SOME NOTES ON OHIO
HISTORIOGRAPHY.1
BY CLARENCE E. CARTER, MIAMI UNIVERSITY.
The rise of historiography in the
trans-Alleghany states in
the first half of the nineteenth century
follows the order of
development so familiar in every
national experience, European
as well as American, in which annalists,
antiquarian compilers,
and composers of didactic narrative
successively emerge. This
conventional order of succession is
observable, moreover, in the
American colonies and later in all the
states. In the latter, in-
deed, particularly in the newer western
states of the early na-
tional period, historical writing is
strikingly similar to that of the
Atlantic region in the colonial age.
Little, if any, improvement
is noted, in either content or
technique, in these types of com-
position. In fact, historical writing in
general, during the early
national era, reveals but slight advance
over that of the previous
age. The character of the wide hiatus
which divided the colonial
and revolutionary and the national
periods suggests a probable
explanation for this apparent
retardation. The long period of
stress from the opening of the
revolutionary age to the end of
the first quarter of the nineteenth
century afforded small op-
portunity for the development of any
field of literature. More-
over, the trend of thought was almost
wholly political and theo-
logical. But in the western states this
situation was further
complicated by the preoccupation of most
of the people in con-
quering their primitive environment, a
fact which obviously
affected the historical writing of the
few who found time to at-
tempt it. One detects little in these
years of institutional be-
ginnings that goes beyond the narrative
and antiquarian stage.
But following these years of growth
along material lines, and
somewhat after the middle of the
century, we observe the
gradual emergence in the states, though
not quite so early as in
1The following paper appeared, in
substance, in "The Ohio History
Teachers' Journal" for November,
1916, and November, 1917.
(176)
Some Notes on Ohio
Historiography. 177
the nation, of the writer of history in
whom is found a keener
discrimination as to sources, a more
rational arrangement of
materials, and a more decided deference
as to the canons of
historiography than is found in any
writers of the earlier period.
Although this suggested classification
is not wholly ade-
quate-indeed it must in no sense be
viewed as final-it will
perhaps serve as a basis for comparison.
A survey of the field
of Ohio writers of history, whether they
have written state,
sectional, or national history, reveals
the fact that they fall ap-
proximately into the groups suggested.
No attempt will be made
in this connection to catalogue all the
writers of history pro-
duced in Ohio, but rather to
characterize a few representative
writers of the first group and of the
transition to the second.
To the school of annalists and
chroniclers certainly belongs
James H. Perkins, author of the
well-known and one-time popu-
lar book, The Annals of the West, probably
the most typical of
the sectional histories of the period.
It appeared in 1846 and
depicts the history of the West, in
strict chronological style, from
its earliest beginnings in the sixteenth
century to 1845. The
author's own words, in the preface of
the original edition, give
a clear indication of the character of
the work: "An attempt has
been made in this volume to present the
outlines of Western
History in a form easy of reference, and
drawn from the best
authorities."
Although the author refers to the work
as an outline, it
represents something more than that. It
is based, as he points
out, upon a large number of sources,
most of which are of un-
questioned authenticity. His numerous
foot-note references are
inserted in accordance with most of the
canons of historical
composition, and his bibliography of
sources is surprisingly com-
plete in view of the time in which he
wrote. He cites one hun-
dred and eighty-three titles, including
such printed sources as
The Laws of Ohio, The Laws of
Missouri, American State
Papers, American Archives,
Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, Land
Laws of the United States, et cetera.
Contemporary writings,
works of travel, memoirs, and narratives
of various kinds are
listed, as well as a fairly comprehensive
list of what were then
Vol. XXVIII-12.
178 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications.
the standard secondary authorities,
including the widely read
History of the United States by George Bancroft.
Perkins says further in his preface that
"whenever it could
be done, with a proper regard to
conciseness, the words of eye-
witnesses have been used in the accounts
of important events."
Thus he has quite rightly described one
feature of his history.
It is indeed almost a hodge-podge of
narratives of captivity, de-
scriptions of social life, long excerpts
from letters, and extracts
from speeches. To be sure, no reflection
is to be cast upon the
value of this sort of material, but it
is obvious that such an ill-
digested compilation destroys all
perspective. Again, he in-
forms the reader that "the limits
of this volume have made it
necessary to state most matters with
great brevity, and, with
the exception of the Indian wars in
1790-95, no subject has re-
ceived a full development; upon that portion
of our history the
compiler dwelt longer than upon any
other, because the conduct
of the administration of Washington
toward the aborigines is
believed to be among the most honorable
passages of American
annals,"-an accurate
characterization of the spirit of the book.
He is quite as vociferous in his praise
and in his condemnation as
his contemporary historians, such as
George Bancroft and
Richard Hildreth, who were working in
the larger field of na-
tional history. But despite these
shortcomings the work stands
out as one of the important
contributions of the period-one
which held high rank in its day, and
which, despite its lack of
perspective and its biased judgments,
present-day students of
western history cannot ignore.
The work of Jacob Burnet, whose Notes
on the Early
Settlement of the North-Western
Territory appeared in 1847,
belongs to this same general class,
although it represents a
somewhat different type of historical
composition, covering a
limited period, as is indicated by the
title, and having been writ-
ten by one who had an active part in the
beginnings of the
political life of the Northwest. The
substance of the narrative
had appeared some ten years before as a
series of "Recollections"
in the publications of the Ohio
Historical Society. In explaining
the circumstances under which the work
was compiled the author
observes, in a memorandum published in
the larger work, that
Some Notes on Ohio
Historiography. 179
he had been requested by a friend to
commit to paper a bio-
graphical sketch of himself,
"accompanied by a statement of such
facts and incidents relating to the
early settlement of the North-
Western Territory, as were within his
recollection, and might
be worth preserving." His work thus
takes on an auto-biograph-
ical character. But it is particularly
free from anything that
savors of self-laudation. It is not,
however, free from error,
and many of the canons of literary taste
and historical
composition are violated. Contrary to his avowal that "the
work claims for itself nothing more of
merit than belongs to a
collection of authentic, detached,
facts; set down with more re-
gard to truth than to polish of style,
or chronological arrange-
ment", the author fails to detach
himself from his strong Feder-
alist bias. For this reason alone the
book cannot be trusted
without carefully checking it with the
sources. Few references
to sources are indeed made in the
volume, the author depending,
it seems evident in many cases, wholly
upon his memory. Like
most historical works of its class it is
filled with much that is
curious and out of place in historical
composition. Yet despite
its distorted vision, its violations of
present day standards of
good taste, and its rather frequent
error of fact, Burnet's Notes
remains one of the important works on
the history of the North-
west Territory. Certainly it has, for
the period covered, as great
value as many of the so-called
"Recollections" and similar com-
pilations issued at the present day.
A third type of historical work in the
first period is illus-
trated in Henry Howe's Historical
Collections of Ohio, which
may be mentioned in this connection not
because of any intrinsic
worth it ever possessed, but because it
is the most conspicuous
example of a type of historical endeavor
at one time recognized
as worth while and imitated on a large
scale by local historians
in this and other states. It is really a
state gazetteer, and con-
tains an outline of the history of the
state from its settlement to
approximately the time of publication in
1847. But the outline
is very meagre and filled with error. By
far the larger part of
the volume is taken up by a journalistic
description of the
various counties of the state, giving
such common facts con-
cerning their history, topography,
population, towns, and in-
180 Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
dustries as usually appear in
gazetteers. In the words of the
editor, the work was "adapted to
all ages, lasses and tastes, and
the unlearned reader, if he did not stop
to peruse the volume,
at least, in many instances could derive
gratification from the
pictorial representation of his native
village,-of perhaps the
very dwelling in which he first breathed
and around which en-
twined early and cherished
associations." This doubtless ac-
counts for the wide popularity of a work
which to the serious
student of the present has little value.
It is a matter of some interest, if not
of importance, that the
work of Howe was in imitation of a work
on the history of
Connecticut by John W. Barber, which
appeared in 1836. Howe
and Barber together projected a similar
history of each of the
states, and the histories of several
were actually published,
among them being Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio. Howe
himself had in view
similar histories of states west of
Ohio.
There were of course other writers in
this first period, such
as Samuel P. Hildreth, whose most
important contribution was
the Pioneer History of the Ohio Valley,
which appeared in 1848,
and Caleb Atwater and James W. Taylor,
each of whom wrote
a history of Ohio. These writers are
perhaps of most merit;
but they all belong to this same general
classification, and what
has been observed concerning the three described
at length above
will apply to all the others.
Ohio contributed more to historical
literature in the two
decades before the Civil War than any other western state.
The reason for this is obvious. By the
second quarter of the
nineteenth century the frontier stage
had been passed and there
was then more leisure for historical and
other composition. And
it may be suggested that for the most
part those writers of history
whose residence in Ohio has identified
them with the state, were
of the emigrating generation, belonging
by birth and education
to New England or New Jersey. Historians
who are native to
Ohio do not appear until the emergence
of the second period
and the transition to it.
The American Civil War, which introduces
this transition
period, influenced profoundly the
development of historical
Some Notes on Ohio
Historiography 181
science in the United States, just as it
cut deeply into every other
phase of American life. In the era
preceding this significant
social and political cataclysm America's
mental outlook had been
notably provincial, as is evident from
the foregoing facts; albeit
in its literary phases it was still
tinged with European ideals.
On the eve of the war the colonial point
of view, on the whole,
still prevailed, even though the nation
had expanded until it was
becoming imperial in extent; an
expansion, however, which was
rather provocative of the spirit of
chauvinism. It was for the
most part an unreal and an uncritical
era. But the war shot
through this atmosphere, and, in its
ultimate effect, aided in
transforming the old, narrow, provincial
attitude. After the
great problem of federal relations had
been adjusted and the
nation had become fairly consolidated,
historical scholarship ap-
proached its subject with a detachment
hitherto impossible. To
be sure the change did not come at once.
The active participants
in the struggle could not, as a rule,
envisage American develop-
ment any more clearly than could those
who had gone before.
But the generation that followed, no
longer occupied with the
old problems to the same degree, sensed
America's past in a
more objective fashion.
Historical mindedness, moreover, as we
now understand the
term, received its greatest impetus from
the natural sciences.
The acceptance of the theory of
evolution profoundly affected
all the social sciences. Genetic
reasoning, already brought into
full significance by the natural
sciences, became an indispensable
element in historical investigation and
composition. This was, of
course, a tardy recognition on the part
of the historians. The
evolutionary idea influenced the other
social sciences earlier,
and even won partial acceptance in the
field of imaginative
literature in the form of realistic
fiction. Although historical
writers and investigators were almost
inexplicably late in adopt-
ing the new point of view, historians of
the present generation
have, for the most part, appropriated
the scientific method in
so far as it is applicable to the
subject matter.
This brief review, the details of which
are commonplace
to the historical profession, will serve
as a background for a
few observations on Ohio's
historiography since the Civil War.
182
Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.
Although the school of historians
represented by such writers
as Perkins, Burnet, and Howe, who, as
has been already noted,
were familiar to the reading public in
the decades before the
Civil War, carries over to some extent
into the subsequent
period, and although the scientific
point of view did not ap-
preciably influence historical writing
for many years, yet we
do discover a significant widening of
the historical outlook,
illustrated by the inclusion of elements
in our development which
had not hitherto received synthetic
treatment. One of the
most conspicuous representatives of this
widened outlook was
Hinsdale, whose Old Northwest appeared
in 1888. This work
is too well known to justify an analysis
of its content in this
paper. It will suffice to record the
judgment of the present
generation upon what, in its day, was an
achievement of con-
siderable merit. It was a pioneer
effort, in which we have a
nearer approach to a comprehension of
the significance of the
West in relation to the whole United
States than in anything
hitherto published. In his preface the
author asserts his purpose
"To portray those features of this
region that make it an
historical unit-. But as the Northwest
is intimately dependent
upon the Atlantic Plain, a view of the
Thirteen Colonies as
Constituted by the Royal Charters has
also been given. No
previous writer has covered the ground,
and the work is wholly
new in conception." It was this characteristic that gave the
work a distinctive individuality. And it held this relatively
high place for some time, despite the
unfortunate arrangement
of its material. It is really a series of detached monographs
having slight connection with each
other. But this is not its
most serious limitation. There are other defects sufficiently
damaging to render the work dangerous
for any except those
who know something of historical
criticism. The present dis-
cussion would run to a tedious length if
it undertook to describe
the body of error in detail. But it may
be suggestive to indicate
one or two types of inherent defects.
The work is based almost wholly upon
secondary accounts,
the reliance upon sources being
restricted altogether to a few
of the then well-known and long used
collections, such as Sparks's
Works of Franklin. This fact in itself represents a serious limi-
Some Notes on Ohio
Historiography. 183
tation, which is augmented by the
author's failure to consult
even the available printed sources on
both sides of a controversy,
-a defect painfully illustrated in his
discussion of the revolu-
tionary period. He asserted that the
royal proclamation of
1763 was drawn because the British
government had determined
to hinder the extension of the colonies
on the west. According
to his interpretation England abandoned
her sea-to-sea claims
and announced a decided change in her
public land policy in the
proclamation. His general view of the
western problem, there-
fore, which is predicated upon the
foregoing interpretation, must
be of little worth.
A similar hasty generalization from
one-sided investiga-
tion is furthermore observed in the
description of the negoti-
ations leading to the treaty of 1783, in
which the story of
Vergennes's alleged perfidy is detailed,
much, of course, to the
credit of Jay and Adams. The whole
account of the negotiations
is based chiefly upon Bancroft,
Wharton's Diplomatic Corre-
spondence, and Sparks's Works of Franklin,- a sufficient
en-
dorsement of its untrustworthiness.
Appearing contemporaneously with
Hinsdale's Old North-
west was Rufus King's Ohio, a work which has gained
its
chief distinction as a volume in the
American Commonwealth
series, not in itself an enviable
distinction. It is on a some-
what different plane from Hinsdale's
effort, in that it purports
to be a history of the state from the
era of the mound-builders
to the Civil War, inclusive. The greater
portion of the volume,
however, is devoted to the period prior
to 1812, in which Indian
intrigues and wars play the chief role.
Not only is much of
the narrative inaccurate, but many of
the larger problems, such
as the colonial period, and Ohio's
relation to Congress in the
territorial period, are misinterpreted.
Moreover, for the era
since the War of 1812, one will look
in vain for a clear account
of the political and economic
development of the state. From
the stylistic point of view, too, the
history is rambling and ver-
bose. There is manifest throughout the
work a crudity of
style as well as an inadequacy of
treatment and an uncritical
spirit. On the whole the book has less
value than many of
the historical narratives which appeared
half a century earlier.
184 Ohio Arch. and Hist.
Society Publications.
The time has come when works of this
type can have little more
than antiquarian interest.
In William Henry Smith's Political
History of Slavery,
which appeared in two volumes in 1903, we are
confronted with
a work of an entirely different
character. It is more national
in its scope, and although it comprises
little material that is new,
the chief events in the slavery
controversy and the civil war
period, from about 1850 through the reconstruction
era, are
passed in review with some skill. His
suggestive summary
of the contribution of the western
states to the anti-slavery
movement is especially significant. The
work's chief blemish
is its failure to present fully both
sides of the issue, especially
in the reconstruction period. Smith was
an active participant
in the events which he describes, and
his attempt to justify the
position of the Republican party in its
every action is obviously
a violation of an essential canon of
historical exposition. He
is not impartial, he is not judicial.
The right is always on
the side which he espoused as a
participant. In view of this
limitation in itself, the results of the
author's efforts at an
accurate portrayal of the period are
clearly vitiated. Yet within
these bounds the work is well done, and
remains an excellent
example of its type. It is
readable,--much more so, indeed,
than any that have been suggested in
this series.
The task of evaluating historical
writers of Ohio is per-
haps incomplete without some further
reference to the work
of purely local historians, especially
county and city historians.
The writing of local history is
indisputably difficult. It is too
easy to fall into a commonplace narrative
of neighborhood hap-
penings, which acquire significance only
when interpreted in
the light of the larger whole. To be
sure it is difficult some-
times to see what many bits of local
happenings reveal in this
scheme of larger development. It is
therefore as essential that
local history be written by the trained
historian, who can sense
perspective distances, as any other kind
of history. That there
has been, thus far, slight progress
towards the accomplishment
is, unfortunately, true.
Local histories fall into two
categories: those produced as
purely commercial ventures, designed to
please the fancies of
Some Notes on Ohio
Historiography. 185
local celebrities, and those written by
sincere and sometimes
fairly capable authors or compilers,
whose interest and knowl-
edge of the subject is often quite
large. The former group
we cannot condemn too severely. There are certain county
histories in existence that were
produced at the expense of muti-
lated newspaper files in libraries, the
custodians of which had
extended the usual courtesies. The
compilers simply excised,
with shears, items of local interest
from the files, thus dispensing
with the labor of copying or
abstracting, the work of copying
the newspaper columns being imposed upon
the printers. Like-
wise a common practice has been to go
through manuscript
collections, in a cursory fashion, and
to print, as the author's
own language, that of the writer of the
document, at times
without even a judicious expurgation.
But this is not true of
all. One may, for example, look into
Jeremiah Morrow's
History of Warren County, Evan's History of Scioto County,
or Steele's Early Dayton, and
perhaps a few others, with the
consciousness of works faithfully
executed, though within the
limitations, to be sure, so generally
characteristic of local
historians. If the limits of this paper
permitted, moreover, one
might suggest an exception to the
unworthy and to the common-
place,-a city history which has not yet
received its due recog-
nition.
The library index and the numerous
bibliographies will
doubtless suggest other and more apt examples
of the tendencies
which have been thus noted; and it is
not improbable that the
experiences of the present writer may
even have failed to dis-
cover other tendencies in this
restricted historical field. A fair
judgment may result in findings at
variance with the foregoing.
Yet it is the opinion of the writer that
so far as those who
have passed from the stage of activity
are concerned, the view
will be fairly unanimous that progress
in the scientific writing
of history has not kept pace with that
in other fields of intel-
lectual endeavor. Of the living it is
not within the province
of this discussion to attempt an
estimate. It is sufficient to sug-
gest that, with the emergency of the
newer generations of stu-
dents of history, the tendency towards
scientific work is becom-
ing more and more manifest.