The readings and website both cover a similar topic, slavery. Each source talks about the abolishment of slavery and the problems with slavery. The readings such as White’s don’t really go into the past of slavery like the website does. Moreover, White’s seems to hold an opinion while the website does not. Homberger talks about how the slaves were treated, but mitigates the cruelty done to them. Chudacoff talks about the future events after slavery. I feel that the readings were a little bit biased and were trying to persuade the reader to their interests.
The website covers generally the same stuff as the readings, but goes into detail on a few things that the readings do not. For example, the website goes into detail over specific freedom fighters and slaves, which impacted slavery as we see it today. Furthermore, the most profound difference between the website and readings was that the website had many illustrations and went into detail on each one, describing them in an interesting manner. I felt that the website kept my attention much more than the readings and was presented in a much more elegant and organized manner. I feel that the website wanted to give a neutral perspective.
