Edward L. Ayers and the Digital Civil War
The work that Ayers spearheaded propelled the field of history, specifically Civil War history, into the digital age. The book that Ayers was originally going to write had nothing to do with computers, and in fact barely had a thesis, but he discovered that he needed to learn computers and statistics just to deal with the huge amount of information and sources that he was working with. This necessitated collaboration with computer scientists, graduate students, faculty, and web designers. Ayers utilized digital archives, hypermedia, and robust hypertext to integrate military and social history into an innovative project that compares two intertwined communities above and below the Mason-Dixon line during the Civil War. Ayers claims that these tools and perspectives by no means exhaust the possibilities for digital history. He suggests that historians might move toward social science again because of the dynamic and interactive nature of digital technology, which helps to alleviate some of the vagueness and narrow classifications that older social science technology allowed historians to see. He discusses the first effort at social science history and how it fell into decline in part because historians could not reconcile the abstraction that such technology imposed when used with their deeply held social and professional beliefs. Ayers argues that many social science methods focus on generalization and tendency, while history is about continuity and context. Ayers claims that satisfying explanations and studies must be “dynamic, interactive, reflexive, and subtle, refusing to reify structures of social life or culture. The new technology permits a new cross-fertilization.”
This project showed that these new technologies could show us hidden patterns and trends that challenge existing historiography. This particular project shows the importance of slavery as a dividing factor during the Civil War, and the individual communities of Franklin County and Augusta County. The Valley challenges that popular notion that states’ rights and not slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. The South fought to protect slavery, even though North did not fight at first to abolish it. The war was not about state’s rights, though north did fight to sustain justice, power and authority of the federal government. In his recent article, “The Causes of the Civil War, 2.0,” Ayers expresses concern that slavery as a cause of the Civil War is widely accepted and emphasized in most textbooks and agree upon by most historians, yet still almost half of the United States thinks that states’ rights was the issue.
Ayers thinks that history may be better suited to digital technology than any other humanistic discipline. He states that changes in the field, far removed from anything to do with computers, have created a situation in history where the advantages of computers can seem necessary. There are a number of challenges that any digital project, especially this one, entails, including structure, publication, organization, technical issues, and academic challenges. Ayers and Thomas did not want computers to be only a distribution device, rather they wanted the technology to shape the argument and approach. The challenges in publication and academia were focused around the concern that there was no discernable thesis, or not organized in a way that readers could understand the thesis. Ayers and Thomas both expressed the difficulty of both writing and publishing the Valley of the Shadow Project in any semi-traditional journal, but also the problem of reading the “article.” The requirements of a non-linear, component-driven structure worked against other historians and audiences reading specifically for an argument. Some readers saw the new format as a way for authors to abandon the historian's responsibility to interpret incomplete and disparate information." These readers misunderstood the amount of work that is required for such a project, but were also blind to the new conceptual tools and perspectives that such a vast amount of accessible archival information brings about. It revealed a problem: scholars wanted to track the argument of the “article” and found it almost impossible, because it has no linear structure. Despite this, Ayers has faith in the new technologies and sees them as tailor-made for history, due to “the growing bulk and complexity of our ever more self-conscious practice, efficient vehicles to connect with larger and more diverse audiences.”
The diversity of audience and communication is very important to Ayers and Thomas. Historians deal with a multiplicity of populations, topics, and approaches in ways unimagined a few generations ago. New narrative techniques that stem from the digital humanities are engaging larger audiences with broader diversity of historical subjects. With the use of the internet and digital public representations and archives, the huge increase of information, resources, and analysis on new topics, populations, and cultures can be spread to the general public. In this way, the democratization of history can reconnect with the populace. Ayers also sees benefits from communication hubs like H-Net, as a healthy way for historians to discuss, connect, engage, and reinterpret material. The internet has been a way for historians to deepen and broaden the professional conversations of the field. He likens the simple and straightforward H-Net to a “perpetual annual conference,” and many born digital projects and books that have come about since then have the benefit of peer feedback from distant colleagues and numerous fields.
Most of the projects developed since the Valley Project by the Virginia Center for Digital History are usually full archives with most of the existing primary material featured, sometimes with interpretation and written analysis, but sometimes the thesis or point is in the juxtaposition of certain documents or images, or a visualization. And occasionally the thesis or argument is unformed and open for interpretation, like the original Valley of the Shadow archive without the accompanying book or article. In most of these cases, there are a number of interpretations and narratives that can be derived from the material available within the project. Ed Ayers wasn’t afraid to publish the information and research before the book because he was confident that no one would write the same book from the material that he did.
In particular, the Dolley Madison archive is somewhat outdated, (better timeline tools and navigation exist now) but the history and academic aspect is excellent. The site hosts articles that each hold a historical or theoretical argument and is well-documented and rich with resources. The website does an excellent job of showing her legacy and impact as a First Woman, and as a creator of feminine and public culture by using images of the wares, stamps, and dolls that were created in her image, but the aesthetics and navigation don’t appear professional anymore, thus it loses some of its effect. The project has an crowdsourcing type of function, so the public can submit paraphernalia and suggestions for the website or archive, which is a useful aspect to a digital archive and is a good idea for most projects that use photos, artifacts, etc. When compared to The Race and Place project, which is beautiful and explores complex and hidden narratives, the Dolley Madison seems somewhat uncomplicated. There are still a lot of broken links through and within both websites, and you can see the same signs of age as the others. This is understandable considering they're publication dates, but it does speak to another problem within the rapidly evolving digital history field. The technology and designs for projects like these improve so quickly that sometimes projects become unusable and obsolete within a few years.