1960-70年代美國史學家對「區域主義」、「奴隸制度」與美國內戰相關性的主要解釋

Major Interpretations during the 1960s and 1970s on the Relevance of Sectionalism, Slavery, and the American Civil War

美國內戰始終是美國史研究的一個焦點。在十九世紀「業餘史學」時期，多數與內戰相關的論述，仍延續戰前南、北區域相互對立的態勢，互指對方為陰謀的策劃者與動亂的根源，並應擔負戰爭的責任。然自二十世紀以降，隨著「專業史學」的興起，昔日流於情緒化的歷史解釋方式逐漸為史學家所揚棄，代之而起的是以史料為基礎所進行的研究，因而對內戰解釋也逐漸回歸客觀與理性。本文擬就1960 年代至1970 年代美國史學家對內戰前美國歷史發展的兩大特色－－「區域主義」以及「奴隸制度」，與內戰起源的關聯性所做的解釋做一探討。此時期史學家討論內戰的最大特色是擺脫道德層面的思考模式，不再將「區域主義」、「奴隸制度」與內戰的起源做直接的連結。相反地，史學家轉而探究南、北兩區域以往均能和平共處，為何至1850 年代起衝突對立卻急遽升高，導致區域和平無以為繼。此外，史學家也跳脫以往單純將奴隸制度視為戰爭主要導火線的窠臼，開始分析奴隸制度與南方社會有何緊密的關連，南方人何以堅持奴隸制度並不惜自聯邦分離。

The American Civil War has always attracted the most attention from scholars. The early discussions of the war in the late 19th century were used to charge either side of the North or South for rebellion and should be responsible for the tragedy. Following the 20th century, the Civil War interpretations made by 'professional historians' became more rational and objective. During the 1960s and the 1970s, historians began to view the confrontation between the North and South from new prospects and drove the Civil War study into a new direction. Unlike traditional scholars who simply connected sectionalism and slavery with the origins of the conflict, historians in the 1960s and the 1970s attempted to explore the dynamics of the North and South could no longer co-exist in the 1850s even sectionalism had been existed in the country since the colonial period. In addition, historians investigated southerners' insistence on maintaining slavery by making further analysis on the role of this peculiar institution played in the development of southern ideology, society, and civilization.