Revisionists ... Fundamentalists ... Can’t we all just get along?

Article by James Lewis. Edited by Antony Lowe. Additional Research by Ellie Veryard.

As the noble history student sits down for his first university lecture, he or she could be forgiven for thinking that history happened as he understood it to. Filled with ideas on a wide range of topics, from the collapse of the Roman Empire to the start of the First World War, the history student (from now on referred to as Brian) will then be attacked with readings, theories and hypotheses from across not only the globe but also time. Whig, social, feminist and micro-historians, economists, political scientists and theologians all want to have their say. Poor old Brian must confront these often vastly opposing theories and, hopefully, come up with his own that is not only original but supported by evidence that has already been finely pruned and analysed by previous scholars. No wonder Brian is driven to frivolous partying, drinking and late night takeaways.

So who are revisionists and fundamentalists? Well, to help Brian, let’s use the example of the American Civil War.

For about seventy years after the end of the Civil War, scholars attributed the conflict to one fundamental issue – slavery and its expansion. From the formation of the Constitution, America has faced a number of crises associated with whether or not the U.S. government has the right to control the expansion of slavery into new territories. The Missouri Compromise of 1820, Bleeding Kansas and John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry were all precursors to the Civil War associated with slavery. The Missouri Compromise, primarily a political debate, forbade the expansion of slavery above the Mason-Dixie Line. When this was revoked by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, a system of self determinism was installed called ‘popular sovereignty’. This led to a number of bloody confrontations between Missouri pro-slave aristocrats and anti-slavery Kansans, nicknamed ‘Bleeding Kansas’. Lastly, abolitionist John Brown tried to instigate a slave revolt at Harper’s Ferry (Virginia) in November 1859; ending in the rebels being defeated by future Confederate general Robert E. Lee.

After the collapse of the Whig party, sectional politics took over and members of Congress began to vote based on location rather than their party. The constitution stipulated that each new state would gain two seats in the Senate and a proportional representation in the House of Representatives. This was vital because a number of new territories were gained by America through the Louisiana Purchase (the acquisition of a large proportion of centre United States including the future battlegrounds of Missouri and Kansas), annexation of Texas and successful War with Mexico. Whether these territories, and future states, would be ‘free soil’ or a slave state could swing power in the American government towards either the slave holding South or the largely free North. When an abolitionist President was elected, Abraham Lincoln, from exclusively Northern Electoral College votes, the Southern States, commencing with South Carolina succeeded from the union. The Civil War had begun.

This is the fundamentalist position. It is named as such because not only is it the original theory, but also one that a number of historians support. A principle example is Eric Foner, whose work ‘Free Soil, Free Labour, Free Men’ remains one of the most important to all those who are studying the Civil War. ‘Why look any further?’, asks the newly confident Brian.

In March 1929 Charles Randall published ‘The Natural Limits of Slavery Expansion’ in the Mississippi Valley Historical Review. In this essay Randal argued that, contrary to opinions of other historians, slavery could not expand into the new Western territories. As such the issue that was so prominent in the fundamentalist position has become mute in Randall’s thesis. This was the beginning of the ‘Revisionist’ historical interpretation. Although it usually does not disagree with all the elements of a more ‘Fundamentalist position’, revisionism will generally place its emphasis on a number of different factors. In the case of the American Civil War, one such factor regards American economic policies. This had been a long standing issue in America. President Andrew Jackson faced impeachment because of his supposed ‘War on the Federal Bank’. This proved to be the major cause for the formation of the Whig party – a collection of anti-Jacksonian politicians. Throughout the 19th Century the American economy had shifted from an emphasis on the Southern agrarian based system to a more Industrial North. Economic legislation, passed by a majority Northern Congress, began to favour the Northern economy. As such Southern States began to feel alienated and, commencing with South Carolina, Southern states began to succeed from the union. The Civil War had begun.

This is just one example of a revisionist argument. Throughout his university career and beyond, Brian will be subjected to at least a fundamentalist and revisionist argument to almost every topic he will study. It is up to Brian to decide which he considers most convincing.

← Back to Volume 2

← Back to Issue 7