What’s one major difference between potter’s and holt’s historical interpretations of the civil war?

Potter's Historical Interpretations of the Civil War

Historians say that he had an unbalanced intellectual history, since he offered a level of patience to the pro-slavery ideologies that he does not award to the anti-slavery movement. Abolitionists were everything from abusive to humanitarians, according to Potter.

Holt's Historical Interpretation of the Civil War

Holt, on the other hand, was a professor so he provided a more lucid interpretation of the Civil War, as a matter of fact, Holt sees the conflict as a breakdown in America's democratic political process. No longer differences had to be resolved within the arena of battle, according to him.

booker t. washington was an educator who established the tuskegee institute. washington argued that african americans should learn trades that would offer them the opportunity to be progressive citizens. instead of fighting against discrimination, washington argued that african americans should use their education and knowledge to become self-sufficient in american society and not in competition with white americans.

w.e.b du bois was the founder of the niagara movement and later the naacp, du bois disagreed with washington. he argued that african americans should consistently fight for racial equality.

ida b. wells was a journalist who wrote about the horrors of lynching in the south. wells work could be considered muckraking as it led to the development of the anti-lynching campaign.