D2.His.6.9-12: How Historians' Perspectives Shape the Histories They Write

Overview

Lesson Procedure

75-80 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up10 minutes
2. Direct Instruction20-25 minutes
3. Guided Practice15 minutes
4. Independent Practice20 minutes
5. Closure10 minutes

1. Warm-Up10 minutes

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "Two families in your town have argued for decades over something that happened long ago. A grandson from one family writes the town's official history, and a son from the other family answers with a book of his own. What would you want to know about each writer before trusting his history? Would either one be able to write a fair account?"

   Students write for three minutes, then share in pairs. List their questions on the board and group them: ties (family, party, town), purpose (why write now), audience, distance (how long after the events) and evidence (what the writer could see or had to rely on). Tell students that the scenario really happened in Pittsburgh in the 1850s, and that these five questions are the lesson's tools.

2. Direct Instruction20-25 minutes

   Part 1: Key terms. Historiography is the study of how history has been written, including how historians' perspectives shaped their work. An excise is a tax on goods made inside the country, here whiskey. An insurrection is a violent uprising against a government's authority. In the 1790s, an apology often meant a written defense of one's own conduct, not a statement of regret. A vindication is a defense that clears a person of blame. Ex parte (Latin, "from one side") describes testimony that gives only one party's account. In Source 1, "Republican principles" means the ideas of the Republicans of the 1790s, the party led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison that opposed the Federalists (historians often call it the Democratic-Republican Party). It is not today's Republican Party, which was founded in the 1850s.

   The historians (from their books' title pages and their own words in Sources 1-4)

   Source	Historian	Published	Tie to the events
   1	William Findley	1796	Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from the West; he says his own "conduct" had been "misrepresented"
   2	Neville B. Craig	1851	Son of Major Isaac Craig, who married John Neville's daughter; John Neville was his grandfather
   3-4	Henry Marie Brackenridge	1859	Son of Hugh Henry Brackenridge, the Pittsburgh lawyer who published Incidents of the Insurrection in 1795
   5	SVHS (sample written for this page)	2026	None; an invented interpretation for practice

   Part 2: A historian's perspective, read from the page. Model five questions with Sources 1 and 2: (1) What ties does the writer have? (2) What does he say his purpose is? (3) Whom is he writing for? (4) How far is he from the events, and what evidence could he use? (5) What does his history emphasize, and what does it leave out? Point out that the answers come from the histories themselves: prefaces, dedications and asides are evidence of perspective.

   1I conceived, that a record of the insurrection, and of the circumstances which led to it, and the events connected with it, might be of use, to teach the citizens in other places, and perhaps in future times, the danger of small beginnings in making opposition to established laws, and of connecting their respect to the government, with the prejudices they may entertain against persons in office, or even with their prepossessions against particular laws. [...]

   [...]

   2I had many reasons for wishing this work to have been performed by some other hand. To write impartially of transactions, wherein so many living characters are concerned, is not a very desirable work, and can scarcely fail of being censured by some. However, being conscious that I am not influenced by hopes or fears, and being at a time, and in a situation of life, that leaves me little to dread or hope, from the frowns or favours of party, or of men in power, I have studied impartiality in the characters I have delineated, and the facts which I have stated; and I have sought after truth with the utmost solicitude. [...]

   3A history of the western insurrection is also necessary, to correct wrong information that is gone abroad concerning it. [...]

   4[...] Many more of these than I intended to insert are to be found related in a very entertaining manner, in a work written by Mr. Brackenridge, which being, however, chiefly confined to what fell under his own observation, is not sufficiently extensive in its plan to supersede the necessity of this work. In some few instances, the facts are differently stated. In several instances, I have myself had occasion to correct the information on which I first depended.

   [...]

   5However necessary it was for my own vindication, to introduce my own name and character so much in the latter part of this work, I would not have troubled the reader with it, if my conduct, and the conduct of some of my friends, had not been evidently misrepresented, with a view to cast an odium on Republican principles.

   1[...] the troubles which had long been brewing here in opposition to the excise on whiskey, broke out into open hostility, in repeated attacks on, and the final destruction of, the property of Gen. John Neville, in this vicinity, and in the occupancy of our town by armed insurgents.

   2This first insurrection against the laws of the Union occurring at our very door, cannot be overlooked in a work proposing to give a history of our city. The general histories of the country notice it; Brackenridge and Findley have both written apologies for their conduct in it, which have been looked upon as histories, and Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, has given a very dispassionate account of it. The late Judge Wilkinson, of Buffalo, New York, who grew to manhood on a farm in the immediate vicinity of the field of the greatest outrage, has, in some notes published in the Western Pioneer, borne just testimony to the virtues and services of the principal sufferers in the insurrection, but has fallen into some errors in his account of the family connection, while he has given them all credit for patriotic services. [...] His kind heart had not changed in the half century which had elapsed between the destruction of the property, and the writing his account of it; but his memory, or his information of the family relations, was not so faithful as the kindness of his heart. [...]

   3Presley Neville, the only son of John Neville, married the daughter of Gen. Morgan, and Isaac Craig married the only sister of Presley. John Neville was, as Judge Wilkinson states, a man of great wealth for those days. [...] John Neville, was a man of good English education, of plain, blunt manners, a pleasant companion, and the writer well recollects how eagerly he listened to his well told anecdotes, and how, by his manner he could give interest to trifling incidents. [...]

   • A stated purpose (Source 1, paragraph 1)

     What lesson does Findley say his history should teach, and how could that purpose shape it?

     Result: Findley says the record could teach "the danger of small beginnings in making opposition to established laws" (paragraph 1). A history written as a warning will dwell on how small protests grew into violence and will present the insurrection as an error to avoid, a frame that also fits a western leader who wants to show he was never a rebel.

   • A history written to correct (Source 1, paragraph 3)

     Findley says a history is "also necessary." Why, and what does that tell a reader to expect?

     Result: He writes that a history is needed "to correct wrong information that is gone abroad concerning it" (paragraph 3). A history that sets out to correct other accounts is written in answer to rivals, so it will choose evidence that refutes them and may say less about points no one disputed. A reader should ask whose "wrong information" Findley has in mind and what he stood to gain by correcting it.

   • Labeling rival histories (Source 2, paragraph 2)

     How does Craig describe the earlier books by Brackenridge and Findley?

     Result: Craig writes that both men "have both written apologies for their conduct in it, which have been looked upon as histories" (paragraph 2), italicizing the word. In one sentence he tells readers how to file those books before he has discussed a single fact from them.

   • A family tie inside the history (Source 2, paragraphs 2-3)

     What does Craig correct in Judge Wilkinson's account, and what does the correction reveal about Craig?

     Result: Craig corrects Wilkinson's "account of the family connection," and explains that "Isaac Craig married the only sister of Presley" Neville (paragraph 3). Source 4 adds that Isaac Craig was the historian's father. The historian is a grandson writing about his grandfather, and the family's reputation is part of what his history defends.

3. Guided Practice15 minutes

   Pairs read Source 3, the letter to his brother that opens Henry Marie Brackenridge's 1859 history, and answer four questions with quotations. Circulate and press pairs to separate what Brackenridge says about Craig from what he reveals about himself.

   1. What did Henry write instead of reprinting their father's book, and what does he say he was careful to avoid?
   2. What event, according to paragraph 2, made him write a full history?
   3. List three phrases he uses for Craig or Craig's book. What do they tell you about the tone the history will take?
   4. In paragraph 3, how does he present his father's role in 1794? Which side's view of Hugh Henry Brackenridge does this answer?

   1Many years ago, we conversed together on the subject of republishing our father's work, entitled “Incidents of the Western Insurrection,” which had been long out of print—although remarkable for the truthful and graphic account it gave of one of the most important occurrences of American history. [...] Instead of pursuing the course which at first suggested itself, I adopted the plan of writing a biographical notice, giving a brief outline of the incidents of the Insurrection, saying enough to do justice to our father, but carefully avoiding everything that could possibly wound the sensibility of any survivor, or descendant, of those with whom he came in conflict during those trying times. [...]

   2This delicacy was not met in a corresponding spirit. A work, under the title of “History of Pittsburgh,” was published by Neville B. Craig, the representative of the “Neville connection,” in which there is a most perverted and false representation of the conduct of the people of Western Pennsylvania, and of the town of Pittsburgh, and, at the same time, the grossest misrepresentation of the actions and motives of individuals who were most active in restraining the excesses of the people, who considered themselves aggrieved by the excise laws. [...] It was not in my power to be silent; a newspaper controversy ensued, and the detractor was treated by me with unavoidable severity, as well as others whom I would willingly have spared. But I found that in the narrow bounds of a newspaper it was impossible to do justice to the subject; I, therefore, set about a more full and complete narrative, of historical acts, with the details of a connected memoir. This was due to my countrymen of Western Pennsylvania, and to my townsmen of Pittsburgh, so scandalously libeled by Neville B. Craig, in his pretended “History of Pittsburgh.”

   3Our father was first drawn into the vortex of the popular movement, at the earnest solicitation of Col. Neville, the son of the collector of the excise, with the avowed object of preventing the excesses of the disaffected. Although opposed to the oppressive excise laws, as was every man west of the mountains, with the exception of those engaged in the collection of the revenue, he never for a moment encouraged any illegal opposition. [...]

   Teacher key. 1. He wrote "a biographical notice" that said "enough to do justice to our father" while "carefully avoiding everything that could possibly wound the sensibility of any survivor, or descendant" of his father's opponents (paragraph 1). (The brothers' first reasons for not reprinting the book are in the cut.) 2. Craig's "History of Pittsburgh," which he calls "a most perverted and false representation" (paragraph 2); a newspaper fight followed, and a newspaper was too narrow "to do justice to the subject." 3. Any three of: "the representative of the 'Neville connection,'" "the detractor," "so scandalously libeled," "his pretended 'History of Pittsburgh'" (paragraph 2). The history will be a reply and a counterattack, not a calm survey. 4. His father was drawn in "at the earnest solicitation of Col. Neville" and "never for a moment encouraged any illegal opposition" (paragraph 3). This answers the charge, raised by the Neville side, that Brackenridge had encouraged the insurgents.

4. Independent Practice20 minutes

   Students work alone on Source 4, a passage from chapter IV of Brackenridge's history in which he answers Craig directly and reprints a letter that Craig had published. The letter, written in August 1794 by Craig's father, Major Isaac Craig, to the Secretary at War, General Knox (as Brackenridge's heading calls him), is a primary source inside a secondary one. Students answer Quiz Questions 11-14 and 18, then write a paragraph explaining how each historian used the letter.

   1[...] But they were silent at the time, and it was not until sixty years after the publication of the book, that one of the descendants of the “Neville connection,” Neville B. Craig, undertook to question the facts, on the narrow technical ground, that the statements were ex parte. This is no objection even in the highest judicial tribunal, a court of chancery—but there is no such rule applicable to historical evidence—the very idea is an absurdity, and only proves the ignorant and contracted mind of him who suggested it. [...]

   [...]

   2Craig, in his book, page 253, gives a letter from his father to Gen. Knox, on the subject of the Braddock's Field occurrence, prefaced with the remark that, “it was no doubt a fortunate circumstance that Major Butler commanded at that time.” Why so? As it was not the intention of the rioters to attack the fort, what difference did it make whether Major Butler, or any other officer, was in command? It is well it was not attacked—forty men in a wooden stockade, against five thousand riflemen! The letter is as follows—a sense of propriety and ordinary judgment would have forbidden its publication, by the historian at least:

   3“On the first inst. a numerous body of armed men assembled at Braddock's Field, continued there till yesterday, their number increasing, it is said, to four thousand five hundred, being joined by a number of the inhabitants of Pittsburgh, and commenced their march about nine o'clock, as it was confidently reported, with the design of attacking the fort. But some of the leaders being informed that every possible means had been taken for its defense, they prudently concluded to postpone the attack, and sent a flag to inform the commandant that they intended to march peaceably by the fort into Pittsburgh, cross the Monongahela, and return home. Major Butler intimated to the flag bearer, that their peaceable intentions would be best manifested by passing the fort at a proper distance; they therefore took another road into town.”

   4The foregoing contains several important errors. First, as to the simple fact to the joining the insurgents by the Pittsburghers, it was true—but unexplained by giving the circumstances, and the quo animo, would be a falsehood; for it conveyed the idea that they were also insurgents, and such must have been the idea conveyed to General Knox. If Major Craig possessed ordinary intelligence, he would have known better, as he certainly did. He at least knew that Gen. Wilkins, who commanded, was no insurgent. Was James Ross an insurgent? For he too was there.

5. Closure10 minutes

   Exit ticket. On an index card: "____ (historian) wrote in ____ (year). His tie to the events was ____. That perspective shaped his history by ____ (one claim, one choice of evidence or one silence)."

   Teacher notes. The sources quote the words of their time, such as "insurgents," "rioters" and "the disaffected." Source 2 leaves out a sentence that describes the burning of Neville's house and the cabins of the people he enslaved, using a term of the period for them; the cut is marked. Students can note that the people enslaved on Neville's estate have no voice in any of these excerpts, a silence worth discussing. "Republican" in Source 1 names a party of the 1790s; keep the discussion on the 1790s, not on present-day parties. Source 5 is an SVHS-written sample, not a published history, and is the homework reading.

   1When armed men gathered at Braddock's Field in August 1794, Pittsburgh was in danger. Hugh Henry Brackenridge, a Pittsburgh lawyer, stepped between the angry farmers and the government. As his son later explained, he was drawn into the movement "at the earnest solicitation of Col. Neville" and "never for a moment encouraged any illegal opposition."

   2Thanks to men like Brackenridge, the town was spared. The Neville family's historian, Neville B. Craig, later dismissed Brackenridge's book as one of two "apologies," but Craig was hardly a neutral judge: he was writing about his own grandfather, whose property the insurgents had destroyed. The best evidence shows that the western leaders were peacemakers, not rebels, and that the government's officials misunderstood them.

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Why does this lesson treat Sources 1-4 as works of history and not only as primary sources?

   AThey were written after the events to tell readers what happened and why BThey were written by people who took no part in the events they describe CThey were printed by the federal government as its own official records DThey contain only the facts that every participant in the events agreed upon

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In Source 1, paragraph 2, what does Findley give as the reason he can write impartially?

   AHe was living far away from western Pennsylvania during the events BHis position leaves him little to fear or hope from party or power CHe had read every letter written by anyone about the insurrection DHe had been asked by President Washington to write the history

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Findley writes, "In several instances, I have myself had occasion to correct the information on which I first depended" (Source 1, paragraph 4). What does this show about his method?

   AHe based his history entirely on his own memory BHe wrote the history before collecting any evidence CHe refused to change anything once he had written it DHe revised his account when he found better information

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   How does Findley describe Brackenridge's book in Source 1, paragraph 4?

   AAs mostly limited to what Brackenridge saw himself BAs an apology written to defend a man accused of a crime CAs the official government record of events DAs a false account that historians should simply ignore

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   In Source 2, paragraph 1, how does Craig describe the people who occupied Pittsburgh in 1794, and what does the label show?

   AAs "citizens" peacefully defending their rights BAs "farmers" protesting the tax without violence CAs "armed insurgents," people rising against the law DAs "soldiers" sent west by the federal government

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Craig calls Alexander Hamilton's account "very dispassionate" (Source 2, paragraph 2). What does this choice suggest about Craig's perspective?

   AHe had never read any of the accounts that Hamilton had written BHe believed the insurrection against the excise had been justified CHe wanted to criticize Hamilton's treasury policies DHe trusted the federal government's account over the westerners'

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Which detail in Source 2, paragraph 3, shows that Craig knew John Neville personally?

   A"a man of great wealth for those days" B"married the daughter of Gen. Morgan" C"the writer well recollects" D"a man of good English education"

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Craig praises Judge Wilkinson's "kind heart" but says his "information of the family relations" was not faithful (Source 2, paragraph 2). What does this correction suggest about Craig's history?

   AHe cared about getting dates right but not family details BHe thought that Wilkinson had been unfair to the Neville family CHe saw the Neville family's story as central to the history DHe believed only judges could write accurate histories

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Henry Marie Brackenridge calls his father's book "remarkable for the truthful and graphic account it gave" (Source 3, paragraph 1). What does this opening tell a reader about his history?

   AHe starts from the view that his father's account was true BHe plans to test his father's book against Craig's evidence CHe thinks his father's book is too old to be useful now DHe agrees with Findley that the book was too narrow

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Source 3, paragraph 2, says the new history "was due to my countrymen of Western Pennsylvania, and to my townsmen of Pittsburgh." Whom else does Brackenridge say he is defending, besides his father?

    AThe federal officers who collected the excise BThe people of his region and his town CThe Neville family and its descendants DThe soldiers who marched west in 1794

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    According to Source 4, paragraph 1, on what ground did Craig question the facts in Hugh Henry Brackenridge's book?

    AThe book had been printed in the wrong city BThe book gave only one side's statements CThe book was written before the events ended DThe book contradicted Hamilton's numbers

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    How does Brackenridge answer the charge that his father's statements were ex parte?

    AHe admits it and says the book should not be used BHe says a court had already proved the statements true CHe argues that historical evidence has no such rule DHe says Craig's own statements were ex parte too

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Why does Brackenridge reject Craig's remark that "it was no doubt a fortunate circumstance that Major Butler commanded at that time"?

    AHe says that Major Butler had already left the fort by then BHe says the rioters never intended to attack the fort CHe says the fort had five thousand defenders DHe says Major Butler had joined the insurgents

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Brackenridge says the letter's statement that Pittsburgh people joined the march "was true" but would be "a falsehood" unless explained (Source 4, paragraph 4). What is his complaint?

    AThe letter gave the wrong date for the gathering at the field BThe letter greatly exaggerated how many people took part CThe letter was never actually sent to General Knox at all DA true fact without context made them look like insurgents

15. Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer

    Findley says he "studied impartiality" (Source 1, paragraph 2) but also wrote "for my own vindication" (paragraph 5). Does the second statement undercut the first? Explain, using both quotations.

    Show model answer

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    Craig (Source 2) and Henry Marie Brackenridge (Source 3) each accuse the other's side of writing unfair history. Explain how each man's family tie shaped the history he wrote, with one quotation from each.

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    Findley published in 1796, Craig in 1851 and Henry Marie Brackenridge in 1859. How many years after 1794 did each write? Brackenridge says Craig questioned his father's book "sixty years after" it appeared in 1795; how accurate is that? Does more distance make a history more neutral here?

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    Brackenridge says a sense of propriety would have kept the letter from being published, "by the historian at least" (Source 4, paragraph 2). Why "the historian at least"? What does the phrase suggest about how he thought Craig's family tie should have affected Craig's choices?

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    Findley says Hugh Henry Brackenridge's book is "chiefly confined to what fell under his own observation" (Source 1, paragraph 4). Explain how a participant's position limits the history he writes, and whether Findley himself escapes the problem.

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Which of the three histories would you rely on most for what Pittsburgh residents did at Braddock's Field, and why? Name one limit of your choice and one other kind of source you would want.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to D2.His.6.9-12: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.

Standard text: National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K-12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History (Silver Spring, MD: NCSS, 2013). NCSS was not involved in the production of this lesson and does not endorse it.