At What Point?

[Borderruffian]

At what point does an individuals allegiance to ethier North or South have to be put aside, in order to fully discuss and understand the history of the Civil War?

[richard]

It has always been my view that one must enter with an open mind from the very start. That is at times, very hard to do. But in order to learn, one must hear and respect the other side. As the saying goes, "you must walk a mile in the other's shoes". As we are talking about something that took place over 140 years ago and the only thing that we really have to learn from are the writings of the men and women involved in this war, we must remember that they too were looking at things from there point of view. In order to put things into somewhat of a true perspective, one must enter with an open mind and look at both sides from the outside in.

[johan_steele]

I think the realization that the politics of 1860 were every bit as messed up as those of today has to be made. If one thinks one side or the other was somehow pure as the driven snow... or better than those of today there will never be an unbiased look possible.

If one idolizes one side or the other there will never be any kind of unbiased view and learning is right out the window.

[cash]

Originally Posted by Borderruffian

At what point does an individuals allegiance to ethier North or South have to be put aside, in order to fully discuss and understand the history of the Civil War?

At the beginning. Though some may not believe it, I have no allegiance to either "North" or "South." My allegiance is to what actually happened.

Regards,
Cash

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by cash

At the beginning. Though some may not believe it, I have no allegiance to either "North" or "South." My allegiance is to what actually happened.

Regards,
Cash

...............

[gary]

Being from California and not having ANY distant relatives who fought in that war (family arrived post Civil War), I don't have any sides.

That said, I do find the Confederate (sharpshooter) story more difficult to piece together than the Union (sharpshooter) story. There are three reasons for this: (1) Many records were lost or destroyed; (2) while there were some very well schooled and scholarly southerners, literacy wasn't as high as in the North, and; (3) Having been defeated, many just wanted to forget the whole thing. Membership in the United Confederate Veterans was substantially less than in the Grand Army of the Republic. I was told that the UCV never exceeded 15k. Of course, there could be some poverty reasons behind that low figure too.

[larry_cockerham]

As you can see from my signature notes, I have "split" ancestry. I still get a warm fuzzy feeling when I hear Dixie, but that' only because I'm from North Carolina and I have an affinity for the southland. As far as the war goes, all feelings of competition or political bias must really be avoided to enjoy the project as a hobby, or even a way of life. This was civil war, no less, a fascinating story and series of twisted events and attitudes. Many Indiana regiments left marvelously detailed and apparently quite accurate accounts of Confederate activiites, that the Confederates could not generate. Many eyes and many stories with slightly different detail for the same events are apparent. Nathan Bedford Forrest and James Harrison Wilson were looking at different monitors during the battle at Sugar Creek on December 26, 1864. They certainly saw two different events!

[cash]

Originally Posted by Battalion

...............

----------

Ignorance is bliss.

Regards,
Cash

[whitworth]

I doubt many people would actually know the point, where it becames logical to say one did not have a biased viewpoint.

I've seen a lot of bias with historians. Am I biased since I see bias in them?

It's not the point of giving mistruths. It's a question whether many historians were entirely honest and told all the truth, they knew. Historians have to sell books to readers; many of them are not ready to accept all the truth.

I got more "biased" when I started reading original documentation. Why were some facts missed, ignored, or played down as unimportant.
Just reading R.E. Lee's letters and dispatches, one can get a good idea, how much a long-shot the Confederacy was.

Margaret Mitchell, in her non-history book novel, made some of the most suscinct, a conciseness, beyond any historian I recall.
She didn't question the bravery of the Southerner. She questioned their consideration of their ability to wage a war of any timeframe. What if there was war? What if it was not a short war? Did the South have the economy to wage war?

She devastates the idea of Hood going to Tennessee, as if Sherman would surely follow.
And how many historians, ever went so far, as to criticise Hood for launching a winter campaign? And who could criticise Lee, even if they disclosed that the Confederate army had serious material shortages by 1863, and it was getting worse?

What is the bias of whoever questions how the Army of Northern Virginia, suddenly, wound up at Appomattox, despite the fact that the tea leaves were long on the table?

Many will talk of Chancellorsville, but never consider the riverboat and consider its importance in stripping away territory from the Confederacy, even early in the war?

In fact there are a few, who think it is in their power to grasp victory for the Confederacy from the jaws of absolute defeat? How do you speak of bias to these thinkers?

Can anyone say without the accusation of "bias", that the South should never have seceded; that it was not a good idea for Lee to go to Gettysburg; that the United States merely had to bleed the brave Confederate armies dry, to obtain victory?

The founding fathers of the Confederacy wrote their Confederate Constitution, in part, to protect their ownership in slaves.
In four short years, all the wealth in slaves was gone; a part of seemingly ancient history.

The few had rolled the dice, losing the wealth and lives of many. How many would say,that one could not hold such views without bias?

[Battalion]

Originally Posted by cash

At the beginning. Though some may not believe it, I have no allegiance to either "North" or "South." My allegiance is to what actually happened.

Regards,
Cash

I'm still ..........

.....bet Thea, Wild Rose, etc, are too.....