Difference between revisions of "471A3--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Tuesday"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Blight, ''Race and Reunion'') |
|||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
McPherson's article outlines the various motives for fighting, and the particular confederate and union attitudes regarding each other. One chapter outlined the "confederate bloodlust" at seeing dead yankees, a particularly striking chapter, but there was no parallel description of Yankee point-of-view as particularly morbid. Why would the south be more inclined to emphasize in correspondence home this morbid satisfaction? Or is this a result of historiographical error or bias?- A. Askins | McPherson's article outlines the various motives for fighting, and the particular confederate and union attitudes regarding each other. One chapter outlined the "confederate bloodlust" at seeing dead yankees, a particularly striking chapter, but there was no parallel description of Yankee point-of-view as particularly morbid. Why would the south be more inclined to emphasize in correspondence home this morbid satisfaction? Or is this a result of historiographical error or bias?- A. Askins | ||
| + | |||
| + | "What They Fought For" posits that civil war soldiers were far more idealistic than previously assumed. However, a letter does not describe a soldier's thoughts, but what they put down on paper. In any war the two may not be the same thing, though they certainly could be. Is there a difference in the two, or are the views in these letters, as McPherson suggests, largely accurate portraits of soldiers' opinions on the war? Also, it should be noted that the view in general society was that war in general was honorable and glorious, which cannot be said for the first world war or those after it. Could this have affected how a soldier chose to describe the war? -GStan. | ||
== Remembering Slavery == | == Remembering Slavery == | ||
