Whig history facts for kids

Whig history is a way of looking at the past. It shows history as a journey from a difficult past to a "great present." This "present" usually means modern liberal democracy and constitutional monarchy. The term first made fun of grand stories that praised Britain's move to a constitutional monarchy and its Westminster system of government.

This idea is also used in other areas, like the history of science. Here, "Whig history" (often spelled with a small 'w') means seeing history as always moving towards a specific goal. In British history, Whig historians focused on the growth of constitutional government, personal freedoms, and scientific progress.

The term "Whig history" is often used to criticize histories that show the past as a steady march of progress towards a better, more enlightened time. In the history of science, it refers to histories that only focus on the successful ideas and experiments that led to today's theories. They often ignore failed ideas or dead ends.

Whig history helped create modernization theory. This theory led to development aid being sent around the world after World War II. Some people have criticized this aid for sometimes harming the places it was meant to help.

What is Whig History?

The British historian Herbert Butterfield created the term "Whig history." He did this in his important book The Whig Interpretation of History (1931). The name comes from the British Whigs. These were people who supported the power of Parliament. They were against the Tories, who supported the king's power.

Butterfield didn't use the term to talk about the actual British or American Whig political parties. Instead, he was criticizing a group of 19th-century historians. These historians praised all progress and often linked Protestantism with ideas of freedom. Now, the terms "Whig" and "Whiggish" are used widely. They describe any story that shows history as a journey of progress.

Herbert Butterfield's Ideas

When Herbert Butterfield wrote his book, he was pointing out a problem in how history was being written. Many historians at the time believed that history was always moving forward. They thought it was heading towards a better, more modern world like their own.

Historians after Butterfield have mostly rejected this "Whig" way of writing history. They believe it's wrong to judge the past based on today's ideas. They also don't think history is always moving towards a specific goal.

Why Historians Dislike It

Historian David Cannadine described Whig history as very biased. He said it divided people from the past into "good" and "bad." It favored liberal and progressive ideas over conservative ones. In short, Whig history was a very unfair view of the past. It was too quick to judge and was twisted by the idea that history has a set goal. It also judged the past using ideas from the present.

Another historian, E. H. Carr, noted that Butterfield's book criticized Whig history for many pages. But it didn't name many specific Whig historians.

Michael Bentley looked at the historians Butterfield was talking about. Many of them were Christian and Anglican. They saw the Reformation as a key moment for modern England. When they wrote about the English constitution, they often told a story of good news and progress.

Whig History in Britain

In Britain, Whig history saw British history as a "steady growth of British parliamentary institutions." It believed that Whig aristocrats kindly watched over this growth. It also saw a steady spread of social progress and wealth. This view described a "continuity of institutions and practices since Anglo-Saxon times." This made English history seem special and gave the English nation a unique character.

Paul Rapin de Thoyras's history of England, published in 1723, became a classic example of Whig history. Rapin argued that the English had kept their ancient constitution safe from the kings of the Stuarts family, who wanted more power.

William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769) also showed many Whig ideas.

According to Arthur Marwick, Henry Hallam was the first true Whig historian. His book Constitutional History of England (1827) greatly overemphasized the importance of early parliaments. It also tended to see all political fights in the past as similar to the battles between Whig reformers and Tory conservatives in the 19th century.

David Hume's Challenge

David Hume challenged Whig views in his book The History of England (1754–1761). Whig historians attacked Hume, but his history remained popular. In the early 19th century, some Whig historians started to include Hume's ideas. These were the "New Whigs" around Charles James Fox and Lord Holland.

Thomas Babington Macaulay's Influence

Thomas Babington Macaulay became very important in English history writing. His History of England was published from 1848 to 1855. It was an instant hit, replacing Hume's history and becoming the new standard. Macaulay's first chapter suggested a clear, progressive view of history: The history of our country during the last hundred and sixty years is eminently the history of physical, of moral, and of intellectual improvement. Macaulay was a popular Whig historian. His style captivated readers, and he had a strong sense of the past and firm Whig beliefs.

William Stubbs and the Constitution

William Stubbs (1825–1901) was a constitutional historian and a very influential teacher. His book Constitutional History of England (1873–78) was crucial for Whig history to remain respected.

Stubbs's history started with an imagined Anglo-Saxon past. He believed that representative parliamentary institutions grew from this past. They then fought for control with the king, especially during the English Civil War. Finally, they united in the Glorious Revolution. However, this view was later challenged. Historians found that early "parliaments" were more like meetings of the King's Council, not representative bodies.

Robert Hebert Quick on Education

Whig history was usually about politics in Britain, but it also appeared in other areas. Robert Hebert Quick (1831–1891) was a leader of the Whig school for the history of education. In 1898, Quick explained why studying the history of educational reform was valuable. He argued that past achievements built upon each other. They would "raise us to a higher standing-point from which we may see much that will make the right road clearer to us."

The End of Whig History

Frederic William Maitland is seen as the first modern historian. He used medieval law to understand the minds of medieval people. Other historians like J. H. Round and A. F. Pollard also brought new methods.

However, the First World War greatly damaged the idea that history was always progressing. The horrors of the war, like the Somme and Passchendaele, made people question the idea of constant improvement. This led to a decline in Whig history within academic circles.

Even so, Whig history hasn't completely disappeared "outside the academy." It still exists in some criticisms of history.

Whig History Today

In Science

Many people say that the historiography of science (how the history of science is written) is full of Whig history. Like other Whig histories, the history of science often divides historical figures into "good guys" (who were right) and "bad guys" (who were wrong). Science is seen as a series of victories over older, "pre-scientific" ways of thinking.

For example, from a Whig perspective, Ptolemy might be criticized for putting the Earth at the center of the universe. Meanwhile, Aristarchus would be praised for suggesting the Sun was at the center. This way of thinking often ignores the historical context and the evidence available at the time. Did Aristarchus have strong proof for his idea? Were there good reasons to reject Ptolemy's system before the 16th century?

Scientists and general historians often write Whig histories of science. However, professional historians of science usually oppose this approach. They try to understand the past on its own terms, not just as a path to the present.

In Economics

Looking back at modern economics often involves Whig histories. For example, when economists trained in math look at Paul Samuelson's Foundations of Economic Analysis, they see it as a key step in making economics more mathematical. But those who don't think math is always good for economics might see it as a step backward.

In Philosophy

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is often seen as having a Whig view of history. He believed history had a set path towards progress.

Marxist historians have different views on Whig history. Some early Marxists, following Friedrich Engels, believed history moved through stages like "primitive communism," slave societies, feudalism, capitalism, and finally to socialism and communism. However, modern Marxists like Ellen Meiksins Wood have challenged these ideas, saying they are too rigid and don't fit history well.

In Canadian History

Allan Greer points out that Canadian history writing in the mid-20th century also had Whig ideas. It assumed that Canada was moving towards a goal in the 19th century. This goal was seen as a "Good Thing," whether it was building a transcontinental union or developing parliamentary government. So, rebels from 1837 were seen as being on the "wrong track" and had to lose.

In General History

James A. Hijiya notes that Whig history still appears in history textbooks. In a debate about British identity, David Marquand praised the Whig approach. He argued that "ordered freedom and evolutionary progress have been among the hallmarks of modern British history, and they should command respect."

Historian Edward J. Larson challenged a Whig view of the Scopes trial in his book Summer for the Gods (1997). This book won the Pulitzer Prize for History in 1998.

See also