Influence Phillips was seen as the first historian to seriously tackle the practice of slavery and was very influential into the 1950s.
Frederic Bancroft's 1931
Slave-Trading in the Old South was a direct attack on Phillips and his school of thought; as historian Michael Tadman explained, "Where Phillips had emphasized slaveholder benevolence, Bancroft saw self‐interest. With Bancroft, the emphasis switched from proslavery to abolitionist traditions—and switched to the cruelty and immorality of slavery, to family separations and slave breeding, and to the everyday presence of the trader in every corner of the South." Some of Phillips' views were rejected by a generation of historians in the 1950s with the publication of
Kenneth Stampp's
The Peculiar Institution seen as a particular landmark in that refutation. The ideas were revived again from the mid 1960s onwards, particularly by
Eugene Genovese. As
Harvard Sitkoff wrote in 1986, "[I]n the mid-1960s
Eugene D. Genovese launched a rehabilitation of Phillips that still continues. Today, as in Phillips' lifetime, scholars again commonly acknowledge the value of many of his insights into the nature of the southern class structure and master-slave relationships." In his own right, Genovese recognized in Phillips' work, as many of his colleagues chose to ignore, that master-slave relationships were complex, multi-faceted, more often negative, exploitive, and dehumanizing, yet provided very limited opportunities for some bondsmen to earn cash, travel outside the plantation situation, and enhance their personal values.
Race Phillips has been described as a white supremacist historian and building many of his views on an ideology of white supremacism. John David Smith of North Carolina State University argues: [Phillips 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. His views were rejected most sharply by
Kenneth M. Stampp in the 1950s. However, to a large degree Phillips' interpretive model of the dynamic between master and slave was revived by
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." In 1963,
C. Vann Woodward wrote: "Much of what Phillips wrote has not been superseded or seriously challenged and remains indispensable."
Peter Kolchin described the state of historiography in the early 20th century as follows: Historians
James Oliver Horton and
Lois E. Horton described Phillips's mindset, methodology and influence:
Pro-slavery bias 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: 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.
W. E. B. Du Bois criticized Phillips's 1918 book
American Negro Slavery, writing that it was a "defense of American slavery" and that Phillips engaged in the
special pleading fallacy. ==Views==