More Marxist/socialist "Civil War History"

Sierra Times ^ | 10. 2. 02 | Al Benson, Jr.

[stainlessbanner]

As things seem to be going at present, it would seem that we are about to be bombarded with yet another round of blatant anti-Southern propaganda straight from the mouths and pens of Marxist/socialist "historians" who really know better but hope you don't.

We were recently "treated" to yet another showing of Ken Burns' "The Civil War." I've heard comments by some that this series was somewhat redone and is, this time around, more objective than in the past. Having watched the miserable thing in its entirety twice over the years I felt no need to subject myself to it yet another time. I would say, however, that it would have to be a d---sight more objective to even come close to the mark. Burns is a 20th century abolitionist and with the Rockefeller "research" money he got for his initial effort, all he managed to do was to promote his modern abolitionist mindset.

Now, from the "U S News & World Report" we have yet another barrage leveled at Southern heritage by "those people." Their recent article "Who Won the Civil War" by Andrew Curry was a classic presentation of the socialist view of the war. I suppose we should be used to this view by now, as it is all we are ever likely to get from the media in our lifetime.

Mr. Curry's article is about Civil War battlefield that are national parks and monuments, and he concludes that the "message" being given out by these parks today is "subtly pro-Confederate." I've visited probably fifteen "Civil War" battlefields over the years, all the way from Pea Ridge in Arkansas to Manassas in Virginia, and I've not ever come away from them with the feeling that they were, somehow, "pro-Confederate."

Curry continues on: "The Civil War was a fight over slavery. The South was for it, the North against it. Not talking about slavery, they say, erases right and wrong from history--not only in the parks but in the national memory itself." Pardon me, folks, but that is simplistic drivel if ever I heard it! Just drag everything down to the lowest common denominator--the North was right, the South wrong, and that's it. Of course it is possible that our educationally lobotomized population today can't deal with anything more complex than that, so the educrats will give them what they have been conditioned to receive.

Curry prattles a little about Lincoln and his Gettysburg Address, especially the "new birth of freedom" part. I might ask a "new birth of freedom" for who? Certainly not the American people at large. They have had much less liberty during and after the war than they previously had. Professor Thomas DiLorenzo didn't call Lincoln "The Great Centralizer" for nothing.

Anyway, it now seems that Civil War parks, or at least some of them, are going to start pressing the point that the war was fought over slavery. You can bet that states' rights, tarriffs, or the theological implications of the war will from henceforth receive almost no mention whatever, because these are not issues that the socialist "historians" want to impress on "inquiring minds."

Socialist historian James McPherson is quoted by Curry. McPherson says: "This new interpretation is going to put the war in the context of slavery, and that's going to challenge alot of people." McPherson then goes on to backhandedly compare Southern folks with the people in Germany and Japan after World War 2. McPherson did tell one truth, which, in true socialist fashion, he seems quite please with. He noted that the war changed America from "a plural Union to a singular nation." In this he was accurate, though the change has been for the worse rather than the better. It's interesting that when people like Curry go to writing articles about the war, they inevitably end up quoting the socialists and Marxists who are supposed to be the "experts." Have you ever been curious as to why?

Then Curry goes on to quote historian Robert Penn Warren, who wrote: "Before the Civil War we had no history in the deepest and most inward sense." In other words, before we became a collectivized and centralized empire, nothing made any difference. Is it possible that a logical interpretation of Warren's remarks could be contrued as saying that Lincoln, and not George Washington, was the real "father" of the country? That would seem to be what he is getting at. In other words, our War for Independence from Great Britain and subsequent historical events prior to 1861 are irrelevant. Why consider them at all? Our "real" history began with the Civil War and anything prior to that, such as the Bill of Rights, is archaic, not to be even considered. That handful of Americans we have left that have not been brainwashed by government schools should be able to grasp the danger that this kind of thinking is fraught with.

[stainlessbanner]

Dixie Bump

[stainlessbanner]

McPerson bump, my friend. Do the honors....

[stainlessbanner]

McPerson = McPherson

[Vidalia]

Enough of this crap from PBS and the Extortionists for Reperations.

Anyone need more proof that the war for state's rights ended April 9, 1865?

Surrender Document
Signed April 9, 1865

Source: National Archives and Records Administration

9 April 1865

We, the undersigned Prisoners of War, belonging to the Army of Northern Virginia, having been this day surrendered by General Robert E. Lee, C.S.A., Commanding said Army to Lieut. Genl. U. S. Grant, Commanding Armies of United States, do hereby give our solemn parole of honor that we will not hereafter serve in the armies of the Confederate States or in any military capacity whatever, against the United States of America or under aid to the enemies of the latter, until properly exchanged in such manner as shall be mutually approved by the respective authorities.

Done at Appomattox Court
House, Va. this 9th day of
April, 1865.

R. E. Lee, Genl.
W. H. Taylor, Lt. Colonel
Charles S. Venaber, Lt. Col. adjutant
Charles Marshal, Lt. Col. & Inspector General
W. E. Pentin, Lt. Col.
Gilbert B. Cooke, Major
H. S. Young, Major

The within named men will not be disturbed by United States authorities, so long as they observe their parole and the laws in force where they may reside.

Famous Civil War Documents

Civil War Photos page

Surrender at Appomattox Court House

---

The site from which this was culled is Wryte Cheer...

[marsh2]

There is so much I have learned about the Civil War as an adult through research that I never learned in school. A lot of this had an economic motive to keep the New England industrialists in power.

It is not a coincidence that the Western "public lands" somehow became federalized during this same period of time. The 13 colonies when they became states owned all their unappropriated land within their boundaries. The rest of the unappropriated land east of the Mississippi was retained as claims by the 13 states and carved into new states or specially deeded to the federal government to sell to pay the war debt. It was never retained by the federal government.

The West was different. The northern states used the privilege of admittance to leverage their power. Then, when they admitted the state, they kept the unappropriated land to sell. (Eventually, the corporation of states or federal government just kept the lands as federal by refusing to sell them.) The Civil War was about equal footing as well.

I was taught that "Lincoln freed the slaves." The emancipation Proclamation frees only the slaves in the South - not those remaining in the north:

A Proclamation:

Whereas on the 22nd day of September, A.D. 1862, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

"That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom. "

[chance33_98]

A good read is, "A new American History" by WE Woodward, 1936. Sitting here on my desk , it is out of print but can be found on Amazon's zShops's sellers.

[Darheel]

'all persons held as slaves within any State'

Lincoln freed the slaves in every state, that includes the rest of the world as well I believe. The existence of slavery within a state would be the point of 'rebellion' against this decree and trigger military action.

[wardaddy]

Mcpherson's co-marxists who live on these threads should be here en masse at any minute. Advance barf warning.

[x]

It was long common to think of the reason for the war as the struggle between the industrial North and the agricultural South. But the rapid development of industry was as much a by-product of the war and of post-war conditions as anything apparent in 1860. Vermonters and Iowans weren't urbanites and factory workers in those days.

And one has to answer the questions, "Why this war? Why in 1861-1865? Why didn't the industrial and commercial North and the agrarian South go to war in 1800? Or in 1900?" The answers suggest that there was something important about slavery and the struggle over its expansion that resulted in war in 1860.

There were of course many in the North and in the South who weren't concerned about slavery, but the most militant elements -- very powerful among the politicians of the Deep South -- were passionate about slavery, and one can't ignore this passion in understanding the era.

The long consensus that we don't assess blame for the war, and honor the combattants of both sides has become less common in recent years, perhaps as much because of neo-confederates as of any anti-confederate sentiment. There was something to be said for the old consensus -- it made it possible for the country to put the war behind us. If it doesn't work anymore, some old and painful wounds will be reopened.

BTW, The habit of calling any and all criticism of the Confederacy socialist or Marxist is an annoying and distorting one that shouldn't go unchallenged. If all criticism of the secessionists is to be labelled "socialist" or "Marxist" then the alternative of freedom and human dignity is crushed between two tyrannical extremes.

[John H K]

Well, as with most good things (discussing aspects relating to the cause of the war OTHER than slavery) TOO much of a good thing is disastrous.

To the point that we have loonjobs like the author of this story (and their FR co-conspirators) who have a gigantic conniption fit over ANY mention ANYWHERE that slavery had ANYTHING to do with the Civil War; even MENTIONING slavery in any article, book, documentary, etc. having anything to do with the Civil War is apparently enough cause to be called a "Marxist" now.

Probably the key thing to keep in mind (and this actually was pretty well depicted in the movie "Glory" surprisingly) was that the last thing the average Union soldier thought he was fighting for was to free the slaves; They almost universally saw themselves as fighting to preserve the Union.

[GOPcapitalist]

McPerson bump, my friend. Do the honors....

With pleasure.

Any freeper who has visited a thread discussing Abraham Lincoln, the great war in which he participated, or practically anything pertaining to American history between 1850 and 1870 has likely encountered the posting of commentary by Princeton University historian James McPherson, author of The Battle Cry of Freedom. On any of these threads McPherson himself is a controversial figure. To supporters of Lincoln and the North, McPherson is adored and his book is, as one of his supporters recently put it, a "highly-balanced, factual account." To supporters of the South and critics of Lincoln, McPherson's book is a heavily pro-northern account tainted with political bias and historical revisionism. Though conflicting appraisals of McPherson have been going on between the two sides for years, I only recently became curious about McPherson himself. Having an opportunity to weigh in, I decided to do a little research on the guy's background simply to find out who he was and what his issues were. Almost immediately and with but a single internet search I discovered not only was McPherson a liberal regular in the world of academia, but he also has ties to the left's radical and socialist elements.

Having seen McPherson characterized as balanced, objective, and even implied to be conservative, or at the least moderate or politically neutral, it became obvious somebody wasn't telling the whole story. Accordingly, I decided to compile the information found on Professor McPherson's radical left wing ties and introduce them as a whole into the record.

James McPherson: Defender of Bill Clinton

During the second term of his presidency, scandal plagued Democrat President was impeached by the United States House of Representatives for his extensive criminal activity in office including his obstruction of justice and repeatedly perjuring himself under oath. During the debate over impeachment and the judiciary hearings regarding what to do with Clinton in light of his crimes, liberal academia rushed to the defense of their embattled president. Not the least among them to line up on Clinton's side was James McPherson of Princeton University. McPherson's activities on behalf of Clinton are many:

On December 8, 1998 professor Sean Wilentz of Princeton, who had co-authored with Arthur Schlessinger the petition of 400 so-called constitutional scholars defending Clinton and purporting his actions to have not merited impeachment, testified on Clinton's behalf before the House Judiciary Committee. The Daily Princetonian in the article linked here reported on Wilentz's testimony. The article also mentioned that James McPherson had been invited by the Clinton White House to testify on Clinton's behalf along with Wilentz. McPherson could not testify because the time conflicted with his classroom committments. McPherson nevertheless weighed in stating that the Constitution's requirements for impeachment "mean public offenses" along with the implication that Clinton's offense had not been a public offense.

James McPherson himself signed the petition of 400 so-called constitutional scholars defending Clinton and opposing his impeachment as is documented here. The petition asserted that impeachment of Clinton would "undermine" the United States Constitution and "leave the presidency permanently disfigured." Regarding the charges agaisnt Clinton, it stated "the current charges against him depart from what the (Constitution's) Framers saw as grounds for impeachment." The petition ran in newspaper advertisements across the nation paid for by the liberal group People for the American Way.  It was also frequently cited by Clinton's defense in support of his acquittal. When asked about his signature in the article here, McPherson stated that Clinton's impeachment "might come back to haunt the country" and that he had signed it once and would sign it again. The list of signatures on the document reads like a whose who of liberal academia including Arthur Schlessinger and Julian Bond.

When the Senate considered whether or not to remove Clinton during January and February of the following year, McPherson continued to speak out on Clinton's side. Before the vote was taken, McPherson stated, as can be found here, that a senate vote to remove Clinton "would cripple the executive branch . . . weakening the presidency for years to come." During Clinton's senate trial, McPherson argued the same line while giving a lecture at Kent State University. To make his case he pointed to Andrew Johnson complaining that Johnson's impeachment had weakened the presidency so much that it didn't regain the strength it had under Lincoln for another 35 years. During the same lecture reported on here McPherson continued to make his case on Clinton's side by praising Clinton's rhetorical abilities and comparing them to Abraham Lincoln. According to McPherson, Clinton had the same "gift" of connecting to the people that Lincoln did, and that is why Clinton remained popular in polls at the time.

McPherson continued his defense of Clinton as an historian by accusing those who sought to impeach Clinton of a "personal vendetta." Showing a pro-northern bias, McPherson, in the same interview, contrasted what he called the personal vendetta against Clinton with Andrew Johnson's impeachment, which he claimed was not personal (Johnson's impeachment is almost universally considered a fraudulent show trial over purely political differences between Johnson and an unconstitutional act the radical northern Congress had passed). The quote appeared in McPherson's interview on the World Socialist Web Site, which he appears on frequently and has published several articles. The quote in its entirity states "There was enormous substance to the issues involved in the impeachment of 1868 in a way that I think was totally absent from the Clinton impeachment. That was a personal vendetta, and in Johnson's case, I don't think it was personal." McPherson continues, asserting "The major difference is that the impeachment of the 1860s concerned really serious matters of substance, and the 1990s' impeachment was a more personal vendetta" and making sure to point out that Andrew Johnson was never impeached over what he calls "personal behavior."  Elsewhere in the same three part interview, McPherson took jabs at conservatives classifying "groups, like the anti-abortion people" as "extremes on the Right."

James McPherson and the Socialist Pacifica Radio Network

On Nov. 3rd, 1999, Professor James McPherson, author of Battle Cry of Freedom, appeared for a lengthy political discussion about the candidacy of George W. Bush on the "Democracy Now" program of the socialist Pacifica Radio Network. The topic of that particular show was a discussion devoted to accusations of white supremacy alleged against Bush by the show's two socialist hosts.

Pacifica radio is a multi-city socialist affiliated radio network headed up by Mary Frances Berry , the socialist Democrat chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Berry is perhaps best known as instigator of the 2000 florida election "voter disinfranchisement" show trial hearings and ensuing "reports" from the commission accusing Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris of denying the right to vote to minorities. Berry's report was drafted on statistical models by a former paid consultant to Al Gore. Berry is also known more recently for waging a political battle against George W. Bush's appointees to the commission by refusing to seat them.

"Democracy Now," one of Pacifica's most popular programs, is a left wing political talk show that was, at the time McPherson appeared on the show, hosted by Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman. The program is one of the top political discussion outlets for the radical left in America. It has in the past featured among its guests MIT Professor and leftist guru Noam Chomsky, Socialist presidential candidate David McReynolds, socialist and black panther activist Angela Davis, and radical Democrat congressman and reparations activist John Conyers. Pacifica itself is practically the exclusive domain of the radical left. With almost no exceptions, it's guests range from left to far left and its shows are hosted by open marxists and other radicals.

The first host McPherson appeared with, Juan Gonzalez, is an vietnam era activist and organizer who helped found the 1970's era "Young Lords" political movement, a Latino affiliate modelled after the Black Panther Party and formed under the guidance of imprisoned Black Panther leader Fred Hampton. Gonzalez' "Young Lords" organization was a socialist latino liberation movement that dedicated itself to the abolition of capitalism, dissolution of the United States military, implementation of worldwide socialism, and assisting "Brothers and Sisters around the world" who are under assault by forces opposed to communism. The "Young Lords" movement staged "liberation" events in the early 1970's to preach socialism to crowds carrying banners reading "Viva Che!." It is also considered one of the organizational precursers of the Puerto Rican FALN movement of Clinton pardon fame.

The second host McPherson appeared with, Amy Goodman, is a socialist activist and was featured as a guest speaker at the 1997 Socialist Scholars Conference of American held in New York. She appeared at this socialist convention along side several noted socialists including Vermont congressman Bernie Sanders and other affiliates of the Progressive Caucus, the congressional wing of Democratic Socialists of America.

Also appearing on the program as a guest with McPherson was Ed Sebesta, a leftist anti-confederate activist and ally of the leftist attorney Morris Dees of the SPLC. Sebesta is an extreme south hater who advocates radical anti-southern activism on his political website. Among the positions he supports are boycotting consumer products with the word "plantation" in their names, prohibiting federal cemetary maintanence of confederate soldier graves, a blanket removal of confederate monuments, and the removal of all street names that are in honor of confederates. Sebesta is also a major McPherson fan and recommends McPherson's book as a #1 read for anti-confederate activists on his website. Sebesta has devoted much of his recent energy attempting to brand republicans with the accusation of racism and was on the show with McPherson exclusively to make allegations of white supremacy against George W. Bush. Among the Republicans Sebesta has attempted to smear are then Texas governor and now president George W. Bush, current Texas governor Rick Perry, and attorney general John Ashcroft. Sebesta was a major promoter of disinformation about Ashcroft and the Southern Partisan interview during the Senate confirmation hearings.

McPherson appeared along side the two socialist wackos Goodman and Gonzales as well as Sebesta. During the course of the show from which transcripts are available online, he took an anti-south position. Among McPherson's positions were the assertion of his support for the removal of confederate symbols from the Georgia and Mississippi flags, criticism of Republicans who opposed their removal, and direct accusations of white supremacy against two national confederate veterans ancestry groups. Perhaps most amazing was McPherson's seeming abstention from rebutting the absurd charge of white supremacy being waged against Bush by the other three clowns. Among McPherson's statements from the Pacifica broadcast are the following two excerpts:

"I do know that the issue of the Confederate flag in South Carolina and also in Georgia where the Confederate battle flag was incorporated into the state flag back in 1956, that those, that...of those flags has a contemporary political agenda, and to the extent that any politician endorses that, I think Trent Lott did as well a couple of years ago, far more vigorously, I can't support them in doing that."

"I think, I agree a 100% with Ed Sebesta about the motives or the hidden agenda, not too, not too deeply hidden I think of such groups as the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. They are dedicated to celebrating the Confederacy and rather thinly veiled support for white supremacy. And I think that also is the again not very deeply hidden agenda of the Confederate flag issue in several southern states."

James McPherson: The 'World Socialist Web Site'

A Google web search reveals 27 "hits" for James McPherson on the World Socialist Web Site, www.wsws.org. The World Socialist Web Site is the official internet home of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). The site lists its purpose as providing documents of analysis and study "from the heritage of the socialist movement" (apparently McPherson's many articles on this site are among those documents). The site itself proclaims to be involved in a movement to solve economic and social equality struggles, which it claims are "inseparable from the growth in the influence of a socialist political movement guided by a Marxist world outlook."

The organization that runs the website, the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI), is the direct descendant of an international socialist organization founded by Leon Trotsky in 1938. It has affiliate third party political organizations in the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, and Germany, among others.

The World Socialist Web Site has a profile devoted to McPherson under their history section. McPherson's profile is linked their history index along side their other history pages. It is identified as "James McPherson: Historian of the American Civil War" and is one of many sections of mostly socialist themes. Among the others are "Marxism and the fundamental problems of the 20th century," "Leon Trotsky" and "The Struggle for Social Equality." Among the items under McPherson's profile are several of his publications including a three part exclusive interview with the organization that runs the site.

In addition, a mini-biography of a profile of McPherson is given on the World Socialist Web Site located here. This biography is by David Walsh, a socialist activist and arts editor for the World Socialist Web Site. In it, Walsh clearly identifies McPherson as a friend to socialists, stating "Nearly 40 years ago Professor McPherson arrived at a conception of the American Civil War, based on the work of the best of his predecessors and his own researches, as a revolutionary struggle for equality and democracy and he has not, I think, ever deviated from that view. This is noteworthy in light of the fact that the last several decades have not been favorable for progressive social thought" (my emphasis added). The rest of Walsh's mini-biography lavishes McPherson with praises for viewing the war as a "social movement" of "liberation" and proceeds to quote one of the north's strongest advocates during the war itself, Karl Marx, to show that the granddaddy of communism's view is consistent with McPherson's. The article does concede that McPherson is generally a political in his writings, but nevertheless maintains the title "progressive" - the famous euphemism used by leftists to refer to themselves and their allies in terminology with less inflamatory connotations than "leftist," "communist," or "liberal."
 

Now, all that being introduced into the record, excuse me for just a moment while I express my doubts in the objectivity of ANY individual who willingly appears on an openly socialist radio talk show during a discussion devoted to smearing George W. Bush. Allow me to express my doubts in the fairness of ANY individual who actively defended Bill Clinton during his impeachment while accusing those who favored it of having but a mere "personal vendetta." Allow me to express my doubts in the claims of political balance for ANY individual who openly associates with and publishes material on the official website of an international trotskyite marxist political party.  Allow me to also express concerns over the left wing political bias of persons who willfully associate themselves with such an entity as Pacifica or with the socialist activists on Pacifica, or with a socialist political party, or with the Clinton Administration in its defense against the greatest presidential scandal in American history.

James McPherson: Modern Liberal and Anti-Confederate Activism:

Aside from his openly socialist affiliations, involvement with Democrat and leftist modern political causes as well as anti-confederate activism in modern times appear on McPherson's record. They amply demonstrate McPherson's anti-southern bias in his own personal politics on things such as the modern confederate flag controversy and his pro-Democrat political affiliations. Broken down by category, here is a sample of McPherson's politics:

McPherson's modern anti-south and anti-confederate biases -
"One's stance on the [confederate] flag, I think, does reflect some degree of commitment for civil rights - or lack of commitment" - James McPherson, quoted by the Associated Press, February 28, 2000

"I do know that the issue of the Confederate flag in South Carolina and also in Georgia where the Confederate battle flag was incorporated into the state flag back in 1956, that those, that...of those flags has a contemporary political agenda, and to the extent that any politician endorses that, I think Trent Lott did as well a couple of years ago, far more vigorously, I can't support them in doing that." - James McPherson, quoted on the socialist Pacifica Radio Network's "Democracy Now" show, November 3, 1999

Modern confederates are "people who reshape Civil War history to suit the way they wish it had come out." - James McPherson, review of "Confederates in the Attic" by Tony Horwitz

"For a lot of people, especially blacks, but not only blacks, the symbols of the Confederacy, or memorializing those who fought for the Confederacy, are- the Confederacy is seen standing for slavery and for treason. That is for rebellion against the United States, war against the United States, war to try to break up and, in the minds of those who fought on the side of the North, to destroy the United States. And I think it seems in the minds of many to be a travesty to memorialize them." - James McPherson, December 18, 1995 interview, NPR

The Plain Dealer covered a speech by McPherson in a May 5, 2000 article, reporting McPherson to hold the belief that "it's likely slavery in some form would have persisted into the 20th century" were it not for the war. McPherson continued, asserting that had it not been for the war, this "might have given rise to a South African-type apartheid which could have continued to today."

"[Southerners] need to face up to the historical reality, if only to come to terms with the problems of their own society" - James McPherson, referring to persons who disagree with Northern versions of the conflict's history, U.S. News and World Report, 9/30/02

McPherson on Slavery Reparations -
James McPherson hosted a University seminar to discuss the issue of slavery reparations on April 14, 2001 at Washington University in St. Louis. The event's calendar announcement, may be found here. According to the calendar, the session was titled "40 Acres & a Mule," hosted by McPherson. The event's description reads "This class will address the question of whether decendents of slaves (or other African Americans) are owed reparations for slavery. Prof. McPherson will provide some historical background on the debate after the Civil War about granting every freed slave '40 acres and a mule.'" Details of what sides McPherson took during the seminar are not reported, but it should be noted that seminars of this nature on the reparations issue have been held on college campuses across the nation in recent years, almost exclusively to give a platform and audience to the pro-reparations cause.

McPherson's support of today's liberal Democrats, criticism of the GOP -
The February 6, 2000 Baltimore Sun reported in an article about then Democrat presidential candidate Bill Bradley that Bradley had "assembled a " futures group" of thinkers who would meet several times a year to discuss the major problems of, and opportunities for, the United States in the last decade of the century." On the small list of members of this "select group" was James McPherson. Others included Richard Rorty, an ultra-left post modernist philosophy professor, and Cornel West, an ultra-liberal "black studies" professor and leading slavery reparations advocate.

"He's very good at creating a positive image. Just last week, he made a quick visit to the fires in Idaho. People appreciate that he cares about these things." - James McPherson, speaking about Bill Clinton, quoted in USA Today, August 14, 2000

"There is a real irony here because the Republicans went out of their way to avoid real conflict or the appearance of conflict. The public is aware of that, so what is the point of watching the convention or caring about it?" - James McPherson commenting on the Republican National Convention, New Hampshire Telegraph, August 4, 2000

[GOPcapitalist]

Vermonters and Iowans weren't urbanites and factory workers in those days.

Yeah, and the bulk of them still aren't today. Vermont and Iowa did not sit around pulling strings of war for the entire north for that matter. Where there were industrialists the cries for tariff and war came strong.

And one has to answer the questions, "Why this war? Why in 1861-1865? Why didn't the industrial and commercial North and the agrarian South go to war in 1800? Or in 1900?" The answers suggest that there was something important about slavery and the struggle over its expansion that resulted in war in 1860.

Your reasoning is flawed. You throw out those two dates as artificial constructs, remind everybody of the actual date, and, without any further substantiation, you declare it to have been all about slavery based on the loose proximity of the issue. It could just as easily be said that the struggle was over the tariff bill that came up in 1860 as you cannot deny its controversy at the time. Neither is correct though as both are fundamentally oversimplied issues.

BTW, The habit of calling any and all criticism of the Confederacy socialist or Marxist is an annoying and distorting one that shouldn't go unchallenged. If all criticism of the secessionists is to be labelled "socialist" or "Marxist" then the alternative of freedom and human dignity is crushed between two tyrannical extremes.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe anyone called _all_ criticism of the confederacy socialist or marxist. What has been said about socialism is in reference to the particular individual James McPherson. McPherson is called a socialist because he maintains unusually strong professional affiliations with the socialist movement and has a history of strong leftist political inclinations and activism. McPherson's socialist leanings are easily verified and have been discussed repeatedly on FR. To refer to him in his own freely chosen political context is not a distortion by any means.

[John Lenin]

After reading more and more about how history has been distorted by intellectuals I'm really starting to wonder if all history books are not just fairy tales with all the facts rearranged to fit the times.

[marsh2]

And just for the record, my relatives fought and died for the North. I think of myself as a Westerner and am more interested in the historic context in which the War took place, the ongoing difference in opinion regarding the relationships between the individual and the community, local government and the State and the notion of federalism.

[Maelstrom]

Hey!

I'm not educationally lobotomized!

Heh..

Just the same, the author should take a little care when insulting the people he's trying to reach.

[Pietro]

"I might ask a "new birth of freedom" for who?"

That would be the blacks.

[Non-Sequitur]

More from the "if you ain't confederate, you're commie" crowd I see.

[Ditto]

The habit of calling any and all criticism of the Confederacy socialist or Marxist is an annoying and distorting one that shouldn't go unchallenged.

Which is where they revert every time they run out of arguments.

The long consensus that we don't assess blame for the war, and honor the combattants of both sides has become less common in recent years, perhaps as much because of neo-confederates as of any anti-confederate sentiment. There was something to be said for the old consensus -- it made it possible for the country to put the war behind us. If it doesn't work anymore, some old and painful wounds will be reopened.

I have no problem honoring combatants on both sides. I have no desire to impose 21st century morality on 19th century prople facing problems created in the 17th century. But that does not excuse the Lost Cause myth that slavery was not the cause of the war. That myth only began at the end of the war and did not exist before hand. It is pure revisionism. If people want to fly the CSA flag, sing Dixie, and honor their great-great grandpap, that is fine. But we can not rewrite history to pretend that their ancestors were not ultimatly fighting over the future of slavery regardless of their individual motivations.