Forbes Writer Gets a C- in American History

Seth Cohen half-remembers something he read online about the Civil War in order to bolster his argument that modern Americans are heading toward national conflict.

They say “C’s get degrees,” but what happens when an average student in American history grows up to write political columns for Forbes.com? Something like “Rush Limbaugh Predicts A ‘Veritable’ Civil War — Could He Be Right?” by Seth Cohen.

I’ve read hundreds of articles over the past few decades claiming another American Civil War is right around the corner every time we’re faced with a contentious issue. All of them, thankfully, have been wrong (so far…). But it’s not the premise of Cohen’s article I’m concerned with–it’s his distorted retelling of American history, particularly its Civil War history.

“There are some troubling parallels” Cohen claims, between America today and America 160 years ago.

“Back then, the fractious 1860 election was essentially a referendum on slavery and states’ rights, with the northern and southern states at deep odds over the future of the nation. Lincoln, the Republican candidate, claimed an electoral landslide over the three other candidates, yet only won 40% of the popular vote. The election results caused a national rupture, and before Lincoln could be inaugurated, 11 southern states had seceded from the Union. Within weeks, the confrontation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina sparked the Civil War, and the rest is history.”

Unfortunately, Cohen’s summery of these events is almost entirely wrong.

It’s true Lincoln won with 40% of the vote among a divided field, and this was the last straw for several deep Southern states. But in fact, only seven states: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas, seceded specifically because Lincoln won the election. Arkansas, Virginia, Tennessee, and North Carolina did not secede until after Lincoln’s April 15th call for a volunteer army to suppress the rebellion.

The firing on Fort Sumter that sparked the war on April 12 was almost four months after South Carolina seceded (December 20, 1860).

But Cohen’s most glaring omission was any mention of events leading up to the 1860 election. Americans didn’t just decide to start killing each other because they didn’t like who was president. The American Civil War actually started with the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854 and the violence in Kansas that followed. Pro and anti-slavery partisans openly fought for months, leaving over a hundred people dead.

In 1856, South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks nearly beat Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner to death with his cane on the floor of the U.S. Senate. After abolitionist John Brown was captured raiding the Harpers Ferry Armory in 1859, secessionist Edmund Ruffin sent pikes Brown brought along to arm freed slaves to every Southern governor as a warning of what abolitionists had planned.

In truth, sectional conflict had simmered for years leading up to the 1860 election, with outbreaks of actual violence. A few acts of civil disobedience (Cohen’s words) against lockdown orders and one moron wearing a KKK hood to the grocery store does not portend widespread armed conflict between U.S. citizens or states.

Cohen himself admits several times in his own article that another Civil War is unlikely. Perhaps next time he should think twice about trying to apply a sweeping historical analogy to the present day without looking into whether or not his analogy actually fits.

Author: Michael Kleen

Michael Kleen is an author, raconteur, and occasional traveler. He has a M.A. in History and M.S. in Education. He enjoys studying military history, folklore, and philosophy.

2 thoughts on “Forbes Writer Gets a C- in American History”

  1. I stumbled upon this article by chance, and I’m so glad I did. It was while I was searching for Mr. Cohen’s contact information that I came across your review on his nonsensical musings about a non-issue rife with historical inaccuracies and woefully flawed and uninformed commentary. He has just “published” an article about Elon Musk and Joe Rogan that condescends their discussion about moving from California to a different state where pandemic restrictions aren’t as stringent. While it is certainly not as concrete, albeit flawed, as the piece you are reviewing here, it certainly follows the same short sighted logic he seems to really lean into while writing, taking a little sound bite from Rogan’s podcast and inflating it to a ridiculously exaggerated degree. Just as he uses some “half-remembered” incomplete bullshit about the Civil War to bolster his argument (as you so astutely call him out for), he applies the same technique for his Musk/Rogan discord. It’s not anywhere near as important as what you’ve called him out for, historical inaccuracy and misrepresentation of facts and events based on little more than a fleeting discourse, but to me it is just as irksome. Cohen uses a half-remembered soundbite to bolster his superficially constructed “bro-out” conclusion, a trope that really only exists in the hyper-woke cancel culture of twitter, the intangible nothing that somehow seems to draw everyone’s attention regardless of the fact that it is not a representation of anything based on reality. I’m not going to pick apart his whole article, it’s not worth the time, but I will point out that this soundbite he uses comes from a frustrated conversation between Musk and Rogan that lasted all of about 5 minutes and was born out of a reaction to news of extended restrictions in the state. Five minutes might seem like a considerable amount of time in our modern clickbait news cycle, but the podcast itself is around 3 hours long, as are most of Rogan’s. I can guarantee you that Cohen did not listen to the entire podcast, not that it would matter, but it is wholly representative of a major problem infecting the news cycle with what used to be called pure gossip. I’m not saying Cohen needs to listen to the entire podcast before writing his article, although one would think that would be an obvious qualifier for informed criticism. My concern is that Cohen has once again manufactured a false drama with no real foundation in fact or reality, and has subsequently put out an article published by Forbes that is little more than a desperate attempt to trigger the triggerable with loosely constructed and abundantly contrived drivel.

    Liked by 1 person

What are your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.