The Early Historical Writings of
James Ford Rhodes, 1885-1886
By ROBERT CRUDEN*
JAMES FORD RHODES, the Cleveland-born
historian of the
Civil War and Reconstruction periods,
is perhaps Ohio's
most significant contribution to American
historiography.
His seven-volume History of the
United States from the
Compromise of 1850 to the Final
Restoration of Home Rule
at the South in 1877 (New York, 1892-1906), written in a
spirit of sectional reconciliation,
remains an impressive work.1
In its own day, the History impressed
scholars with its ap-
parent objectivity and fairness. A
larger reading public
looked upon it with almost reverential
awe as an infallible
source of historical judgment, an
attitude enhanced no little
perhaps by Rhodes's furnishing the
weight of scholarship to
buttress the patriotic faith in the
superiority of American
character and institutions, the middle
class belief in the
virtues of free enterprise, and the
well-nigh universal as-
sumption of Anglo-Saxon supremacy. Such
views evidently
derived from Rhodes's forty years of
experience and reflec-
tion in Cleveland, for we find them
stated quite succinctly in
a little-known series of reviews and
articles which appeared
before he began his work on the History.
Rhodes's initial historical writings
appeared during 1885
* Robert Cruden is an assistant
professor of history at Baldwin-Wallace College.
1 For example, Samuel Eliot Morison and
Henry Steele Commager cite it as
"still the best detailed history of
that period although shot full of holes by the
research of the last fifty years." The
Growth of the American Republic (New
York, 1950), I, 780.
172
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
and 1886 in the Magazine of Western
History, a Cleveland
publication designed for popular rather than scholarly
con-
sumption. The first article, "The
Coal and Iron Industry
of Cleveland," traced with
complacency the basic role of those
enterprises in the development of the
city and praised rather
fulsomely those whom Rhodes considered
to be the leaders
in such progress.2 Among
these were his father, Daniel P.
Rhodes, to whose "hard work [and]
. . . early morning
and all night labor" he attributed
the substitution of coal
for wood as fuel on lake steamers;3
Henry Chisholm, presi-
dent of the Cleveland Rolling Mill
Company, whom he
thought "the greatest of all the
men who have had an honor-
able share in the development of these
industries";4 and
Charles A. Otis of the Otis Iron and
Steel Company, who
successfully kept his mills running in
the face of strikes
ordered by the Amalgamated Association
of Iron Workers.5
Some Clevelanders were disturbed by the
slums, strikes,
and crudity of life in their city, but
Rhodes was reminded
of the cultural splendors of ancient Athens. Comparing
the
business leaders of Cleveland to
Athenians, he noted that
many rich men had given generously to
education and other
cultural endeavors, feeling that
"there is something nobler
in life than mere gain of money, and
that something besides
great wealth is needed to make the
influence of a city
enduring."6
Rhodes's next effort, a review of the
second volume of
John Bach McMaster's History of the
People of the United
States, is significant for its expression of Rhodes's concept
of
the role of the historian. After
praising McMaster's literary
style and use of newspapers as sources,
Rhodes expatiated on
that historian's frank statement of his
opinions:
This is the proper way to write history,
for the expression of a
decided opinion on men and events is
what the annalist owes to his
2 Magazine of Western History, II (1885), 337-345.
3 Ibid.,
338.
4 Ibid., 343.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid., 345.
JAMES FORD RHODES 173
readers. . . . If he be honest,
unprejudiced and has an impartial, en-
lightened judgment, his
characterizations of men and his views of
events are fully as important as the
narration of facts and the coloring
of his picture. . . . While it is
desirable that Americans should have
correct ideas of . . . Washington's
administration, it does not follow
that they need go through the whole
process of forming a right judgment.
For all practical purposes a
fair-minded and intelligent guide is
ample.7
Having set forth his concept of the
historian, Rhodes
revealed that the "fair-minded and
intelligent guide" would
lead Americans down the road of
Alexander Hamilton rather
than that of Thomas Jefferson:
"The Federalists were nearer
right than their opponents and . . . it
was fortunate that
the ship of state on its first voyage
was manned by Federal-
ist officers."8 Jefferson,
thought Rhodes, "was a clog to the
administration. . . . Under other
circumstances he would
have been a useful man, but his envy
and jealousy of Hamil-
ton were such as to make these feelings
the crowning influence
of almost every act."9 The
Virginia statesman, he continued,
was not constructive, while Hamilton
had "extraordinary
ability, unbounded resources, and was
fertile in expedients."10
In Rhodes's estimate, Jefferson's work
in connection with
the Declaration of Independence,
foundation of the patent
office, religious liberty in Virginia,
and personal liberties
everywhere was of minor importance
compared to "the good
bargain he made for Louisiana."11
Even the most sagacious of guides may
falter, however.
In Rhodes's view, McMaster, whom he
believed to be the fit
successor to George Bancroft,12 erred
profoundly in his evalu-
ation of George Washington. McMaster
had written:
We should respect and honor him
[Washington] for being, not the
greatest of generals, not the wisest of
statesmen, not the most saintly
7 Ibid., 464-465.
8 Ibid., 467.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid., 468.
11 Ibid., 476.
12 Ibid., 477.
174
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
of his race, but a man with many
frailties and much common sense,
who rose in the fullness of time to be
the political deliverer of our
country.13
Commented Rhodes: "This is
certainly to damn with faint
praise. Nor is it a true
characterization. . . . [Washing-
ton] 'was the greatest of the good and
the best of the great-
est.'"14 It is indicative of
Rhodes's state of mind that he
preferred the popular legend to the
sober historical estimate
of Washington. It is likewise
indicative of Rhodes's weak-
ness of perception that he failed to
deal with the question
implicit in his own formulation of the
role of the historian:
when guides fall out, whom is the
layman to follow?
The attitude exemplified in Rhodes's
espousal of the Wash-
ington myth is further illustrated in
his review of Woodrow
Wilson's Congressional Government.15 This critical analysis
of the American political system, with
its suggestion that
in some respects the British
parliamentary system might be
preferable, called forth from Rhodes a
patriotic affirmation
of the superiority of his country's
political institutions. In-
terestingly enough he based his case,
not on the ground that
the American system was more democratic
than the British,
but that it was less so! Under American
practice, he pointed
out, the senate and supreme court act
as brakes on popular
feeling, while in Britain the trend
toward a unicameral legis-
lature had resulted in a tendency
"towards destructive and
even socialistic legislation and this
suggests what is a serious
defect in the British government
[namely that] . . . the
House of Commons is omnipotent."16
This, together with
the steadily broadening franchise in
Britain, made it possible
for the masses to pass laws against
property "under the ban-
ner of equality."17 Happily
he saw such evil possibilities
distinctly hampered by the American
system.18
13 Quoted in ibid., 472-473.
14 Ibid.,
473.
15 Ibid., III (1885-86), 15-25.
16 Ibid., 20-22.
17 Ibid., 21.
18 Ibid.
JAMES FORD RHODES 175
This satisfaction with things American
he expressed even
more forcefully in his essay,
"Some Lessons of History."19
A prime function of history, he wrote,
was "the making of
good citizens,"20 and,
he continued:
Most Americans, who are well read in
history, are ready to affirm
that, so far as having a good system of
government is conducive to hap-
piness, their lines have fallen in
pleasant places. If one were to
name the period of history during which
men generally were most
happy and prosperous, he could hardly
fail to designate our country as
the place, and the time as that from
the adoption of our constitution to
the present, making the exception of
the twenty years from 1850-1870.21
There were Americans, of course, who,
looking back at
the Tweed Ring and Credit Mobilier
scandals, at the tragic
paradox of poverty amidst plenty, at
the contrast between
formal piety and actual materialism,
thought the system
something less than perfect: men like
Henry George, Rich-
ard T. Ely, and Washington Gladden.
With such critics
Rhodes had little patience: "One
might think that in no age
before ours had the love of money been
so strong . . . and
that Mammon was the god of America and
of our generation.
But it was far worse in Rome during the
last years of the
republic."22 Rather than listen to the critics,
Americans
should ponder the example of the wise
democracy of Athens,
where the people "identified
inseparably the maintenance of
property with their laws and
institutions."23 Americans,
too, might well learn the lessons of
the civil wars in Rome:
"In such a state of society . . .
the life and property of the
burgess were no longer secure. The
paramount end and
aim of government were no longer
realized."24
There were other lessons to be learned
from history, as
Rhodes interpreted it in the 1880's.
The United States, he
19 Ibid., 148-157.
20 Ibid., 149.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid., 152.
23 Ibid., 150.
24 Ibid., 152-153.
176
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
asserted, would not suffer the fate of
Rome because she had
rid herself of the incubus which
destroyed the empire:
slavery. Said he: "That slavery
would have eventually de-
stroyed our republic . . . can only be denied by those who
will not heed the lessons of
history."25 Far from facing
decline, the United States was destined
to lead the onward
march of civilization. After the
collapse of Rome, civiliza-
tion had been kept alive by the
Christian Church, and in more
recent times the mission had been
carried out by the Anglo-
Saxon peoples of England and America,
who had well dem-
onstrated how to combine liberty and
order.26 In his day,
he believed, leadership had passed to
the United States, which
had shown marked superiority to Britain
in meeting the social
and political problems of the nineteenth century. He
con-
ceded, however, that America had
possessed some significant
advantages over Britain:
We started, as it were, with a clean
sheet. We had no relics of the
feudal system. . . . We have such a
boundless extent of land that
there has never been any cause for
agrarian disputes . . . ; the red men,
whose land we took, are a race of
barbarians that are being annihilated
by contact with civilization, and thus
we have avoided . . . never ending
conflicts for the rightful ownership of
the soil. . . . We started a de-
mocracy-- . . . we were heir to all that
was good in European civiliza-
tion.27
No such spirit of satisfaction marked
Rhodes's next excur-
sion into historical criticism: a
review of Three Decades of
Federal Legislation by Samuel S. Cox, the noted Democratic
congressman from Ohio.28 Cox,
wrote Rhodes, lacked liter-
ary style, ignored social history, and
dealt inadequately with
"our wonderful material
growth." Rhodes chided the poli-
tician for neglecting the key roles of
transportation and the
iron and steel industries in post
bellum America, although the
25 Ibid., 153-154.
26 Ibid., 154-156.
27 Ibid., 156-157.
28 Ibid., 356-366.
JAMES FORD RHODES 177
work made no pretense of being an
historical study of the
period.29 The book, said
Rhodes, was dangerous for youth
uninformed as to the real issues of the
Civil War, although
"those who are well grounded in
the true faith . . . , will
find it instructive as well as
entertaining."30
The reasons for this caveat soon
appeared, for Rhodes
espoused the conspiracy theory of the
Civil War then dom-
inant in the Republican North:
No critical historian will write of
Jefferson Davis in the kindly
words that Mr. Cox has used. Davis and
the senatorial clique had in
the winter of 1860-61 the destiny of
the South in their hands. . . . The
South can charge them with their
impoverishment, and ought never to
forget that personal ambition . . .
governed their leaders. . . . It was
the old story of preferring rather
"to reign in hell than to serve in
Heaven."31
Davis, in Rhodes's opinion, was "a
more infamous conspir-
ator than Aaron Burr, . . .
representing in a century
of progress and light, the principles
of darkness and
oppression."32
Nor was Rhodes pleased with Cox's
placing responsibility
for the war at the door of the
Republicans, inasmuch as they
had rejected the Crittenden compromise
proposals. Accept-
ance of the proposals, wrote Rhodes,
would have given away everything for
which they [the Republicans]
had contended. If ever a political
party fought a campaign for pure
unadulterated principle, the
Republicans did in 1860.
* * * * * * *
The Republicans were clearly in the
right when they refused . . . to
make any compromise on ... slavery in
the territories. Public sentiment
in the North is pretty well settled on
that point.33
29 Ibid., 356-357; Samuel S. Cox, Three Decades of Federal
Legislation, 1855
to 1885 (Providence, 1885). For Cox, see the definitive
biography by David
Lindsey, "Sunset" Cox,
Irrepressible Democrat (Detroit, 1959).
30 Magazine of Western History, III, 358.
31 Ibid., 359.
32 Ibid., 361.
33 Ibid., 360-361.
178
THE OHIO HISTORICAL QUARTERLY
"Public sentiment" may seem a
strange basis on which to rest
an historical judgment, even for a
fledgling historian, but
Rhodes followed with a generalization
even more startling,
coming, as it did, from one who had
shown so much concern
for the rights of property. The South,
he explained, would
not have accepted compensated
emancipation because "the
government of the Southern states was
that of an oligarchy.
Of all systems none are more selfish,
and all history goes
to show that rarely has an aristocracy
given up the very base
of their being, except through the
shock of civil war."34
There is ironic humor in the good
bourgeois Rhodes expound-
ing a philosophy of revolution more
often associated with
Karl Marx!
As to Reconstruction, Rhodes felt that
Johnson's course
was the "more merciful" but
that the president was "entirely
unfitted by nature, education or
training to solve any such
complex problem."35 He
conceded, on the other hand, that
congressional reconstruction "was
by no means statesman-
like and wise."36
In his later History, Rhodes
abandoned the conspiracy
theory of the Civil War in favor of a
more all-embracing
interpretation in which the North
fought a moral crusade
against slavery and the southern people
fought valiantly but
mistakenly for their own concept of
right. Otherwise, how-
ever, the attitudes expressed in the History
relating to Recon-
struction, business enterprise, the
role of the historian, the
superiority of American institutions,
and Anglo-Saxon su-
premacy were basically those formulated
in Rhodes's writings
while he was still a resident of his
native city.37
34 Ibid., 362.
35 Ibid., 365.
36 Ibid.
37 Rhodes moved to Cambridge, Massachusetts, in September 1891.