Does anyone deny that Guelzo, Foner and Blight are agenda-driven?
All have an agenda to remove at least some, perhaps many or all, Confederate statues as indicated in the quotes below.I do.
1. Foner: “The key thing to remember about this statue, and most of these statues, is that they have very little to do with the Civil War.” That is an outrageous lie.
2. Guelzo: "You look at that period, 1890 to let’s say 1930, and the first thing that springs to mind of course is Jim Crow. There is a sense in which a lot of these monuments really are about white supremacy." That lie is like Foner's.
3. Blight: "It isn’t history that the statues’ defenders want to preserve, Blight insisted, but a memory that distorts or denies history." That is overwhelmingly untrue.
Presently, yes, but their bias is pronounced and should be taken into consideration.Like it or not, they are respected historians.
Their viewpoints were not dominant prior to 1970. Earlier historians allowed dissenting viewpoints, enabling these guys became mainstream. It is narcissistic to assume that modern historians have an uncorrupted pipeline to the truth anymore than those in the past. Yet that is precisely the zeitgeist. The great sin in today's academy is the censorship of dissenting opinions. That is why the Abbeville Institute formed.
Perhaps, for example, you can cite academic discussions about Confederate statues that include the voice of a Confederate defender. I'd genuinely like to see them.
Finally, the perspectives of Foner, Blight, Guelzo and their acolytes are nearly everywhere, including CWT. Nobody can miss them—a good reason to read them critically. Conversely, I'd bet that few CWT members have read Ludwell Johnson's Disunion and Reunion, which covers the 1848 - 1877 era from a different viewpoint.