Pulitzer prize for battle cry of freedom the civil war era. I would like to welcome doctor james mcpherson. He is a longtime friend of the institution, he has spoken here on a number of occasions. Most of you know dr. James mcpherson is the henry davis 86 professor at Princeton University where he has taught history for more than four decades. Here earned his phd at Johns Hopkins university where he studied under the great woodward. Mcpherson is a twotime winner of the which he earned in 1997. And for his 2008 effort, Abraham Lincoln as commanderinchief. His most recent books which we have in the back is the war that forged a nation. Why the civil war still matters. Today, this evening, will be focusing on battle cry of freedom. It was published in 1988. 900 pages long, complete with 1500 footnotes. But that did not scare away popular audiences at all. It sold more than 600,000 copies. Are we close to 700,000 now . About. Must have a ton of twitter followers. [laughter] if i do i am not aware of it. [laughter] how about facebook . No. Im not aware of that either. We can set you up after this. [laughter] battle cry of freedom is also on the New York Times bestseller list. I think it is the single best volume on the civil war. But before we delve into the book, i thought that this would be an opportunity for us to actually address doctor mcphersons most recent book. The war that forged the nation. Why the civil war still matters. And because of the tragedy that has occurred in charleston, i thought it would be a perfect opportunity for doctor mcpherson to give us some reflections about the long history of the contemporary issues and speak to the fact that we all here believe that civil war has history, it has great relevance in society. This is our opportunity to hear doctor mcpherson to make some of the connections and hope we will open a discussion. I have asked doctor mcpherson to reflect on this quote which i will be to all is well. This is from charles pierce. I should add that brought this to my attention yesterday evening. That this was in the esquire and title is Charleston Shooting people do not want to speak of it or speak of it because they do not like to follow the story where it inevitably leads. It is because they do not want to follow this crime all the way back to the mother of all american crimes. The one that gave his life to avenge. What happened on wednesday night was a lot of things. A massacre was only one of them. Well, it was a horrible tragedy. I felt my heart sink under me when i heard the news on thursday morning. But clearly, there is a long Historical Context for what happened there. As well as an individual, psychological context on the part of the alleged killer. This goes back to the issue of slavery. Which is the issue that brought on the sectional conflict that led to the civil war. As sheehan said in his talk this afternoon, one of the consequences of the civil war was growing in betterment on the part of southern whites. At what had happened as a consequence of the civil war. One of the most important consequences of course was the abolition of slavery and one of the ways in which it was accomplished was the aid that many slaves came to the union course. That not only embittered relationships between north and south with consequences of which have persisted over generations. Although i think they have lessened in the most recent generation. But it also played a role in the in betterment between black and white and the racism that led to lynchings, that led to disfranchisement in the south. Led to all of the negative aspects of Race Relations. Not only the south of course but in america. And this is the latest manifestation i think of that corrosive social factor in American History that was a factor in the civil war itself. In a consequence of the civil war. So what we need to do is put this in the context of a long history of Race Relations along history of exploitation, racial prosecution. This is just the latest manifestation of it. It is something we need to continue to address. And as he said in the talk today, our grandchildren may be still trying to face the consequences of this 50 years from now the time of the civil war bicentennial. One of the things reported was that white women are at risk. And that is certainly a trope that we see. During this crisis when they they used that rhetoric and then during the postwar period we see that really it acted out. There was a brilliant book by hannah rosen, terror in the heart of freedom. She spoke about this in memphis. She looks at how the ideas of Sexual Violence toward africanamericans, their naturalized and accepted. In ways that are legitimate. It is not murder it is not rape is not sexual intimidation. I think you can speak to this directly but it raises one of the challenges of looking for relevance. And that Sexual Violence and reconstruction, the very basis of it is something quite different than what we have seen in charleston. So again, ask you a little bit on this. We want to bring this perspective it is the right thing to do. But then what do we do . I mean, here we are having this discussion and thankfully so. And we need to talk about this as much as possible. But how to go beyond by saying look, there is Historical Context. We have to be aware of it. I do get that message across and how does it lead to real activism . Well one of the reasons that we tell our students, it is important to study history, it is important to understand history is that we cannot understand the modern world in which we live unless we understand how it came to be that way. Which is an historical understanding pierce of the first step in addressing an issue like this is to understand how it came to be. Through time. That has to be the first step. Where we go from there is to try to work out greater tolerance, greater understanding, greater appreciation for the nature of the society that could bring about a situation like this and try to address the social problems that underlie the consequences that we have seen in trust in the last couple of days. As we mentioned, doctor mcpherson studied under and you came and the late 1950s. Yes, 1958. Shortly after your mentor was called to make committee and this is what i want you to address, are we being utilized in the way when it comes to Public Policy and are we now on the periphery . I do not know of many historians, academics who were called in the kind of situation that woodward was. As many of you probably know, woodward had written a book in the 1950s called the strange career of jim crow. Which was about the history of segregation. And that came out in 1955 i believe. And of course in 1955, 1956 there was a montgomery bus which led to the rise of Martin Luther king. In 1957 there was the disaggregation crisis at little rock central high school. I came to hopkins in december the beginning of the second year as of desegregation at little rock central high school. And woodward noted for his expertise on the history of segregation, was called to washington to testify before a congressional committee. About problems that would be associated with the second year of racial desegregation at little rock central high school. And i was actually supposed to have an appointment with him as a beginning student on the day he was called to washington. So he had to postpone the appointment. Well that was an eyeopener for me. He was an historian being consulted on the most important social issue of our time. Of that time, still today. And that opened my eyes to the way in which history can be made relevant. To the present and of course, the president can be understood if we know the history that led to that. And that has been my credo ever since. Is that the way it leads to interest students in history is to demonstrate to them how history is relevant to their lives and their world today. And this was one of the most dramatic demonstrations to me as a 21, i do not think i had yet turned 22 when this happened. And it helped to shape my perception of the importance of history. And since of course this was an issue that grew out of the racial history of the United States and especially of the south, that had its roots in the antebellum period and slavery and came to a crisis point during the civil war and reconstruction. And it helped to lead me to that as my subject for historical inquiry. Was instrumental and gave you the invite. He contributed to the history of the United States. Woodward and richard hofstadter. Two of the most prominent historians in the United States in the 1950s came up with the idea of an oxford history of the United States that would be modeled on the oxford history of england. Which was already in existence. And the idea would be to bring the best and latest of professional historical scholarship to a broad public audience invokes it will be and of the public audience but based on solid historical scholarship. Which was already in existence. The first thing that anybody knows about the book is its title. I cannot with several ideas for a title, the one that i liked as but nobody else seemed to like was american armageddon. A great title right . The oxford editor were not very happy with that title. He and its my wife he and my wife were talking about this in my home one day and in 1986. We batted around some ideas and one of my favorite songs from the civil war era is the battle cry freedom. It was written by george root in 1862 and quickly became one of the favorite songs in the north. Since both sides in the civil war professed to be fighting for their own versions of freedom, i thoughts that that song express this in my wife broke into this conversation and said will lineup of the book that . So she really is entitled to the credit for the title. The editor was not at first enamored of this title, because it was a yankee title and he grew up in arkansas. He wanted this to be an evenhanded book. He wanted to tell the story without overwhelming antibias, so he was skeptical. Jp bias yankee bias. It became popular in the south as well, in this case with somewhat different words. That convinced him that this was an impartial title and it was ok to call it the battle cry freedom. In the preface, i included the confederate wording for the song confederate wording for the song as well as the union wording for the song. The rest, as they say, is history. Peter why are you leaning toward armageddon . 00 16 01 james james ive always been impressed by Theodore Roosevelt acceptance speech to the nomination for president by the party. We stated armageddon and battle for the lord. This is a real crisis in affairs. A battle between good and evil if you will. And both sides in the civil war thought that this thought that this was the battle between good and evil. Thats what made the war so violent and so terrible. So i like that idea, but somehow the word armageddon did not seem to carry much cachet with people. Show less text 00 16 54 james james for commercial reasons right . 00 17 02 peter peter so your treatments of the war, even a casual read of this book makes it abundantly clear that labor is the cause of the war area thats the thrust of the when it suggest to some, that this is a war of yankee saints and southern sinners . James that was why my editor initially was skeptical of this title. It did seem to reflect that point of view. Southern sinners and yankee saints. Ive been accused of writing from that perspective by some people who have read the book, on the other hand ive been accuse gratified by the number of people who say that they find the book fairly evenhanded and fairly impartial. Im not sure i always think its evenhanded in impartial, but i did try to bend over backwards express the points of view of all sides from various perspectives. And to write in such a way as to try to let the story carry its own moral rather than imposing one. Show less text 00 18 35 peter peter we will deftly come back to that. Some people have what you are trying to convey in terms of the moral consequences of the war for you we certainly want to come back to that. You talk to get about relevancy. Im just curious, should we not look at the coming of the war as an utter failure of democracy . How do we open up that discussion because there is a consensus that the democratic process is almost beyond reproach. Did we get from battle cry what the revisionist take on the coming of the war is. Its very much an indictment of democracy to some degree. James the revisionist point of view is that it was a breakdown of democracy, that it was a needless war. That it was brought on by extremists on both sides of the failure of the political process to accommodate the differences in american politics and american democracy. That the issue of slavery and its expansion should have been accommodated by the political process. That it was not, but it was a failure of democracy and that the issues were not that fundamental and not that serious. Therefore, the war was needless. Peter do you think the war could have been avoided . James some kind of a confrontation, i think was inevitable. I do not necessarily have to take the form that it did. But clearly, as lincoln said after he been elected president and during the secession winter, it has to come sometime. Clearly, the fact that its the breakdown of democracy occurred after the election. That was a democratic election. Under constitutional procedures. But once i refused to accept the results of that election. They repudiated the results of that election by saying were going to leave the union. There was a breakdown in democracy i think. Peter it seems to me that most of our students need to look at that. With more care. I suspect that traditional political history gets short shrift these days. Why i think they need to pay close attention to that is that there is a certain cynicism about politics today. So we hear time and time again that this partnership that we are confronting is something new under the sun. If they would just look at Party Politics in the 1850s, i think that they would have a much better appreciation and a more realistic take on whats possible within a political system in which partisan politics is the driving force. Theres a key issue of relevance. The thing that i struggle with is when you bring this up, we as academics always run the risk of eating seen as Political Correctness sucks. Political correctness thugs. I know that you are religious about not doing that, i tries well area. I think we all can appreciate that academics are quick to make some assessments and assumptions and judgments that are not always fair. What does battle cry freedom what does it say about the military history of the war . James i think it tells us that you cannot understand the military history of the war without putting it into the political context and putting it into the social and economic context of the war. They are all linked together. I tried to betray that in the battle cry freedom. This is not merely a political history of the civil war. I firmly convinced that you cannot understand any aspect of the war military, social, economic or political without recognizing the way in which it is intertwined with the entire story. Peter lets get to a specific. Talk about social motivations. How did you treated the battle cry, and in your later work how did you refine or change your ideas . James i think i focus primarily on the issues as perceived by the soldiers themselves. And by their leaders in the civil war. The issues of union,. Slavery and emancipation. As i looked into motion using civil war soldiers letters and diraries i becalm convinced that was part of the story and an important part that was neglected by others who looked at the question of soldier motivation. Another part had to do with u universality and male bonding and primary Group Cohesion and found a lot of evidence of that. And ideas of victorian masculinity of honor and duty. It is be dishonorable and you could never hold up your head again if you betrayed coweredness in the face of the enemy and let down your buddies. I tried to fit this all together in a way i had not done the research to do. I think that is a good example of how Additional Research can enrich but make more complex the story you are trying to tell. Peter in both of your books, you focus on soldiers who were and the consequence is that we see soldiers on both sides who are highly ideological and highly motivated as to why they are making these sacrifices. They see a greater cause because they have from political commitment. Some of the criticisms are that the soldiers you have studied are not representative, and we are missing out of soldiers on the margins. Soldiers who were not as literate or privileged. The soldiers who are most vulnerable to deserting or to the psychological stresses of war. James i tried to address this in the book. I can vest right at the outset that this was based on the more motivated soldiers, the more literate soldiers. But i also discovered among the sample of over a thousand soldiers whose writings i looked at that their casualty rate was much higher than average. In both the union and confederate armies. These were the fighting soldiers because they are much more likely to suffer casualties, thats what i was trying to do is explain their motivation for fighting. I thought, people are doing more fighting and this is what they have to say about motivation. Peter now we are a nation at war, and nation in which we its invisible to us. Its unthinkable to me that weve reached a point in which the sacrifice of our men and women are fighting abroad it does not affect us in our daytoday lives. We rarely get a glimpse of there is a perception that will that the men and women who want to fight for us are victims of war. War changes people. It changes them in ways that they never couldnt really find a sense of humanity again area and they were all suffering from some form of ptsd. James we dont know that much. We know more now than we did maybe 20 years ago when i was doing research for the book. But we still dont know that much about the psychological consequences of war for the two and a quarter million survivors. Those who survived the war, therefore i am a little bit uneasy when i see the comparisons between what we know now about the consequences of war for soldiers who experiences and the civil war, because we just all know that much about civil war soldiers. Show less text 00 29 17 peter peter theres a perfect example in which historians i respect their sincerity and compassion and empathy or what men and women are doing today, but. I think the men who studied prove that culture and ideology can be a buffer to the horror of wars. I just read a letter of a Union Soldier who said he was suffering what we would call battle fatigue. It was a mystery and me begged her not to tell anyone. The next winter he wrote about and the point is the victorian assumptions of war are quite different than our assumptions. As a historian, i think this is very important. It is similar about the war. Did the north conduct the war justly . I will ask you straight out. You are free to call on other work. Harry stub wrote a book called the upon the alter of nation. James harry stout is a historian of american religion. He called his own moral history of the civil war. He talked abouts the just war theory, going all the way back to saint augustine. He talked about the way in which there are two ways to address the question of a just war area one as the reasons for going to a war in the first place, then he came up with the conclusion that the only legitimate reason the only just reason for going to war was selfdefense. A defensive war is a just war. The other dimension of just war theory is he came out with the idea that the confederates were fighting a just war in the sense that they were defending themselves against invasion. My answer to that would be who started the war . You could define the union as motive for going to war is defensive. Defending the black, defending the union. The conduct of the war i think is what your interested in, and thats what this book was mostly about. He indicted the north and Abraham Lincoln for conducting a war that was disproportionate in its conduct to the goals of the war. The destruction in the south, the vandalism the plunder. The suffering imposed on the south. Curiously enough, he also said that northern soldiers, it was the black soldiers who were fighting a just war and they were fighting for freedom. My answer to that would be all northern soldiers were fighting for freedom. As far as the destruction, which touts condemned. As being excessive, beyond the requisites of a just war, by far the greatest disruption of resources was the abolition of slavery area he said that was the only thing that made it a just war on the part of the north. Well, i see an inconsistency therebetween condemning the destruction of southern plantations and seven factories in Southern Railroad and farms, on the one hand but praising the abolition of slavery on the other because its all about peace. Clearly their excesses. In shermans march the south carolina, maybe in sheridans destruction in the shenandoah valley. Clearly that goes beyond the justness of the war. Show less text 00 33 58 peter peter were they really an excess . They didnt line up civilians and shoot them. James thats another dimension. In world war ii we want to say that Strategic Bombing was part of a just war on the part of the allies, that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. In the civil war, very few civilians were killed by actions of the soldiers themselves. Ive come down on the side that while their excesses clearly, im sort of on the side that this was a hard war, and that making it hard war was part of the policy of winning the war. And while there were some excesses, i nevertheless was largely within the bounds of a proportionate response to the demands of the war. Peter when we take a few questions from the audience now . Guest given all of the events on civil war memory to come out in recent decades, if you were writing the end about our today which read it differently . James i think i would write something differently. I would probably give more space to the homefront, to the impact of the war on families, on women. This is not totally absent from it the book by any means, but much of the scholarship in the last 25 years has focused on these issues, the impact of the war on communities and on societies. I would try to incorporate what bit about scholarship i could in the book. Problem with that is that it would now be a thousand or 1100 pages long. So i dont quite know how i would handle it. That would be my general approach. Guest 20 years ago, you wrote an essay titled whats the matter with history about the disconnect between academic historians in the public. In your opinion, has the situation changed . James within the Academic Community it not changed as much as i would like. I think that the academic reward system still goes to socalled cuttingedge scholarship. Too many too much emphasis on more and more detail on less and less, more and more creativity and interpretation, not enough on clarity of presentation. But i think in terms of the wider net of historical writing, it has improved over the last 25 years. I regret to say that a lot of the really good work that reaches a broad audience not only in civil war scholarship, but in history in general is not done by academic historians. Stone by people like david mccullough. Robert carroll, they are reaching out. They are reaching out to a broad public audience in a way that i think has made history more and more relevant and more more importance to a broader importance to a broader audience. But i regret to say its not my academic colleagues who are doing this. Peter im going to disagree with you little. I think a lot of things that come out. A good academic run as a thousand copies. But, i think theres a real synergy between academic historians in public historians. I think theres a place for that focused narrow work, i think of some of these other scholars are building upon what scholars are doing down in the trenches. I agree with your point, much of what we see especially in scholarly journals unfortunately does not resonate or connect with the public. Ill even take a step further, you are good example of this. I will know when you brought your first fencing class to gettysburg, i think that it had a profound impact on your thinking about the common soldier, it also led to activism and no reservation. You are a classic example. These are academics who have gone outside college classrooms. They have reached public audiences on a range of levels including preservation. I think the recess history illustrates how academic historians and public dust public historians. Not sure what they expect, i dont know what the bar is. It can tell you this. I attribute that to i would say a growing alliance amongst all of us to reenergize my comments and responses that we learned from our audiences and we learned from our i think the one 50th demonstrates that. Theyre not looking at the hardbacks. We did not repeat the centennial. Guest whats the new direction of scholarship in civil war and of scholarship in civil war and james i think its a much greater emphasis on social history. On the activities of ordinary people, how large historical events in finnish and impact them. Clearly and reconstruction, were going to learn as we cap of the last 30 or 40 years it will be even more so over the next 10 years, the way in which experience impacted Race Relations, impacted the black community and the black church. Black education in the south. Gender relations, as they interact with Race Relations as we were talking about earlier. I think that is going to be the direction of the next 10 years as it has been for the most part of the past 10 or 20 years as well. James we have a good number of muscle students are going to be going off to college. Presumably be interested in history, and we have a good number of College Students here to who are majors in history, what advice would you get to somebody say 18 years old or so history major . Peter study. Work. Abraham lincoln was once asked how a young person who wanted to become a lawyer to become a lawyer. He said you have to study. You have to work. I think thats the answer for somebody who wants to become a story and to area its a great profession, teaching is a great profession. Research and writing is a very rewarding process, but it is also very hard work. You have to understand and appreciate the degree to which its going to involve sometimes very lonely work. Especially research. Show less text 00 42 46 unidentified speaker do have a routine . 00 42 54 james james im not very well disciplined in that. I proceed on an ad hoc basis. And deadlines approach, i work harder. In battle cry of freedom, you wrote that you thought the south had a chance to win its independence and you cite for. The contingency that went against the south. Heres the question, do still have the same opinion and would you add to or subtract from or keep the same for contingency periods . James i would keep the same for. I have not changed my mind about that. I think thats my arguments about that still are defensible. The first of those for turning points was one in favor of the confederacy. It looked in the spring of 1862 the north was about to win the war. They had won a succession of important battles in the western theater and along the south atlantic coast. Mcclellan looked like he was closing in on richmond. The confederacy, Jefferson Davis was depressed. They had loaded the archives and confederate gold on trains to take it out of richmond because it looked like richmond was about to fall. The war might have been over in the spring of 1862, but as Everybody Knows jackson and me and the confederate counteroffensive change that, but that was the first turning point. The second one was in two. The third one was gettysburg and its vicksburg. The last one was shermans capture of atlanta and other Union Victories in the fall of 18 six four, and lincolns reelection. Each of those collected confederate momentum, but it looks like it might be moving toward some kind of victory. The turned around. The final and turned around permanently. I would stick with that. Even today 2728 years later. Were coming out of commemorative. Of the civil war. What do you think is the great challenge for the way in which we remember the civil war . James i guess the challenge is to continue to try to understand its impact its continuing impact on america today. The very issue we started out with, this discussion about what happened in charleston. Clearly the civil war was the most important event in our history in shaping the world in which we live. Not only by preserving the United States as one nation, that was deeply contested until 1865. Not only for making 611865, but earlier as well. Abolishing slavery, the issue thats had made a mockery of american professions of being a beacon of liberty liberty. Those two issues are really important and our identity and what kind of society we are. I think that the civil war in another respect shaped modern america up until 1861, 1865, there were really to ideas about what kind of a country that should be area whether it should be a society based on Democratic Capitalism and the urbanizing and industrializing or one based on a kind of seeing your real agricultural society, Plantation Society based on forced labor. Us today, it seems inevitable that the democratic entrepreneurial capitalist model would prevail. But that was not so clear to people in the 1850s. By any means. The civil war really determines what kind of a society for better or for worse. Its not entirely for the better. In many ways it may be for the worst, but at least we need to understand the way in which the civil war helps put america on the path weve been on our the past hundred 50 years. I think thats what is really important about studying the civil war. To ask another question about changes in historiography. Given all of the work that has been done on civil war memory recently, would you change the place that you chose to end the battle cry freedom . Would you change the ending in any way as reflected on it today . James im not sure i understand the important that question. For one thing this was a volume of the series and i was told that i was writing about the. From 1848 to 1865. So i ended in 1865. So i ended in 1865. [applause] [laughter] james if i were writing a book entirely shaped by my own concept of what the book up to be, i think the reconstruction. Is an integral part of the story of the civil war. Clearly as we are heading now and see the sesquicentennial reconstruction, that is one of the directions to get back to an earlier question of which reconstruction books or studies, will take. To see it as part of the larger story of the civil war. Youre quite right, the question is quite right to suggest that the story is still unfinished in 1865. The three great constitutional amendments that wrote the civil war, only one of them has been ratified in 1865. The story of the civil war is also the story of the 14th and 15th amendments and the way in which those two amendment which is the basis of more jurisprudence than almost any other part of the constitution, even today the way in which those two reconstruction amendments really are part of the larger story of the war. Clearly i think that is one of clearly i think that is one of the directions that scholarship is going to go. In the next decade or two. What type of nation do you think would have emerged as the south had won the war . 00 50 56 james james we would have been two nations. I think the confederacy would have persisted for a good many years, maybe a good many decades as a slave society. I also think thats the precedents of a successful secession of disunion might have caused further secessions, greater movements for disunion. The populace in the 1890s rebelling against the eastern banks that were oppressing them. Maybe there would have been a populist republic in the midwest or the far west. Who knows . The United States mightve broken up into several different countries. Clearly that was one of the fears or one of the reasons why the northern people and the Lincoln Administration refused to accept the legitimacy of secession. It was a question of the fatal precedent. That it would end the idea of the United States as a nation. But nobody can say for sure what was likely to have happens, clearly for a few decades there would have been no United States would have been no United States in the same way that it existed before 1860. Peter im going to put you on the battlefield. By now, we have little bit of the next and session about gettysburg. With several monuments. With the 1913 reunion. On the other side, we have the high watermark monument. Do you have the july 3, 1863 that . You will these other layers of history, have you deal with that . Especially the issue of reconciliation and the fact that this war is often in tension with that. Theres a lot embedded in my question. On the ground, how do engage your students and talk to them about these complex historical narratives . James i was involved in the planning for the new Visitor Center here gettysburg. Im a member of the board of the gettysburg foundation. I worked with john watcher and the others who planned the new Visitor Center. Along with other historians and along with scott hardwick. I strongly supported the idea that the main concepts of understanding the importance of gettysburg is not the high watermark of the confederacy, its the new birth of freedom. That lincoln mentioned in the gettysburg address. I think thats what i try to deal with when talking abouts high watermark, the meaning of gettysburg. My clearly was a high watermark for the confederacy. Thats still an important part of understanding the battle. Especially as military dimensions. It was lincoln who defined the real meaning of gettysburg. Show less text 00 55 29 peter peter im going to take that elite into my final question. To criticism of your work by a to criticism of your work by a historian. To southern historian has dabbled in civil war history. This is from a piece about the civil war. But even i served. Hes afraid to ken burns as well as mcpherson. Antislavery, progress, war and National Identity intertwined at the same time of the civil war so that each element became inseparable from the others. The story has become common sense to americans. Emancipation, war, nation and progress. All part of one story. I would have to that, this is the new birth of freedom. Had he about that as a criticism james its a description of my work. Clearly he has nailed it. This is the way i do see the civil or. All of these things intertwined. I donts make any apologies for it. Peter im struck. A gone back and taken a look at the piece. His great scholar. And you use the word contingency in your final conclusion. He hates contingency. As i looked at it i said this is really not much different than what you are suggesting. We talked a little bit about this area this is a concern of mine, i suspect i actually am guilty of this. I was somewhat seduced by his criticism. Civil war history opera fee is has taken a new turn in a new revision area and be honest with you. I see elements of the start turn. Its already in your book. Im not saying we can build on that, but this criticism seems badly misplaced to me. James what about the start turn . This dark turn . This is a very fun piece, which you think about this turn . 00 58 33 james james im not sure i quite understand what you peter the civil war emerges from another messy ghastly part of conflict between two parties who were both to some degree in the wrong. Historians writing in this pain underscore the wars bleakest battles while exposing and underlining that there are few show less text 00 59 08 James James James the idea that the civil war really was its a kind of neorevisionism. It was useless because it didnt peter roughly 700,000 casualties. Is it worth freedom for africanamericans that some would say with second place . 00 59 30 james james it comes out of the skepticism about what will whether the civil war did accomplish a new birth of freedom. If one looks back at what the slaves themselves thought about freedom in 1865, one of black historian wrote about freedom in the 1900. Clearly it was better than a slavery. In my opinion, the civil war accomplished a huge amount in terms of changing the direction of this country, largely for the better. Not that there werent horrible aspects of the reconstruction period and Race Relations. I think that slavery was a terrible violation of the professed ideals on which this country was founded. Bring that to a end in the civil war was a huge accompaniment. Peter before we close, i need to confess that we have had email correspondence before the. It scented it centered on the wardrobe. I said to my wife, i need a new armani suit. You were interviewing a guy who has the blitzer. Pulitzer. My wife said, when you get a pulitzer, you can get an armani. [laughter] im hoping to get peter thank you for so much that you have done over the years. Thank you. [applause] winegar. Book tv recently visited capitol