Lawrence Henry Gipson: Historian

Home , Charles McLean Andrews, Merle Curti

LAWRENCE HENRY GIPSON: HISTORIAN

By JACKSON TURNER MAIN LN MARCH 1918, the Mississippi Valley Historical Review published articles by Arthur C. Cole, Homer C. Hockett, Theodore C. Blegen, and Lawrence H. Gipson. The last named, a thirty-seven-year-old professor at Wabash College, was to receive his doctorate at Yale that summer. During the year Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., would celebrate his first birthday in neigh- boring Ohio, while in Buffalo Richard Hofstadter was already a year old. Among those who one day would parallel the young scholar's research, Edmund S. Morgan was a two-year-old Minnesotan and Howard Peckham was a Michigan lad of seven.' Gipson's article furnished little indication of its author's future career. Entitled "The Collapse of the Confederacy," it drew primarily upon secondary sources to demonstrate that the southern states suffered from various non-military ailments, essentially psychological. One wishes that the editor, with an eye to the next half-century, had suggested that the seven sentences beginning with "it" in the first five paragraphs were too many, and that the plain style possessed many virtues. Probably the article attracted little notice despite its eminent company. But in 1920 appeared the new Ph.D.'s Jared Ingersoll, which did indeed foreshadow the future, and which immediately established Gipson as an historian of the first rank. Like so many other first books, this indicated most of the writer's distinctive qualities, including his principal faults and-more notably-outstanding virtues. Ingersoll, as the subtitle made clear, was not technically a biography but "a study of American loyalism in relation to British colonial government." Gipson showed little interest in and scarcely touched upon Ingersoll's childhood environment, his experience as a student at Yale, or his legal career. The book focused on Connecticut's external affairs, examining its internal history only 'Curiously all four of these youngsters were Midwesterners, as was the writer, then a baby in Wisconsin. Gipson was born in Colorado, and raised in Idaho. 22 GIPSON: HISTORIAN 23 as that affected relations between Connecticut and Britain. What- ever contributes to an understanding of Ingersoll's loyalism and Connecticut's radicalism becomes relevant; whatever does not, is ignored. In discussing "environmental factors" Gipson treated politics fully but scanted most economic and social forces. After all, this was 1920, and the climate of historical opinion is suggested both by the rather thin socio economic background and by his remark that Connecticut lacked "broad humanitarianism" and 'generous idealism" because these qualities were "largely the product of that great leveling movement which at a later date swept eastward from beyond the Alleghenies." 2 He did, however, examine economic conditions when he considered them important, devoting part of a chapter to the colony's finances. Although Gipson occasionally criticized Ingersoll, the general tone of the book was sympathetic, and he presented British policies in a favorite light. He defended England's attempt to levy taxes. Connecticut, he acknowledged, did have, financial difficulties, but they resulted from excessive buying on credit of luxuries, and the colony could well afford to pay taxes. The author demonstrated in this matter as in other ways a refreshing willingness to publish his conclusions, however disagreeable to American mythology: the Connecticut rioters "lost the power of using rational means in defense of their cause, and sank back to the mental levels of the emotional primitive."3 Ingersoll's principal defect was stylistic. One sentence contained ten clauses and nine commas and another consisted of ten clauses with eleven commas. Semicolons replaced periods, passives occurred far too frequently, and the "It . . . that" construction, which continued a favorite, ruins a sentence beginning "It was voted, also, that no dealings should be had. . . ." Fortunately Ingersoll also reveals Gipson's principal strength. The "biblio- graphical note" drew attention to manuscripts in London, New Haven, Ridgefield, New York, Hartford, and Boston, as well as to an imposing list of published sources, contemporary tracts, and newspapers. Meticulously researched and judiciously considered, this first effort left its readers expectant. But they were in for a long wait.

''Ingersoll, p. 33. Ibid., p. 172. 24 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY

Although Gipson was now thirty-nine, he did not rush to repeat his success. Indeed sixteen years passed before the publication of his next full-length book, and eleven before he published anything at all. In 1931 the American Historical Review printed his article on Connecticut's finances which, with another article, presently appeared in book form.4 Based upon additional research, the article elaborated a major thesis of the earlier work: the colony paid off almost its entire debt by 1765, using wartime profits and money paid by Britain as reimbursement for military costs, so that taxpayers were assessed almost nothing. This happy state of affairs, carefully concealed by Connecticut's leaders, would have enabled the people to contribute to the costs of empire had they been willing to do so. On the contrary, Gipson observed, it became "one of the ironies of history that the munificence of the mother country to Connecticut in her hour of need should ultimately have been returned by the colony from the muzzles of the guns of her embattled farmers" (p. 739). The article thus restated forcibly the direction of Gipson's research and the interpretation which was developing out of it. A few years later he termed the work of his mentor, Charles M. Andrews, "an epoch in American historiography" which reoriented historians toward the view that colonial history was part of the expansion of England.5 Many historians publish their doctoral dissertations, land their good jobs, and settle down to a lifetime of teaching until retirement when, as F. J. Turner reportedly wrote, they are permitted to cuss and fish. In his mid-fifties, nearing the retirement age, Gipson brought out three books, totalling some eight hundred pages, entitled The British Empire before the American Revolu- tion: Provincial Characteristics and Sectional Tendencies in the Era Preceding the American Crisis, I748-I754.6 The foreword

I "Connecticut Taxation and Parliamentary Aid preceding the Revolu- tionary War," American Historical Review, XXXVI (1930-1931), 721-739; Studies in Colonial Connecticut Taxation (Bethlehem, Pa., 1931). "6"Charles McLean Andrews and the Re-Orientation of American Colonial Historiography," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, LIX (1934), 209-222. The first volume of Andrews' magnum opus had just appeared. These volumes, then as now, comprised the first "book" of the general series entitled The British Empire before the American Revolution. They were published by the Caxton Printers, Ltd. (of which Gipson's brother James was president) in Caldwell, Idaho. Citations here are to the more GIPSON: HISTORIAN 25 proclaimed Gipson's determination to survey, in twelve volumes, the entire history of the British Empire between 1750 and 1776. Nine-as it turned out, eleven-to go at the age of fifty-six! But the oddmakers would have been wrong. The first volume concentrated on the British Isles during the mid-eighteenth century. It did not contribute to historical knowledge-although the author had done his homework-but was introductory, setting the stage for future books, and stressing only crucial attributes of the mother country. Gipson's picture is dynamic, rather than static, emphasizing the "active forces" which were transforming the Empire. Although the focus is on the year 1750, he ranges backward and forward to illustrate the important trends. He pays considerable attention to economic developments, devoting a chapter to England's economy, another to Ireland's, and interweaving economics and politics in his treatment of Scot- land and (in the revised edition) Wales. On the other hand, social and cultural characteristics together receive only one chapter, a section on the "scottish intellectual renaissance" being added later. Presumably the author knew what he was about: he felt that the significant factors which created the "old" empire and which wxould one day dismember it were economic and above all political rather than ideological or cultural. The general impression of England which the volume conveys is favorable. Although Gipson points out frankly that the Eng- lish drank too much gin, rioted too much, smuggled inordinately, and sometimes had to spend over half their income on food, he asserts that "the heart of the nation was sound." The people as a whole were "industrious, intelligent, resourceful, and practical- minded," who deserved their relatively comfortable standard of living; most "were without doubt people of solid qualities- honest, clearheaded, ingenious" (pp. 25, 61). Similarly, while he does not hesitate to term many aspects of the British government "reprehensible," he finds that it was successful, occasionally responsive to public opinion and, for the times, just. In this evalua- tion Gipson reflected the conclusions of Namier, whose major works had already appeared, rather than of the "Whig" historians,

generally available revision of 1958. Incidentally 1936 was a vintage year 4or colonial historians, producing the second volume of Andrews' Colonial Period and Morison's Puritan Pronaos, as well as Gipson's "book." 26 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY though he had himself examined the primary sources. The chapter on Scotland emphasized the rapid economic progress of the Lowlands during the period being surveyed. He describes with feeling the distress of the Irish. Their economic depression he attributes only in part to the English conquest. His "spirit of detachment" obliges him to note that the people's poverty was to some extent unnecessary, partly because they refused to adopt agricultural reforms, and because they remained bitter and dis- couraged (p. 198). Yet even in the case of Ireland he is able to cite evidence of increasing wealth, indeed of "a very considerable degree of prosperity" (p. 230). Therefore while Eng- land was "by far the most dynamic and progressive" part of the kingdom, the British Isles as a whole enjoyed economic wealth and political stability, and were developing "a new quality of statesmanship embodying among other things a real solicitude for the welfare of dependent peoples" (pp. 239, 246). It was an empire which one might be reluctant to leave. The second volume of this trilogy examined the southern colonies of Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas, and Georgia, as well as the Atlantic islands and the slave trade. As in the first volume, Gipson did not intend a complete description, but emphasized the "salient characteristics" of each colony-salient, of course, for his immediate purpose. The emphasis again is upon economic and political history, with some special mention of the expanding frontier of the mainland colonies. Only a few pages discuss social factors, the treatment of slavery being superficial except in the chapter on the slave trade. Religion receives little attention; education, literature, science, the arts, and intellectual developments, virtually none. The economic sections are strong on commerce and adequate on agriculture, but manufacturing is ignored and financial affairs scarcely mentioned, though the last omission was to be rectified in a later book. The principal emphasis is political, and the great contribution especially concerns what might be called foreign affairs-the external policies of the governments and factors affecting relations between the colonies and the outside world. A detailed discussion of these matters is, however, left for volume four. No less than fourteen maps, dating from 1736 to 1780, add to the book's interest and aesthetic qualities. In many respects the "book" was a tour de force. Gipson had GIPSON: HISTORIAN 27 read everything in print, including the latest monographs and contemporary pamphlets, and he had also read extensively in manuscript collections. However his research did have its limits. le relied primarily upon sources in England and in the papers of British officials: thus although the footnotes to the chapter on Virginia contain references to the Shelburne papers in the Clements TLibrary, the Dobbs papers in Belfast, the colonial office, the public records office, and the Loudon papers in the Huntington Library, they cite no manuscripts of native Virginians. Perhaps as a result, he tends to accept uncritically the assertions of British officials. For example, the third Lord Baltimore instructed his gov- ernor never to part with or lessen any of the proprietor's just rights, since "all undue Concessions serve only to lay a Founda- tion for further Incroachments," adding that all his instructions svere founded on justice and equity (p. 61). Gipson interprets this as proof that the proprietors "undoubtedly sought to act with fairness in their general relations with the people of the province"-all interpretation which Baltimore would certainly approve but which that gentleman's statement does not support. In general Gipson writes from outside the colonies, from the vantage point of a royal official or an intelligent and sympathetic traveller, rather than that of a colonial. Gipson's description of the mainland colonies is still one of the best ever written. He follows the orthodox interpretation of colonial society as fundamentally aristocratic, with political power in the hands of the social and economic elite. Internal conflicts are, however, minimized. He stresses the great wealth of the new land: "In the tobacco of Virginia and Maryland," he writes, "Great Britain possessed a treasure greater by far than all the mines of Mexico and Peru" (p. 75). Although he recognizes and examines the heavy indebtedness of the planters, especially the tobacco growers, he concludes that these debts were due primarily to excessive purchases of luxuries and of slaves, not to conspiracies by the merchants or adverse regulation from Eng- land. The position of the South Carolinians, he declares, was just as fortunate, and in addition both they and the Georgians received favorable treatment, including financial contributions, from the mother country. Surely, Gipson observes, the people of these southernmost colonies could be relied upon to remain steadfast 28 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY

in their loyalty. He depicts British America in 1750 as a mature, self-confident, and flourishing civilization. On the other hand the situation of the West Indian planters was deteriorating. This part of Gipson's survey is, to the Amer- ican historian, the most interesting section of the book, carrying forward C. M. Andrews' account. Economic, political, and-in discussions of the negroes-social developments are examined in detail. The research is broader and even more impressive than that for the mainland colonies. The most important conclusion is that whereas the tobacco and rice producers prospered, the sugar growers no longer competed successfully with their French rivals, due partly to soil exhaustion but primarily to French subsidies which made possible sale at a lower price. As a result many British planters had fallen hopelessly in debt. They were angered, Gipson observes, by the knowledge that their suffering and the superiority of the French continued because of "a wilful disregard of the Molasses Act of 1733 on the part of British colonial shipmasters and distillers" (p. 262). Yet the mother country rebuffed appeals for aid. The third volume treats the northern colonies, including the Hudson Bay Company's sphere of influence and Newfoundland. Again Gipson's coverage is selective, emphasizing "only the more pertinent aspects best suited to illuminate the history of the period" in each colony (p. ix). And again social and cultural affairs receive only passing mention, while the discussion of economic and political developments varies from the exceedingly expert and detailed to almost total neglect, depending upon Gip- son's needs and interests. He examines the fur trade, overseas commerce, the paper money question, politics at the provincial level, lumbering, and (in an entire chapter) the iron industry, obviously because these are relevant to an understanding of imperial relations. But local politics, internal trade, most forms of manufacturing, and agriculture are almost or entirely neglected. Like other great historians he cannot resist interesting digressions: a section on Pennsylvania's criminal code springs from a peripheral bit of research,7 and he devotes as much space to Newfoundland as to New York.

'See Crime and Punishment in Provincial Pennsylvania (Bethlehem, 1935). GIPSON: HISTORIAN 29

Gipson's research resembles that for the preceding volume. He seems to have read everything in print, including an assortment of newspapers, but he did not examine the manuscript papers of the colonists except those of certain officials. He emphasizes the prosperity and political maturity which the colonists had achieved. Massachusetts "had developed, both as a centre of population and wealth and in political experience, to the point that it possessed an attitude of almost complete self-sufficiency-despite all formal testimony of loyalty to the King and to the imperial ideal" (p. 37); Connecticut was free from taxes and maintained almost complete independence; Pennsylvania "may well be described as among the most prosperous areas within the British Empire" and its people "were aggressively reaching out to grasp all of those powers which they identified with a system of self-government" (pp. 168, 179). This wealth and maturity resulted from the freedom with which the Americans were allowed to develop their great natural resources. The policies adopted by the British government were on the whole benign. Thus the restriction on cutting certain white pines was sweetened by a substantial bounty. The acts of trade and navigation benefitted more people than they harmed. Although Parliament passed many laws relating to America, the colonists did not challenge its right to do so. In a final summary chapter, added in the second edition, Gipson stresses that the rolonists had every reason for contentment. They were prosperous, free, protected from their enemies, and "proud of their heritage as British subjects." "It would doubtless have been difficult," he concludes, "to find many colonials in the middle of the eighteenth century who would have complained-as they were to do so freely in 1775-that it was their great misfortune to be living under a system of government in which a tyrannical King sought to rule them despotically by means of a compliant Parliament" (p. 294). In concluding this survey of these three volumes several features deserve mention. The books contain some thirty-five maps (in the revised edition) which display every part of the empire. All are roughly contemporary, and although they lack the clarity and precision of modern atlases they compensate by relevance and interest. The tables of contents, which throughout the series average upwards of thirty pages, lead the reader at once to 30 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY his object, and the indexes are marvellous. Gipson does not rank with Parkman as a stylist, but the deficiencies noted earlier, and which continued to mar the first edition, were partly overcome in the second, and on the whole the writing is clear. The volumes contain little new material, do not furnish us with a complete history of the empire-which might very well require all of the ultimate fourteen-and do not rest upon a complete examination of the sources, for which even a Gipson's life would scarcely suffice. They must be read and considered in conjunction with the series as a whole. From that point of view they admirably pre- pare the reader for subsequent volumes, and at the same time he recognizes that Gipson's research is broad and his scholarship sound. In 1939 Gipson interrupted his major work to edit and publish, with a substantial introduction, Lewis Evans' "A Brief Account of Pennsylvania." The book, beautifully printed with remarkable maps by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania shows Gipson at his best. His personal modesty and kindliness appear in the consistent use of the third person and the observation that if he had corrected errors of his predecessors, he did so only because "he was in a favorable position to draw materials from sources hitherto not utilized by previous writers." He certainly was: the footnotes contain references to libraries not only in Philadelphia but in Washington, D. C., New York, Baltimore, Ann Arbor, and San Marino. Indeed it is difficult to believe that he overlooked any evidence whatever, when we read that one of Lewis' granddaughters married in Leghorn, as proved by the Chapel Register of the British factory there! Even the index (evidently his work) is thorough, and Lewis' "Account" is carefully footnoted. The next "book," the two-volume Zones of International Fric- tion, appeared in 1939 and 1942. Gipson is still setting the stage for his "Great War," but he now enters his field of special knowledge. These and the next five volumes of his major work contain his principal contributions to historical knowledge. The locale of volume four is the vast country from the Gulf of Mexico to the Ohio valley. The focus is not so much on the people, though Gipson furnishes some account of the Indians and of the French settlers, but on the tensions between the two empires growing out of the advancing British frontier. In the GIPSON: HISTORIAN 31 first chapter Gipson introduces one of his basic themes: the dynamic nature of the British colonies, which expanded not because the home government adopted imperialistic policies but because the colonists themselves developed freely through private initiative. The British advance was unplanned, fortuitous, yet inevitable. On the other hand, France deliberately adopted an aggressive policy which she imposed upon her reluctant colonials, and which "continually circumscribed" their activities. The French made decisions, the British acted individually and chaotically. Yet France failed to profit from this centralization, for her government was in fact inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt, and her colonies became "financially ruinous," whereas the British colonies grew wealthy and strong. Potentially the latter ought to have over- whelmed the former, but Gipson demonstrates in this and suc- ceeding volumes that refusal to cooperate forced the mother country to shoulder the burden of defense. Volume five begins with an interesting discussion of Canada, which emphasizes the comparatively static quality of that province, its economic backwardness, its limited cultural life, its expensive, authoritarian government, and its military weakness. An account of the northern frontier follows, culminating in an illuminating analysis of the Albany Conference. Gipson's conclusion that Thomas Hutchinson's contribution was equal, if not superior to Franklin's, elaborated in footnotes, drew forth considerable crit- icism from other historians, and led Gipson to publish a separate article and uncharacteristically to engage in a protracted debate- throughout which, however, he retained his scholarly composure. His chapter on Acadia attracted more general notice, for he concluded that the British were justified in exiling the Acadians, who remained so hostile to the conquerors that they threatened to overthrow the government. Not content with five hundred pages on the North American frontier, Gipson then completed his grand survey by ranging over the Caribbean islands, India, and Europe. Among the major virtues of these two volumes are the use of numerous manuscript sources in Spain, France, and Canada, as well as in England and the United States, the attention to economic forces, and the ability to shift the reader's point of vision geographically so that he stands first in a British colony, then with the French, and back again. Striking also is the confidence 32 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY derived from his long research which enables him to reexamine the evidence and emerge with conclusions sharply different from his predecessors', as the chapter on the Acadians shows. When he does disagree he invariably notes, in a gentlemanly way, the opinion of other scholars: thus he remarks that while his conclusions differ from those of Max Savelle, he "can only pay tribute to his fine sense of discrimination and spirit of detachment"-a compliment which Savelle might justly have returned.8 Gipson's writing continued to show certain stylistic weaknesses, especially a penchant for complex sentences; but these were more skillfully constructed now, and at times he could write lyrically:9

Those men of the plough and the ax, those pioneers, builders of homes, upon the conclusion of the war for the Empire would soon again follow the trails of traders, hunters, and trappers and, pouring through the passes of the Appalachians, bidding defiance to all regulations, imperial and local, extend the frontiers of settlement, sweeping aside the aborigines in their forward movement -ever under the luring spell of the boundless West!

Gipson's next "book" again consisted of a trilogy, which brought to a close his account of the old Empire at its maximum power. The subject of the first volumes was the beginning of armed conflict and the period of French ascendency; of the second, the British recovery under Pitt culminating in the conquest of Canada; and the third related contemporaneous developments in the West Indies, Europe, and India, which ended with the treaties of 1763. Much even of this last volume rested upon original research, while in the first two Gipson followed his own line entirely. As in previous books, he did not try to examine all of the numerous manuscript collections in the thirteen original states, but found what he needed in London, Canada, and a few other libraries. The emphasis is military rather than political, economic, or (as he remarks) sociological, for while he does present a well-rounded account of major developments, he focuses first on aspects which have been "especially subject to popular

'V, 338 n. For his part Savelle's reviews, while they expressed reservations, were favorable, and he presently praised Gipson in an article. 'IV, 312. This is the next to the last sentence of the volume. GIPSON: HISTORIAN 33 inisconceptions and even to serious misinterpretations," and sec- ondly on matters significant for his general design."' Gipson argues that the war began on the colonial frontier as the result of France's aggressive activities. The people of Eng- land, and the British government, were not directly involved, and would have preferred to let the colonials solve their own problems, if possible. But the colonists could not, and in all too many cases would not, meet their responsibilities, despite the fact that the conflict concerned their own vital interests. Fortunately England, especially under Pitt, contributed the navy, army, money, and skill necessary for victory. He demonstrates that the colonial militia proved ineffective because, lacking discipline, too many of them ran away, and that the British troops, artillery, and logistics proved far more effective. His careful research modified or contradicted at many points the judgment of previous writers. The expulsion of the Acadians, already explained, is further justified, and Gipson traces their subsequent wanderings sympathetically. Throughout Gipson evaluates forthrightly the colonial contribution, which proved negligible in the southern colonies and erratic in the northern. He observes that cooperation, when it occurred, was often stimulated by Pitt's promise to repay part of the cost, though he does credit certain governments with genuine enthusiasm. Prob- ably these volumes are Gipson's best. In 1954 Gipson published not only volume VIII of the series, which completed his discussion of the war, but a contribution to the "New American Nation Series" entitled The Comning of the Revolution. Aside from an interpretative article, to be discussed later, this latter work has had the widest circulation of anything Gipson wrote. Unfortunately it is his least satisfactory. For some reason he seems almost deliberately to exaggerate his case, so that the reader instead of being convinced by his usual air of judicious, scholarly appraisal, is provoked by what seems to be special pleading. Perhaps Gipson was not quite ready for the book, He had been concentrating on an earlier period in his Entpire sequence and may have written this one too hurriedly. He tried to cram a great many facts into 234 pages, which is not his forte: stylistically he is best when he has room. Moreover the one deficiency in his research, less noticeable when he writes

"°For his intent, see the preface to vol. VI, ix. 34 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY of the whole empire, and inconsequential in his best work (volumes IV-VIII), now became serious: namely his disproportionate use of British sources. Here as in volumes I-II of the Empire series, almost the only American manuscript sources cited are the Shelburne and Hutchinson papers, and although he did read monographs and published collections, he saw the revolutionary movement from the British and loyalist rather than the colonial and rebel side. Gipson argues that the revolution began when Britain, under- standably and even justifiably, sought to make the colonies contribute to their own defense and government. The colonists, however, no longer needed the protection of their mother country and sought greater self-government. Both parties to this dispute refused to make the concessions necessary for compromise, but came to blows instead. So stated the fault appears evenly divided. Substantially, however, Gipson absolves the British leaders and their allies, while the colonists appear as ungrateful, ill-behaved, and disorderly children. The economic difficulties of England are contrasted with the prosperity of the colonies-a prosperity increased by British subsidies and other aid, by smuggling, and by trading with the enemy in wartime. We look upon the revolutionary movement through the eyes of British administrators, to whom the people seemed balky and unreasonable. The lack of attention to intellectual factors and the highly selective description of colonial civilization, though these may result from the need for compression, further unbalance the book. Thus Gipson in the end does not (to quote the editors' intent) "achieve a synthesis of the new findings with the traditional facts." The next two volumes of Gipson's great enterprise appeared con- secutively in 1956 and 1961. During that interval he took time for a revision of the first "book," now published by Knopf (1956- 1960). He replaced some maps, shortened his sentences, clarified his style, corrected errors, incorporated fresh material, and added entirely new sections, including a chapter on Wales, one on Dela- ware, and a general summary. This revision illustrates his remarkable ability to keep abreast of and to master the voluminous literature. The two new volumes, IX and X, demonstrated that the septuagenarian could still produce first-rate history. Both concern GIPSON: HISTORIAN 35 the years 1763-1766, tracing England's efforts to solve the problems growing out of the Great War. The first disposes of questions most of which were not directly related to the American revolution. These include unsettled Indian relations culminating ill the uprising of 1763, together with governmental affairs in Quebec, Nova Scotia, the Floridas, the West Indies, India, and England. Gipson finds that the solutions adopted or proposed indicated "a real attachment on the part of the British ministry as well as Parliament to the liberal principles bequeathed by the Glorious Revolution" (p. 345). The second of these volumes, he reveals in the preface, was the book he had planned to write when he began his series in 1924. At that time he found "many years" of work to be in- sufficient preparation. Now, thirty years and nine volumes later, he felt that he had mastered the background. As in previous books, he does not cover every possible subject. An introductory chapter emphasizes the economic and political maturity of the colonials and their growing self-confidence, which made them "ripe for revolt." On the other hand Britain intended to maintain the existing system, both with respect to economic regulation and the political supremacy of Parliament. Reconciliation of these dif- ferences required either "omniscience or omnipotence," qualities which could not characterize either side. Almost half of the book is preliminary to the critical discussion of the famous acts of 1764-65. Four detailed chapters trace Par- liamnent's payment of a million pounds sterling to the colonies as reimbursement for their wartime expenditures and the subsequent fiscal history of the governments. Gipson remarks that "such liberality had never been displayed by any other country toward Its colonies tip to that time," and be further concludes that by the mid-'60's war debts no longer burdened the people but actually benefitted them by supplying a form of money. The taxpayers of Great Britain, he observes, were less fortunate. Documentation here is convincing. He then focuses on two major confrontations between England and the colonies: the controversy over writs of assistance in Massachusetts and the two-penny act affair in Vir- ginia (ignoring, therefore, a considerable number of other disputes which affected relations between England and America). By recounting the merchants' smuggling activities, in peace and 36 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY war, and stressing the legality of the writs, Gipson elicits our sympathy for the official position. His account of the Virginia incident has the same effect. Indeed the reasons for public hostility to Camm, Hutchinson, and other principals remain obscure to the reader. The following chapter considers the debts of Virginia planters. Whether these debts were truly burdensome, whether the British government or merchants shared the responsibility for them, and whether they contributed to the planters' rebellious- ness, are all disputed issues among colonial historians.11 Gipson's answers are yes, no, and probably. England's financial difficulties are sympathetically described. In several excellent chapters he upholds the legality and justice of the new colonial policy, including the Sugar and Stamp Acts. Neither of these, he feels, would have injured the colonial economy, and he observes that they were accompanied by trade concessions and bounties. The rest of the volume traces the opposition to and ultimate repeal of the Stamp Act. He recounts feelingly the woes of the Stamp Act officials, but as in earlier volumes does little justice to the feelings of the protesting colonials. As before he has read everything published but neglects colonial manuscript collections. Still, he retains a judicial balance: to him there are no villains, no scapegoats. Two more volumes completed Gipson's account of the revolutionary movement. He continues to devote a good deal of space to British policy, since after all, his subject is the British Empire, but now he undertakes a much more detailed treatment of the colonies. His account stresses economic and political factors. "The revolutionary movement in Massachusetts Bay," he writes, "arose chiefly from the bitter opposition of the province's trading interests to Pitt's policy of trying to suppress trade with the enemy during the course of the Great War for the Empire through strict enforcement of the trade and navigation acts" (XI, 15). The earlier volume (XI) deals with the years 1766-1770. Since the only major quarrel of the period between the colonies and England concerned the Townshend tax, Gipson introduces a variety of other subjects: New York's reaction to the Quartering

"I'Gipson himself contributed an article: "Virginia Planter Debts and the American Revolution," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, LXIX (1961), 259-277. GIPSON: HISTORIAN 37

Act, the Wilkes case in London, New York's boundary disputes with New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, Pennsyl- vania's controversies with Maryland and Connecticut, western problems, the Regulation in North Carolina, and South Carolina's internal conflicts including the Wilkes Fund case. The selection seems somewhat arbitrary, for not all of these developments were equally important. Their cumulative purpose is to underwrite the colonial weaknesses in copying with certain problems, and to point out several instances in which British intervention was beneficial. At the end the colonists stand on the verge of revolution. In volume XII the Empire, in Gipson's words, "sails into the storm." The focus continues on the rebellious colonies, the narrative remains primarily descriptive, though there is an ominous- ness: an atmosphere of doom, of tragedy-and of regret. British officials both in England and America sincerely search for a rapprochement but cannot conceive of the only solution to their dilemma. The documentation in this respect is outstanding. The internal history of the colonies, certain aspects of which he examined in the previous volume, now gives way almost entirely to external affairs. He retains throughout a tone of dispassionate appraisal, first set in the preface by a quotation from Hutchinson: "Yet the Americans were not wholly wrong, and the Mother Country not entirely right." The penultimate volume consists of three parts. The opening section completes the historical narrative of the British Empire before the American Revolution by describing those parts which did not secede: Ireland, India, the West Indies, Bermuda, the Floridas, Canada and the other northern colonies, together with various other outposts. A valuable and interesting chapter sum- marizes and interprets the entire series, and the final section dis- cusses sixty-two historians. The first part shows Gipson at his scholarly best, using a wide variety of sources, presenting a mass of economic, social, and political data, and keeping up with the latest research. The summary chapter stresses the extent, wealth, and liberty of the old Empire and the justice and toleration of its administration. He reminds the reader that until 1760 the society and welfare of the colonies depended upon the mother country. Victory in the "Great War" resulted primarily from the exertions of England. She then tried to draw from her colonies contribu- 38 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY

tions toward their own defense. The colonists, however, now secure and less dependent, became persuaded, "rightly or wrongly," that England no longer had their interests at heart, and that they should now reject Parliament's supremacy. Ultimately the colonies rebelled not simply over the issue of taxation but because as the result of the Great War they had become so mature that they could not remain under the constitution as it existed. A note to the second section, together with the final third of the book, outlines the contributions of other historians. His criticisms are a little disappointing because Gipson is too polite, detached, and temperate to deal with the faults, lapses, and mis- takes of his predecessors and contemporaries. He presents their contributions succinctly and fairly, and expresses certain reservations, but he is happiest when he can compliment. At the end of a long life, surveying the many interpretations and considering his own, he concludes (pp. 223-224), "As a final word I might say that I myself believe in the usefulness of the various approaches and interpretations of the specialists; I also realize that since each new study provokes consideration of additional aspects of the question under review, one cannot hope ever to see a complete synthesis of all viewpoints, nor yet a single definitive approach. Such indeed is the nature of history." Gipson's high reputation as an historian derives neither from longevity nor from any one book but from consistent excellence Insofar as awards prove one's prestige, his work ranks high: his Ingersoll received the American Historical Association's Justin Winsor Prize, and volume X of the Empire series won the Pulitzer. Perhaps better evidence of his rank comes from a poll of historians conducted by the Mississippi Valley Historical Asso- ciation in 1952 (after the publication of Ingersoll, Evans, and volumes I-VII). Among all the books published between 1936 and 1950, Gipson's placed second only to Merle Curti's Growth of Aminerican Thought, ahead of Allan Nevins' Ordeal of the Union and the major works of James Randall, Marcus Hansen, and A. M. Schlesinger, Jr.'2 Reviewers have rarely failed to praise Gipson's writings. The elder Schlesinger who, though eight years younger than Gipson

M211ississippi Valley Historical Review, XXXIX (1952-53), 300. GIPSON: HISTORIAN 39 produced his Colonial Merchants two years before the publication of Ingersoll, considered the latter "convincing" and even found the style "unhurried and attractive."1 3 The first three volumes of the great series were generally well received.14 Richard M. MIorris's review of them, while complimentary, expressed certain reservations concerning Gipson's extensive use of contemporary descriptions and his defense of mercantilism. Morris also de- tected a "vein of special pleading" in the author's too favorable a description of England's working class and in the treatment of Parliament's responsiveness to a public opinion which, Morris remarks, was not such as to please the colonies.' 5 The American Historical Review assigned volumes IV and VI to Max Savelle, who paid tribute to Gipson's "staggering" amount of research and declared that the series "may well prove to be one of the most distinguished monuments of creative writing produced by this generation of historians."", A. L. Burt found the style of volumes V and VII characterized by an "easy grace" and even occasionally a "positive beauty." Gipson, he felt, had exhausted the subject and made Parkman's Montcalm and Wolfe obsolete by "one of the greatest historical works written by any American scholar."'17 Curtis Nettels reviewed volume V favorably but entered an adverse judgment on volume VI. It was, he wrote, "distinguished among modern works for its frank and unabashed partisanship." The war, Nettels insisted, was fought not to protect the colonies, nor at the request of the colonists, most of whom were indifferent to it, but at the urging of British imperial agents in America.', Yet, according to Samuel E. Morison, the same book "fully lives up to his high standards of fairness, thoroughness, and narrative skill at exposition," and was marred only by the lack of good modern maps. With that deficiency remedied in the next volume, Morison repeated the compliment.s

"1Aln. Hist. Rev., XXVI (1920-21), 807-808. "For example, Winfred T. Root in Journal of Modern History, IX (1937), 229-230; Charles A. Barker in New England Quarterly, X (1937), 168-170. "5 Am. Hist. Rev., XLII (1936-37), 749-751. "Ibid., XLV (1939-40), 890-892, LII (1946-47), 331-334. 17 Canadian Historical Review, XXIII (1942), 412-415, XXX (1949), 355-356. 's New England Quarterly, XVI (1943), 342-344; Miss. Vy. Hist. Rev., XXIII (1946-47), 137-140. "'New Eng. Qtly., XX (1947), 117-121, XXIII (1950), 281. 40 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY

To Stanley Pargellis, Gipson was an "historian's historian.."20 After affirming his general agreement with Gipson's interpretation, Pargellis continued :21.

Gipson has indicated, by what he has written in the past, that he believes there is something to be said for the typical nineteenth-century British interpretatiton of the Revolution-when the British took the French off the backs of the Americans and tried to make them pay their share of the expenses, they rebelled. He will not subscribe to so blunt a thesis. But what he must do, and in more chapters than one, is to bring together the intangible as well as the tangibles for the colonial position: British arrogance, fears about British troops, commanders-in- chief, and Anglican episcopates, as a succession of British ministers failed to deal with the problem of western settlement; mounting and unpayable debts to British merchants; and the revolutionary spirit which found in England supporters by which it was partly nourished. Pargellis continued to express doubts whether Gipson had been entirely fair to the colonial position, and observed that his discussion of the colonies in volume X overemphasized financial aspects, but finally concluded that his work was "powerful, com- pelling, and masterly."22 Robert L. Schuyler, who like Pargellis wrote primarily of the Empire, also praised more than he criticized. He noted that Gipson's writings were "essentially constitutional, political, and economic history, in the tradition of Osgood, Beer, and Andrews." His further remark, perhaps intended as a compliment, that Gipson was never controversial, that he refrained from pronouncing verdicts or judging who was right and who was wrong, and that he avoided polemics, is not really just: Gipson was certainly moderate but he stated his conclusions forthrightly. 3 Schuyler termed Gipson's interpretations judicious and well-bal- anced, though he questioned whether the British officials were truly altruistic. Their policy, he felt, remained "imperialism rooted in mercantilism," and the colonies were to subserve the interests of the mother country who, in turn, defended them.24

'Ain. Hist. Rev., LV (1949-50), 915-916. 2'Ibid., LX (1954-55), 596-598. 22Ibid., LXVIII (1962-63), 729-731. Miss. Vy. Hist. Rev., IL (1962-63), 100-101. Wdliain and Mary Quarterly, VII (1950), 120-124. GIPSON: HISTORIAN 41

The reception of The Comning of the Revolution was mixed. Edmund S. Morgan, who had reviewed volume VIII without expressing any value judgment,25 complimented the "grace and style," but restrained his enthusiasm otherwise. He felt that Gip- son, as the leading spokesman of the imperial school, made the actions of the British seem more reasonable and those of the Americans less so than in the usual accounts. Morgan agreed that the colonials could have paid taxes without hardship but added that the ability to pay did not necessarily confer on someone else the right to demand payment. He also noted that Gipson ignored the outrageous behavior of customs officers.26 Clarence Ver Steeg also qualified his praise. Having first praised Gipson's mastery of the sources, Ver Steeg later complained that citations to monographs dealing with the revolution in certain colonies were miss- ing. While the book ably presented British policies and the problems of Empire, it analyzed colonial grievances less skillfully. Ver Steeg found Gipson "somewhat argumentative," and observed that whereas he described the colonial economy in glow- ing terms, Great Britain, the greatest nation in the world, "is found to be in terrible shape."2 7 As the Empire series approached the revolutionary movement, some reviewers increased the number of particular criticisms while still complimenting the work in general. Bernhard Knollen- berg characterized volume IX as "splendidly full, clear, and well- documented," but asserted that Gipson presented only the favorable aspects of British policy and administration. Gipson, he observed by way of illustration, said nothing of the vicious system by which non-resident officials obtained sinecures in West Florida, nor had he devoted more than a few lines to the selfish motive for excluding white settlers from the west because they would nlot buy British manufactures there. His review of the next volume began with some kind words but then listed a number of errors of fact and interpretation 28 But if to Knollenberg Gipson seemed pro-British, to Jack Sosin he did not go far enough in criticizing the rebels and praising the Loyalists. Gipson had overlooked the vicious struggle for power in the colonies and "gives us the -New Eng. Qtly., XXVII (1954), 280-282. -'AIZ. Hist. Rev., LX (1954-55), 614-615. Mfiss. fy. Hist. Rev., XLI (1954-55), 694-696. Wm.n, and Mary Qtly., 3 ser. XIV (1957), 281-283, XIX (1962), 456-460. 42 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY surface phenomenon, the rationalizations, and not the dynamics or the structure of colonial politics." 29 Clarence Ver Steeg wrote of volumes XI-XII that Gipson bad not discussed "the changing structure of society, the relationship between ideas and action, the consciousness of status, the process of decision making, the consequences of change in communication, the psychology of men and mobs, the quality of local government and its relationship to larger issues, and the locus of power"-but then, he added, very few scholars did so. He paid tribute, at the same time, to the author's "magnificent industry," and his "reasonable, humane, and judicious temperament."30 Leonard Labaree, summarizing the series, judged that "in the work of no other twentieth-century historian can so full and detailed a general treatment of the entire subject be found," and John Shy concluded that Gipson had "placed himself and his work on the leading edge of historical inquiry."31 The publication of the final volume (except for the bibliography) furnished the occasion for general summary evaluations of the whole series. Wesley Frank Craven congratulated Gipson for "an extraordinarily impressive achievement." While he had "written from a particular point of view, basically that of the so-called imperial school," he had "by the range and depth of his investigations . . . answered many questions that will have con- tinuing interest for all students of the period."32 Jack P. Greene paid tribute to the author's "distinguished career of historical scholarship." He suggested that Gipson's favorable view of the old Empire was "somewhat distorted," but concluded, "Supported lby such an impressive array of data, [Gipson's] argument will henceforth command the attention of anyone who seeks to under- 3 stand the coming of the American Revolution." 3 Finally, Charles R. Richeson expressed his admiration gracefully and simply: "The full sweep of an extraordinary vision and its superb realization is now evident. Judgment is simply rendered: here is enduring

0areatness."34 Can. Hist. Rev., XLVII (1966), 273-274. "Iff1'iss. Vy. Hist. Rev., LIII (1966-67), 341-343. "AAm. Hist. Rev., LXXI (1965-66), 1337-1338; Penn. Mag. Hist. Biog., LCI (1967), 203-205. 22 AsnI. Hist. Rev., LXXIII (1967-68), 815-816. "2 Miss. Vy. Hist. Rev., LIV (1967-68), 618-620. "flWin. and Mary Qtly., 3 ser., XXV (1968), 480-482. GIPSON: HISTORIAN 43

Two more general discussions of Gipson's work deserve men- ,ion. In 1949, Max Savelle published an historiographical study of the "Imperial School.""3 Savelle was impressed by the ability of this group of historians to view American history objectively by standing outside of it. Among students of colonial history, Gipson had particularly succeeded in "divesting himself of the Amierican habit of seeing the colonial period through the distorting haze of the history of the United States," and in writing as a man of 1760 might have written. His predecessors, Savelle continued, wrote primarily institutional history, but Gipson surpassed them in breadth by "covering social phenomena, military and economic history, and other aspects of life as well as political events and institutions": he was a social historian who analyzed forces. Almost two decades later, Richard B. Morris surveyed Gipson's great Empire series." 6 Morris did not hesitate to point out weaknesses in Gipson's interpretation, at one point referring to his "lawyer-like brief on behalf of the imperial authorities." But he judged Gipson's faults to be minor, his virtues many and great. AMorris particularly noted the ability to portray individuals, the willingness to risk moral judgments even when these were un- popular or contradicted current dogma, and to question critically interpretations based on patriotism. Not only a long life, but erudition, wide curiosity, and originality, enabled him to re-create his "spacious empire." Gipson's interpretations emerge clearly throughout his writings. The British Empire in 1750 was a good place to live, wealthy, strong, with a high standard of living for the times, an exceptional degree of personal liberty, and a government which was well administered and relatively responsible to public opinion. The colonies prospered under a system of laws and economic con- trols which aimed to strengthen the entire empire. The colonists disliked certain restrictions, but in return they received costly protection and other benefits. As a consequence they did not challenge the right of Parliament to interfere with their affairs. Under the old Empire they "had become the freest, most en- 1ightened, most prosperous, and most politically experienced of all colonials in the world of the eighteenth century" (XIII, 205).

' 5 Indiana Magazine of History, XLV (1949), 123-134. ' "The Spacious Empire of Lawrence Henry Gipson," Win. and Mary tly., 3 ser. XXIV (1967), 169-189. 44 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY

The war which began in 1754, and which Gipson accurately called "The Great War for the Empire," was fought by Britain on behalf of the colonists, whose vital interests were at stake. It began with an aggressive French advance in the Ohio Valley. The colonists could not cope with it. Despite the American na- tional tradition that the British colonials were pre-destined, by a relentless march, to conquer all North America, they required British aid to save them from "irretrievable disaster." The war was fought primarily by the British at British expense. The colonists fought poorly, frequently refused to support the war, and called for help while at the same time supplying the French and enriching themselves. "If America is great today it is because Great Britain made it possible to be great," wrote the historian in a volume dedicated

to the thousands of soldiers from the British Isles who lie buried in unknown graves here in the New World.... Suffering heavy casualties, suffering defeats, still they held on with dogged determination-supported on land by the colonial line, on sea by the men of the royal navy, and at home by the continued and heavy financial sacrifices of the people-and thereby, with victory finally achieved, helped to provide a future without parallel for the English-speaking people here on the continent of North America.37

Obviously Gipson approved of the English victory, which he re- garded as a triumph of freedom over absolutism politically, economically, and culturally. The crucial significance of the Great War forms a central theme in Gipson's works. Nowhere is it expressed more clearly than in a much-reprinted article published in 1950.38 "One may affirm," he writes, "that the Anglo-French conflict settled nothing less than the incomparably vital question as to what civilization . . . would arise in the great Mississippi basin and the valleys of the rivers draining it, a civilization, whatever it might be,

"3'VI, 15 and dedication. "8"The American Revolution as an Aftermath of the Great War for the Empire, 1754-1763," Political Science Quarterly, LXV (1950), 86-104. Gipson read the essay before a session of the American Historical Associa- tion in 1948. GIPSON: HISTORIAN 45 surely destined to expand to the Pacific seaboard and finally to dominate the North American continent. The determination of this crucial issue is perhaps the most momentous event in the life of the English-speaking people in the New World and quite overshadows in importance both the Revolutionary War and the later Civil War, events which, it is quite clear, were each con- tingent upon the outcome of the earlier crisis."39 Paradoxically, the war marked both the apogee of the old Empire and the beginning of its decline, for the responsibilities arising out of victory impelled the adoption of policies which brought on the American Revolution. Gipson's argument includes several hypotheses. He believes that the British government had no choice but to station a professional army in the west. The colonists had proved incapable of protecting themselves and refused to undertake the task." But who was to pay the bill? British taxpayers were already over-burdened because of a debt contracted, in large part, to protect the colonies. By contrast the colonists had prospered during the war and could well afford to contribute. Since a requisition system was im- practicable and in any case was unacceptable to the Americans, the government decided to collect taxes on commerce and to extend the stamp tax to America. Grenville assumed, Gipson wrote, that opposition would cease when the colonists saw the justice of the policy and "an atmosphere of mutual goodwill would he generated by a growing recognition on the part of Americans that they could trust the benevolence of the mother country to act with fairness to all within the empire."41 Why was Grenville wrong? Because victory in the Great War opened up to the colonists the prospect of limitless wealth and power, while subordination to Great Britain became a liability rather than an asset. They wanted to trade freely (especially with the foreign sugar islands, Gipson added somewhat bitterly), exploit western lands, escape taxation, and govern themselves.42 They had become "so powerful and dynamic that they could not much longer he held within the folds of the Empire under such a constitution as had bound them before 1763" (XIII, 230). The children had " Ibid., 86-87. :Ibid., 95-96; IX, 42-43. Pol. Sci. Qtly., LXV, 100. :"Ibid., 102-103, X, 283, Coming, xii-xiii. 46 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY grown up and wanted their freedom. Why did not the British government realize this? For plainly "the American Revolution may quite simply be attributed to a failure of British statesmanship after 1763," when Britain "with the best of intentions but very unwisely" attempted to enforce the old trade regulations and impose new restrictions at the very moment when the colonials reached out for more liberty.4 3 Gipson suggests that British officials did not believe that resistance could succeed, nor did they feel that the system, which seemed beneficial and was generally supported in England, needed drastic change. Gipson clearly wishes they had saved the Empire, but he cannot blame them for the failure. At this point he raises the crucial questions over which he had pondered so long: was the American Revolution (and the War for Independence) inevitable? Could changes in the British constitution have been made? Even after fifteen volumes Gipson cannot answer .4 How will these interpretations stand the test of time? Some modifications seem likely, and historians have already questioned certain points. Gipson's estimate of the British government seems excessively favorable. The description offered by Namier and his followers is not flattering, and they have made the best case possible. Both in England and in America the quality and honesty of British agents was often inferior and their deportment pro- vocative, and one finds it hard to believe that British officialdom was so disinterested and benevolent as Gipson claims. Not every- one accepts the conclusion that mercantilism benefitted or even was intended for the good of the colonies. Some historians empha- size the very great wealth which England drew from America, in a sense a heavy annual tax, thus entitling the colonies to full protection in return. Doubt also arises whether the war with France was quite so critical, so ultimately decisive, as Gipson believes. In view of the colonists' economic strength, which Gip- son himself stresses, and in view of their later ability to fight England to a standstill even before the alliance with France, is it probable that France could have conquered the colonies? Perhaps -without excusing the men who traded with the enemy or who deserted-those colonials who felt no sense of urgency and who

" XIII, 209, 204-205. " Ibid., 211-212. GIPSON: HISTORIAN 47 refused to spend money or shed blood may have been at least partly right, and perhaps the French could never have done more than delay the westward advance of the British Americans. Gipson's interpretation concerning the causes of the American Revolution also raises certain questions, because it deprives the colonials of almost every rational or honorable reason for re- )ellion. He agrees with Abernethy that Britain's western policy xas not a fundamental factor. He argues that British commercial policy was on balance beneficial to the colonies, and that the restrictions ought to have been willfully accepted as part of a broad, mutually advantageous system. Punishment should have been inflicted on violators of the acts of trade rather than on customs officers. The heavy debts of tobacco planters resulted from luxurious living, and Gipson leaves the impression that the planters engaged in the revolution in order to wipe out honest debts-hardly an honorable enterprise. Gipson sees nothing wrong with England's currency policy, or with the Quartering Act. The British government, he says, opposed the appointment of an Anglican bishopric. The imposition of taxes was justified. Such motives as the activities of customs officials, fears of the army, alarm lest heavier taxes be levied and further economic restric- [ions imposed, distrust of the authoritarian aspect of the British government and a desire to end various interferences with political liberty, all seem to vanish. We are left only with an adolescent lemanding freedom from a kindly parent, a little petulant, rather ungenerous, a bit spoiled, understandable but unlovable; and with the feeling that if both sire and offspring-especially the latter- had been a little more reasonable, the family might have been kept intact. To Gipson, the loyalists such as Hutchinson, who counselled moderation and compromise, were right. This interpretation certainly explains one aspect of the revolutionary movement and probably suffices to account for many of the loyalists and some of the rebels. But it does not account for the Washingtons, the Jeffersons, the John Adamses, the Dick- insons, the Laurenses, and the thousands of humble Americans wvho trusted and followed such leaders. It is not hyper-patriotism to suggest that the colonists had good reasons for discontent, nor ,vere the British so blameless. Gipson's defect, if such it proves Lo be, probably grows out of the single limitation in his otherwise 48 PENNSYLVANIA HISTORY extraordinarily wide research: reliance on the manuscripts of British officials and their correspondents rather than on the papers of those who led the resistance and eventually the revolution, a reliance which caused him to view the colonists from the standpoint of an administrator: he cannot share the rebels' vision. The same flaw, of course, can be found in most historians: they write of the Whigs, not of all political parties, of Puritans rather than of religious sects generally, of Federalists, of New France; they write as a Bancroft or a Parkman. Gipson does not rival either Bancroft or Parkman as a literary artist, but as an historian he excels them both. More than either of his great predecessors Gipson saw the Empire whole, and if he missed some corners of it he did so because even he has only one life and one vision. Above all he sought to apply the highest standards of objectivity. In the sixth volume of his great work he wrote what might well serve both as his own epitaph and a motto for all scholars: "The supreme mission of the historian is to determine the truth of the past-in so far as this is humanly possible-and to do so with detachment." 45

4-VI, 4.