I guess I need to read more of your bizarre revisionist historians. Then I'll realize that the Confederates didn't blunder into Gettysburg looking for shoes for their pathetically equipped troops, but in order to round up blacks to take home. I'll also realize that the common Confederate soldiers often fought with fierce courage not because they were defending their homeland, but because they wanted to get up North and seize the farms and factories from their kindly pacifist owners and replace them with slave plantations.
Your theories have about as much validity as Louis Farrakhan's about the origins of the white race, or Jeremiah Wright's about the origin of AIDS.
Why should they? It was their fort.
Then I'll realize that the Confederates didn't blunder into Gettysburg looking for shoes for their pathetically equipped troops, but in order to round up blacks to take home.
If you read the historians I do then yes, you would learn that the story that Heath went to Gettysburg looking for shoes is indeed a fallacy. And you would also learn that the rebel army did round up free blacks and send them South. I doubt that was the primary reason for their campaign, just a happy offshoot of their march.
I'll also realize that the common Confederate soldiers often fought with fierce courage not because they were defending their homeland, but because they wanted to get up North and seize the farms and factories from their kindly pacifist owners and replace them with slave plantations.
No but you might learn the reasons why those federal troops were down there in the first place - because the confedracy started their war.
Your theories have about as much validity as Louis Farrakhan's about the origins of the white race, or Jeremiah Wright's about the origin of AIDS.
And those are about as acccurate as the Southron fairy tales you peddle.