|
|
|
|
|
David M Potter: The Student’s & Historian’s
Historian |
American Historian David M. Potter
was born on
Potter was no small historian, he has had published
both essays and book reviews in over fourteen different publications ranging
from such historical publications as the Journal of Southern History, the
American Historical Review, and the Journal of American History to such large
publications as the New York Times Book Review and New York Herald Tribune Book
Review. Potter, “at the time of his death in February, 1971, …was the Coe Professor
of American History at
David M. Potter is an excellent example of a historian
to study and learn from for both professional historians and history students.
Perhaps one of the best examples of Potter’s quirks that historians can learn from
can be extracted from his dealings with publisher Harper and Row. Harper and
Row wanted him to write a book about the causes of the American Civil War. As
his friend and fellow historian Don E. Fehrenbacher
writes in the introduction to Potter’s book, Freedom and Its Limitations in
American Life, Potter had left Yale and
moved to Stanford in order
to try and catch up with his scholarly commitments. The obligation that weighed
most heavily on him was a contract signed in 1954 to write the volume on the
coming of the Civil War for Harper’s New American Nation Series. He had arrived
at Stanford with the book already long overdue and still well short of
completion. Habitually a man of his word, he suffered considerable
embarrassment from having several times promised and failed to deliver the
manuscript on a specified date. ‘I feel the humiliation about it which makes it
hard for me to write to you now,’ he told one of the editors of the series in
November 1961. ‘After what has passed, I do not see how I can give you any date
you could feel any confidence in.’ Nevertheless, before closing the letter, he
ventured to name the end of the following April as his new ‘target date.’ The
penalty for this imprudence was having to draft another contrite letter when spring
came. ‘My position,’ he wrote, ‘is quite like that of a defaulting debtor who
has no assets of which his creditors can foreclose…Like all debtors, I have had
more than one creditor, and have been trying more or less desperately to pay
the smaller creditors because I thought they could be taken care of more
easily.’ Accordingly, he had published six ‘essay-length pieces’ during the
preceding two years, and four more were awaiting publication. With all of that
work cleared away, Harper now constituted his ‘first creditor,’ and in
September 1962 he sent off another message of humiliation,’ reporting that
despite good progress he was ‘still in the trenches.’ At this point, as he
prepared to begin his second year teaching at Stanford,… The Harper book would still
be unfinished when Potter died in 1971.[4]
A professional historian and student can learn from
Potter’s delay in producing the book from the mere fact that Potter had heavy
demands as a popular historian to lecture and write essays for a number of publications
and institutions. This is proven considering that during the 1960s alone he
“was a member of the editorial boards of the Pacific Historical Review
and the Journal of Southern History; the executive councils of the
American Studies Association, the American Historical Association, and
the Southern Historical Association; the governing board of the Social Science
Research Council; and national committees of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, the
National Academy of Sciences and the College Entrance Board.”[5] Also, Potter had one main flaw, like all humans, he
was curious. Historian Don E. Fehrenbacher noticed
this when he wrote that Potter would have “…spirited engagement in what he
sometimes called ‘forays,’ exploring subjects such as modern advertising, women
in American history, and the implicit assumptions of practicing historians.”[6] Perhaps this is why it is hard to categorize David
Potter as being a single field historian.
Another issue of Potter’s Harper and Row incident
could come from the fact that Potter was well known to have a passion for
excellence in writing and research. Potter, as Fehrenbacher
notes, “required that each chapter reflect a total mastery of the often
enormous literature and at the same time glow with new meaning extracted from
familiar material.”[7] Also, Potter is well known as “a skilful practitioner of the rare art
of combining clarity with subtlety and depth with range.”[8] Being famous for clarity and depth requires an
extensive amount of editing and rewriting on the part of the historian, thus,
forcing Potter to take even more time before sending a work off for
publication. Potter’s art of combining clarity with subtlety and depth with
range allows both a professional historian and a history student to read
Potter’s works in order to both study the art of historical writing and extract
some well evidenced historical arguments.
David
Potter’s teaching lectures were well regarded by both his students and
universities. Potter, according to the obituary in the Journal of American
History, was well known for annually drawing “hundreds of students into his
courses on constitutional history, the South, the Civil War and the American
character.”[9] Potter drew large numbers of interested students because he presented his
lectures in a “clearly organized, authoritative, broad in scope, penetrating in
analysis, and admirably fair in the treatment of points”[10] style. He also encouraged his students to share in
the complexities of studying the past by investigating various opinions. Potter
encouraged this by responding to questions posed by his students with
excitement and interest. Potter’s colleagues at
Potter’s
thoroughness of research and an attempt to entice his students and colleagues
can drawn from two books that were published based on two of his lecture
series. The first, in 1950, Potter was requested to deliver the Walgreen
Lecture Series at the
Many
historians considered Potter’s Walgreen lecture series to be an historical
break through. Potter was one of the first historians to use research from the
fields of Social Sciences in order to explain a historical concept. As
historians Don E. Fehrenbacher, Howard R. Lamar and
Otis A. Pease remark, Potter used the “insights of social psychology and
cultural anthropology to interpret the whole of American history, [and, thus,]
he raised the study of national character to a new level of excellence in the
United States.”[12] Potter used these two emerging social sciences in order to explain how
the American social character had evolved through history.
Potter
set about using these sciences by formulating two tasks so that he could prove
that the economic abundance of resources had affected the American social
character. The first basic task was to establish and prove a valid concept of
an American national character. The second task was to use his new theory of an
American national character in order to closely examine the impact of the
economic abundance on his theory and American life in general. Potter completed
his first task by discovering that the social scientists, which he drew his
research from, found that culture moulded the American national character. He
also found that history determined the pace and the eventual direction of how
culture evolved within a country.
Potter then proceeded to lay out an explanation on how
the economic abundance of the
Potter’s extensive research on this subject required
him to search for sources both inside and outside the field of history in order
to explain the concept of how American historical character evolved over time.
Also, Potter had to ensure within this lecture series that his characteristics
of being clearly organized, authoritative, broad in scope, penetrating in
analysis, and admirably fair in the treatment of points were preserved. Potter
achieved his characteristics within this lecture series by defining his
concepts, providing a range of examples, and explaining in a chronological
fashion how his examples have evolved over time. This lecture series provides
fellow historians and students with examples of how to research and utilize
ideas from other fields of study and still provide an historical analysis.
In 1963, David Potter was invited to contribute to the
Commonwealth Fund of Lectures series at
Potter’s main focus of this lecture series is to
question how American’s can maintain their right to freedom and still live
within a set of rules. Potter explained his main question by dividing his
evidence into three different lectures at the Commonwealth Fund lecture series.
His first lecture, titled “Freedom from Coercion,” he considers the ideas of
freedom and equality and how these two ideas can at times come into conflict
with one another. Potter points out that equality and freedom are preserved via
the checks and balances found within the American political system. Potter
points out that the structure found in the American political system prevents a
majority from imposing its views if a significant minority disagrees. However,
in his second lecture, titled “Freedom and Conformity,” Potter develops his
theory of American freedom by pointing out that sometimes minorities must be
ready to conform to the will of the majority. Potter believes the conformance
of the minority in certain cases to the will of the majority is required in
order that the American democratic process can be protected and preserved. The
political system, Potter believes, forces majorities and minorities to come
together in order to ensure the equality and freedoms of all American is
preserved.
In his final lecture, titled “Noncoercive
Control”, Potter uses television as an example of the manipulative forces that
are placed on Americans in both the spheres of the conscious and subconscious.[15] Potter concludes
his lecture and book by claiming that the freedom that the Founding Fathers had
created has become too limited for present needs. He also claims that freedom
within American history needs to be rewritten. Potter bases his claims on the
rewriting of American history because he points out that traditionally the
history of freedom is based on the restraints placed on coercive power. Potter
believes that the new history of freedom should be based on how coercive power
has interfered with the freedom and the rights associated with it.
Potter’s intentions with this lecture were to awaken
the American society that they should not take their freedom for granted.
Potter does this by pointing to several key areas where power is protected and
where power is unprotected and sometimes subversive. He does this again by
using examples within institutions that are common to people (i.e. government
and television) in order to maintain his clarity and broadness that he is known
for. Potter also maintained his notoriety for having a well researched argument
by providing historical content from such as historians as Riesman and
Tocqueville. Throughout both lectures series that Potter was requested to
attend, he maintained his notoriety as both a lecturer and as a writer.
Potter’s lectures are an advantage to professional historians as they can learn
from a well regarded lecturer on how to deliver a lecture that can deal with
current issues and yet remain historical in content.
An advantage for the history students can be found in
his two books on historical thought and writing. In his first book on the
issue, published in 1949, he teamed up with fellow historian Thomas G. Manning
to explore some of the most common problems in historical writing. Potter and
Manning wrote, what they considered to be a textbook, on historical problems
from different areas of history in order to provide a student of history with
examples from various fields. The authors selected the topics of social
history, political history, economic history, constitutional history,
intellectual history, problems of historical method, and schools of historical
interpretation. Potter and Manning believed that the areas of historical
research that they chose would provide “a medium of illustrating important
forces in history or important questions with which the historian has to deal.”[16] Throughout the book the authors focused on the areas
of the “nature of history, the recurrence of forces, the diversity of factors
in a given situation, the subtle interplay and fusion of these factors…without
[having] too much specialization.”[17] The authors decided the best format for such a textbook would be to
present the historical problems by providing a list of questions, a short
commentary on the context of which a primary historical document was issued,
what to look for in a historical document and extracts from the primary
documents themselves. The chosen format for the text provides the student with
a chance to notice what a professional historian would notice in a primary
document and what that same historian might exclude in his or her research.
Potter’s
second book on the subject of historical thought was published in 1966. Potter
teamed up with fellow historian, Curtis R. Grant, in order to edit a book
titled Eight Issues in American History. In the book Potter and Grant
follow “the so-called problems approach of the study of history.”[18] Potter and Grant selected a wide range of American
historical topics such as political figures, the American Constitution, Jacksonian Democracy, the sectional crises caused by the
Lincoln-Douglas Presidential debates, the urbanization of
Potter’s aims with these two books is to try and
stimulate interest in a student historian by pointing out what can be gleaned
from various sources and used to provide a well evidenced argument. These two
books on historical methodology reflect the way Potter aims to write a book or
essay. These two books accomplish this by allowing a novice historian insight
on how to gather a variety of evidence from various sources, how to be critical
about the evidence and eventually how to use this evidence to answer probing
historical questions. David Potter’s books and lectures draw on similar
techniques found in his books on historical thought and writing.
David Potter’s favourite writing style was the historical essay. This is
most noticeable considering that he wrote and completed thousands of essays in
his lifetime and left several books unfinished at his death. One of Potter’s
more famous essays, “The Historians Use of Nationalism and Vice Versa,” was
published in the American Historical Review in 1962. Continuing on in
his tradition of pointing out the faults of previous historians, in this essay
he claims that there are faults in the way historians use the term
‘nationalism.’ Potter claims that the because historians have used a faulty
concept of nationalism that “it has affected the treatment of history.”[21]
Potter points to two concepts in order to prove his thesis. His first
point is to point out that historians use their concept of ‘nationalism’ in two
distinct ways. The first way the historian uses the concept is to use
nationalism in order to explain the cohesiveness of a group. The other way the
historian uses the concept is to use nationalism in terms of a group’s right to
exercise autonomous powers in certain situations. Potter classifies these certain
situations as being the right to defend the nation through the use of violence,
coercion, political control, and judicial control.
However, Potter points out that the historian’s belief that the nation
has a right to defend itself through these methods and to classify nations as
groups is faulty. Potter claims that “in a world where states claim to be
nations and all the nations try to be states, it is difficult for [the
historian] to remember that they are two different things.”[22] Potter
substantiates his claim by pointing out that division of African states was
done out of convenience and that the nationalities of the continent do not
necessarily match up with the borders of the states. Also, Potter points out
that sometimes new nationalities are created within a state when a nationality
subdivides itself over a political issues. Potter uses the emergence of two
nations within the American Civil War as a subdivision over issues of political
conflict. Thus, Potter claims, the historian’s definition of ‘nationalism’
needs to be redefined in order to take into account the examples that he has
brought to light.
Potter loved to write essays because he required time to properly
research and edit his works in order that these works would live up to his reputation
as an historians. Potter loved to write essays because he knew that he could
research, write and publish an essay and then move onto a new topic. This reasong supports the behind the problems that Potter was
having with the Harper and Row book that he was requested to produce. Also,
this claim would support the reasoning why Don E. Fehrenbacher
was required to edit and complete four of Potter’s books following Potter’s
death in 1971.
Perhaps the best example of this can be seen in Potter’s most successful
book The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861, which was not published until five
years after Potter’s death. Some historians claim that Potter’s book, The
Impending Crisis, 1848-1861, was the unfinished work meant for publisher
Harper and Row. Don E. Fehrenbacher would eventually
complete and edit the work. The book, as critic Robert W. Johannssen
notes, would become known as “a large book in size and quality, not only stands
as a monument to the scholarship of one of the nation’s great historians, but
it is also a model of narrative history.”[23] This book would also be Potter’s last and his most influential book on
the interpretation of American political history.
Potter’s 1977 Pulitzer Prize winning book, The Impending Crisis,
1848-1861, shows Potter’s main interest in how politics changes history.
Potter’s main focus is the on the political rather than the social causes of
the Civil War. He does this by investigating “the paradoxical relationship
between American nationalism and a growing disruptive sectionalism”[24] caused by
slavery and the demise of the Whig party. Potter notices that, as Johannsen puts it, “because of the slavery issue [the]
North and South became isolated from each other, stereotypes were often
substituted for realities, ordinary political disagreements were converted into
questions of principle, abstractions became points of honor,
and political action was transformed ‘from a process of accommodation to a mode
of combat.’”[25] In other words, what Potter is saying was that he issue of slavery was
the leading cause to the political disagreements and isolation between the
peoples of the North and South. Potter argues this can be seen in the
Presidential election of 1860 in which Potter argues there were really two
Presidential elections, one for the North and one for the South. Thus, Potter
finishes arguing, “The much vaunted ‘Southern Nationalism was born of
resentment and not of a sense of separate cultural identity.”[26]
Some critics say this book ignores the social aspects of this time
period in causing some of the turmoil that would cause the Civil War. However,
as historians know, the Civil War was caused by both social problems and
political problems, thus a complete investigation of both may have left out
because of Potter’s ways of researching and his untimely death in 1971. This
fact can be attributed to the fact that Fehrenbacher
also had to complete the last couple of chapters and edit the work before being
able to have it published.
Historian David M. Potter provides both history students and
professional historians with an idol to which both can aspire. Potter is
perhaps one of the
Barney, William L. “Potter’s The
Impending Crisis: A Capstone and a Challenge.” Rev. of The Impending
Crises, 1848-1861. , by David M. Potter. Reviews in American History.
1976. Vol. 4 : 551-557.
Baxter, Maurice G. Rev. of The Impending
Crisis, 1848-1861, by David M. Potter. Journal of American History.
Dec. 1976. Vol. 63: 719-720.
Bremner, Robert H. Rev. of Freedom and Its
Limitations in American Life, by David M. Potter. Journal of Southern
History. Nov. 1977. Vol. 43: 601-602.
Collins, Robert M. “David Potter’s People
of Plenty and the Recycling of Consensus History.” Reviews in American
History. 1988. Vol. 16 No. 2: 321-335.
Davis, David Brion.
Rev. of Freedom and Its Limitations in American Life, by David M.
Potter. Journal of American History. March 1978. Vol. 64: 1076-1077.
Engerman,
Fehrenbacher, Don E. Howard R. Lamar, and Otis A.
Pease. “David M. Potter: A Memorial Resolution.” Journal of American History.
1971. Vol. 58 No. 2: 307-310.
Fehrenbacher, Don. E. ed. History and American
Society: Essays of David M. Potter. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1973.
Hamilton, Holman. Rev. of The Impending
Crisis, 1848-1861, by David M. Potter. American Historical Review.
1977. Vol. 82: 182-183.
Higham, John. Rev. of Freedom and Its
Limitations in American Life, by David M. Potter. American Historical
Review. 1977. Vol. 82: 1315-1316.
Johannsen, Robert W. Rev. of The Impending
Crisis, 1848-1861, by David M. Potter. Journal of Southern History.
Feb. 1977. Vol. 43: 103-105.
Potter, David M. and Curtis R. Grant, eds. Eight
Issues in American History.
Glenview,
Illinois:
Scott, Foresman
and Company, 1966.
Potter, David M. Freedom and Its
Limitations in American Life. Ed. Don E. Fehrenbacher.
Potter, David M. People of Plenty:
Economic abundance and the American character. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1954.
Potter, David M. and Thomas G. Manning. Select
Problems in Historical Interpretation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1949.
Potter, David M. “The Historian’s Use of Nationalism
and Vice Versa.” American Historical Review. 1962. Vol. 67 No. 4:
924-950.
Potter, David M. The Impending Crisis,
1848-1861. Ed. Don E. Fehrenbacher. New York: Harper
& Row, Publishers, 1976.
Schneider, James C. Rev. of The
Impending Crisis, 1848-1861, by David M. Potter. Wisconsin Magazine of
History. Winter 1976-1977. Vol. 60: 163-164.
[1]For an extensive bibliography of
David M. Potter’s books, essays and book reviews, see the listings compiled by
George Harmon Knoles in: David M. Potter. Freedom
and Its Limitations in American Life. Ed. Don E. Fehrenbacher.
(Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1976).
[2]David Brion
Davis. Rev. of Freedom and Its Limitations in American Life, by David M.
Potter. Journal of American History. March 1978. Vol. 64: 1076.
[3]Don. E. Fehrenbacher.
ed. History and American Society: Essays of David M. Potter. (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1973): dust jacket.
[4]David M. Potter. Freedom and Its
Limitations in American Life. Ed. Don E. Fehrenbacher.
(Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1976): vii-viii.
[5]Don E. Fehrenbacher,
Howard R. Lamar and Otis A. Pease. “David M. Potter: A Memorial Resolution.” Journal
of American History. 1971. Vol. 58 No. 2: 310.
[6]David M. Potter. Freedom and Its
Limitations in American Life., ix-x.
[8]William L. Barney. “Potter’s The
Impending Crisis: A Capstone and a Challenge.” Rev. of The Impending
Crisis, 1848-1861, by David M. Potter. Reviews in American History.
March 1978. Vol. 64: 551.
[9] Fehrenbacher,
Lamar and Pease, 309.
[11]Robert M. Collins.
“David Potter’s People of Plenty and the Recycling of Consensus History.” Reviews
in American History. 1988. Vol. 16 No. 2: 322.
[12]Fehrenbacher, Lamar and Pease, 308.
[13]Collins, 324.
[14]Davis, 1076.
[15] Robert H. Bremner.
Rev. of Freedom and Its Limitations in American Life, by David M.
Potter. Journal of Southern History. Nov. 1977. Vol. 43: 601.
[16]David M. Potter and Thomas G.
Manning. Select Problems in Historical Interpretation. (New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1949): iii.
[18]David M. Potter and Curtis R. Grant.
Eds. Eight Issues in American History. (Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1966): 1.
[19]Potter and Grant, 2.
[21]David M. Potter. “The Historians Use
of Nationalism and Vice Versa.” American Historical Review. 1962. Vol.
67. No. 4: 924.
[22]Potter, “The Historians Use of
Nationalism and Vice Versa.” American Historical Review., 928.
[23]Robert W. Johannsen.
Rev. of The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861, by David M. Potter. Journal
of Southern History. Feb. 1977. Vol 43: 103.