Hi Jim,

You said: "What does concern me is that their is no corresponding professional voice espousing neutral or pro-Southern positions on forums like this one."

This likely depends on what someone considers "neutral" or "pro-Southern," or "pro-Northern" for that matter. While many amateur or recreational historians divide Civil War history into two groups (pro-North and pro-South), such division does not really exist in modern academic circles.

As Sam pointed out, there are a number of well-respected historians who spend a great deal of their time studying the South and the Confederacy and have no interest in portraying it negatively.

Much of the imagery people on this board talk, or complain, about is not embraced or promoted by modern academics, but myths (or supposed myths) circulating among the general population. I have asked many people who complain about how "history is portrayed" to give examples of of what they mean. Often they have come back with referrals to convesations they overheard on the street or websites from unknown (and generally unreliable) individuals, not from leading scholars or important books on the subject. Certainly this misinformation circulating is a problem, and should be addressed...which is usually I ask for examples, because I'd like to know where this misinformation is coming from. But often historians are unfairly included or blamed in this situation because non-historians have not understood or retained the information well.

The issue of slavery is perhaps the greatest example. That topic has become so misunderstood and controversial, that it sometimes becomes a problem to merely bring it up in discussion. Why? Because modern ideas of its morality have been interjected, and some have used it to criticize the South. In response, many people (particularly those sensitive to how the South is portrayed) have a visceral reaction when it comes up, thinking it is once again being used to throw dirt on the Confederacy. Yet slavery is an essential part of Southern and American history. In all of my classes on Southern history, slavery was always an essential very topic...and I never saw the professor and the students sit around talking about how "evil" the South was because of it. It was part of the history. When I bring up slavery, I have no intention of slinging mud. I'm talking about it just as historians of the South talk about it---how and why it is crucial to undertanding the South. But people who are not familiar with academic history of the South often do not realize that immediately and sometimes believe I am trotting out the same old "anti-Southern" rhetoric.

Finally, while I cannot say that prejudice against certain viewpoints has not interfered with academic history, I have never personally seen any student or professor or independent historian toe an ideological line to keep a job or avoid some sort of censure. There are some examples of historians being criticized for making certain conclusions, but generally that is because others were unconvinced by their arguments, not because of some grand effort to cover up information or keep everyone in line. On the contrary, American historiography is full of ideological and analytical battles and disagreements.

One last thing...what is or what makes a "pro-Northern" historian, in your view?