The Progressive Historians: Turner, Beard, Parrington

Richard Hofstadter was one of the finest and most revered historians of his generation. His body of work epitomized what has been labeled the "consensus school" of American history, wherein he emphasized the larger themes that drew Americans of all perspectives and backgrounds together. At a fundamental level, therefore, Hofstadter concentrated on intellectual history, celebrating the long tradition of shared American ideals and values while de-emphasizing conflict. He questioned the ideas and people who challenged those cherished principles, seeing in many of them strains of authoritarianism, anarchy, and narrow- and simple-mindedness of all varieties. His work advocated a pragmatic liberalism that he believed was in constant jeopardy from forces of fear, anti-intellectualism, and authoritarianism. Hofstadter leapt to fame with "The American Political Tradition: and the Men who Made It" (1948) in which he celebrated the ideals of democracy and liberalism and took aim at dark, divisive ideas in American thought. In "The Progressive Historians" Hofstadter analyzes the work of three great historians of the first half of the twentieth century, Frederick Jackson Turner, Charles A. Beard, and Vernon L. Parrington. Turner's "Frontier Thesis" influenced a generation of thinkers seeking to understanding the distinctiveness of the American culture. Beard's model of economic conflict of haves versus have nots highlighted class warfare as the dominant theme in American history. Parrington's "Main Currents in American Thought" emphasized the stresses and strains of American life. All three were advocates of a progressive interpretation of American history; that is, a commitment to explaining the advance of American democracy in which "the people" battled against "the interests" leading to a more equitable, just society. As Hofstadter shows, progressive reform was a persistent aspect of these historians, leading them to a fundamental "presentism" in their work. He finds that their flawed, conflict-dominated account of American history pitted a forward looking Western ethos against the prejudices and status quo mindset of the East. For Hofstadter, this missed a crucial point; virtually all conflict in American history had revolved around who had the largest share of the economic abundance of the nation. What conflict that existed, Hofstadter asserted, was over the size of the slices of the pie, not over the shape or type of pie, much less a more fundamental debate over whether to have pie or cake. The conflict that the progressive school emphasized, for Hofstadter, was conducted within a larger consensus over basic ideas and values that all agreed to. Hofstadter admitted that he was initially attracted to the interpretation of the progressive school. He explicitly singled out reading Charles Beard's pivotal work, "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution" (1913), which depicted the framers as landed aristocracy seeking to ensure their own wealth thr