February is Black History Month (women’s history month is soon to follow, and we know of discussions about Confederate history month). At a time when certain people criticize diversity and multiculturalism, one might ask whether we should have a month devoted to focusing on the history of African Americans. Critics can offer their reasons, and proponents can bring forth their justifications. Is such a month necessary? Is it a good idea? What does it say about how we study and understand history?
The floor is open.
In June 1863 Robert E. Lee decided to invade the North. Was this the best choice he could have made? Why or why not? What else could he have done?
Should Abraham Lincoln have suspended the writ of habeas corpus in 1861? In so doing, did he act constitutionally?
Do you think the sesquicentennial will have any lasting impact on changing Americans’ historical memory of the Civil War and its significance? If so, how and in what areas? If not, why not?
… mark the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War?
There’s a good deal out there about why bloggers blog, and bloggers, as is their wont, comment on why they blog (or don’t blog). However, it is safe to say that one reason bloggers continue to blog is because people read the blog and respond to the blog, often in the comments section (there’s a secondary comment area that’s not readily apparent because it does not take place in the comments section, but suffice it to say that I’ve seen extensive discussions about blogs and blog posts on various discussion groups; sometimes those discussions even give rise to blog posts because the blogger is able to identify an audience he/she knows will respond).
Which aspect of the Civil War era do you believe is (a) the most misunderstood (b) the most underexamined (that needs more attention) (c) the most underappreciated?
Okay, so that’s three questions.
If you could make a film on the Civil War, what would you choose as the subject of your film?
What’s your favorite Civil War movie? Why?
Stay tuned for part two later today.
If you were to point historians to emulate existing studies as they write military history, which three books would you highlight, and why?