Page:Some Observations Upon the Negative Testimony and the General Spirit and Methods of Bourne and Marshall in Dealing with the Whitman Question.pdf/1

Vol. VII, No. 2

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