Why the War was fought

[williamlayton]

Windbreak
Never did I say or imply that we are subserviant too a central Government.
A republic is not a government. The government is part of a republic --- a method of compromise and agreement.
A republic is one not one of many or even a few.
We are bound together as a whole, as is the body, with one intrest and one goal as is the hand too the foot.
The foot cannot act independ of the body and be a part of the body.
That is why a confederation is weaker than a republic.
In the case of the Confedracy you find this too be part of the problem with many armies acting as independent agents rather than as a whole.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

Windbreak
Never did I say or imply that we are subserviant too a central Government.
A republic is not a government. The government is part of a republic --- a method of compromise and agreement.
A republic is one not one of many or even a few.
We are bound together as a whole, as is the body, with one intrest and one goal as is the hand too the foot.
The foot cannot act independ of the body and be a part of the body.
That is why a confederation is weaker than a republic.
In the case of the Confedracy you find this too be part of the problem with many armies acting as independent agents rather than as a whole.
Blessings

Oh, WL, these are your exact words and I quote: "parts called states who are subservient too the Republic---for which it stands." and you, Sir, are mincing words! In a Republic ALL government is SUBSERVIENT to the people and I beg to differ that it is weaker, I would submit that it is much stronger. You see unlike some I have much more faith in "The People" than I do the Government.

A republic is one not one of many or even a few. You got me with this one, its way beyond me, want to try again?

And to you, too.

[phalanx]

Its a Great story ,it mostly shows how Good a man Robert E  Lee was , He was sickened by this , and in the end he walked into the White house alone to talk to a defeated Lincoln . They both said , time has out paced us both . its good to see you old friend.
We always talk about what did happen ,this story tells a view of what might have happened .
But if you are into Sci Fi you know this is a paradox , No one from this point forward ever knew how the Civil War actually ended , only what would have happened here.
Except those who were the S. Africans and Lee.  The South just came up with astounding weapons of War , Makes you wonder about the V2 Rocket or the A Bomb.

[phalanx]

This is a great Forum , and a real good subject , its why i picked it.
You all have a good knowledge base on the reasons for the war ,and the War itself .  Events ,Personality's ,The Governments involved , even the Conclusion.
With all your knowledge lets try this , Tell me what you think would have happened if the War had gone the other way?
Not the War itself ,but the America or the World we see today .
We can talk all day about what did happen ,but what if it hadn't , A Moot point ? Perhaps , But it would be fun to see what you think .
Lets just start from the South Won , What do you think with your knowledge would have come next ?
Remember you are dealing with a Paradox , a lot would be different if it was this way , just like if you could go back to Vienna 1929 and you killed Hitler ,or helped him.
No Sci Fi ,just the South Won, Say at Bull Run .

[Ga.windbreak]

This is a great Forum , and a real good subject , its why i picked it.
You all have a good knowledge base on the reasons for the war ,and the War itself .  Events ,Personality's ,The Governments involved , even the Conclusion.
With all your knowledge lets try this , Tell me what you think would have happened if the War had gone the other way?
Not the War itself ,but the America or the World we see today .
We can talk all day about what did happen ,but what if it hadn't , A Moot point ? Perhaps , But it would be fun to see what you think .
Lets just start from the South Won , What do you think with your knowledge would have come next ?
Remember you are dealing with a Paradox , a lot would be different if it was this way , just like if you could go back to Vienna 1929 and you killed Hitler ,or helped him.
No Sci Fi ,just the South Won, Say at Bull Run .

Here is the thread I started that you may want to enteract with but its not about winning the war. The reality is that no one wins in a war. I think Yoda said it best "War does not make one great". So very true.

http://www.gboreloaded.com/forums/index.php/topic,122081.0.html

[SHOOTALL]

The War of Northern aggression was due to Southern Gentlemen and Northern hot headed men not agreeing ! Nothing has changed much for some to this very day !

I offer this as Southern humor !

[phalanx]

That is a good one windbreak , it is a subject i always wondered about . Economics was the big thing.
Like it was posted by one of the members the two Country's would have come together in a lot of ways for mutual protection.
I do believe the West would be more of the Confederacy right now than the Union ,and the ideals of the Constitution would be more alive in the South than it would the North.
California would be by itself or in union with Mexico , possibly even some other States also.  Their is to many variables ,but it may look more like what you see in Germany today.
Einstein loved to toy with time paradoxes , he said if it were possible to change things then we would have never known about it in the world we live in today.
The one event that is marked as the big one was the surrender of the U 234, this was a strange one indeed.
Not so much the event itself , but what else was found aboard the Submarine besides the Uranium. Some of it is still a secret today but the Navy back then said the Boat was years ahead of its time. The Capitan made sure his Boat fell into the hands of the Americans.
The Confederacy was very good at inventing things never used before in warfare , she just lacked the resources to bring them to the level they needed to be if they were to make a difference.

[wncchester]

"But it would be fun to see what you think .
Lets just start from the South Won , What do you think with your knowledge would have come next ?"

Bruce Catton wrote an excellant book on exactly that supposition, titled "If the South Had Won the Civil War", if I remember correctly. 

Catton was an excellant historian and, I believe, a northern one, but his conjecture was rational and the book a good read.  He proposed the idea that within a few years we became three naitons, Union, Confederacy and the nation of Texas, which included the entire southwest.  The three nations were allies for the Spanish-American War, WWI and had finally reunited into one nation by the time of WWII.  We were a much more powerful nation at that time.  And why not, neither side had lost so many of its best men, the economy of the entire South was promoted, not devestated, and its long simmering anger over the massive outrages of what the North called "Reconstruction" was never known.

But  we don't know and what might have been and we never will.  All we can say for sure is that an awful lot of intelligent men on both sides were sacrificed to feed the northern industralist's war machine.  That lost brain power would surely have advanced the present national good in ways we can't imagine now, just as surely as it's true of all the wars since 1865. 

One thing we can say for sure is that slavery would have died on its feet in a few more years.  It had already outlived most of its economic value and that's the only reason slaves were sold to the South in the first place. 

Rich men buy and promote polliticians into agression to further enrich themselves.  They often leave it up to the polliticians to find a way to get their public to follow them into a fight for some high moral reason but the northern rich were the instigators of trying to "eliminate the evil of slavery" and control of the South's economy.  Nothern politicans of that day followed the easy money, just as many do today.

When the fighting begins, our best and bravest always rise to the occasion.  Their loss is a Darwin manner of eliminating many of them.  That further reduces the national breeding pool into more losers, whiners and hand wringers, which encourages the next generation of despots to try again. 

God help us. 

[Ga.windbreak]

"But it would be fun to see what you think .
Lets just start from the South Won , What do you think with your knowledge would have come next ?"

Bruce Catton wrote an excellant book on exactly that supposition, titled "If the South Had Won the Civil War", if I remember correctly. 

Catton was an excellant historian and, I believe, a northern one, but his conjecture was rational and the book a good read.  He proposed the idea that within a few years we became three naitons, Union, Confederacy and the nation of Texas, which included the entire southwest.  The three nations were allies for the Spanish-American War, WWI and had finally reunited into one nation by the time of WWII.  We were a much more powerful nation at that time.  And why not, neither side had lost so many of its best men, the economy of the entire South was promoted, not devestated, and its long simmering anger over the massive outrages of what the North called "Reconstruction" was never known.

But  we don't know and what might have been and we never will.  All we can say for sure is that an awful lot of intelligent men on both sides were sacrificed to feed the northern industralist's war machine.  That lost brain power would surely have advanced the present national good in ways we can't imagine now, just as surely as it's true of all the wars since 1865. 

One thing we can say for sure is that slavery would have died on its feet in a few more years.  It had already outlived most of its economic value and that's the only reason slaves were sold to the South in the first place. 

Rich men buy and promote polliticians into agression to further enrich themselves.  They often leave it up to the polliticians to find a way to get their public to follow them into a fight for some high moral reason but the northern rich were the instigators of trying to "eliminate the evil of slavery" and control of the South's economy.  Nothern politicans of that day followed the easy money, just as many do today.

When the fighting begins, our best and bravest always rise to the occasion.  Their loss is a Darwin manner of eliminating many of them.  That further reduces the national breeding pool into more losers, whiners and hand wringers, which encourages the next generation of despots to try again.  

God help us. 

Good lord wnncchester that is as good a post as I've read here. You should get 5 stars for that one as truer words were never spoken!! Well done!!

[williamlayton]

Windbreak
You highlighted the subservient but failed too read the REPUBLIC--which if you read rather than scan the post--is the point.
The government is subservient too the republic as man is subservient too it.
I am not the republic--the republic is US.
A republic is not made by a confederation of republics/nations it is made by states forming a republic.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

Windbreak
You highlighted the subservient but failed too read the REPUBLIC--which if you read rather than scan the post--is the point.
The government is subservient too the republic as man is subservient too it.
I am not the republic--the republic is US.
A republic is not made by a confederation of republics/nations it is made by states forming a republic.
Blessings

WL you will notice the words I have in Red. They all have the same or similar meanings aka The State of Israel, a nation, right? You will have to come up with something much better than that if you are going to debate me on the Constitution and its meanings.

Listen very carefully as I only agree to what you have stated that it is true as of the illegal ratification of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution that we are citizens of the US aka subservient to it. In the time frame that we are talking about pre 1865 there was NO OATH OF ALLEGIANCE and the word Citizen had a whole different meaning. My Lord man that is truly what we (The South was fighting for). First the Union says we are only rebelling but then when we surrender to return we have to pledge an OATH OF ALLEGIANCE to regain our citizenship. Why, if we never left (as you Northerners claim) would we have to regain anything? You can't have it both ways legally and if you truly believe what you have written then I feel bad that you have no concept of the freedoms that you have lost because of what Mr. Lincoln and his cohorts did illegally to the Constitution and us to "Save the Union" and I say that to you with all due respect.

And to you too

[williamlayton]

I think I do understand the concept.
The states wanted autonomy--they wanted too be nations, each a republic.
See the European union.
A confederacy is not anything more than a number of nations---as is NATO--who wish to bind themselves with and by treaties.
They never work long and can be broken by either party.
Such was the Confederacy.
A Republic is a nation---one nation.
The states gave up the status of nations when the Constitution superceded the Articles of Confederation.
Blessings

PS--I am not a Yankee but a Texan since my family came here in 1837.

[Ga.windbreak]

I think I do understand the concept.
The states wanted autonomy--they wanted too be nations, each a republic.
See the European union.
A confederacy is not anything more than a number of nations---as is NATO--who wish to bind themselves with and by treaties.
They never work long and can be broken by either party.
Such was the Confederacy.
A Republic is a nation---one nation.
The states gave up the status of nations when the Constitution superceded the Articles of Confederation.
Blessings

PS--I am not a Yankee but a Texan since my family came here in 1837.

  My mistake to your P.S.

A Republic is a TYPE of a government, as in the politics there of, and as I said before we have long since relinquished being that type of government.

You are almost right in your statement that "The states gave up the status of nations when the Constitution superceded the Articles of Confederation." if you add when "the South lost the war and the passage of the 14th Amendment." which you didn't. Which I submit is illegal in that it was never properly passed as required by the very Constitution we all hold dear.

Well for something that you say never works long NATO seems to be doing OK or do you know something that the rest of us don't.

By the way Texas seems to be doing OK, if I remember correctly you guys still have the right of secession written into your Constitution, right?

AS to our Articles of Confederation, which you seem to think of as being weak, (so did the Federalist-who wanted a strong central government) was strong from the states/individual point of view. What we ended up with in 1786 was a compromise of sorts until under Lincolns sword, illegal acts, and the 14th we became a Democracy and, in my humble opinion, have been going down hill ever since.

Going by your replies to me you don't agree with anything I've written and still believe we are a Republican form of Government, which is your right, even if you are wrong. I most certainly don't agree with your assessment in any way shape or form so I guess we will have to agree to disagree, so be it, and you have a nice day.

[wncchester]

"A confederacy is not anything more than a number of nations---as is NATO--who wish to bind themselves with and by treaties."

William, your analogy doesn't work.   NATO was never meant to be a "confederacy", or nation as such.  It was and remains no more than a mutual defense treaty between member nations.   

Yes, the American Confederacy was meant to be a loosely constructed nation, one with sufficent checks and balances between its members to avoid the kind of imperial national government we now have, and that as a direct result of the South's loss in 1865.  That war shredded the US onstitution in many ways.   Presidents  FDR and LBJ pretty well completed the job.

I would submit that what we have is no improvement over what the patriots of 1776 struggled to throw off (as were the patriots of the South in 1861).  In fact, our federal "republican" govenment is far more opperssive and intrusive than King George would have ever thought to be.  But, it's only because our political and social liberals are working hard for the "common welfare", especially for the children, right. 

As humans, we are prone to think "things really worked out for the best" when we consider our present status.  But, aside from our comfort level with the status quo, there is no reason to believe that.  At least, in so far as the war of 1861, I doubt it is true at all.  But, our "status" IS "quo", we must try to make life work where we are, not where we might have been, so we must now try to prevent the Yankees from destroying the Nation, again!   

[williamlayton]

NATO was an example of nations entering into treaties.
The Confederacy wanted each state a free and indepent entity--a nation--each with a strong government, boud loosly together by agreement.
It does not work because there is no commitment to a national priority.
It is a mistake, IMO, too say that the federalist wanted a strong central government, what they wanted was one nation and with that came a strong central government.
The problems came about when the South disagreed with what they had agreed too.
If they had won it would all be mute.
It did not work out that way and is now a mute point from the other hand.
We are real close, we just refuse too give in on the points about the national bent of the Southern nations.
Blessings

[williamlayton]

Let us see if this analogy brings it closer too home.
IF, the South had succeeded in its secession then the government in Virginia would have been a mini-UN and each state nation would have had a strong government----OK----could a county or Parrish (my considerations too Louisiana)have the right to secede from this nation and become a nation unto itsownself or a warlord nation ?
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

Let us see if this analogy brings it closer too home.
IF, the South had succeeded in its secession then the government in Virginia would have been a mini-UN and each state nation would have had a strong government----OK----could a county or Parrish (my considerations too Louisiana)have the right to secede from this nation and become a nation unto itsownself or a warlord nation ?
Blessings

WL I'll give you an A+ for trying but no you are wrong. All of the States wanted some form of "Union" it would make them stronger to be able to combat outside intervention. The original framers as well as the Southern states did not want a strong central government. Not having that strong central government was one of the South's biggest problems as it pertains to fighting the war. Raising money and getting the governors to do Davis' bidding; all problems.

Another point to remember is that South Carolina had no idea that others would follow her lead yet when they did; all gravated towards a Union for protection. I also feel those 6, had they been left to their own devises, would have returned to the Union they left and this time they would have been slaveless when they returned.

One other thing you just might want to remember; If Lincoln doesn't show up in Charleston and that shot doesn't get fired only 6 states would have left the Union. The others only jumped in after their perception that Lincon forced the issue. There is no way that those 6 could have ever been a real threat to the Union; remember that at that time there were 33 States in the Union with more to come.

[phalanx]

There is a Monument on the Phillips ranch outside what is now Lubbock Texas , it was the last battle of the war in Texas ,or so it says.
It says that Texas and the Union negotiated a cease fire , Lincoln didn't want to push that to far because the Britt's could supply Texas up from Mexico.
If he Blockaded that he would have a war with both Mexico and England on his hands.
In the South Eastern corner of New Mexico there is a place called Monument Springs , It is hard to believe the battles that went on there between Texas and the Union coming down from the Northern Part of the state.
It isn't wrote about much because it had no strategic value ,it was over control of the only water for 100 miles.
They find buried Soldiers around there all the time ,and people say it is a metal detector heaven.
I found a belt buckle there ,CSA , and the back was filled with lead ,does anyone know what that was all about?
My friend went down there one time and kept passing over a rock that beeped loudly , he turned it over and a Colt Navy 36 was almost rusted into the rock.
It still had two loaded chambers and the hammer was back , that thing had some History.
People find bullets ,cannon balls ,buttons and at times a skull.
Do you remember the Bridge battle scene in the Good the Bad and the Ugly ? That was supposed to be one  of the battles at Monument springs right on the Border of the two states where the springs ran.
Satt hill cemetery is really there , the North wanted the bridge to invade SW Texas ,and the South wanted it to invade Union held Positions in New Mexico.
Capitan is another place ,if you are deer hunting you come across graves all the time , A few head stones, but mostly just these Tin Markers with the name of the dead scratched on them.
I hope punks don't ever find them , I found one once that said  Lt.Swan , NY 52nd if i can remember right ,it was a sad head stone , it looked like it was carved with a chisel. He died in Battle fighting near Lincoln Pass , i covered it up with some brush  , they had just opened that area for hunting and i felt sorry for Swan.
Some Confederates were buried nearby there also , they just had a flat rock with their names on them .

[williamlayton]

I strongly disagree that the Confederacy wanted a union. They wanted states rights too govern theirownselves, raise an army, make treaties, individually, conduct trade by treaty and leavy taxes by states. That in itself cannot describe but a nation.
The great fear amongst some in the South was the intervention of foreign goverments which could become strong enough too influence and even subordinate the state and even the states. Save a strong nation with a strong central government this is the most likely outcome. The European nations withheld support because they wanted too be able to make sure they could exert influence in the South should they be able too win and fear that if they should back a loosing cause the embargo too that nation by the Union would destroy trade relations.
I disagree that the Brits could have used Mexico as an avenue too supply Texas. Their relations with mexico or Mexico's relations with most of Europe was not very stron---tenious, too say the best. They distrusted Europe.
Blessings
Blessings
[/quote]

[Ga.windbreak]

WL as I said before and repeat for your edification. You and I will never agree so all I can say is that we will have to agree to disagree. There is no more to be said. You are kicking a dead horse, why? Oh, and if they didn't want a Union why did they have one? Your logic doesn't hold water.  Bye bye.

[williamlayton]

If you don't want too continue thhis discussion then why end with a question ??
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

If you don't want too continue thhis discussion then why end with a question ??
Blessings

  Maybe, because I'm a glutton for punishment and you are trying so hard!?
Now, you want to try and answer that question, or not.
You too.

[williamlayton]

Well, I can give my opinion of the answer.
It seems too me that the logic and historical accuracy of the answer has left you at an impass, with no answer which can logically support your arguement.
That is not too say that I have not enjoyed the conversation.
Years ago at ol Sam Houston Normal (Now a university) this very discussion was held in a graduate Course study of the Civil war. It was a fun discussion and was enjoyed, even by the Professor who would join in and offer bits of thought which would bring roars of dissention amongst those of the class who would side with you---It was so long ago that I think some of them were Civil War vetrans  .
Anywho---you have presented your side well and I have enjoyed the intercourse.
Blessings   

[Ga.windbreak]

Wow WL I didn't know that you were that old. I'm 67 and if I remember correctly (sure could be wrong though) the last Southern vet died while I was in my teens. Of course I don't remember about the other side but wouldn't think they would be interested in our opinion, per-se.
 
Anyway back to your question; sorry you backed out. Since the CSA did have a Constitution, President, Congress, Federal Judges, and all the other trimmings of a Federal type Government; that was my disagreement with your assertion that The Southern States wanted NO Union. They certainally didn't have to ratify a Constitution as each State made the decision to pull out by itself with no guarantee that any others would follow and in fact only 6 came out at first. That would have been the end of it had Lincoln left well enough alone. Which, of course, he couldn't; and we didn't. The rest as they say is History.

Anyway it was a pleasure and Thank you.
You Too.

[williamlayton]

If you choose too call it a Union that is OK--they called it a Confederacy which is a more accurate description of this government.
Yes they did have all of the offices you claimed. Just like the UN, no one had any illusions that they had any power.
The whole idea of the Confederacy is that the states are independent contractors and not tied by any binding too any other state and not submissive too this weak governement.
There are a number of good books on this subject and I think you may find them too have many of the same fears I have presented.
The armies and lack of cohesiveness are just a tip of the iceburg.
The boys fought a good fight--I just disagree that it was a well thought out war.
Blessings

[williamlayton]

I failed too answer the most important question you touched on.
I also am 67 and it was so long ago that perhaps it were their fathers who were at Gettysburg--- any rate they yelled and howled as though it were them and the pains of the wounds still hurt.
Blessings

[wncchester]

William - "The whole idea of the Confederacy is that the states are independent contractors and not tied by any binding too any other state and not submissive too this weak governement."

Correct.  But, there is a logical reason and it suggests that a more solid union would have followed.

Consider that what the South was addressing; it was a central over-reaching,power hungry, imperial federal government and they were correct in that accessment.  They had not had time nor, at that moment, any reason to consider better ways to form a stonger government than a simple confederacy.  That would have come eventually, the weaknesses of a loose confederacy were too many to ignore, as you have pointed out clearly. 

Whatever solutions they would have eventually devised would have had stronger provisions for protecting minority states from the tyranny of the majority states.  That would have been a good thing too.  Today's society is mired in the tyranny of the North's liberalism which takes Government it's god and the source of knowledge and solutions to every question.  Since they believe that anything can be better dealt with by government rather than the people, it is logical they are willing to submit rights and the privlieges of humanity to their god.  And they wonder why we continue to resist, "clinging to (our) God, guns (self relieance) and people like (our)selves (family)."  And all without the bitterness of liberals who sneer at us for standing on our  own two feet and our principles!  The spirit of the South still stands.

Government is not my god.  That position is filled by One who doesn't need to grasp my means through taxes to make his beneficent works possible.  In fact He leaves those choices to me and holds me accountable, not my political party.  I would note that their god/government doesn't seem able to solve anythng but fails at great cost, even to those they "help."  Witness the aftermath of Katrinia; those who felt responsibility for themselves have long since recovered.  Those who's god is govenment are still waiting to be saved, and not because of a lack of our people's money being spread over the region.  That's a legacy of the liberal's sense of governments power.

MY Southern forefathers knew the limits of govenment and were willing to seperate from the northern government in peace if it were possible, with arms if not.  Okay, so my forefathers lost that struggle but not from a wrongness of heart nor of courage, they were defeated by the great mass of the North.  Today the whole country suffers from the northern power mentality that has dominated since 1861.  And what's passing weird is that the political parties have swapped positions while retaining the regions, the liberal North was originally Republican and the conservative South was originially Democrat!  Massive migration to the South has blurred much of the mindset of our region but we are still the base of conservatism.

Seems we 67 year old poops are more plentiful here than I had imagined.  (Hang on guys, it's gonna get worse!  Gitting old ain't for sissies.      )

[Ga.windbreak]

I failed too answer the most important question you touched on.
I also am 67 and it was so long ago that perhaps it were their fathers who were at Gettysburg--- any rate they yelled and howled as though it were them and the pains of the wounds still hurt.
Blessings

I'm fine with your wording; two sides to the same coin.

Mayhap they were grandchildren who were lucky enough to learn the true feelings of their kin as to why they fought. Since I knew neither my granddad or my great granddad (the first who was born during and the second who fought in the conflict) both having died before I showed up. I didn't have that privilege. I would like to think, as they look down on me, that they feel I've not let the memory of their daring be forgotten or tarnished by time or others who don't care or understand the truth and call them traitors.
you too

[Ga.windbreak]

wncchester-"MY Southern forefathers knew the limits of govenment and were willing to seperate from the northern government in peace if it were possible, with arms if not.  Okay, so my forefathers lost that struggle but not from a wrongness of heart nor of courage, they were defeated by the great mass of the North.  Today the whole country suffers from the northern power mentality that has dominated since 1861.  And what's passing weird is that the political parties have swapped positions while retaining the regions, the liberal North was originally Republican and the conservative South was originially Democrat!  Massive migration to the South has blurred much of the mindset of our region but we are still the base of conservatism.

Seems we 67 year old poops are more plentiful here than I had imagined.  (Hang on guys, it's gonna get worse!  Gitting old ain't for sissies.  )"

You know wncchester what you say is so true "we are still the base of conservatism". If our forefathers had not the courage to fight the good fight true freedom and liberty might have died in a whimper but because of what they dared to do we remember. Although it would have been much better to have won; the legacy they left, if we don't allow it to die, was worthy of the cause.

We do seem to die hard; I credit that to our Steel Magnolia blood. God bless our Southern Mothers. 

[wncchester]

Ga - "Mayhap they were grandchildren who were lucky enough to learn the true feelings of their kin as to why they fought. Since I knew neither my granddad or my great granddad (the first who was born during and the second who fought in the conflict) both having died before I showed up. I didn't have that privilege."

Nor I my friend, I ain't THAT old!  All that human memory was lost before I can into the family circle.

Contrary to what our northern brothers think about the South being obsessed with the War of Northern Aggression, fact is I never heard a word about it from anyone outside history classes in school.  All the texts we had were written from the North's point of view and I accepted it since there was no alternate information.  Only after I reached adulthood and started reading history from books other than those approved for propaganda use in the public schools did I start to realise we, both sides, had been hoodwinked about both the causes and bitter results of that sad,  but not civil, war.

Thanks for the nice comments, I've enjoyed your thoughts too.