The disciplines of rhetoric and history have reacted differently to the advent of postmodernism, but I suggest one way that the two disciplines can inform each other through the development of a modified "postmodernist" historiography. In the first chapter, I explore the objections that traditional historians have in regards to postmodernism. In the second and third chapters, I take a close look at the thought of two historian-philosophers, R.G. Collingwood and Hayden White, who each focused on how the human imagination shaped historical accounts. Then in the fourth chapter, I take ideas from both Collingwood and White to inform my own conception of historiography from the perspective of a rhetorician. Finally, I apply my methodology by writing a narrative account about the development of the Supreme Court's written opinions for two 1919 "Speech" cases, Schenck and Abrams, and then comment on what implications that this kind of "postmodernist" approach might have in respect to the writing of history.