Alan,

You raise a lot of important issues, Alan. One is your questioning of the objectivity of historians. In this, you are right. Historians are no more objective about history and other events than the average man on the streets, although they are more informed.They are just as politicized as everyone else. So readers of history have to accept that as a given. I've had Northern sympathizers say I'm prejudiced in favor of the South, even though all of my family I know of were not Southerners, and four of my immediate ancestors were in the Union Army, and scores of more distant relatives. Nonetheless, part of my family, the German Immigrants from the 1850s moved to Missouri in 1870, and I favor Misouri over Kansas in a lot of regards. Those rabidly pro-Kansas, pro-abolitionists, pro-John Brown, though, think they aren't biased at all. So it helps when you approach history, as you do, with honesty I know, and to take stock of oneself. I always have called the Border War a minefield of misinformation for the reasons you talk about, the highly politicized nature of the Border War, where, JUST LIKE TODAY, newspapers play the party line almost invariably, either Democratic or Republican. So what does the person interested in the truth do. Well, first he is cautious, he examines his own bias, then he looks for information as objective as possible. For instance, concerning the Battle of Wilson's Creek, you read the personal communications by the various commanders immediately after the battle, in the War of the Rebellion record and compare them. In this case, the accounts are diametrically opposed to one another. Some of the Federal acounts by a couple commanders at least are word for word the same, suggesting some form of collusion in the accounts. The Southerners say the Northerners were thrown off the battlefield with cannon balls bouncing across the terrain behind them, after leaving General Lyon's body lying on the battlefield unattended. The Northerners say they "forgot him." Well, what is indicated is a precipitous exit from the battlefield rather than the judicious decision to go back to Springfield talked about in the Northern, firsthand accounts. But you do have to weight the various accounts, make sure that most of them were made within a short time after the events described, then, acquire as many accounts as you can, Southern and Northern and try to be as fair as you can about what REALLY happened. Thanks for your remarks on bias. This is an extremely significant issue. Some poeple answer fact-based accounts with insults, but you really have to be honest about events if you want the truth. If you want to be a propogandists, though, you don't need to be concerned with the truth.

Best regards,

Don G.