Yale University Library

39002002818343

CMZ.

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.

STUDY OF AMEEICAN COLONIAL HISTOEY.

BT

HEEBEET L. OSGOOD, Ph. D.,
PBOFESSOK, COLUMBIA UNIVEESITY.

(From the Annual Beport of the American Historical Association for 1898, pages 61-76.)

WASHINGTON:
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.
1899.

AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.

STUDY OF AMEEICAN COLONIAL HISTOEY.

BS-

HEEBERT L. OSGOOD, Pn. D.,.
PROFESSOE, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.

(From tliO Annual Report of tlie American Historical Association I'or 1898, pages 61-70.)

WASHINGTON:
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.
1899.

VI.-STUDY OF AMERICAN COLONIAL HISTORY.

By HERBERT L. OSGOOD, Ph. D.,
Professor, Colmnhia University.

GI

THE STUDY OF AMERICAN COLONIAL HISTORY.

By Herbert L. Osgood.

Lord Acton, in his famous inaugural lecture, has selected
the American Eevolution as, in his opinion, one of the few
historic ev^euts of which we have, in the main, a view so clear
and satisfactory that they " show here and there like Paciflc
islands in the ocean." Whether or not that statement can be
fully and truthfully made concerning the history of the Eevo
lution, it certainly can not be made concerning the period
which immediately preceded it. The seventy years lying
between 1690 and 1760 is to a large extent au unknown period.
Save upon the external history of the French and Indian
wars, absolutely no satisfactory work of a general character
has been done. Our historians come uj) to that period with a
fairly full and comprehensive narrative, and then they become
scrappy, inconclusive, and largely worthless. Bancroft's treat
ment of the colonial period, as a whole, is little more than a
sketch, and he disposes of British administration in the eight
eenth century, so far as it was not directly concerned with
military affairs, in about three chapters. The last two volumes
of Mr. Palfrey's work are the weakest of the five, and there
are other reasons for this besides the effects produced by sick
ness and age. The stream of Mr. Doyle's narrative, which
began with so broad and even a flow, seems to have lost itself
somewhere in the desert of the middle colonies, and, we fear,
will never even reach the opening of the eighteenth century.
We hope he has not been diverted and delayed by efforts to
prove the survival and extension of Dutch institutions aud
influences in America. Mr. Fiske is the only historian who at
jiresent boldly undertakes to span the gulf, and it will be inter
esting to see how strong and beautiful may be the structure
which he will throw across it. If in the meantime we fall
back upon the writings of the State historians, we shall find
63

64 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
that they either fail us altogether or show their worst limita
tions and defects within the period of which we are speaking.
The simple fact of the case is that we have in print scarcely
an approximation to a satisfactory treatment of American his
tory in the early eighteenth century. This being true, we may
surmise that the history of the colonial revolt may not have
been quite so satisfactorily written as Lord Acton thinks; for
it is hard to understand how, if our knowledge and treatment
of the previous seventy years are so imperfect, all the elements
in the Eevolution at its close could be thrown by the historian
into proper relief. It is open to one who is skeptically inclined
to believe that this has not been done, and that it will be
impossible — as it has been impossible in the past — to write a
satisfactory history of the Eevolution till the half century
and more which preceded it shall have been thoroughly
investigated. But more than this may truthfully be said. It is true that
a vast literature upon the colonial period exists and that meri
torious efforts have been made to deal with certain parts and
Ijhases of the subject. The historical societies of the country
have devoted their attention chiefly to this portion of the fleld
of American history. The writers of histories of tbe common
wealths have expended their efforts upon it. Biographies
exist in considerable abundance. Local histories have been
issued in large numbers from the presses of the Northern and
Middle States. There have been editors and collectors of
documents and sources and materials of all kinds. There has
been no lack of zeal or labor. Some critical acumen has been
shown in the treatment of the material immediately at hand.
In some instances cooperative effort has been enlisted on a
large scale for the elucidation of the entire period or of por
tions of it. At least four historians of large acquirements and
abilities have traversed the period or are in process of travers
ing it. Still another, by his genius and industry, has thrown
a flood of light on the relations between the colonies and new
France. Foreign as well as American historians have borne
an honorable part in the work.
But when all has been said which it is possible for a just or
generous critic to say in approval of tho work accomplished,
or of the spirit of those who have devoted themselves to it, it
still, I think, remains true that the colonial period of Ameri
can history is not well understood. The reader of the books

THE STUDY OF AMERICAN COLONIAL HISTORY. 65
written upon it will flnd himself contemplating a multitude of
events, many of them petty, none apparently of very great
importance, some occurring on one side of the Atlantic and some
on the other, and between them all he will often fail to discern
any clear connection. Those events which occurred on this
side of the ocean he will flnd distributed among about twenty
colonies, all of which are treated as if their organization and
the trend of events within them were much the same. The
history of each colony is often treated as isolated or connected
only with that of its immediate neighbors ; that they all played
a part in a common development, and just what that develop
ment was, are facts which have never been clearly brought out.
The history of the colonies outside of New England has been
very imperfectly treated, and New England ideas have too
much dominated the views taken of conditions existing within
them. In short, until recent years the old-fashioned general
history has held the fleld to the exclusion of everything better,
a type of history which has become antiquated. The State
history still is of that character. It stands somewhere between
annals and well-digested historical composition, usually nearer
the former than the latter. Its author has, as a rule, failed to
distinguish between the really important and the insigniflcant
facts and forces with which he has had to deal. Petty local
details have often, if not usually, occupied a position on his
pages of prominence equal to the leading world movements
in which his colony bore a humble share. Little power of
selection or of logical criticism has been shown in his treat
ment of his material. Intense local patriotism usually existed
iu his mind, but of satisfactory knowledge of the history of
the world in general, of the relation iu wbich his subject stood
to it, of the history even of colonization, he has shown little,
ItnoTrlodgQ. Of training iu the collecting, sifting, arrangement
and presentation of historical materials he, as a rule, has had
none. With such work as this, worthy aud useful though it has
been in its day, we can no longer be content. In the interest
of American history in general the greatest need to-day is the
critical investigation and exposition of the colonial period as a
whole and with a view to the ascertainment of its position in
the general history of the world. Besides the much more
extensive printing of the documentary sources, we need in the
treatment of this period correct general ideas and an abun
dance of them. The material which is accessible and that
HIST 98  6

66 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
which can be raade so should be fused together, so that the
meaning which it contains may be revealed. This can be done
by keeping in mind what the essential nature of this period is.
In the study of tbe first two centuries of our existence we
have to do with the history of special jurisdictions and of
their relations to the sovereign power from which tbey sprang
and by which they were iu a measure controlled. As it is at
the same time a period of origins, it is remotely analogous in
character to the old Germanic Empire, to France under the
Oapetian line of kings when the crown and the feudatories were
in conflict; still more remotely to England in the later Saxon
period, when the central jiower was struggling against centrif-.
ugal tendencies. In treating of the history of anyone of these
periods it would be absurd to fix attention exclusively upon
either the feudatories or the power which claimed and was try
ing to assert sovereignty over them. Both should receive that
share of atteution which accords with their importance in the
system. The same is true of the history of our colonial period.
It was a period of attempted empire building, and the imperial,
as well as the colonial, .side of the subject should be properly
and fairly treated.
How, then, may one deal with the colonies in order to show
the significance of their development? The answer to this is
clear, that they should be treated comparatively in groups,
classified according to the internal political organization of the
colonies. The grouping of the colonies according to location,
into northern, middle, and southern, arises largely from eco
nomic considerations and throws little light on the fundamen
tal tendencies of the period. It causes more confusion than it
removes. Only when the classification is based on ]iolitical
forms will the relation of the colonies to the great questions of
independence and imperial control — the deepest issues of the
lieriod — be rovea'ed. Two of these forms, the corporate, or
New England type of colony, and the royal province, tended to
become permanent; the proprietary province was in its essen
tial nature transitional, aud in any event must have passed
away. As soon as the tendencies within the system toward
independence triumphed, the colonies organized themselves as
self-governing commonwealths, substantially, that is, in har
mony with the form of the corporate colony. Had the opposite
tendency, that toward rigid imperial control, prevailed, the
royal province would have become the sole form of colonial

THE STUDY OF AMERICAN COLONIAL HISTORY. 67
government, and the provinces would in some way have been
combined into a system under a central colonial government.
So far as the internal organization of the colonies is concerned,
the most striking fact in the history of the first half of the
eighteenth century is the development of the royal province as
a^form of colonial government. During that period, or a little
before it. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New
Jersey, both the Carolinas, and ultimately Georgia, became
organized according to that plan; while Maryland was, as to
government, a royal province from 1G90 to 1715, and the gov
ernmental powers of WilliamPenn were suspended duriDgl693
and 1691. To these facts are to be added, as indicative of
the tendencies of the time, the proposals for tiie recall of all
the charters which were repeatedly made in Parliament, and the
declarations favorable to this which were uniformly made by
the board of trade and by many of the administrative officials
in the colonies. A movement so general as this nmst indicate
and proceed from a deep seated tendency. It resulted from the
breakdown of the proprietary governments, both for colonial
and imperial purposes, and from tbe need which the imperial
officials felt of securing a well-ordered executive system within
tbe colonies themselves. The moment either a corporation or
a proprietary province was transformed into a royal province,
the king secured within the colony in question a governor, a
council, a surveyor general, receiver-general, attorney-general,
a secretary, and usually a chief justice, besides other subordi
nate officials, who were appointed directly or indirectly by
himself. The gain thus for the purposes of imperial adminis
tration was most important. The royal province, for tlie rea
son that it had a royal executive system, was the only form of
colonial government which was fitted for the attainment of
imperial objects aud ends. Its development on so large a scale
affords the strongest proof that the administration of colonial
affairs, in spite of the neglect of Walpole and the inefficiency
of Newcastle, tended to become more systematic and contin
uous. Its character as an institution, its relation to the home
government, even its external history, has never yet been the
subject of anything like systematic study, though it is safe to
say that there is no subject within the entire field of American
history that is more worthy of attention.
I would treat the royal provinces comparatively and from
the iustitutional standpoint, with reference also to the general

68 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
political and social con'ditions both in the colonies and in Eu
rope which helped to ce»drtttm their existence. I would study
the origin and transmission of power within them, the organi
zation and powers of the executive and legislature, and the re
lations between the two as they unfolded through the entire
history of the provinces. That constitutes the central thread
of their history. In the light of that I would study the fiscal,
judicial, military, and ecclesiastical systems of the provinces,
their local government and their social development, all of
these, not only for the purpose of showing what they were in
themselves, but how they contributed to the life of the prov
inces iu its totality. The political and constitutional side of
the subject, it seems to me, should be given the flrst place,
because it is only through law and political institutions that
social forces become in the large sense operative. The direc
tions which these forces take are also largely determined by
the political framework within which they act. They are ever
modifying institutions, but it is by acting on and through
them. The process of experimentation and change which we
call development can be clearly revealed and the meaning in
herent in such process brought out only by reference to the
action and reaction constantly going on between the conserva
tive and progressive tendencies in society, both of these acting
upon and around established institutions. Guided by this
thought, the special investigation of each one of the royal
provinces should be looked upon as only preparatory to the
use ofthe information thus obtained in a broad generalization
which shall include all the provinces of the class. When that
has been satisfactorily made, and not till then, can we begin
to draw conclusions which shall be based upon adequate
knowledge as to the relative strength of political tendencies
within the colonies during the first half of the eighteenth
century. On the one side it has been asserted that the main tendency
in our colonial history was toward independence; on the other,
that nothing was further from the intention of the colonists
than independence. There is truth in both contentions, but
which contains the larger and deeper truth remains yet to be
determined. Before that question can be answered, we must
know, indeed, not only what the royal province was in the
widest sense, but what the tendencies were under the other
forms of colonial government — the corporation and the propri
etary province — and in what direction they all moved on

THE STUDY OP AMERICAN COLONIAL HISTORY. 69
together during the entire course of our colonial history. The
life of a single colony often seems petty and unimportant.
When treated in isolation and as if in a static condition, it
rightly appears so; but when its place is found in tbe general
current through which as colonies we moved, the history of
each oue of the number takes on a new interest and signifi
cance. If I mistake not, the social elements which contrib
uted to the life of each colony — its land and trade systems;
its population, with its diversity of origin, of religious belief,
of social custom; its local government — will appear in their
true place aud with a new and enhanced meaning if they are
treated, not as ends in themselves, but as raeans contributing
toward the large political results of the period. We are deal
ing here, so to speak, with specimens iu a collection. They
resemble one another in their outlines aud iu many of their
details, but each has its individual peculiarities and distinct
history, and by the variety which it contributes increases the
interest of the whole.
But the royal province has still wider relations than those
we have just indicated. If one were writing the history of a
colony of the New England type or of a proprietary province,
be might to a large extent ignore England aud conflne his
atteution to local development. He would need only at iuter-
vals t) refer prominently to interferences by the home gov
ernment. In the case of the royal province, however, this is
not possible. The king was its proprietor and was thus in the
true sense its executive. The governor was only his agent,
and subject at all points to his guidance by instructions.
Other leading officials of the province, as we have said, stood
in a similar relation, notably the members of the council. The
council, besides being the governor's advisory or privy coun
cil, was the upper house of the legislature. Through them, as
well as through the governor, the influence and control of the
king was brought directly to bear ou the legislature as a
whole, the central organ of the province. An intimate organic
relation thus existed between the crown and the province, and
not a step of importance could be taken in the latter without
contact with and possible direction or restraint from the
former. It thus appears that the development of the royal
province was closely connected with the general current of
English colonial policy. All the great controversies by which
the legislature and its constituents were moved were directly
or indirectly controversies with the king. The organization

70 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
and policy of the provincial executive can not be understood
without constant reference to the king. Instructions then,
though they had not the force of statute law, contained mate
rial of the greatest importance for the study of the period we
are now discussing. But who, until very recently, has made
an effort to collect them, much less to analyze and utilize their
contents, or to study their effect? Who has ever devoted any
specific attention to the colonial agent, as another bond con
necting the colony with the home government? Who, save
Mr. Goodell in the case of Massachusetts, and to au extent the
editors of the new edition of the Pennsylvania statutes, has
attempted to flnd ont what the privy council did with acts of
the provincial legislatures which were submitted for its
approval or disapproval, and the reasons for its action ? Who,
save possibly Mr. Bancroft, has made a serious effort to famil
iarize himself with the correspondence which i^assed between
the governors and other officials in the colonies aud the various
administrative boards and officers in England? And Mr.
Bancroft gave to the world very scanty and imperfect accounts
of his researches in this direction. These subjects must be
classed with the purely internal history of the colonies in tbe
eighteenth century as awaiting adequate investigation and
treatment. The best discussion of the royal province in gen
eral wilh which I am acquainted is iu Long's History of
Jamaica. For a great i^eople like ourselves, it is somewhat
humiliating to have to resort to an historian of a little West
India island for elemeutary information about the most
important form of colonial government which ever existed
among us.
In the second place, we must look at the period under con
sideration not only from the colonial but from the British
standpoint; full justice must be done to both sides. To that
end we need to understand better than we do what the old
British colonial system actually was ; how and from what policy
and under the influence of what ideas the aflairs of the colo
nies were administered ; what was the scope of the rights which
the home government had over them; how far these rights
were exercised and to what extent they were allowed to lie
dormant. This matter should be treated not as something
foreign to the colonies, but as a part, a condition of their exist
ence. The acts of trade, for example, were a natural and
necessary phase iu the development of colonization, not, as

THE STUDY OF AMERICAN COLONIAL HISTORY. 71
Bancroft persists in calling them, "a badge of servitude."
Under the conditions which theu existed, it is impossible for
a rational mau to suppose that England could have main
tained a system of trade relations with her colonies which
would have been less burdensome than she did uphold. The
great need in the treatment of this subject is adherence to
the principle of historic relativity, aud a genuine effort to
show what the policy was and how it worked at the time,
rather than to pass hasty judgment upou it based upon latter-
day ideals.
But the old British colonial system was much more thau a
commercial system. It had a political side as well. The board
of trade, as authorized by its commissioners, not only exer
cised a superiutending care over commercial relations, but it
transacted quite as much business of a political and general
administrative character. In order to an understanding of the
British colonial system the flrst requisite is an investigation
of the powers and relations of the officials and boards iu Eng
land which were concerned with colouial aflairs. This was the
machinery through which control over the colonies was main
tained. We need to kuow not ouly what their functions were,
but the actual history of their administrative work. In this
way only shall we come to understaud what the traditions aud
spirit of the old English administrative system were, and be
able to compare it with the spirit and traditions which were
growing up within the colonies. Monographs upon the his
tory of the privy council, the secretary of state, the board of
trade, aud the other boards in their relations with the colonies
would be most interesting and valuable.
The record of the work of these functionaries iu the various
lines of governmental activity constitutes the history of
imperial control over the colonies, and is, taken in its totality,
the history of the British colonial system. When we fully
know what the various organs of the British Government did
in relation to the colonies in the domains of ecclesiastical,
commercial, military, and judicial affairs; what control they
exercised over colonial legislation, and, to crowu the whole,
in what ways and how far the sovereign control of Parliament
was exercised, we shall ucderstand what the British colonial
system was. Nothing short of that Tvill reveal satisfactorily
the position held by tbe colonies under the superintending
power of the home government withiu the growing British

72 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Empire. In other words, the student needs not only to pursue
his work to a considerable extent in London, or upon material
procured thence, but iu imagination to frequently establish him
self there, that he may thus view colonial aflairs in their proper
perspective. To do less than this is to belittle the subject by
proclaiming narrow and provincial views concerning it. The
central problem of our colonial history grew out of the relations
between the imperial power on the one side and the special juris
diction on the other. The historian of the present and of the
future should possess breadth of information and catholicity of
spirit sufficient to do justice to both parties in that conflict.
Whether or not iu the end we shall be forced to condemn
the British colonial system so emphatically as some have been
wont to do in the past, whether we condemn it for the same
reasons or for other reasons, it sbould at least be done intelli
gently, after a full and impartial examination of all the
evidence. It follows, I think, from the view which has now been jire-
sented of the nature of the colonial period of American his
tory, that the best training for tliose who wish to devote them
selves to it will be obtained from the study of English history.
That is specifically the field to which they should direct their
attention, both before and during tbeir investigations of colo
nial development. Since our institutions and the elements of
our social life iu that period come so largely from English
sources, it would seem to be almost self-evident that the study
of them would be best facilitated by frequent reference to the
mother country. And, indeed, the necessity for this has
always been recognized. The proper result, however, will not
be attained by following, iu i^arallel chapters, the contempo
raneous development of events in England, as some of the
older historians have done, but by using English history as a
whole, and especially the periods since the accession of the
Tudors, as a storehouse whence to derive precedents and anal
ogies. The political and social system of the colonies will be
best understood by viewing it in the light of the conditions
from which it sprang and by noting the differences between it
and its prototype. The key to many a problem has been found
and will be found by that process. The extent to which colo
nial conditions modified institutions can be perceived and esti
mated in no other way. The study of the English executive
and of its development furnishes the ouly true preparation for

THE STUDY OP AMERICAN COLONIAL HISTORY. 73
the study of the executive in the American provinces. The
analogies between the executive in the early history of those
provinces and the executive in Tudor, or even in medifeval,
England are numerous and very suggestive. When one
knows how the legislature, the courts, the official system, the
system of local government, originated and grew in England,
and compares these with the course of development in the col
onies, the latter appears natural and familiar to him. He is
prepared to acknowledge the justice of much in the claims
and i^olicy of the colonial executives which otherwise would
have shocked him. In no way will one be so helped to a right
appreciation of the conflicts within the provinces through
which the representative part of the legislatures attained its
independence and power as by a familiarity with similar strug
gles in England in the fourteenth and in the sixteenth cen
turies. The subject of Anglicanism in the colonies needs
thorough and impartial examination in the light of the position
and policy of the established church in England. The ideas
and type of society existing in the colonies can be understood
and sympathetically treated ouly in the light of the aristocratic
system which then existed in England. It is especially im
portant to keep this in mind iu the investigation of the land
system, the commercial system, the connection between church
and state and the consequent restrictions on civil aud religious
liberty which existed in the colonies. The learned and bril
liant authors of the History of English Law would render a
service of incalculable value, even to students of early Amer
ican history, if they should bring their work down to the
close of the seventeenth century. With the help of such a
work we might at some time hope to see a history of American
law which would show how the common and statutory law was
introduced iuto the colonies, what was left behind, and how
the parts which were received were modifled and supplemented.
Only by keeping well in view the essential unity of English
development and of that of her American colonies, and by
treating the history of those colonies broadly and compara
tively, can the obscurities of the period be removed and its
true interest and meaning be revealed.
REMAKKS BI PKOF. J. F. .JAMESON, OF BROWN UNIVERSITY.
I have only a few suggestions to make, but before I make tbem let me
say one thing, suggested by Professor Andrews's remarks respecting the
reports of the English Historical Manuscripts Commission. It is true, and

74 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
I think some of us have long felt, that tbere are stores of material useful
to students of American history which lie in scattered items all through
the volumes of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, whioh therefore
are much less used tban otherwise they would he. I dare say Professor
Andrews, and perhaps others, would he glad to know tbat in the next
report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission will be given at very
considerable length a list of all the items, of all tbe indications, relating
to American history which are to be found in those 19 quarto and 66
octavo volumes.
Tbe things tbat I b.ad in mind to say came to my mind mainly, I think,
in connection with tbe problem of suggesting proper subjects for disser
tations, yet it may be that much of it will be equally applicable to all
work of research by young historical students.
I b.ave bad the feeling that there was a certain danger tbat professors
and older historical .students, in making np their minds as to what were
the greatest gaps in the present state of our knowledge, sbould immedi
ately assume tbat those gaps ought to be tilled by tbe work of the young
historical students; tbat if a research is needed it is therefore an appro
priate work for the young historical student. Now, very often that is the
case, though very often it seems to me tbat it is not tbe case. Often the
young student is started by his own impulse, or hy tbat of some one
older, upon a research in which tbe nuiterials will all lie in a source of
one class. Supjiose, for instance, that the material for the study is in the
executive journals of the. United States Senate. This work may need to
be done, but tho young man, while doing it, is not given tbat full intro
duction into bistoiical method tbat be sbould acquire .at that particular
time. My reason for uiging that objection, wbich perhaps is not always
appreciated, is that in very many cases, and I am not sure but tbat iu the
majority of case.s, that special piece of research is likely to be the one
piece of extensive histmical investigation iu wbich tbe young mau will
engage. While he is being trained we constantly think that we are train
ing him to be an investigator and a writer. He gets bis degree aud, if for
tunate, becomes a professor, and then be finds tbat he has too much to do;
tbat be is too far from libraries to do much more historical research and
writing. It is unfortunate that it should be so. He sbould be encour
aged, always after, to bridge over that dangerous period iu his mental
development which accompanies the beginning of bis bard work of teach
ing. But, nevertheless, it is often the case, aud I think therefore tbat we
should provide that tbat piece of historical research upou wbich he is
first set should be something which will give him varied development.
So tbe bulk of what I have to say is in one proposition, tbat tbe appro
priate subjects for historical investigation ou the part of junior men
ought, wherever possible, to be such as will lead them into a considerable
variety of sources. All the emphasis this morning has been placed upon
subjects of institutional history. Subjects in institutional history are
very frequently opeu to tbe objection that the materials for them lie too
much in sources of one character. Tbe reason tbat they have been so
much in favor as subjects for doctoral dissertations or fois the work of
junior men is, I suppose, tbat we have had tbe feeling or tbey have had
the feeling tbat subjects of political history were things for wbich they

THE STUDY OP AMERICAN COLONIAL HISTORY. 75
were hardly ripe; that it required a contact with affairs, or, at any rate,
a long continued maturity of historical and political thought, to enable
them to grapple with those more complex things. But I think that no
one can have listened to the inaugural address which we heard with so
much pleasure last night without being impressed with the still abiding
value and importance of this very human element in history, and regret
ting that anyone should occupy himself too much with subjects of his
tory which Ue so largely in the abstract as many subjects of institutional
history do.
I think there are some escapes from this dilemma. I think we are not
shut up entirely to tbe dilemma of institutional subjects wbich lie largely
in sources of a single sort, or subjects of political history which are
beyond the range of young men. 1 should go beyond my five minutes in
this discussion if I were to try to suggest many of them. I will suggest
one which seems to me extensive and which seems to me to ofi'er a good
many opportunities for young men and to he based very frequently upon
a considerable variety of sources; and that is, that the young student be
encouraged to take for a topic a biography of just the right sort; I mean
hy the right sort (if a young man must be occupied, as most must, with
American history because the materials are so much more accessible), the
life of one whose career bad its constant connections with both America
and Europe, if possible with America and with several countries of
Europe, so that he may be led into the pursuit of the sources of European
history in several countries and of American history if it he possible.
Or that he be given the life of some colonial governor, who, like Nichol
son, was governor of several colonies, that he may be led at least to
familiarize himself largely with sources of colonial history iu several
provinces. To illustrate what I mean I may take two or three inst.ances
which I have suggested to my students because I thought that education
ally they would be valuable though I can not say there was enormous
lued of their being done. One such is Barb6-Marbpis, for instance; sup
pose the student takes up the career of this man ; he is obliged to go into
the history of Santo Domingo; he is obliged to go into tbe history of the
diplomacy of the United States just afterthe devolution; be is obliged
to go into the history of the French Revolution and the history of the
Empire, into the history of the Louisiana cession, into the history of
the Restoration, to a certain extent. And, to take another example, of
another sort, take the brothers Jasper and Israel Mauduit; the mau who
pursues their history is led into the history of tbe German War aud tbe
foreign policy of England during the Seven Years' War; he is led into
English colonial and commercial history, and the history of the Dis
senters; be makes a contribution to tbe history of colonial agents, in the
course of his study. Or, for instance, take tbe career of Miranda, cer
tainly a very interesting, very pictorial, very juicy subject for a man to
occupy himself with. That will lead him into the history of Spanish
America, the history of Spain, the history of France, of tbe Nootka Sound
affair, of Pitt's administration, of the French Revolution, through a very
important and interesting epoch, and into the history of the United States.
Another variety of such subjects, that rest upon a number of sources,
are those topics in the history of religion in tbe United States which have

76 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
been spoken of. American ecclesiastical history has been mainly treated
as if it were a history of ecclesiastics; as if it were a history of denomi
nations composed exclusively of clergymen, whereas, there is no country
in the world where religious affairs have been so largely in tbe hands of
tbe laity, and where religious and civil history have been so connected;
and the study of many a topic in tbat field would be, 1 think, broaden
ing and fructifying to the mind of the young student if he never wrote
anything else.

YALE UNIVERSITY

a39002 Q028183^3b

.^

*^

¦*i

--^/-

-»*i-*

5&-'

S^

'^-•Ct