- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
The essays delve beyond these issues, however, to raise a deeper question of historical interpretation: What are the relations between consciousness, moral action, and social change? The debate illustrates that concepts common in historical practice are not so stable as we have thought them to be. It is about concepts as much as evidence, about the need for clarity in using the tools of contemporary historical practice.
The participating historians are scholars of great distinction. Beginning with an essay published in the American Historical Review (AHR), Thomas L. Haskell challenged the interpretive framework of David Brion Davis's celebrated study, The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution. The AHR subsequently published responses by Davis and by John Ashworth, as well as a rejoinder by Haskell. The AHR essays and the relevant portions of Davis's book are reprinted here. In addition, there are two new essays by Davis and Ashworth and a general consideration of the subject by Thomas Bender.
This is a highly disciplined, insightful presentation of a major controversy in historical interpretation that will expand the debate into new realms.
|Pt. 1||The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823||15|
|1||What the Abolitionists Were Up Against||17|
|2||The Quaker Ethic and the Antislavery International||27|
|3||The Preservation of English Liberty, I||65|
|Pt. 2||The AHR Debate||105|
|4||Capitalism and the Origins of the Humanitarian Sensibility, Part 1||107|
|5||Capitalism and the Origins of the Humanitarian Sensibility, Part 2||136|
|6||Reflections on Abolitionism and Ideological Hegemony||161|
|7||The Relationship between Capitalism and Humanitarianism||180|
|8||Convention and Hegemonic Interest in the Debate over Antislavery: A Reply to Davis and Ashworth||200|
|Pt. 3||The Debate Continued||261|
|9||Capitalism, Class, and Antislavery||263|
|10||The Perils of Doing History by Ahistorical Abstraction: A Reply to Thomas L. Haskell's AHR Forum Reply||290|