In the past, there have been many historians who would discuss an event, an ideal, a person involved in the event and they seemed to be more open and gave a lot of information to round out the average, but not well versed layman and his knowledge on things without looking down their nose. That is what is missing today. The judgment comes before or right after relating information. Not giving the recipient time to look at things themselves and glean points from the information they gain to make an assessment on what they find is not teaching or helpful to one who may truly wish to understand both sides of the issue.
Shelby Foote, Ed Baars and others sure seemed to be more on giving people information and less on telling them how it was to be viewed. I do not remember reading or seeing in an interview Shelby Foote placing a judgment on something, even if he did say slavery was a problem or a cause for something. McPherson is a knowledgeable man and he does have boatloads of information that is fascinating. He just comes across as a bit less an impartial historian and passes along his judgment than passing along knowledge. This is why any discussion is difficult on this subject. People are going to react to something and if the ‘expert’ is not understanding their tactic, delivery or the way it is perceived is dismissive or not believed to be considerate of other opinions gleaned from other sources, they will surely turn people away from the learning experience.
On your questions to me on this, yes, that is something that may be helpful. That’s not always included in the talking points when one is hearing an ’expert’ explain a point. The Bible and it’s information on early slavery is how some based an opinion. There were also Southerners who were Christians who were not as comfortable as their neighbors with the institution. There were probably many who accepted it because it had been accepted by their ancestors and their community. It was a way of life. Until the real discussion on emancipation became a national pastime it probably never crossed their mind to rethink the system. Some of the Southerners were from cultures that had slaves since time began. There also were some who were the descendants of those who were slaves, because that is what indentured servants were but it was a ‘nicer’ term because it had an expiration date.
The mere fact that other events or eras that had slavery in them are discussed on places such as the History Channel but the morality of slavery isn’t included in the lesson can be disheartening to one who is not defending it because they believe it was right but because their ancestor and those around them did believe it. That context thing again. Until there is open, honest discourse on the slavery issue that also includes areas outside of the Confederacy, it will be a topic that inflames many who descend from Southern ancestors
Pam