There are basically two types of historians on this message board.

Those that delve into Kansas and Missouri's Civil War past to glean lessons learned; study tactics, political or social history; who know that understanding the past helps us understand the present, and hopefully the future; or just have a love of their region and its history.

There are those who are driven by their passions. Some want to understand and honor their ancestors or home place, town, city, county or state. Some try to come to grips with the horrors of war, especially terror and guerrilla warfare, as we are faced with them today.

All of these historians have a right to express their position, biases, and thoughts. However there appears to be a third type of historian, as well. There are those who would subborn others by their biases under the guise of objective history.

Lessons learned in the past would suggest that these type of historians should be either ignored (if you find them particularly distasteful) or ask them to cite their sources and exam those for yourself.

Kansas and Missouri Civil War history clearly stirs passions on the part of historians on either side. For my approach, I hope that I am oriented towards learning from all, honoring all, and knowing that the terrors of modern guerilla warfare, 911 onwards, need to be understood and far outweighs any position on Kansas or Missouri.