Historical Revisionism in the Op-Ed Section

This year is the 150th anniversary of the election of Abraham Lincoln, and thus of the Civil War. The New York Times uses this occasion to revisit history with a decidedly twisted perspective.

In their series "Disunion," the Times relates the Civil War "as it unfolds," predictably sparing no ink to demonize you-know-who and further the myth that  the war was all about ending slavery (when anybody with a laptop knows it was really more about states rights).

One such target of the Time's loathing is a widowed slave owner from South Carolina whose diary writings are reprinted in the pages of the grey lady, only to be sneered at as the racist rantings of a wicked elitist too blinded by white privilege to see the evil of her ways.

Slavery was infinitely more nuanced than the NYT will ever admit - for them it is an open and closed case.

We'll be watching closely over the coming days to see if the Disunion series makes any mention of what is hands down one of the most important and authoritative (and just plain fascinating) historical documents ever published on Slavery in America: the Slave Narratives. Produced between 1936 and 1938 in the framework of the Works Projects Administration under FDR, the program employed thousands of white college kids and unemployed writers to interview some 2,300 former slaves.

What is disheartening in these narratives to the newspaper of record and therefore unlikely to be mentioned in Disunion, is that 98% of the former slaves interviewed for the project stated in no uncertain terms that they were better off during slavery. Oh well...