For the most part historians and teachers have used bias when discussing the US Civil War. Most high school students for example have been taught that Lincoln "freed the slaves" which in reality he did not. And the South is usually painted as evil slave holders. There is much discussion about the US Civil War, and without taking sides it appears that there is a bias against the South. I emphasize "without taking sides".
Yes, the North was biased against the South and vice versa.
General Ulysses Grant was considered the "Napolean of the West". This was most noticeable during the Civil War.
It means that the author is against the war. Bias = author's belief
an English trader who sold goods to people in the north and the south
The writer's point of view: Which side did she support in the war.
It would depend on which civil war you are referring to.
American Civil War: 1861-1865Mexican Civil War: 1858-1861Irish Civil War: 1922-1923Russian Civil War: 1917-1921Chinese Civil War: 1928-1937, 1945-1949Austrian Civil War: February 12 - February 16, 1934Spanish Civil War: 1936-1939
*The civil war *The War between the States
a civil war the civil war was the north vs. south of one country
civil war
A Civil war in general is a war between one country. If you went to another country and were talking about the civil war they probably would think you were talking about their civil war. The correct term is The United States Civil War.
Michel Collon has written: 'Media lies and the conquest of Kosovo' -- subject(s): History, Kosovo (Serbia) Civil War, 1998-1999, Mass media and the war, Press coverage, Propaganda, Yugoslav War, 1991-1995, Kosovo War, 1998-1999 'Poker menteur' -- subject(s): Politics and government, Yugoslav War, 1991-1995, Ethnic relations, Press coverage
hitler war against poland