene; and his

History of Ohio, despite its many shortcomings, adequately supports that

claim.

 

 

THE AUTHOR: Philip Skardon is a

newspaperman of Urbana, Ohio. He is on

the staff of the Dayton Daily News.

• 7