Reasons to Study and to Edit History

By Brager, Bruce | The Washington Times (Washington, DC), February 15, 1997 | Go to article overview

Reasons to Study and to Edit History


Brager, Bruce, The Washington Times (Washington, DC)


"The future is certain . . . it is only the past that is unpredictable." So the Russians used to say about life in the unlamented Soviet Union. In this country we like to think the past is set but that we can change our futures. We all, however, edit the past, intentionally or unintentionally.

When writing history, when reading history, and when examining how others have written history, we must remember that revising the past is a human characteristic. History is always edited, including "gatekeeping" - deciding what information to include and what to exclude. Editing includes choosing the theme and approach to one's topic. Editing also can include shading facts to support one's view - backwards research, determining meaning before gathering information.

In addition to the enjoyment, we study history to gain perspective on modern events and developments, how we got where we are. We study history, perhaps less wisely but usually with the best intentions, to seek analogies for modern problems, to try to replicate solutions that worked, avoid those that failed.

Finally, some of us study history to find evidence to use in modern discourse, valid or otherwise. We take only what we need to buttress our arguments, discarding the inconvenient. There is a fine line between using history as a tool for modern debate, and looking at history from a modern viewpoint. We can only write history with a "current" perspective. We can bring skill to learning, evaluating and presenting our subject. We can try hard to empathize with people of the past, to capture their life and times. We can approximate the past.

But we can never totally capture the past.

The debate over the cause of the American Civil War is an example of interpretive trends, of editing history. Wars have more than one cause. However, most historians now agree that slavery played a major role, probably the leading role, in causing secession and war.

Southern partisans have always claimed otherwise. Before the Civil War, most Southerners considered slavery the unchangeable foundation of their system, and declared their determination to defend slavery. "The cotton states owe it to their own citizens and the world to secure themselves now against a calamity which the continued possession of the Federal government for a few years by the Black Republican, or anti-slavery, party will make more than possible," it was proclaimed in the Daily Courier of Louisville, Ky., on Dec. 20, 1860.

The idea of a nation, as opposed to a loosely united collection of localities, was slower to catch on in the South than in the rest of the country. People will fight for principles. However, they are more likely to fight for practical reasons, particularly their own safety. Slavery was not just convenient for Southerners, it was seen as the only way to control a potentially dangerous and significant portion of the population.

Slavery, however, has been "politically incorrect" since the Civil War ended. Fighting for slavery is now rightly considered a bad thing. Claiming a "War Between the States" over the right of each state to pick its own domestic institutions presents a far more appealing public image.

Southern partisans found a modern reason to stress states' rights as a cause of the Civil War. The 1950s and early 1960s saw a rebirth of interest in the war, with the centennial. This period was also the height of the American civil rights movement. The federal government came to use more and more of its power to force states to grant all citizens equal rights. Southerners who opposed this process, whatever their motives, found it appealing to link themselves to their gallant Confederate ancestors.

Current focus on devolving federal power and responsibility to the states does not seem to have provoked revisionist Civil War history. Perhaps enough evidence exists for historians to agree on the dominant role of slavery in provoking Southern secession and civil war.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Reasons to Study and to Edit History
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.