WRITING HISTORY, HOW TO
Furthermore, sticking to the philosophical root of all his work he adds, “What happened in history cannot be discovered and narrated without referring to the valuations of the acting individuals.” Again, no argument here.
At base all history, to make any sense, must be a history of ideas. The task of the historian is not only to get the facts straight, in addition it is to try his best to deduce from the collection what the motives of the actors were. Yet according to some, including Von Mises, that is where the duty of the historian begins and ends. “It is not the business of the historian to pass judgments of value”, he insists, and whenever a historian should do so he “speaks as an individual judging from the point of view of his personal valuations, not as a historian”. And here Von Mises and I part ways.
This “flaw” of a historian passing judgment on what he has so painstakingly researched is what makes for good reading. It is indispensable to good history writing. Dispassionate history writing is important – they are called encyclopedias. Would you rather sit before a fire ponderously turning the dry, brittle pages of Edward Gibbons' "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", or would you rather happily dive into Will Cuppy or Leon Wolff?
As long as the historian gets the facts straight, his interpretation and judgment on what his research has uncovered is what brings the book alive, by doing so historians give us an endless variety on the same exact subject. For history to be written with utterly Vulcan-like disinterest would cause every book on Gettysburg to read as all the rest – factual correct, boring, and utterly inhuman.
The line of thought that history must be written with the same professional disinterest as a brain surgeon going about his work, being so inhuman, is thankfully almost unseen. Von Mises himself admits as much, stating, “it is a fact that hardly any historian has fully avoided passing judgments of value”.
For example, in one book on FDR you can read hosannas of praise as to how he was “experimental, took chances, re-interpreted the Constitution”, while in another you may read that he had the moral character and principles of a brothel keeper. As long as both authors got their facts straight, their interpretations of those same facts being so opposite is what keeps history fresh and gives the reader variety.
As long as human beings write about history, such variety will be par for the course in our history books, and thank the Lord for it.