Thank you for a well thought out response to David French’s article. Many people do not see secession and war as a part of the larger story of our story. That is why I do not end my book “Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory: Religion and the Politics of Race in the Civil War Era and Beyond” at the close of the war or the end of Reconstruction. French does not really understand the period, or McPherson’s premise in “Battlecry of Freedom.”
In the hands of a writer like David French it's incredibly misleading. It portrays the leaders of the secession movement as completely irrational. Certainly they were influenced by extremist rhetoric and they themselves often wielded it for their own purposes, but the decision to secede was a calculation as to what would best preserve the institution of slavery. It's important to recognize that these debates took place in every southern slaveholding state, but not every state seceded before March 1861 nor did all of them secede after the firing on Fort Sumter.
Likewise, some slave States that didn’t secede, and some of the Free States of the Civil War, are now homes to some of the most vile aspects of racism and religious intolerance of that period.
I'm not disagreeing. Most of them did secede between Lincoln's election and taking office, and that wasn't about rhetoric.
My only point is the current situation, where we will continue to question our elections and continue to be tied to the electoral college; it won't last forever.
I wasn't suggesting otherwise. Just trying to clarify some of my points in the post.
Perhaps it will last forever in some form, but that wouldn't be surprising given that we have always lived in such an environment to one degree or another.
Thank you for a well thought out response to David French’s article. Many people do not see secession and war as a part of the larger story of our story. That is why I do not end my book “Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory: Religion and the Politics of Race in the Civil War Era and Beyond” at the close of the war or the end of Reconstruction. French does not really understand the period, or McPherson’s premise in “Battlecry of Freedom.”
I agree that French does not do justice to McPherson's thesis in Battle Cry. It's about so much more than just painting the South as hysterical.
The only thing I would say is we are not guaranteed this idea of America will last in perpetuity.
But I agree that "the Civil War is not the ultimate measuring rod for the health of the nation."
In the hands of a writer like David French it's incredibly misleading. It portrays the leaders of the secession movement as completely irrational. Certainly they were influenced by extremist rhetoric and they themselves often wielded it for their own purposes, but the decision to secede was a calculation as to what would best preserve the institution of slavery. It's important to recognize that these debates took place in every southern slaveholding state, but not every state seceded before March 1861 nor did all of them secede after the firing on Fort Sumter.
Likewise, some slave States that didn’t secede, and some of the Free States of the Civil War, are now homes to some of the most vile aspects of racism and religious intolerance of that period.
I'm not disagreeing. Most of them did secede between Lincoln's election and taking office, and that wasn't about rhetoric.
My only point is the current situation, where we will continue to question our elections and continue to be tied to the electoral college; it won't last forever.
I wasn't suggesting otherwise. Just trying to clarify some of my points in the post.
Perhaps it will last forever in some form, but that wouldn't be surprising given that we have always lived in such an environment to one degree or another.