An American journalist and historian, was born in Deerfield, Mass., June 28, 1807. He graduated at Harvard in 1826, and, while studying law, contributed numerous articles to magazines. Admitted to the bar in Boston in 1830, he abandoned the legal profession at the expiration of two years, to accept the position of associate editor of the “Boston Atlas,” which soon became one of the ablest Whig journals in New England. His health having failed, he spent the year 1835 in Florida, and while there wrote “Archy Moore,” an anti-slavery novel. It was republished and favourably reviewed in England, and an enlarged edition, under the title of “The White Slave,” was issued in the United States in 1852. In 1837 he furnished to the columns of the “Atlas” a series of articles which contributed powerfully towards defeating schemes then on foot for the annexation of Texas. He took a conspicuous part in the Presidential canvass which resulted in the nomination and election of General Harrison. He also gave to the public during this period his “Despotism in America,” an able review of the social, political, and economical aspects of slavery in the United States, to which he added in 1854 a chapter on the “Legal Basis of Slavery.” His health having again failed, he embarked in 1840 for British Guiana, and, during a residence of three years at Georgetown, the capital, wrote his “Theory of Morals,” published in 1844, and “Theory of Politics, or an Inquiry into the Foundation of Governments and the Causes and Progress of Political Revolutions,” issued in 1853. Mr. Hildreth is best known, however, by his “History of the United States of America,” from the discovery of the continent to the close of the Sixteenth Congress in 1820, (6 vols., 8vo., 1849–52). It was projected while the author was a student at Harvard. The work has been variously criticised, but all agree in classing it among the standard histories of our country. Died at Florence in July, 1865.

Personal

  A bold, blunt, hard-headed, and resolute man, caustic in temper, keen in intellect, indefatigable in industry, and blessed with an honest horror of shams.

History of the United States, 1849–52

  If a plain and well-written narrative of public events, mostly in the order of their occurrence, without any attempt to generalize them, or to deduce from them broader lessons of experience, is all that constitutes a good history, then Mr. Hildreth’s work deserves its name, and has fair claims to respectful notice. It is easy to see however, that this is not all, and that history written on such a plan must needs be imperfect and untrustworthy…. Nothing can be more cold and naked than his recital of any facts which are honourable to the memory of the first settlers of New England; if they do not occupy a very prominent place on the common record he forgets to mention them at all. When they are forced upon his notice he dismisses them as rapidly as possible. He has not a word of praise for their conscientiousness, their heroism, or their self-denial; though the first alone caused them to emigrate, so that it was the seminal principle of the New England colonies, while the second and third sustained their settlements through many years of danger and privation.

  As a book of reference, this history still remains as the best in our catalogues of works on American history. The style is concise, the facts happily combined, the judgments generally good; and while justice is done to our great men, there is everywhere observable an almost vindictive contempt of persons who have made themselves “great” by the arts of the demagogue. Hildreth studied carefully all the means of information within his reach; but his plan did not contemplate original research on the large scale in which it was prosecuted by Bancroft.

  Hildreth’s “History of the United States” may be studied with constant improvement, and will always retain its place in letters.

  These volumes, completed as early as 1850, still probably form the most valuable single work on American history. But, though they have genuine merits, they also are not without somewhat serious defects. They have the advantage of describing a longer period than does the work of Bancroft, the only history with which Hildreth’s may properly be compared. The author’s style is free from irrelevant discursiveness, is direct, is devoid of imagination and fancy, is often so bald in its methods as to be dry, and sometimes is even so careless as to be ungrammatical. It never rises to anything like fervor, nor does it exhibit the slightest capacity for the graphic or picturesque. A still further defect is the absence of foot-notes and references to authorities, though for this deficiency the author has made partial atonement by publishing a long list of works used in the preparation of the volumes. But these somewhat grave defects are more than counterbalanced by the general accuracy and sterling qualities of the author’s judgment. The peculiarities named make the work less a favorite with the general reader than with the serious student.

  Its real literary merit is small. It is a plain, unvarnished narrative of facts as they were understood by its author, devoid of all attempts at rhetorical finish or philosophical digression. The partisanism of Hildreth is even more marked than that of Bancroft; in narrating the vicissitudes of parties and the prejudices of factions he is too prone to hide the faults of his friends and to parade those of his enemies. His history will be found valuable mainly as a work of reference.

  Hildreth’s “History of the United States” cannot be called a hasty or superficial production. His material was ample, he had studied it and arranged it with care, and though, at the last, he wrote rapidly, he had been preparing to write all his life, and merely transcribed the records stored in a full mind. If he was politician as well as historian, the same might be said of his rival Bancroft, whose democracy was as intense, though not as aggressive, as Hildreth’s whiggism…. The history is clear, though it cannot be called readable; the art of picturesque writing was not known to Hildreth; and even his characterization, contrasts, and denunciations do not quicken the reader’s pulse. His statements of facts are trustworthy; they cover a period still undescribed in any other work of the same size; and they are marked by the courage of conviction and an intrepid desire to state the truth. It would be idle to claim that his pages are untinged by political prejudice; but certainly the author did not consciously yield to that prejudice.

  Hildreth’s own work came later,—late enough to feel the force of increasing sectional animosities, and to show the effects of them in an unfortunate degree. A man of very decided convictions, and ardently interested in politics, the Whig editor wrote the “History of the United States” with a strong partisan bias. In the first three volumes, bringing the story down to the close of the Revolution, this naturally finds less place, and the lucidity, directness, and accuracy of the writer made his book one of much value, though a little dry to the general reader. But in the last three volumes, treating the history of our national politics down to 1821, its partisanship of the Federalists is so manifest that all its lucidity, directness, and general accuracy cannot wholly redeem it.

  Richard Hildreth’s name will be remembered chiefly from his “History of the United States,” and the solid and judicial qualities of that work will make it endure for many years to come. He will never be popular with the general reader, however. His narrative is too prosy, not vivid enough for a moment to enwrap the attention of the casual reader; and his occasional attempts at picturesqueness or descriptions of pageantry are very painful. The historian never arouses us with his enthusiasm, nor makes people and events live anew for us by the power of his inspiration. Nor is his writing in the least philosophical. Other historians make us see clearly the great sweeps and curves of the nation in its onward march, and they point out how its various trendings have led hither and thither. But Hildreth leaves us to trace out for ourselves the great highway, while he stops to explore some undiscovered and overgrown bypath, bestowing upon it the same painstaking research that he gives to conspicuous and important events. Yet in spite of all these negatives, Hildreth will always—and rightly—command attention and admiration. His work is full of purpose, and has in it the energy of a forceful and zealous student. It is direct, untrammeled, and courageous. If it grows dull for the casual reader, it is a delight to the close student. The primitive historical instinct in its most finished state filled him; for in spite of its surface faults, his narration, in straightforwardness, accuracy, and firmness, is an admirable work of high and solid merit.

  Three volumes are devoted to the period before 1783. An annalistic work. Often poorly arranged. Often very dry. It is, however, very accurate as to names and dates, and this gives it its place. The volumes dealing with the period from 1783 to 1821 are written from the federalist point of view, and are intensely hostile to Jefferson and his supporters.