The End of an Era in Civil War Publishing
RIP: Civil War Times magazine
Yesterday, I learned from a very reliable source that all nine editors of HistoryNet’s magazines have been terminated. That includes the longest continually running magazine, Civil War Times (formerly known as Civil War Times Illustrated). Things have been looking bleak since Dana Shoaf, who had served as the editor of the magazine since 2004, left his position last year.
The magazine was founded in 1962, during the height of the Civil War centennial. In addition to Shoaf, a number of very good historians, including William C. Davis and Edward Coles ensured a steady stream of entertaining and educational articles and other features.
There really was no better entry point into the world of Civil War history than Civil War Times. At its best, the magazine offered a venue for scholars to share their research with engaged and enthusiastic readers across the country and beyond.
For a number of years thought there was a very healthy competition between the magazine and North & South magazine, run by Keith Poulter, before it imploded and since then with the Civil War Monitor magazine, overseen by Terry Johnston.
I had the pleasure of working with Dana Shoaf on a couple articles published in Civil War Times during his tenure as editor. In 2012 I was honored with the cover story for the magazines 50th anniversary—a story I co-authored with a descendant of Silas Chandler. It is still one of the highlights of my publishing career.
Let’s not rush to judgment on why the magazine folded. I certainly don’t know the details. The magazine business has always been volatile, especially during the digital age. Reading habits have changed drastically over the past two decades. I’ve also heard of mismanagement on the part of the corporation that recently purchased the magazine, along with its sister publications.
What we shouldn’t attribute this to is a lack of interest in the Civil War era. In fact, I think it is quite the opposite. I don’t think I’ve ever seen more interest in the Civil War, even if much of it is framed around the ongoing controversy surrounding Confederate symbols. I find that young people are deeply engaged in the history and legacy of this era and I am encouraged moving forward.
We still have one very good Civil War magazine in publication. I encourage all of you to subscrie to the Civil War Monitor magazine. The magazine has consistently delivered the highest quality articles from some of the best historians in the field and the layout is always stunning.
There is certainly still plenty of room for a Civil War magazine in print format.
For now, it looks like HistoryNet’s website is still operational. I can’t say what the future holds for it, but without the guiding hand of a good editor, it is safe to say that an era in Civil War publishing has ended.
Re "I don’t think I’ve ever seen more interest in the Civil War, even if much of it is framed around the ongoing controversy surrounding Confederate symbols":
I'll bet that you're right, but I wonder if you couldn't widen it beyond symbol-and-monument battles. You probably actually mean it this way, or in something like this way, and maybe I'm going a little bit off the topic. But those battles are part of the history wars in general, which are raging these days because--or so it seems to me--of the race resentments now pervading politics.
I'm thinking of contention over history curricula and of the anger I encounter reglularly over the 1619 Project (which I swear comes often from people who haven't even read Nikole Hannah-Jones's introductory overview essay, and who have no idea that what she says links to something she emphasizes: the gradual evolution of her understanding of her dad's reverence for Old Glory).
I'm also thinking of the current simplistic propaganda fad wherein one party claims that
* it's completely identical to the original party of Lincoln and that
* the other party is completely identical to the original party of slavery and Jim Crow.
You see that all the time in online discussions at the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere. That too is all about race both in national memory and in current politics--and is connected to the Civil War.
Apologies if this is a bit off topic. Thanks.
I’d also suggest adding to the list of really good magazines currently in print is the American Battlefield Trust’s magazine “Hallowed Grounds.”