Here is Ben Stein's last question. And I'll wrap it up in my next blog.

10.


But most of all-and closely connected to this last point-how could all of the men and women who participated in the war have been so amazingly brave?

How could they have carried such heavy loads, under such grueling conditions, slept in the rain, slept in the snow, marched right into massed rifle fire and certain death? How could they face death from belly wounds, in agony, maddened with thirst? How could they have undergone surgery with primitive anesthesia or none at all? How could the Army of Northern Virginia, starving, under-clothed, bled white by Grant, still have fought so gloriously in a lost cause at Petersburg? How could the Union soldiers have crossed those pontoon bridges at Fredericksburg under intense rifle fire and then attacked the fortified Confederates time after time? How could Pickett’s men have marched across that horrible open field into the jaws of death, keeping good order, doing their utmost as all of their friends and comrades fell and died around them?

Another question posed by writer, Joe Stein...

"Of all of the amazing, breath-taking truths and myths about the Civil War, why is this one almost always omitted from mention:


that men of one race fought and died in the hundreds of thousands to free from bondage men and women of another race. From all corners of the Northern States, men came and laid down their lives for the Union, yes, but also to free the African slaves, the ancestors of today’s African-Americans. When else in history has anything like this ever happened, that one racial group should die in droves for another’s liberty? This surely is one of the brightest shining dawns in human civilization. When reparations are discussed for African Americans, I am mindful that a certain reparation has been paid, that every drop of blood drawn by the lash has been paid for by a hundred drawn by the sword, to coin a Lincoln phrase."

Here is question number nine posed by Ben Stein


Why is not more attention paid to the stunning contributions of the black man to his own freedom?

Both sides considered blacks unfit to be good soldiers until about 1863. When Lincoln finally relented, they proved to be superb fighters, and their presence on the Union side was a major factor in the Union victory. Other than maybe in the movie Glory, I don’t think that the black soldier gets the credit he deserves for coming from a tradition of oppression and humiliation and then fighting with utmost courage as soon as the chains had been struck from his body.

Why is the Southern cause so compelling even now?

In my attempt to organize, condense and purge my many Civil War file boxes, I now have them lined up in a row out in the garage. From the local office supply store I found handsome blue plastic 'hang and store' containers with lids; they're out there lined up, too. I'm getting closer to being organized. Now the hard job begins - sorting and purging.

So, I continue now with another question posed by Benjamin J. Stein in his 2003 “The American Spectator” article: “Preserving the Civil War”.



7. Why is the Southern cause so compelling even now?

Knowing - as we do - that the Southern economy was largely based on a horrifying notion of racial supremacy, why do we find the South still so haunting and sympathetic? Is it Gone With the Wind? Is it moonlight and magnolias and nonsense? Is it the romance of a lost cause? Why do we find Lee so much more compelling than Grant? Why do we find Lee so much more compelling than a general that even Lee said was the finest on either side in the Civil War, Nathaniel Bedford Forrest? Why do I cry when I visit one of my favorite battlefields, the one at Upperville, Virginia? And why do I have nightmares every time I visit Gettysburg, when most of my ancestors did not even come to America until thirty years after the Civil War ended?

Americans, Northerners at least, had little or no sympathy and compassion for the South in 1865. So when did this romanticism with that cause begin? Did it develop shortly after the last of the Civil War veterans died off in the early 20th Century? What part did Gone With the Wind play, or not play, in this? Has anyone written specifically about this?

When I next comb the History shelves at Barnes & Noble I'll be searching for an answer.

Preserving the Civil War, cont.

Now, here we go with question #6 of Benjamin J. Stein back in October 2003 in “The American Spectator”.

So, here goes:

What would the South have been like if slavery had ended peacefully, as a result of moral awakening in the South, instead of through a bloody war?


Might the situation of blacks in America be better today? Might there have been no segregation, no Klan, no lynchings?

I just finished reading the book Killing Lincoln: the Shocking Assassination that Changed America Forever on my Kindle. The film "The Conspirators" follows this book closely; I now understand the movie much better. In fact, I plan to get the movie thru Netflix and watch it again.  I couldn't put the book down though. It's a must read for anyone interested in the Civil War.

US Civil War "What Ifs" cont.

Now, here we go with question #5 posed by Benjamin J. Stein back in October 2003 in “The American Spectator”. “Preserving the Civil War” was the title of his three page essay that asked ten questions about the beginning of the conflict, ramifications of this and that decision, and the 'what might have beens' of it all. I want to continue sharing it here:



5


How would America have been different if the South had won?
Does anyone really think slavery would still be a stain on humanity in 2003? What would have happened if Lincoln had just said, “Erring sisters, go in peace”? Would the North and South not have reconciled and been one nation again? There were mystic chords of memory, after all, to coin a phrase. Would they not have pulled the Union together eventually without bloodshed?

To me, Ben's questions beg others. How 'bout, as two separate nations how would the USA and the CSA have handled the war with Spain over Pacific islands? Or, what about WWI &II ?

You can go on and on...

Was it illegal for the South to break-away? Q #3

I'm reaching out here to the Civil War Researchers. I'm doing research for an ebook. I'd appreciate any info on Sunday battles. If used in publication, I'll of course cite you as a source. Email me at chris@greensblueandgray.com. Thanks in advance.

Now, here we go with question #3 posed by Benjamin J. Stein back in October 2003 in “The American Spectator”. “Preserving the Civil War” was the title of his three page essay that asked ten, most often, provocative, questions about the beginning of the conflict, ramifications of this and that decision, and the 'what might have beens' of it all. I plan to keep the article, and I want to continue sharing it here:

#3


"Why was it legal for the colonies to rebel against Britain but not for the South to rebel against the North?

Again, I assume slavery was and is horrible and disgusting and a crime against humanity. But it was legal under the U.S. Constitution, so why was it allowable to wage a moral crusade killing six hundred thousand men to end it and to compel the slave states back into the Union? If popular sovereignty and right to self-determination mean anything, why did they not mean something in North America? Clearly the South (most but not all of it) wanted to be separate. Why was war the response to popular sovereignty? Or did the Southern firebrands force it on the North? If so, could the North have walked away from the fight? And, again, I am convinced that slavery was thoroughly horrible. But so is war."