American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

ACWGC Forums

* ACWGC    * Dpt. of Records (DoR)    *Club Recruiting Office     ACWGC Memorial

* CSA HQ    * VMI   * Join CSA    

* Union HQ   * UMA   * Join Union    

CSA Armies:   ANV   AoT

Union Armies:   AotP    AotT

Link Express

Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Sat Sep 13, 2025 6:43 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 08, 2025 3:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 1121
Location: Tennessee
The following is just for fun. I am currently listening to the Civil War Talk Radio podcasts https://impedimentsofwar.org/ while out jogging and decided to "start at the beginning" of the series and write up some quick episode reviews here for anyone interested. I will add a new post to this thread each time I complete a podcast. Feel free to add comments if you have any about the episodes or the points raised in them.

NOTE: The opinions expressed by the guests on these shows are their own. If anyone wants to debate 19th century politics on an intellectual level feel free to do so. Anyone wanting to debate them in the modern style of name-calling, cursing, and personal attacks will have their posts deleted. Keep it clean and civil as this can be a fun thread.




EPISODE 1.01 (Season 1 - Episode 1) -
September 25, 2004

Civil War, Then and Now
Guest: James McPherson

Dr. James McPherson, Pulitzer Prize winning author, tackles several political and emotional issues surrounding the causes and legacies of the Civil War.


Blake's Review:
What a way to start a podcast series! James McPherson has written several histories on the Civil War which are now considered must-reads. That's like starting a show about classic westerns and having Clint Eastwood stroll in for the first episode.

The early podcasts featured more of a scripted question and answer format than later shows would. The first question McPherson received was a "softball" question about why the Civil War remains a subject of intense discussion despite having ended so long ago. McPherson lays out that the impact of the war continues to be felt because of the magnitude of the changes brought about by the war. "It ensured the survival of the United States as one nation. That was the principle issue of the war," he tells the show's host. He continued by touching upon the more immediate impact of the war which "brought about the abolition of slavery and the emancipation of 4 million slaves, and therefore brought to an end the institution that had plagued and divided and embittered Americans ever since 1789." McPherson then turns to a final point about why the war endures. That point being the "larger than life characters who have become enshrined in our national pantheon" such as Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, Lee and Jackson. "They have taken on a kind of mythical status in American culture, and especially, I think, in southern culture for Lee and Jackson."

McPherson then goes on to answer more questions about the Civil War in pop culture, movies, and in popular memory.

The host then threw up another softball question (meaning an easy one) and asks whether the Civil War endures more in northern or southern culture. McPherson has no trouble saying that the south continues to show a stronger interest in the war. McPherson attributes this to the myth of the Lost Cause in the south and the desire for Confederate descendants to honor their predecessors. When asked how southern whites can seek to justify or defend the Confederacy today, McPherson responds by talking about the key points in Lost Cause mythology. "They argue that it was an effort to create a separate nation based on states' rights, based on a distinctive culture. That's all true. What they refuse to acknowledge is that distinctive culture was based on slavery and white supremacy, and that states' rights was a means of trying to protect and preserve that society."

At the end of the podcast McPherson is asked "what is the war's principle legacy?" He answered, "well I think the principle legacy is the shape and nature of American society as it has developed since 1865. A dynamic, capitalistic and entrepreneurial society politically based on widespread suffrage, of course one of the results of the war. Not thoroughly enforced at first, and not enforced at all in some ways for a long time, was the enfranchisement of the freed slaves with the 14th Amendment. That was an important achievement of the war," he states. He goes on to talk more about the 14th Amendment as the lasting legacy of the war. "The 14th Amendment has become the basis for virtually all of the Civil Rights progress made not only by African Americans but by women and by ethnic Americans of all dimensions in the last 30 or 40 years. Without that 14th Amendment I think the Unites States would be quite a different place than it is today and without Union victory in the war I think that the American south would have been quite a different place than it is today. So I think those things have to be considered the principle legacy of the Civil War right down into our own time." McPherson goes on to talk about how the south might be considered a third-world country in the 1860s and would have remained so for as long as they relied on slavery as their source of labor. The south was dragged into the industrial revolution by the north but would not fully embrace the "Yankee" culture of business until after WW2. Since then the south has been steadily gaining on the north in terms of power, population, money, and influence. The south, no longer considered backwards or third-world, now forms a major part of the American nation and contributes like never before to the overall strength of the country.

The host asks a follow-up question about whether the Brown vs the Board of Education ruling in 1954 might be considered the "final chapter" of the Civil War. McPherson answered that, "It was an important chapter but I would say that the legislative achievements and decisions which upheld them in the 1960s and 1970s might constitute the final chapter. But the Civil Rights Act of 64 and the Voting Rights Act of 65 and some of the Title IX acts having to do with Women's Rights are really the final chapter. There's probably still has to be a coda or a epilogue to that final chapter, and we don't know, we might be in the middle of that now."

Overall, this is an enjoyable episode. The host on the show, Gastón Espinosa, seems unsure what format the show should take. Like any new show, that's understandable. His questions are extremely scripted and often lead towards an obvious answer from McPherson. If you've ever heard the show you know that the eventual host would become Gerry Prokopowicz of East Carolina State University who would eventually change the format up some to be more of a discussion based show as opposed to a Q and A show.

I can't argue with much of what McPherson said in his interview. Why argue with one of the leading scholars in Civil War history? The legacy of the war is, as he stated, the transformation of America into a new country which lived up the original ideals of the American Revolution. Coupling that with the end of slavery and the creation of the 14th Amendment and the war's long-lasting effects remain with us today.

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2025 12:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 1121
Location: Tennessee
EPISODE 1.02 -
October 2, 2004

Library of Congress
Guest: John Sellers

Learn about the Library of Congress's resources and hear the stories behind them from curator John R. Sellers.


Blake's Review:
To be honest, I couldn't get through this episode. I listened to about 10 minutes and turned it off. The information about finding Civil War first-hand accounts and manuscripts at the Library of Congress is factual and important but hardly very interesting to the average listener who is not writing a major Civil War thesis or history. Not to mention that this was recorded in 2004 and the availability of material online is infinitely more than it was back then. Not really worth listening to in 2025 and so I just hit the "Next" button and moved on.


EPISODE 1.03 -
October 9, 2004

The Body and Soul of Civil War Soldiers
Guest: James Robertson

What thoughts were going through the minds of Johnny Reb or Billy Yank as he approached battle? Join us for insights on these questions and more in a rare and personal interview with Dr. James Robertson.


Blake's Review:
Another huge name in the field of Civil War history! Robertson's best known work was his massively popular and detailed biography of Stonewall Jackson. He later served as a historical consultant for the film Gods and Generals.

The episode begins with the host giving Robertson a pretty open-ended question about what stereotypes of Union and Confederate soldiers exist today and if they are accurate or not. Robertson comments that both armies were filled with amateur soldiers and that these were not professional armies in 1861. He also goes on to say that neither side, contrary to what Hollywood portrays he says, had a monopoly of good or bad men. Both sides were filled with soldiers and leaders of equal morals and courage, but also of petty jealousies and cowardice.

Talking more about the average soldiers, Robertson describes the average soldier as someone that if you removed their uniform you could not tell whether they were a Yank or a Reb. "The average age was somewhere between 20 and 22. The average height was 5 feet 7 inches, and the average weight was 135 pounds. They had very little education... and for the most part, they are farm boys, especially so on the southern side, but in the northern armies as well."

They go on to discuss why so many men enlisted and Robertson attributes it to the simple but important factor of patriotism. "I think the greatest inducement of all to these men of North and South was pure patriotism. I found in my own research that the greatest inducement for these men, whether they lived in Massachusetts or Mississippi, was the words on the poster, or maybe nothing more than a flag waving in a clear sky. That was it." He continues to draw a connection between these men and the soldiers of today by saying that, "men are motivated by the same emotions that have inspired American soldiers of all ages to defend hearth and home, to protect that way of life, to preserve that government as each side at that time interpreted what government should be."

They then discuss the impact of foreign-born soldiers in the Civil War and why they chose to fight in such great numbers (representing 20% of the Union forces and 10% of Confederate forces). Robertson attributes their willingness to fight to their belief that America represented the best chance they had for a future outside of the old confines of Europe. Based on where the immigrants settled in America, they would choose to fight to either defend the Union or defend the Confederacy as that was their new adopted homeland. Robertson tells the amusing story of a Minnesota regiment made up of all Norwegians and included 44 men named Olly Olson. The colonel eventually numbered each Olly Olson so as to keep them straight in the records (Olly Olson 1, Olly Olson 12, Olly Olson 38). Finally they talk about Native Americans and their role in the war. Robertson talks some about the Cherokees and Stand Watie and his role as a Confederate commander in the far west. But, generally, Robertson says, the Indians would be divided about 50/50 in their allegiance to one side or the other if they took a side.

What was the biggest killer in the war? Robertson, unhesitatingly responds, "diarrhea." They then discuss the lack of sanitary knowledge and practices in the 19th Century and why for every one man killed in action, two would die of disease behind the lines.

The biggest worry of the soldiers, Robertson says, was to be branded a coward for their actions in battle. "And even when you read their memoirs, they are still very, very cautious about saying that any of them every felt any qualms of cowardice. I love a quote of a Michigan soldiers whose regiment went reeling in defeat in one engagement. And years afterwards, when he was writing about it, he said something to the effect, 'of course it would not be gallant to say that anybody ran, but if there was any tall walking done during the war, we did it crossing that field.' I think this kind of conveys this obsession with not letting cowardice overwhelm you."

The host and Robertson then dive into the role of religion in the war and how it effected the soldiers and the generals. They discuss how churches were divided over the war and how each sides churches would defend their positions as the side favored by God. Robertson says the first casualties of the war were the "two major Protestant denominations in this country. In 1843, the Baptist Church split in two. In 1844, the Methodist Church similarly split in half, all over the issue of slavery. And once the war begins, every major denomination splits."

They then begin a discussion about how religion played a role in the lives of Jackson and Lee specifically. Robertson, arguably the leading scholar on Jackson, was quick to embrace this topic. When asked how Jackson, who fully believed God was on the Confederate side, could have deal with defeat in 1865, Robertson gives an interesting answer. "I'm honestly not convinced Jackson could have survived it. His faith was so deep, it was so all-consuming, that I think if he had lived to see Confederate defeat he would surely have felt that God would have forsaken him and that it would have been a blow from which he could not have recovered. But for Lee and other Confederate soldiers, they simply used the old axiom 'God's Will be done.'"

The host then asks why Lee and Jackson were such a dynamic duo. Again, Robertson noticeably perks up when discussing these two. "I think they form a model military partnership. I think what each lacked the other had, what each wanted and couldn't get, the other could." He discusses their differences in upbringing, backgrounds, and age, but "when the war comes they find one another and find in each an aggressiveness that the other has. More importantly they find a faith in each that the other has." Being a southerner, Robertson can't resist bringing football into the conversation. "I like to use a football metaphor in describing the 11 months Lee and Jackson performed so brilliantly together. I think Lee was the great quarterback who could break the huddle, come up to the line, he could look over at the defenses, see the weakness, and then call the play. Once he gets the ball he hands it off to his star running back Jackson and turns him loose and the result is a touchdown and victory after victory. I suspect they have no peers as a 1-2 fighting machine in military history."

The host ends by asking Robertson how he accounts for the continued fascination for the Civil War still today (a question also asked McPherson in Episode 1). Robertson replies, "oh, it is an infectious thing... once it bites you, you are hooked pretty good. I think a number of factors are involved here. Number one, and probably the overriding factor, is that the United States, as we know it, was born in 1865. The nation that exists today came out of the smoke and fire and death of the Civil War. That war removed the word slavery from the American language. That war established the supremacy of the federal government and established the prevalence of majority rules."

Overall, this a fantastic episode to listen to. Robertson's Virginia accent, an increasingly disappearing dialect, is a pleasure to listen to for an hour. Robertson is most animated and enthusiastic when discussing Jackson and you can tell he is most interested in analyzing Jackson and what he meant in the war.

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2025 12:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 1121
Location: Tennessee
EPISODE 1.04 -
October 15, 2004

Filmmaker, Visionary
Guest: Ken Burns

Ken Burns discusses his Civil War insights with historian Harold Holzer.


Blake's Review:
The guests in Season One of CWTR continue to be the "A-List" of historians. Getting Ken Burns as a guest was surely a thrill as his credentials are known well to all in the history community. As of 2025, this was his only appearance on CWTR.

Burns begins by answering questions about what got him interested in filmmaking and specifically documentaries. Burns originally wanted to become a Hollywood director but abandoned that "in favor of documentaries" after realizing that there was "much more drama in what is and was than anything that human imagination can dream of."

Burns goes on to talk about the Civil War documentary he produced in 1990. They spent quite a lot of time discussing the importance of sound engineering and music in the production and how using the right mixture of music, sounds, and voiceovers while viewing still photographs can make them seem more alive. "You can hear the bayonets moving as people march and caissons rolling and of course the absolutely unforgettable music." They than discuss "Ashokan Farewell" and its massive impact on the series and its lasting impact on those who heard it. The song, written specifically for the series, was the only non-Civil War era music used in the documentary. Burns fell in love with the song's powerful melody and the images it conjured up and knew he had to use it. He states that Jay Unger, who wrote the song, was a "nice Jewish boy from the Bronx who made this incredibly gorgeous Scotch-Irish lament that is timeless." Using it in the documentary "was just a pure emotional response. It hit some sort of chords the way certain music does in me. And I had to use it."

Burns also discusses hiring the writer and historian David McCullough (Truman and John Adams) to voice the narration for the series. "They wanted some deep, dark, you know, male voice, basso profundo, who would be the voice of God, the way narrators were supposed to be. And I said, but this guy knows what we've written for him and could live it, could inhabit the words."

They then discuss whether the issue of race in America is the underlying theme of many of Burns's documentaries. Burns replied that "I wish I could say that there was some master plan, but there wasn't. I'm drawn to each subject in a kind of emotional, visceral way, and then sorta say, yes, I have to do this. But I think you can't be honest about American history, you can't scratch the surface of American history without coming face to face with this question of race, which has not only bedeviled, but ennobled us over the course of our relatively short life as a country. And so, the most important event in American history is the Civil War."

They then talk about Sullivan Ballou and other largely unknown soldiers. Burns is asked what interests him more, "etching the portrait of an all but unknown common soldier, or transcending cliche and getting to the heart and soul of a well known person?" Great question and Burns thought about it briefly before responding. Burns states he finds them both interesting and that "the best history is both bottom-up and top-down at the same time."

They then discuss how it was that Americans in the 1860s could stomach such incredible losses when, in 2004, the US was reeling over the loss of 1,000 men in Iraq as a tragedy (the host was quick to point out that he was not demeaning the loss of 1,000 men in any way but merely asking how the public could tolerate such heavy losses then). Burns then talks about the changes in the US and in the world since the 1860s. Burns then states, "We had many masters earlier on, particularly in the Civil War; we had God, we had Country in the highest sense, we had Duty, with a capital 'D'. Now, I'm not saying that they are necessarily absent now or that they are diminished quantities, I just think that things shift around and we've become more sensitive to the cost of war. We've begun to value life in an utterly different way which just makes every one of these losses even more painful to tolerate." They continue to discuss this concept in greater detail comparing and contrasting life and living in the 19th Century against early 21st Century living and how our views have changed regarding wars and sacrifices.

They then circle back to Sullivan Ballou's letter to his wife in 1861 and how it represents so many of the aspects of what men were willing to fight and die for in the Civil War - but also still today and in all wars. "He [Ballou] knows how much the current government depends on this struggle. It's really a love letter, and I don't just mean that in the obvious way as a letter home to his wife. It's speaking about a love of God, a love of Country, a love of Cause, a love of family as a larger unit than even one's self."

Burns then talks about the legacy of "The Civil War" series and how he views its effect on America and Americans. He believes that the series broached the taboo topic of the Civil War and taught people that its okay to talk about the war and to read about it, to join reenactment groups, and to fall in love with the most turbulent time in our history. "I think that the series just happened to be one of those lucky accidents where it came along at a moment and it bore just a little bit of a hole through the cacophony and people suddenly realized, 'I need to know about this, this was an important part of my, quote, childhood [meaning America's collective childhood as a nation], unquote. And I think that's what we've been searching for. Some sort of peace, some sort of reconciliation, some sort of understanding of those desperate times."

This is a great interview with Ken Burns and one that I wish could have gone on for another hour at least. Having the chance to listen to arguably the most famous documentary filmmaker in America talk about the production of a documentary and why he did or didn't do certain things was a lot of fun. Ken Burns has given us many great things during his career and has another major release coming in November with the "American Revolution."

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 11, 2025 10:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 1121
Location: Tennessee
EPISODE 1.05 -
October 22, 2004

Navies of the Civil War
Guest: Jim Janke

Professor Jim Janke brings us the strategy and drama of naval warfare between the Union and the Confederacy.


Blake's Review:
This was the first "non-professional historian" on CWTR. Janke, like so many of us here, has a totally different day job but has an unwavering interest in the Civil War. Janke is actually an economics professor at Dakota State University. Janke knows the material but doesn't really seem to have any real reason to be considered an "expert" on Civil War navies aside from his personal interest. Janke primarily writes fictional westerns and has not published any non-fiction books at all. There is nothing wrong with that but it is worth noting. The show host, who is Dr. John Willis, has actually published a number of histories dealing with the Civil War and Reconstruction. This feels less like an interview and more like a conversation between two educated men with a shared interest in Civil War navies.

Overall, the episode isn't very memorable unless you care to be a fly on the wall as these two discuss, in very general terms, the role of the navies in the Civil War. They don't go too deeply into any one part of the naval story of the war and as a result you might say this feels like a course for Civil War Navies 101.

Unintentionally, the episode actually is amusing because Jim Janke sounds almost precisely like Bob Newhart. At one point Janke stuttered and for a moment I almost believed it was all a gag and that Bob was actually a closeted Civil War historian. Even more bizarre was that at one point the show host used the phrase "Madison Ave view of Lincoln" or something along those lines. He wasn't trying to be funny but I wonder if he was actually referencing a famous comedy routine by Bob Newhart called "Abe Lincoln vs. Madison Avenue" from 1960. Here is the link to the routine if you've never heard it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcjz7VAljYs&t=155s

Anyways, I managed to make it to the end of the show where they hurriedly closed with the 8-minute history of the Monitor and the Merrimack which almost felt inevitably from the very start as the thing they were destined to discuss the most. I kind of wish they'd have chosen a subtopic of the Civil War navies and spent more time on one specific issue rather than bouncing all over the place.

On to the next episode for me. So long as the weather stays nice and I can jog outside I will continue to catch up on these old episodes.

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 12, 2025 7:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:55 am
Posts: 1121
Location: Tennessee
EPISODE 1.06 -
October 29, 2004

The Election that Won the War
Guest: David Long

Dr. David Long discusses Lincoln's reelection in 1864 and its impact on American history.


Blake's Review:
This is the first episode with the Gerry Prokopowicz who would become the show's regular host.

They begin with the discussion about why the election of 1864 was the most important election in American history. As Long states, "the United States was at stake, whether or not slavery would be ended in the United States was at stake, issues of such importance and magnitude that I believe with all of the other important elections that have taken place in American history that this one simply stands separate and apart. The existence of the country was literally hanging in the balance in 1864."

They then discussed the main issues of the campaign - the war and conscription. The Democrats would attack Lincoln's War as having failed and supported a peaceful end to the war on nearly any terms. They also railed against Lincoln's actions prosecuting the war such as conscription and the suspension of civil liberties. But as Long says, "I think emancipation was really the overriding issue, and was ultimately the big question that would be determined."

They then talk about how McClellan, a popular Union general, ends up becoming the Democratic nominee on a peace platform. McClellan was a Democrat before the war and remained popular with the troops in the field. He was also their best possible candidate as the Democratic Party had been fractured by the war and the death of Stephen Douglas a few years earlier.

They then go on a side discussion which was pretty interesting. The discussed McClellan's popularity in the AotP and Long states that McClellan arguably is the most beloved American general by his troops in history, "it's almost a strange, almost familial kind of relationship" he says. When Gerry states, obviously, that Lee might also be considered the most beloved general, Long sticks to his guns. He argues that Lee was held in more awe and reverence while McClellan elicited "wild enthusiasm" from his. Personally, I agree with Gerry that Lee was the more beloved general but that's all a matter of opinion.

They get back to the election and discuss the uncomfortable union of McClellan with the Democratic Peace Party. But Long believes that if McClellan had defeated Lincoln that McClellan would have been forced to end the war and bow to the wishes of those who elected him.

The conversation then shifts to Lincoln's Republicans nominating him for a second term without too much opposition aside from Salmon P. Chase who was quickly set aside in favor of Lincoln. Long suggests that the only man who may have beaten Lincoln for the Republican nomination was Grant. But Grant had no interest in running.

Was Lincoln's reelection a foregone conclusion? Absolutely not! As they discuss, Lincoln's chances seemed very bleak in the summer of 1864. The campaign was an ugly one and one which Long argues "was the most racist campaign in American history." The Democrats launched a campaign attempting to race bait the Republicans by referring to Lincoln as "Abraham Africanus the First" and charging the Republicans with favoring Miscegenation (a term actually coined during this campaign). "The accusation that what the Republicans were actually trying to bring about was the mixing of the races." The Republicans fought back by accusing the Democrats of domestic treason.

How did the soldiers vote and who did they vote for? Absentee voting was partially established by Republican led states in order to allow soldiers to vote. In states where Democrats controlled the legislature, such as Illinois and Indiana, the soldiers were unable to vote unless they returned home to do so. The soldiers voted about 3 to 1 for Lincoln. McClellan won about 30% of the eastern soldiers votes but only 10% of the western soldier votes.

David Long then talks about Henry Raymond, one of Lincoln's campaign advisors, and how he urged him to drop emancipation from the Republican platform as a way to gain popular votes from western states and to help the Republicans win in 1864. Emancipation remained a controversial issue in most of the northern states in 1864 and it was feared that Lincoln might not be able to win unless he dropped the issue. Raymond argued that he would need to offer to end the idea of emancipation and offer the south a chance to return to the Union in exchange for the protection of slavery. Long states, "even though Jefferson Davis would not accept that, it would have such a revitalizing effect on his candidacy that people would not blame him anymore. That they would see that it was not fault that the war continued." Lincoln refused to do this. "He said it would be worse than to lose the election to compromise with emancipation."

Here is where it gets interesting. Long the goes on to say, "I believe that is a remarkable thing considering the stakes which were involved at that point that he would have taken that stance. I think that really is a measure of Lincoln's character."

I wish Gerry would have asked the obvious question which is, "what if Lincoln lost as a result?" If Lincoln loses in 1864 because of emancipation, was it worth trying to hold onto or not? If he loses emancipation is a moot point presumably. If the election really was going to be "that close," with the whole American experiment riding on the outcome, should Lincoln have pulled back emancipation to save America, trusting that the issue would be settled at a future date (hopefully without another war), or should he have risked losing in order to keep emancipation? It's an interesting question to debate. If Lincoln had lost in 1864, would we praise his decision to back emancipation or would we call him short-sighted and say he blew his chance to save the country?

They continue to discuss Lincoln's in 1864 and how his fortunes turned around with the successful conclusion of the Atlanta Campaign in the fall. And then his eventual win in November (though they almost forget to talk about the actual election itself as they drifted to other topics.

Was Lincoln gay? When recorded in 2004 there was a new book on the way by C.A. Tripp which alleged that Lincoln was either gay or a closeted homosexual. As a result, many Civil War chats around that time discussed what was a hot topic in the history world. Long quickly states that he doubts Lincoln was gay and questions Tripp's interpretations of events and facts.

David Long then goes on to discuss which Lincoln unpopular opinion on Lincoln he subscribes to. Long believes that Lincoln did order the assassination of Jefferson Davis in 1864 as part of the Dahlgren Raid on Richmond. There is a longer backstory here which, if you don't know, you can learn by listening to the podcast or looking up Dahlgren's Raid. But Long believes that in summer of 1864 Lincoln was desperate to end the war before the election and felt that Jeff Davis's death would speed up the end of the war. Long says, "I believe he did sanction that assassination attempt. I think he did want Jefferson Davis taken out. I think the evidence is very strong, it is circumstantial, but it is very strong that he did sanction this raid." Long states additional reasons for his belief that Lincoln did this. "I believe that Lincoln had come to focus on Davis as a person who if he were removed from the picture would remove the biggest obstacle to peace at that time." Long then says he "believes there was good reason for him to do this and I frankly think that in the 21st century we would probably not condemn a president for attempting to remove somebody by assassination who was responsible for the death of that many Americans."

Gerry pushes back a bit on this and questions whether or not, if it was true Lincoln ordered the assassination, we would view him in the same light as we currently do or whether his image would be tarnished by breaking one of the cardinal rules of civilized warfare and betraying his "charity for all, malice toward none." Would we have to reevaluate Lincoln substantially?

Long says, "perhaps a lot of people would, I wouldn't. My evaluation of Lincoln would not change. His commitment to the continuation of the United States is all the more strengthened."

Interesting. Earlier in the interview David Long praised Lincoln for not dropping emancipation from his party platform in 1864 even if it meant losing the election. But he then later praises Lincoln for supposedly trying to assassinate Jeff Davis as a way of saving America at any cost whatsoever. I guess I am confused because if saving America at any cost is the right move then dropping emancipation would also have been the smart play for Lincoln. David Long loses his way here with this argument and I wish Gerry would have called him out on that and asked a follow up question or two.

Alas, they ran out of time! As so often happens... the episode came to a speedy conclusion just as it was getting good :mrgreen:

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group