Dennis,

Many historians look at both sides of the conflict. Maury Klein's work about the lead up to Fort Sumter, for instance, does a pretty good job.

There is no such thing as a perfectly objective historical book or article. This does not mean that the historian automatically favors the Union cause or the Confederate cause, but that historians generally interpret history. That is what history is---interpretation. And interpretation involves personal views.

The reason I keep asking what you mean about looking at both sides is because historical study is not that simple. I don't see only two sides, for there were countless sides and stories and viewpoints during the war. Southerners themselves had a hard time deciding what they wanted, what they were for, etc...as did people in the North. And, viewpoints in the South and the North changed during the war. So, when you say "both sides," do you mean both sides of the legality of secession argument? Do you mean two competing views of the future of the Union? Or is it something else?

I would say that an attempt to simplify all Civil War history to two sides so dilutes the topic to make it virtually worthless.

I am reminded of a quote from the "Simpsons" cartoon show, where during a quiz a student tries to give a detailed answer regarding the reason for the Civil War. The teacher cuts them off and says, "Just say slavery." Trying to portray Civil War history as either "pro-North" or "pro-South" is a similar approach. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to water it down so much. History and historiography is rarely black and white.

Many people here have talked about "pro-Northern" or "pro-Southern" viewpoints, and seemed frustrated when I question what they mean...as if it is obvious. But I have yet to see a good explanation of what this divide is (beyond elements of Lost Cause mythology). Historians today do not work with this model. So what is it?