==McPherson and neo-confederates==
The "gatekeeper" would like to see some references for these broad generalizations:
*1 ''the [[Sons of Confederate Veterans]] and [[United Daughters of the Confederacy]] ... are largely seen as benign heritage organizations...'' -Seen by whom?

::Seen by their 100-year history. The only types who see the UDC and SCV as anything other than that are Ed Sebesta-type demagogues.

*2 ''The UDC and SCV were similarly offended by these comments.'' -There's one reference to one UDC chapter.

:And for source purposes that chapter is a representative link to the way the UDC and SCV responded. Digging up and linking each and every single individual SCV and UDC chapter would be an absurd exercise, even by your selectively stringent sourcing demands.

*3 Can you provide a source for the "outrage" of the SCV?

:Your selective source stringency is showing again, willmcw. McPherson's comments dominated the SCV and UDC chapter newsletters for several months after the incident, most of which are in print - not the web. Just because you didn't find it on google doesn't mean it never happened.

*4 For any UDC chapter besides Virginia?

See above.[[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 06:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

*5 ''McPherson the ire of many Civil War enthusiasts...'' -Does this refer to the Virginia UDC too? That's a lot of mileage to get out of one webpage.
*6 Since when is Sebesta a "leftist" activist? Last week he was an "anti-neo-confederate" activist.
Thanks, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 06:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RD, I have no problem with including the information sourced on the Virginia UDC page, and any other information supported by specific, verifiable information. ''Many, most, some'' and related vaguenesses with no support should be avoided in an encyclopedia.

:It's fine to reduce those terms and refine the language to something more precise, but demanding several links for each and every facet of a commonly known incident among the UDC and SCV when the existing one suffices is excessive and goes well beyond the elimination of vagueness.[[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 07:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding point #1, lasting 100 years is no guarantee of goodness. If you want to say it is "generally regarded", you are asserting something that is virtually unprovable unless someone has taken a poll. Just omit it.

:It may or may not be a guarantee of anything, but it is factually correct to note that the SCV and UDC have not encountered much of any criticism ala the Sebestas of the world until the last decade, and even then only from a small number of persons like Sebesta who are on the political fringe. Mainstream groups like their union veterans descendants counterparts and other geneological associations seem to have no problem with the SCV or UDC and often participate in activities together with them.[[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 07:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For #2 & #3: If the SCV as a whole has expressed outrage, then the press release should not be hard to find. The SCV has a national governing body. If it wants to be outraged, it is capable of passing a resolution or writing an essay. And if one chapter of one society has expressed outrage, then that should be what we write. Whatever the verifiable facts are. There is plenty of room for facts and citations. There is no room for unsupported generalizations.

:A press release is not necessarily hard to find (and in fact there were several print articles in the SCV newsletters at the time discussing McPherson). Online electronic versiosn of press releases for a controversy that happened SIX YEARS AGO, on the other hand, are not easy to come by for the very obvious reasons of time and the fact that elderly geneologists aren't particularly known for posting their daily activities on the internet, an especially not 6 years ago when the internet was still relatively new to most people.[[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 07:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For #4: If you have a scanner or a good digital camera, and access to the newsletters, then you could scan in some of the articles or LTE's that you would like to use for citations. Otherwise they aren't verifiable. That's one of the Wiki tenets.

:It is NOT a wiki tenet either that I have to dig up and scan a newsletter for you from half a decade ago to personally satisfy your selectively stringent citation demands on a matter that is already documented beyond any reasonable person's standards on the existing source link. Use a little common sense. It's not as if this controversy is being asserted out of the blue with nothing to back it up - there's a very detailed link that sources it through the UDC and details the progress of the controversy (including a quote where McPherson himself acknowledges his UDC *AND* SCV detractors and tries to respond to them).[[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 07:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your other edits, you've basically reverted all of the editing that I did except for (some of) the new facts that I've added. I see that you wrote most of the previous article, but that doing so does not give an editor "ownership". The amount of space devoted to criticism is far in excess to the description of his many accomplishments, and it needs to be brought into balance.

:I attempted to incorporate what you added into the existing article. If I have missed something you added, by all means tell me what it is and we can put it back in. However you came along and completely reorganized the existing article without any sound reason offered and with an apparent goal of doing the exact same thing you did on the Sebesta and neo-confederate articles: propping up your side of the issue while downplaying and covering up anything and everything factual that potentially makes your side look bad. For example, others have made material critiques of both McPherson's politics AND his scholarship. One of the critiques of the latter was specified and linked to (i.e. McPherson's allegedly poor handling of economic issues). Yet your edit removed that critique from the discussion of his scholarship, stuck it in the bottom of the article with his political views, and added a positive quote about his scholarship in its place. I have no problem with that positive quote about his scholarship, but there's no reason to remove and relocate negative statements about his scholarship as well.[[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 07:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please do not add ''ad hominem'' comments to the edit summaries; they are not necessary or helpful. I do not think that it is appropriate for you to be accusing me of pursuing a POV in editing this article. Please, let's focus on writing a fair, even-handed, verifiable biography of a history professor. Thanks. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 07:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:I accused you of a POV because you are pushing the same type of POV that caused us to go down this same path in the other articles. In all three articles where we've had these discussions they've been about your edits that try to weaken or remove any material that isn't favorable to your opinion. You now evidently have a favorable opinion of McPherson - which is fine in itself. But, in light of that opinion, you are conducting your edits in a way that minimizes discussion of and diminishes portrayal of facts, events, and critics who reflect unfavorably upon McPherson. As I have said many times, I have no problem if you want to load up the article with every friendly quote of praise for McPherson imaginable and talk about whatever good stuff you want to that he's done. But when you go through and cleanse out factually valid and adequately referenced material (and don't give me this garbage about scanning newsletter images for you from six years ago on a commonly known subject that can be directly inferred from the existing links I have given you) that reflects negatively on him, it IS pushing a POV. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 07:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== More vague asertions ==

# McP is "very politically active". The only specifics given are a petition (signed mostly by professors) opposing the Clinton impeachment and two columns in a magazine for professional historians. That counts as "slightly political active", if anything. Is there any other political activity? Is he a party committeman? Alderman?

The point is that most historians who run historical organizations write about historical topics in their organization's magazine. McPherson has used it repeatedly to pontificate about modern political issues including twice on Bush and Iraq and another time on the Michigan affirmative action case. That isn't even a simple break from the routine of historical writing - its a consistent pattern. Nor is that the extent of his activism as discussed in the current article. He's also spoken out about modern confederate flag controversies such as South Carolina. There's also the Pacifica interview, which if you read the entire thing you'll find it was a political commentary show called [[Democracy Now!]] and the subject was George W. Bush. I'm certain there's plenty of other things he's done, but I don't think that list of repeated and constant modern political commentary is "slightly active" by any means.

# McP "...is a supporter of many liberal causes...". Which ones? Opposition to the rhetoric that led to the war in Iraq is not an especially liberal issue. (Moderates and Paleoconseravatives are opposed to it as well.) Let's list the liberal causes that he supports. There's room.

You're straining at gnats to deny the obvious, will. Some paleo-conservatives may oppose the war in Iraq, but they don't typically speak out in favor of an Affirmative Action court case or sign petitions supporting Bill Clinton. It is also my understanding that McPherson himself is open about his liberal leanings. A quick google search immediately pulls up three favorable articles written about him by leftist organizations that identify his politics as "progressive" or "liberal" [http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/mcp1-m19.shtml] [http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/mcin-m18.shtml] [http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1996/257/257p27.htm]

# "McPherson has also espoused the removal of confederate flag imagery..." Cite please. I did a search and it didn't show up.

Did you simply not read the Pacifica interview despite all our discussions of it? [http://web.archive.org/web/20031217125644/www.templeofdemocracy.com/RadioPacificaBush.htm#UDCSCV] He says very plainly at the end of the interview that he opposes the contemporary use of the flags and criticizes Trent Lott for defending it.

:"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."

[[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 08:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

# "Others criticism of McPherson note that his work is known to exhibit marxist or revolutionary themes - a historiographical complaint that has also been made against Civil War historian Eric Foner." Cite please. I couldn't find this one either. Are you saying that Foner and McPherson are a marxist school of Civil War historians? How is Foner related to McPherson?

See the DiLorenzo article links for a criticism of his marxist themes. His marxist/revolutionary themes are also discussed in the favorable articles about him that I linked to above [http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/mcp1-m19.shtml] [http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/mcin-m18.shtml]. Foner is related to McPherson in that both are well know Civil War historians and both have reputations for marxist-revolutionary themes in their approach to the war.[[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 08:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

#"His grasp of economic issues ... are described as poor quality by ''some, including'' ...DiLorenzo." Is there another critic who describes his grasp of economic issues as poor quality? If so, who? Otherwise we should drop the "some, including" because it implies additional critics. If DiLorenzo is the one critic then we shouldn't put his words into the mouths of others.
Please do not add this material back in until you can support these vague assertions. Thank you. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 07:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes there are other critics, particularly at the Rockwell/Von Mises site. DiLorenzo is simply the most prominent of them and one of the best known academics to make this critique. Going through and naming each and every person who has ever blogged a critique of McPherson's economics though would be tedious and cluttery when DiLorenzo, who has a wiki article about him already, more than suffices.[[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 08:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've added back some stuff you removed and modified others to include the specifics that you've filled in above. Thanks for providing that info. Regarding the AHA column, his predecessor is given the credit for setting the precedent of writing "president's columns" on politically-related issues. I've added a cite for that fact. Cheers, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 09:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:Thanks for fixing the "Rockford Institute" I'd fixed it to the correct [[Lewrockwell.com]], but then somehow reverted myself in the next edit. I had used the description of Sebesta that the "Democracy Now" webpage uses for him. I don't know why it is important to say "''self''-described", when other people's terms can be be used to describe him. "Self-described" seems like a prejudicial formulation. NPOV please. Cheers, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 21:20, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::''self''-described indicates that the description of Sebesta, "anti-neo-confederate," is a quote by Sebesta himself. Since Sebesta is a controversial figure who been described by any number of other sources in many different ways it presents a problem of how we identify him. Do we call him an "expert" as he is treated by Pacifica, a virulently left wing source? Or do we go to the other end and call him a "nutcase"? Or a "south hater" as the UDC calls him? The most neutral way around this problem is to quote Sebesta himself and note that he is the source of it. Another issue - the use of singular versus plural to refer to McPhersons critics is problematic. As was the case on the previous articles, using a specifically singular form is misleading because it implies that DiLorenzo is the SOLE person who holds that view, and that is inaccurate just as it is inaccurate to assume that only one UDC chapter was upset by McPherson's pacifica interview since their newsletter is the one on the web.[[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 23:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:I suppose we could go through the other mentions of groups and individuals, and change everybody to "self-described." The SCV is a "self-described genealogical society", "DiLorenizo is a self-described economist", etc. I think that it is fair and appropriate to give the guy the reference that he was given on the show since that is the context and the reason he's being mentioned. If you are afraid that it will be taken as a universally accepted description, we can say that he is "described by Goodman as a..." Regarding the number of critics, I'm open to including whatever number is shown to exist. So far, it's the VA UDC and DiLorenzo. Regarding non-web sources, what are they? do you have in your hands on an SCV newsletter expressing "outrage" over McPherson's statemetns? If so, what's the name and date and page number? What evidence, of any kind, do you have? -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 23:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

::No. The SCV is by its own structure a geneological society (as in you have to be a descendant of a soldier to join). DiLorenzo is an economist because he has a credentialed PhD in economics. McPherson is a historian because he has a credentialed PhD in history and so forth. Sebesta, however, has no special credentials in anything related to neo-confederate movements and nothing particular about him establishes any credibility he should have beyond the average guy off the street. Because of that he could be easily assigned any number of descriptions and has been called everything from an expert to a nutcase. You may prefer the former and I the latter, but both of those terms would connote a POV so calling him what he calls himself and noting that he is the source of that description is the most neutral way I can think of approaching it. Using Goodman's description of him also gives her very liberal POV undue credibility, as Goodman's view of Sebesta (she considers him an "expert") is NOT universally shared and would be disputed by many people who consider him a non-credible kook. If we let Sebesta speak for himself, however, we find that he describes himself (hence "self-described") as an "anti-neo-confederate" activist. If you remove wording that signifies it's what he calls himself then you leave the description unsourced and without context (aren't you the one who keeps demanding that every detail imaginable be sourced? Or is your selective citation stringency kicking in again?). As to critics being "shown to exist" your selective stringency is indeed kicking in again. Your "standard" - if it could even be called that - for showing something to exist is being able to dig it up on google, which for purposes of citations is a laughable methodology. Using your terminology suggests that DiLorenzo is the SOLE person to criticize McPherson's biases and one single UDC chapter is the SOLE membership of the UDC to be upset over the quote, and that is simply incorrect. A neutral terminology such as that I have offered leaves the issue of concurring voices open without imposing any artificial and factually inaccurate constraint. And quite frankly if you don't know that the SCV and other UDC chapters were upset at McPherson's quote, then you don't know anything about the SCV or UDC and thus you are unqualified to be writing encyclopedia articles about them.[[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 01:03, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:FWIW, as the article is put together now, I think that the source of the criticism is clear enough. As long as we do not add back assertions from unnamed critics or impute emotions to organizations, I am satisfied with the handling of the Democracy Now, Politics, and Criticism sections. Overall, I think that the article could use a bit more of a description of his books and a photo or dustjacket would be cool. Thanks for helping to make this a better article. Cheers, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 01:03, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is fine by me. If you know of a public domain photo of him by all means add it.[[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 01:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

== "Marxist" Eric Foner ==

If [[Eric Foner]]'s "...marxist sympathies are well known and openly acknowledged by virtually all people who are familiar with him" then it should not be difficult to name one or two of those people. "unnamed critics" have no place in Wikipedia. Thanks, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 02:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::It's no matter of "unnamed critics," will. One does not need a source to state that Ronald Reagan was a conservative, that Lyndon Johnson was a liberal, that Henry Wallace was a socialist, or that Eric Foner is a marxist. It is common knowledge to anybody possessing even the slightest familiarity with any of these figures. If you do not have enough familiarity to know this (and it is evident that you lack it on a great many of articles that you attempt to edit), you should not be trying to write an encyclopedia article on them in the first place.[[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 02:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::So you can't find even a single authority to cite? Maybe it isn't such common knowledge. If the critics are not named, they are "unnamed critics". -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 02:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
::::No. I've simply decided that I do not desire to go on one of your deconstructive "source" finding errands over a fact that is common knowledge among anybody who knows the subject matter, which you do not. I no longer see any purpose in responding to the requests of other editors who contribute absolutely nothing new to the articles they attempt to edit and instead send others out on tasks under the threat of deletion. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 02:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::::If you can't be bothered to support your assertions and cite your sources, then don't be surprised when the material is removed. That's the way Wikipedia works. Cheers, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 02:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nice try, but last I checked nobody appointed you "Source Policeman." If you find a source is lacking in an article and want to make an issue of it the very first thing you should do is attempt to find one yourself! I am not here to run errands for you, and seeing as Foner's marxist beliefs were a part of the article on him from its very first version long before I arrived there, you have no right to assign that task to me. Going through articles and selectively deleting things that you deem unsourced is deconstructive and approaches vandalism when it is recurring and when it supplants the information with snide unprofessional remarks in the article's text, which you have done several times. Try contributing something to an article for once rather than this silly game of self appointed policeman.[[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 03:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==Does this rant apply to you?==
More guilt by association. Being liberal is bad, as is agreeing with Marxists about anything. Can we have diLorenzo introduced a few more times - maybe we could find out more about him here than there is on his page? and I don't think this article is quite 50% criticism of the guy yet. Maybe we could say he has no economics credentials a few more times. Get crackin'--[[User:JimWae|JimWae]] 05:58, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

:Who are you addressing this to, Jim? DiLorenzo is mentioned in all of two paragraphs - one summarizing his criticism of McP's scholarship and the other his criticism of McP's political views. It only states that McPherson lacks economic credentials a total of once. And Marxist themes in McPherson's works are the subject of criticism over his scholarship - not a guilt by association thrown in their for no reason. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 06:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

==Cleanup==

This article needs to be cleaned up - there are significant grammatical mistakes throughout, and some NPOV work could be done too. I can't do this right now because I'm at school, and I'll probably forget by the time I get home, but it needs to be done. – [[User:Ugen64|ugen64]] 16:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

== predecessors ==

*'' My two immediate predecessors, Lynn Hunt and James McPherson, used the pages of Perspectives to share their thoughts on many matters concerning the writing of history, not excluding political and social commentary.[http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2004/0403/0403pre1.cfm]''
This is the sentence that I regard as supporting the assertion that McPherson was not breaking ground by using the "President's View" for commentary beyond history. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 07:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

**If that is the case, (1) Hunt should be named specifically and (2) a direct link should be made to Hunt's opinion column including note of its subject. Otherwise it's a secondary source hearsay characterization with no real basis for comparison. If it turns out Hunt was advocating historical preservation funding whereas McPherson was ranting about his opposition to the war in Iraq, the two situations are hardly comparable in the sense implied. Find Hunt's material and we'll see based on it whether it is appropriate to include. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 18:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::Hunt's material is on the same website, one year earlier than McPherson. It seems that you don't mind, in this case, removing the informaiton rather than asking for a source first. You jumped on my case for doing less on the Eric Foner article. -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 00:47, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

:::Actually, the source you gave simply happened to be a weak source relating second hand information. Since, unlike my case in the Foner article, you added this material, surely you can identify which article or articles by Hunt you are specifically referring to. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 04:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::::I took Hunt's word for it. I didn't reasearch the underlying material. You're welcome too. Cheers, -[[User:Willmcw|Willmcw]] 08:35, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

==NPOV==
The issue of mentioning DiLorenzo's involvement with the League of the South is problematic under [[WP:NPOV]] as the selective presentation of this fact in an article that is not about DiLorenzo has the potential to carry with it both strong positive and negative POV's due to the controversy surrounding the organization. Of all the potential introductions given for DiLorenzo, the choice of highlighting the most controversial organization (when, for example, DiLorenzo is also far more closely affiliated with several other organizations such as the Von Mises Institute) indicates a clear attempt to bias the POV of this article against/towards DiLorenzo based upon one's perceptions of the LOS. That creates a POV problem, as per the NPOV policy, "The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy. The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral." In light of this, attempts to selectively highlight a fact that has strong non-neutral connotations may be construed as POV pushing and should be avoided. [[User:Rangerdude|Rangerdude]] 18:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

:It has to be mentioned because it is important to judge DiLorenco's authenticity. The fact that DiLorenzo is affiliated to the Von Mises Institute is not important in this case to judge his authenticity. That's why does not have to be mentioned. You say: "If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral." Right. So let's have a look at the Academic critcism part. There are IMHO two strong positive facts and one neutral fact.

:*The caption implicates that DiLorenzo is an academic. Academic implicates neutrality and academic work. The impression of the reader must be high authenticity.

:*it is mentioned that he is an economic. Same as academic. That gives a high weight to the "McPherson's grasp of economic issues" assertion.

:The right way to create a NPOV is to mention all case relating facts the reader needs to adjudicate.
:So let's create an NPOV article by mentioning DiLorenzos affiliation to the League of the South or skip that part. When we keep it, all relevant and important information has to be mentioned.

:[[User:E^(nix)|E^(nix)]] 23:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

==Yet another sentence==

The (he has none) assertion has to be cut off. IMHO can be assumed that in 40 years practicing as [[Doctor of Philosophy]] McPherson has had enough time and intellectual skills to learn everything about economics he needs to know for his work. Learning about economics includes the training of economic grasp. So it can rather be assumed that McPherson has SOME (maybe still not enough) economic grasp than to assume that he has none as the sentence (he has not) does.

[[User:E^(nix)|E^(nix)]] 23:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Willmcw~enwiki

2005-10-04T18:20:32Z

E^(nix): What do you think about User Rangerdude contributions?

James M. McPherson

2005-10-04T14:47:32Z

E^(nix): /* Academic criticism */

:''For the Civil War General of the same name see [[James B. McPherson]]''

'''James M. McPherson''' (born [[October 11]], [[1936]]) is an [[American Civil War]] [[historian]], and is the George Henry Davis '86 Professor of [[United States History]] at [[Princeton University]]. He received the [[Pulitzer Prize]] for ''Battle Cry of Freedom'', his most famous book. He was the president of the [[American Historical Association]] in [[2003]], and is a member of the editorial board of [[Encyclopædia Britannica]].

Born in [[Valley City, North Dakota|Valley City]], [[North Dakota]], he received his [[Bachelor of Arts]] at [[Gustavus Adolphus College]] ([[St. Peter, Minnesota|St. Peter]], [[Minnesota]]) in [[1958]] (from which he graduated ''cum laude''), and his [[Doctor of Philosophy|Ph.D.]] at [[Johns Hopkins University]] in [[1963]]. Currently he resides in [[Princeton, New Jersey|Princeton]], [[New Jersey]], and is divorced with one child.

==Scholarship==
McPherson's works include ''The Struggle for Equality'', awarded the [[Anisfield-Wolf Award]]. In [[1989]], he published his Pulitzer-winning book, ''Battle Cry of Freedom''. And in [[1998]] another book, ''For Cause and Comrades'', received the [[Lincoln Prize]]. In 2002 he published both a scholarly book, ''Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam 1862,'' and a history of the Civil War for children, ''Fields of Fury''. Unlike many other historians, he has a reputation of trying to make history accessible to the public. Most of his works are marketted to popular audiences and his book ''Battle Cry of Freedom'' has long been a popular one-volume general history of the Civil War.

McPherson was named the "2000 Jefferson Lecturer in the Humanities" by the [[National Endowment for the Humanities]]. In making the announcement NEH Chairman William Ferris said:
:James M. McPherson has helped millions of Americans better understand the meaning and legacy of the American Civil War. By establishing the highest standards for scholarship and public education about the Civil War and by providing leadership in the movement to protect the nation's battlefields, he has made an exceptional contribution to historical awareness in America.[http://www.neh.gov/news/archive/20000111.html]

McPherson is a proponent of [[revisionist history]]. "Revisionism," he argues, is "what makes history vital and meaningful"[http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/2003/0309/0309pre1.cfm]

===Academic criticism===
Some of his Civil War scholarship has come under criticism from [[economics|economist]] and [[Abraham Lincoln]] critic [[Thomas DiLorenzo]], a member of the [[League of the South]], for a perceived latent pro-North bias to his work and for exhibiting a [[liberal]] political bent. In particular he has critiqued McPherson's grasp of economic issues.[http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo58.html] According to DiLorenzo, McPherson often relies upon his own reputation as a well known Civil War historian rather than any training in economics (he has none) or qualified examination of statistical data to provide economic analysis that is erroneous. Another criticism by DiLorenzo includes the allegation that his work exhibits radical, [[Marxist]] tendencies -- a critique that has also been made against Civil War historian [[Eric Foner]].

==Politics & advocacy==
McPherson is known for his outspokenness on contemporary issues and his activism, such as his work on behalf of the preservation of Civil War battlefields. As president in 1993-1994 of Protect Historic America, he lobbied against the construction of a commercial theme park at the [[Manassas]] battlefield. He has also served on the boards of the Civil War Trust and the Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, and on the Civil War Sites Advisory Committee.

In 1998, McPherson joined a group of scholars, most of them law professors, in supporting President [[Bill Clinton]] against [[impeachment]] charges during the [[Monica Lewinsky]] [[scandal]].

As president of the American Historical Association (AHA), he used his regular "President's Column" in "Perspectives" to address a some of politically and socially-sensitive issues. He criticized the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] administration's doctrine of [[preemptive war]] in [[Iraq]], citing the examples the American Civil war and World War II. [http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2003/0305/0305pre1.cfm] Responding to comments in 2003 when Bush and [[Condoleezza Rice]] criticized revisionist historians, McPherson accused the Bush Administration of using deceptive information to "justify an unprovoked invasion" of Iraq. [http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2003/0309/0309pre1.cfm] In another column, he detailed the "older forms [[affirmative action]]", such as the "old boys network", that helped people like him advance, and acknowledges that contemporary affirmative action, while imperfect, is less unjust than the old system. [http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2003/0304/0304pre1.cfm]

The practice of espousing contemporary political beliefs in his columns drew backlash and criticism from several AHA members who wrote letters to the editor of "Perspectives". David F. Krein, of [[Scott Community College]] in Iowa, responded that McPherson "seems intent to use his 2003 term as AHA president as his own "bully pulpit" (as president of the AHA) to promote a personal political agenda" and "implore(d) him to stop" the politicization of his column "for the dignity of the profession" of historians.[http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2003/0310/0310let1.cfm] Don McArthur, of Maine South High School in Illinois, responded that McPherson's politics were "furthering a general public mistrust of academic historians" and requested that he "moderate his obviously intense political aversion to the (Bush) administration" when writing in official AHA publications.[http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2003/0310/0310let2.cfm] Martin J. Weiner, of [[Rice University]], described McPherson's columns as "the most unprofessional thing I have seen in 35 years of reading ''Perspectives,''" the AHA's newsletter in which they were published, and suggested the organization's Professional Division should consider McPherson's actions as an "abuse of his office."[http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2003/0310/0310let3.cfm]

In response, McPherson claimed that he received generally favorable "personal communications" from other members about his columns, stated that he was only giving his personal views, and argued that contemprorary politics is an appropriate field for the commentary of historians. He concluded by asking readers, "to decide whether my 'conclusions and arguments' are more or less likely 'to flow automatically from ideology rather than from evidence' than those of the Bush administration."[http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2003/0311/0311let4.cfm]

McPherson has criticized those who defend the inclusion of Confederate imagery in state flags, such as Senator [[Trent Lott]]. He has also favored revisionary presentations at Civil War sites sites in the [[National Park Service]]. Actions such as these have led his critics such as DiLorenzo to charge him with politicizing the battlefields.[http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/005734.html]

McPherson has been interviewed in the World Socialist Web Site [http://www.wsws.org/sections/category/history/h-mcpher.shtml], a publication of a [[socialist]] political party. He has also published articles in [[liberal]] opinion magazine ''[[The Nation]]''.

===Democracy Now interview & UDC boycott===
McPherson's political views have led to charges of [[bias]] against him and at least one [[boycott]] of his books. In [[1999]] McPherson drew the ire of Confederate genealogy groups when he and [[Ed Sebesta]], a self-described "anti-[[neo-Confederate]] movement" researcher, had an interview with [[Amy Goodman]] and [[Juan_Gonzalez_(journalist)|Juan Gonzalez]] on the [[liberal]] [[Pacifica Radio]] network's [[Democracy Now!]] program. The topic of the interview was then-candidate [[George W. Bush]]'s support for the Museum of the Confederacy. During the interview McPherson described the [[Sons of Confederate Veterans]] and [[United Daughters of the Confederacy]] - two Civil War genealogical groups that are over one hundred years old - as neo-confederate groups. McPherson also stated:

:"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."

McPherson also remarked that board members of the [[Museum of the Confederacy]] in [[Richmond, Virginia]] were "undoubtedly neo-Confederate." These comments outraged members of the UDC and SCV, bringing condemnation of McPherson and causing boycott calls against his books.[http://users.erols.com/va-udc/mcpherson.html] A year later McPherson responded to the boycott campaign by elaborating on his comments:

:"If I implied that all U.D.C. chapters or S.C.V. chapters or anyone who belongs to those is promoting a white-supremacist agenda, that's not what I meant to say," he said. "What I meant to say is that some of these people have a hidden agenda of white supremacy, (which) they might not even recognize they're involved in"

Members of the UDC and SCV were similarly offended by these comments. The Virginia UDC responded in their newsletter that "Far from apologizing for his baseless accusations of racism, (McPherson) has now added ignorance to the list of sins that we have committed." The groups continue to oppose McPherson. [http://users.erols.com/va-udc/mcpherson.html]

==Bibliography==
*''The struggle for equality; abolitionists and the Negro in the Civil War and Reconstruction'', by James M. McPherson. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1964.
*''The Negro's Civil War; how American Negroes felt and acted during the war for the Union'', by James M. McPherson. New York: Pantheon Books, 1965.
*''Marching toward freedom; the Negro in the Civil War, 1861-1865'', by James M. McPherson. New York: Knopf, 1968, c1967.
*''Blacks in America; bibliographical essays'', by James M. McPherson and others. 1st ed. Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday, 1971.
*''The abolitionist legacy: from Reconstruction to the NAACP'', by James M. McPherson. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, c1975.
*''Region, race, and Reconstruction: essays in honor of C. Vann Woodward'', edited by J. Morgan Kousser and James M. McPherson. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.
*''Ordeal by fire: the Civil War and Reconstruction'', by James M. McPherson.1st ed. New York: Knopf: Distributed by Random House, c1982.
*''Lincoln and the strategy of unconditional surrender'', by James M. McPherson. Gettysburg, Pa: Gettysburg College, 1984.
*''How Lincoln won the war with metaphors, by James M. McPherson. Fort Wayne, Ind.: Louis A. Warren Lincoln Library and Museum, 1985.
*''Battle cry of freedom: the Civil War era'', by James M. McPherson. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
*''Battle chronicles of the Civil War'', by James McPherson, editor; Richard Gottlieb, managing editor. 6 vols. New York: Macmillan Pub. Co.; London: Collier Macmillan Publishers, c1989.
*''Abraham Lincoln and the second American Revolution'', by James M. McPherson. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
*''American political leaders: from colonial times to the present'', by Steven G. O'Brien; editor, Paula McGuire; consulting editors, James M. McPherson, Gary Gerstle. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, c1991.
*''Why the Confederacy lost'', edited by Gabor S. Boritt ; essays by James M. McPherson ... [et al.]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
*''What they fought for, 1861-1865'', by James M. McPherson. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, c1994.
*''The atlas of the Civil War'', edited by James M. McPherson. New York: Macmillan, c1994.
*''"We cannot escape history": Lincoln and the last best hope of Earth'', edited by James M. McPherson. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1995.
*''The abolitionist legacy: from Reconstruction to the NAACP'', James M. McPherson. 2nd ed. with a new preface by the author. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995.
*''The American heritage new history of the Civil War'', narrated by Bruce Catton; edited and with a new introduction by James McPherson. New York: Viking, 1996.
*''Drawn with the sword: reflections on the American Civil War'', by James M. McPherson. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
*''For cause and comrades: why men fought in the Civil War'', by James M. McPherson. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
*''Is blood thicker than water?: crises of nationalism in the modern world'', by James M. McPherson. Toronto: Vintage Canada, c1998.
*''Personal memoirs of U.S. Grant'', by Ulysses S. Grant; with an introduction and notes by James M. McPherson. New York: Penguin Books, 1999.
*''Encyclopedia of Civil War biographies'', edited by James M. McPherson. 3 vols. Armonk, NY: Sharpe Reference, c2000.
*''Crossroads of freedom: Antietam'', by James M. McPherson. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
*''The boys in blue and gray'', written by James M. McPherson. New York: Atheneum Books for Young Readers, c2002.
*''The illustrated Battle cry of freedom: the Civil War era'', by James M. McPherson. New York: Oxford University Press, c2003.
*''Hallowed ground: a walk at Gettysburg'', by James M. McPherson. 1st ed. New York: Crown Journeys, 2003.

==External links==

*[http://www.barnesandnoble.com/writers/writer.asp?cid=627214 Barnes & Noble - Meet the Writers]
*[http://history.princeton.edu/index.php?app=people&id=46 Princeton University Biography]
*[http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0412226&mode=thread&tid=5 ''Democracy Now'' November 3, 1999: George W. Bush and the Confederacy: Where Does He Stand?]
*[http://users.erols.com/va-udc/mcpherson.html Virginia UDC: Princeton Educator Maligns UDC]
*[http://www.sierratimes.com/goldberg.htm James McPherson, Nihil Obstat] in the ''Sierra Times''

[[Category:1936 births|McPherson, James M.]]
[[Category:American historians|McPherson, James M.]]
[[Category:MacArthur Fellows|McPherson, James M.]]
[[Category:Pulitzer Prize winners|McPherson]]