Account for the varying historical interpretations of the causes of the American Civil War.
The differing interpretations of the causes of the American Civil War have been heavily debated over time. Although, it is widely accepted that slavery was the primary catalyst of the Civil War, historians have debated and moulded its role to fit their varying interpretations. These perspectives have shifted with the fluctuating foregrounding of the economics of antebellum America, the role of gender and the degree of morality surrounding slavery as causal factors. These varying perspectives can be pinpointed to the underlying contextual influences of individual historians.
Black History (John Hope Franklin)
A black history of the causes of the Civil War has not been expanded upon as much as other topics. However, it does mostly cover the morality surrounding slavery and abolitionist efforts. The African-American civil rights movement in the mid-twentieth century provided foundation for historians to interpret slavery through the lens of morality. John Hope Franklin (1915-2009) was an African-American historian who focused on African-American history through his work From Slavery to Freedom (updated in 1969). In the chapters pertaining to the years prior to the Civil War, he emphasised the humanitarian movements of the Abolitionists which inflamed tensions with the pro-slavery individuals in the South. Furthermore, Franklin makes explicit references to events such as the Underground Railroad and the Dred Scott decision which brought more sectional strife. He stated that, “It was the question of slavery, however, that intensified the [humanitarian] reform crusade and brought the country to the impasse”. As an African-American individual and a proponent of civil rights, Franklin provides an authentic African-American voice to the debate of the causes of the Civil War, particularly, to the slavery interpretation.
Progressive History (Charles and Mary Beard)
During the early twentieth century to the end of the Second World War, the Progressive style of historiography was developed and used in the United States. This particular branch specified the role of class conflict within the sphere of American history to showcase its polarised nature (it is also considered to be a more Marxian approach, rather than Marxist). Charles Beard (1874-1948) and Mary Beard (1876-1958) within their work, The Rise of American Civilization (1927), espoused the tenets of this particular style as they focused on the economics of antebellum America as the cause for the Civil War. Most notably, they preferred to term it as a ‘Second American Revolution’ where the “capitalists, laborers, and farmers of the North and West drove from power…the planting aristocracy of the South”. Professor David Blight from Yale University commented on the Beards’ perspective as “two economic systems…coming into conflict”. As Progressive historians, the Beards enable an alternative historical narrative which draws away from the emphasis of slavery, imbued by both their predecessors and successors on the causes of the Civil War.
Gender History (Elizabeth Varon)
Gender history aims to examine the role of masculinity and femininity within institutions. Although, not a very well-established historiography of the causes of the Civil War, Elizabeth Varon pinpoints the role of gender within the sectional conflict of antebellum America. In her essay, Gender History and the Origins of the Civil War (2011), she highlights recent scholarship into the role of gender such as the politicised role of women in the slavery debates and the South’s adherence to traditional patriarchal values. She utilises evidence such as the Grimké sisters (who fought for women’s rights and abolition) who were subject to controversy at the time and inflamed tensions due to their gender and purpose. Indeed, Varon commented that, “Foes of abolition saw women’s antislavery work as particularly dangerous to the survival of the union”. She also references the role of gender rhetoric within slavery debates as she analyses how anti-abolitionists used language such as “morbid”, in order to associate abolitionists with femininity, thus increasing tensions. Although, Varon’s gender perspective is not a very eminent interpretation of the causes of the Civil War, it provides a contemporary and different take on the topic.
Annotated Bibliography
Beard, C. and Beard, M. (1927). The Rise of American Civilization. New York: Macmillan.
Charles and Mary Beard’s The Rise of American Civilisation explores American history through the Progressive lens. As a result, it delves into the economics of the North and South and how they clashed together. Interestingly, it downplays the magnitude of the conflict by calling it a “transitory phase” and it emphasises the rearrangement of class and wealth in its aftermath. As a source on the causes of the Civil War, it is highly useful as it provides a different interpretation than the conventional perspective of slavery and demonstrates the impact of context on the construction of history. This can be seen through the Beards’ experiences of World War One which created their disapproval of the uneven distribution of wealth by the military industry. Although, the Progressive interpretation has been discredited, the Beards’ work on the Civil War was highly regarded and cannot be ignored.
Blight, D. (2017). Slavery and State Rights, Economies and Ways of Life: What Caused the Civil War?.
David Blight’s Yale lecture explains some of the dominant historiographical interpretations of the causes of the American Civil War in the first half of the twentieth century. He breaks down the work of Charles and Mary Beard and summarises their understanding of the clashing economies of the North and South and their omission of the role of people in history. As a source, it is a good supplementary addition with the Progressive perspective as it clearly highlights the intentions of the Beards. It also provides credibility for the Beards as a part of the historiographical debate, given that Blight is a qualified history professor.
Varon, E. (2011). Gender History and the Origins of the Civil War. OAH Magazine of History, [online] 25(2), pp.19-23. Available at: http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.sl.nsw.gov.au/stable/pdf/23210241.pdf [Accessed 11 Dec. 2017].
Elizabeth Varon’s essay on the role of gender in the lead up to the Civil War provides an alternative analysis on the events that occurred by considering the role of women and gender-based rhetoric in inflaming sectional tensions. As a source, this is highly relevant and useful as its gender interpretation separates it from other conventional perspectives such as that of Charles Beard’s. It examines events involving women and their causal relationship with the Civil War which is rarely explored within Civil War causation literature. She also provides a gender lens for the Wilmot Proviso debates which provoked tensions within politics. The credibility of the source is upheld by Varon’s expertise as a qualified Civil War professor. Furthermore, it is differentiated from the other sources as it is also a contemporary source.
Franklin, J. (1969). From Slavery to Freedom. 3rd ed. pp.242-270.
John Hope Franklin’s From Slavery to Freedom examines and describes American history with the consideration of the role of African-Americans. The third edition of his work was published during the Civil Rights Movement and with his context as an African-American historian, heavily influenced the moral stance of his position on Civil War causation. This can be evidenced by his emphasis on the activities of abolitionists prior to the conflict and his lack of deeper questioning into any ulterior motives of white abolitionists. As a source, it is highly useful as it enables an African-American voice into the most common Civil War causation stance. Furthermore, Franklin’s personal context as a civil rights activist differentiates himself and his writings from other historians on the same topic. Although, currently the morality aspect of the slavery perspective is being questioned in favour of recent considerations of ulterior motives held by white abolitionists. Regardless, it is a unique perspective.