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.?
 
If I may comment further on the thread which I started, I have recently changed my mind based on the books recommended to me on the subject of George Thomas. No, not George Thomas himself, but the Confederates he faced on the battlefield.

Like many Easterners I have spent much more time and interest on the fighting east of the Appalachians and have never visited a western battlefield site. As far as I was concerned the war was pretty much a series of battles between the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of the Potomac. Western Confederate leaders and armies were just background noise to the main theater.

In reading the books that posters have recommended I have been compelled to pay more attention to Confederate commanders like Bragg, Joseph Johnston, Hood, Hardee, Cleburne and Forest. In doing so I no longer see Bragg as a fool. He seems to me, now to be an able tactician, if a poor strategist. Johnston is no longer simply a precursor to Lee in Virginia but a skilled defender who did a great deal with limited resources and, most of all, I now see the Confederate Army of Tennessee as a fighting force the equivalent of the Army of Northern Virginia.

What writers here and their recommended reading have done for me is to change my mind about the importance of the Western theater and the capabilities of the Trans Appalachian Confederate soldier. I might now even subscribe to the notion that the war was won or lost there and the fighting in the east did little more than write "finis" to what had already transpired in the Mississippi Valley. Well, maybe not quite that far, but pretty close to that.
 
Vote Here:
Nothingfaced: it was Napoleon Bonaparte who put it this way ( and he knew this from his own experience); "History is a lie agreed upon". Yes, the Civil War is pretty much taught that way in the schools ( I taught history for 43 years) but it is not so much a conspiracy as it is ignorance of the teaching staff who simply parrot what they learned (the same drivel) and never make a serious study of the course content they teach, which might actually require them to make some disturbing, mind altering changes that could get them in trouble with the powers that be. Safer to get and keep your tenure by not delving too deeply into these matters. I always tried to present contrarian evidence to my high school students (AP students, pretty smart kids) like the Loyalists in the revolution were the good Americans, the Abolitionist were themselves racist, intransigent, fanatics, that Germany was not primarily responsible for WW I, or that we forced the Japanese to attack us at Pearl Harbor. It compels the students to think about their convictions and even if no minds are changed it requires them to use evidence to support their positions.

Does it work? Perhaps, but it's like trying to overcome ten years of mind numbing, incessant, propagandizing with two years of thought provoking, evidence gathering and it is a lot more difficult to do than have the kids read the textbook (more drivel), answer the questions at the end of the chapter and do the worksheets for homework. It is no wonder so many people do not know their history. They were never taught it by teachers who ever bothered to learn it themselves.
PS I know full well that there are hardworking teachers who do teach history properly and most of us can recall their classes and remember their names but the reason we can is because they were so unusual.
 
Vote Here:
One area that I have "reevaluated" is Sherman's march. He is still far from being my favorite commander, but I have worked hard to have a better understanding of the man himself. I still think that the march was a tragic event but I try not ot put horns on the man and his army. (If that makes any sense to ya). I have to say that I got my desire to learn more about the march (not just from one perspective) from this forum.
 
Vote Here:
Like many in this thread I'm not sure my mind was changed more than just opened. Before I joined this forum 3 years ago, I thought I had a decent knowledge of the Civil War. I had always had an interest in history and before that my main interest was WW2. But back in early 2011 I got on Ancestry.com and started learning about my family and finding relatives I never knew I had that fought in the Civil War. That really opened the flood gates for me.

In 3 years, I have found over 30 relatives that fought in the Civil War on both sides, read around 20 Civil War related books and been to Chickamauga, Vicksburg and Shiloh in the last year. Also witnessed my first reenactment in February. I can't really think of a specific Civil War related person, event or battle that I have changed my mind on. Because honestly, any of my opinions prior to 3 years ago, don't really even count as valid to me anymore. It's funny, I thought I'd take a break from Civil War books and read a different book for a change the other day that was not Civil War related. I read about a chapter before going on Amazon and getting Larry Daniels book on the Battle of Stone's River. I couldn't help it! I'm an addict at this point.
 
Vote Here:
Correct.. that's what I meant. My apologies.

Oh goodness, none necessary. :smile:

This has probably been discussed before on a more appropriate thread, but it would have been interesting to see how he reconciled his personal objection to the peace platform and instincts as a soldier (by March 1865 it was pretty clear the war was all but over) with the fact that a Democratic victory in the election would have been a repudiation of the war effort.
 
Vote Here:
Rickvox79, don't worry about this addiction. There are no known negative outcomes from an addiction to greater knowledge. As Leonardo da Vinci put it, "No one ever regrets knowledge".
Must contradict Signore da Vinci. We have all seen some here who so regret receiving knowledge that they turn a blind eye to it.
 
Vote Here:
Nothingfaced: it was Napoleon Bonaparte who put it this way ( and he knew this from his own experience); "History is a lie agreed upon". Yes, the Civil War is pretty much taught that way in the schools ( I taught history for 43 years) but it is not so much a conspiracy as it is ignorance of the teaching staff who simply parrot what they learned (the same drivel) and never make a serious study of the course content they teach, which might actually require them to make some disturbing, mind altering changes that could get them in trouble with the powers that be. Safer to get and keep your tenure by not delving too deeply into these matters. I always tried to present contrarian evidence to my high school students (AP students, pretty smart kids) like the Loyalists in the revolution were the good Americans, the Abolitionist were themselves racist, intransigent, fanatics, that Germany was not primarily responsible for WW I, or that we forced the Japanese to attack us at Pearl Harbor. It compels the students to think about their convictions and even if no minds are changed it requires them to use evidence to support their positions.

Does it work? Perhaps, but it's like trying to overcome ten years of mind numbing, incessant, propagandizing with two years of thought provoking, evidence gathering and it is a lot more difficult to do than have the kids read the textbook (more drivel), answer the questions at the end of the chapter and do the worksheets for homework. It is no wonder so many people do not know their history. They were never taught it by teachers who ever bothered to learn it themselves.
PS I know full well that there are hardworking teachers who do teach history properly and most of us can recall their classes and remember their names but the reason we can is because they were so unusual.

Thanks for the reply... I would have loved to have been a student in your class.
 
Vote Here:
My mind hasn't been changed on anything, but I have learned a significant amount in my short time here.

As far as changing people's minds on the internet.... you won't. The same with politics.

The leftists will continue to brainwash Southern schoolchildren and make them feel bad for their heritage in the many years to come just like they have for 150 years.

It's widely accepted that the South seceded to protect their slaveholding society. That is true. What isn't true? That the United States of America murdered 600K people in a 4-year long bloody war to free enslaved negroes. And this is what children are taught in history class? Disgusting. History is but written prejudice.

As a former Southern schoolchild, I don't recall the "brainwashing" that you assert. And I notice that my grandchildren have received a hefty dose of Lost Cause beliefs in their modern history courses.
 
Vote Here:
Nothingfaced: it was Napoleon Bonaparte who put it this way ( and he knew this from his own experience); "History is a lie agreed upon". Yes, the Civil War is pretty much taught that way in the schools ( I taught history for 43 years) but it is not so much a conspiracy as it is ignorance of the teaching staff who simply parrot what they learned (the same drivel) and never make a serious study of the course content they teach, which might actually require them to make some disturbing, mind altering changes that could get them in trouble with the powers that be. Safer to get and keep your tenure by not delving too deeply into these matters. I always tried to present contrarian evidence to my high school students (AP students, pretty smart kids) like the Loyalists in the revolution were the good Americans, the Abolitionist were themselves racist, intransigent, fanatics, that Germany was not primarily responsible for WW I, or that we forced the Japanese to attack us at Pearl Harbor. It compels the students to think about their convictions and even if no minds are changed it requires them to use evidence to support their positions.

Does it work? Perhaps, but it's like trying to overcome ten years of mind numbing, incessant, propagandizing with two years of thought provoking, evidence gathering and it is a lot more difficult to do than have the kids read the textbook (more drivel), answer the questions at the end of the chapter and do the worksheets for homework. It is no wonder so many people do not know their history. They were never taught it by teachers who ever bothered to learn it themselves.
PS I know full well that there are hardworking teachers who do teach history properly and most of us can recall their classes and remember their names but the reason we can is because they were so unusual.

I, too, wish I had had you as a teacher in my youth.

I grew up in the South but unlike Pvt. 18th. I didn't get the Lost Cause course. I got the simplistic , stereotypical, black/white version: i.e. the CSA wanted slaves and the North didn't so they started a war but Lincoln freed the slaves because he and the North loved blacks and now he should be worshiped because of it; the end. This was all taught by poorly-trained teachers (we were nearly ranked last in education) who didn't know squat themselves and just regurgitated what was printed in the teacher's version of the text book.

As folks are now talking about whether they've ever changed their minds about something related to the CW, and not just about the OP question of if they've done so because of this forum, I'll say that' I've changed my view on a number of things over the years but it's been because of serious study and reading. I don't have a side and my objective is to try to understand what actually happened and why so if somebody can show me solid research to support a different conclusion than one I have held then I accept the new information, think about it in perspective to other notions, and update my opinion. Repeat as needed.

Sorry for the ramble. How history is taught and how ignorant most are of it are issues near and dear so I get a little wound up sometimes.
 
Vote Here:
I think to understand the history, unless you lived it in person, you have to keep an open mind and be willing to accept different interpretations as they are presented to have a more fully formed picture of what happened.
That being said, yep...I've changed my mind a few times.
 
Vote Here:
I, too, wish I had had you as a teacher in my youth.

I grew up in the South but unlike Pvt. 18th. I didn't get the Lost Cause course. I got the simplistic , stereotypical, black/white version: i.e. the CSA wanted slaves and the North didn't so they started a war but Lincoln freed the slaves because he and the North loved blacks and now he should be worshiped because of it; the end. This was all taught by poorly-trained teachers (we were nearly ranked last in education) who didn't know squat themselves and just regurgitated what was printed in the teacher's version of the text book.

As folks are now talking about whether they've ever changed their minds about something related to the CW, and not just about the OP question of if they've done so because of this forum, I'll say that' I've changed my view on a number of things over the years but it's been because of serious study and reading. I don't have a side and my objective is to try to understand what actually happened and why so if somebody can show me solid research to support a different conclusion than one I have held then I accept the new information, think about it in perspective to other notions, and update my opinion. Repeat as needed.

Sorry for the ramble. How history is taught and how ignorant most are of it are issues near and dear so I get a little wound up sometimes.

The world works strangely. Growing up here in New England 60 years ago, it sounds like I got more of the "Lost Cause" version in school than many did in the South. The war was not really about slavery at all -- great care was taken to emphasize that. States' Rights and sectionalism were the real causes, the secessionists' aim being to 'Balkanize' the continent. Many southerners seem to have been more exposed a so-called "treasury of virtue" than we were in 'nasty old Massachusetts.'

Later Edit: As I think about this, maybe timing has something to do with it. How did the teaching of the Civil War in schools change during/after the Civil Rights movement? I was in college by 1965, and out of direct contact with the public schools.
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
Later Edit: As I think about this, maybe timing has something to do with it. How did the teaching of the Civil War in schools change during/after the Civil Rights movement? I was in college by 1965, and out of direct contact with the public schools.

Interesting question and I don't know the answer. I'm a little younger than you but most of my "education" about the war was before or at the start of the civil rights movement getting into full swing. I've often assumed that the story varied by region but as posts already made her attest that seems not to be as true as I once thought. I wish I could ask my parents what they were taught but they're long gone.
 
Vote Here:
Interesting question and I don't know the answer. I'm a little younger than you but most of my "education" about the war was before or at the start of the civil rights movement getting into full swing. I've often assumed that the story varied by region but as posts already made her attest that seems not to be as true as I once thought. I wish I could ask my parents what they were taught but they're long gone.
I know my mother was taught, back in the 'teens & '20s, the same as I was in the '50s. -- slavery not the cause of the war. Of course, that was still the period when the impulse for reunification was strong, and "the blame game" was officially discouraged.
 
Vote Here:
One area that I have "reevaluated" is Sherman's march. He is still far from being my favorite commander, but I have worked hard to have a better understanding of the man himself. I still think that the march was a tragic event but I try not ot put horns on the man and his army. (If that makes any sense to ya). I have to say that I got my desire to learn more about the march (not just from one perspective) from this forum.

Perhaps, in time and a greater appreciation of Sherman and the “tragic event,” you’ll to come understand his march as a something akin to a romp across Sunny Brook farm.
 
Vote Here:
Perhaps, in time and a greater appreciation of Sherman and the “tragic event,” you’ll to come understand his march as a something akin to a romp across Sunny Brook farm.

That's why I asked on another thread for reading recommendations on Sherman's march. Right now I'm of the opinion that it was wrong of Lincoln to support the policy of attacking civilians (or their property, anyway, which sometimes was pretty much the same thing), especially once Atlanta had fallen. They could have won without the scorched earth mentality.

So, maybe after I finish the books I've ordered I'll be one of those whose opinion was changed by this forum. Stay tuned.
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top