The analysis of the American Civil War requires the observation of various views to understand how different scientists regard the causes, progress, and the consequences of the conflict. The historical perspective of the scholars contributes crucially to their specific choices of ideas, methods, and evidence of the research. Consequently, comparing and contrasting the authors’ views might provide the chance to understand how the beliefs influence the analysis. Hall, Huff, and Kuriwaki (2019, 658) examine the role of financial prosperity in the readiness of the soldiers to participate in the conflict. Turner’s (2017, 195) review explores the religious and cultural aspect, assuming that the British favored the South due to the similarity in their religious beliefs. Although the two articles are similar in the choices of social concepts and methods of study, they differ in the approaches to the existing historical investigations and their perspectives.
The review of the thesis, evidence, and perspective of the research provides the opportunity to understand what aspect of history of the United States it examines. It is necessary to determine the thesis of Hall, Huff, and Kuriwaki’s (2019, 658) research. The main point presented in the article is that slave ownership played an essential role in the increased desire of the soldiers to fight the war. The scholars use such evidence as data on different citizens of the Southern part of the country concerning their financial state and the lottery information (Hall, Huff, and Kuriwaki 2019, 660). This material allows them to develop the perspective of the significance of the soldier’s socioeconomic status.
The finances determined the interests of wealthy citizens of the United States because the character of this war was related to the stability of their business, depending on slave ownership. Mainly, since this war was associated with the questions of slavery and the economic opportunities that slavery provided for the slave-owners, the factor of financial status seemed reasonably crucial.
The second article’s thesis is connected with the idea that religious and cultural similarities of the British and the Confederate Americans defined the support that the United Kingdom provided to the South. Turner (2017, 195) uses various materials and information about the ideas of the churchman Alexander James Beresford Hope as evidence of the views of the British that had a relation to the conflict (Turner 2017, 196). The author chooses this person because he was a recognized church leader and can be viewed as an example of the views of the British of those times. The scholar’s perspective concerns his focus on the role of religion in the formation of people’s attitudes. He assumes that not only traditionally observed political and economic factors define the interests of the British but also their religious views. Thus, the paper’s central theme is the analysis of the role of the additional cultural concept in people’s attitudes towards the war.
The comparison of theses, evidence, and perspectives reveals that these two scholarly articles have some similarities. Primarily, both analyses emphasize the importance of the opinions and interests in shaping the point of view about two sides of the conflict. In particular, they both observe the Confederate side to understand what factors define the intentions of different people to support the South but not the North. In addition, the similarities between these studies are based on their focus on the people living during that era. For instance, Hall, Huff, and Kuriwaki (2019, 660) concentrate their interest on “dataset records information” about the free citizens of the South.
Turner (2017, 195), comparatively, applies the primary sources containing that information about Hope and his views. This emphasis on the primary sources allows the researchers to make their unique conclusions about the role of the viewpoint in forming the citizens’ position. Consequently, the authors’ perspectives have some close features because both articles use the view of the role of the beliefs and interests in favoring the Confederates.
Although the two investigations have some common characteristics, they also differ in some aspects. Mainly, the analysis of the role of wealth focuses on explaining the connection between financial interests and the desire to fight. On the other hand, the second paper emphasizes people’s religious beliefs, demonstrating the significance of faith. The next dissimilarity concerns the author’s choice of the sample. Principally, Hall, Huff, and Kuriwaki (2019, 660) regard those directly connected to the events because they were the United States citizens. Turner (2017, 197), on the contrary, chooses a person that observes the situation from the position of a distant viewer.
Hope, on the other hand, did not participate in the conflict directly. Finally, the observations of the historical perspectives of the scholars reveal the differences. For instance, the authors of the article about wealthy Southerners demonstrate that their position is different from the traditional view regarding the role of prosperity in participating in the conflict (Hall, Huff, and Kuriwaki 2019, 660). Turner (2017, 197) contrarily chooses to add his ideas to the conventional beliefs. These facts reveal that the authors have different historical perspectives associated with their view of the previous studies.
Both these studies reflect social history explaining what role various concepts have in the American Civil War. The scholars choose the qualitative methods of research to define the social aspects of the conflict. Remarkably, they regard the population of the country and the views of the churchman to understand how their status might determine the processes in history. They use the orientation on the material factors and cultural specifics of the conflict to display how society influences the development of the war. Mainly, Hall, Huff, and Kuriwaki (2019, 659) address the concept of economic factor using it to explain that it can affect armed conflicts differently than the traditional history might consider.
For instance, they explain that usually, the historical research reveals that wealthier people aspire to avoid wars (Hall, Huff, and Kuriwaki 2019, 661). However, their investigation makes them conclude that when the social context is considered, such a concept as financial status becomes essential. Turner (2017, 197) also stresses the role of religion as the social aspect of the citizens’ views progress. Therefore, although their approaches are related, considering the social point of the analysis, they differ in their views.
Thus, two scholarly analyses have common features because they regard the social aspects of war development and use similar observation methods, but they vary in assessing the previous studies. Both studies view the social concepts of material security and religious beliefs examining the data concerning people living in those times. However, the research that observes the wealthy Americans assumes that the previous observations demonstrate that prosperity makes the citizens avoid engaging in the conflict. However, their findings reveal that the Civil War situation differs because its characteristics make the wealthy soldiers join the army.
At the same time, the analysis of the religious aspects adds to the previous investigations accepting the conclusions about the significance of the economic and political situation and emphasizing the religious component. These differences reveal that although the scholars may have similar study methods, their perspectives influence their choices and conclusions.
References
Hall, Andrew B., Connor Huff, and Shiro Kuriwaki. 2019. “Wealth, Slaveownership, And Fighting For The Confederacy: An Empirical Study Of The American Civil War”. American Political Science Review 113 (3): 658-673. Web.
Turner, Michael J. 2017. “British Sympathy For The South During The American Civil War And Reconstruction”. Church History And Religious Culture 97 (2): 195-219. Web.