Will Thomas and Edward Ayers article “The Difference Slavery Made: A Close Analysis of Two American Communities” takes many of the elements discussed in Moretti’s book and applies them in a manner that made much more sense to me. One significant difference between the two readings is that Moretti seemed to simply gather data without a defined intention (and that method has its merits because there are no preconceived ideas to influence the analysis of the resulting data), but Thomas and Ayers state early in their article that they wish to “try to understand the paradox that slavery created little differences between the North and South;” they analyze many different indices, including voting patterns , wealth distribution, and industrial production, to reach a plausible conclusion to this dilemma.
My knowledge of the article’s topic is most likely on a par with the average student, meaning it is general at best; although, I have taken a number of American art history courses that require examining this time period more closely. Thomas and Ayers article brought to light a vastly different perspective of slavery in the years leading up to the Civil War. I appreciated their use of a limited framework, examining two counties that border opposite ends of the Mason-Dixon Line, Augusta and Franklin. The model of a “prism” for their research, “putting together components of argument, evidence, and historiography in sequences that are modular and connected,” brought to light some fascinating findings through their use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Extensive Markup Language (XML). One question I have been pondering: where did they acquire the technology for the GIS? They do not give a specific answer as to the source of this tool (maybe I missed it), except to explain what GIS brought to their research.
Regardless of this last question, the scholarship in Thomas and Ayers’s article compiling, analyzing, and interpreting quantitative and spatial evidence, demonstrates, in my mind, digital historical scholarship at its best. In their introduction , they comment how close reading of existing literature on slavery and modern life during this specific period could never provide the wealth of information they attained through their use of digital tools. Will Thomas and Edward Ayers article demonstrates that combining traditional research methods with digital tools and resources has the potential to transform humanities scholarship.
It appears that we have had an opposite reaction to the article. I thought that Ayers and Thomas got about as far as Moretti in coming to a conclusion. I thought here was a terrifying amount of information, and that was about it. Maybe I’m just grouchy today.
I think you made some great points here about this week’s readings. In particular, I also would have liked to have seen more explanation about the GIS technology they are using and how that helped them with their arguments. I am going to go back and read more in the site to see if I can pick up more of what I missed.