超越内战史的边缘

IF 0.2 4区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY
L. Frank
{"title":"超越内战史的边缘","authors":"L. Frank","doi":"10.1353/rah.2022.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Thirty years ago, historian Drew Gilpin Faust transformed Civil War history by using the experiences of women to answer one of the field’s most central questions. In an essay in the Journal of American History and then a few years later in her award-winning Mothers of Invention (1996), Faust connected the declining morale of slaveholding women to the ultimate defeat of the Confederate army. The Confederacy lost, she explained, because the white women who put themselves on “Altars of Sacrifice” (1990) to sustain it ultimately withdrew their support. Despite longstanding assumptions to the contrary, men, machinery, and troop movements could not explain everything. Throughout the 1990s, other scholars similarly argued that women were more than inconsequential spectators to or victims of the war. Catherine Clinton, Tera W. Hunter, Elizabeth D. Leonard, George C. Rable, Leslie A. Schwalm, Nina Silber, and LeeAnn Whites, to name a few, demonstrated that women indelibly altered the course of the Civil War. In addition to expanding the questions and shape of Civil War historiography, these scholars took direct aim at the terrain occupied by traditional military historians. They showed how wives shaped the tactical decisions of their officer husbands; how Black women’s actions dictated the course of emancipation; how women of all regions and backgrounds fueled supply lines and recruitment efforts; and how officers chose strategies and tactics that accounted for the white and Black civilians they knew they would encounter. The field flourished and the scholarship that followed “[bridged] the artificial gap separating military history from women and gender studies—a gap that did not exist for the participants.”1 A Campaign of Giants: The Battle for Petersburg, Volume One, From the Crossing of the James to the Crater, the first volume of A. Wilson Greene’s proposed trilogy, boldly claims it will ultimately create the most comprehensive exploration of the campaign to date. However, a generation after these award-winning studies of gender, women, and war, the 726 page-volume feels as incomplete as it is long. Greene’s exclusion of white and Black women from his analysis","PeriodicalId":43597,"journal":{"name":"REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY","volume":"50 1","pages":"48 - 55"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond the Outskirts of Civil War History\",\"authors\":\"L. Frank\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/rah.2022.0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Thirty years ago, historian Drew Gilpin Faust transformed Civil War history by using the experiences of women to answer one of the field’s most central questions. In an essay in the Journal of American History and then a few years later in her award-winning Mothers of Invention (1996), Faust connected the declining morale of slaveholding women to the ultimate defeat of the Confederate army. The Confederacy lost, she explained, because the white women who put themselves on “Altars of Sacrifice” (1990) to sustain it ultimately withdrew their support. Despite longstanding assumptions to the contrary, men, machinery, and troop movements could not explain everything. Throughout the 1990s, other scholars similarly argued that women were more than inconsequential spectators to or victims of the war. Catherine Clinton, Tera W. Hunter, Elizabeth D. Leonard, George C. Rable, Leslie A. Schwalm, Nina Silber, and LeeAnn Whites, to name a few, demonstrated that women indelibly altered the course of the Civil War. In addition to expanding the questions and shape of Civil War historiography, these scholars took direct aim at the terrain occupied by traditional military historians. They showed how wives shaped the tactical decisions of their officer husbands; how Black women’s actions dictated the course of emancipation; how women of all regions and backgrounds fueled supply lines and recruitment efforts; and how officers chose strategies and tactics that accounted for the white and Black civilians they knew they would encounter. The field flourished and the scholarship that followed “[bridged] the artificial gap separating military history from women and gender studies—a gap that did not exist for the participants.”1 A Campaign of Giants: The Battle for Petersburg, Volume One, From the Crossing of the James to the Crater, the first volume of A. Wilson Greene’s proposed trilogy, boldly claims it will ultimately create the most comprehensive exploration of the campaign to date. However, a generation after these award-winning studies of gender, women, and war, the 726 page-volume feels as incomplete as it is long. Greene’s exclusion of white and Black women from his analysis\",\"PeriodicalId\":43597,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY\",\"volume\":\"50 1\",\"pages\":\"48 - 55\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/rah.2022.0006\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"REVIEWS IN AMERICAN HISTORY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/rah.2022.0006","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

30年前,历史学家德鲁·吉尔平·浮士德利用女性的经历来回答该领域最核心的问题之一,从而改变了内战历史。在《美国历史杂志》上的一篇文章中,以及几年后她获奖的《发明之母》(1996)中,浮士德将蓄奴妇女士气的下降与邦联军队的最终失败联系起来。她解释说,邦联之所以失败,是因为那些把自己放在“牺牲祭坛”(1990年)上以维持邦联的白人女性最终撤回了他们的支持。尽管长期以来的假设与此相反,但人员、机械和部队调动并不能解释一切。在整个20世纪90年代,其他学者也同样认为,女性不仅仅是战争的无关紧要的旁观者或受害者。凯瑟琳·克林顿(Catherine Clinton)、特拉·W·亨特(Tera W.Hunter)、伊丽莎白·D·伦纳德(Elizabeth D.Leonard)、乔治·C·拉布尔(George C.Rable。除了拓展内战史学的问题和形态外,这些学者还直接瞄准了传统军事历史学家所占据的领域。他们展示了妻子如何塑造军官丈夫的战术决策;黑人妇女的行为如何决定了解放的进程;所有地区和背景的妇女如何推动供应线和招聘工作;以及军官们如何选择策略和战术,以应对他们知道会遇到的白人和黑人平民。该领域蓬勃发展,随后的学术研究“弥合了军事史与女性和性别研究之间的人为差距——这一差距对参与者来说并不存在。”,大胆地宣称,它最终将创造迄今为止对这场运动最全面的探索。然而,在这些关于性别、女性和战争的获奖研究一代人之后,这本726页的书感觉既不完整又长。格林在分析中对白人和黑人女性的排斥
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Beyond the Outskirts of Civil War History
Thirty years ago, historian Drew Gilpin Faust transformed Civil War history by using the experiences of women to answer one of the field’s most central questions. In an essay in the Journal of American History and then a few years later in her award-winning Mothers of Invention (1996), Faust connected the declining morale of slaveholding women to the ultimate defeat of the Confederate army. The Confederacy lost, she explained, because the white women who put themselves on “Altars of Sacrifice” (1990) to sustain it ultimately withdrew their support. Despite longstanding assumptions to the contrary, men, machinery, and troop movements could not explain everything. Throughout the 1990s, other scholars similarly argued that women were more than inconsequential spectators to or victims of the war. Catherine Clinton, Tera W. Hunter, Elizabeth D. Leonard, George C. Rable, Leslie A. Schwalm, Nina Silber, and LeeAnn Whites, to name a few, demonstrated that women indelibly altered the course of the Civil War. In addition to expanding the questions and shape of Civil War historiography, these scholars took direct aim at the terrain occupied by traditional military historians. They showed how wives shaped the tactical decisions of their officer husbands; how Black women’s actions dictated the course of emancipation; how women of all regions and backgrounds fueled supply lines and recruitment efforts; and how officers chose strategies and tactics that accounted for the white and Black civilians they knew they would encounter. The field flourished and the scholarship that followed “[bridged] the artificial gap separating military history from women and gender studies—a gap that did not exist for the participants.”1 A Campaign of Giants: The Battle for Petersburg, Volume One, From the Crossing of the James to the Crater, the first volume of A. Wilson Greene’s proposed trilogy, boldly claims it will ultimately create the most comprehensive exploration of the campaign to date. However, a generation after these award-winning studies of gender, women, and war, the 726 page-volume feels as incomplete as it is long. Greene’s exclusion of white and Black women from his analysis
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Reviews in American History provides an effective means for scholars and students of American history to stay up to date in their discipline. Each issue presents in-depth reviews of over thirty of the newest books in American history. Retrospective essays examining landmark works by major historians are also regularly featured. The journal covers all areas of American history including economics, military history, women in history, law, political history and philosophy, religion, social history, intellectual history, and cultural history. Readers can expect continued coverage of both traditional and new subjects of American history, always blending the recognition of recent developments with the ongoing importance of the core matter of the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信