Conversation with Civil War Institute director Peter Carmichael. Professor mcpherson reflects on his book and discusses how the conflict is relevant 150 years later. This was part of the Civil War Institute summer conference. I would like to welcome dr. James mcpherson. He has been a longtime friend of the institute as many of you know, he is the henry davis professor emeritus. He earned his phd at drum Johns Hopkins university. He is a twotime winner of the lincoln prize which he earned for why they fought in the civil war and for his 2008 efforts cried by war. s most recent book whose most recent book is in the back. This evening we will be focusing on cried of freedom battle cry of freedom. It sold more than 600,000 copies. About 700,000. You must have a time of twitter followers. Dr. Mcpherson if i do, i am not aware of it. Peter carmichael i will not facebook . How about facebook . We can set you up after this. Battle cry was also on the New York Times bestseller list. I believe it is the single best volume on the civil war. Before we delve into this i thought we could talk about his most recent book. Because of the tragedy which accrued interest and i thought it would be a perfect opportunity for the doctor to offer information on the lost 23 and speak to the fact that we all believe that history has great relevance to contemporary society. Here is dr. Macphersons opportunity to make those collections connections. I have asked the doctor to reflect on this quote. This is from charles pierce. I should add that one of the Staff Members brought this to my attention yesterday evening. If people do not want to speak of it or think about it it is because they do not want 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 denmark ves gave his life to avengeey vesey gave his life to avenge. What happened was many things. A massacre was only one of them. Dr. Mcpherson 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 as 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 was the issue that run on the sexual conflict that led to sectional conflict which led to the civil war. As was said in the documents afternoon, one of the phone foot causes of the civil war was growing in betterment among southern whites in betterment inbitterment of southern whites. That not only embittered relationships between north and south with consequences that have persisted over generations although i think they have lessened in the most recent generation, but it also played a role in the embitterment that led to disenfranchisement in the south and led to all of the negative aspects of Race Relations not only in the south of course but in america. 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 produce in the context of a long history of Race Relations, a long history of racial exploitation, a long history of racial persecution. This was just the latest manifestation of it. It is something that we need to continue to address. As dean said in his talk today our grandchildren may be facing the consequences of this 50 years from now. Peter carmichael one of the things that keith is recorded as saying is what women are at risk. That is white women are at risk. That is something we saw in the civil war, secessionists use that rhetoric. In the postwar period, that is acted out in reconstruction. There is ample were they focus a book where they focus on ways in which they are legitimized. It is not read or sexual intimidation. Rape or sexual intimidation. Sexual violence and reconstruction, quite different than what we have seen in charleston. Again i am pressing you a little on this, we want to bring the broad historical perspective, it is the right thing to do. But then, what do we do . We need to talk about this as much as possible. But how can we go beyond by saying look, there is a historical context, we have to be aware. How does it lead to real action . Dr. Mcpherson one of the reasons that we tell our students it is important to study history and to understand history is that we cannot understand the modern world in which we live unless we understand how it came to be this way which is a historical understanding. 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 a greater appreciation for the nature of the society that could bring about in situation like this and try to address the social problems that underlie the consequences that we have seen in charleston the last couple of days. Peter carmichael as we mentioned, dr. Macpherson studied at hopkins. You can do hopkins in the late 50s and shortly after one word was called would word woodward was called to congress. Our historians being used that way for Public Policy or historians use that way for Public Policy are historians being used that way for Public Policy . Dr. Mcpherson as you know, he wrote a book called the strange history of jim crow about segregation. In 1955 and 1956 there was the montgomery bus boycott which led to the rise of Martin Luther king. In 19 57 the desegregation crisis at little rock high school. I came to hopkins in september of 1958, the beginning of the second year of the desegregation of little rock high school. And would word, woodward noted for his expertise, was called to washington to testify about problems that would be associated with the second year of racial desegregation at little rock central high school. I was actually supposed to have an appointment with him as a beginning student on the day that he was called to washington so we had to postpone the appointment. That was an eyeopener for me. There was a historian being a consultant on the most important social issue on our time, still our time today. That opened my eyes to the ways in which is three could be made relevant to the present and of course the present can be understood if we know the history that led to that. That has been my credo ever since, the way in which to interest students in history is to demonstrate to them how history is relevant to their lives today. This was one of the most dramatic demonstrations to me as a 21yearold, i do not think i have turned 22 when this happened had turned 22 when this happened. It helps to shape my perception helped to shape my perception and his symptoms grew out of the racial history of the United States, it had its roots in 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. Dr. Mcpherson Peter Carmichael stephen would work he was instrumental Peter Carmichael dr. Mcpherson Peter Carmichael stephen woodward, he was instrumental. Dr. Mcpherson two of the most prominent historians and they came up with the idea of an oxford history of the United States modeled on the oxford history of england which was in existence. The idea would be to bring the best of historical scholarship to a broad public audience in a series of books based on solid historical scholarship. It took a long time to get that off the ground but then he invited me to participate and out of that eventually battle cry of freedom. Peter carmichael why the title . Dr. Mcpherson like many authors i went through a lot of angst about the title for a book because the first thing that anybody knows about it is its title. I came up with several ideas for a title,. The one that i like best, the nobody else like to at all, was american armageddon. A great title. Woodward and Sheldon Mayer were not happy with the title. Van woodward and Sheldon Mayer and i were talking about this in my home one day in i think 1986. The euro to before the book came out. We batted around some ideas. And one of my favorite songs from the civil war era is battle cry of freedom which was written in 1862 and quickly became one of the favorite songs in the north. Since both sides profess to be fighting for their own version of freedom professed to be fighting for their own version of freedom, i thought this expressed that. And my wife broke in and said it why not call it battle cry of freedom. She deserves the credit. Van woodward was not enamored because it was a yankee title. He grew up in arkansas and wanted it to be an evenhanded book, to tell the story without yankee bias, so he was skeptical until i pointed out to him that there was in fact a confederate version was slightly different words to the song. Like many civil war songs that started in the north and that includes dixie it became popular in the south as well, in this case was somewhat different words. That convinced woodward that it was ok to call it battle cry of freedom. In the preface and included the confederate wording as well as the union wording. The rest, as they say, is history. Peter carmichael why were you leaning towards armageddon . Dr. Mcpherson well, ive always been impressed by Theodore Roosevelts acceptance speech for the nomination to be president by the progressive party, the bold moves party almost party. Bull moose party. The battle between good and evil, if you will. Both sides in the civil war fall but it was a battle between good and evil. Felt that it was a battle between good and evil. That is what made the war so terrible. I liked that idea. Somehow the word armageddon did not carry cachet. Peter carmichael for commercial reasons, probably. Dr. Mcpherson i guess so. Peter carmichael so your treatment of becoming over the war, even the coming of the war, even a casual reading says slavery was the cause. Would the argument suggests to some that this is a war of the yankies . Dr. Mcpherson that is why van wooddward was skeptical of the title. It seems to reflect that corner of your, southern senators and yankee virtue sinners and yankee virtue. I have been accused of writing from that perspective by people who have read the book. On the other hand i have been gratified by the number of people who say that they find the book fairly evenhanded and fairly impartial. I am not sure i always think that it is evenhanded and impartial but i did try to bend over backward to express the points of view of both sides and various perspectives and to write in such a way as to try to tell the story without, but the story carry its own moral rather than imposing a moral audit. Moral on it. Peter carmichael we will come back to that because some people have a definite sense of what you are trying to convey in terms of the moral consequences of the war so we certainly want to come back to that. We talked again about relevancy. And i am just curious, should we not look at the coming of the war as an utter failure of democracy . And how do we open up that discussion because there is of course a sense in general audiences that it is almost beyond reproach. We get from battle cry do we get from battle cry the revisionist perspective on the war . Because it is a breakdown of democracy. Dr. Mcpherson 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 and a failure of the political process to accommodate the differences in american politics and american democracy. That the issue of slavery and slaverys expansion should have been accommodated by the political process. That it was not was a failure of democracy. That the issues were not that fundamental, not that serious therefore the war was needless. Peter carmichael i will ask you, do you think the war could have been avoided . Dr. Mcpherson well, some kind of a confrontation i think was inevitable. It did not necessarily have to take the form that it did take from 1861 to 1865 but clearly as lincoln said after he had been elected president and during the secession winter, it has to come sometime. Clearly the fact that the breakdown of democracy, i think occurred after 1860, after the election of 1860. That was a democratic election under constitutional procedures. But one side refused to accept the results of the election. And repudiated the results of the election by saying we are going to leave the union. There was the breakdown of democracy, i think. Peter carmichael it seems to me that most of our students need to look at that period with more care. Why i think they need to pay close attention to that is that there is a certain cynicism about politics today. The sense of history goes back two weeks at best. We hear time and time again that the partisanship we are confronting, that is something new under the sun. If they were to look at Party Politics in the 1850s and going into the war itself, i think they would have a better appreciation, a more realistic take on what is possible within the political system in which artists and politics is a driving force. That is the key issue of relevance, when you bring this up, we as academics run the risk of being seen as Political Correctness box, right t hugs right . There is an ideal that you are trying to impose views on students. I know that you are religious about doing that. But when you strike out the relevance, there are people that are quick to make assumptions that i think are not always fair and actually inhibit us from making history work. Do you want to add to that . Lets get to the rest. What does battle cry of freedom tell us about the military . Dr. Mcpherson it tells us that you cannot understand the military history of the war without putting it into the political context, putting it into the social and economic context of the war. They are all linked together. And i tried to portray that in battle cry of freedom. This is not merely a political history of the civil war, not a military history of the civil or. I am firmly convinced that you cannot civil war. I am firmly convinced you cannot understand any aspect without recognizing the way in which it is intertwined with the entire story. So that is the why when i tried to tell the story and battle cry of freedom. Peter carmichael lets talk about how you treated it and your lunar work how you changed your ideas if you change them. Dr. Mcpherson in battle cry i focused on the issues as perceived by the soldiers themselves and by the leaders. The issues of union, the issues of emancipation. As i want more deeply went more deeply using diaries i became convinced that it was an important part of the story. Other people looked up the question of soldier motivation. It had to do with the universality. The idea of the band of brothers. I found a lot of evidence of that. I also found evidence of the victorian ideas of masculinity. Of honor, of duty. It would be dishonorable, you could never hold up your have again is who betrayed cowardice in the face of the your head again if you betrayed cowardice in the face of the enemy. I tried to hold us together in a way that i have not done the research sufficiently to do in battle cry o freedom. That is a good example of how Additional Research can enrich and also make more complex the story you are trying to tell. Peter carmichael in cause and comrade, the soldiers that you focus on are the most literate and the consequences you see soldiers that are highly ideological and highly motivated, understanding why they are making sacrifices mvc a greater cause and very see a greater historical cause. Some of the criticism is that the soldiers that you study, not that they are not representative but are we missing out on soldiers that were on the margin , the soldiers that were not as privileged, the most honorable to the psychological stress of war. How do you respond . Dr. Mcpherson i tried to address this in cosan comrade by confessing at the outset that this was based on the more motivated soldiers, the more literate shoulders. But i also discovered among the samples that the casualty rate was much higher than the average in both the union and confederate armies. And when i was trying to do, these were the fighting soldiers because fighting soldiers are much more likely to suffer casualties. Why was trying to do was to explain the motivation for fighting. I thought these are people that are doing more fighting, here is what they have to say about motivation. Peter carmichael forget we are going to go back to the issue of relevancy. We are a nation at war. We have reached a point where the sacrifices of the men and women suffering abroad does not affect us in the day today. But there is a perception now about a man that go off and women who go off and fight for us, that they are victims of war , and some might argue that civil war soldiers, were changes people. It changes them in ways that they never really could find their sense of humanity again. Because they were all suffering from some form of posttraumatic stress. What is your take on people who make that connection, that link between what is happening to our men and women now and the psychological distress of civil war veterans . Dr. Mcpherson we do not know that much. We know now more than we did 20 years ago when i was doing research for cause and comrades. We still do not know that much about the psychological consequences of a war with two and a quarter million survivors. Those who survived the war. And therefore i am always a little bit uneasy when i see the comparisons between what we know now about the consequences of war for soldiers who experience it and the civil war because we do not know that much about civil war soldiers. Peter carmichael it is a perfect example in which historians, and i respect sincerity and compassion, for what men and women are enduring today, but they are reading into the past, i think, flatout bad history. I think that the man that you studied prove that culture and ideology can be a buffer to the horror of war. I just read a letter yesterday of a union soldier. He was suffering what we would call battle fatigue. It was a mystery to him. He begged them not to tell anyone. Is very next letter his very next letter he wrote about the grand spectacle of war. The victorian assumptions of war are very different than ours. Lets talk about the war itself