Slavery is the only response to a fundamentalist.

The Ayers article that I linked below digs into the differences between the two schools of thought.

I started reading Foner’s book on reconstruction. It was too much for me at the time (too much information and complexity) so I switched to an easier read. I’ll go back to it soon. (I also have DuBois’ book on reconstruction to balance things out.)

• Click here for link at https://ndnation.com/boards/showpost.php?b=politics;pid=9082

And the dominant one in civil war histiography. Each school was named by its detractors.

Kind of like calling people anti choice or pro death.

Everyone agrees slavery was the proximate cause, but the arguments are over whether politics polarizing around it was inevitable, exactly why the south seceded w Lincoln's win, etc.

At least according to this revisionists pre 1960 were generally lost causers and lost, recently they've had a comeback but are still a minority.

• Click here for link at https://twu.edu/history/ibid/previous-ibid-issues/ibid-a-stu

I agree that we are talking about different schools of thought, and I said so in my post.

I like your link. It does a more thorough job of explaining what my position is with respect to the multiple schools of thought.