Enjoy the ride cause you picked it.
Posted on 07/04/2002 1:37:53 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
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 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."
Any comments?
Click for new material including McPherson's extensive pro-Clinton activism during impeachment.
"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
In his review of Tony Horwitz's "Confederates in the Attic," McPherson issued a blanket description of modern pro-south advocates as "people who reshape Civil War history to suit the way they wish it had come out." So much for no bias toward either side!
"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
Articles such as this are one of our best weapons in this struggle.
Thanks and Happy 4th of July to all Americans!
Would you prefer that defenders of Lincoln cite a Southerner like Shelby Foote? If so, that's fine, because he is a great admirer of Lincoln as well.
Thanks for an great post, GOP - keep up the good work.
Thanks again.
Did you even read the post? The point is that McPherson is a writer who is "inseparable from the growth in the influence of a socialist political movement guided by a Marxist world outlook" and doesn't mind admiting it.
Michael Andrew Grissom is widely touted, too. Didn't he raise a stink on your website with that article expressing outrage at the thought of black soldiers in his confederate army?
It's completely up to you who you cite. I'm just pointing out the baggage of one of the persons your side has decided to embrace.
If you'd like to choose somebody else now, by all means go for it. I can't make you nor can I stop you. I will note that if I were in your position and remained unwilling to abandon my position in Lincoln's favor, I would probably try to find somebody to support him who has at least a few reasonable conservative credentials. Take Harry Jaffa for example. He may be the Abratollah, but at least he tries for the most part to be a conservative. And that's a lot more than can ever be said for Clinton defending socialist James McPherson.
I think it's highly likely. That Sebesta fellow who appeared with him on "Democracy Now," aka the Noam Chomsky Worship Service, is some sort of friend of Asa's from what I can tell. No doubt the two probably exchanged contact informat after the interview.
That he does, but you must not have read the entire introduction nor the interview, as:
1. Elsewhere in the introduction the author clearly identified McPherson as a political "progressive" - euphemistic codeword for leftist.
2. In the interview, McPherson DID make left wing political pronouncements including clearly siding with Clinton, accusing Clinton's opponents of having a "personal vendetta" against him, and characterizing the pro-life movement as a group of right wing extremists.
Yeah, that McPherson, he sure is a real dyed-in-the-wool commie.
I'd call him a dyed-in-the-wool leftist. I'm not 100% sure exactly what branch of leftism he subscribes to, though he does have more than anyones fair share of connections to socialists. Additionally, I have yet to see any evidence presented anywhere suggesting McPherson's politics are anything other than left wing. Care to find show otherwise?
I've read "The Battle Cry Of Freedom" (as well as a ton of other Civil War books), and I urge all Freepers to do the same. It's outstanding whether McPherson is a leftist or not.
At one time I was considering buying it to see what all the fuss was about. Then I noticed while reading the excerpts posted from it on FR by others a seemingly high occurence of flat out factual errors. That made me wonder if it was worth my money, so within the last couple of days I decided to search the internet and see if I could find out more about the author. That led me almost immediately on a simple search for his name to all the stuff posted above. So I have since decided that I'd rather see my $12.99 for the book price go into the pocket of somebody other than a left wing political activist like McPherson.
By the way, Steven Ambrose signed that declaration also.
That he did, which reflects as a major flaw on his part and judgment especially considering that the petition itself reads like a whose who of leftist and neo-marxist academia. I'll have to look into it more, but I don't believe Ambrose's pro-Clinton activism extended much beyond that petition. McPhersons on the other hand did.
Is he a commie?
You'd have to ask him that yourself. I know that I've never been all that much of a fan of his, and I know he's run into his fair share of problems with plagiarism recently, but I haven't looked too much into his politics yet.
Not necessarily. It does however mean that all this non-biased, political objectivity, fair and balanced account bullsh*t we've been hearing about McPherson from his defenders is certainly suspect.
As I've noted elsewhere, McPherson is yours by choice. You can have him all you want and I can't stop you from doing so. But don't try to pretend you can keep the parts of him you like while ignoring the dozens of carts full of left wing baggage he carries around with him.
No. The point is that all this "balance" and "fairness" and "political objectivity" nonsense that has been ascribed to McPherson by your ilk for some time is thrown out the window by his ubiquitous left wing political slants and his known practice of mixing them with his writings (see his position on the confederat flag and his "analysis" of Andrew Johnson's impeachment compared to Clinton for prominent examples).
I'm not very impressed with your evidence of "baggage". One of McPherson's major strengths as a Civil War historian is that he provides extensive footnotes right at the bottom of his pages so that anyone can check his research. It is apparent that you cannot dispute his sources, so you have decided to question his political biases. McPherson may indeed have liberal leanings, but he also has a reputation as an accurate historian to maintain that is obviously more important to him that his political leanings.
So you admit that you haven't even read his book. If you don't want to buy it you could certainly check it out at just about any library, so that's a pretty lame excuse.
Admittedly some of it is association. But what else are we supposed to make of it when a guy appears for interviews in bush-bashing radio shows on an exclusively leftist radio station? What else are we supposed to make of it when that same guy writes for a socialist political party's website, which also happens to clearly identify him as a progressive?
It really isn't very effective. The only views that are posted of McPherson are that he opposed impeachment and Confederate symbols on state flags and is dubious about some Confederate organizations.
Go back and re-read the original post, check out some of the links, and read down the threat a little. I posted practically every modern political stance of his I came across by searching for his name on the internet. I think a reasonable summary of what may be ascribed to him without a doubt includes the following:
1. McPherson opposed Clinton's impeachment and actively spoke in Clinton's favor during the impeachment process and afterwards during the senate trial.
2. McPherson supports the removal of confederate symbols from state flags and criticizes politicians for opposing this, such as Trent Lott who he named specifically, and any others who he implies.
3. McPherson believes that opposition to removing confederate symbols from state flags is the equivalent of opposition to civil rights. He stated precisely that in the quote I posted from him in post 4.
4. McPherson mocked the 2000 GOP national convention implying it was staged to avoid conflict, suggesting everybody knew this, and then concluding that there was no point of even bothering with watching it.
5. McPherson considers the confederate ancestry groups Sons of Confederate Veterans and United Daughters of the Confederacy to be white supremacist organizations.
To me, two solid conclusions may be drawn from this. The first is that McPherson subscribes to a solid belief in political correctness regarding the confederate flag issue. The second is that McPherson is known to side with the Democrats on some of their biggest battles while also providing criticism of the Republicans. Both of these positions are solidly on the left side of the political spectrum. Combined with the glaring absence of any recorded conservative political positions from McPherson, his known extensive affiliations with exclusively far-left political organizations, and his having been openly identified as a liberal by a known leftist associate of his, I believe it is a safe conclusion that McPherson himself stands on the political left.
Care to state which side of the conservative / liberal divide you're on? If you're going to keep tossing in vague remarks, quit dodging the topic of the thread.
I never anticipated that most McPherson fans would be. I will note with near certainty that had this been another author with whom you did not have a prior attachment or political similarities on his interpretation of the war, the pro-Clinton stuff alone probably would have been enough to have most in the south-basher crowd shouting him down as another academic lefty with the rest of freerepublic. Throw in the socialist connections and it'd probably be enough to get him on a conservative boycott list of authors.
But since your side has so thoroughly embraced McPherson to the point of making him one and the same with your position on the war, calling him by his true colors is no longer a viable option for you to embrace. In other words you are faced with a dilemma - either drop McPherson and in doing so strike a major blow to the historical case you have built up around him, or continue to embrace him while addressing his newfound leftist baggage by downplaying its presence. Since the strike against your own cause from dropping him is so great, you naturally choose the latter course and hope by spinning away the baggage you can also minimize the damage it inflicts.
It is my belief that in the long run, McPherson's baggage will be something that you cannot ever escape from completely so long as you continue to embrace him. But if that's the way you want it, so be it. It just makes my job all that much easier.
One of McPherson's major strengths as a Civil War historian is that he provides extensive footnotes right at the bottom of his pages so that anyone can check his research.
That can be a strength, but it is by no means one attributable exclusively to McPherson and far from it.
It is apparent that you cannot dispute his sources, so you have decided to question his political biases.
To the contrary as, by my own repeated admission, I do not posess nor have I ever read his book. I have seen some of the excerpts your side has posted from it and in them alone have identified a number of basic factual errors, but other than that I have not read his book to even know what his sources are in the first place. Perhaps you may see this as a weakness on my part, but so be it - I'm simply not willing to put another $12.99 in the pocket of a left wing socialist shill. Needless to say, I do not think you can reasonably accuse me of having found myself in a position of inability to dispute McPherson's work, so that cannot be the reason I pointed out his left wing political activism.
On the other hand, and as I have noted previously, I believe it is perfectly relevant to note the issue of his leftist political activism for one key reason - the fact that the single most frequent and prominent claim made by McPherson's embracers is the assertion of fairness, objectivity, and an absence of political bias on his part. As has been shown, this is obviously not the case - and that is my reason for noting so.
McPherson may indeed have liberal leanings, but he also has a reputation as an accurate historian to maintain that is obviously more important to him that his political leanings.
Is it though? From what I have seen, it is obvious that many do not consider his reputation as an accurate historian as all that great. In fact the only persons I have ever seen assert it to be so are his die hard fans and embracers who also regularly call upon McPherson's quotes to make their arguments. Since this same crowd is making the contention of McPherson's accuracy and fairness as an historian, it also rests upon them to establish the validity of that characterization when, for example, reason appears making it seriously suspect - just as the current situation has.
I suppose I could, and I admit to having briefly browsed it there once while trying to verify something that he said there about it. But I also have an extensive reading list before me of works by other more reputable authors who I am not much inclined at all to set aside right now for the likes of McPherson. Additionally, in light of my tendency to fold page corners, underline, mark notes, or even tear little nicks aside certain passages when a writing utensil is not available, I don't believe the library would invite me back if I were to read it.
When I first became intrigued by the fuss surrounding his book I took the time, unlike many, to do my homework. Based upon that, I asked the question whether or not it was worth my time. As of right now I can safely say that it is not.
Enjoy the ride cause you picked it.
I think this is.
Consider for example the Dred Scott case. This was not some slave suing for his freedom. This was a set-up case, set up by abolitionists, but which didn't come out as they hoped, and as perhaps it should have. (And why it didn't may be a darker story.) McPherson doesn't tell the truth about it. Edgar Lee Masters did, many years before,
Mind if I take a jab at this one?
Off the top of my head one of the most glaring errors was his characterization of the Corwin amendment. Despite it being the only compromise attempt to emerge from Congress during the secession crisis, McPherson devotes barely even a paragraph to discussing it.
What he does state about it he gets factually wrong.
First he attributes the amendment to Seward's active support and campaigning. Seward did introduce the amendment before senate committee and backed it for a good while until it got to the floor of the House, but by the time it was before the house he had focused his primary advocacy to peace conference attempts as a solution. By the time it came up for a vote, the most active senate supporter was not Seward but Stephen Douglas.
McPherson's next error is his assertion that the amendment enjoyed only passive support from Lincoln. Eyewitness accounts dispute this entirely characterizing Lincoln's support of it as active and key to its passage. The New York Tribune, Horace Greeley's paper, reported that as president elect Lincoln had lobbied members of congress to support it. Eyewitness Henry Adams wrote that Lincoln was the measure's central supporter and credited its successful passage directly to Lincoln himself more than any other person.
And that's just one of the ones I noticed while reading McPherson excerpts on FR. Perhaps you can start quoting some more McPherson passages for us. I don't doubt that before long another factual error will pop up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.