Well, some people’s greatest fears are now coming to pass: a discussion on historical matters spearheaded by bloggers is gaining more attention in the aftermath of John Stauffer’s effort to counter the analysis of reports of black Confederate soldiers offered by Kevin Levin, Andy Hall, and me, among others.
See this.
Meanwhile, Yankees take two of three from Boston, with Rivera moving two saves closer to being the number one all time closer in number of regular season saves. We watch history here.
Crossroads 
Just a quick comment (I can’t comment at the Atlantic blog). TNC writes that it is progressive to vaguely understand that the Civil War was about slavery. I don’t think it is progressive to understand that the Civil War was about slavery. It’s just the facts. There’s nothing progressive or non-progressive about it. It’s just knowledge.
I’d apply the same argument to black Confederates.
Lyle, I believe what TNC is referring to is a recent survey from Pew Research Center that showed that 48% of those surveyed — a plurality, and almost a flat majority — believed that the war was “mainly about states’ rights.” Only 38% said it was “mainly about slavery.” I don’t think he meant “progressive” in the common political sense, but that it is an understanding that, among the general public, still struggles against a traditional, states’ rights historical narrative.
That may be, but with the use of adjectives to describe those who do understand the causes for the Civil War and those that don’t… I personally think is unneeded and unhelpful. Something about it makes me uncomfortable. The statement can be made without the use of adjectives. It’s just a peccadillo to me.