Changes

'''Ulrich Bonnell Phillips''' (1877 to 1934) was a leading American historian of the early 20th century. He was a revolutionary in methodology and a conservative in politics.  He revolutionized the study of slavery and the plantation South, setting the standard for historical research for many decades. Phillips concentrated on the large plantations that dominated the Southern economy, neglecting the large number of smaller farms that employed a few slaves. He concluded that plantation slavery produced great wealth, but was a dead end, economically, that left the South bypassed by the industrial revolution underway in the North. On the whole plantation slavery was not very profitable, he said, had about reached its limits in 1860, and would probably have faded away without the [[American Civil War]], which he considered needless.  

'''Ulrich Bonnell Phillips''' (1877 to 1934) was a leading American historian of the early 20th century. He was a revolutionary in methodology and a conservative in politics.  He revolutionized the study of slavery and the plantation South, setting the standard for historical research for many decades. Phillips concentrated on the large plantations that dominated the Southern economy, neglecting the large number of smaller farms that employed a few slaves. He concluded that plantation slavery produced great wealth, but was a dead end, economically, that left the South bypassed by the industrial revolution underway in the North. On the whole plantation slavery was not very profitable, he said, had about reached its limits in 1860, and would probably have faded away without the [[American Civil War]], which he considered needless.  

While Phillips opposed slavery, he generally endorsed the behavior of the plantation owners and denied they were brutal. He argued they provided adequate food, clothing, housing, medical care and training in modern technology--that they were a school "civilized" the slaves. He admitted the failure was that no one graduated from this school.  

While Phillips opposed slavery, he generally endorsed the behavior of the plantation owners and denied they were brutal. He argued they provided adequate food, clothing, housing, medical care and training in modern technology—that they were a school "civilized" the slaves. He admitted the failure was that no one graduated from this school.  

Phillips systematically hunted down and opened plantation records and unused manuscript sources. An example of pioneering comparative work was "A Jamaica Slave Plantation" (1914). His methods and use of sources shaped the research agenda of most succeeding scholars, even those who disagreed with his favorable treatment of the masters. African American historians expressed disappointment that his emphasis on the material well being of the slaves diverted attention from the slaves' own cultural constructs and efforts to achieve freedom. By turning away from the political debates about slavery that divided North and South, Phillips made the economics and social structure of slavery the main theme in 20th century scholarship. Together with his highly eloquent writing style, his new approach made him the most influential historian of the ante-bellum south. His interpretation of white supremacy as the "central theme of southern history" remains one of the main interpretations of Southern history.  

Phillips systematically hunted down and opened plantation records and unused manuscript sources. An example of pioneering comparative work was "A Jamaica Slave Plantation" (1914). His methods and use of sources shaped the research agenda of most succeeding scholars, even those who disagreed with his favorable treatment of the masters. African American historians expressed disappointment that his emphasis on the material well being of the slaves diverted attention from the slaves' own cultural constructs and efforts to achieve freedom. By turning away from the political debates about slavery that divided North and South, Phillips made the economics and social structure of slavery the main theme in 20th century scholarship. Together with his highly eloquent writing style, his new approach made him the most influential historian of the ante-bellum south. His interpretation of white supremacy as the "central theme of southern history" remains one of the main interpretations of Southern history.  

==Historiography==

==Historiography==

The Phillips approach almost completely dominated scholarship from 1910 to the 1950s.  Phillips's views were rejected by neoabolitionists historians led by Kenneth Stampp in the 1960s. But they were soon revived; as Harvard Sitkoff argues, "in the mid-1960s Eugene D. Genovese launched a rehabilitation of Phillips that still continues. Today, as in Phillips's lifetime, scholars again commonly acknowledge the value of many of his insights into the nature of the southern class structure and master-slave relationships." <ref>Sitkoff review of Dillon, ''Ulrich Bonnell Phillips'' in ''The Journal of American History,'' 73#3 (Dec., 1986), p. 780.</ref>

The Phillips approach almost completely dominated scholarship from 1910 to the 1950s.  Phillips's views were rejected by neoabolitionists historians led by Kenneth Stampp in the 1960s. But they were soon revived; as Harvard Sitkoff argues, "in the mid-1960s Eugene D. Genovese launched a rehabilitation of Phillips that still continues. Today, as in Phillips's lifetime, scholars again commonly acknowledge the value of many of his insights into the nature of the southern class structure and master-slave relationships." <ref>Sitkoff review of Dillon, ''Ulrich Bonnell Phillips'' in ''The Journal of American History,'' 73#3 (Dec., 1986), p. 780.</ref>

The Phillips school asked, what did slavery do ''for'' the slaves? As the historian [[Herbert Gutman]] noted, the Phillipsian answer was that slavery lifted the slaves out of the barbarism of Africa, Christianized them, protected them, and generally benefited them. Scholarship in the 1950s then moved to the question, what did slavery to ''to'' the slaves, and concluded it was a harsh and profitable system.  More recently after the 1960s scholars like Genovese and Gutman asked, "What did slaves do for themselves?" They concluded "In the slave quarters, through family, community and religion, slaves struggled for a measure of independence and dignity. <ref>City University of New York Historical Series [http://web.gc.cuny.edu/ashp/doing/doinghistoriography.html]; Herbert Gutman, ''The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom 1750–1925'', (1977) p. 25 said "Critics, including such able scholars as E. Franklin Frazier, Kenneth M. Stampp, and Stanley M. Elkins, sharply rejected the racial assumptions of Phillips and his followers but focused on the same question."</ref>

The Phillips school asked, what did slavery do ''for'' the slaves? As the historian [[Herbert Gutman]] noted, the Phillipsian answer was that slavery lifted the slaves out of the barbarism of Africa, Christianized them, protected them, and generally benefited them. Scholarship in the 1950s then moved to the question, what did slavery to ''to'' the slaves, and concluded it was a harsh and profitable system.  More recently after the 1960s scholars like Genovese and Gutman asked, "What did slaves do for themselves?" They concluded "In the slave quarters, through family, community and religion, slaves struggled for a measure of independence and dignity.<ref>City University of New York Historical Series [http://web.gc.cuny.edu/ashp/doing/doinghistoriography.html]; Herbert Gutman, ''The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom 1750–1925'', (1977) p. 25 said "Critics, including such able scholars as E. Franklin Frazier, Kenneth M. Stampp, and Stanley M. Elkins, sharply rejected the racial assumptions of Phillips and his followers but focused on the same question."</ref>

==Phillips concludes slavery was inefficient==

==Phillips concludes slavery was inefficient==

==Biases==

==Biases==

Smith argues: <ref>[http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-856]</ref>

Smith argues:<ref>[http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-856]</ref>

:"[He was] a conservative, proslavery interpreter of slavery and the slaves.... In ''Life and Labor in the Old South'' Phillips failed to revise his interpretation of slavery significantly. His basic arguments—the duality of slavery as an economic cancer but a vital mode of racial control—can be traced back to his earliest writings. Less detailed but more elegantly written than ''American Negro Slavery,'' Phillips's ''Life and Labor'' was a general synthesis rather than a monograph. His racism appeared less pronounced in ''Life and Labor'' because of its broad scope. Fewer racial slurs appeared in 1929 than in 1918, but Phillips's prejudice remained. The success of ''Life and Labor'' earned Phillips the year-long Albert Kahn Foundation Fellowship in 1929-30 to observe blacks and other laborers worldwide. In 1929 Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, appointed Phillips professor of history."  

:"[He was] a conservative, proslavery interpreter of slavery and the slaves.... In ''Life and Labor in the Old South'' Phillips failed to revise his interpretation of slavery significantly. His basic arguments—the duality of slavery as an economic cancer but a vital mode of racial control—can be traced back to his earliest writings. Less detailed but more elegantly written than ''American Negro Slavery,'' Phillips's ''Life and Labor'' was a general synthesis rather than a monograph. His racism appeared less pronounced in ''Life and Labor'' because of its broad scope. Fewer racial slurs appeared in 1929 than in 1918, but Phillips's prejudice remained. The success of ''Life and Labor'' earned Phillips the year-long Albert Kahn Foundation Fellowship in 1929-30 to observe blacks and other laborers worldwide. In 1929 Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, appointed Phillips professor of history."  

Phillips contended that masters treated slaves relatively well and his views  were rejected most sharply by [[Kenneth M. Stampp]] in the 1950s. <ref> In 1982, Stampp wrote, "In their day the writings of Ulrich B. Phillips on slavery were both highly original and decidedly revisionist... . He was about as objective as the rest of us." Cited in Smith and Inscoe, p. 10</ref>. However, to a large degree Phillips interpretive model of the dynamic between master and slave was revived by the Marxist historian [[Eugene Genovese]], who wrote that Phillips's "work, taken as a whole, remains the best and most subtle introduction to antebellum Southern history and especially to the problems posed by race and class."<ref> Genovese, ''In Red and Black: Marxian Explorations in Southern and Afro-American History'' (1971) 275-76</ref> In 1963, C. Vann Woodward wrote: "Much of what Phillips wrote has not been superseded or seriously challenged and remains indispensable." <ref>Woodward, "Introduction"  to 1963 edition of ''Life and Labor in the Old South'' page v.</ref>

Phillips contended that masters treated slaves relatively well and his views  were rejected most sharply by [[Kenneth M. Stampp]] in the 1950s.<ref>In 1982, Stampp wrote, "In their day the writings of Ulrich B. Phillips on slavery were both highly original and decidedly revisionist... . He was about as objective as the rest of us." Cited in Smith and Inscoe, p. 10</ref> However, to a large degree Phillips interpretive model of the dynamic between master and slave was revived by the Marxist historian [[Eugene Genovese]], who wrote that Phillips's "work, taken as a whole, remains the best and most subtle introduction to antebellum Southern history and especially to the problems posed by race and class."<ref>Genovese, ''In Red and Black: Marxian Explorations in Southern and Afro-American History'' (1971) 275-76</ref> In 1963, C. Vann Woodward wrote: "Much of what Phillips wrote has not been superseded or seriously challenged and remains indispensable." <ref>Woodward, "Introduction"  to 1963 edition of ''Life and Labor in the Old South'' page v.</ref>

Phillips denied he was proslavery--he was an intellectual leader of the [[Progressive Movement]] and slavery, in his interpretation, was inefficient and antithetical to the principles of progressivism.  Phillips (1910) explained in detail why slavery was a failed system. It is Smith's opinion that:<ref>Smith and Inscoe 1990 p. 10</ref>

Phillips denied he was proslavery—he was an intellectual leader of the [[Progressive Movement]] and slavery, in his interpretation, was inefficient and antithetical to the principles of progressivism.  Phillips (1910) explained in detail why slavery was a failed system. It is Smith's opinion that:<ref>Smith and Inscoe 1990 p. 10</ref>

:"Phillips's contributions to the study of slavery clearly outweigh his deficiencies. Neither saint nor sinner, he was subject to the same forces-- bias, selectivity of evidence, inaccuracy--that plague us all. Descended from slave owners and reared in the rural South, he dominated slave historiography in an era when Progressivism was literally for whites only. Of all scholars, historians can ill afford to be anachronistic. Phillips was no more a believer in white supremacy than other leading contemporary white scholars."  

:"Phillips's contributions to the study of slavery clearly outweigh his deficiencies. Neither saint nor sinner, he was subject to the same forces-- bias, selectivity of evidence, inaccuracy--that plague us all. Descended from slave owners and reared in the rural South, he dominated slave historiography in an era when Progressivism was literally for whites only. Of all scholars, historians can ill afford to be anachronistic. Phillips was no more a believer in white supremacy than other leading contemporary white scholars."  

==Race as "Central Theme" of Southern History==

==Race as "Central Theme" of Southern History==

In "The Central Theme of Southern History" (1928), Phillips maintained that the desire to keep their region "a white man's country" united the white southerners for centuries.  Phillips' emphasis on race was overshadowed in the late 1920s and 1930s by the Beardian interpretation of [[Charles Beard]] and Mary Beard, who in their enormously successful ''The Rise of American Civilization'' (1927) emphasized class conflict and downplayed slavery and race relations as a cause of the [[American Civil War]]. By the 1950s, however, the Beardian economic determinism was out of fashion, and the emphasis on race (rather than region or class) became a major topic in historiography.<ref>Darden Asbury Pyron, "U.B. Phillips: Biography and Scholarship," ''Reviews in American History'' 1987 15(1): 72-77; Thomas Pressley, ''American Interpret their Civil War'' 238ff on Beard, 278ff on Phillips. W.H. Stephenson wrote in 1955, "Historically speaking, Phillips's central theme of southern history was correct, for white southerners from colonial days to the twentieth century advocated white supremacy."  Stephenson in  Smith and Inscoe, p. 28. On the revival of interest in Phillips's "central theme," see Robert E. Shalhope, "Race, Class, Slavery, and the Antebellum Southern Mind," ''Journal of Southern History'' 37 (November 1971), 557-74 and James M. McPherson, "Slavery and Race," in ''Perspectives on  

In "The Central Theme of Southern History" (1928), Phillips maintained that the desire to keep their region "a white man's country" united the white southerners for centuries.  Phillips' emphasis on race was overshadowed in the late 1920s and 1930s by the Beardian interpretation of [[Charles Beard]] and Mary Beard, who in their enormously successful ''The Rise of American Civilization'' (1927) emphasized class conflict and downplayed slavery and race relations as a cause of the [[American Civil War]]. By the 1950s, however, the Beardian economic determinism was out of fashion, and the emphasis on race (rather than region or class) became a major topic in historiography.<ref>Darden Asbury Pyron, "U.B. Phillips: Biography and Scholarship," ''Reviews in American History'' 1987 15(1): 72-77; Thomas Pressley, ''American Interpret their Civil War'' 238ff on Beard, 278ff on Phillips. W.H. Stephenson wrote in 1955, "Historically speaking, Phillips's central theme of southern history was correct, for white southerners from colonial days to the twentieth century advocated white supremacy."  Stephenson in  Smith and Inscoe, p. 28. On the revival of interest in Phillips's "central theme," see Robert E. Shalhope, "Race, Class, Slavery, and the Antebellum Southern Mind," ''Journal of Southern History'' 37 (November 1971), 557-74 and James M. McPherson, "Slavery and Race," in ''Perspectives on  

American History'' 3 (1969), 460-73. </ref>   

American History'' 3 (1969), 460-73.</ref>   

By 2000, and citing Phillips, Jane Dailey, Glenda Gilmore, and Bryant Simon argue: <ref>, "Introduction"

By 2000, and citing Phillips, Jane Dailey, Glenda Gilmore, and Bryant Simon argue:<ref>, "Introduction"

in Jane Dailey, Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore, and Bryant Simon, eds. ''Jumpin' Jim Crow: Southern Politics from Civil War to Civil Rights'' (2000), [http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/i6951.html online excerpt]. </ref>

in Jane Dailey, Glenda Elizabeth Gilmore, and Bryant Simon, eds. ''Jumpin' Jim Crow: Southern Politics from Civil War to Civil Rights'' (2000), [http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/chapters/i6951.html online excerpt].</ref>

:"The ways in which white southerners "met" the race "problem" have intrigued historians writing about post-Civil War southern politics since at least 1928, when Ulrich B. Phillips pronounced race relations the "central theme" of southern history. What contemporaries referred to as "the race question" may be phrased more bluntly today as the struggle for white domination. Establishing and maintaining this domination--creating the system of racial segregation and African American disfranchisement known as Jim Crow--has remained a preoccupation of southern historians."

:"The ways in which white southerners "met" the race "problem" have intrigued historians writing about post-Civil War southern politics since at least 1928, when Ulrich B. Phillips pronounced race relations the "central theme" of southern history. What contemporaries referred to as "the race question" may be phrased more bluntly today as the struggle for white domination. Establishing and maintaining this domination--creating the system of racial segregation and African American disfranchisement known as Jim Crow--has remained a preoccupation of southern historians."

In 2006 Ira Berlin concluded, "Phillips was not so much wrong about the centrality of white supremacy to the South as blind to its presence in the North."<ref> Berlin, "The Battle Over Memory," ''Washington Post Book World'' February 12, 2006; page BW10 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020901730_pf.html online version]</ref>

In 2006 Ira Berlin concluded, "Phillips was not so much wrong about the centrality of white supremacy to the South as blind to its presence in the North."<ref>Berlin, "The Battle Over Memory," ''Washington Post Book World'' February 12, 2006; page BW10 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020901730_pf.html online version]</ref>

==Works==

==Works==

===Major articles by Phillips===

===Major articles by Phillips===

* "Transportation in the Antebellum South: An Economic Analysis." ''Quarterly Journal of Economics,'' 19 (May, 1905): 434-58. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0033-5533%28190505%2919%3A3%3C434%3ATITASA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S  in JSTOR]

* "Transportation in the Antebellum South: An Economic Analysis." ''Quarterly Journal of Economics,'' 19 (May, 1905): 434-58. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0033-5533%28190505%2919%3A3%3C434%3ATITASA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-S  in JSTOR]

* "The Economic Cost of Slaveholding in the Cotton Belt," ''Political Science Quarterly'' 20#2 (Jun., 1905), pp. 257-275 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0032-3195%28190506%2920%3A2%3C257%3ATECOSI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I in JSTOR]

* "The Economic Cost of Slaveholding in the Cotton Belt," ''Political Science Quarterly'' 20#2 (Jun., 1905), pp.&nbsp;257–275 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0032-3195%28190506%2920%3A2%3C257%3ATECOSI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I in JSTOR]

* "The Origin and Growth of the Southern Black Belts." ''American Historical Review,'' 11 (July, 1906): 798-816. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28190607%2911%3A4%3C798%3ATOAGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T  in JSTOR]

* "The Origin and Growth of the Southern Black Belts." ''American Historical Review,'' 11 (July, 1906): 798-816. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28190607%2911%3A4%3C798%3ATOAGOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T  in JSTOR]

* "The Slave Labor Problem in the Charleston District." ''Political Science Quarterly,'' 22 (September, 1907): 416-39. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2141056  in JSTOR]

* "The Slave Labor Problem in the Charleston District." ''Political Science Quarterly,'' 22 (September, 1907): 416-39. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2141056  in JSTOR]

* [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7162%28191001%2935%3A1%3C37%3ATDOTPS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W "The Decadence of the Plantation System." ''Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences,'' 35 (January, 1910): 37-41. in JSTOR]

* [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-7162%28191001%2935%3A1%3C37%3ATDOTPS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W "The Decadence of the Plantation System." ''Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences,'' 35 (January, 1910): 37-41. in JSTOR]

* "A Jamaica Slave Plantation." American Historical Review, 19 (April, 1914): 543-48. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28191404%2919%3A3%3C543%3AAJSP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A  in JSTOR]

* "A Jamaica Slave Plantation." American Historical Review, 19 (April, 1914): 543-48. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28191404%2919%3A3%3C543%3AAJSP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A  in JSTOR]

* "Slave Crime in Virginia," ''American Historical Review,'' 20#2 (Jan. 1915), pp. 336-340 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28191501%2920%3A2%3C336%3ASCIV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K in JSTOR]

* "Slave Crime in Virginia," ''American Historical Review,'' 20#2 (Jan. 1915), pp.&nbsp;336–340 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28191501%2920%3A2%3C336%3ASCIV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K in JSTOR]

* "Plantations with Slave Labor and Free." ''American Historical Review,'' 30 (July, 1925): 738-53. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28192507%2930%3A4%3C738%3APWSLAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9 in JSTOR]

* "Plantations with Slave Labor and Free." ''American Historical Review,'' 30 (July, 1925): 738-53. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28192507%2930%3A4%3C738%3APWSLAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-9 in JSTOR]

* "The Central Theme of Southern History." ''American Historical Review,'' 34 (October, 1928): 30-43. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28192810%2934%3A1%3C30%3ATCTOSH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G  in JSTOR]

* "The Central Theme of Southern History." ''American Historical Review,'' 34 (October, 1928): 30-43. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28192810%2934%3A1%3C30%3ATCTOSH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G  in JSTOR]

* [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=71901318 Smith, John David; and John C. Inscoe eds; ''Ulrich Bonnell Phillips: A Southern Historian and His Critics'' (1990)], essays by leading scholars, pro and con

* [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=71901318 Smith, John David; and John C. Inscoe eds; ''Ulrich Bonnell Phillips: A Southern Historian and His Critics'' (1990)], essays by leading scholars, pro and con

* Smith, John David. "Ulrich Bonnell Phillips (1877-1934)" in ''The New Georgia Encyclopedia'' (2003) [http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-856  online version]  

* Smith, John David. "Ulrich Bonnell Phillips (1877-1934)" in ''The New Georgia Encyclopedia'' (2003) [http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-856  online version]  

* Stampp Kenneth M. "Reconsidering U.B. Phillips: A Comment." ''Agricultural History,'' 41 (October, 1967): 365-368.  *Stephenson Wendell H. "Ulrich B. Phillips: Historian of Aristocracy." in ''The South Lives in History: Southern Historians and Their Legacy'' Louisiana State University Press, 1955, pages 58-94.  

* Stampp Kenneth M. "Reconsidering U.B. Phillips: A Comment." ''Agricultural History,'' 41 (October, 1967): 365-368.  *Stephenson Wendell H. "Ulrich B. Phillips: Historian of Aristocracy." in ''The South Lives in History: Southern Historians and Their Legacy'' Louisiana State University Press, 1955, pages 58–94.  

* Stampp Kenneth M. "The Historian and Southern Negro Slavery." ''American Historical Review'', 57 (April, 1952): 613-624. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(195204)57%3A3%3C613%3ATHASNS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A in JSTOR]

* Stampp Kenneth M. "The Historian and Southern Negro Slavery." ''American Historical Review'', 57 (April, 1952): 613-624. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762(195204)57%3A3%3C613%3ATHASNS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A in JSTOR]

* Tindall George B. "The Central Theme Revisited." In Charles G. Sellers Jr. , ed. ''The Southerner as American'' (1960), pages 104-129.  

* Tindall George B. "The Central Theme Revisited." In Charles G. Sellers Jr. , ed. ''The Southerner as American'' (1960), pages 104-129.  

* Wish Harvey. "Ulrich B. Phillips and the Image of the Old South." in Wish, ''The American Historian: A Social-Intellectual History of the Writing of the American Past'' (1960), pp. 236-264. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98866463 online edition]

* Wish Harvey. "Ulrich B. Phillips and the Image of the Old South." in Wish, ''The American Historian: A Social-Intellectual History of the Writing of the American Past'' (1960), pp.&nbsp;236–264. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98866463 online edition]

* Wood Kirk. "Ulrich B. Phillips." In Clyde N. Wilson, ed. ''Dictionary of Literary Biography, Twentieth-Century American Historians.'' Gale Research, 1983, pages 350-363.  

* Wood Kirk. "Ulrich B. Phillips." In Clyde N. Wilson, ed. ''Dictionary of Literary Biography, Twentieth-Century American Historians.'' Gale Research, 1983, pages 350-363.  

* Woodward C. Vann. "Introduction." Ulrich B. Phillips. ''Life and Labor in the Old South''. (1963), pages iii-vi.

* Woodward C. Vann. "Introduction." Ulrich B. Phillips. ''Life and Labor in the Old South''. (1963), pages iii-vi.