A historiography essay helps you understand that history is not simply a collection of facts. Historians often examine the same primary sources but reach different conclusions because they ask different questions, use different methods, or write from different historical perspectives.

Instead of answering a historical question yourself, you analyze how other historians have answered that question.

The following examples demonstrate the differences between a history research paper and a historiography essay.

The following steps will guide you through the process of researching, analyzing, and writing a historiography essay.

Thesis: The various perspectives of historians who have interpreted the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 show consistent analysis of the legal and social impacts it had on the institution of slavery. Although differing perspectives challenge which aspects contributed most to its faults, the Act remains a significant contributing factor to the heightened political turmoil during a pivotal time leading up to the Civil War.

Historian Allen Johnson offers a perspective in, “The Constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Acts,” published in 1921. Johnson’s main argument emphasizes the importance of concentrating on the legislative aspect of the law and understanding the impact it had on the time. Further, Johnson claims the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was within its boundaries of constitutionality: “it may well be contended that an act which outraged the feelings of half the people of the United States was ill advised; but the question of expediency is not here under discussion, -only the more difficult question of constitutionality.”¹ This author’s strengths are found mainly in his research methods and use of sources. For example, Johnson references case law, Prigg v. Pennsylvania, and the articles of the Constitution that pointed out the issue of fugitive slaves and property rights which influenced the finalization of the law^.2 The author had clear cultural and political influences during the time period of publication that relate to Federal immigration laws and “judicial powers.”³ This early look at the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 paved the way for more refined viewpoints on a controversial piece of the Antebellum Era. 

 Dr. Ralph A. Keller’s analysis of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 applied a similar school of thought in, “Extraterritoriality and the Fugitive Slave Debate,” published decades later in 1985. The author’s key argument highlighted the Fugitive Slave Act as one of the most disturbing pieces of a larger political strategy and emphasized that the development of the Act was a tactic to gain support from the Federal Government to ensure the growth of the institution of slavery.⁴ The author uses many sources including extensive research of the case law leading up to 1850. Additionally, the author also referenced sources from significant historical figures such as Justice Joseph Story to support his claims: “[the] extraterritorial principle and its possible future applicability to slavery extension into the territories could hardly have been more explicitly put.”⁵ The author’s primary strength is how he connected his conclusions to his research which are comparable to those that used similar schools of thought.  This in-depth legislative review of the Federal Government’s role in the Fugitive Slave Act proved that this school of thought would be included in interpretations through the years with a new outlook and analysis which used similar elements and details.

^{______________________________________________________}

¹ Allen Johnson, “The Constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Acts,” The Yale Law Journal 31, no. 2 (Dec. 1921): 109.

² Johnson, “The Constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Acts,” 164-172.

³ Johnson, 182.

⁴ Ralph A. Keller, “Extraterritoriality and the Fugitive Slave Debate,” Illinois Historical Journal 78, no. 2 (Summer 1985): 113–28.

⁵ Keller, “Extraterritoriality and the Fugitive Slave Debate,” 113.