Washington Historical Quarterly/Volume 7/Some Observations Upon the Negative Testimony and the General Spirit and Methods of Bourne and Marshall in Dealing with the Whitman Question

←

Washington Historical Quarterly (1916)

Some Observations Upon the Negative Testimony and the General Spirit and Methods of Bourne and Marshall in Dealing with the Whitman Question by William Denison Lyman

→

2520269Washington Historical Quarterly — Some Observations Upon the Negative Testimony and the General Spirit and Methods of Bourne and Marshall in Dealing with the Whitman Question1916William Denison Lyman

The
Washington Historical Quarterly

SOME OBSERVATIONS UPON THE NEGATIVE TESTIMONY AND THE GENERAL SPIRIT AND METHODS OF BOURNE AND MARSHALL IN DEALING WITH THE WHITMAN QUESTION^[1]

The Whitman controversy has been quiescent for some time, and possibly it may be an evil deed to reopen it. Nevertheless there are certain aspects of the case which seem to have so important bearing upon the methods of writing and interpreting history as to take it from the domain of the special case of Marcus Whitman and to place it among the questions of general interest to all students and teachers of history. I shall not endeavor mainly to support any certain view of the Whitman controversy, but rather certain principles which I think should govern the investigator and the writer in the acquisition of data, and the serious, even sacred, responsibility of presenting them to the world. In the writings of Bourne and Marshall I find certain attitudes and methods and assumptions which seem to me to violate the fundamental requisites of correct historical interpretation. They furnish a text therefore upon which I will offer this contribution. The readers of the Quarterly are familiar with the general literature of this subject, and with the names and opinions of the leading advocates and opponents of the central proposition in the Whitman case; viz., That Dr. Marcus Whitman was a great, if not a decisive factor in "saving Oregon to the United States."

When about a dozen years ago Professor E. G. Bourne of Yale University and Principal W. I. Marshall of Chicago entered the field as critics of the Whitman story, it was generally supposed that they would mark a new era in the discussion. They claimed to be "scientific, unprejudiced investigators." There is no question that they greatly influenced opinion. No less a distinguished historian than John Fiske announced his change from belief to disbelief in the Whitman claims. Many readers East and West considered these books a final adverse settlement of the case. About a year ago Leslie Scott, in a review in the Oregon Historical Quarterly of Marshall's final work on the "Acquisition of Oregon," expressed the belief that this was the last word and that the Whitman "myth" might be considered exploded for good. But in spite of the considerable acceptance of this opinion, there is now a decided swinging of the pendulum the other way, and a disposition on the part of candid students to question the whole spirit and methods of Profs. Bourne and Marshall. This revival in the belief of the essential truth of the Whitman story is largely the fruit of the modest and unobtrusive yet convincing work of Myron Eells (convincing because of fairness, candor and honesty) in his "Reply to Professor Bourne," and his "History of Marcus Whitman," and although both Bourne and Marshall, the latter especially, have treated Eells with contempt (See page 45 of Marshall's "History vs. the Whitman Saved Oregon Story" for an example of his tone of petty spitefulness) I am ready to submit to any candid reader of both that Eells is as superior to Marshall in fairness, candor and dignity, as he is inferior to him in capacity of "scientific" abuse and misinterpretation.

As the limits of this article forbid long or numerous citations I will refer readers to the books concerned, Bourne's "Essay on Historical Criticism," and Marshall's "History vs. the Whitman saved Oregon Story," and "Acquisition of Oregon." Reference will also be given to Eells' "Reply to Professor Bourne," and "Marcus Whitman."

First, the spirit of these two writers. I shall refer mainly to Marshall. Professor Bourne was a "gentleman and a scholar," and his essay contains relatively few examples of abuse and vituperation, though not entirely free from them, as shown on page six of Eells' Reply. The chief feature in Professor Bourne's spirit to which I would call attention is that he is somewhat supercilious and academic. I would submit to close readers of this essay that it leaves the impression that he is more concerned in illustrating his theory of history than in ascertaining the real facts in the Whitman case. It has been asserted on supposedly good authority, although I do not claim it for I know nothing of it first hand, that some Yale student from this state presented Professor Bourne a class thesis on this subject which so much pleased him that he himself took up the theme, and that this was the genesis of the essay. It certainly sounds like it. It has the spirit of certain historians and schools of history which go gunning to see if they can find some available target to shoot at in the way of some fine story or current belief. William Tell, Pocohontas, Washington and the Cherry tree, many other popular stories have been exploded by some "tireless and patient investigator with scientific methods!" What can Professor Bourne of Yale and his major students find to expose? They must find something in order to maintain their reputation as "scientific historians." Well, here is that Whitman story which some missionaries and college builders in a distant state seem to take much comfort in as an example of heroism and patriotism! How would it do to punch the eyes out of that by way of a little class practice? Such seems to me largely the attitude of Professor Bourne.

But when we turn to Mr. Marshall we find a prevailing tone of bitterness, abuse, and vituperation which removes him from the class of reliable historians and places him in that of mere controversalists. We refer readers to his own books for examples. His stock in trade is the imputation of dishonesty and falsification to men whom the Pacific Northwest honored in their time as models of Christian devotion and honesty. On page 50, Vol. 2, of the "Acquisition of Oregon" note his reference to "three credulous clergymen, all eager to get money from the national government, and profoundly ignorant of the * * * diplomatic struggle, etc." He refers to Spalding, Atkinson and Eells. He then gives certain letters of Atkinson in connection with the Dalles mission land. On page 51 he declares that "the Whitman legend would never have been heard of had the national government paid the thirty or forty thousand dollars claimed by Spalding and Eells for the destruction of the mission and allowed their claims for a square mile of land around each mission station." In the next paragraph he says that until he read Atkinson's letters he "had no idea that it (the 'legend') sprung up first from a contest with the Methodists as to which of them had saved Oregon, and so as a reward was entitled to a square mile townsite at the Dalles." Hence "the origin of the legend was vastly more sordid than I had previously supposed." And I would ask the people still living in Oregon and Washington who knew Eells and Atkinson, as well as their descendants who knew of them, what they think of a historian who· places those heroes and saints in the ranks of petty grafters. Read those letters of Atkinson and see whether Marshall gives them any fair interpretation. And what of Father Eells? When we call up his long years of unselfish devotion, how he and his faithful wife almost worked their hands off at their farm at Waiilatpu in order to raise money to found Whitman College, how he travelled up and down on horseback through Eastern Washington, sleeping under a tree at night and living on dried salmon, parched corn and spring water, superintending schools, founding churches, ministering to the needy, with never a thought for personal gain or comfort, making such a place in the hearts of people of all sorts that throughout this state he is considered a veritable St. Paul,—then for a soured and spiteful old man who never saw him, or had any conception of the motives of his life, to so distort the letters about the Dalles town-site as to hold him up to history as a grafter and looter who fabricated the "Whitman legend" as a basis for plundering the national treasury! The reviewers who commend Marshall's book must have a curious conception of justice and "finality." The very use made by Bourne and Marshall of the words "Myth" and "legend" is a commentary on their spirit. It is the spirit of the advocate, of the prejudiced pleader, not of the fair and impartial historian. In the regular use that they make of those words they beg the whole question. The very point at issue is, Is this a myth? They assume that it is, name it "myth," hammer the idea in like a persistent advertiser, and at the end triumphantly exclaim, "We have proved our case!" What kind of a spirit does that show in a historian? On pages 7 and 8 of Eells' Reply are quotations from letters by John Fiske to Marshall in which he counsels him "to be less vehement," and says "there is great value in a quiet form of statement." Marshall, on pages 50 and 51 of his "History vs. the Whitman saved Oregon Story," goes into a clumsy explanation of this in order, I should judge, to make an extra slap at Eells, and to convey to his readers the impression that he and John Fiske were great friends. It is worth noticing that Fiske in a private letter to a man in this state, said in substance: "I think that Marshall makes a strong case, but what is there for him to be so angry about?" What indeed? In view of his habitual anger, villification, and general bad temper, inexcusable in a historian, may we not go beyond Professor Fiske and conclude that he makes a strong case—against himself? We ask readers to turn to Marshall's own pages to find proof of his habits of villification. Among numerous examples note his attempts in chapter 7 of volume 2 to belittle Whitman, to misinterpret and distort his letters, to minimize the greatness of his efforts, to under-rate the privations of that first missionary journey across the continent in 1836, and the fortitude of those two women, Mrs. Whitman and Mrs. Spalding, the first white women to cross the mountains. None but a man of microscopic soul could quote, as Marshall does in pages 190, Vol. 2, from one of Whitman's letters as, to the good health of the party, and then comment: "All of which shows that the journey was its own sufficient reward, as tens of thousands of people have since found the journey by wagon, train or saddle animal to be." So those two devoted women setting out on such a journey, that was to sunder them from every tie that made their lives worth living to them personally, were just out for a little health tour, or a little pleasure jaunt! Very easy for those women to cross the plains! Nothing particularly worthy of notice in that! Had good health!

Not less marked is Marshall's exhibition of a morose and prejudiced spirit to be found in chapter 8, Vol. 2, on the Massacre. His venemous spirit is found in nearly every reference to the victims of the tragedy. In giving his summary of causes for the Massacre he finally arrives, on page 261, at the conclusion that the chief cause was Whitman's unwisdom in continuing to practice medicine among the Indians though he knew perfectly well that they were in the habit of killing unsuccessful medicine men, while on page 268 he assures us that Whitman had ample warning, but that he possessed extreme obstinacy, and disinclination to accept good advice. So this is the conclusion of the whole matter. Dr. Whitman was to blame for his own murder? This clears the skirts of Hudson's Bay Company, renegade white men, half breeds, and probably Indians themselves! Whitman himself was the guilty party! If the Lord had not mercifully interposed to stay the constructive hand of the author of the "Acquisition of Oregon" we would probably have another chapter demonstrating that Whitman himself instigated the whole thing for the sake of rais~ ing the price of vegetables at Waiilatpu, or getting the government to give two or three sections of land to the mission. Really it seems to us that Whitman, besides all sorts of other obliquities and mendacities, must have been responsible for one crime that not even this "broad minded historian" would have thought of. If he had not been so foolish as to get himself massacred we might never have had all this bother about the Whitman controversy, and might even have been spared the writings of W. I. Marshall!

In connection with the Massacre notice one other illustration of Marshall's spirit in the ready acceptance of the letter of Mr. William McBeari, page 233. There he gives McBeari's version. In several places, among others in the Columbia River by myself, page 207, Josiah Osborne's version is given. Knowing the daughter of Mr. Osborne, Mrs. Nancy Jacobs, formerly of Walla Walla, now of Portland, and having a view of those events directly from her, I have no hesitation in saying that I would believe Mr. Osborne in such a conflict of statements instead of McBeari. Marshall, knowing neither one, follows the line of prejudice and accepts McBeari's version. Marshall seems to feel it incumbent on him to give the Hudson's Bay Company and the Catholic priests the benefit of every doubt, and at the same time open his large battery of rancorous hatred against the American missionaries.

Further in illustration of Marshall's spirit note his continuous epithets for Spalding; as "Spalding's crazy brain," page 276; "Lunatic," page 278. While it is no doubt true that Spalding's mind was impaired by the dreadful experiences of the Massacre any decent historian would find a more humane style in dealing with him.

But Father Eells was so totally different a type of man that no shadow of excuse can be found for Marshall's imputations of dishonesty and untruthfulness to so revered a character. On page 196 he refers to Eells' "ingenious and wholly fictitious version of that tale." He builds up substantially the charge that Eells fabricated the whole story for the sake of accomplishing two things; first, to get possession of that townsite at the Dalles; and second, to humbug people into giving money to Whitman College. Are the thousands of people in this state who know the heroic and unselfish devotion, the clear mind, the tenacious memory, the simple and guileless honesty, the almost painful rectitude of that good man, likely to accept such imputations?

Space forbids adding others of the numerous available examples of the spirit of this historian. We must enter upon the more important and more philosophical part of our subject, an analysis of the historical theory and methods which underlie the treatment of the Whitman controversy by both Bourne and Marshall.

In considering this philosophical phase of the subject the two authors may justly be considered as a unit. They employ the same general theories of historical evidence, and to a considerable degree the same arguments and the same matter. On page 71 of Bourne's "Essays in Historical Criticism" he names Langlois, and Seignobos, and Edward L. Pierce as references upon the relative credibility of recollections and cotemporary writings as sources of history. As they seem to apply the theory it is substantially this: Memory testimony given some considerable or appreciable time after the events cannot be accepted as evidence, unless supported by contemporary writings, if such exist. That is the first working hypothesis. On page 99, volume 2, of Marshall's "Acquisition of Oregon" the same principle is stated in a quotation which he calls an unquestioned canon of historical investigation, as follows: "A single authentic contemporaneous written statement of the reasons which impelled any man to do any deed must be held to outweigh any number of subsequent explanations, however ingenious, that he, and much more that his friends may have put forth to account for his actions." There is a second working hypothesis, not so specifically stated, but practically worked to the limit by both Marshall and Bourne. It is this: Errors by a witness in one part of his testimony invalidate the rest of it. Such, simply and briefly stated, is the basis employed by these two writers in the Whitman case. Starting with this basis they lay down two fundamental propositions. The first is that the letters and other written matter of the period when Whitman is alleged to have "saved Oregon" contain no definite reference to the alleged fact, and that the Whitman claim is built on recollections found in print only after 1864, or more than 20 years after "Whitman's Ride" and 17 years after the Massacre. The second proposition is that the various advocates of the "legend" make many errors in details and numerous contradictions both with the contemporary written records and with each other, and that therefore all their assertions must be rejected. From these two fundamental propositions they arrive at certain conclusions given with definiteness by Bourne on pages 99 and 100, and by Marshall at various points throughout his lengthy work. Divested of verbiage and ephithets, the conclusions of both writers may be summed up in the following points: That "Whitman's Ride" was executed for the purpose of influencing the American Board of Foreign Missions to continue the Mission at Waiilatpu; that Whitman had no thought of national aims, and was no appreciable factor in getting Oregon before the attention of the National Government; that his part in organizing the immigration of 1843 and in getting it to Oregon was unimportant; that Whitman, instead of being a patriot and a hero, was a third rate or a fourth rate man of poor judgment and largely responsible for his own murder; that Whitman's extant letters written between his return to Waiilatpu in 1843 and his death in 1847, in which he claims an important part in the immigration of 1843 and in shaping events to the acquisition of Oregon, were simply an exaggeration of his own services which grew up in his own mind after the immigration of 1843; that the "saved Oregon" idea was never thought of even by Eells, Gray, Walker, Spalding, and other subsequent claimants until about 1864, in which year S. A. Clark, in an article in the Sacramento Union, and soon afterward Spalding, Atkinson, Eells, Gray, Treat, and others interested in Missions, developed the "legend" with such effect that historical writers of national reputation passed it on as veritable history, and it became embedded in many standard works; that the letters to the American Board written by the missionaries in the period 1836–47 were "suppressed" and that there was a conspiracy to hide those letters, which when examined were seen entirely to disprove the "legend"; that the real reasons for the fabrication of the "legend" were an attempt by Atkinson, Eells and Spalding to get possession of the Mission land at the Dalles, valuable for a townsite, and later, on the part of Eells especially, to create a basis for an appeal for contributions to Whitman College. Such is substantially the line of argument.

Let us now consider the most important part of this whole matter, the application of those two fundamental historical postulates to the evidence, written and memory, in the Whitman case.

In connection with these two historical canons we must consider a third equally vital. This is, that the testimony of the witnesses to an event takes precedence over all other testimony, other things being equal. Now we come to the vitals of the whole subject—the interrelations of these three canons and the qualifications and limitations of each. We not only admit, but we insist upon the general validity of each. But truth can be arrived at only by remembering that each has its necessary limitations and exceptions.

Let us first consider then the proposition that memory testimony cannot be accepted unless supported by contemporary writing. As a general proposition this is entirely valid. Common observation shows of course that memory and imagination become interlocked, that with the passage of time clouds obscure the clearness of vision, and that statements made after events must be subjected to the test of comparison with any existing records of those events. But now note the vitally important matter of qualifications to this general rule of historical evidence. First, it makes all the difference in the world whether the memory testimony be directly contradicted by the written record, or whether the written record merely fails to mention certain things contained in the testimony of memory. If the written record declares positively that a given thing did not take place, which given thing is claimed in the subsequent recollections, we must perforce, other things being equal, decide in favor of the written record. If on the other hand the written record merely omits the mention of certain things later embodied in recollections, those recollections would not necessarily have to be rejected at all. Their acceptability would depend entirely upon the circumstances, and here at once we come to another necessary qualification of that canon of evidence, the second essential qualification. It is this: In order to give the written record that paramount authority claimed for it, the conditions under which it is written must have covered all the subject matter of the subsequent recollections. Otherwise there is no reason why matters might not be later reported by memory which might not have appeared at all and would not naturally have appeared at all in the written records. A third qualification: It must be supposed again that there were no positive reasons for withholding certain matters from the contemporary written record and that those reasons did not afterward exist for withholding subsequent testimony by memory.

Come now to the necessary qualifications upon what we named as the third canon of historical evidence-that is, the primary credibility of the original witnesses to any event. This is fundamental in law or history. Nobody can gainsay the proposition that the first requisite of evidence is to secure the original witnesses to the event, and, other things being equal, their testimony must take precedence of any other. But now there are some very important qualifications to this law of evidence. Were the witnesses competent to observe and report, were they honest and reliable, did they have any motives for distorting the truth, what were their relations to contemporary records if any such exist? Obviously all these qualifications must be taken into account in listening to testimony, and this is the basis for cross examinations in court or cross examinations in history.

Placing thus in juxtaposition these two canons of historical evidence with the necessary limitations we are prepared to apply them to the Whitman controversy as it is revealed in the original written records and in the subsequent recollections of the original witnesses. This process leads us first to ask the question: "Are letters and other documents contemporary with "Whitman's Ride" in direct contradiction to the recollections which were reduced to writing some years later, or do they simply omit to mention those essential things embodied in the recollections? To answer this question we must ask what are the contemporary records. They are reducible practically to three groups: First, letters written by the missionaries from 1836 to 1847 to the American Board, and to various friends in the East; second, Government documents and correspondence; third, letters and other documents pertaining to the emigration of 1843. Time forbids me to quote these letters and documents, and I can simply say that they are found in greater or less fullness in the books themselves which we are considering. Now, boiled down to the smallest possible compass, the proposition of Bourne and Marshall is that the first group contains no mention of Whitman's aim being other than missionary business; that the second group contains no hint that Oregon was in danger of being lost, nor any mention of Whitman; and that the third group contains no evidence that he bore any important part in organizing or leading the immigration of 1843. There we have the whole thing in a nutshell. (While it is a side issue, yet Marshall makes so much of it that I wish to interject a thought here about his claim that those missionary letters in group one were for a long time dishonestly concealed by the claimants of the Whitman "Legend." Now I want to ask why, if the missionaries, including Dr. Treat, who was connected with the American Board, were in a conspiracy to hide the evidence, they did not put the letters where they could not be found, and especially why did they allow Marshall himself free access to them so that the whole story was right there before him. Does that look like conspiracy to conceal the evidence?)

The space at our command compels us to limit our inquiry to the case of the first group of the written records, that is the missionary letters. But we are prepared to prove that the same general facts apply to the other two groups of letters, essentially the same conditions prevail in the subject matter of all.

And now for the examination of these records in the light of the three qualifications which we have laid down. First we assert, and the story as given by these very writers themselves sustains our assertion, that the missionary letters and reports do not at all contradict the claim in regard to Whitman's aims, subsequently reduced to writing. Examine these letters as given in Marshall's own book, and you will find that they nowhere claim that Whitman did not have such political and national aims. They merely say that he did go on his desperate winter ride in order to do some work connected with the missions, and, somewhat vaguely, declare that he had important business that compelled him, as he thought, to take that journey. Now right here is where the whole matter of the negative testimony of Bourne and Marshall comes in. They assume that everything connected with Whitman's Ride must have gone into those letters. Now would that necessarily have followed at all? Weare indeed obliged to admit that those letters prior to Whitman's ride, so far as they are extant, do not make any definite claim of his political purposes. But does that at all prove the contention that he had no such aims? Not at all, unless it can also be proven that all the records and letters have been preserved and correctly interpreted and reported, that the letters must have covered the same subject matter as the later recollections, and that there was no reason for withholding from the letters the claim later brought up for those political purposes. And this, as the reader can see, involves at once the other qualifications which we have mentioned in connection with the written records. In other words, we claim broadly that not only do those letters not contradict the subsePage:Some Observations Upon the Negative Testimony and the General Spirit and Methods of Bourne and Marshall in Dealing with the Whitman Question.pdf/11 Page:Some Observations Upon the Negative Testimony and the General Spirit and Methods of Bourne and Marshall in Dealing with the Whitman Question.pdf/12 Page:Some Observations Upon the Negative Testimony and the General Spirit and Methods of Bourne and Marshall in Dealing with the Whitman Question.pdf/13 Page:Some Observations Upon the Negative Testimony and the General Spirit and Methods of Bourne and Marshall in Dealing with the Whitman Question.pdf/14 considerations into account is it not preposterous to claim that the absence of these claims to the extent noted by these historians, and in view of the fact that the missionaries themselves had a positive reason for not publishing it widely, necessarily invalidates their later testimony? Of course it was a curious inadvertance, one greatly to be deplored, and one that would almost justify a little extra choice villification by W. I. Marshall, that those narrow-minded, mercenary, ignorant, and; quarrelsome missionaries at Waiilatpu, Chimakain, and Lapwai, did not maintain regular correspondence with the Oregonian, P.-I. and Spokesman-Review, and telephone connections with the chief business centers, and send a daily night letter to Washington City. But they were so parsimonious and so anxious to sell vegetables to the immigrants, and general conditions in the Forties so unfavorable, that I suppose it never really ocurred to them that they could do it.

Negative testimony! That is the basis of the whole argument against the Whitman legend. By the same line of reasoning or the same faulty application of an acknowledged canon of history we could reduce all history to a reductio ad absurdum. Grant that such letters of the missionaries prior to Whitman's ride as have been found and reported do not proclaim his national purposes, but suppose that the only people that had the opportunity of knowing his aims testified that he had them, but that he and they had sufficient reasons for not writing them at that time. Are we going to throwaway such firsthand testimony for the sake of an assumption? All history is in the first place individual memory testimony. Greater or less time always must pass before any of it is reduced to writing. Some people would make errors if they wrote it down within an hour. Others would retain and correctly report their knowledge years afterward. And we may well emphasize in this connection the well-known fact of human nature that the big things are ordinarily accurately retained and reported. It is the little things in which memory is so treacherous.

↑ Whlle Bourne and Marshall are both dead, there are many who would feel impelled to defend them. This article is published, not to reopen the controversy but simply to give the other side what they consider a fair hearing on certain points.—Editor.

[1] Whlle Bourne and Marshall are both dead, there are many who would feel impelled to defend them. This article is published, not to reopen the controversy but simply to give the other side what they consider a fair hearing on certain points.—Editor.

[1]