B.B. Warfield and "Christless Christianity": A Rorschach Test of Faith

In October of 1912, Princeton Theologian B.B. Warfield penned an important treatise he entitled "Christless Christianity" in which Warfield essentially took to task two groups he believed pose a legitimate threat to the true Christian faith.  The first group, which Warfield characterizes as “the dissidents from Christianity of the most incongruous types,” are summarily rejected for their “philosophy of the unconsciousness.”[1]  The second group, which emerge are the primary target of Warfield’s essay, are the more liberal-minded Christians, who Warfield claims “assert…that Christianity is separate from Jesus” and historical criticism “seriously shatter[s] the very foundations of Christianity.”[2]   

               

This ongoing tug-o-war of theology vs. history; the mystical vs. the palpable; Christianity vs. science, is nothing new.  For centuries scholars and theologians of all stripes have attempted to reconcile (or expose) what appear to be incompatible discrepancies between the historical record and the assertions of scripture.   For Christians devoted to the inerrancy of the Bible and a fundamentalist mindset determined to defend the faith against all enemies, the arrows and sword wounds delivered by the hands of the non-believer are to be expected.  But when the arrows and swords are in the hands of a professing Christian, whose faith and conviction are built upon a desire to bridge the chasm dividing historical data and pious discipleship, the fundamentalist believer might esteem his brother as his foe. 

               

Such is the case with B.B. Warfield.  In his extremely valiant effort to defend Christian orthodoxy as he sees it, the great Princeton theologian sacrifices those who ask sincere questions regarding legitimate historical issues upon the altar of heresy.  He does so, knowing that the world around him is changing.  As science, Darwinism, and other factors threaten to tear down the walls that had sustained orthodox Christianity for centuries, Warfield believed that doubling down on the Christian message would be the correct prescription to help remedy what he believed was an infected Body of Christ. 

And though certainly noble in his intentions, Warfield overstates the crisis at hand by applying European examples of heresy to an American problem.  A quick glance over the footnotes of Warfield's essay reveals that the overwhelming majority of the sources cited to expose liberal Christian theology are German authors.  Rarely does he provide any modern American source material to support his argument.  This does not mean that some liberal American theologians were not thinking in the same light as their German brethren.  However, Warfield does ignore many of the specific and unique differences between Christianity as manifested in Europe (particularly Germany) and in the United States.  Though some similarities existed, and are certainly worthy of note, the differences are equally important to mention.  As historian Susanne Calhoun points out in her article, "Christian Fundamentalism in America: A Cultural History:

Christian Fundamentalism is a distinctly American innovation...The Great Awakenings were perceived as the prelude to God’s millennial kingdom on earth, stirring expectations of Christ’s imminent second coming  New then explores how liberal Christians threatened this worldview through the spread of biblical criticism and the secularization of public education. Millennial thought was defended and furthered by three conservative movements: Millerism (William Miller, 1782-1849), Princeton theology (Charles Hodge, 1797-1878; A.A. Hodge, 1823-86; and B.B. Warfield, 1851-1921), and Dispensationalism (John Nelson Darby, 1800-82). These movements encouraged a literal interpretation of Scripture and fanned the flame of America’s fascination with the Bible’s end-time prophecies.[3]  

In addition to Calhoun’s accurate assessment, American religious historian George Marsden offers a concurring opinion on how Fundamentalist movement had unique American origins that made the American religious experience different from other places on earth.  He writes, “To understand fundamentalism we must also see it as a distinct version of evangelical Christianity uniquely shaped by circumstances of America.”[4]

               

To be certain, the changes to Christianity taking place in Germany were, to some degree, present in the United States as well.  Warfield is to be commended for his desire to protect Jesus the Christ from simply becoming Jesus the historical man from Nazareth.  Or as Warfield himself put it, “It is greater nonsense…to pretend to retain Christ when the historical Jesus has been set aside by science, and faith in Christ has no further personal interest…abandoning the one and retaining the other is nothing but a miserable product of opportunism.”[5]  Yet this quest to safeguard traditional orthodox Christianity cannot dismiss the fact that not all of America was infected with the stain of liberal Christianity.  Historian Sydney Ahlstrom points to this fact when he writes, “The resultant Fundamentalist controversy occurred to a degree in all churches, though it was minor where liberalism was weak or nonexistent…In some denominations the intellectual life had been so neglected by conservatives that the need for a new apologetic was very tardily recognized.”  [6]

               

Keeping Ahlstrom’s comments in mind, B.B. Warfield’s impassioned attack on liberal Christianity is also a reflection of the fact that traditional orthodox Christianity was in desperate need of better arguments to defend the faith, especially in the emerging 20^th century.  Ultimately this is where the divide between Warfield and his fellow conservative Christians differed from their more liberal brethren, and this division has persisted (if not grown) all the way to the current age. 

---

[1] Warfield, Benjamin B. "Christless Christianity." The Harvard Theological Review 5, no. 4 (1912): 423-73. Accessed April 28, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/1507229.  Pp. 423

[2] Ibid, 424, 431.

[3] Susanne Calhoun.  “Christian Fundamentalism in America: A Cultural History.”  The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 65(3): Pp. 706-708.

[4] George Marsden, Fundamentalism in American Culture (New York: Oxford University Press: 2006).  Pp. 3.

[5] Warfield, “Christless Christianity,” Pp. 440.

[6] Sydney Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (London: Yale University Press, 2004).  Pp. 813. 

My Great-Great Grandmother: Mary Ethel Jones

I have long been a fan of genealogy, so when I saw this assignment for week #6, I was extremely excited to say the least.  And since we are currently living in a pandemic, I thought the following story would be more than appropriate. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

On the surface, the life of Mary Jones probably seems insignificant.  She wasn’t born into money or prestige, and her tragic early death at the age of 25, due to sickness caused by the Spanish Influenza, made her just another lonely statistic of a time long forgotten.  Mary Jones’ life and story probably would not matter to most people, but it matters a great deal to me for one particularly important reason: she is my great-great grandmother. 

As a child, I recall spending time at my grandmother’s house, which was always full of unique keepsakes (my grandmother was a bit of a hoarder).  One of the many items that caught my attentions was an old grave marker which read “Mary Jones Looney.”  I remember asking my grandmother why she kept a gravestone in her home, to which she replied, “It is my grandmother’s, and one day I plan to place it on her grave.”  Apparently, a typo had been made on the grave marker, which is why the marker had never been placed on the grave itself.  My grandma told me of her plan to one day travel to Mary Jones’ grave where she could have an appropriate gravestone placed where her grandmother laid. 

Years went by and eventually my grandmother, who lived a long and wonderful life, passed away. While going through her home, my mother found a box containing the only remaining possessions of my great-great grandmother.  Inside the box were several old post cards from 1907, a handkerchief, a book collecting notes from family and friends, and a small Bible.  Knowing that I was interested in genealogy, my mother elected to give the box and its contents to me, which I consider to be a treasure.  I have spent a great deal of time trying to piece together Mary Jones’ life story. Thankfully I have been able to piece together the major events of her life through genealogical records and family histories. 

Born July 5, 1893 in Fort Morgan, Colorado, Mary Ethel Jones was the 9^th of 11 children.  Her parents, John and Alice Jones, had moved to Colorado from Canada in the hopes of finding better prospects for their family.  Based on family stories, I have learned that Mary’s father (John) was probably a railroad man which would make sense, since Fort Morgan (where they settled) was an important stop at that time for the Union Pacific Railroad. 

Mary Jones’ life was, unfortunately, short and full of tragedy.  Her older brother, Bert (born just 17 months before Mary) died in 1914.  Her Father, John, passed away just two years later, on Christmas Day, 1918.  Family history reports that the family was unable to bury their father for several months, due to the ground being hard and cold. As a result, John’s body was kept in a barn until the spring. 

Death was not the only tragedy to beset Mary Jones.  Her marriage to Lloyd Looney in 1910 proved to be a disaster.  Unbeknownst to Mary, Lloyd was married to another woman in a neighboring city.  When she discovered the betrayal, Mary immediately packed up her two young children (ages 6 and 2) and returned to Colorado, where shortly thereafter Mary contracted Spanish Flu.  Family history tells of how Mary’s oldest child, Ivonne, remembered her mother being removed from the home due to her illness.  Mary grabbed hold of the door frame as the men tried to forcibly escort from the home.  Her nail marks remained in that door frame for several years. It was shortly thereafter that Mary Looney succumbed to the flu and died at the age of 25, on December 18, 2018. 

Unfortunately, my grandmother was unable to fulfill her wish of placing a marker on Mary Jones’ lonely grave.  For 100 years, Mary’s grave remained vacant of any marker or stone and appeared as just a patch of lonely grass in the Brush, Colorado Cemetery. 

Just a couple years ago, I had the unique opportunity of fulfilling a promise made by my   On the 100^th anniversary of her passing, I traveled the two-hour distance to Brush, Colorado where we placed a marker on Mary Jones’ grave.  I marked the occasion by bringing with me the small box of Mary Jones’ possessions I had been given by my mother.  Inside her little Bible, given to her by her Sunday School teacher, I found a handwritten message to Mary which read:

grandmother, to her grandmother.

This is a good book to play by:

to work by:

to live by,

and to die by.

In addition, I found the following note, written to Mary by her mother, Alice, in 1907:

God grant you many and happy years

Till when the last has crowned you

The dawn of endless day appears

And Heaven is opened to you.

Though her life was short and seemingly insignificant, the history of Mary Jones matters not just because she was my great-great grandmother, but because God has given all lives value.  Mary Jones may have endured a great deal of tragedy, sadness and betrayal in her short 25 years on this earth, but as her mother’s wise words remind us all, “the dawn of endless day appears, and heaven is open” to all.  The life of Mary Jones is a powerful reminder to all who wish to study, research and teach history.  All lives, even those which seem insignificant and uneventful, have value and deserve our sincere attention and best effort.  As historians, this should be our commission.  Never forget the "little people" of the past.    

Girard v. Vidal and the Christian Nation Debate

Was the United States established to be a “Christian Nation?”  This question, perhaps more than any other, has been at the center of America’s ongoing culture war, as devout Christian believers and skeptical doubters battle in a seemingly never-ending tug-o-war over the legacy of this nation’s founding.  Both camps in this battle feel armed to the teeth with various quotes, sources and documents from the past, which they believe supports their respective conclusions. 

One of the most popular forms of evidence cited by both believers and skeptics has been Supreme Court cases of the past.  Since many of these rulings, by our nation’s highest court, serve to set a legal precedent, any ruling for or against the “Christian Nation” thesis would carry a great deal of weight.  One of these cases, I believe, illustrates both the complexity of the Christian nation question, along with how both camps tend to misjudge the strength of their respective positions. 

The day after Christmas of 1831, Stephen Girard, a French immigrant who resided in Philadelphia, passed away at the age of 81.  Girard was a banker and philanthropist who had amassed an incredible fortune that made him the richest man at that time in the United States.  Girard was also a widower who had no children.  As a result, Girard elected to leave a large portion of his fortune to the City of Philadelphia.[1]  In his will, Girard wished for the City of Philadelphia to establish an orphanage/college for "poor male white orphans." In addition, Girard's will contained a clause which called for the complete ban on the Bible and Bible readings in said orphanage, along with a ban on every type of religious minister: 

I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever, shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty whatever in the said college; nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises appropriated to the purposes of the said college.[2]

On the surface Girard's request for a ban on religion and the Bible itself seems incredibly judgmental.  This is an understandable conclusion, especially when we discover that Girard was somewhat hostile to religion throughout his life.  Before passing judgement, however, there is some important historical context we should consider.

The 19th century was a period of extreme growth in the United States.  The swell of Irish Catholics, during the 19th century, sparked a fire of anti-Catholic sentiment that consumed large segments of the American populace to include Philadelphia.   During the first decades of the 19th century, Catholic churches and clergy grew at an exponential rate. Protestants reacted by inciting discord within their ranks.  Catholics responded to this growing disapproval of their faith by mounting an attack of their own.  The strife that ensued divided American Christians over fundamental Christian doctrines.  In addition, this division caused both Protestant and Catholic adherents to double down on their faith. 

This Protestant/Catholic battle eventually found its way into America's schools.  In Philadelphia these schools were controlled by the Protestant majority, who insisted that their religious views take center stage as part of the regular school curriculum.  Catholics tried to respond to this action by establishing schools of their own, where Catholic beliefs could be taught and practiced without opposition.^[3] 

In the wake of what became known as the Philadelphia Bible Riots, we can better understand why Mr. Girard was so vehemently opposed to religion in his schools.  Again, from his will: 

In making this restriction, I do not mean to cast any reflection upon any sect or person whatsoever; but, as there is such a multitude of sects, and such a diversity of opinion amongst them, I desire to keep the tender minds of the orphans, who are to derive advantage from this bequest, free from the excitement which clashing doctrines and sectarian controversy are so apt to produce.[4]

As is the case with most who leave a large fortune, the extended relatives of Girard, some still residing in France, wanted a piece of the pie.  The argument became intense enough that eventually the Supreme Court chose to deal with the matter.  The Girard family hired attorney Daniel Webster, former Senator and Secretary of State to Presidents Harrison and Tyler, while Horace Binney represented the City of Philadelphia.

The case essentially centered on two key issues: first, could the Corporation of the City of Philadelphia take real property and act as trust in the same manner as a private individual?  The second issue dealt with whether Girard's will violated the laws of Pennsylvania, particularly as it related to the issue of ministers being banned from the college.  In other words, did Girard's will create an institution (the orphanage) that was specifically hostile to the Christian faith?

Daniel Webster focused most of his energies on this second issue.  In his mind, Girard's will did violate Pennsylvania law and common law because it suggested that sectarian differences within Christianity meant the entire Christian institution was a waste.  Webster stated:

[T]his objection to the multitude and differences of sects is but the old story—the old infidel argument. It is notorious that there are certain great religious truths which are admitted and believed by all Christians. All believe in the existence of a God. All believe in the immortality of the soul. All believe in the responsibility, in another world, for our conduct in this. All believe in the divine authority of the New Testament...And cannot all these great truths be taught to children without their minds being perplexed with clashing doctrines and sectarian controversies?  Most certainly they can.[5]

Binney's rebuttal was to predictably point out that the differences between denominations were there for a reason.  It would be utter foolishness to assume that representatives of these different sects would not favor their own beliefs:

If any clergyman was to be admitted, he would of course teach the doctrines of his own church. No two sects would agree. Some would adopt one part of the Bible, some another. If they agreed as to what was to be left out as apocryphal, they would differ about the translation of the rest. The Protestant would not receive the Douay Bible. See the difficulties that exist in New York about the introduction of the Bible as a school-book.[6]

In the end, the court ruled in favor of Girard (or better put, the City of Philadelphia).  The Supreme Court stated that a corporation could in fact receive real property willed to its trust and effectively execute the terms of a will as easily as a private individual.  On the issue of Girard's will violating Pennsylvania and common law, Justice Joseph Story, writing for the court, stated:

It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania. But this proposition is to be received with its appropriate qualifications, and in connection with the bill of rights of that state…Language more comprehensive for the complete protection of every variety of religious opinion could scarcely be used; and it must have been intended to extend equally to all sects, whether they believed in Christianity or not, and whether they were Jews or infidels. 

[...]

Is an omission to provide for instruction in Christianity in any scheme of school or college education a fatal defect, which avoids it according to the law of Pennsylvania? If the instruction provided for is incomplete and imperfect, is it equally fatal? These questions are propounded, because we are not aware that any thing exists in the constitution or laws of Pennsylvania, or the judicial decisions of its tribunals, which would justify us in pronouncing that such defects would be so fatal. Let us take the case of a charitable donation to teach poor orphans reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, and navigation, and excluding all other studies and instruction; would the donation be void, as a charity in Pennsylvania, as being deemed derogatory to Christianity?...It has hitherto been thought sufficient, if he does not require any thing to be taught inconsistent with Christianity.

Looking to the objection therefore in a mere juridical view, which is the only one in which we are at liberty to consider it, we are satisfied that there is nothing in the devise establishing the college, or in the regulations and restrictions contained therein, which are inconsistent with the Christian religion, or are opposed to any known policy of the state of Pennsylvania. (my emphasis).[7]

In short, the court ruled that though Girard's will specifically forbade ministers of all denominations from teaching or even visiting the orphanage/college, it did not attack or persecute the Christian religion.  In other words, the court recognized that the wall of separation between church and state was not some absolute, impenetrable barrier but instead resembled a semi-permeable membrane, like that of a human cell. 

The court was quick to point out that Christianity was not only a part of American heritage but was also a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.  At the same time, the court was just as quick to defend Girard's will on the grounds that no Christian discrimination had been made by his ban on Christian ministers. 

It should come as no surprise to those familiar with the arguments of both the Christian Nation apologists and their secularist opponents why this case would resonate with their respective opinions. Christian Nation advocates are quick to site Joseph Story’s reference to a “Christian Country” while skeptics love to remind everyone that the court ultimately sided with Girard.  But in their quest to out-quote the opposition both sides reveal the fundamental flaws of their respective positions. 

The truth of the matter is Supreme Court decisions don't happen in a vacuum.  There are many influences that determine the outcome of a case.  Even though the court ultiamtely upheld Girard, they did not establish a precedent that outlawed religion entirely.  Instead the court discriminate on what it would allow to cross the semi-permeable church/state wall.  As one scholar put it, "Vidal was the Supreme Court's very first case dealing with the role of religion in pubic schools, and it laid the foundation for an accommodationist view of the religion clause."[8] 

---

[1] Stephen Girard, The Will of the Late Stephen Girard.  (1831).  Taken from Binney, Horace, Philadelphia, and United States. Supreme Court. Arguments of the defendants' counsel and the judgment of the Supreme Court, U.S.: in the case of Vidal and another, complainants and appellants, versus the Mayor, &c., of Philadelphia, the executors of S. Girard, and others, defendants & appellees : January Term, 1844 : to which is added the will of Stephen Girard. Philadelphia: J. Crissy, printer, 1844. Sabin Americana: History of the Americas, 1500-1926. https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/CY0107721925/SABN?u=vic_liberty&sid=SABN&xid=034ae4db. Pp. 283.

[2] Ibid, 298.

[3] Lannie, Vincent P., and Bernard C. Diethorn. “For the Honor and Glory of God: The Philadelphia Bible Riots of 1840.” History of Education Quarterly 8, no. 1 (1968): 44–106. https://doi.org/10.2307/366986.

[4] Girard, 299.

[5] Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster's speech in defense of the Christian ministry, and in favor of the religious instruction of the young. Feb. 10, 1844.  Pp. 10-11.  https://archive.org/stream/mrwebstersspeech00web#page/10/mode/2up

[6] Binney, Horace, Françoise Fénelon Vidal, John Sergeant, Philadelphia, and United States. Supreme Court. Arguments of the defendants' counsel and the judgment of the Supreme Court, U.S. : in the case of Vidal and another, complainants and appellants, versus the Mayor, &c., of Philadelphia, the executors of S. Girard, and others, defendants & appellees : January Term, 1844 : to which is added the will of Stephen Girard. Philadelphia: J. Crissy, printer, 1844. Sabin Americana: History of the Americas, 1500-1926 (accessed April 14, 2020). https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/apps/doc/CY0107721925/SABN?u=vic_liberty&sid=SABN&xid=034ae4db.

[7] Joseph Story.  Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 43 U.S. 127.  Supreme Court of the United States (Feb. 27, 1844). Taken from Court Listener, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/86272/vidal-v-girards-executors/

[8] Jay Allen Sekulow and Jeremy Tedesco.  “The Story Behind Vidal v. Girard's Executors: Joseph Story, The Philadelphia Bible Riots, and Religious Liberty.” Pepperdine Law Review, vol. 32, num. 3.  (April 20, 2005).  https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1248&context=plr

Christopher Columbus: A Historiography, 1892-1992

The beginnings of colonial American history are inescapably linked to the life and legacy of Christopher Columbus.  Even though we now accept the fact that Columbus was far from the first person to “discover” or explore the New World, the history of Christopher Columbus is foundational to all that would follow in his wake.  Columbus’ influence is so wide reaching that his name has been used when naming numerous cities, capitals and even a South American nation.  Columbus even has a holiday named for him by a nation whose lands he never walked. 

            Despite his important role in New World colonization, Columbus’ legacy is complicated to say the least.  Was he a hero? A villain?  Or something else entirely?  Analyzing how historians, over time, have viewed the history of Christopher Columbus illustrates the complexity of this important historical figure.  For example, we can easily see stark differences in how Columbus was esteemed by historians when we juxtapose the historical records of his 400^th anniversary (1892) with those of his 500^th anniversary (1992), and all the years in between.  For historians of the late 19^th century, Christopher Columbus was a figure of admiration, whose voyage was blessed by God himself, while historians of the later 20^th century placed the bulk of the blame for Native American genocide squarely on his shoulders, thereby completely shifting the paradigm of Columbus historiography from one extreme to the other.  In other words, historians of both the 19^th and 20^th centuries tended to tell only half of the story when it came to Columbus.  He was either a hero or a villain, with little wiggle room in between.  Such a black and white treatment of Columbus diluted the true history of this incredibly important figure and reflects more the popular sentiments of the days in which these histories were produced. As Historian and Columbus Biographer De Lamar Jensen put it:

Most people living one hundred years ago and celebrating the quadricentenary of Columbus’s first voyage honored Columbus as a hero who almost singlehandedly battered down the walls of medieval ignorance…others, however, have become overenthusiastic, even slanderous, in their attempts to demythologize Columbus. Their approach often serves to bolster a political cause rather than promote a search for truth.[1]

19^th Century American Exceptionalism

Understanding how and why the legacy of Christopher Columbus has experienced such a shift in only a short one-hundred-year period requires us to recognize the unique cultural and social factors that helped to shape the perspectives of both 19^th and 20^th century historians.  For both students and teachers living in the 19^th century, the American school experience was one in which the promotion of great men of virtue was of paramount importance.  As modern historians Carla and Phillip Williams point out, “the nineteenth century saw the development of textbooks in United States history that consciously aimed to create virtuous and patriotic citizens.”[2]  The heavy emphasis on the narrative of America’s providential founding and destiny, coupled with the eventual rise of nationalism, created an atmosphere in which histories featuring great men, accomplishing great feats, all for the sake of great nations, found their way to the Avant Garde of the collective American historical experience. 

The origin of these pro-Columbus narratives of the late 1800s have their genesis with the work of Washington Erving, who in 1828 wrote a four-volume work entitled, A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus.  Erving’s book, which became an instant hit in its day, was peppered with a plethora of twisted facts and downright fiction, making the work unreliable from a purely historical perspective, but deeply moving from a nationalistic sense.  Erving’s version of Columbus was very much in line with the “great man” concept of that century.  Erving called Columbus “an ardent and comprehensive genius,” endowed with an “enthusiastic nature” who “conferred with sovereigns almost with a feeling of equity.”[3]  In addition, Erving consistently inflates Columbus’ importance as a truly great man by perpetuating numerous myths, including the now debunked folklore tale of Columbus being motivated to prove that the world was not flat.[4]

            For the next 100 years, Erving’s record of Columbus would dominate society as the most popular biography on the great explorer.[5]  As a result, the gluttony of myths and distorted historical accounts filtered down into subsequent histories.  By the time Columbus’ quadricentennial had arrived, the majority of historians and causal readers of history had accepted the narrative established by Erving.  Columbus was a man of moral character to be emulated and revered, and those who endeavored to produce historical material on the explorer would be wise not to contradict that status quo.  Consequently, the histories of Columbus that emerged in the late 19^th century followed the established narrative.

One example of Erving’s influence on Columbus history of the late 19^th century can be found in the work of William Eleroy Curtis.  In his two-part biography of Columbus, Curtis refers to the explorer as, “a man of honest parentage and sober life” who was “prudent, showing a great genius, and he was gracious in manner.”[6]  Throughout the book (which focuses primarily on the works of art created to memorialize Columbus), Curtis heaps praise upon the Italian explorer who is more than deserving of all the “heroic statues” and “dignified effigies” dedicated throughout the world to his memory.[7]

In addition to Curtis’ account are several collections of Columbus’ own writings, gathered and published by historians for his quadricentennial celebration, each containing an introduction of preface by their respective historian/author.  Many of these introductions present the same complimentary treatment of Columbus, as a man worthy of admiration.  In Writings of Christopher Columbus (1892), historian Paul Leicester Ford describes Columbus as, “a man of bold disposition, good mind and education, with practical sea and cartographic experience, and withal an enthusiast, was ready to act at the time that Europe’s interests in the east forced her at last to turn westward.”[8]  In The Authentic Letters of Christopher Columbus (1895), historian William Eleroy Curtis recognizes Columbus as a man of “deep religious spirit” whose piety was so great that even kings and queens sought his wisdom because of his devotion to God.[9] And finally, in The Life of Christopher Columbus (18..), author Arthur George Knight venerated Columbus when he wrote, “As long as Englishmen are sailors and merchants, and love enterprise and greatness of courage, they ought to hold in veneration the memory of Christopher Columbus...when he departed this life he was ripe for canonization, and he even miraculously aids those who commend themselves to his powerful intersession.”[10]  The general thesis from these – and many other – records of Columbus, produced during the conclusion of the 19^th century was clear: Christopher Columbus was a great man, worthy of praise, whose deeds were sanctioned by divinity itself. 

In addition to the many primary source publications produced at this time, and their prefaced remarks from historians of the time, were numerous biographies and histories of Columbus, which also fell in line with the conventional historiographical approach of the 19^th century.  Among this vast collection is the biography by John Stephens Cabot Abbott in which Columbus is portrayed as a larger than life figure, sent from heaven above to fulfill the divine mandate of discovering the New World.  “Columbus was, by nature, a kind-hearted man…he completely won the hearts of the natives by the gift of a few glittering beads or tinkling hawk’s bells.”[11]  Abbott concluded his biography of Columbus by reminding the reader that Columbus’ life “was one of the most joyous we have on record.  That he had his faults all will admit.  That those blemishes of character were redeemed by many and exalted virtues, few candid minds will deny.”[12] 

In a world marked by new emerging technologies, newfound economic opportunities and a surging spirit of nationalism, Christopher Columbus was the perfect candidate for historical canonization.   As an explorer who braved unknown frontiers, discovered unknown lands and endeavored to strike it rich, Columbus’ story resonated on a deep and intimate level.  19^th century American society had already venerated innovators and tycoons like Thomas Edison, Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller for their contributions which had brought to pass a new world.  Comparing such achievements to those accomplished 400 years earlier by a foreign explorer with a dream was not a tough connection to make.  As such, Christopher Columbus became, in the eyes of the average American, a rags to riches success story to be emulated and admired. 

Reevaluation and Extreme Objectivity   

While the bulk of late 19^th century Christopher Columbus history was clearly over-complimentary and seeking to promote the explorer as a great and noble man to be revered, the atmosphere of admiration was not without its storms.  As the years marched on into the 20^th century, historians began the very slow process of reassessing who Christopher Columbus really was, and how his history should be presented.  In her 1915 biography, author and historian Mildred Stapley took earlier Columbus biographers to task when she wrote:

Critical research into the life of Christopher Columbus was unknown until about thirty years ago.  It was then, for the first time, that authors began to ransack the archives of Spain and Genoa for material, instead of merely repeating the long-accepted story whose outline had been ingeniously sketched by the navigator himself and as ingenously filled in by his son Fernando.  The many inaccuracies of his story had not escaped writers as shrewd as Washington Irving and Alexander Humboldt; but they, instead of subjecting disturbing misstatements to critical examination, bent all their talents to inventing plausible explanations of every discrepancy.[13]

            For researchers like Stapley, the traditional narrative of Columbus as a great man wasn’t necessarily wrong, but it wasn’t entirely accurate either.  Historians of the generation that followed Columbus’ quadricentennial understood that they had to “emancipate [themselves] from the thralldom of that uncritical admiration in which it has been fashionable to hold the Discoverer, ever since Washington Irving threw over the subject the romantic and bewitching charm of his literary skill.”[14]  Instead of relying on the interpretations of their parent’s generation, those who “inherited” the job of understanding Columbus’ legacy moving forward felt a greater responsibility to let the historical record speak for itself.  Instead of needing Columbus to be a great man, justified by history, these new historians determined to let the historical record reflect “a more correct judgement be formed” on the true character of this all-important explorer.[15]        

            This shift of agenda can be summed up in many regards as the moment when historians were able to emancipate themselves from the cultural desire to make Christopher Columbus fit with a particular social agenda.  As resources became more available, these new histories “were willing to temper their admiration of Columbus,” thereby opening up themselves to new potential conclusions.[16] These new conclusions may have flown counter to conventional narratives, but they also allowed a new historiography to bloom. 

            Arguably the most influential work of new Columbus historiography produced in the wake of his quadricentennial era was a biography by Justin Winsor entitled, Christopher Columbus and How He Received and Imparted the Spirit of Discovery (1892).  In his book, Windsor not only provides detailed scrutiny of many key Columbus biographies dating all the way to the 16^th century, but he also emerges as one of the first historians to put Columbus in his appropriate context.  Windsor wrote, “The man who becomes the conspicuous developer of any great world movement is usually the embodiment of the ripened aspirations of his time.  Such was Columbus.”[17]  Windsor’s work had not abruptly overturned the status quo view of Columbus as a great man, but it did point out the many inconsistencies in his story.  Windsor’s work did not obscure the facts.  His biography of Columbus was even-handed in its treatment of the historical record. 

            For those who still favored the traditional view of Columbus, Windsor’s work proved problematic.  The cognitive dissonance caused by Windsor’s recognition of historical blemishes in Columbus’ story caused detractors to go on the attack.  As modern-day historians Carla and William Phillips point out:

A large segment of the American public was unwilling to admit the slightest flaw in its heroes, and the reaction against Winsor and other less scholarly critics was swift and long-lasting. Several books vigorously defended Columbus against Winsor specifically.  Others simply ignored the critics and wrote modem glosses on Irving, or tried their hand at epic poetry and drama based on a laudatory view of the Admiral.[18]

Despite the misgivings of some, Windsor’s book had opened the floodgates.  A new standard, relying upon primary evidence, had inspired others to follow in Winsor’s footsteps.[19] 

            This new trend in scholarship lasted for several decades, extending even into what historians now call the progressive era.  During this time, new works, akin to that of Winsor’s biography, were produced, many of which made attempts to reconcile some of the unsavory aspects of Columbus’ history.  The progressive era had made it easier to avoid portraying Columbus as a noble man of virtue, since this era’s historians proved to be more interested in the social and economic aspects of the past as opposed to creating narratives of great men and great causes.[20]  As a result, very little change in the historiography of Christopher Columbus was created in the early decades of the 20^th century.

A Columbus for the Modern World

            It was not until the 450^th anniversary that a new book would emerge to redefine the historiography of Christopher Columbus.  Samuel Eliot Morison’s Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus (1942) emerged as the single most impactful book on the history of Christopher Columbus since Washington Irving’s 1828 biography.[21]  Morison’s new biography dwelled primarily on Columbus’ brilliance as a navigator and explorer while downplaying his other shortcomings.  This emphasis on Columbus’ understanding of navigation by the stars and other technologies which aided in his ability to navigate fit well with the 20^th century American technological revolution.[22]   

            Morison, who was himself a sailor having served in the United States Navy, traced the original route Columbus himself sailed to the New World, and in the process developed an affinity for his ability as a navigator of the oceans.  Morison also focused his attention on the details of Columbus’ surviving records, eliminating any speculation or conjecture.  For Morison, Columbus’ true history was objective and free of conjecture.  As Morison himself stated, “Speculations are for the poet and the novelist, not the historian.”[23] 

            Morison’s understanding and interpretation of Columbus’ history became the standard by which all other Columbus biographies were judged.  Morison’s history was neither overly critical nor complimentary of the great explorer but rather presented a somewhat dry chronology of a man who crossed great oceans to discover a New World.  There is little opinion or thesis to Morison’s work, but instead the reader finds obvious hints of a writer deeply determined to avoid even the slightest appearance of personal opinion. 

            The arrival of Columbus’ quincentenary marked yet another shift in historical perspective as it applied to the great explorer.  Morison’s biography had remained the dominant narrative for almost five decades, but the dawn of postmodernism meant a new interpretation of history was being pursued by yet another generation of historians.  Instead of looking objectively at the history of Columbus, these new writers converted his legacy into a litmus test meant to satisfy several competing agendas.  Or as another writer put it, “the conflicts over which academics are arguing including debates over which texts to be taught, the competing claims of western and non-western cultures and social conflicts over race, ethnicity and privilege…prove that students will need to learn to deal with them in a culturally diverse world.”[24]

            With these new perspectives on race, culture, etc. now becoming a part of history, the pendulum of scholarly inquiry had shifted from making Christopher Columbus into a great hero, to placing all blame upon his shoulders for everything from petty theft to genocide.  One of the more influential books that helped to shape popular understanding of Columbus along these lines was Howard Zinn’s controversial A People’s History of the United States (1990).  In his book, Zinn doesn’t hide his distain for the admiral of the sea, calling Columbus’ story “a history of conquest, slavery and death.”[25]  Zinn makes absolutely no attempt at a nuanced history of Columbus.  In his mind, Columbus is to blame for nearly the entirety of the slavery, rape, murder, theft and cruelty that permeated throughout the era of Spanish colonization. 

            Zinn wasn’t alone in his assessment of Columbus.  In his 1992 book, American Holocaust, author David Stannard spared no punches in his berating attack of the explorer.   Throughout the work, Columbus is portrayed as a bumbling failed explorer whose religious radicalism had inspired the man to cross the Atlantic (an achievement that was lucky at best), only to find gold and glory.[26]  Like in Zinn’s work, Columbus is blamed for the bulk of atrocities committed in the New World.  Columbus’ abilities as a navigator and governor are rarely discussed but instead the author focuses almost exclusively on the many brutalities experienced by native communities.  Columbus is, of course, the man deemed most responsible for such heinous actions. 

                This shift in the historiographical approach to Christopher Columbus, though incomplete, did yield insightful studies into how New World colonization impacted native cultures, and assisted historians in understanding how specific minority groups played important roles in the past worthy of further study.  One of the general lessons to emerge from this era of Columbus studies was to acknowledge the following:

No study of the Colombian voyages can proceed without consideration of the peoples and cultures of America before and during European contact.  A healthy recognition of the extent of the Americas’ development, the diversity of the cultures, the multiplicity of languages and interests of the people who confronted the European newcomers after 1492, provides a complete approach to understanding of the significance of the Colombian voyage.[27]

                Notwithstanding the fact that late 20^th century histories of Christopher Columbus had done a far better job of illustrating the profound impact New World colonization had on native cultures and peoples, the gap left in their accounts is glaring.  Like historians of the 19^th century, these accounts told only half of the story.  The failure to remain objective in the treatment of Columbus, as a historical figure who was a product of his time and place, was replaced with a desire to transport Columbus to the present where he could be judged by more modern practices and standards.  This failure has to many of today’s misunderstandings regarding both New World colonization in general, and Christopher Columbus’ role in that process specifically.  Historian John Herbert’s advise provides the appropriate warning.  He writes, “The study of this time period is very important since out of it came the shape of the entities that we refer to today as the Americas.  A caution to all who enter this important study.  Try to remember to consider the study of this period from the understanding of that time in history and not as we would wish it to be today.”[28]  This is good advise for any study of history, regardless of the time in which it is produced. 

---

[1] De Lamar Jensen, “Columbus and the Hand of God” Ensign (October 1992).  Online edition.

[2] Carla Phillips and William Phillips, “Christopher Columbus in United States Historiography: Biography as   Projection.”  The History Teacher, 25, no.2 (1992), Pp. 122.

[3] Washington Erving, A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, vol. I. (Paris: A & W Galignani,1828).  Pp. 63-64. 

[4] Ibid, 124. 

[5] Jack Shreve, “Christopher Columbus: A Bibliographic Voyage” Choice, vol. 29, January 1991, Pp. 703-711

[6] William Eleroy Curtis, Christopher Columbus: His Portraits and His Monuments, Part II.  (Chicago, Illinois: The W.H. Lowdermilk Company, 1893).  Pp. 4

[7] Ibid, 56-57.

[8] Paul Leicester Ford, Writings of Christopher Columbus: Descriptive of the Discovery and Occupation of the New World. (New York: Charles L. Webster & Co., 1892). Pp. 17.

[9] William Eleroy Curtis, The Authentic Letters of Columbus (Chicago, Illinois: Columbus Memorial Museum, 1895).    Pp. 105. 

[10] Arthur George Knight, The Life of Christopher Columbus: Discoverer of the New World, A Biographical Sketch. (New York: D & J Sadlier & Co. 1877). Pp. 9.

[11] John Stephens Cabot Abbott, Christopher Columbus (New York: The University Society Incorporated, 1904). Pp.   71.

[12] Ibid, 345.

[13] Mildred Stapley, Christopher Columbus (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1915). Pp.v.

[14] Charles Kendall Adams, Christopher Columbus: His Life and His Work, (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1892). Pp. viii.

[15] Abbott, Christopher Columbus, 1.

[16] Phillips, “Christopher in Historiography, 126.

[17]Justin Winsor, Christopher Columbus and How lie Received and Imparted the Spirit of Discovery (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1892).  Pp.497.

[18] Phillips, “Christopher in Historiography, 126.

[19] Ibid, 126. 

[20] Ibid, 127.

[21] Shreve, “Columbus: A Bibliographic Voyage,” 703. 

[22] Phillips, “Christopher in Historiography, 128.

[23] Samuel Eliot Morison, Admiral of the Ocean Sea: A Life of Christopher Columbus (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1942). Pp. 20.

[24] John S. O’Connor and Robert M. Como, “History on Trial: The Case of Columbus.” OAH Magazine of History: 12, no. 2 (1998). Pp. 47. 

[25] Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (New York: Harper & Row, 1990). Pp. 17.

[26] David Stannard, American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).  Pp. 63-64. 

[27] John Hebert, “Exploring the Colombian Quincentenary through Historiography.”  OAH Magazine of History 5, no.4 (1991). Pp. 13.

[28] Ibid, 13