ABSTRACT
I want in this essay to use the example of the works of the American historian, Bernard Bailyn, to provide illustrations of some of the characteristic questions which agitate historians: how do they define the questions they ask? How do they delimit their subject? From what standpoint do they approach their material? And on what grounds do they disagree with each other? First, I discuss the focus and the lines of development in Bailyn’s work. Secondly, I show how Bailyn has attempted to get a particular purchase on that most slippery of subjects, “American history”, and to indicate the disputes that exist, less over the question of whether his way of encompassing early American history makes disciplinary sense than as to whether the leverage it gives is not only partial but also morally inappropriate for the needs of contemporary America. Thirdly, I outline the strengths and the limitations of his approach, in particular with respect to the questions of “American exceptionalism”, and of the aptness of a celebratory tone in writing about early America. Finally, I suggest that Bailyn’s work leads naturally into consideration of a further central question posed by the American experience: how do, and why should, independent citizens submit themselves to government? How can authority be established in America?
