The Marty Standard of History Explained

Yesterday I spoke, with an eye towards wry humor, about my idea of what defines history. If you missed it, here it is: The Marty Standard History, I believe, doesn't really begin until fifty years have passed, if not one hundred. Why? We are to close to the people and events to judge them objectively. Our prejudices generally get in the way.

Today I want to explain what I mean with an example. Indeed this example may be what drew me to my conclusion.

Way back when, not quite in history as it was only about 40 years ago (ha ha), I had to do a college report on the life of John Adams, Revolutionary War leader and our second President. It was the first term paper I really went whole hog on, determined to make a good presentation. As such, I decided to see what history said concerning his life.

The oldest book I found in the library at the University of Detroit was published in 1801, the very year the Adams Presidency ended. The tome was so old I handled it very carefully, being intimidated by its age. I still can't believe it was still out on the shelves in 1982; I would have expected it to be archived by then, available only by special request. Anyway, it claimed that John Adams was just about the most useless disgrace of a President and human being we ever had. Wow. Reports of the same era were similarly antagonistic. Or, at best, dismissive.

But as I studied I noticed an odd thing. By 1900 or so books and articles were appearing which kind of grudgingly allowed that maybe old John Adams wasn't all that bad. He maybe, perhaps, sort of had done some okay things. Move forward to the 1960s and historians were much more considerate in analyzing his life and times. By 1975 he was the star character of a musical about American Independence. Extending into modern times we find David McCullough's positively glowing account of Mr. Adams, published in 2001, interestingly coming 200 years after the damning book which came on the heels of his time in office. Adams' Presidency is currently rated 15th or so among our Chief Executives. Out of 46, that's not bad. 

So, did John Adams change? Did the circumstances of Revolutionary and early United States history change? Or does the ebb and flow of time simply make it easier to look at something dispassionately? 

I believe the latter. As Adams moved from the real life figure to the historical personage, as people lost their direct emotional prejudices against him, they could see the real man more clearly.

So history doesn't really begin until well after events have taken place. At least, that's the Marty Standard of history. But I am open to suggestion and modification.