View single post by Kentucky_Orphan
 Posted: Sat Jan 20th, 2007 10:27 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Kentucky_Orphan
Member


Joined: Wed Dec 20th, 2006
Location:  
Posts: 125
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

would he have demanded that Confederate leaders sit down at the negotaiting table with their Union counterparts and even if it took a year, work out a peaceful settlement and do whatever it takes to avoid what turned out to be a calamitous war.

I think that part of your criticism is unjustified. The federals were there to crush the confederate armies in the field, no negotiations save complete surrender. Thats what the federals wanted, and failure to meet them in battle would have resulted in the occupation of the south by federal armies. If he would have demanded such a thing from his commanders, there could not be any doubt that he would have been thrown out of office very quickly. The same could be said of Lincoln, I believe (and probably with more justification). A longer period of negotatiations could have done no harm, yet despite that fact I believe they would have been fruitless as well (the Confederates were every bit as motivated as their Federal counterparts).

As to the main topic of the post, I believe I would most want to talk to Nathan Bedford Forrest. As arguably the most contoversial and colorful figure of the war, I think talking to him would shed some light on what the man was really like (good and bad).

I would also like to talk to Joshua Chamberlain for the opposite reason as Forrest. Chamberlain was a man who could articulate his feelings as well or better than any other figure in the war. He was also a man of reason, someone who respected his opponent despite his firm belief in the cause he was fighting for.

Polar opposites in many ways, I could gain more knowledge interviewing these two men than by interviewing a large number with like views.

 Close Window