It's been said, correctly, that there is no thing as no bias. My biases include: I am more interested in the role of Arkansas troops in the Civil War than in, say, that of Virginia troops. I am more interested in the Trans-Mississippi Army than in the Army of Northern Virginia. I am more interested in the battles at Pea Ridge and Prairie Grove than in Gettysburg and Fredericksburg. If I had been born and reared in Virginia, I would be biased just the opposite. But I'm an Arkansas boy, descended from Arkansas Confederate soldiers, so I concentrate my research on Arkansas in the Civil War. Where I draw the line on bias, though, is in the methodology of my research. I've spent years trying to correct historical errors and misconceptions which were themselves born of bias.
Most of us know a certain professor of history who is bias personified. His bias is that the entire war effort of the Confederacy was part of a systematic plan to wage genocide against blacks -- Poison Spring being an example. He supports his theory by carefully cherry-picking historical documents for just the right words. If you don't look too closely at the details, you'll find that he has compiled an impressive, overwhelming body of evidence to prove his point. It all sounds very scholarly, and he has convinced many people that he is presenting the unvarnished truth. But, as we all know, his theory is a house of cards. Like a stage magician, he has created an illusion, all the while assuring us that he has "nothing up his sleeve" -- nothing but a socio-political agenda and a strong personal bias. The tragedy is that his thesis is being taught in some universities as "history."
There are many biased historical theories from the Southern side, too. Take a look at the Civil War News and Views message board sometime -- carefully selected, masterfully edited quotes are used to prove such "facts" as the slaves were better off than the Northern working class; slaves were happy and carefree; the slave traders did the Africans a great service by rescuing them from their savage existence and delivering them to the tender care of plantation owners. One wonders why draconian laws had to be enacted to prevent slaves from running away from their happy homes. Then, through some sort of convoluted logic, this spirited apologia of slavery is turned on its head by proving that, in fact, the Civil War had nothing at all to do with slavery.
There is nothing wrong with bias, per se. Patriotism is bias. So is love. But there are some field of human endeavor that should be as bias-free as possible. Most people would agree that clinical trials and scientific research should be unbiased. The justice system should be unbiased. And HISTORY should be unbiased.
That's not to say that Civil War history cannot be written from a Northern or Southern PERSPECTIVE, and still be unbiased. Bruce Catton's "The Army of the Potomac" trilogy lets us see the Civil War from the perspective of Northern soldiers. Douglas Southall Freeman's "Lee's Lieutenants" does the same from the perspective of the Southern side. But their works are remarkably unbiased. They didn't cherry-pick their primary and secondary source materials to "prove" that one side was better, more right or more moral than the other. Freeman, for example, showed us Stonewall Jackson, warts and all. His military brilliance side-by-side with his religious fanaticsm. Catton wrote of the perserverance and dedication of the common Yankee infantryman in the face of criminally negligent leadership.
To bring my meandering back home, let me say that one of the best things that has happened to the study of the Civil War is Jim Martin's establishment of a network of State-specific and subject-specific discussion forums. I spend most of my time, of course, on the Arkansas board, and only occasionally visit one of the other State boards. For the most part, the Arkansas board has been a forum people can trust. There are some contributors -- I hesitate to name names for fear of inadvertently excluding some -- who I have come to trust implicitly. You all know who they are. I can read their posts without wondering if the quote they cite has been edited or taken out of context. I give great weight to the points they raise, and will reconsider my own views because of their lack of bias in formulating those points.
It doesn't take much for a person or a forum to lose that sort of trust. So, if I have offended anyone by vigorously "outing" bias, I am sorry; but I hope you will at least consider that my motives are for the good of this board and of history, even if my writing style often leaves much to be desired.
I'm sure I've overstayed my welcome with this post, so I'll grab that second cup of coffee and do some more early morning thinking.