I'm sorry if you were confused by my posts. I'm not trying to confuse anyone. I understand that not everyone has the same experience or education in historical study, and it is best to keep things relatively simple for discussion sake. Yet, history is not always so easily discussed in 25 words or less, and historians spend a great deal of time and space using evidence, sources, and arguments for accuracy.

As for me having an agenda, if you believe I have one, please let me know what it is and provide evidence of me pushing it. I'd like to know.

I am not saying I am absolutely objective, for I, like everyone, have an opinion on most of these matters. But having an opinion and having an "agenda" are not always the same thing.

As for me being a "consumate spinner," that is a matter of opinion, and merely an example of petty name calling. I would challenge (or expect) any person who believes that I inaccurately or unfairly describe something to explain how I was wrong, and back it up with evidence. That is what historians, and people serious about history, do. In the case of Stan's comment, if he felt I was "spinning" something about Frederick Douglass, then I would hope we would explain how I was wrong, and how Douglass and his words are more accurately represented. Until that time, I stand by the reality that Douglass was an activist for black rights who labored for emancipation and black Union service. What he said and what he did must be considered according to those historical facts. We do not discount Douglass' words by any means, only use them carefully. That's not spin, that's understanding and using a historical source.