Since I started this discussion, I should try to add to it. First, I served in the U.S. Army as a military policeman during the Vietnam conflict. I was not in a war zone and am not qualified to promote myself as an expert on battle fatigue, fear and cowardice or bravery. My father was a Ranger in the 5th Ranger Battalion and went ashore on D-Day at Normandy, France. My grandfather (mother's side) was a corporal in the 304th Ammunition Train in WWI. My great-grandfather was a private in Lane's Kansas Brigade and his great-grandfather fought in the Revolutionary War. None of this makes me an expert, but I am, and have been, interested in why, how, and what was the impact on the lives of these men, and as a result some of why I am here, have I lived and will live a good life, and why do others fight. Framed in today's world of insecurity, it seems coincidental that the guerrilla warfare of years past, including the Civil War, relates to guerrilla warfare and now terrorism of today.

So the point of my message was not to try to tell historians (and I believe that everyone that has participated in this series is a historian)what to think or what to say, but to foster discussion on why some historians choose the path of partisanship to prove their point.

I only hope that as I write of Lane's Kansas Brigade, or the Union side, which I agree has been missrepresented over the years and neglected in literature, that I show the same things I am looking for in my historical research, why did these men fight, what were their experiences, what was the impact of their experiences on their post-war lives. I also hope to learn, as David Haimerl put it so well, what lessons can we glean from the past that applies to the difficulties we face as a country today.

So, I hope no offence was taken by anyone participating in this stream of discussion. I learned once in business, that without conflict we do not progress, so maybe by inspecting this topic we all learn a little about ourselves.