A lot of what we hear from historians and others, from very knowledgeable and sincere people, is selected--probably unconsciously--for the support of their own idealogy.  Unfortunately, we can usually identify the idealogy very quickly.  They're entitled to have a position, of course, but many would do well to treat the opposing positions fully and in terms the opposition would approve.

The problem that many Southerners have re the Civil War, is that Sherman & Co. brought war to civilians.  The large amount of looting, rape, destruction, theft and murder seems rather unnecessary and excessive; it's hard to justify.  One can understand that some people resent those things, and they're entitled to have that resentment.  (By the way, I include murder because Sherman himself [in US, War of the Rebellion I/32/176] admits to having destroyed hospitals in Meridian, Miss. during his ten-day destruction of the city in 1864]) and I don't know how a hospital can be destroyed without causing people to die.    

Any proper approach to history, especially a topic as sensitive as the American Civil War, requires a real scholar to be sensitive to contrary feelings, to defects, to skewed teaching (hence also skewed popular beliefs), etc.  It is very difficult to do this when idealogy controls, but it is possible and one must always struggle to raise objectivity above it.  We all must be on guard that the "facts" are presented in a context that allows interpretation, not that an interpretation selects the facts.  Richard Dunn

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html