Introduction
The era in the development of American ideology, which had a noticeable impact on historiography, falls on the Industrialization phase and the transformation of the United States into a world power, that is, in the last decades of the 19th – first half of the 20th centuries. During this period, fundamental changes took place in the life of Americans, primarily related to the sharply accelerated dynamics of economic development, which entailed changes in politics, social structure, and everyday practices. New challenges replaced each other kaleidoscopically, and traditional chains were constantly tested for strength. The response of the American society to this situation was a complex “reformist” movement. Within the latter, one could find both real reformers calling for a radical restructuring of the socio-political foundations of American statehood and hiding under reformist slogans of conservatives aimed at strengthening the shaken traditional foundations and values of American democracy. Thus, under the general guise of progressivism, forces actively resisted negative social processes.
For historical thought, such epochs usually turn out to be quite fruitful; they require historians to revise the established approaches and generate fresh ideas. The success of such a revision strongly depends on the degree of disappointment in the results of the work of predecessors. It should not be absolute, suppressing the desire for creativity. In the United States, romantic historians have prepared a good springboard for the further development of historiography. If followers criticized some of their approaches, it was only after expressing the most sincere respect and even admiration.
The transition period from romanticism to progressivism coincided with the intensive introduction of scientific methodology into historiography. The defining and most characteristic motive of progressive historiography was the consideration of American history as an incessant socio-economic conflict, a constant struggle between the rich and the poor. This approach was most vividly expressed in the famous book by Charles Beard, The economic interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. In it, the author accused the founding fathers of the American state of trying to cover up their selfish economic motives with beautiful phrases about freedom and republicanism.
Discussion
Charles Beard was born in Indiana to a wealthy family. Beard’s worldview was formed during the crisis for America in the 1890s when many thought that the vices of industrialization and urbanization, the unrestrained growth of monopolies would bury American democracy. As a reaction to the costs of “wild capitalism,” a “progressive” movement arose in the United States, whose members advocated rational understanding and overcoming social problems. From the very beginning of his literary career, Beard asserts himself as a staunch progressive. His first book was published in 1901 and was called The Industrial Revolution. Byrd wrote it while in England, where he went in 1898 to complete his education at Oxford University. It is believed that it was in Oxford that the young Beard was carried away by the idea of the possibility of curbing the power of large corporations with the help of state regulation, which became pivotal in the Industrial Revolution.
Returning to the United States, Byrd defended his doctoral dissertation at Columbia University and, from 1904, became a professor of history and political science. In 1910 he published the textbook American Government and Politics, which was popular with several generations of students. However, what really made him famous was his book The economic interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. To a certain extent, this fame was based on the notability of the conclusions. According to Beard, it turned out that the founding fathers of the American state, when discussing the draft constitution, were guided not at all by the principle of the public good but by selfish economic interests. The new federal constitution was needed primarily by holders of government securities, bankers, merchants, and planters, all those whose business and financial prosperity directly depended on strengthening the central government.
Beard discovered that both during the convening of the constitutional convention and during the ratification of the new constitution, the common American people, for whom the strengthening of power meant, first of all, the tightening of tax and credit mechanisms, were pushed to the sidelines of history. Numerous undemocratic qualifications, “secrecy” of the discussion at key stages turned the constitutional process into fiction and profanation of democracy. The Founding Fathers, in fact, deceived the Americans and imposed on them a political system that would benefit only a narrow elite group.
Beard hoped that such an overthrow of authority would allow American progressive political leaders to attack corporations more decisively and thereby reform the social order towards greater democracy. The confrontation between public and individual interest, Beard argued, runs like a red thread throughout the history of the United States, and the state must firmly stand on the side of society in this struggle. At the same time, the main carriers of public interest in Beard were small and medium-sized owners, and the owners of large capital were selfish individualists. Several years later, he also resigned from Columbia University to protest the dismissal of several of his colleagues for anti-war protests and remained a “free artist” until the end of his life, engaging in scientific, literary, and social activities. Together with his wife, Mary Beard, he wrote a fundamental four-volume study of American history, as well as several short popular textbooks. These books brought Beard success with the general reading public. However, here, Beard adhered to his radical economic interpretation as well. In particular, he called the Civil War 1861-1865. The “second American revolution”, which consisted in the triumph of northern capitalists over southern planters in the struggle for economic interests and the transition from the “agrarian” to “industrial” period of the development of American civilization.
The search for the economic foundations of historical events dominated American historiography until the late 1940s. Another feature introduced by the progressives into historical literature is the so-called presentism, the desire to use historical knowledge to solve the pressing problems of our time. At the same time, Beard admitted that an instrumental approach to the past inevitably makes it dependent on the consciousness of the historian. After sacrificing scientific objectivity, it seemed to progressists a justified price for the possibility of historically grounded political action. It is not difficult to see the similarity in the presentism of the progressives with the practically oriented works of the rationalist historians of the American Revolutionary War.
Since the early 1930s, Beard’s other major focus has been on the theory of historical knowledge, and in this area, he has also offered a very radical interpretation that defies mainstream views. Here, there is the concept of historical relativism, which was most clearly stated by Beard in 1933 in his address to the American Historical Association as its president. Beard amazed the audience, stating the dependence of the research results on the personality of the historian, his social and economic status, political views, and the peculiarities of the psychological organization (such ideas were no longer particularly original at that time). He also also urged his scientific colleagues to consciously adjust their work to the needs of the era, not to be afraid to “change” the past in order to positively influence the present. Such a presentist approach caused a heated discussion of many years, during which Byrd seriously inherited from many famous historians.
Conclusion
Prior to providing the personal attitude towards Beard’s ideas, it should be noted that since the mid-1930s, he has become one of the most zealous critics of President Roosevelt’s active foreign policy from an isolationist stance. In his last book, published in 1948, Beard argued that Roosevelt, by cunning and deception, dragged America into the war with Japan and Germany. Such radicalism led to a drop in Beard’s popularity considerably. Historians of the “school of consensus” also debunked his foreign policy isolationism and the economic interpretation of American history. Such a radical and inconsistent perspective seems to be irrational, and this is the core aspect that I do not perceive as significant in Beard’s works.
However, since then, Beard’s ideas have periodically attracted interest again, and in terms of their impact on American historical thought in the 20th century. His books not only gave rise to a powerful historiographic discussion, they also set a thematic and interpretive framework for the work of several generations of historians. From such a perspective, I appreciate Beard’s contribution to the historiographic thought in terms of giving a fresh view on the historical process.
Bibliography
Breisach, Ernst. Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern (3rd Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
Brown, David. “The Fate of Academic Freedom in the Age of High Liberalism: The Case of Charles Beard.” Journal of The Historical Society 6, no. 1 (2006): 1–17.