Overview of Civil War Historiography

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Definition of HISTORIOGRAPHY

1 a : the writing of history; especially : the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods


From Civil War Era: Historiography

Definitions
Expired Image Removed Nationalist School (James Ford Rhodes, Woodrow Wilson, Edward Channing)
1890: wanted to portray Civil War without the "bitterness" of previous recounts. Increasing Nationalism and Industrialism united the country. Conflict was unavoidable. It was the "collision of impersonal forces beyond the control of individuals." The cotton gin kept slavery from dying out on its own. The war had produced an unforeseen result: nationalism and a united America. Slavery was blamed for keeping the South unindustrialized

Expired Image RemovedProgressive School (Charles & Mary Beard, Matthew Josephson)
1927: The uneven distribution of wealth led Progressive historians to disapprove of the industrialization caused by the war. The resulting industrialization caused a new social class system and gave the government new power. The economy was completely renovated and focused on private profit. Slavery did not seem to play a significant part in the causes of the war.

Expired Image Removed Marxist School (James S. Allen)
Expired Image Removed 1930: Great Depression hits America. The obvious implications of the economy in the U.S. then played a part in the historiography of the Civil War. Specifically, eliminating slavery caused the development of capitalism and the growth of the labor movement. Slavery was not a major cause of the war.

Expired Image Removed Southern Agrarians (Ulrich Phillips,
Charles Ramsdell Frank Owsley)
1930: The Depression is a problem in the U.S. The Southern characteristic of anti-materialism was necessary for the good of the country. Relied on perceptions of the South as an honorable, peaceful community while the North looked like a cold, industrialized area. Claim that Northern industrialists used abolitionist claims for economical reasons.

Expired Image RemovedRevisionist School (Avery Craven, James Randall)
1930-1940: World War I ended and caused the majority of Americans to avoid future conflict based on "greed, arrogance, and national rivalries." The war could have been avoided. It was an evil act that politicians failed to get out of. "Normal" sectional tensions were heightened and ignored. Slavery was purely a symbol of sectionalism.

Expired Image Removed New Political Historians (Michael Holt) 1960: Political history became a part of historiography. The differences that caused sectional tension were based on things like Protestantism or nativism. Slavery had very little to do with it. When the tension grew to the size politicians could do nothing to ease it, the North and South became each other's scapegoats.
Expired Image Removed Comparative School (Eugene Genovese, Peter Kolchin, William Freehling) Expired Image Removed 1990: Slavery's part in the Civil War can only be fully observed and understood when it is compared to the effects of slavery in other parts of the world
 
Definition of HISTORIOGRAPHY

1 a : the writing of history; especially : the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods


From Civil War Era: Historiography

Definitions
Expired Image Removed Nationalist School (James Ford Rhodes, Woodrow Wilson, Edward Channing)
1890: wanted to portray Civil War without the "bitterness" of previous recounts. Increasing Nationalism and Industrialism united the country. Conflict was unavoidable. It was the "collision of impersonal forces beyond the control of individuals." The cotton gin kept slavery from dying out on its own. The war had produced an unforeseen result: nationalism and a united America. Slavery was blamed for keeping the South unindustrialized

Expired Image RemovedProgressive School (Charles & Mary Beard, Matthew Josephson)
1927: The uneven distribution of wealth led Progressive historians to disapprove of the industrialization caused by the war. The resulting industrialization caused a new social class system and gave the government new power. The economy was completely renovated and focused on private profit. Slavery did not seem to play a significant part in the causes of the war.

Expired Image Removed Marxist School (James S. Allen)
Expired Image Removed 1930: Great Depression hits America. The obvious implications of the economy in the U.S. then played a part in the historiography of the Civil War. Specifically, eliminating slavery caused the development of capitalism and the growth of the labor movement. Slavery was not a major cause of the war.

Expired Image Removed Southern Agrarians (Ulrich Phillips,
Charles Ramsdell Frank Owsley)
1930: The Depression is a problem in the U.S. The Southern characteristic of anti-materialism was necessary for the good of the country. Relied on perceptions of the South as an honorable, peaceful community while the North looked like a cold, industrialized area. Claim that Northern industrialists used abolitionist claims for economical reasons.

Expired Image RemovedRevisionist School (Avery Craven, James Randall)
1930-1940: World War I ended and caused the majority of Americans to avoid future conflict based on "greed, arrogance, and national rivalries." The war could have been avoided. It was an evil act that politicians failed to get out of. "Normal" sectional tensions were heightened and ignored. Slavery was purely a symbol of sectionalism.

Expired Image Removed New Political Historians (Michael Holt) 1960: Political history became a part of historiography. The differences that caused sectional tension were based on things like Protestantism or nativism. Slavery had very little to do with it. When the tension grew to the size politicians could do nothing to ease it, the North and South became each other's scapegoats.
Expired Image Removed Comparative School (Eugene Genovese, Peter Kolchin, William Freehling) Expired Image Removed 1990: Slavery's part in the Civil War can only be fully observed and understood when it is compared to the effects of slavery in other parts of the world

The historian that probably made the greatest impression on me was Charles Beard and his economic interpretation of history. Forget all the lofty platitudes about how great my country is and look, instead, to whose pocket book is affected and you are on the way to a better understanding of history’s causes and effects.

“I have always been struck by the intensity of the feelings generated against slavery and slaveholders in men who had no direct or first-hand contact with either. Yet there was much about their actions and reactions which suggested something more real and personal. I have suggested the possibility that behind the determination to (put) slavery on the road to ultimate extinction there may have lain drives that had little to do with Negro slavery or the American South…”
Avery O. Craven
 
Definition of HISTORIOGRAPHY

1 a : the writing of history; especially : the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods


From Civil War Era: Historiography

Definitions
Expired Image Removed Nationalist School (James Ford Rhodes, Woodrow Wilson, Edward Channing)
1890: wanted to portray Civil War without the "bitterness" of previous recounts. Increasing Nationalism and Industrialism united the country. Conflict was unavoidable. It was the "collision of impersonal forces beyond the control of individuals." The cotton gin kept slavery from dying out on its own. The war had produced an unforeseen result: nationalism and a united America. Slavery was blamed for keeping the South unindustrialized

Expired Image RemovedProgressive School (Charles & Mary Beard, Matthew Josephson)
1927: The uneven distribution of wealth led Progressive historians to disapprove of the industrialization caused by the war. The resulting industrialization caused a new social class system and gave the government new power. The economy was completely renovated and focused on private profit. Slavery did not seem to play a significant part in the causes of the war.

Expired Image Removed Marxist School (James S. Allen)
Expired Image Removed 1930: Great Depression hits America. The obvious implications of the economy in the U.S. then played a part in the historiography of the Civil War. Specifically, eliminating slavery caused the development of capitalism and the growth of the labor movement. Slavery was not a major cause of the war.

Expired Image Removed Southern Agrarians (Ulrich Phillips,
Charles Ramsdell Frank Owsley)
1930: The Depression is a problem in the U.S. The Southern characteristic of anti-materialism was necessary for the good of the country. Relied on perceptions of the South as an honorable, peaceful community while the North looked like a cold, industrialized area. Claim that Northern industrialists used abolitionist claims for economical reasons.

Expired Image RemovedRevisionist School (Avery Craven, James Randall)
1930-1940: World War I ended and caused the majority of Americans to avoid future conflict based on "greed, arrogance, and national rivalries." The war could have been avoided. It was an evil act that politicians failed to get out of. "Normal" sectional tensions were heightened and ignored. Slavery was purely a symbol of sectionalism.

Expired Image Removed New Political Historians (Michael Holt) 1960: Political history became a part of historiography. The differences that caused sectional tension were based on things like Protestantism or nativism. Slavery had very little to do with it. When the tension grew to the size politicians could do nothing to ease it, the North and South became each other's scapegoats.
Expired Image Removed Comparative School (Eugene Genovese, Peter Kolchin, William Freehling) Expired Image Removed 1990: Slavery's part in the Civil War can only be fully observed and understood when it is compared to the effects of slavery in other parts of the world

That is a very interesting post. There are various schools of thought regarding the causes of the Civil War that have been promulgated over the years. This is why the Civil War is such an interesting topic because the reasons for the conflict are still being discussed even today almost 150 years after it ended. The reasons for the war include a number of economic, social and political factors according to the historians in the original post.
 
Some of the different takes on the Civil War reflect the time. The "Nationalist" school was after the actual participants were passing from the scene. The "Marxist" and "Beard" emphasis on economics took place during the Great Depression. The "Political" school with its distrust of extremists and Congressional firebrands reflect the consensus politics of the 1950s, and the experience of Congressionist witchhunts.

The more recent emphasis on the role of slavery might reflect that African Americans can no longer be belittled or dismissed as previous generations did.
 
The action without which there would not have been a war was secession, and the people who seceded stated their reasons clearly and honestly - indeed, proudly. What they wrote in their declarations and stated in their speeches doesn't change over the years.
 
The historian that probably made the greatest impression on me was Charles Beard and his economic interpretation of history. Forget all the lofty platitudes about how great my country is and look, instead, to whose pocket book is affected and you are on the way to a better understanding of history’s causes and effects.

I was once one of those who looked at human behavior as a function of economic interest, and believed that economic determinism is the best tool for understanding the forces behind historical events.

Economic determinism is the theory which attributes primacy to the economic structure over politics in the development of human history. It is usually associated with the theories of Karl Marx, although many Marxist thinkers have dismissed plain and unilateral economic determinism as a form of "vulgar Marxism", or "economism", nowhere included in Marx's works.​
Economic determinism as understood by Marxism is the belief that economic laws determine the course of history. The law of economic determinism attributed to Marx's historical materialism is simple: self-preservation or the pursuit of food, clothing, and shelter is the supreme instinct in man. Therefore, the argument in favor of economic determinism says, it is natural to expect that the overwhelming amount of the decisions made by people will involve their pursuit of food, clothing, and shelter.​
Furthermore, it is predictable that these decisions will be made in such a way that they will favor acquisition of food, clothing, or shelter. A decision made by an individual against food, clothing, or shelter would clearly be against that person's interest and would clearly be uncommon if not rare. In as much as food, clothing, and shelter are commodities which are bought, sold and/or traded in society. The pursuit of these commodities is an economic activity.}​
But this question vexed me: why is history filled with examples of people who, despite coming from very similar backgrounds and economic circumstances as their peers, nonetheless made different decisions or exhibited different behaviors?

The fact is, the world has seen many social and political movements that cannot be totally ascribed to economic interests. This is especially true of religious movements; I sometimes make the point that the creation and spread of Mormonism cannot be explained simply based on economic forces. It grew out of a small number of people who had a unique belief system, and who actively proselytize their religion.

I also think economic determinist theories do not adequately take into account differences in culture whether they be sectional, tribal, national, racial, whatever. Feuds, vendettas, past-generation fighting (think Hatfields vs McCoys) are often about hate and payback. These can be powerful forces which directly affect people's behavior.

“I have always been struck by the intensity of the feelings generated against slavery and slaveholders in men who had no direct or first-hand contact with either. Yet there was much about their actions and reactions which suggested something more real and personal. I have suggested the possibility that behind the determination to (put) slavery on the road to ultimate extinction there may have lain drives that had little to do with Negro slavery or the American South…”
Avery O. Craven

Interestingly enough, many historians of the Revolutionary and Early Republic eras have made the point that many of the Founders (including some southerners) were antislavery for religious reasons, and because they really did buy into their own rhetoric that all men were created equal. Indeed, all the original colonies had slavery at some point, but the so-called "Northern" states outlawed slavery over the decades after the US became a separate nation. Indeed, these Northern states were eventually called "free states" because they abolished slavery.

Of course, the northern states had less of an economic interest in slaves than the southern states. But that helps explain why it was easier to end slavery in the North; that doesn't explain why they chose to outlaw it in the first place. It seems they abolished slavery because they really did believe that holding people in bondage was wrong.

- Alan
 
Historian Elizabeth Varon, in a lecture based on her book Disunion, talks about the "fundamentalist school" of modern historians. In the first 3-4 minutes of her talk, which is shown below, she says:

there's emerged in recent years a strong consensus, which scholars call the fundamentalist school, that slavery was the root fundamental cause of the civil war and that the political antagonisms between the North and South flowed from the fact that the North was a free labor society while the South was a slave labor society which remained committed to slavery and indeed to extending its domain.


Varon also talks about modern day revisionists.

- Alan
 
Historian Elizabeth Varon, in a lecture based on her book Disunion, talks about the "fundamentalist school" of modern historians. In the first 3-4 minutes of her talk, which is shown below, she says:

there's emerged in recent years a strong consensus, which scholars call the fundamentalist school, that slavery was the root fundamental cause of the civil war and that the political antagonisms between the North and South flowed from the fact that the North was a free labor society while the South was a slave labor society which remained committed to slavery and indeed to extending its domain.


Varon also talks about modern day revisionists.

- Alan

The fundamentalist school consists of an important group of historians in regards to the Civil War. This group of historians include James McPherson, Eric Foner and Bruce Levine. It seems that every couple of decades there emerges a new school of thought about the reasons for the Civil War.
 
Hm. What "school" do the military historians belong to?

According to the definitions of the different schools of Historiography, Military History is a separate school of history which is defined as follows: "Military history is a humanities discipline within the scope of general historical recording of armed conflict in the history of humanity, and its impact on the societies, their cultures, economics and international relationships. A conflict may range from a melee between two tribal groups to conflicts between national militaries, and a world war of coalitions affecting the majority of the global human population. Military historians record and analyze the events of military history, the product of which forms an important part of how societies and their leaders formulate future plans and policies for societal development."
 
Definition of HISTORIOGRAPHY

1 a : the writing of history; especially : the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods

This definition is not accurate, at least in regards to the term's usage in academic history. Historiography, as modern historians use the term, is not the "writing of history" but the study of how history has been written. The above definition simply describes historical writing.
 
This definition is not accurate, at least in regards to the term's usage in academic history. Historiography, as modern historians use the term, is not the "writing of history" but the study of how history has been written. The above definition simply describes historical writing.

It is tradition to provide evidence.
 
This definition is not accurate, at least in regards to the term's usage in academic history. Historiography, as modern historians use the term, is not the "writing of history" but the study of how history has been written. The above definition simply describes historical writing.

Historiography is one of those terms that has a different meaning in different contexts. I think the defintion used in the OP is accurate.

Wiki notes that

Furay and Salevouris (1988) define historiography as "the study of the way history has been and is written – the history of historical writing... When you study 'historiography' you do not study the events of the past directly, but the changing interpretations of those events in the works of individual historians." (Emphasis added)​

The use of the term 'historiography' in the OP is in accord with the notion that historiography concerns "the changing interpretations of... events in the works of individual historians." I have seen many modern historians use the term this way; for example, the Dunning School approach to the interpretation of the Reconstruction Era has been termed as a "historiographical approach" to the period.

- Alan
 
I can understand the nature of historiography - people being people, such as they. What causes me concern is where a group of people knowingly are intent on changing the way history is written to support an agenda - especially if it is an agenda that they are unwilling to divulge and make public at the onset. This has happened in several occasions - such as the Robber Barons or with William Randolph Hurst and his 'yellow journalism'.

As I say, I have no qualm with it as long those presenting it are honest up front with the possibilities of their bias. I'm concerned that this notion of historiography could be a subterfuge for people to 'knowingly' legitimize their agenda. I believe that to be disingenuous and dishonorable.

My potential bias': I was born and raised in the South and educated in the North.
 
I can understand the nature of historiography - people being people, such as they. What causes me concern is where a group of people knowingly are intent on changing the way history is written to support an agenda - especially if it is an agenda that they are unwilling to divulge and make public at the onset. This has happened in several occasions - such as the Robber Barons or with William Randolph Hurst and his 'yellow journalism'.

As I say, I have no qualm with it as long those presenting it are honest up front with the possibilities of their bias. I'm concerned that this notion of historiography could be a subterfuge for people to 'knowingly' legitimize their agenda. I believe that to be disingenuous and dishonorable.

My potential bias': I was born and raised in the South and educated in the North.

The problem is figure out what the agenda is, if there is an agenda and if the fellow knows there is an agenda.
This video Video Historiography of the Civil War, from Rhodes to Beard [00:34:19] talks about he life experiences and education affecting how various folks interpreted and presented the American Civil War. As some point several historians coming to the same conclusion may reenforce each other, but is that an agenda? It is much easier to figure everyone has an agenda and then figure out the bias.
 
Hm. What "school" do the military historians belong to?

They don't belong to a certain school, per se. Military history would be considered a field of history, just as political history, economic history, and intellectual history would be considered separate fields.

For those who are interested in a discussion of the historiographical issues in modern history, I highly recommend the book State of U.S. History, edited by Melvyn Stokes. This is from a description of the book:

Historians are very much aware of the variety of national and international trends that have shaped historical inquiry in recent decades. Americanists, in particular, have been conscious of the growing importance of gender issues, the 'turn' to questions of language and meaning, the increasing significance of cultural matters, and a new emphasis on regional history. The 1990s, moreover, saw a major movement to internationalize approaches to American history by emphasizing comparisons with other countries and cultures. By the end of the twentieth century it was by no means clear whether there was any distinctive 'American' history or, if it did exist, what its main contours were.​
This book brings together a distinguished international group of scholars in an effort to answer this key question through a sustained interrogation of the periods, themes, fields, problems and perspectives in historical writing on the United States. How have the intricate issues surrounding gender, race, slavery and civil rights been resolved and interpreted in recent American history? How have historians dealt with the complexities of events such as the American Revolution, the Civil War, Reconstruction and the New Deal in developing their historical narratives? In what ways have technological developments in industry, print and film influenced the questions historians ask?​
The State of U.S. History offers an exciting introduction to the debates surrounding the major trends in American historical debates and the crucial events and influences that have helped define the American experience.​

Basically, the book looks at the state of scholarship in all the various fields and sub-fields of US history - for example, there are essays on industrial history, intellectual history, women/gender history, film history, southern history, western history, racial history, Native American history; and also essays on the history of various periods, such as the Revolutionary War Era, Jacksonian America, religious history for the 18th and 19th century, and the Civil War.

Although the book is written for historians, I found it very accessible. As a non-historian who wanted some insight into the process of historical writing, I found this book invaluable. If your library doesn't have it, tell them to get it. I don't know if it's a book I would recommend to buy, because it covers a wide range of subjects that not everyone is interested in. But for somebody who wants a wide-lens view of current thinking, issues, and scholarship in various subject areas within American history, this book is excellent.

- Alan
 
Follow the money. The different "schools" come about in order to sell more books, get paid for more lectures, or to be crowned as the new genius. It's really easy guys, there's not much new under the sun.
 
Back
Top