I read a half dozen weekly and visit a bunch more every so often. The ones I am most drawn to, including Bull Runnings, are characterized by clear writing, carefulness in research, and an ability to provoke my thinking on matters that might otherwise be obscure to my 21st century life.

The CW bloggers I like the best would be good bloggers even if they weren’t writing about the Civil War.

Isn’t that the truth… we get enough of the political stuff, blow-by-blow, in other forms of media. To be honest, I know we have a wide range of political interests among bloggers, and to each his/her own. I prefer not to muddy the waters with that stuff. We share common ground in an interest, and to bring in other factors that have potential to drive wedges into the exchanges… weirds it out… some even going to the point of judging analysis of a blogger based on political sentiment. That’s not what it’s about.

Most I follow (also on Google Reader) are a bit of everything – some focus on one particular issue of the Civil War/War era (navy, women, medicine, new books/publications, certain battles, etc) and some are more research oriented, while others are a bit more general, with some research, some commentary, some promotion of the blogger’s works. All of them are what I consider Civil War blogs, though I admit I have not put too much thought to this question before now.

The format does not make much of a difference to me – if the blogger uses just plain old text, or he/she add links, videos, etc, the material is much more important in determining it;’s type, again, at least “in my eye.”

I think Robert’s point about “discusses the Civil War” is another valid one, though I guess we could question what that phrase means. I won’t worry about parsing that right now, but I probably try to keep it simple and say that any blog that focuses on the war or some aspect of as the main feature of the blog qualifies.

It’s that chance given to these folks (myself included), through the blogs, that ability to express their passion for different aspects of the subject. That’s pretty awesome. I also like that chance that it offers to break free from those chains that seem to continue to keep writing “static” when it appears in print.

The deviation from this is, I think… the way the information is presented. Is it traditional format, whereas, to the “veteran Civil Warrior”, it’s the same-old, same-old, and we’ve seen it all before, but someone just happens to be touching on it again? (though to other folks, it might be valuable learning material). Or… is the information done with a twist that makes us think in ways we haven’t thought about it before?… Or is it blogging controversially?… Or blogging to incite? There are so many paths. These, of course, are just a few examples. Fact of the matter is, some blogs weave a little through all this stuff, touching on all categories.

At the core, however, I think a Civil War blog should be considered defined as one which actually discusses the Civil War… at least a certain percentage of the time. Who sets that percentage… well, to each his/her own, I suppose… but I’d think it needs to be in the “most of the time” percentage. Of course, at that point, we get into other categories… blogs that focus on the Civil War 25%, 35%, 50%, 75%… etc., etc.

In the end, people are going to define this category in different ways… in some ways they already have… in their blog rolls. If they consider them Civil War blogs, and if they like them… or like them enough to follow them… they will be in the blog rolls defined as (usually) other “Civil War Blogs”.