Hi Richard --One of my staff members brought yesterday's post to my attention, and I just wanted to take a moment to respond. First off, in fairness to Winston, I should point out that his new book on Vicksburg is not a novel--it's a factual history about the Vicksburg campaign. (That ad, in fact, was the only one I knew about before we took the July issue of America's Civil War to press; I don't get in the sales team's way, and they don't get in mine. :) Anyway, thanks for plugging the magazine, and I just wanted to note for all your readers that we try to treat all the re-enactors and "Confederate bad boys" with respect. We recognize them as a significant and important part of our audience, and neither the former editor nor I can remember a disparaging editorial tone to any issue of ACW that we've been in charge of. We don't take sides in the magazine, but try to build awareness and understanding of all aspects of this horrendous crisis in our nation's history. As for the sales reps, I can't speak entirely for them, but given the current economic climate, they're going to target anybody who has an interest in the Civil War--North, South, or East and West for that matter. :) Richard, thanks again for reading the magazine and for all you do to keep interest in the Civil War Alive.Tamela BakerEditor, America's Civil War
Tamela:Thanks so much for taking the time to comment. I apologize for the error regarding Mr. Wintson's book. Sloppy mistake on my part. I'll correct that in the original post.I did try to go out of my way to make it clear in my post that my comments were not in any way a criticism of your magazine. As I pointed out - I love it!I would just reiterate that I've not seen anything, editorially speaking, in your magazine that is not fair and balanced - I was just making some observations. That being said, my post was simply intended to point out that many of the "Southern/Confederate heritage" critics would have little to write about and/or publish if it weren't for some of the folks they seem to enjoy mocking. And, as you acknowledge, that particular segment of the market (though I don't buy into all of the critics' characterizations) makes up "a significant and important part" of your audience.Again, thank you so much for taking the time to comment and thank YOU for all you folks are doing to keep interest in the Civil War alive. You're doing a great job and I wish you many profitable and successful years in the future.
Prof. Wilson's wager is, of course, unresolvable. I'll just comment that the book is an interesting collection of essays, all of which are worth reading.
James:Yes, it is. The essays "worth" is subjective, of course. I've read snippets of Gallagher's book but have more important ones to tackle. I tend to agree with Wilson, based on what I've read thus far.
Anon: Re: Your Gallagher comment - rejected.Now, now . . . let's be gentlemen. No need to lower ourselves to the Beavis & Butthead level of other blogs.;o)
Intweresting, Richard. I wrote one of the essays. Care to tell me where I bashed a Confederate hero in that essay? If you can't find any such evidence, then I'm afraid you'll have to admit Clyde's overstated the case (I believe I taught his daughter at Wofford).And Gary Gallagher as a basher of Confederate heroes? My, my.
Brooks:I've not read your essay, so I could not comment. However, no one has accused you of anything. Your name has not come up once in the discussion. In reference to Professor Gallagher and Wilson's claims, I would recommend the full article to put everything in context:http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/wilson8.htmlI'd be interested in your thoughts. I do not think he overstated his case, but I'm willing to listen.
Post a Comment