On Active Service in War and Peace: Politics and Ideology in the American Historical Profession by Jesse Lemisch (review)

360 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW being'nolongercertainof thegroundonwhichtheystoodorof thetoolswithwhich theyworked'(266):The pointissupposed tocontrast withmyobservation thatBeard was'not sufficientlyaware'that modern scientists had abandonedthe dream of 'a universal system of over-arching laws.'Yet Marcellgoeson to observe that often 'Beard wasmistakenlyequatingscientific predictionwith absolute predestination' (28o),whichwasprecisely mypoint.Similarly,MarcellthinksBeardwasqualifying hisrelativismsignificantly by hisideaof civilization. But in hisviewthe historian succeeded by'anticipating thespiritofthecomingage,'whichhewronglyforecast as collectivist, democratic 'continentalism.' Even if Roosevelt had followed Beard's prophecy, however,the forecast wouldhaveprovidedno leverage for validating narratives aboutthepast.In theendMarcellconcedes theimportantpointbynoting thatBeard'frequentlylostsightof thedistinction betweenpositive, verifiedknowledgeof the pastandprospective conditional knowledge of thefuture'(33o).His historical philosophy remained 'nothingmore'than'anindividual actoffaith'(332). That iswhatBeard'scritics havebeensayingfor aquarterof acentury. On mostmattersof factMarcellisscrupulously accurate, andsoit ispuzzlingto findhimciting'thelogical rigorof Peirce'as'thestrongest single influence' (• 57)on Jameswhosegenialdisrespect for logicwasa sentiment wornonhissleeve. Nor isit fair to Henry Adamsasa reformerto saythat'oneglimpse of thesordidmachinationsof Grantismhad shatteredhis resolve,and he had quicklywithdrawnto contemplatein silencethe serenityand order of medievalhistory'(259). On the contrary,evenafter the disenchanted Democracy (•88o) he continuedto work on behalfof independentRepublicanreformers.Theseareuncharacteristic errorsin a bookwhosefaultsareof anotherorder- returningfrom avisitto familiarterritory with 'news' that is old. CUSHING STROUT Cornell University On ActiveService in War and Peace:PoliticsandIdeology in theAmerican Historical Profession. jEssE LE•ISCH, withanIntroductionbyThomasSchofield. Toronto, New HogtownPress,•975. PP.viii, •5o.$3.oo. OnActive Service in WarandPeace isanimportant historicaldocumentfor tworeasons. First,it isan indexto thecrisisamongAmericanhistorians caused by Vietnam. As such, itispartofthedebate overtheroleofhistory asaninstrument fornurturingthe ColdWar consensus or for presentinga radicalcritiqueof capitalist society. It thus maybeassessed astheproductof anessentially political struggle amongprofessional historians. Second, it isaventurein historiography whichimputesaclearbiasto the writingof Americanhistoryin recenttimes.It thusmaybeevaluated ashistoryand notsimply aspolitics. The mainbodyof thebookisapaperbyJesse Lemisch preparedfor deliveryatthe •969 meetingof theAmericanHistoricalAssociation in Washington, I)C,andoriginallyentitled 'Present-Mindedness Revisited: Anti-Radicalism asaGoalof American Historical Writingsince WorldWar II.' The paperwassubmitted toandrejected by REVIEWS 361 both the American Historical Reviewand theJournalofAmerican History, and never foundapublisheruntilitsrelease in •975bytheNewHogtownPress. New Hogtown describes itselfas'asmallCanadian socialist press' andislocated attheUniversityof Toronto. The foilforLemisch's paperisIrwin Unger'sattackontheNewLeftattheChicago meetingof theOrganizationof AmericanHistoriansin April •967. Unlike Lemisch's paper,Unger'swasalmostimmediatelypublishedin theJuly •967 issue of the AI-IR withthetitle'The "NewLeft"andAmericanHistory:SomeRecentTrendsin United States Historiography.' There Ungerchargedthatso-called NewLefthistorians were 'programmatic andactivist,' surrendering historical objectivity tothetransitory concernsof the presentandmakinghistoryinto 'a politicalweapon.'Indeed, 'To the youngLeftists themostobvious partisan useofhistoryistodomesticate radicalism in America.' Appreciatingthe situation-boundnature of historicalwriting, Unger conceded thatthepoliticalopponents of the NewLeft werenotimmuneto presentmindedness , but nevertheless concluded,'If historyhasany programmaticvalue, surelyit mustbehistory thatisallowed tospeak for itself.'Hisfinalthrustthuscame perilouslycloseto that grandhistorical clich(•, 'Let the factsspeakfor themselves.' Wouldthattheycould. Lemisch's paper,adirectrejoindertoUnger,argues thatnosuch neutrality exists andthatthenon-Lefthistorians whodominatetheprofession havenevercultivated suchanideal.In fact,theyhavedonemuchworse bylimitingaccess togood jobsfor New Left historians,as witnessedby the stormy careersof Lemischhimself, StaughtonLynd, and others. In an Introduction to Lemisch'spaper, Thomas Schofield applies thesame argumenttotheprofession inCanada,anddocuments the rejectionof Lemisch's paperbytheAI-IR andthej•I-I. The reality,of course, iscomplexandparadoxical. SomeNewLeft historians have paida pricefor activism. Othershaveactedmorecircumspectly (that,too,isa price) and retainedpositions in prestigeuniversities. On the other hand,there are those withthepowertohireandfirewhoregardNewLefthistorians asrathertrendy.And thoughit istruethatindividuals havebeenpersecuted, it isalsotruethattheideas which they representhave not been repressed.DespiteLemisch's difficultiesin findinga publisher for his•I-i• paper,hehasplaced otherworkbeforetheprofession .And sohaveotherNewLefthistorians. In fact,NewLeft historysells quitewell, assuchclassics asTheTragedy ofAmerican Diplomacy byWilliamApplemanWilliams clearlyshow. The examples couldbemultiplied, andweshouldhavealistof rather familiar names. Perhaps thisleads totheultimateparadox.There arereallytwoso-called 'establishments ' in theprofession, onewemightlabel(withhistorical licence) 'consensus' andthe other'radical.'Eachisquitecapable of makinga splash in print, eachhas members in prestige universities (thoughtheradicalactivists havehadmoredifficultiesintoday 's tightjobmarket), andeach isledbyarelatively smallnumberofhighly visibleprofessionals. Regardless of their politics, thesamepeopleseemtodominate thejournals;year after year the samepeopleappearon the programmes of the annualmeetings. The radicalestablishment playsthe role of victim,yet it isnever quite repressed. Indeed, in the springof •976 the NominatingBoardof the o•I•I 362 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW presented a slateof candidates whichincludedWilliamApplemanWilliamsasa nominee for president-elect andJesse Lemisch asa candidate for theNominating Board itself. The success ofsome does notexcuse thepersecution ofothers. It simply illustrates theambiguity ofanyideaofanestablishment among professional historians. In thespecific context ofLemisch's paper,oneconclusion isinescapable. If Unger deserves publication, sodoes Lemisch, fortheirpapers aremuchalike.Eachauthor asserts a thesis andthenproceeds to document it withan appropriatenumberof quotations andexamples. Predictably, eachproves hispointand therebytellsus something notonlyaboutthepolitics ofhistory butthemethods ofhistory aswell.In thefaceof whatpasses for historical method,thepersuasive powerof eachpaper mustremainafunctionof thereader'scommitments morethan anythingelse...