Interview with Larry Schweikart, co-author of "A Patriot's History of the United States"

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com ^ | 1/31/05 | Jamie Glazov

[LS]

This is just a little of Jamie Glazov's nice interview of me today on FPM. Check out the whole interview here: http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16830

[general_re]

Pimping your owm book, eh? ;)

I keed, I keed - congratulations, it sounds like a winner.

[general_re]

"owm"? Monday morning, no coffee. Sheesh.

[xkaydet65]

Saw the book yesterday in Borders. On display in the History section. I was buying Hasting's Armageddon at the time, so I didn't pick it up. Next week I'll go back and get a copy. He makes a note in the intro that he's responding to Howard Zinn's A People's History of the US. It's amazing how many high schools and colleges use Zinn's piece of fishwrap. I did buy a copy so I could rebut my colleagues, but it's going to be good to have a source on the greatness on America all in one place, footnoted and highlighted.

[LS]

When you get it, if you want to send me a copy with a postage-paid return envelope, I'll be happy to autograph it and put the sticker on it that we got from Laissez Faire Books that named it the February "Lysander Spooner" award winner for "Literature that advances the cause of liberty."

[Pat79thST]

Very nice. The left, or liberal, I would fuse to the radical Progressive - a loose confederation of fiercely judgmental zealots that can be traced back to the New England Abolitionists, Universal Suffragists, Nativists, Prohibitionists, Feminists, Abortionists, Radical Socialist, Communists, and Anarchists. At one time the nestled in the Republican and by the 1930's morphed into left-wing Democrats.

Their advocacies include the antiwar movement, radical environmentalism, gay rights, and atheism. I like to call them the children of Garrison after the wildley fanactic William Lloyd Garrison. Most of the PC pantheon - Sanger, Cady-Stanton, Reed, Goldman, etc. can be linked to this thread.

[DrDeb]

Amazon.com FINALLY managed to mail my copy of "A Patriot's History" . . . I plan to start reading it this weekend!

BTW: Last week in DC, I met a former student of yours from UD . . . this student is currently interning with Rob Portman . . . (oh yea, he greatly enjoyed your course!)

[DukeBillie]

We homeschool our son (age 12) I read about your book a few weeks ago and ordered it from Amazon. It arrived last week. At last I have a study resource that I don't have to constantly interrupt and explain there is another way to view that issue. We are greatly enjoying your book. My son hopes to go to the University of Washington. I may have to send him to the Tacoma branch so that he can get a good teacher!

[sneakers]

Bump!

[LS]

Wow! How cool. I know Portman. I'll have to find out who it is.

[LS]

Thank you so much! I've said that this book is ok for home-schooled 11th and 12th graders. If your son goes to UW Tacoma, I'll alert Mike Allen.

[GOPcapitalist]

Have any of y'all read this book yet? I'd be interested on feedback.

I saw a copy of it today at Barnes and Noble and flipped through it very quickly (I only had about 5 minutes time) but I was somewhat dissappointed in what I saw. Two things stuck out immediately. First, the book seemed overly Whiggish in its disposition and characterization of the period between the Monroe administration and the Civil War. It was very critical of the Jacksonian view (and there is plenty about Jackson to criticize), but seems to approach this by supplanting him with undue favor shown to the Whigs in return.

Second, I glanced over the first page or two on the civil war chapter. While this will ultimately require a closer view, what I read appeared to claim that southern secession in 1861 was conducted by a small group of power elites without significant popular following or support - I believe it claimed that only 600 or so men decided the issue of secession. It also claimed that no southern state seceded with a popular vote, which is either a serious historical error in the book or a falsehood that has apparently been repeated from other sources.

The truth, of course, is the southern states of Texas, Tennessee, and Virginia all seceded by referendums that carried by a landslide in all three states. Several of the other southern states seceded by secession conventions that were composed of directly elected delegates who represented their county's position on secession and thus exhibited the popular will through a representative system. What is NOT the case, however, is the claim that no state seceded as an act of the popular will, which seemed to be the implication being made. While this will ultimately require further examination of the chapter (and perhaps one of you with access to the book itself can confirm its contents), that seems to be a very substantial error on a major point that was used to open the chapter.

[LS]

You're exactly right on both counts, and we stand behind both views. You might look at our notes and the research behind those positions.

[GOPcapitalist]

Admittedly, I'll have to take a closer look at the chapter but standing behind the claim that no southern state seceded by a means that was representative of its population is simply not true history. Here are the dates and results of the states that held popular referendums on secession:

Texas
February 23, 1861 - 46,153 for to 14,747 against

Virginia
May 23, 1861 - 132,201 for to 37,451 against

Tennessee
June 8, 1861 - 104,471 for to 47,183 against

Popular opinion in all three of those states, as clearly expressed in their referendums, was in favor of secession. In all three states voter turnout was strong - nearly identical to the 1860 presidential election. The votes were not even close!

[LS]

I think this represented the will of the voters, but not the (white) population.

[GOPcapitalist]

I think this represented the will of the voters, but not the (white) population.

That's a theory that you are free to advocate and defend if you like, but three issues still remain:

1. The voter turnout for the secession referendums in all three of those states is on par with their typical voter turnout statewide in a presidential election year, suggesting that the secession electorate was representative of those states' normal electorate.

2. Your book either claims or implies (I don't remember the exact wording) that no southern state held a referendum and that they all seceded through convention, does it not? If so this is in the very least a factual error.

3. Even if we were to assume your theory about the will of the population were true, do not the secession referendums also violate the quote you gave in your book purporting that the south collectively seceded on the approval of only about 600 or so power elites? Those referendums indicate that in addition to the 600 or so convention delegates the decision included roughly 385,000 members of the voting public?

[LS]

I'll re-read these sections. If there is an error, we'll fix it. I don't think we argue that "power elites" made the decision so much as they rushed through secession without a thorough debate. As to turnout, it certainly depends on the year. In 1819, for ex., turnout in Alabama was something like 89%, and was consistently very high in many of the southern states.

[GOPcapitalist]

Also, let's consider your statement that the will of the voters did not represent the white population. Let's take the case of Texas to be specific. Women IIRC did not gain the right to vote in any state for about another decade and did not vote nationally for another half century, so that places our candidate population to determine whether or not the vote was representative among white males over age 21. Also keep in mind that in 1860 there were few places even in the north that permitted free blacks of any status to vote then, and typical northern states like Illinois and Ohio had laws explicitly barring it. Put another way, the total population of voting age white males in a state is generally speaking the maximum possible electorate that could have been obtained back then, assuming that all of them from the richest plantation owner to the poorest sharecropper or day laborer participated.

Now, according to the 1860 census Texas had 228,585 white males total living there. Of this figure 109,625 were older than age 19. The categories were not recorded statistically between 19-21, but a reasonable guesstimate puts the adult white male population in 1861 is about 100,000. We also know that exactly 60,900 voters participated in the Texas secession referendum, putting statewide voter turnout at 61% of the maximum possible electorate. I think you would be hard pressed to argue that 61% turnout is unrepresentative under any circumstance. Care to reevaluate your position?

[GOPcapitalist]

While we're at it let's try Tennessee as well. The 1860 census gives the state's total white male population at 422,779. Of that, 189,470 were older than age 19. Let's guesstimate again and say that Tennessee had about 175,000 white males over the age of 21.

Tennessee's referendum had 151,654 participants total. That puts their turnout among the maximum potential electorate given the time (all adult white males) at 86.6%. Do you care to tell me that 86.6% is not representative either?

[GOPcapitalist]

On to Virginia now. In the 1860 census they had 528,842 white males. Of those 246,016 were in the 20+ age range. Using another reasonable guesstimate, let's suppose about 225,000 of those were 21 or older, making our maximum potential number of voters (assuming all adult white males participated) the same. 169,652 people voted in Virginia's secession referendum. That puts turnout at 75.4%. Now tell me. Is that unrepresentative of Virginia's popular will as well?