Historiography: Into the Modern Era

Historiography is an interesting field. Equal parts art and science, it isn't generally inserted into the classical definitions of either category, and as such, is often overlooked. Or worse, it's written off as being mere history, much as it was throughout the medieval period. But it's more than just history: not only is it reconstructing our human record, but it's writing or recording history, as it happens. It's the art of being able to observe and preserve what's going on around you for future generations to reference and learn from. And that is an extremely exciting prospect. But when did historiography go from the fledgling art that was developed classical Greece to the modern discipline it is today?

Historiography first saw its modern roots grow out of German universities in the 1800s. Leopold von Ranke quite literally revolutionized it with the seminars he put on, coupled with his critical approach that focused on diplomacy and the political realm. Previous historiographers, or those who dabbled in it as a hobby like French philosopher Voltaire, had generally focused on the culture of the day and social issues, so von Ranke's ideas were quite radical. To von Ranke's mind, history was a science that had many qualities of an art, not the other way around. Sources had to be solid, not mere ideas and speculations, and primary sources needed to have vetted authenticity. Something he stressed in his works was to "write history the way it was," ("Historiography", 2013) but he did his own version of selective writing. Many historians before von Ranke had tended to focus on how events were cyclical, citing the rise and fall of nations, empires, rulers and other figures, but von Ranke wanted to break away from universal history. Instead, he nationalized history, keeping with the popular views of the day, and separated the history of one's own country, insomuch as to merely emphasize that nation in regards to how and where it fits into the history of the world. This would lead to a spin-off science as well, later known as sociology, but at the time it was still considered a subset of historiography.

Von Ranke's ideas stayed relatively isolated in German for many years, but they began to spread, slowly but surely. One of the people that agreed with von Ranke was the 20^th century French historian Ferdinand Braudel, one of the leaders of the famed Annales School. Braudel picked up on von Ranke's notion to turn historiography into an art-like science, making it less subjective and requiring distinctly measureable evidence, something that is still stressed to up and coming historians to this day. He also wanted to broaden the historiographer's view, but not in the traditional sense: he wanted expand the nationalist type of history as put forward by von Ranke. Adding geographic relations, socio-economic aspects and other topics, he stressed a longer look at history, not just the short, event-focused style popular at the time. His fellow Frenchmen began to pick up his ideas and expand on them even further, with historians like Michel Foucault and Philippe Aries beginning to look at the historicity of seemingly mundane everyday subjects like sex and death – two subjects French always seem to be willing to talk about, no matter their profession. But this led to another genre of history, sometimes known as 'microhistory', that was pursued by some in Braudel's Annales School. ("Religion and Politics in 19th Century America", 1990)

At this point, the entire field began to open up, with people able to study the history of anything and its relation to anyone. One of those is 'musicology', or the historical study of music. Even though it had its own roots laid down by the historians of the Enlightenment in the 17^th century, somewhat removed from historiography itself, it really began to flourish and blossom in the 19^th century. The pragmatic knowledge of the music of the past was added to immensely, and the gradual growth of the field rocketed into relative prominence, and merely added to the desire to return to romanticism popular at the time. ("Acta Musicologica: Patterns in the Historiography of 19th-Century Music", 1970)

In short, historiography is a field of growth. It is an art just as much as it is a science, and the open, inquisitive, and determined minds of anyone can revolutionize the field. Recording and reconstructing our history is a vital part of a historians job, but all is moot if he or she is not willing to take a chance and chase a theory. 

References

Acta Musicologica: Patterns in the Historiography of 19th-Century Music. (1970). JSTOR. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/932271

Historiography. (2013). In Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/267436/historiography

Religion and Politics in 19th Century America: Historiography as a Teaching Resource. (1990, September). ERIC – World’s largest digital library of education literature. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ415734&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ415734

In Pursuit of the Past: The Classic Historians' Methods

History is a fascinating subject. It is full of stories, has its heroes and villains – though it's sometimes difficult to distinguish the two – its comedies and tragedies, its adventures and romances. History cannot be undone, and even if I don't know about it, or if there's no memory or record of it, history still happened. It defines our identities, both individually and as a nation. However, not all history is completely accurate; history is written by the victor, and it always is slanted and biased one way or another. But histories of nations were merely stories, tales passed orally from one generation to the next, so how did they become the glorious records we have today? How did the early Christian church look at history, versus their Greco-Roman counterparts?

Many cultures and civilizations sought to keep a record of their presence, leaving some sort of monument for future peoples. Usually it was a physical monument, like the Egyptian pharaohs' pyramids. But the Greeks took a different approach: they began to experiment with a monument of literature. They wanted to perfect a way to preserve the memories and histories in a more direct fashion, as opposed to previous civilizations. Roughly around the 5^th century BC, an entirely new literary genre was born: histories. Herodotus, usually considered the Father of History, was one of the first to venture into this previously-unknown field, and despite being a pioneer in the world of historical recording, his methods were subject to harsh criticism, even while alive. His writings – while captivating and entertaining – were less than factual, something that Thucydides, a peer at the time of Herodotus, criticized him for rather severely. Thucydides preferred a more investigative method, trying to discover the truth of what actually occurred. He wanted his writings to be informative, to educate rather than to entertain. These two men set the tone for Greek historical writing, and while each subsequent writer had his own style of documentation, nearly every one mirrored either Herodotus or Thucydides in some way. ("Greek Historians", n.d.)

However, the Hellenistic age of the world ended when Greece and her empire fell to the rapidly rising Romans. Much of the Grecian way of life and pursuit of philosophical interests was absorbed and assimilated by the Romans, and such was the case with history. Romans worshiped the same gods – albeit under different names – kept many of the same cultural traits and Roman historians modeled their works after the two main Greek methods, with one notable exception: Titus Flavius Josephus, otherwise known as Joseph ben Matityahu. Josephus was a Jew by birth, into both the priestly line – via his father – and the royal line – via his mother. Not much is known about his early life, but he was highly educated in both Jewish texts and Greek works, although he was, and is, often criticized for his faulty Greek grammar. A Judeo-Roman historiographer and hagiographer, Josephus was given command of the Galilean forces during the Great Revolt in 66-73 AD, but defected and offered to record the history of the Great Revolt. Then-general, and later emperor, Vespasian took him up on the offer, after Josephus claimed Jewish prophecies that lead to the revolt also made mention of Vespasian becoming emperor, and thus Josephus began to record a first hand, eyewitness account of the fall of Jerusalem. These accounts were most certainly biased, since he was writing for arguable the most powerful man in the Roman Empire at the time; however, he mentions on several occasions that he also wrote an Aramaic version of the uprising, that might possibly had been less biased, or at least slanted to the Jewish side of the conflict. But copies of the Aramaic history have been lost in the vast expanse of time, and are yet to be discovered. Vespasian must have liked what he read, because he brought Josephus back to Rome with him, where Josephus wrote The Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities, the latter of which described the complete history of the Jewish people. Despite its exhaustive nature, including a great deal of information about Alexander the Great's conquests and the destruction of the Second Temple, Josephus was accused of relying too heavily on legend and hearsay -- much like the Grecian historians he was instructed on, so he is often discredited on some subjects. ("Josephus Flavius", 2003)

Lastly, early Christian historians were few and far between, at least as we today think of historians. Since most of the New Testament authors were not classically trained, not many were learned in the ways of historiography. However, the Gospel writer Luke was one of the few with extensive training, and could be considered the first true Christian historian. ("A Christian Approach to History", n.d.) Luke wrote his works for the records of "most honorable Theophilus", writing for posterity and to clarify any mistakes or false notions that the aforementioned hearsay might have implanted in Theophilus' mind. This was unique in and of itself, since Luke was writing not to entertain, but to educate using facts in a easily comprehensible, something previous historians hadn't done, whether Greek or Roman. ("Behind Luke's Gospel", n.d.) It was in essence a biography, beginning Jesus' earthly tale with the political climate under Caesar Augustus, and merely following His life. There is some slant and bias to it, as there is with any historian's works, but it's incredibly fact-based for being religious writing, and set the tone for church scholars for years to come.

Overall, since the art of historiography was so new at the time, there wasn’t a set standard for any to follow. Some historians gave us credible histories, while some made great tales to read, but not so much to use for study. But all of them – Greek, Roman, Jewish and Christian – borrowed from each other, whether directly or indirectly. Modern historians should take all writings of the period with a proverbial grain of salt, but shouldn't discredit them entirely. In all legends, there is a small trace of truth, it's just up to us to find it.

References

A Christian Approach to History - Christian Homeschooling Resources. (n.d.). Christian Living Resources, Jesus Christ, Bible Study, Faith in God. Retrieved February 13, 2013, from http://www.crosswalk.com/family/homeschool/resources/a-christian-approach-to-history.html

Behind Luke's Gospel: The Roman Empire During the Time of Jesus. (n.d.). Patheos | Hosting the Conversation on Faith. Retrieved February 15, 2013, from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thepangeablog/articles/unpublished-papers/behind-lukes-gospel-the-roman-empire-during-the-time-of-jesus/

Greek Historians. (n.d.). College of Liberal Arts and Sciences | The University of Florida. Retrieved February 13, 2013, from http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/kapparis/GreekHistorians.html

Josephus Flavius. (2003). Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved February 12, 2013, from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Josephus.html

Where East Meets West: Europe and the Ottomans

In the 19^th Century, the Ottoman Empire was dying. Plagued by wars, civil unrest and revolts, and outside meddling, the Ottomans turned to Europe for help. However, the driving force behind a nation's foreign policies at the time were – and still are – the aims of the nation, not whichever country they are supposedly assisting. This is perfectly personified in the Russian Empire's diplomatic reaching out to the failing Ottoman Empire.

Russia, who themselves had begun to emulate western European nations, reached out to the Ottomans, but not in the way one would think. In spite of the Islamic Turks being just as distrusted as the European Catholics, the Russo-Turkish War gave the Russians a considerable hold on the Black Sea, and thus, a border with the Ottomans. ("Russian-Ottoman Relations: The Origins 1600-1800", n.d.) These were later lost in one of the Crimean Wars, where the British and French staved off Russian expansion – fearful Russia would also become a major power in the Near East and breaking the monopoly both England and France shared – and gave the Ottomans a respite. Unfortunately, the Ottoman sultan at the time of World War I sided with the Germans, effectively driving the British and French into Russia's arms, with defensive agreements forming as early as 1904 and again in 1907. (Agoston, n.d.) The sultan also was forced to forfeit Tunisia to the French, along with Cyprus becoming a British holding. This, coupled with further revolts and unrest in Egypt, continued to weaken the already frail Ottoman Empire. (Weatherby, 2012) This whole time, the czars have been slowly modernizing Russia, with selective reforms turning it into a European nation with the potential to become a major player on the political map.

All these factors fed the fire that became the Russian nobility's goals: modernization, and conquest. And who better to expand upon than the ever-weakening neighbor to the south, the Ottomans? Who's very capital, Istanbul, was coveted by the czars, and claimed to be their own through the Russian Orthodox Church? Czar Alexander even planned to move the capital of Russia to Istanbul after he captured it, renaming it Czargrad and reviving the old Roman Empire. (Weatherby, 2012) But the Ottomans were not out of the fight, and a nearly constant territorial war ensued, with Russia merely copying the tactics and technology of western nations, which they had easier access to than the Turks. However, in spite of being superior to the decaying Ottoman Empire, Russia was still competing with their former WWI allies to fill the ever-growing power void being left by the diminishing Turks. Nonetheless, the czars had a considerable advantage, as they were able to devote more men and resources to the Ottomans, since there were no other nations who had plans for Russia – with the exception of Napoleon, or the Poles during the Time of Troubles under Ivan the Terrible. It was Napoleon's advance that caused a cease-fire between the Russians and Turks, with the two factions even going so far as to create a temporary alliance.

But the uneasy peace was not meant to last. Overall, the Russians were more prepared to handle the drastic changes coming in the 20^th Century, and while wresting Turkish land was never easy, the fading Ottomans were discounted by the Russians, never being considered a serious adversary. Unlike Western Europe, the Turks quite simply didn't have the resources to launch a successful offensive on the Russians, so the czars held – rightly so – that they could just pick apart the Ottoman Empire at their leisure. And if their carnivorous approach to the Ottomans was not interrupted by the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia's appetite for expansion may have never been sated.

References

Agoston, G. (n.d.). Military Transformation in the Ottoman Empire and Russia, 1500-1800. Academia.edu - Share research. Retrieved February 3, 2013, from http://www.academia.edu/596738/_Military_Transformation_in_the_Ottoman_Empire_and_Russia_1500-1800

Russian-Ottoman Relations: The Origins 1600-1800. (n.d.). digento - Fachhandel fuer digitale Medien - Homepage. Retrieved February 4, 2013, from http://www.digento.de/titel/104485.html

Weatherby III, E. (2012, February 27). The Fall of the Ottomans. Pipe N' Slippers. Retrieved February 3, 2013, from http://pipenslippers.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/the-fall-of-the-ottomans/

Ancient Meets Modern Where the East Meets West

The year is 1839. The Ottoman Empire is dying. Mahmud II, Ottoman Emperor at the time, realized this harsh reality, and recognized that the Ottomans needed a reformation to survive. Multiple crises were erupting across the Empire, both domestic emergencies and threats from outside the borders, something had to be done, and it had to be both drastic and rapid. Enter, the 'Tanzimat'. Turkish for "reorganization", the Tanzimat was the building blocks for the modernization of the Ottoman empire. But was it effective? Or merely too little, too late?

First implemented in November of 1839, the Tanzimat was the first real attempt by a Muslim world power to change into something more civilized and Western. The reformist sultan Mahmud II first started the changes, which were applied gradually until 1876, and were the brainchild of the Great Mustafa Rashid Pasha. The reforms were directed at taking the Ottoman Empire in a more secular direction, and bringing the Empire alongside other European nations in both mindset and technology. Some changes were purely cosmetic, almost symbolic in their casting off of the old way of life: military uniforms and the formal dress of the ruling class were two of these. However, most of the reforms issued in the Hatt-al Serif of Gulhane, or "Noble Edict of the Rose Chamber", established institutions that were previously unheard of in the Muslim world, institutions that would assure a security of life, property, honor and more, to every person living in within their borders, Muslim or not.

Some discounted the reforms as merely attempting to garner European approval and support, pointing to the Armenian Genocide – which the Ottoman government claimed was due to World War I – and reports that taxes to allow non-Muslims into the Turkish army were simply rebranded and kept, but for the most part, the reforms were as they seemed to be. The army was recreated into a modern day force – albeit influenced heavily by the French, bureaucracies were centralized, justice and education systems were rejuvenated and secularized. Copious public work projects sought to the infrastructure and physical appearance of the Empire, while new cities, rail lines, roads and telegraph lines were constructed in a European fashion.

Overall, the Tanzimat was paramount for the Ottoman Empire, but not enough to save it. It was not in vain, however, because it laid the groundwork for modern-day Turkey, who remains one of the West's staunchest allies in the entire Middle East to this day.

References

Akgun, S. (n.d.). The Emergence of Tanzimat in the Ottman Empire. Ankara Üniversitesi Dergiler Veritabanı. Retrieved February 3, 2013, from http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/19/834/10541.pdf

Era of Modern Reform: The Tanzimat. (n.d.). Countries Quest. Retrieved February 3, 2013, from http://www.countriesquest.com/middle_east/turkey/history/era_of_modern_reform/the_tanzimat.htm

Tanzimat (Ottoman reform movement). (2013). Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 1, 2013, from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/582884/Tanzimat

 

The Aftermath in Antebellum America

The American Civil War the bloodiest, most devastating conflict ever witnessed in the history of this young nation, with casualties surpassing one million overall, exceeding all other wars combined that Americans had been involved in, up to Vietnam. This war brought about base alterations to the way of life, and the very thinking of a nation, permanently changing the economic, political, and social structures thought to be secure at that time. Some of the changes were good, others not as much, but we as Americans are still feeling the impact from the Civil War to this very day, decades after the last surviving veteran of that awful, bloody clash passed away.

If you were to ask most people today what the biggest, lasting impact the Civil War had on America, they would most likely reply with something about freedom for the slaves. However, this is not the case, as this writer will explain later in the paper. Slavery was abolished due to the Civil War, yes, but it really was a minor player until the latter half of the conflict. Even without slavery being in effect, the amount of racism prevalent in the South after the war was as bad – if not worse – than before, since many of the plantation owners sought to reassert their control over the region, keeping the freed blacks on the bottom rung of the social ladder. Slavery had been such a pivotal part of the South's economy, that trying to cope without it was a struggle for many, so they fell into slightly modified versions of their old habits. This was only partially successful for them, as the very social system of the South was undermined by the Emancipation Proclamation and Reconstruction, and the social institutions that had long ruled the South were no longer pertinent. ("Race and segregation,") Eventually, the radical white supremacists would come to power in the South, leading to a civil rights battle that continued on to the 1960's, and to an extent, this very day.

An even bigger change brought about by the Civil War was that of economic control given to the Federal government. The National Bank Acts of 1863, '64 and '65 created a uniform currency, and forced any state-run banks to join the national system, something that former President Andrew Jackson had fought so hard against. These acts would eventually lay the groundwork for the private bank known today as the Federal Reserve System, or the Fed. The government, now with newfound control over the economics of the nation, began to pour money into businesses they thought fit, and to industrialize both the North and the antebellum South. A "Second Industrial Revolution" was sparked, with the Federal government rerouting money into public transportation – especially railroads – and also into communication, to allow for both easier and swifter transportation and contact with the Southern overseers. In addition, the government also strong-armed their choices for manufacturing and other businesses into power, mainly by tariffs, favorable loans and various subsidies. However, this did unify the recovering nation's economy, bringing the capitalist's market system into the South, finally doing away with their agrarian, semi-sustenance economy. The gears of industry had finally found their way into the South, and with the support of large, established economic enterprises, were there to stay.

 This industrialization of the South was primarily put into effect by President Abraham Lincoln, under his 10% Plan, but upon his assassination by John Wilkes Booth, Vice President Andrew Johnson – a Democrat from Tennessee – took over the Reconstruction process. Johnson seemed to take up the mantle of his predecessor well, but then seemed to give in to the radical Northerners by publicly attacking planter aristocracy of the South, and maintaining that those who participated in the rebellion should be punished. He decided not to enforce Lincoln's plan, instead implementing much harsher terms, disenfranchising all former military and civil officers of the Confederacy – not just the major players, as Lincoln's plan had – and anyone who owned Southern property worth $20,000 or more. To add seeming insult to injury, President Johnson made all of their estates liable to confiscation. (Weatherby, 2011) He justified this by saying it was to force a necessary shift in political and social power, from the old plantation aristocracy to smaller, localized artisans and farmers, and it would cause an essential alteration in Southern society.

So, with Congress adjourning from April to December 1865, Johnson implemented his plan using the interim governors he appointed. The Southern states were all required to hold conventions that either repealed or voided their declarations of secession, acknowledged the abolishment of slavery, and – with the exception of South Carolina – renounced all Confederate debts. The newly elected legislators from these states, excluding Mississippi, then ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, assuring freedom for all freed blacks. By the end of that year, every former Confederate state except Texas had reestablished a fully-functioning, autonomous civil government.

In short, the South would be a much different place, even today, if Booth hadn't assassinated Lincoln. The term "Reconstruction" implies that it was merely fixed, just put back together the way it was before. That, quite frankly, is not the case. The South was broken completely to its core, and was rebuilt from the ground up, forever changing a Southerner's way of life, even to this very day. Was it Lincoln's, or even Johnson's intention to fundamentally shift the groundwork upon which an entire region was constructed? Was it their wish to see a people have to completely start over with their way of living? This writer would assert both yes, and no. It was their intention to break the South's dependency upon slaves, and to begin the industrialization of the region; however, it was never their intention to crush the people in a way to make them resentful. Even to this very day, the flag of the Confederacy may be seen flying in various locations in the South, and an intense irritation when certain memoirs of the Civil War are displayed or played, proof of a deep-seated anger and resentment for what they consider to be a mishandling of the Reconstruction after the War. But it was merely the product of fallible men, doing what they believed was best for their country.

References

Discuss the Political, Social, and Economic Impact of the Civil War on the US. (2010, 12). StudyMode.com. Retrieved from http://www.studymode.com/essays/Discuss-The-Political-Social-And-Economic-521346.html

Race and Segregation in Post Civil War America. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://instruct.westvalley.edu/kelly/Distance_Learning/History_17B/Lecture02/Lecture02_p01.htm

Weatherby, E. (2011, December 19). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://pipenslippers.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/social-and-economic-reconstruction/

The Ten Percent

The "10% Reconstruction Plan" was introduced by Abraham Lincoln in December 1863. It was essentially a pattern to restore the Rebel states back into the Union, once the fighting had ceased and the Union declared victory. Under this plan, Lincoln laid out how the South would be rebuilt, physically, economically and socially, and then eventually bring back the rebellious states back into the fold of the Union. Unfortunately, this plan would never get the chance to be put into effect, since Lincoln's assassination by John Wilkes Booth thrust Andrew Johnson into power, and gave Johnson the ability to implement his own plan.

President Lincoln's design to rehabilitate the South began with the decree that would give it the nickname "10% plan": if 10% of the population of a Rebel state – according to the 1860 voter roll – would take an oath of allegiance and pledge to abide by the Emancipation Proclamation and 14^th Amendment, they would be repatriated into the Union. (Mintz) That 10% would then be allowed to elect delegates to craft new state constitutions and governments, provided they recognized the abolition of slavery, and anyone save Confederate government officials and high-ranking military officers would be eligible for a full pardon from the President. One of the most attractive – to the Southerners – yet controversial – to Congress – moves by Lincoln was to guarantee that all of the South's citizens would have their private property protected, with the exception of slaves. (Foner) Most of the more moderate Republican in the Senate and House of Representatives supported this whole-heartedly, since they wanted to just end the conflict, much to the chagrin of the more hardened partisans, who wanted to punish the South with an iron hand.

It was primarily a political move, and in Lincoln's eyes, it would bring about a faster end to the war, by encouraging the populace of the South to abandon the rebel cause, and strengthening the North's resolve by giving them the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel. However, Congress wanted citizens to take an oath of loyalty before being repatriated, and said that not just 10%, but 50% of the voters should be required to take this oath before being allowed statehood again. This clash of ideas begged the question: who should make the policies for the Reconstruction? Congress, or the President? The Democrats in the Congressional houses, who were clamoring the loudest for a truce and peaceful solution, were initially unopposed to Lincoln's plan, but then claimed that the Legislative Branch should be the ones to create the terms of Reconstruction. Hardline Republicans agreed with this, but only because they felt the terms needed to be stricter, to punish the South for seceding. They feared the rise of the plantation aristocracy once again, and that blacks would be forced back into slavery or virtual slavery, by being kept on the bottom rung of the social ladder. Because of this, in spite of Tennessee, Louisiana and Arkansas electing officials and ratifying constitutions that met all of Lincoln's requirements, Congress rejected them, even though the received presidential approval. Those self same hardline, radical Republicans presented the Wade-Davis Bill as an alternative to the 10% Plan, and it was strong armed through both houses of the legislature. They had hoped to wrest control of the restoration process, and fundamentally transform the society of the South, disbanding the established plantation aristocracy, redistribute the land, develop industry, and guarantee civil liberties – though not a vote – for former slaves, and in spite of being a minority in the Republican party, managed to sway enough of their fellow GOP members to pass the Wade-Davis Bill. This bill incorporated the 50% requirement thought necessary, and the so-called "ironclad oath" swearing allegiance to the Union of the United States. But thanks to the system of checks and balances integrated into the framework of our nation, Lincoln pocket-vetoed the bill, letting it simply expire on his desk. It is interesting to note that if Congress had waited until after the election to pass the bill, Lincoln might have possibly considered it. As it stood, however, he would've appeared as a uncompromising, partisan radical who wasn't interested in ending the war quickly.  (Phillips)

The 10% plan had begun to be implemented under Lincoln, with certain aspects of it being run by the military, and some from the civilian sector, as Lincoln authorized several of his wartime generals to resettle former slaves on confiscated lands. For example, General William T. Sherman’s Special Field Order No. 15 set aside land in South Carolina and islands off the coast of Georgia for roughly 40,000 former slaves. To counter this, and in retaliation for the veto of the Wade-Davis Bill, Congress established the Freedmen's Bureau, and it was only slightly more successful than the failed bill. Many in the South regarded it as little more than a nuisance, and most considered it a threat to the very way of life in the recovering states. The southern aristocracy saw the bureau as a northern attempt to redistribute their lands to former slaves and resisted the Freedmen’s Bureau from its beginning, and more than a few plantation owners intimidated the former slaves into giving up their land, while others bribed the Bureau officials, who would then turn a blind eye to the abuse of the freed blacks. Despite the debauchery to be found in the department, the Freedmen's Bureau did manage to establish schools for the blacks, giving nearly 250,000 freed slaves access to education.

Unfortunately, the crazed, deranged schemes of John Wilkes Booth never gave the country a chance to see Lincoln's 10% Plan to be fully implemented, even though Lincoln and Congress were heading to a political showdown. After Lincoln's death the day after he was shot, it vaulted Vice President Andrew Johnson – a Tennessee Democrat who didn't care for Lincoln's plan at all – into power.

References

Foner, Eric. Forever Free: The Story of Emancipation & Reconstruction. New York: Vintage Books, 2005.

Mintz, R. (n.d.). Oracle thinkquest. Retrieved from http://library.thinkquest.org/J0112391/reconstruction.htm

Phillips, B. (n.d.). Spark notes. Retrieved from http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/reconstruction/section1.rhtml

Ethics of a Historian

When people think of ethical problems in certain fields, usually history isn't a primary topic. Professions like nursing or business have the highest profile ethical debates, but history doesn't get the prevalence it should. History makes people who they are, and holds key insights as to where they're headed. But history can easily be twisted, and recorded differently than remembered, and used to further an agenda, merely because one historian was willing to violate his ethics to promote his bias.

Many claim that historians, like scientists or journalists, are unbiased. This is not the case, however, because in both fields, men lean one direction or another based on their worldviews. Worldviews filter the vision of each individual, much like sunglasses filter the sun. Facts, data, opinions and any other information are viewed and interpreted based off the ways in which your point of view has been shaped, by the era and culture in which you were born and raised, by your education, and by the expectations of the communities to which you belong, both by choice and by birth. This poses an ethical problem, however: if historians are supposed to be objective, how can we do that when our starting point is tainted by our worldviews? How can two historians who unearth the same data or historical evidence – whether it be an artifact or manuscript or what have you – and come up with two vastly different results? The answer is simple: bias stemming from your worldview. As much as any historian, scientist, journalist or any other supposedly unbiased professional would hate to admit it, everyone has their biases. An example that has been used with prevalence in some historical circles is that of a pair of archaeologists, unearthing the fossilized remains of a dinosaur of some kind. One man states with absolute certainty that it died millions of years ago, somehow being protected from scavengers while slowly buried by river sediment. Another man, an archaeologist with the same level of education, but a different background, would look at the exact same remains, yet claim that they were buried rapidly, with some aquatic, cataclysmic event – such as a worldwide flood – and that the vast amounts of sediment displaced sealed away the specimen for a few thousand years, until being unearthed today. Sadly, the worst part about this example is that, with a rare exception, both archaeologists would deny they were being biased, yet would accuse the other of the very thing. If both men could stand up and be willing to acknowledge their prejudices, civil discourse, and an increase in knowledge, would ensue.

Acknowledging one's biases and preconceived notions is the first step in overcoming them, as painful or seemingly unprofessional this may be. Admitting bias also means admitting biases in your sources as well. Just as the historian has bias, those who came before and recorded history had biases as well. The historian Josephus would record an event in one manner, being a Jew, while Philo Judaeus would record the same event completely differently, being a secular contemporary. If you understand that everyone has bias, and you declare that, then all your work can be taken as it should – with the proverbial grain of salt.

If you don't admit your bias, though, you will begin to sacrifice other ethical considerations on the altar of partisanship: ignoring contrary evidence, theories and views, for one. By shouting down the opposition, overlooking a bit of evidence that doesn't quite line up with your theory or just submitting to the established order of things because it's the "proper" thing to do, you lose credibility, and your argument will lack a foundation. As iron sharpens iron, a challenging view or opposing theory will strengthen your own, in a make or break situation.

Any number of philosophical theories could be translated to suit a comeback for these dilemmas, whether it be a utilitarianist view, a relativist view, or even normative and virtue ethics; for the sake of the argument, however, deontology will be chosen, since it seems to be most applicable in this situation. Since deontology stresses the importance of duty to the 'rules' above all else, it's extremely apt for a historian in his, or her, field. Deontology at its core means that we are duty-bound, and in order for a historian to do his or her best work, they must adhere to the duties placed upon them, namely, objectivity and honesty. This field, like any science, is no place for consequentialism, because historians are to act morally right, not based on the consequences or their own personal virtues, but because it is required of them. Honesty is expected, regardless of the outcome. It doesn't matter if the end result just falls in line with every other historical thesis, or if it sets the world of historians on its proverbial head, so long as it is reached through honest means, accepting all evidence, and giving full merit to all opposing theories. By accepting his or her own bias, and being willing to place duty over that bias, the modern historian can begin to break away from the establishment and their status quo, and promote free thought among all branches of history: from the Indiana Jones-esque archaeologist to the lowliest lab tech, to the student getting his proverbial foot in the door.

History is, unfortunately, a rather overlooked branch of study in modern culture. There isn't vast amounts of wealth to be made, not a permanent celebrity status if you become successful, or even a reasonable standard of becoming successful. But it is a unique area of study, because to have a part in it, you must truly love it. And if you do truly love it, doing your duty to keep it intellectually sound, and morally straight, won't be a cumbersome, inconvenient bother, but something that you strive to accomplish every waking hour. It is a historian's duty, yes, but it is also a historian's passion. And that is why all historians need to keep each other accountable, sharpening and testing one another, and ever increasing their thirst for knowledge and unlocking the secrets of mankind's past.