This dissertation has beenmicrofilmed exactly asreceived Mic 60-5186 DONOVAN, Timothy Paul. HENRY ADAMS AND BROOKS ADAMS: THE SEARCH FOR A LAW. The University of Oklahoma, Ph.D., 1960 History, general University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE HENRY ADAMS AND BROOKS ADAMS: THE SEARCH FOR A LAIV A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY TIMOTHY PAUL DONOVAN Norman, Oklahoma i960 HENRY ADAMS AND BROOKS ADAMS; THE SEARCH FOR A LAW APPROVED BY c : A , bvL'iZ ^2if7S^ DISSERTATION COMMITTEE TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. AMERICA AND AMERICAN HISTORY.... ..................... 1 II. HENRY ADAMS: THE SEARCH .............................. 25 III. BROOKS ADAMS: THE SEARCH ............................ 63 INTERLUDE .................... 99 IV. HENRY ADAMS: THE LAW ................................. IO8 V. BROOKS ADAMS: THE L A W ................................ I38 INTERLUDE .......................................... 16? VI. THE ADAMSES AND THE AMERICAN DREAM ................. 175 VII. THE ADAMSES AND AMERICAN HISTORIOGRAPHY ............. 211 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................... 222 iix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to express his deep gratitude to Dr. John S. Ezell who first showed him the fascination of intel­ lectual history and who was of immeasurable aid in the direction of the dissertation. I would also like to thank Dr. Donnell M. Owings who read the first draft and made many valuable suggestions. Thanks are due to the other members of the committee, Dr. Herbert J. Ellison, Dr. Cortez A. M. Ewing, and Dr. William E. Livezey for their advice and counsel. A special debt is owed to Dr. Bert James Loewenberg of Sarah Lawrence College who by correspondence and interview directed the author's attention to the significance of Henry and Brooks Adams. To my wife, Eugenia, I aim deeply in­ debted for the typing of the manuscript and for patience and en­ couragement. iV HENRY ADAMS AND BROOKS ADAMS: THE SEARCH FOR A LAW CHAPTER I AMERICA AND AMERICAN HISTORY It may be accepted as a truism that the manner in which a people write their history is an accurate reflection of the state of contemporary society and a valuable insight into a nation's mind. The historian, himself, cannot escape from those forces op­ erative in his own time, nor can he ever obtain total objectivity and view with Olympian detachment the story of human consciousness as it develops in the two dimensions of time and space. Both Carl Becker and Charles A. Beard have made this point quite clear in their objections to the validity of a purely scientific history.^ It is necessary, then, to go beyond the individual when analyzing the writings of any single historian. Not only must his personal inheritance and environment be considered, but also there must be observed those social forces which impinge upon his life and mani­ fest themselves in his approach to historical problems. Nowhere is this any more true than in the cases of Henry and Brooks Adams. The differences between the America of l86^ and the America ^Charles A. Beard, "Written History As an Act of Faith," American Historical Review, XXXIX (January, 193^)i PP* 219-29; Carl Becker, Everyman His Own Historian (New York: Crofts and Co., 1935)» 2 of 1910 are so staggering that a description of the changes which occurred must always fall short of conveying the immensity of the transformation. All historians have been conscious of this over­ whelming fact, and all studies of American civilization have been forced to consider the impact which these new forces exercised on the direction of the American mind. Yet, despite historical aware­ ness and concentration, the new America cannot be reduced to a listing of factors which wrought the change. There is not in evidence a single cause amd effect relationship which, if memor­ ized school-boy fashion, can. provide the student with the key to understanding. Rather, comprehension is something which must be gained intuitively. It must be felt rather than objectively under­ stood. The complexity of forces is such that no single individual can unwind all of the strands of thought which will lead him safely through this Minoan maze. Never in the history of the world have such radical explosions so altered the traditional intellectual and physical landscape in such a brief time; never was man con­ fronted with such totally new concepts and problems; never have historians been so hard pressed to explain what had happened. It was too bewildering. Unable to anchor himself in the outworn dog­ mas of a never-to-be ressuirected past, often unwilling to push open the doors to a future fraught with further potential for change, and unprepared to meet the challenge of a perilous present, the American floundered, lost his way, and sometimes despaired. The writer of history shared the dilemma with his country­ man. All agreed that the old standards would not suffice; the pleasing criteria of a gentler age were no longer applicable. 3 New formulae had to be discovered, new techniques had to be employed, and a new kind of history had to be written if the story of human development was once more to be made intelligible. Above all the historian was faced with a problem of moral and intellectual reori­ entation if he was to cope with the energies that had been released. The task appeared to be insuperable. That he did not find truth and an ultimate solution is apparent; that he made the attempt at all is remarkable. The Adams brothers, in distinctly different ways, were two who ventured what heretofore had been considered impossible. In a very general sense what occurred in the post-Civil war years was the product of the new science which had its roots in fifteenth smd sixteenth century Europe. There was a direct link between the observations of Copernicus, and Kelvin’s second law of thermodynamics, between the scientific investigations of Descartes and Gibbs' rule of phase. Moreover, the relation exist­ ing between the theories of a Leibnitz or a Newton and the creation of a tremendous industrial complex in America are not as shadowy nor as obscure as might first appear. Advancements in both pure and applied science are closely interrelated. Their philosophical problems often stem from the same source, and it is impossible to separate their effects without warping judgment. The transition from Jeffersonian America to the United States of John D. Rocke­ feller was a change implicit in Jeffersonianism itself. The unen­ lightened "robber baron" was as much a product as his machines of the rationale engendered by the age of science. Industrialism, urbanization, mechanization, and immense production of weahh were 4 not thrust upon a nation which had been theoretically unprepared for them. Rather, they made their entrance on the American scene and in such a tumultuous fashion and with such rapidity that the theoretical preparation proved inadequate. It is perhaps well to note specifically what abrupt chal­ lenges were brought about by each of the principal new forces in American life. It was by meeting these new demands that the his­ torian shaped his considerations on the meaning of history. As aforementioned at the base of the problem was the activity of science, but such activity manifested itself in at least four unique ways; (1) industrialism, (2) urbanization, (3) technolog­ ical advance, and (4)theoretical advance. It is easily seen that the four divisions are intimately related; yet, their impress on the culture and life of the people was a variable factor, depending upon the status, area of residence, and sensitivity of the indivi­ dual. The historian of the time was certainly not immune to these restrictions. In each of these areas, then, there are fundamental problems which emerged that affected the writing of history because they conditioned the writer himself. The pattern of industry after the Civil War was not essen­ tially different from what it had been prior to the sectional con­ flict. The movement toward the large corporation was not unique; it had simply been accentuated by the exigencies of war-time con- 2 ditions. Certainly, the growth of manufacturing in this country 2 This thesis is amply developed in the opening chapter of Samuel P. Hays, The Response to Industrialism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957)• 5 had been proceeding at a steady pace for fifty years. What was different was the greater rate of increase. Men were confronted with the realities of big business all at once. Whereas the ante bellmn nation had time to accustom itself to industrial changes, the post-war United States was given no period to make a psycho­ logical smd economic adjustment. It was another Rip Van Winkle situation but with a greater sense of urgency and a good deal less humor than that which confronted the Irving folk hero. The simple fact that business and industry were big meant that problems of poverty, labor rights, capital rights, property, and myriad others had to be solved. The whole structure of society had to adjust, smd in most instances, the adjustment was a violent one. Darwin's notion of the "survival of the fittest" seemed very applicable, for those unable to make a satisfactory transition indeed became but the vestiges of sm age departed. Perhaps the most terrifying re­ sult was the insistence with which industrialism produced conform­ ity— not only in goods but in men. To the American who had always prided himself on his individuality, the reduction of personality to impersonality was almost incomprehensible. He had to ask where he was going and what agencies in his past had forced him down such a cataclysmic road. Industrialism also meant power— more power them any had ever imagined.