Golden Thread Does Anyone ever really change their mind?

kevikens

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Location
New Jersey
I find what is written in these threads absolutely fascinating, thought provoking, insightful, and sometimes just plain enjoyable. Much of what is written here seems to be designed to convince readers that such and such a perspective is more accurate and posters marshal facts and figures to prove their point. I wonder though, just how many readers here have ever really had their minds changed by what they have read here or perhaps in books recommended by writers.

I must admit that the most sagacious writers here, the ones who adduce the most logical arguments, the most persuasive and cogent opinions happen to be those who agree with me, but on occasion, I have to admit that some writers have challenged by preconceived notions and have made me uncomfortably reassess my previously held convictions. For example, my assessment of Robert E. Lee as a commander. Having read Douglas Southall Freeman's biography of Lee early in my life I concluded he was the conjoined reincarnations of Washington, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Frederick the Great with a bit of DNA from Charlemagne and Richard the Lion Hearted. I was surprised when I got to the end of the book to realize that the South had actually lost the war.

From much of what I have read here, and much, much more later reading, I have concluded that I may have been wrong and, perhaps in his gene pool, he really was a later amalgam of Pompey and Darius, perhaps a Vercingetorix and Leonidas, more of a tragic figure than a victorious commander.

So what I am asking here is, have any readers have ever been forced to reevaluate long held, cherished convictions based on what they have read here or in books recommended by other readers.?
 
i tend to think of most soldiers as martyrs who gave their lives for their country.
i asked why would men be so quick to die for their country especially if they had no vested interest in the politics. someone here said that a better question would be why were they so quick to kill for their country ? for me that changes everything.
 
Vote Here:
I have learned here that there is never going to be any consensus on any aspect of the Civil War.

Thank God, can you imagine how boring that would be?

The Civil War, and history in general, is just too vast to ever be black and white. History, being the story of people- with all of our transcendence, stupidity, courage and cowardice- will never be easily understood.
 
Vote Here:
i tend to think of most soldiers as martyrs who gave their lives for their country.
i asked why would men be so quick to die for their country especially if they had no vested interest in the politics. someone here said that a better question would be why were they so quick to kill for their country ? for me that changes everything.
I don't think too many soldiers in ANY war are all that interested in becoming martyrs for their respective countries. Even when the odds don't look good soldiers have a tendency not to see themselves as imminent dead heroes. I heard it put it this way once. If a regiment of a thousand troops were told before a coming battles that 999 of them would die on the field, every single one of them would silently say to themselves. "Those poor guys".
 
Vote Here:
Yes I learned and changed my view of what happened. But what really changed my thinking was reading books by people who were actually in the conflict expressing their feelings and sharing their experiences, the reasons that they participated, the politics and behaviors they observed, etc...... People on forums, and books, can express their opinions on the thinking and politics of over 150 years ago, but to really understand what they were thinking and experiencing I believe there is no substitute for first hand sources.
 
Vote Here:
I've changed some of my views regarding personalities such as McClellan. I used to think he was just an awful general. Now I think of him for as a talented general with a fatal flaw. If he had only been a little less afraid of failure then he may have won the war. He was like a man who was one card short of a full house.
 
Vote Here:
I've changed some of my views regarding personalities such as McClellan. I used to think he was just an awful general. Now I think of him for as a talented general with a fatal flaw. If he had only been a little less afraid of failure then he may have won the war. He was like a man who was one card short of a full house.

My opinion of McClellan has also risen a notch. He was actually a skilled strategist, and his Peninsula campaign, with its use of amphibious landings, and joint army-navy cooperation was a brilliant plan. So I would give him credit for that way of thinking, even though his other flaws are still serious enough, including his failure to properly execute his plan.
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top