Could it be that Harsh has been a well-known McClellan apologist for 30
years? (Of course, they tend to stand out, since there are so few, so
he's guaranteed a high profile!)
I would like some facts to challenge my opinions. I'm just skeptical I'm
going to get much of that in this book, given the reviews by Jim and
And it is in that light -- the reviews -- that I criticize it, so far as
I have, which hasn't been much. If what Jim and Steve say is true, and I
have no reason to doubt that it is, I think I would find this book a
very frustrating read. Much like that idiot piece of work by Rowland or
whoever a few years back, although I suppose Rafuse to be considerably
better than that.
But that's OK; all the conventional wisdom gets challenged from time to
time, as it should. I'd prefer that it be done in fair and non-clumsy
fashion, and I'm just not sure Rafuse has done that, as per previous
posts. I mean, how do you write a book like this and fail to mention the
Kansas-Nebraska Act and/or the Harrison's Landing letter?
On Behalf Of Thomas Clemens
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan has the 'fasts'
Since Harsh was very complimentary of Lee, why would that suggest he
would be so of McClellan? Or is it just that you don't want any facts
to challenge your opinions? No, I won't post an excerpt; read the book,
or don't criticize it.
Thomas G. Clemens D.A.
Professor of History
Hagerstown Community College
Yahoo! Groups Links