Blog Post

Before we can get into complicated historical debates about the role of religion and politics in the past, we must first understand how historians think.  Many of us know a great deal about the past.  Our elementary, middle, and high school teachers taught us useful and important facts about American history.  But, while we may be able to recall that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776 or that the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote in 1920, we may not understand how historians interpret these facts.  In other words, some of us may not understand how historians think, or what makes the discipline of history unique.

Historians do not simply discover facts in archives, string them together into coherent sentences, and publish these facts in books, definitely telling the world about their chosen topic.  They do discover information in archives, but they think critically about that information, and contrast the new evidence with what other historians have said.  In other words, they compare primary sources (documents and objects from the historical time in question) with secondary sources (written by other historians and scholars).  If the information sheds new light on a topic, historians write an article or book explaining what this fresh evidence says about the topic, and how this differs from what previous historians thought.

Learning how to critically consider primary sources is one of the most important steps in this process, and one of the most difficult skills for young history students to master.  As scholar of education Sam Wineburg noted, historical thinking is an “unnatural act” since it requires historians to step outside of their own time period and put themselves into the shoes of people from the past.  Since this is a complicated skill to acquire, let’s break it down into five easy steps.  Good, critical historical thinking will consider: change over time, context, causality, contingency, and complexity.  Known as the 5 Cs of historical thinking (since, as you probably noticed, each step’s name begins with a “c”!), Thomas Andrews and Flannery Burke, two historians of the American west, originated this way of thinking about history in 2007.

The Cs make the most sense when we apply them to an actual primary source.  In order to find a good primary source example, I did what every historian does (or should do): I went to the archive.  Bert Lippincott, the librarian here at the Newport Historical Society helpfully pointed me towards the Society of Friends birth and death records from the 1600s.  We will consider the Society of Friends (more commonly known as “Quakers”) and their significance for Newport later in the summer, but for now, it is simply important to know that Quakers moved to Newport seeking the city’s religious toleration.  Other colonies did not have Rhode Island’s tolerant policies.  For example, Massachusetts Bay Colony insisted that colonists follow Puritanism.  This ended badly for people like Mary Dyer, a Newport Quaker who traveled to Boston hoping to convert people to the Society of Friends’ faith.  Though she was banished and told not to return to the city, she did so and was executed, establishing herself as a martyr for the Quaker cause.

“A Record of the death of Friends & their children” – Mary Dyer’s entry is about two thirds of the way down the page

Our primary source records Mary Dyer’s death.  The book’s title is: “A Record of the death of Friends & their Children.”  It dates to the late 1670s, but records earlier events that were important for the community.  The following entry is about two thirds of the way down the first page:

“Dyer a Martyre 1660  Mary Dyer the wife of Wm Dyer of Newport in Rhode Island.  She was put to death at the Town of Boston with the like Cruelty hand as the Martyers were in Queen Mary’s time, and there buried upon the 31 day of the 3rd mo 1660.”

We could read the primary source entry and say: “Why was Mary Dyer so foolish?  She returned when she knew that she would be executed.  And, why were the Puritans in Massachusetts Bay Colony so prejudiced?”  These questions judge the people from the past for their actions and hold them accountable to our present-day sense of morality. Instead, let’s apply the 5 Cs of historical thinking to the document, in order to practice thinking like a historian. Rather than judging Mary Dyer and the Puritans for their beliefs and actions, let’s seek to understand their time period and why they chose to act as they did.

Historians first consider change over time.  This can sometimes be an easy C because we get to think about how different the past was from the present.  First of all, in 21st century America, we no longer execute Quakers for trying to convert others to their faith.  Laws about execution have changed.  So have laws about religion.  When did these laws change and why?  The fact that Mary Dyer was a women is important.  How were Quaker women treated within the denomination?  How does this compare to other faiths?  How were women treated in general in colonial British America?  And how has the treatment of women changed over time?

What about context?  Let’s consider this in two parts: context within the primary source, and context within history.  Although Mary Dyer was executed in 1660, her death was not recorded in this book until the 1670s.  Thus, her execution is within a list of deaths which the Society of Friends thought were important enough to remember decades after the fact.  She is listed after a few important Newport Quakers who died of natural causes, and immediately after a few men who were also executed for proselytizing the Quaker faith.  Who decided to start keeping records in the 1670s, and how did they decide who to include in this list?  Who was forgotten?  The record notes that by the 1670s, Mary Dyer was considered a martyr.  When people begin to think of her as a martyr?

Context within the past is important, too.  Were other people executed for trying to convert others?  Yes, according to the document.  Not only were other executions listed before Mary Dyer’s entry, but this entry even notes that her execution happened “as the Martyers were in Queen Mary’s time.”  To fully appreciate this reference, we must understand who Queen Mary was and why she was executing people.  In other words, we need to dig deeper into English history.  We also need to know about the context after the fact.  Did Quakers continue to get executed in Massachusetts Bay Colony?  Did others follow Mary Dyer’s lead and martyr themselves for the cause?  When did these executions stop?

Our next “C” is causality.  Unlike in science, historians cannot create experiments to run multiple times and test hypotheses.  The past only happens once, after all.  Thus, we have to try to determine cause and effect from what has been left behind in primary sources.  What caused Mary Dyer to martyr herself for Quakerism?  What else happened in Massachusetts Bay Colony’s history that made Mary Dyer’s attempts to convert others to Quakerism so threatening that she needed to be executed?

The fourth “C” is contingency.  Contingency takes causality a step further, reminding us that all events in the past and present are interconnected, and that any one small difference in the past could have led to a completely different outcome.  What if Mary Dyer chose not to return to Boston, and therefore was never martyred for the Quaker cause?  Or, what if Mary Dyer did return, but was merely jailed?  Surely this would have affected later Quaker, and perhaps even colonial history.

Finally, we must remember that the past is complex.  As you can see, we have asked a long series of questions about a short 51 word statement.  The past is not easy to understand.  When we respect the past’s nuances, we create a fuller and more accurate picture of life in earlier times.

As we begin to explore these complicated questions about religion and politics in the past, we must remember to think historically about the issues at hand and use the 5 Cs as a guide.  In our next blog post, we will practice asking good historical questions as we begin to explore our topic in more depth.  In the meantime, check out Historical Thinking Matters.  Click on “View Why Historical Thinking Matters” to practice thinking like a historian and explore the Battle of Lexington in 1775.