Page 39 - History 2020

As these examples suggest, this was a very conservative concept of freedom, one that

was, as Linda Colley put it, “fully compatible with property, hierarchy, order and law-
abiding moderation.”

The Whig Interpretation became the Authorised Version of British History. It
th
informed histories and school text books. In the 20 century its reach increased;
Winston Churchill, a very popular amateur historian, amalgamated English and
American patriotism in his best-selling “History of the English-Speaking Peoples”
which was, as Tombs puts it, based on the ideas of the 1860’s, written in the 1930’s

and published in the 1950’s. Many Americans inherited the British tendency to
exceptionalism, seeing history as leading to the global adoption of American-style
democratic free-market capitalism*.

*For example, Francis Fukuyama “The End of History and the Last Man”, 1992

How true is the Whig Interpretation of history?

Burke’s philosophy of conservatism provided our ruling class with a powerful
justification for its dominant position. The Whig Interpretation of History provided
them with another. Under their skillful management, according to this version, British
history was a seamless story of orderly change. Revolution was both undesirable and
unnecessary. It translated Burke’s conservativism into an historical narrative.

But…is it true?

The whole basis of the Whig Interpretation of History is the idea that British history is
exceptional; it has a destination, a destiny. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 is a
crucial piece of this jigsaw. In a sense 1688 erased the memory of the instability of
the Civil War period. The British convinced themselves that political stability, not
instability, was somehow inherent in British history, and maybe even in the British
character. Continuity was our thing. The fact that 1688 wasn’t much of a revolution
was a good thing. What made it the “Glorious Revolution” was its very lack of drama,

violence or incident. It is surely the only event in British history to be celebrated for
its dullness.

However, as we’ve seen, the idea that 1688 was easy, bloodless and a bit of a non-
event, is misleading. But there is a deeper problem with “Whig history”. Modern
historians argue that it is based on a false view of history itself.

Ironically, the term itself was coined by Herbert Butterfield in his book “The Whig
Interpretation of History” (1931) which he wrote specifically to expose and criticize its
underlying philosophical assumptions and methods as completely wrong. His central