RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Champion Hill
When I read something I want it to comprehensive, detailed, accurate and with some educated opinion. A writer should have some ideas about his subject as he goes into the project. These ideas can be creative and created from a firm study of the subject. I like a fair summary and concluding thought on the matter. Make me think. I may disagree (Alan Schom’s work on Napoleon comes to mind, total garbage) but it at least makes me think. Now if it is too off base (like Schom) that is another story. A writer can’t take something out of thin air and define it as fact. He can state an opinion but there be some grounded fact with it. This is where the problem comes in. If the opinion is so off base (Schom again) the book becomes a waste of money.
I would like a little evaluation from an educated mind, I want to learn something. But what they have to say must have a reasonable factual base. This defense of McClernand and Loring troubles me. I have yet to read the book as well but those who have all seem to be expressing the same thought here. We know McPherson did a fine job and McClernand and Loring were failures. Those are the facts of the battle. Now to go otherwise requires a huge amount of fact to back it up. From what I’m hearing it doesn’t sound like it is there.
I’m not sure I’m making a lot of sense here and that is because the Cardinals are on ESPN and I am distracted.
Now off to baseball.
From: Harry Smeltzer [mailto:hjs21@...]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 8:27 AM
Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Champion Hill
Have you considered the possibility that “past history written by noted authors” may be tainted by personal bias?
From: GnrlJEJohnston@... [mailto:GnrlJEJohnston@...]
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Champion Hill
In a message dated 10/4/2004 9:02:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, DPowell334@... writes:
First, have you read the book?
No Dave, I have not. I was going by the report given to the forum by Slippy. It has well been documented that McPherson was the "hero" of Champion Hill. If a writer supports McClernand over McPherson with regards to that battle, then he apparently refutes all that has been written priorly. According to Slippy, he also criticizes McPherson at Raymond. This too is against past history written by noted authors. As I said, if he is writing a historical book, let it be factual without personal bias's. If there is a personal bias implied, let it be the reader's.
"I have realized in our country that one class of
men makes war and leaves another to fight it out."
- William T. Sherman
Has Ed Bearss made any comments or has he given a review on the book, “Champion Hill Decisive Battle for Vicksburg” by Timothy B. Smith?