How did Southern historians soon after the Civil War interpret the war? Northern historians?

The Civil War has been studied from the point of view of the North and the South, and the different interpretations of historians of these regions continue to be influential nowadays.

Northern historians often link the Civil War to the secession of the South, and they argue that such an act was unconstitutional and one-sided. They also emphasize the importance of preserving the Union and abolishing slavery. The North often celebrates the figure of Abraham Lincoln and holds little respect for the Confederacy.

On the other hand, the South often presents a different view of the war. The South is kinder with its depiction of the Confederacy, often presenting it in terms of autonomy and freedom. It also tends to minimize the role that slavery played during the war, and instead focuses in the problems that the South had within the Union, such as maintaining the balance of power and protecting its autonomy. The South is also more likely to romanticize the Antebellum period.

Upheld the 1st amendment according to the u.s constitution. freedom of speech being limited in this case yes national emergencies

the hollywood film industry of 1950 was threatened on several different fronts. television broadcasting was rapidly becoming the dominant entertainment medium in the united states. the paramount anti-trust consent decree requiring separate ownership for production companies and theater chains had gone into effect on 1 january 1950. large numbers of young men and women were marrying, having children, and moving to the suburbs, which affected the viability of downtown first-run movie theaters. foreign revenues were endangered by protectionist tactics including quota systems, high taxes, and blocked funds. finally, the morality and patriotism of hollywood films and filmmakers were under attack from government, religious, and citizens' groups.

explanation: