Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [TalkAntietam] McClellan has the 'fasts'

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Beckner (PWC Magazine)
    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
    Message 1 of 90 , Jul 11, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      Steve.

      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?

      -----Original Message-----
      From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]
      On Behalf Of Thomas Clemens
      Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 11:36 AM
      To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan has the 'fasts'

      Jeff,
      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.
      Tom

      Thomas G. Clemens D.A.
      Professor of History
      Hagerstown Community College






      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Jeff Beckner (PWC Magazine)
      OK. Thanks. ... From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Thomas Clemens Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 2:35 PM To:
      Message 90 of 90 , Jul 12, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        OK. Thanks.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]
        On Behalf Of Thomas Clemens
        Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 2:35 PM
        To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] McClellan has the 'fasts'

        I read the book too, and thought the mention of the K-N Act was
        tangental to the theme. Rafuse was discussing McClellan's shift from a
        tradtional Whig to a Douglas Democrat, and IIRC, Jim wanted a discussion
        of the inconsistency of that shift due to Douglas' sponsoring of the K-N
        Act. Rafuse does talk about it later, in the context of Lincoln, but it
        cannot be fairly said that Rafuse ignores or leaves it out. It just was
        not as emphasized as Jim thought it should be. Fair criticism, but not
        an indictment of the author.

        Thomas G. Clemens D.A.
        Professor of History
        Hagerstown Community College


        >>> jbeckner@... 07/12/05 10:53 AM >>>
        OK....are they dealt with in any detail? One of Jim's criticisms (he
        READ the book, you know) was that Rafuse didn't raise some questions on
        some topics that probably should have been raised.




        Yahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.