What is a Historian?

[AussieMick]

(01-11-2019 07:37 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  

Quote: I'd agree that a historian shouldn't in, his/her work, consider the morality of the events.

Mike,

I'm curious as to your reaction to the following. I once presented a paper on James G. Randall's "Blundering Generation" thesis in which Randall said the Civil War came about because of the emotionalism on both sides and both side's failure to compromise (this is oversimplified). In 1949 Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., challenged Randall and the other revisionists in an article. Since the article is under copyright, I've extracted from my paper the area where I discuss Schlesinger's objections including his belief that historians were required to consider moral stances.
....
Much (if not most) of Schlesinger’s argument focused on the revisionist idea that slavery was not enough of a reason for war to erupt. ...

Rob,
As far as Schlesinger’s argument for historians being required to consider moral stances : I dont agree. Morals change and its impossible to place ourselves in the position of, say, the average 21 year old Alabama white in 1860. What would we be thinking and wanting. What about the morals of the "average" President in 1861? What do our morals have to do with the events in 1860 or 1861?

(In my opinion)
There is a danger of confusing morality with interpretation of facts. There is no need for a historian to explicitly state that, for example, slavery is wrong or that genocide is abhorrent. The fact that such actions still occur do not make them any the less objectionable or immoral. The question as to how to deal with them wherever they occur is for the whole human race (historians, politicians, scientists, garbage movers, teachers, students, etc.) to deal with. There is no need for a historian who writes about WW2 to state that the Holocaust was immoral and evil. That’s not to say that the details of the systematic murder of Jews and others should not be documented.
(Perhaps I should say that ‘there should be no need for a historian to state that this or that was evil’. Some historians have, for example, written that the Stalin-imposed famines on the Russian people were justified in order to modernise the USSR. To my mind, in such cases, they need to state their view on the morality of such acts. If they want to claim morality is irrelevant, then I will remember that view when I continue reading their interpretation of the history.)

It is the responsibility of the historian to provide the relevant facts of what occurred. (The question as to ‘what’ facts is a crucial point, though … I’ll come to that, later.) The historian should describe the relevant factors which influenced the outcome. This is going to require a description of the main personalities involved, their families and education, the preceding events, geography, scientific advances, and even the psychology of the community. It will also often be required that the historian will identify factors which are not relevant. These factors would have been raised by others and discussed. The historian will have concluded that those factors played little or no part in the event. The reasons for the conclusion need to be stated. Hearsay, gossip, and anecdotes play a useful part in history, but obviously need to be stated as such.

It is the interpretation of ‘history’ where human frailty comes into being. We are all biased and the result of our education and upbringing. It is difficult to be an independent observer. I recall reading that it is impossible for a scientist to conduct an experiment without his/her own presence having some impact on the result. I think the same applies to interpretation of history.

What facts are chosen?

E. H. Carr (I don’t agree with all he says) makes some good points … He uses the analogy of a fishmonger’s slab where the fish (equivalent to historical facts) are all laid out. Cold and unmoving, all waiting to be used by everyone. He says a written history is NOT like that fishmonger's slab.

Facts “… are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean; and what the historian catches will depend, partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use – these two factors being, of course, determined by the kind of fish he wants to catch. By and large, the historian will get the kind of facts he wants. History means interpretation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_History%3F

Both E.H. Carr and AJP Taylor would have us believe that there is a danger in using men such as Hitler to ‘carry the can’ for catastrophic events in history. They argue that there were many events which influenced the cause of WW2. Hitler was a murderous racist, but they argue that he was not the sole cause of the Holocaust or the invasion of so many nations. Other national leaders made stupid decisions or failed to act. The League Of Nations was desperate to maintain peace, as indeed were many in their safe occupations and homes. And who can blame them?

With respect to the USA? The Civil War was primarily about slavery. But it also involved States rights and many sensible men and women fought for the South even though they knew slavery to be immoral. Some of those fighting for the Union side considered negroes to be an inferior race. Indeed, this attitude was to continue for many decades. I get the feeling that some historians tip-toe around the basic issue of black and white soldiering. There would have been considerable logistical problems in training, feeding and housing negro soldiers. E.H. Carr and AJP Taylor would almost certainly argue that Lincoln’s attitude to Reconstruction was irrelevant, in view of his death. But all the options and issues affecting Re-construction and the failure to ensure true equality of individual freedom for all citizens are fundamental to the history of the US and the world. These are relevant facts which should be acknowledged in any history of the Civil War.