On The Historiography Of Charles Andrews

As the second-generation leader of the “Imperial School” in the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries,Charles McLean Andrews(also translated as “Charles McLean Andrews”)was once called “the most important historian in the United States,” and“the greatest historian who studies the history of American colonies.” Because of his outstanding achievements in history,Andrews was elected as the President of the“American Historical Association” in 1925.In 1935,Andrews won the Pulitzer Prize for the first volume of his important book “The Colonial Period in American History.”He has written extensively throughout his life,and has written 102 important academic books and papers,as well as more than 360 book review articles.Especially in his later years,he made great contributions to the study of the history of American colonies.For such an important American historian,there is little research in the domestic academic community.Therefore,this article intends to explore Andrews' historical thought from three aspects: British history research,American colonial history research,and American revolutionary history research,in order to understand its unique historical thoughts and methods,so as to deepen its understanding of Andrews' historiography,and then enrich the results of domestic research on American historiography.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,the text consists of three chapters:The first chapter focuses on the background and academic path of Andrews at that time,focusing on examining the impact of these two on the formation of Andrews' historiographical concepts and ideas.On this basis,explore the process of the formation and development of Andrews' historical thought.In the second chapter,through the study of Andrews' British history,American colonial history and American revolutionary history,we can deeply interpret his unique and rich historical thoughts.The third chapter analyzes and discusses the contribution and influence of Andrews' historiography,and attempts to point out the defects and deficiencies in his historical thoughts and research methods.