The reading I found most interesting was The Differences Slavery Made.
In the conclusion of their Summary of Arguments, the authors state, “By encouraging us to recast our arguments into new forms, digital history may lead us to revisit some old questions in new ways, as we have done in this article. As historians grow more fluent in its use, the digital environment may offer bold new ways of understanding the vast record of the human past.” This statement, and others they made throughout their analysis about common perceptions, really struck a chord with me. I think it is human nature to form a conclusion and find sources that support that argument, especially on topics like the Civil War that have had so much written about them. Under those circumstances, it is difficult to truly look at sources without bias to see what they have to say. The authors mention several perceptions that are often taken as fact about the Civil War (such as that the North was technically advanced and industrial and the South was backward and agricultural) that cast the North and South as polar opposites. The authors effectively showed that data did not support these perceptions when applied to their specific scenario. Being able to cite specific examples that disprove the “norm” casts the “norm” into question. Is their study an anomaly? Or is the norm incorrect?
The idea that historians at every level of expertise and from every corner of the world can now have many source documents at their fingertips will undoubtedly lead to new approaches and quite likely new challenges to traditionally held views. When research was limited by access a specific archives or to specific regions, it limited those who had access to it. If you had to travel to towns in the South to get maps or census records or diaries or newspapers, the scope of your study would be limited to those cities you could travel to. It follows that people who live in the South might be more likely to be the ones conducting the majority of studies and doing research. This could limit the approach the researchers take because “common knowledge” could very well lead to similar approaches and determine similar directions to their research.
The more information that is digitized and posted on the internet, the wider the pool of information available to potential researchers. Without a doubt, a person from France or Russia or Japan, for instance, would have a different approach to research on our Civil War than someone from New York or Atlanta or anyone else in the US. This diversity of experience and background would lead to diversity of approach and most likely diversity of opinion on what the data reveal.
It is exciting to think of the possibilities for research as more and more source documents become available online for an increasingly diverse audience.
