A Live Discussion about “Dangerous Civil War Podcast Historians”
A September article in The Atlantic warned of “the dangerous rise of podcast historians.” What does that mean in the Civil War world? What does that mean for the Civil War world? We’ll gather some of our favorite (and perhaps most dangerous!) Civil War podcasters for a live Facebook discussion.
Join us on Wednesday, October 9 at 7:30 p.m. on the ECW Facebook page.
Our panel includes:
- Jim Hessler of The Battle of Gettysburg Podcast. Jim is a Licensed Battlefield Guide at Gettysburg.
- Kevin Levin of Civil War Memory.
- Darren Rawlings of The American Civil War and U.K. History Podcast. Darren is ECW’s Social Media Manager.
- Joe Ricci of Home Brew History. Joe is historian at the Battle of Franklin Trust.
- Cecily Zander, ECW’s chief historian.
ECW Editor-in-Chief Chris Mackowski (who also hosts the Emerging Civil War Podcast) will moderate.
I wonder what will qualify as a “dangerous” Civil War podcast historian?
I see you are featuring Kevin Levin, a well-known and highly-touted skeptic of Confederate-friendly history. Who is providing the opposing view? Or, is his the consensus view?
With respect to this view, I would argue that some people have incorrectly treated Mr. Levin’s research, which corrects much of the Lost Cause, as hostile to the South when Levin strikes me more of a person who views southern history as more than just a defense of the Confederacy. Levin is more than qualified to be on this panel, in my humble opinion.
“Levin is more than qualified to be on this panel, in my humble opinion.”
I never said that he wasn’t. My point was that he seems to have taken a side on the issue of Civil War memory, and therefore it would be nice if someone from the opposite side participates in the ECW braintrust’s endeavor to warn of (and presumably identify) “dangerous” Civil War podcasters.
“Mr. Levin’s research, which corrects much of the Lost Cause”
Who chooses the people who are qualified to judge and decide what about the “Lost Cause” does and doesn’t warrant correction?
Historians like Kevin M. Levin are subject to not only public evaluation of the sources he uses, and the research he engages in but he is also subject to peer review by fellow historians, both in academia and in the public eye. In other words, fellow historians are able to evaluate the claims presented by Mr. Levin and see if they match the evidence we have with primary sources we have available. If his arguments were as weak as you seem to believe, somebody would have undermined him by now.
By what standard do you find his methods faulty?
I might characterize Kevin as a skeptic of Lost Cause-friendly history rather than of Confederate-friendly history. I am, too, for that matter. (I think the Lost Cause view of the war is hokum) I think Kevin would agree with me that the Confederacy, while not a subject worthy of veneration, is definitely a subject worthy of study. One of the things I admire about Kevin’s work is that he has consistently urged people to approach the study of the South with open-mindedness, curiosity, and empathy. There were two sides to the war, after all, and both sides deserve–indeed, require–examination.
I couldn’t have said it any better, Chris. Thanks.
“I think the Lost Cause view of the war is hokum.” And I think it’s common practice now amongst historians to lump any aspect of Confederate heritage into one large “Lost Cause” folder and label it all bad. Yes, I’m painting with a broad brush there, but so are you.
I never said Kevin Levin shouldn’t be part of your panel. I said that he appears to have taken a Federal-friendly position on the war, which is his right. But, then, he should have a counterpart with a Southern-friendly position. (All humans have biases, right?)
“I see you are featuring Kevin Levin, a well-known and highly-touted skeptic of Confederate-friendly history.”
With all due respect, I have no idea what this means.
I’ll stipulate that this is my opinion, and that many—even most—may disagree.
But it seems that some Civil War historians conflate positive memory of, and respect for, Confederates with allegiance to the Lost Cause. They are not one and the same. You strike me as one of these historians. As Confederate statues came down across the South, I saw your name cited online quite a few times, as a historian who approved of these removals. For example, when Jim Webb wrote his WSJ op-ed calling for the Reconciliation Memorial to stay in Arlington, you wrote an opposing piece which Google featured at the top of its search page.
“With all due respect, I have no idea what this means.” That seems unlikely.
Thanks for the follow up. My view of Civil War/Confederate monuments has evolved significantly over the past decade. I did write a response to Webb’s piece, but my focus was on the misnomer of referring to the Confederate monument in Arlington as a “Reconciliation Memorial.” I have led tours of that particular site and I have researched it extensively. At no time was that monument ever referred to as such. Certainly there were expressions of reconciliation expressed at its dedication, but it is a gross distortion re: what the United Daughters of the Confederacy intended for that particular memorial. If attempting to explain this history to the best of my ability and challenging what is clearly an example of presentism renders me ‘un-friendly toward Confederate history,’ I admit to being guilty as charged. The piece in question never included a call for the monument to be removed.
Kevin the Carpetbagger …
Now there’s a voice from the past. Good to see you are still going strong, David. I hope you are doing well.
What about those who are not on Facebook due to the fact it steals a ton of personal information?
We plan to record it and will post it later on the ECW YouTube page.
Reply to Kevin Levin:
“what the United Daughters of the Confederacy intended for that particular memorial.” Point taken and conceded. The UDC did choose to pick a fight with that memorial, specifically with the “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” depiction of the slaveholding South.
But the commander of the Grand Army of the Republic, General Washington Gardner, took a different message from it. “This memorial structure speaks the language of peace and good-will. It says to all who come hither and read the superscription that the swords and bayonets that once gleamed along the battle’s fiery front have been beaten into plowshares and pruning hooks. It declares through the symbolical wreath of unfading laurel held in outstretched hand above the sleeping dead that the spirit of heroic devotion and
lofty self-sacrifice which they manifested is held in grateful and affectionate memory.” President Taft and William Jennings Bryan shared similar impressions. They accepted it as a measure of reconciliation. I guess that’s just not good enough anymore for a bunch of modern-day Civil War historians.
If defending the memorial as a sign of reconciliation makes me a presentist, then I plead guilty. And I suspect President Taft and General Gardner would have pleaded guilty, too.
General Gardner’s speech starts on page 34: https://www.battlefields.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/History%20of%20the%20Arlington%20Confederate%20Monument.pdf
I already said that you can find expressions of reconciliation during the dedication ceremony, but that has nothing to do with the meaning of the monument itself, which the UDC commissioned. The UDC was NOT in the business of reconciliation. They demanded a monument that celebrated the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. It is an unapologetic celebration of the Confederacy and slavery itself. That’s what they wanted and that is exactly what Moses Ezekiel delivered. To call it a “reconciliation memorial” is to engage in presentism. If that is an example of “Confederate-friendly history” then I want nothing to do with it. I want the truth.
https://kevinmlevin.substack.com/p/the-confederate-memorial-in-arlington?utm_source=publication-search
“To call it a “reconciliation memorial” is to engage in presentism.”
Then, why weren’t General Gardner, President Taft and William Jennings Bryan repulsed by it when they saw it? Did the UDC use a Jedhi Mind Trick on them? If you read their speeches in the UDC’s “History of the Arlington Confederate Memorial,” they seem pleased with it and inspired by it. They saw redeeming value in it. Seeing as they actually lived in that time, and lived through the war and its painful aftermath, I think I’ll defer to their opinion of what the “truth” about the memorial really is.
Is that Eastern time?
Yes
Reply to Conor J. Kelly, October 7 at 8:53 PM
“he is also subject to peer review by fellow historians, both in academia and in the public eye. In other words, fellow historians are able to evaluate the claims presented by Mr. Levin and see if they match the evidence we have with primary sources we have available.”
Can anyone imagine any academic historian, who ever hoped to get tenure at an American university, speaking nowadays up in defense of the Reconciliation Monument, or risking controversy by speaking up for Confederate heritage or memory? Me neither. It seems to me that critics of Confederate heritage and memory nowadays don’t have to worry too much about being fact-checked by their colleagues, except perhaps in private. I’ve seen it mentioned on these boards that ECW contributors have thought twice about saying positive things about Confederates, for fear of retribution.
“By what standard do you find his methods faulty?” I am sure Mr. Levin’s scholarship has been thorough. I have no reason to believe it has been faulty. I am saying that he appears to have chosen a side. Are you implying that Civil War scholars who have some sympathy for the Confederate side must have done faulty research and analysis?
Based solely on the comment section of this post alone, I cannot wait for this.
Have to say, some of these comments are just clueless. Veterans and their families have a deep, relentless pull for remembering their fallen comrades. The recent incident at Arlington cemetery reminded me, as if I needed reminding. Trump and his entourage went to Arlington cemetery and filmed a darn political advertisement. A friend who is a widow of a soldier killed in Iraq was aghast that Trump and his “bullies” (her word) might have trampled across the grave of her dead husband. I felt the same sort of revulsion for my own battle buddy who lies in Sec. 60. I just hoped the band of bullies did not trample the graves of those we care about.
Accusing the UDC of seeking some political agenda with one small portion of the Reconciliation memorial just over-states the case. Confederates much more than Union veterans did not receive a decent, marked burial. The families of Confederate veterans did not have a place where they could go and seek closure. They did not have a Sec. 60.
In my 40 hour a week job, I prove discrimination – or not. I do it everyday. Racism, disability-ism, ageism, sexism, I do all the -ism’s. We cannot go into court and argue that 5% or 10% of a given motive was racism. We argue the primary motive or the final straw motive caused the termination or demotion. If we argue 5% or 10% was unlawful motive, then we will lose and will lose “bigly.” Some of the comments below are arguing 5% or 10% makes the Reconciliation memorial racist or Jim Crow-ish. That is just a silly comment about a *Reconciliation* memorial.
Tom