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 |
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
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
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.
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, |
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
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.
58 OHIO HISTORY
27. Cranch manuscript.
28. Ibid.
29. No. 10.
30. See Nos. 23 and 25.
31. Charles Edward Stowe, Life of
Harriet Beecher Stowe Compiled from Her Letters
and Journals (Boston and New York, 1891), 69.
32. Ibid., 71.
33. Quoted in Foote, Memoirs of
Samuel E. Foote, 181-182.
34. Anna Blackwell to William Greene,
August 18, 1844. Greene Papers.
35. Clara Longworth DeChambrun, The
Making of Nicholas Longworth: Annals of
an American Family (New York, 1933), 94-97.
36. Anna Blackwell to William Greene,
August 18, 1844. Greene Papers.
37. Edith Perkins Cunningham, Owls
Nest (Boston, 1907), 125.
38. Cranch manuscript.
39. No. 10.
40. Literary Culture in the Ohio
Valley, 420.
41. Nos. 15, 26, and 89.
42. No. 6.
43. No. 12.
44. No. 84.
45. Quoted in Foote, Memoirs of
Samuel E. Foote, 249-250.
46. Cranch manuscript.
47. Wilson, Crusader in Crinoline, 124-127.
48. Ibid.
49. Ephraim Peabody to William Greene,
June 15, 1839. Greene Papers.
50. Foote, Memoirs of Samuel E.
Foote, 182.
51. E. D. Mansfield, Personal
Memories, Social, Political, and Literary, with Sketches
of Many Noted People, 1803-1843 (Cincinnati, 1879), 190-191.
52. Cranch manuscript.
CALEB ATWATER AS
HISTORIAN
1. The printers were Glezen and Shepard
of Cincinnati. An abbreviated title, History
of Ohio, appears on the spine of the book.
2. S. F. Haven, "Report of the
Council," American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings,
Old Series, IV (1866-68), 22.
3. Clement L. Martzolff, "Caleb
Atwater," Ohio Archaeological and Historical Quar-
terly, XIV (1905), 247-271. The article stresses Atwater's
contributions to Ohio educa-
tion.
4. Henry C. Shetrone, "Caleb
Atwater: Versatile Pioneer--A Re-Appraisal," Ohio
State Archaeological and Historical
Quarterly, LIV (1945), 87. The
strongest impression
to be gleaned from this article, but
probably not the one intended, is that Atwater was
out of place in the West.
5. Francis P. Weisenburger, "Caleb
Atwater: Pioneer Politician and Historian,"
Ohio Historical Quarterly, LXVIII (1959), 18-37. This is primarily a review of At-
water's political activities.
6. In Archaeologica Americana:
Transactions and Collections of the American Anti-
quarian Society, I (1820), 105-267.
7. American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings,
Old Series, IV (1866-68), 26-27.
8. January 27, February 2, 10, and 17.
9. Weisenburger says that the
"first significant summary" of Ohio's past was Salmon
P. Chase's forty-eight page introduction
to his Statutes of Ohio, which was published in
three volumes from 1833 to 1835 at
Cincinnati. "Caleb Atwater," 18.
10. The General Character, Present
and Future Prospects of the People of Ohio
(Columbus, 1827), an address, and Remarks
Made on a Tour to Prairie du Chien,
Thence to Washington City, in 1829 (Columbus, 1831). Atwater's two other principal
publications are an Essay on
Education (Cincinnati, 1841), and Mysteries of Wash-
ington City During Several Months of
the Session of the 28th Congress (Washington,
1844).
11. Shetrone, "Caleb Atwater,"
82.
12. The date usually given is 1815.
However, Atwater, in his History of Ohio (p. 26),
reports that in December 1814 he had
been on a tour of wet prairies in west central
Ohio. Having gone to New York City to
teach after graduating from Williams College
in 1804, Atwater in time completed studies for the
ministry and the law, and practiced
both before moving to Ohio at age thirty-six or
thirty-seven. He was born Christmas
Day, 1778, in North Adams,
Massachusetts. Twice married, Atwater raised a large
NOTES
59
family. Martzolff, Shetrone, and
Weisenburger in their accounts provide additional bio-
graphical particulars.
13. As early as 1772 the Rev. David
Jones of New Jersey described the Circleville
earthworks. Shetrone, "Caleb
Atwater," 83.
14. Weisenburger, "Caleb
Atwater," 23-31.
15. Henry Howe, Historical
Collections of Ohio (Columbus, 1888), II, 416. See also
Weisenburger, "Caleb Atwater,"
20.
16. Howe, Historical Collections, II,
417. Howe described Atwater as having been a
"disappointed, unhappy man"
when the two met in 1846. They were distant relatives.
17. Weisenburger, "Caleb
Atwater," 30.
18. Quoted more fully in Weisenburger,
"Caleb Atwater," 34.
19. Also quoted in Weisenburger,
"Caleb Atwater," 34.
20. "Caleb Atwater," 267. In
February 1839, according to Weisenburger, Atwater
wrote in a letter to a close friend that
every copy of the first edition had been sold
within four weeks of the time it was
bound, and a second edition had just been issued.
"Caleb Atwater," 34. Atwater,
in his preface, said that he planned to publish only
500 copies at a time. A sampling of Ohio
libraries indicates that copies of the first
and second editions are available.
21. "Caleb Atwater," 87.
22. "Caleb Atwater," 32, 36.
23. Benedetto Croce, "History To Be
Written and Not To Be Written," in History
as the Story of Liberty (New York, 1955), 280.
24. See Allan Nevins and Henry Steele
Commager, The Pocket History of the United
States (New York, 1951), 200.
HANNAH FANCHER'S
NOTES ON OHIO SPEECH IN 1824
1. The Castigator (Georgetown, Ohio), April 15, 1828, August 7, 1832,
December 4,
1832, May 8, 1833.
2. Ibid., June 19, 1833.
3. The History of Brown County, Ohio (Chicago, 1883), 605; George Wells Bartholo-
mew, Record of the Bartholomew Family
(Austin, Tex., 1885), 192-194.
4. Colonel Herman Dieck, The Most
Complete and Authentic History of the Life and
Public Services of General U. S.
Grant (Philadelphia, 1885), 52.
5. N. P. Seymour in Dialect Notes, I
(1890), 17. See also W. H. Parry, "Dialect
Peculiarities in Southeastern
Ohio," Dialect Notes, IV (1916), 339-342; Lewis A. Ondis,
"Dialectical Peculiarities of
Athens, Ohio," American Speech, XX (1945), 232-223.
6. The Castigator (Ripley, Ohio), November 9, 1824.
7. Sometimes which by itself was
used for this purpose. Sir William A. Craigie and
James R. Hulbert, eds., A Dictionary
of American English on Historical Principles
(Chicago, 1940); hereafter D.A.E.
8. In Lester V. Berry and Melvin Van Den
Bark, The American Thesaurus of
Slang (New York, 1953), dauncy is included in a list
of "miscellaneous western terms,"
and defined as "downcast,
sad." See also D. A. E. Dauncy is still occasionally heard in
Ohio with the meaning defined by Hannah
Fancher.
9. In a swither, an obsolescent
phrase for uncertainty, was noted in 1940 at Salem,
Virginia. C. M. Woodard, A Word-list
from Virginia and North Carolina (American
Dialect Society, Publications, No.
6, 1946), 29. The Oxford English Dictionary gives
examples from the novels of Robert Louis
Stevenson.
10. This is essentially a southern usage.
Everett Dick, The Dixie Frontier (New York,
1948), 313.
11. Also noted in D. A. E.
12. Perhaps this pronunciation derives
from a misuse of the French oignon, from
which the English word is derived. The
British surname Onions is sometimes pro-
nounced "Onighans." H. L.
Mencken, The American Language: Supplement II (New
York, 1948), 460. D. A. E. notes
an 1825 dialect rendering of "ingyons."
13. Beal was an old English
variant of boil in the sense of skin eruption. Its survival
is noted in John T. Krumpelmann,
"West Virginia Peculiarities," American Speech,
XIV (1939), 155.
14. In 1827 a Georgian noted that his
neighbors used smart chance for "large quan-
tity." M. M. Mathews, ed.,
"Sherwood's Provincialisms," Dialect Notes, V (1927),
415-421.
15. Here Hannah Fancher supports a
British pronunciation. The four syllable version
was used in New Critical Pronouncing
Dictionary . . . by an American Gentleman
(Burlington, N. J., 1813).