roy f. nichols and the goals of history

ROY F. NICHOLS AND THEGOALS OF HISTORY

By MARGARET B. AND HARRY M. TINKCOM

T ODAY Roy F. Nichols is widely recognized as one of Amer-1ica's leading political historians. But, judged by all the measure-

ments one can use to appraise a long and fruitful career, he ismuch more than that. He is, and always was, a man of his world,a receptor carefully attuned to the swirling and bewildering intel-lectual currents which characterize his age. And always he reactedwithin the framework of his career as a student and teacher ofhistory. This framework, by his own definition, was by no meansa narrow one, for he conceived of history as a broad functionaldiscipline intended to promote, af all levels of society, a fullerunderstanding of man's complex behavior. Although history, as heinsists over and over again, should be written on the highestintellectual plane, it should never be so esoteric as to fail of utilityin a workaday society that is so much in need of the contributionsof one steeped in the methods and philosophy peculiar to thepractitioner of history. Always, in his view, the writer of history,combining the best talents of the humanist and the scientist, shouldplay a leading sole in creating and reflecting intellectual tendenciesand developments. His concern with these matters is well illustratedby the numerous pertinent articles he contributed to scholarlyjournals.

These essays about history were interspersed throughout a spanof almost fifty years during which he continued to write substan-tial and influential works of history. They seemed to mark certainperiods of summary and departure for him, and for us they serveas guideposts to the interpretive and analytical trails he followedin his major works. And, of course, they continually mirror thepatterns and questions of the times from which they emerged.Where there were no discernible patterns, usually the case, hesought some means of explanation and offered sensible approachesto the truth for the guidance of his fellow craftsmen.

In 1933, for example, Nichols was much concerned with the

21

PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY

effects on the intellectual springs of history writing and teachinginduced by the staggering implications of new developments inphysics and mathematics. After a brief discussion of Einstein'sviews on relativity and Bohr's theory of Complementarity hecommented on their possible consequences, vis & vis social changeand the need to adjust historical methods and the teaching of his-tory to a world caught up in the new science. It seemed to himthat in the "methods of teaching there should -be less of science,more of impression, less of reading, more of action, we should tryto convey the spirit rather than teach the letter. History should bepresented as a method of approach to social problems rather thanas a contact course divorced from life."' In short, the past wasalive, and therefore a fit subject for lively people.

Over the years he never lost interest in the question of thesocial uses and functions of written history, a problem, in today'sidiom, of "'relevance." A decade later, in 1942, concerned with theemotional stress induced by the Second World War, he noted theconflict between the historian-scientist's obligations to tell thetruth about the past and society's inclination to color that truthin accordance with certain dictates of social expediency. Societywas disturbed, for example, when its cherished heroes lostdimension in the hands of the "debunkers." The historian was ina difficult situation, one for which he was not sufficiently prepared.He did not possess "the intellectual certainty, the well-establishedethics which could guide him in the contest between his recentlyacquired scientific principles and the demands of society."2

Nichols' solution to the problem would not sacrifice truth bylending it a verisimilitude more acceptable to society; instead hewould give it a broader compass, one based on a search for, andunderstanding of, the universal and diverse springs of humanaction. In working their way out of their problems historiansshould avoid interpreting history from narrow, specialized pointsof view, such as the political or economic. These, in Nichols'opinion, had become labels, and unfortunately historians had usedthese specialties as licenses to exclusiveness, "as though theseinterpretations were equally significant for all places and periods.

'See Roy F. Nichols, "History Teaching in this Intellectual Crisis," TheHistorical Outlook, XXIV (November, 1933), 357-363.

2Roy F. Nichols, "Confusions in Historical Thinking," Journal of SocialPhilosophy and Jurisprudence, VII (1942), 337.

22

THE GOALS OF HISTORY

.. The various phases of human behavior have never existed ina vacuum, but have evolved simultaneously and individually. Thestream of history refuses to follow through these artificiallycharted channels."3 Furthermore, although he served his ap-prenticeship at a time when. historians were lauding objectivity,as exemplified by a "scientific" approach which required closeattention to the smallest threads in time's fabric, he counteredwith a plea for the virtues of subjectivity. Truly, historians werepeople writing about people, a fact that could be ignored only atthe peril of serious misinterpretations. Research was important,but more important were the historian's personal frame of reference,the quality of his mind, and the way in which he viewed the worldaround him.

Here, then, was a "political historian" recommending the pursuitof goals that lay beyond the confines of specialization. It was anhistorical approach to truth that would take the teller of talesbeyond the arts of narrative and lead the fact-gatherer up intothe realm of synthesis. In this connection he would later say thatthe reality and meaning of any epoch can best be understood bythe historian who is capable of scaling the obstructions of massivefact, and who had the perceptive faculties to grasp the thoughtand spirit of the epoch he is studying.4

To the unregenerate purist in the field of political history, orto those unfamiliar with the broad scope of, his work, Nichols'views may border on the heretical. But to those who have observed"A Historian's Progress" over the years it is clear that these veryideas, this frame of reference, if you will, began to germinatenot long after the appearance of his first published book, TheDemocratic Machine, i850-1854. That volume was written withinthe tradition of political history then extant. But always receptiveto social and intellectual change, Nichols began to see that thetraditionalists were not getting to the roots of American institu-tional growth.

In the heyday of nationalist historical writing, that is, in thelatter part of the nineteenth century and in the first twenty orthirty years of this one, several of its notable practitioners

aIbid., 338.S'See Roy F. Nichols "Alice in Wonderland After Eighteen Years," in

James H. Rodabaugh, ed., The Present World of History; A Conferenceon Certain Problems in Historical Agency (Madison, 1959), reprinted below.

23


contributed solidly to our understanding of the constitutional andpolitical forces behind this country's astonishing rise to power. Onthe assumption that the means Americans adopted to solve theirproblems was informed and conditioned by an innate genius forgovernment, by a willingness to compromise, and by a recognitionof the necessity of resorting to ballots instead of bullets, the de-votees of political history stressed the devices whereby solutionsto the abrasions of society could be obtained. It was only natural,therefore, given this "consensus" framework, that they shouldhave become preoccupied with operative mechanics, with elections,conventions, caucuses, deals, adjustments, and all the othermachinery which gave the processes of governing a practicalvalidity. The questions they raised were fundamental. How coulda people exposed to a welter of centrifugal forces-ethnical, re-ligious, social, economic, and geographic-manage to create andmaintain a union strong enough to separate from the BritishEmpire and go on to become, in a relatively short time, an inter-national power? The answers they obtained were in the best tradi-tion of the Founding Fathers, who seemed to demonstrate andexemplify to the highest degree the ability of reasonable men tofind political solutions to a morass of problems.

In this school of historiography Nichols saw much that waspraiseworthy, but he did feel impelled at times to enter caveatsagainst certain tendencies inherent within it. As a pragmatist,one who recognized the utility of history and sought to apply it atall levels, he repeatedly urged the desirability of digging as deeplyas possible into the sources-all kinds of sources. Here were thematerials of narrative construction, but mere accumulation resultedin sterility unless the facts gathered were subjected to the reflec-tions of a perceptive mind and meanings useful to society un-covered. Furthermore, in their devotion to panoramic history,i.e., to a broad coverage of economic, cultural, and political activ-ities, the nationalists had unfortunately neglected the history ofcommunities, "where social forces germinate." By concentratingon surface manifestations rather than on the local springs ofsocial change, they had actually become "a school of inversion."Countering this, and obviously influenced by the awesome dis-coveries of nuclear physics-he was writing in 1948-Nicholsadvised historians to substitute "the microcosms of community

24


behavior" for the "nationalistic macrocosms" that had been solong in vogue.5

At the same time he cautioned against the pitfalls of mere anti-quarianism, or local history for its own sake. The dangers offragmentation inherent in isolated local history were real, butthey could ibe avoided if treatments of community activity wereconceived as contributary to all-important synthesis. As springsmade rivers, lakes, and oceans, so did communities make nations.All were part of the main. The key, then, to meaning, was his-torical generalization.

But what techniques, methods or "frames of reference" shouldthe historian employ to achieve meaningful generalizations? In thesame year, 1948, in his inaugural lecture as Visiting Professorof American History and Institutions in the University of Cam-bridge he envisioned written history in its broadest scope. In thatlecture, while recommending increased attention to the Anglo-American democratic experience as a fruitful area for the ex-ploration of institutional growth, he stressed the need for a freshstudy of the two-party system, an accomplishment which was al-most unique to the history of these two peoples. The writing aboutthat system, he thought, had been distorted by over-emphasis onglittering personalities, spectacular events, and the dialectics ofpolitical debate. These did not get to the heart of the matter, a*basic comprehension of popular attitudes. This could best beobtained by using the techniques "involved in the study of cul-tural history."6

Eighteen years later, in his presidential address to the Amer-ican Historical Association, Nichols returned to this theme. Herehe advocated the use of a "culture" concept, an all-embracingintellectual and methodological vehicle for social examination whosevital purpose was intelligent synthesis and generalization. Theculture of any society could be found in its "design." By that hemeant a society's "plan of operation, the force or influence thatorganizes it and keeps within it a semblance of recognizablestructure and order."7

Roy F. Nichols, "Postwar Reorientations of Historical Thinking,"American Historical Review, LIV (October, 1948), 80, 82.

C Roy F. Nichols, The Historical Study of Anglo-American Democracy,Cabridge University Press, 1949.

Roy F. Nichols, "History in a Self-Governing Culture," American His-torical Review, LXXII (January, 1967), 414-415.

25


During the years intervening between those two addresses,Nichols' major works illustrated, and were informed by, hisviews of a cultural concept of civilization. In his autobiography,A Historian's Progress, he says the idea grew out of 'his expe-rience as an instructor in Contemporary Civilization early in hiscareer at Columbia University. 8 It would seem, though, to havereached its fuller implications during the decades preceding theSecond World War, and to have come to practical fruition in theyears following that event.

Nichols' doctoral dissertation, published in 1923 as The Demo-cratic Machine, i850-i854, is generally thought of as being astudy that was traditional in both outlook and development. Thisis not surprising in view of the condition of political historywriting at the time. Had readers and reviewers been gifted withforesight, however, they might have noted that the young his-torian, while marshalling relevant facts in proper scientific fashion,was not averse to offering his opinion on the meaning of thosefacts. In a summary chapter concisely and confidently titled"Why?" he ascribed the breakdown of the machine to lack ofunderstanding of the force of public opinion, insensitivity to the"rising tide of moral indignation" in the country and similarsociological factors. Thus he not only flouted scientific canons byeditorializing a bit, but he found the most important answers tohis questions in the imponderables of human behavior.

Interest in the people and the social currents which togetheranimated the Democratic machine led Nichols to undertake hisnext project, the biography of Franklin Pierce (published in1931). Reviewers spoke with appreciation of the author's "scholarlystandards," of his literary style-"'vivid even racy"-of the "wealthof detail on the daily life of the time" he added to flesh out hisnarrative, on the "illuminating passages of social description"which made the whole more meaningful. Once again, Nicholsprovided his readers with a concluding statement. Pierce, hethought, had been a rather mediocre man, one who was satisfiedthat he could find useful solutions even to difficult problems aftera look at their surfaces. Because of this, he failed completely tounderstand the "complex nature of the conflict between the socialforces" then beginning to divide the nation. The divisive potentials

'Roy F. Nichols, An Historian's Progress, New York, 1968, 92-93.

26


of trade associations, lobbies, organized propaganda, of suspicion,fear, resentment, of thwarted ambitions, of the ideas current inthe newspapers, and spoken from platform and pulpit failed toimpress the President. But not his biographer.

Any reviewer essaying a retrospective account of Nichols' workcannot help remarking that several features characteristic of hislater writings are also evident in this, his first major study asan established scholar. The subject matter-political affairs inthe United States in the decades immediately preceding the CivilWar-is either the theme or provides the taking off point forthe argument he advances in most of his later books. The literaryquality of his style; his ability to set forth the details of acomplex situation so that the reader will understand what hap-pened and why things turned out as they did are noted time andagain by reviewers, whether they are journalists writing fora newspaper, or 'historians preparing their comments for ascholarly publication. All are present in Franklin Pierce.

Following the publication of the biography of Pierce, Nichols'explorations -of various facets of the history of the expandingUnited States produced articles for the American Historical Re-view and other journals. At the same time he was stating hisphilosophy of history and history writing in essays published inThe Historical Outlook, the Proceedings of the Middle StatesAssociation of History and Social Science Teachers, in the Penn-sylvania Magazine of History and Biography, the Proceedings ofthe American Philosophical Society, and in the American His-torical Review. During these years, Nichols also wrote threetextbooks on American history, with Jeannette P. Nichols as hiscollaborator, contributed to several cooperative projects and wrotecountless reviews for one or another of the historical quarterlies.These last reflected his two chief interests-mid nineteenth-centuryAmerican political history, and the art and craft of the historian.An editorial, "Our Unfinished Business," published in 1948 inthe Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, documentsNichols' views about history and what makes for good historywriting. In it he stated his belief that political history is of "para-mount importance" because it is by political means that societymakes the adjustments continually required as power shifts itsbase from one group to another. Nichols was not advocating a

27


return to the sterile story of institutions, constitutions and laws,nor to studies of "the unique and spectacular," or of the "greatpersonalities." He was proposing a much more comprehensivekind of political history-one which would examine the originsof ideas and institutions, look into the political behavior of theelectorate, how they vote, how they are managed, how they maketheir wants and opinions felt, assess the action of social and cul-tural forms, the emotional climate in which a government works,the location of power, and the way that power is used. All thisthought and writing published in these many and diverse placeswere preparation for the Pulitzer Prize winning The Disruptionof American Democracy.9

Recurrently in the history of nations there come times whenconflicting social, political, and economic elements reach so criticala stage that the safety and general welfare of society are en-dangered. The existence of government and even the nation itselfmay be put in serious jeopardy. At such times the surging forcesof change, if they are to be given orderly direction, require promptevaluation, reappraisal, and firm decision. The recognition of thisimperative and the quality of thought and imagination broughtto bear by leadership on problem solving can be fateful in theirconsequences.

In the history of this country there are a few such periods whenthe leaders wisely assessed the trends and lessons of the past andcame up with guiding principles and sound charts for the future.An outstanding example is represented in the creation and ratifica-tion of the Constitution of 1787. A documentary recapitulation ofthe past in terms of current urgencies it channeled new directionsand stemmed a divisiveness that had threatened-the union.

Seventy years later, with the country blundering into CivilWar, the hard-headed realists who had created that organic struc-ture were long in their respected graves. In the years betweentheir successors had produced no fundamental architectonic in-novations or alterations; instead they had skirted issues and soughtcompromises. They -had tried to buy time. But by 1856 time wasrunning out-and James Buchanan, not George Washington, was"the man of the hour." What great men had put together lessermen would put asunder.

'(New York: Macmillan Company, 1948.)

28


Nichols' task in The Disruption of American Democracy wasto explain the reasons behind the failure of Americans to bridgethe gaps that had opened in the National structure. While focusinghis attention on the Democratic party and its inability to meetthe deepening crisis, he encompasses within his plan of attack awide range of American "attitudes" which he regards as beingmost influential in conditioning political behavior. Then, by view-ing men and events within and against this attitudinal diversity,he produced a work that would be a model for the historian whosought to look beneath the surface of political action.

Nichols' appointments as Visiting Professor of American His-tory and Institutions at Cambridge gave him another opportunityto pursue his interest in the genesis of democratic institutions,particularly the cultural complex from which both the institutionsthemselves and the ideas, emotions, needs, that called them intobeing had emerged. Legal and constitutional historians had ex-amined colonial charters minutely, comparing their form andphraseology to English borough charters and to the articles ofincorporation describing the rights, privileges and obligations ofthe trading companies that carried on England's overseas com-merce. Much had been made of the structure of these documentsbut much less time or thought had been expended on the prevail-ing intellectual and emotional climate of sixteenth-century Eng-land. Yet it was this climate that informed the thinking of themen who, once they had arrived in the New World, were to trans-form pieces of paper into living institutions.

Perhaps it took a truly religious man, one who was also deeplyinterested in how that political animal, man, behaves, to developthe relationship between the ideas debated by the frequenters ofthe White Horse Inn in Cambridge, or those underlying theBook of Discipline approved in 1589 by a synod held at St. John'sCollege, and the democratic implications of the MayflowerCompact.10

The primarily religious influences emanating from the Norwicharea were, in Nichols' opinion, "to open a new epoch in politicalbehavior." The East Anglicans were investigating "a new conceptof the relations of the individual to society-including the nature

1' See: "English Origins of American Religion," in Pennsylvania Magazineof History and Biography, LXXVI (January, 1952), 8, 22.

29


and power of government and the source of its authority."I1 Thiswas particularly important since in England the relationships be-tween secular and religious spheres of action were blurred by thefact that the parish was not only a center for worship but wasalso an instrument of local government with vestry and churchwardens responsible for the levying of rates and the dispensingof charity. The religious ferment of the Reformation, therefore,not only produced a "reformed" doctrine but also led to changesin attitudes toward participation in church affairs. For example,The Book of Discipline, mentioned above, decreed that "in all thegreater affairs of the church . . . nothing may be conductedwithout the knowledge and consent of the church," that is, ofthe congregation. In this statement, as Nichols noted, "lies oneof the germs of American democracy." The Puritan movementwithin the Church of England trained men in. organization, inthe dissemination-often by use of underground techniques-ofpropaganda, in lobbying. It spread a concept of a society of equalmen, stressed the worth of the individual, and the need for agovernment which had some reference to the popular will andsome respect for social justice. Not the least important develop-ment was the establishment of the notion of the usefulness of a"partnership between government and men willing to venturemuch for the commonweal."1

The close association, in spite of their official separation, be-tween government and, religion in the United States, continuedto occupy Nichols' attention. He expanded his ideas in a pair oflectures delivered at Rice University and published in 1959 underthe title, Religion and American Democracy. In the first of theselectures, Nichols remarked on the variety of religious influencesabroad in the colonies-Puritan, Huguenot and Anglican, thosebrought by the Quakers and the German sects, Catholic ideas,found particularly in the southwest, Deistic notions and thosespread by the Great Awakening. He concluded: "When a people,the pattern of whose thought and action was so moralistic andpietistic and so dominated by denomination and creed, createdself-government, they were bound to impose upon the pattern ofthis government the spirit if not the form of their religion. The

-Ibid., 8."Ibid., 22-29.

30


peculiar circumstances of the migration and settlement togetherwith the character of so many of these citizens of Zion decreedthat this religious influence should he democratic, perhaps inspite of itself."'3

Religion, principally of the Protestant variety, continued to bea major force in shaping American society through the nineteenthand early twentieth centuries. The steeples of the thousands ofchurches visible across the land provided town and village withtheir most impressive landmarks. Only the courthouses of thecounty towns were equally imposing. The omnipresent churches,the sound of their bells, and the authority of their leaders in theirseveral communities so permeated the atmosphere that no one"even the indifferent or the antagonistic" could fail to feel theirpresence. To this direct influence of Christianity on Americansociety. Nichols suggested the addition of several ancillary ones-an educational system with a strong moralistic bias, the generalpoor health of the population which fixed the attention of moston the life hereafter, and pressure for social reforms, in them-selves a by-product of Arminian theology. Gathering all thesethreads together, Nichols developed a concept of a democraticsociety that was activated and controlled by a moral imperative.This was, in his opinion, the unique element in American culture.

In this essay as in many other of his post-World War II writ-ings, Dr. Nichols makes reference to the "troubled" present andwith eloquence worthy of a Puritan theologian calls his readersto "summon once again this century-old sense of dedication andmoral purpose to aid them as they combat the enemy within andwithout." The ability of American democracy to adjust to achanging world and effectively meet the needs of a society in fluxis a cardinal principle of Nichols' philosophy. "It may be profit-ably maintained," he wrote, "that it would be in the interest ofthe general welfare if American citizens could continue to holdtheir rights and responsibilities of self-government as sacred,that those to whom the duties of government be entrusted shouldfeel that theirs is a trust to be carried out in a spirit of demo-cratic dedication, that they should believe that the purity ofgovernment is of the 'highest concern to society. Neither religion

"13 The Democracy of American Religion," in Religion and AmericanDemocracy, 49.

31


nor government should ever be taken for granted. If they are,if there is merely a vague faith but no living zeal for the causeof liberty and self-government, it will wither and may even die."For him the "Religion of American Democracy" is a religionindeed.

Once again ideas explored on the lecture platform or in articlesfor scholarly journals laid the foundation for several major books.Blueprints for Leviathan: American Style,14 begins with a reviewof the English background of American political thought andaction then develops the thesis that Americans, having a peculiartalent for preserving liberty with order, manage to keep theirinstitutions elastic by document making, by compromise insteadof confrontation. The reader is invited to consider a series ofdocuments fundamental to the organic laws of the United Statesfrom the Declaration of Independence through the Articles ofConfederation, the Constitution, the Northwest Ordinance, theCompromises of 1820 and 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, theConfederate Constitution, to the changes made in the Constitutionof the United States after the Civil War. Nichols discusses theproblems each of these documents was designed to meet-someterritorial, others political, cultural or economic. Both the problemand the documentary solution are related to the changing societiesout of which they grew. Using the techniques of the behavioralsciences, and adding his ability to synthesize, his gift for thetrenchant phrase, and his knowledge of men and events gainedover a lifetime of research, he tells a story of action, of change,and of the shifting balance of power within the institutional frame-work of American government.

For this 'book and the Invention of the American PoliticalParties15 which similarly synthesizes his views on the slow evolu-tion of these structures, Nichols has been praised because of hisuse of new historical techniques, 'his references to ecology, to thereligious climate of the age, the ideas of the demographers andpsychologists. He has also been criticized for failing to do thesevery things. Apparently the difference lay in the viewpoint of thereviewer. Nichols did think that quantification, the current shib-boleth of social scientists, had some weaknesses. Tables do not

'New York: Atheneum, 1963.'New York: Macmillan Company, 1967.

32


capture the imagination, he said, and without audience interest nowork will "have the impact which it should."1 His own particularinterest was "in the mechanism of political action" as it wasdemonstrated through the "less visible" operations of partymachinery with regard to patronage, nomination of candidates for

office, management of party funds and the "activities of those

managers who never hold office." All this must be done with a

due sense of "literary responsibility," he maintained, for historymust be read if it is to continue to be a useful tool in a demo-cratic society.

The preparation of this little essay on some of Professor Nichols'

historiographical ideas, a privilege for which we-are grateful, wasmade easier, albeit unknowingly, by the subject himself. So oftenhis articles on the need for new approaches to history, as has beenpointed out, preceded a book-length illustration of them. Wouldthat all historians were so obliging, thus easing the path of thosewho assess their work.

' Review of Joel H. Silbey's Shrine of Party: Congressional VotingBeha7ior, 84nry-852 in the Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography,XCII (January, 1968), 129-130.

33

roy f. nichols and the goals of history

Documents