The emergence of consensus historians in the 1940's and 1950's

The decades of the 1940s and 1950s saw the emergence of a new approach to history writing, known as consensus history. This approach was a response to the fragmented and contentious historiography of the preceding decades, characterized by the debates between the Progressive and the imperial schools, and the revisionist challenge to the dominant interpretation of American history.

Consensus historians, such as Daniel Boorstin, Louis Hartz, Richard Hofstadter, and Arthur Schlesinger Jr., sought to move beyond these debates and present a unified and coherent narrative of American history. They emphasized the shared values and beliefs that united Americans, rather than the conflicts and divisions that had dominated earlier interpretations.

One of the key themes of consensus history was the idea of American exceptionalism. Consensus historians argued that the United States was unique among nations in its commitment to individual freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. They saw American history as a steady progression towards these ideals, with occasional setbacks and challenges, but ultimately leading to a society that was more just, more equal, and more prosperous than any other in the world.

Consensus historians also emphasized the role of the middle class in American society. They argued that the middle class was the engine of progress, providing the stability and prosperity necessary for democracy to thrive. They saw the growth of the middle class as a key factor in the success of American society, and celebrated the values of hard work, education, and upward mobility that characterized this group.

Another theme of consensus history was the importance of the Cold War in shaping American society. Consensus historians saw the struggle against communism as a defining moment in American history, one that united the country and strengthened its commitment to democracy and freedom. They also argued that the Cold War had a profound impact on American culture, promoting conformity, consumerism, and a sense of national purpose.

Consensus history was not without its critics, however. Some argued that it glossed over the conflicts and divisions that had characterized American history, downplaying the struggles of women, minorities, and working-class Americans. Others saw it as a conservative and apolitical approach to history, one that ignored the role of power and ideology in shaping society.

Despite these criticisms, consensus history remained a dominant approach to history writing for many years, shaping the way that generations of Americans learned about their own history. While the approach has fallen out of favor in recent decades, it continues to be a source of debate and discussion among historians and the general public.