Again.... I feel responsible for starting this discussion way back when but would like to bring up a point that appears to be coloring the discussion somewhat and that is the continuity of time and the perception of volume.

Books, memoirs, reminisciences of the experiences lived by northern and southern men and women changed in tone, content, accuracy and purpose the more time passed from the Civil War. Virtually every American was affected, directly or indirectly, by the Civil War and the impact has lasted all of these years. Our ancestors, both north and south, were a little less reflective during the war on defending actions, promoting causes, etc. than they were post-war. Take for example some of the exchanges concerning Pickett's charge at Gettysburg between soldiers who were actually present on whether Pickett was present during the charge or not, or the war of words between staff generals and Longstreet's or Joe Johnson's effectiveness. While northerners basked in the glow of victory, poison pen or editorial discussions as evidenced in the National Tribune over who was where or did what, when are rampant. One would hope that today we could focus on unearthed facts. My primary disagreement with Mr. Gilmore's approach (as opposed to some of his facts) is that he links his facts to the same emotional discussions on bias. Yet he brings up an interesting point. What exactly is northern and southern, or Kansas and Missourian bias? That is why, to Mr. Gilmore's credit, primary material facts are the best, in my opinion, while secondary, tertiary facts require analysis for motivations. Even primary facts may be tinged with motivations that would require the historian to look for multiple confirmations where possible. That is why I was delighted when I read an unpublished diary of a Lane's Brigade sergeant and found a second unpublished diary of a lieutenant who was assigned during the time to the same company, and needless to say both diaries converged in that they didn't take to one another initially.

The second consideration is volume. We (including me) are continually assuming that so many documents, books, etc. were written supporting the south or the north, one more than the other, in each opinion. The Civil War is the most written about event in American history that I can think of. Imagine if as much were written about the Revolutionary War or the Mexican War. And yet there is much to be explored. I and two co-horts of mine have written the first, unpublished as yet, book covering the perspective and events experienced by Lane's Kansas Brigade. There are good reasons why this should be done. One to publish unpublished first person material as much as possible; second to tell a story that is yet untold; third because there needs to be more of a balance in volume between Trans-Mississippi literature on Kansas and Missouri Civil War writing and this addresses that; and last, to encourage others to continue the efforts of historians to explore our past, and thus our present and future.

So, while I disagree with Mr. Gilmores posturing when it comes to "Northern-bias" or "abolitionists" and would appeal to him to use primary source materials in his discussions (as I would continue to challenge myself), I also believe his contributions stir me to think about why and what I try to say on these boards.

Thanks,
Howard Mann

P.S. Don... I am still reading materials related to our last discussion, so will get back to you on that later.