Chase is correct, I have many Southern ancestors. Two grandfathers fought for the Confederacy (one in Georgia and one in Arkansas). I may have had a direct ancestor fight in a Mississippi unit...he was in MS during the war, but I have not yet been able to confirm if he served or not.

But I also have Union ancestors---some were in Missouri, some in Kansas.

And then, I have a direct line from Switzerland that came to the US after the war, so that just adds neutrality I guess. LOL

My geographical upbringing is just as mixed. I've spent roughly a third of my life far out West, a third in the Midwest, and a third in the South.

So where do I stand...or where SHOULD I stand?

My answer is that I don't try to take a "side." I would not claim I am absolutely objective, but I certainly do not have anything to gain by championing one cause over another. So, I try to look at the war as any other topic in history that I do not have a personal connection to.

There are times when I sit back and enjoy the emotional attachment from my roots. For instance, my Georgia relative fought at Vicksburg and was captured. When I visit that place, I walk along the earthworks trying to understand and appreciate what he did so many miles from his home and family. The same is true with my ancestor from Arkansas, whose regiment was in the middle of the fight at Shiloh. Such attachment brings history to life, and offers one a connection to the past and something bigger than ourselves.

Yet, I do not want this attachment to skew my understanding of the bigger historical picture.

Some people here (as with other places I have discussed the Civil War) become very suspicious when I discuss slavery and the war. The image of a great and moral advancing Union army marching to stamp out the evil institution has been exaggerated in some places and been misunderstood by many Americans. There are some people who rail against the South for its institution of slavery while seemingly ignoring the white supremacist attitudes of many in the North. Thus, popular historical perceptions of the war tend to take polar opposites, and when it is brought up, people often assume one is on one "side" or the other of the debate---sort of an "all or nothing" approach.

My goal is to combat both extremes. And the reason, I believe, that you (Ken) and others may agree with me---even if you originally read my posts with suspicion---is because you are educated enough to know it really isn't as simple as so many people portray it to be. I am not here to champion the Union cause over the Confederate cause, or vice versa. Once people realize that, people generally find that they agree with much of what I say...just as I agree with much of what you say.

There are people here who will always be more partial (sometimes very, very partial) to one "side" or view of the war. That is fine, for this is a discussion website for people to express their views. I just hope we can get past the pithy, simplistic view of the war and American society of the 19th century to talk about the topics in a little more depth. That is when the learning really takes place. :)