Civil War started in 1856?
That battle, a small skirmish between bands of pro- and anti-slavery men, occurred about five years before what many textbooks and historians refer to as the first official event in the Civil War at Fort Sumter in South Carolina in 1861.
But for a group of interested observers, local residents and a growing number of historians, the Civil War started on June 2, 1856, on a small patch of land 3 miles east of Baldwin City.
“This is where the Civil War started, as far as I’m concerned,” said Kerry Altenbernd, a tour guide at the battleground site on the battle’s 151st anniversary Saturday. “It is an important site ... you’re standing on sacred ground.”
It was that land where famous Civil War icon John Brown, noted for his anti-slavery zeal and propensity toward violence to get his point across, led an abolitionist militia to raid a group of pro-slavery men.
Many shots were fired and a few people were severely wounded before the pro-slavery militia surrendered to Brown and his band of abolitionists after a three-hour fracas.
But the public at-large, and even people who grew up near the battle site, aren’t aware of the battle’s significance.
“Historical amnesia has been a big problem,” Altenbernd said.
That’s become motivation for a group of local historians and other interested observers to try to get the word out about the site and make it a more prominent landmark in Civil War lore.
comments powered by Disqus
- Florida professor to burn Confederate flag
- Could another English king be buried under a parking lot?
- Huckabee says archaeology supports the Bible
- George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public
- Unfinished film about the Holocaust made in 1945 to finally be seen by audiences
- Daniel Pipes calls the rulers of Iran "madmen" on official Iranian TV
- A Professor Tries to Beat Back a News Spoof That Won’t Go Away
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- Sean Wilentz is being called “Hillary’s Historian"
- Hundreds of British historians challenge assumptions of “Historians for Britain” campaign