Civil War

[Scott Shepherd]

All I can say is come to Virginia and I'll take you to the museums and let you see the documents and talk to the people there. Outside of that, quoting lines from any document isn't going to change anyone's minds here.

I stand by my comments. If you believe what's in your history books, then there's no point in further discussion. If you believe in actual time period documents, and researching it yourself, then we have a good place to start.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Scott,

Why would viewing the documents to which you refer be any more valid than the one to which Montgomery refers?

I would suggest 3 things:

1. This is a political subject.

2. The matter is complex enough that few people have the ability to view or analyze it without bias.

3. It is a matter of no importance in today's world. It's 150 year old history.

I pray we never experience this magnitude of loss of life again in this country for a "civil" war or any other war for that matter.

[Mike Henderson]

All I can say is come to Virginia and I'll take you to the museums and let you see the documents and talk to the people there. Outside of that, quoting lines from any document isn't going to change anyone's minds here.

I stand by my comments. If you believe what's in your history books, then there's no point in further discussion. If you believe in actual time period documents, and researching it yourself, then we have a good place to start.

Scholars have had access to all of those documents for quite a while now (and many other documents) and have come to the conclusion that slavery was the primary cause of the Civil War. To believe that generations of historians colluded to produce some false history is a real stretch.

Of course, an alternative explanation is that the Museum of the Confederacy wishes to project a certain message and selected documents which support their position. The Richard Nixon Library close to me did the same thing when it was private. Having lived through Nixon's time, I thought I was in some alternate universe when I viewed the displays and documents there.

Mike

[David Weaver]

Of course, an alternative explanation is that the Museum of the Confederacy wishes to project a certain message and selected documents which support their position.

Clearly. There are enough documents in any national or world event to selectively choose a large sample and project any partial truth you'd like to, or put together an incomplete picture and spin it any way you want to.

The Richard Nixon Library close to me did the same thing when it was private. Having lived through Nixon's time, I thought I was in some alternate universe when I viewed the displays and documents there.

I've never been there, but I understand they have now revised some of the exhibits to be a lot more accurate and not just to please the "friendlies" who might be coming through the door and looking for a certain version of "history". I wonder if there are any museums in the south that have done the same thing.

[Belinda Barfield]

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.
Thomas Jefferson

[Scott Shepherd]

To believe that generations of historians colluded to produce some false history is a real stretch.

You're kidding, right? Have you seen today's history books? There is so much garbage in there it's not funny. Periods of time I lived though, totally rewritten to fit agendas.

The reality is there are 10's of millions of people that believe that the war did not start over slavery, it started over states rights. You are free to believe as you do, and I'm free to believe as I do. I have clearly stated I believe it wasn't started because of it, but it became out it. Reading a history book that tells me different is something I'll pass on. Talking to highly educated people about the subject face to face is something I will believe long before a text book.

Ken, it's 150 years old and has no relevance to today? I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Taking my belief, that it started over states rights, you're smack dab in the middle of a very similar event right now. The supreme court will be hearing a big one here before too long about healthcare. Some states believe it crosses into states rights, and they are heading to the supreme court with it. So it's very relevant to today.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Scott....did you view the document that Montgomery quoted? Why is it less valid than what you prefer to believe?

Can you reasonably ignore a historical document like that?

[Kent A Bathurst]

.........you folks are able to write on an emotional issue such as this without resorting to name calling and personal attacks..

Dave, Dave, Dave..........You only see the ones I actually post - not the first version that doesn't make it to the "submit" button!!!

[Charlie Reals]

You're kidding, right? Have you seen today's history books? There is so much garbage in there it's not funny. Periods of time I lived though, totally rewritten to fit agendas.

The reality is there are 10's of millions of people that believe that the war did not start over slavery, it started over states rights. You are free to believe as you do, and I'm free to believe as I do. I have clearly stated I believe it wasn't started because of it, but it became out it. Reading a history book that tells me different is something I'll pass on. Talking to highly educated people about the subject face to face is something I will believe long before a text book.

Ken, it's 150 years old and has no relevance to today? I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with you on that one. Taking my belief, that it started over states rights, you're smack dab in the middle of a very similar event right now. The supreme court will be hearing a big one here before too long about healthcare. Some states believe it crosses into states rights, and they are heading to the supreme court with it. So it's very relevant to today.

100% spot on Scott. Our history has been taught from a feel good point since day one. Most States knowingly accept text books with mistakes in them and do not bother to note the mistakes. All things in our history are relevant to today.
We call our selves the United States butt most times that is truly a misnomer.
"Lies my teacher told Me" is a good starting read.
Look at how distorted the "Custer Massacre" has been allowed to get even with known history in writing since day one.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Dave, Dave, Dave..........You only see the ones I actually post - not the first version that doesn't make it to the "submit" button!!!

You too?

[Belinda Barfield]

Dave, Dave, Dave..........You only see the ones I actually post - not the first version that doesn't make it to the "submit" button!!!

You too?

Me three! delete . . . delete . . . delete

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Me three! delete . . . delete . . . delete

I find it quicker often to just log out and then log back in......

Fewer key strokes.....

[Belinda Barfield]

100% spot on Scott. Our history has been taught from a feel good point since day one. Most States knowingly accept text books with mistakes in them and do not bother to note the mistakes. All things in our history are relevant to today.
We call our selves the United States butt most times that is truly a misnomer.
"Lies my teacher told Me" is a good starting read.
Look at how distorted the "Custer Massacre" has been allowed to get even with known history in writing since day one.

Another view: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...n-Was-Won.html

[Scott Shepherd]

Can you reasonably ignore a historical document like that?

I don't ignore any historical document Ken. What I do is consider it alongside many other historical documents and make a judgement on my own rather than believe everything I read in a book written in modern day times about events that happened so long ago. Just as noted one document, as to be shown as proof, if I put up a document from that era that shows a line that said something about "States Rights" will you believe that to be the whole truth then? Or will that document be discounted as a "non-truth"?

That's my point exactly. We all make our minds up by what we are exposed to and what we believe to be true based on the data we have experienced. It's been 20 years since I looked into any of it, and my decisions were based on what I learned then.

Me producing any documentation isn't going to change your mind on anything, is it? I seriously doubt it.

[Douglas Clark]

Mr. Clark, I fail to see how you can consider burning a state to the ground from one end to the other "negotiating" peace.

I'm going to try and tread carefully here, because my intent was never to offend. Although I knew in advance that some could not countenance my view. Maintaining good feelings (and I realize it may be too late for that with some) and solid understanding are more important to me than needing to be "right" or sway people to my view. So, I will offer this response and then let the issue lay.

I never said that burning the state to the ground was an act of "negotiating" peace. It most certainly was not, anymore than dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of negotiating peace. They were acts of war, pure and simple. I was referring specifically to the formal negotiations that Sherman entered into with Johnston once the war was over. Negotiations that could never have happened until the war was ended. I don't know if you've ever read the terms that Sherman offered to Johnston during that surrender but they were quite generous to the average southerner compared to what Andrew Johnson ended up pursuing. I am actually quite curious, do they even cover that part of the history in the South? It would be truly unjust to condemn a man without reviewing all the evidence. Regardless of what parts of history Southerners choose to celebrate or ignore, it is a fact that Sherman, as much as Lee, made efforts to reconcile after the war was over. And as far as I'm concerned, whether he did enough to atone for his previous sins is only for God to decide.

I still cannot condone the destruction of a state to "negotiate" peace.

This is a difficult, difficult topic and I will not even try to sway you to my view as you seem clearly committed in your position. But I want to at least explain why I maintain the perspective I do, whether you agree with it or not.

I believe that the problem here is the same one that Truman faced in WWII, which is, waging total war is not the same as negotiating peace, but we may never arrive at the opportunity to negotiate peace without first waging total war. It is extremely unlikely, that had the war continued to drag on, that eventually everyone would have just given up and gone home. Consequently, how many more battles would have been fought, how many more lives lost if the war had dragged on? It's really a question of of two evils. There was no good decision, so Sherman and the North chose the one that they hoped would bring the war to a quicker end. Ultimately, both Sherman and Truman were stuck with the choice of deciding which is more immoral, engaging in total warfare as to end it so quickly that, while more damage is done to the land, less lives are lost? Or, leave the land alone and let those at home continue to try and feed more of its people so it can fight more battles and allow the south and the north to lose more lives? People can claim that Sherman's methods weren't necessary (or that Truman's weren't for that matter) but it is all speculation. Because the war ended we will never know for sure whether there were more "appropriate" options. We can only guess, or hope, or think... but usually the conclusion we arrive at is self-serving and it never changes reality.

As with Lee choosing to lead the forces of secession, both Sherman and Truman made the decision that they felt was right. They did not have the luxury of time, or hindsight, or do-overs. They had to commit to a horrible decision and then live with the consequences. Clearly Sherman more than Truman still suffers the consequences of that decision as his name is still reviled in the South. And yet how many southerners were grateful for Truman's decision to act just as drastically towards the Japanese? Why? Because Truman's decision undoubtedly served the U.S. and saved the lives of many southerners, just as Sherman's decision served the Union and saved the lives of many northerners. But what so many people fail to remember, because we tend towards a self-centric perspective, is that, in the long run Truman's decision undoubtedly spared the lives of many Japanese soldiers and civilians, as well. Similarly Sherman's decision undoubtedly saved the lives of many young southern soldiers and families. The south hates Sherman because of the lives he took but they seem to ignore the lives that he probably saved.

Personally, I cannot and will not identify my self as a southerner or a northerner. I had family from both sides. Although, even then, much of my family had already started migrating west. Consequently, I have trouble reviling or condemning either side. Ultimately, I believe as many do, that if you must engage in war, that it is more immoral to drag out the fight. If you have resolved to fight, then you must also fight to resolve and fight to resolve quickly. To allow the war to go on indeterminately, and to sacrifice more lives over and over; I believe that is a greater sin and would have been a greater tragedy.

As a side note, when I lived in Hawaii, it was interesting to me to find out how many Japanese visited Pearl Harbor and the Arizona Memorial. What is curious to me, is that, as a nation the Japanese seem to be far more forgiving of Truman than the South is of Lincoln and Sherman. And yet, maybe that's the way it is when it happens within the "family". It's always harder to forgive someone you have to live with and it's always a deeper betrayal when it comes from within.