Wa-Po Again

So it would seem that the cavalcade of commentators at Wa-Po is a continuing enterprise.  Civil War Times editor Dana Shoaf has weighed-in on the Sesquicentennial today.  Perhaps my irritation at one expert’s repeated use of the word “must” spilled over into the tenor of my posts regarding this series (they keep using the word “blog”, but I do not think it means what they think it means).

More on Wa-Po’s Sesqui Ops

Dmitri  has weighed in on the Washington Post’s panel of historians and their thoughts on the Civil War Sesquicentennial.  Check it out here and here.  As a reminder, I wrote about it here.

Considering that much of the country will experience the Sesquicentennial at one of our National Parks, it would have been nice if at least one representative of the NPS had contributed to this series.

Wa-Po Historians Declare How the Sesquicentennial “Should” Be Observed

There’s an interesting series of opinion pieces over at the Washington Post’s House Divided site in which historians of various stripes expound on how they feel the Sesquicentennial of the Civil War should be observed.  I’m linking here to this article by Mike Musick, who has been a friend to Bull Runnings.  Links to the thoughts of other contributors can be found at the bottom of each article (I’d post each link, but it’s late and I’m tired).  I’m making my way through them and am finding a mixed bag, both in variety and quality.  One writer made the unusual declaration that any reenactments “must” include both black and white soldiers, while stressing that the “true histories” also “must” be presented.  Hmm…I’m trying to imagine how a First Bull Run reenactment could pull those two things off. 

Here’s a list of contributors:

Chandra Manning
Brent Glass
David Blight
Mike Musick
Joan Waugh
Waite Rawls
Harold Holzer
John Marszalek