Dennis,

I think your previous post is very good, and highlights many important elements of historical writing. You say:

"I think it necessarily follows that those writer-historians who might be classified as (to use my words) "distinguished" writer-histoorians, always (oh, how I resist using that word!) have a point of view from which they write."

While it is difficult to accurately use an absolute term like "always," it would be hard to dispute the strength of your claim. Since historical writing is not simply a list of facts (and, as Penny pointed out, even the selection of facts to place on a list is subective), one works off of some point of view when constructing even a narrative history.

"It is this point of view that necessarily translates into either the north-tilt, or the Southern-tilt that I spoke of in my unasnwered question to Craig. I think it is unavoidable, particularly when it comes to something as emotional, as personal, as widespread in its influence over American history as the Civil War was and is."

I could agree that much of the "tilt" or viewpoints historians take may be interpreted as "pro-North" or "pro-South," but I think such classifications need to be better described. People who read a book on the Civil War with the interest of determining whether it has a "Northern-tilt" or "Southern-tilt" may see such a divide, but I, personally, do not take such an approach with most of my historical reading (nor do most historians I know). Complicating this is the fact that I have seen many arguments from very strong Southern-leaning historians perceived as "pro-Northern" or "anti-Southern" by non-historians.

For instance, historian U. B. Phillips called white supremacy the central theme of Southern history. I agree with much of Phillips' conclusion. Yet, a couple of years ago, when I made this argument on a different history discussion board, two or three people jumped me for being a "South basher" and "anti-Southern." U. B. Phillips was born in 1877 to a former Confederate slave owner from Georgia (if I remember correctly), and generally portrayed the South very favorably. He believed slavery was actually useful for "civilizing" blacks (although he argued it was economically inefficient), since he maintained many of the white supremacist attitudes of that earlier time. He was not anti-Southern at all. (Here is some basic info which appears pretty accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulrich_Phillips)

Obviously I don't agree with all of Phillips' conclusions, but I believe his emphasis on white supremacy in Southern history is very important. However, if you read a book by a modern historian today who agreed with Phillips and said that white supremacy was the "central theme" of Southern history, how would you (or others here) classify it according to a "Northern" or "Southern" divide? I'm not sure, but I know that other people have proclaimed it to be "anti-Southern"...when in fact the argument came from a prominent Southerner. This, hopefully, helps explain why the dichotomy you referred to is not always so clear within academic history.