I first thought about historiography when I took a class in Colonial America from the great Edmund S. Morgan. He was very short and rather elfin. His many fans referred to him in private as Big Ed. Using the Puritans as an example, Professor Morgan went through the major interpretations throughout history. I got the point. He always left it up to his students to get the point.
You Kevin Levin (does not rhyme) remind me of Big Ed. Thank you for your wonderful blog posts. You always rearrange my brain.
I think much of the problem rests on the fact that for many people the military history of the ACW is divorced from its political and social contexts. This enables a romantic view of the war as being a contest between two principled opponents; both believing that its side was honoring the intent and heritage of the Founders.
Yet, readers here know that one cannot hope to understand the thrust and jab of military strategy and concomitant operations without knowing the politics and how it shaped the attitudes and decisions of both commanders and their political masters. The crucial social context should be obvious when we examine soldiers’ experiences.
For me, that divide in understanding drives a lot of the distortion when folks fix their gaze on the war.
I learned very early that we all wear glasses rhrough which we see the world and history. The trick is knowing what makes up those lenses, language, culture, ethics, etc. This is what makes history fun and interesting. Trying to put yourself in the shoes of others in a differ time to better understand them.
The question that I always wrestle with on the issue of presentism relates to the prevalence of a viewpoint during the time being studied. Example from antebellum America: What percentage of the population has to view slavery as evil before those who promoted slavery can be judged as evil? Lost Cause narrative sometimes uses a tack that long roots and constitutional status of the slave system means slavery’s supporters can’t be judged for their role by modern scholars.
I’m just not convinced that we have to judge people evil at all. Yes, slave owners and slavery promoters participated in a system of the horrible thing, but judging them as evil muddies the waters in that it makes it harder to see the various (non-moral) factors (economical stability or the viability of the agrarian southern model) that pushed them to endorse one side or the other. But I’ll admit that it wasn’t until the 1619 Project that it finally dawned on me that when Lost Causers and Confederate apologists say we can’t judge people by the standards of today, and that people back then didn’t realize the evil that slavery was, they mean white people. I’m pretty sure black people were aware slavery was bad. “People back then” includes black people, and it’s not presentism to acknowledge that, right?
Good point. When one reads or uses terms such as "Southerners" or "the people in the CSA", which people are meant? Talking about Southerners while excluding the 4 million or so held in slavery is incomplete as well as inaccurate, though it might be interesting to ask people making such errors why they do so.
I once had a convo with a good friend who told me I didn’t understand that the Confederate flag was about Southern Heritage and she didn’t have a coherent answer when I asked why most Black Southerners hate the flag. (Black Southerners aren’t Southerners?) She did eventually come around (like 10 years later).
I first thought about historiography when I took a class in Colonial America from the great Edmund S. Morgan. He was very short and rather elfin. His many fans referred to him in private as Big Ed. Using the Puritans as an example, Professor Morgan went through the major interpretations throughout history. I got the point. He always left it up to his students to get the point.
You Kevin Levin (does not rhyme) remind me of Big Ed. Thank you for your wonderful blog posts. You always rearrange my brain.
I think much of the problem rests on the fact that for many people the military history of the ACW is divorced from its political and social contexts. This enables a romantic view of the war as being a contest between two principled opponents; both believing that its side was honoring the intent and heritage of the Founders.
Yet, readers here know that one cannot hope to understand the thrust and jab of military strategy and concomitant operations without knowing the politics and how it shaped the attitudes and decisions of both commanders and their political masters. The crucial social context should be obvious when we examine soldiers’ experiences.
For me, that divide in understanding drives a lot of the distortion when folks fix their gaze on the war.
I learned very early that we all wear glasses rhrough which we see the world and history. The trick is knowing what makes up those lenses, language, culture, ethics, etc. This is what makes history fun and interesting. Trying to put yourself in the shoes of others in a differ time to better understand them.
The question that I always wrestle with on the issue of presentism relates to the prevalence of a viewpoint during the time being studied. Example from antebellum America: What percentage of the population has to view slavery as evil before those who promoted slavery can be judged as evil? Lost Cause narrative sometimes uses a tack that long roots and constitutional status of the slave system means slavery’s supporters can’t be judged for their role by modern scholars.
I’m just not convinced that we have to judge people evil at all. Yes, slave owners and slavery promoters participated in a system of the horrible thing, but judging them as evil muddies the waters in that it makes it harder to see the various (non-moral) factors (economical stability or the viability of the agrarian southern model) that pushed them to endorse one side or the other. But I’ll admit that it wasn’t until the 1619 Project that it finally dawned on me that when Lost Causers and Confederate apologists say we can’t judge people by the standards of today, and that people back then didn’t realize the evil that slavery was, they mean white people. I’m pretty sure black people were aware slavery was bad. “People back then” includes black people, and it’s not presentism to acknowledge that, right?
Good point. When one reads or uses terms such as "Southerners" or "the people in the CSA", which people are meant? Talking about Southerners while excluding the 4 million or so held in slavery is incomplete as well as inaccurate, though it might be interesting to ask people making such errors why they do so.
I once had a convo with a good friend who told me I didn’t understand that the Confederate flag was about Southern Heritage and she didn’t have a coherent answer when I asked why most Black Southerners hate the flag. (Black Southerners aren’t Southerners?) She did eventually come around (like 10 years later).