Harry says "Wa-Po Historians Declare How the Sesquicentennial 'Should' Be Observed." That pretty much sums up these pieces.
Note that these WaPo-styled Civil War "bloggers" (unlike actual bloggers) get writing assignments from an editor.
The people who were asked this question (how to conduct the Sesquicentennial) by their editor have been positioned for a long time to answer the question in their own way and on their own hook without goading; to volunteer their names and labor and money; and to pitch in (a la Eric Wittenberg) to advance Sesquicentennial organizing and events. It's odd to see this WaPo set of "bloggers" so late in the game stepping off the train to cast into our benighted Civil War circle a few coins of advice.
Even for the most pompous hacks bedeviling Civil War literature, the pose is unnatural because the question of how should a thing be done is much more common in the world of the Washington Post than in the fractious world of Civil War history. The WaPo's business model is to tell its readers right from wrong, salad fork from dessert spoon, jazz from blues. This manifests itself in endless lists (best this, best that), countless recitations of expert opinion on any topic under the sun, and a firm, guiding editorial hand to keep readers from ever reaching stray conclusions. This is what people buy the paper for, how they use it.
I had asked earlier, rhetorically, for whom this new Sesquicentennial feature is intended, and I wonder if it is especially aimed at the non-ACW reader (the WaPo consumer) who feels the need to have authoritative (if second-hand) opinions upon the august occasion of a Sesquicentennial.