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

Redman's Non-Review of Simpson's Grant

Expand Messages
  • josepharose@yahoo.com
    To all: Bob Redman just e-mailed me; at least, I am pretty sure it was him-- nowadays, it seems you can t always trust the names you see on posts and e-mails,
    Message 1 of 5 , May 6, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      To all:

      Bob Redman just e-mailed me; at least, I am pretty sure it was him--
      nowadays, it seems you can't always trust the names you see on posts
      and e-mails, unlike the good old days of the mid-nineties.

      He just asked me to tell you all that the review written in his name
      of Brooks Simpson's book on Amazon.com was a complete hoax. He also
      stated that he didn't care for the book, which shouldn't come as much
      of a surprise; Simpson seems to dislike the same people (e.g.,
      Rosecrans and Thomas) that Grant did.

      I would like to know how Bob Taubman, among any others who have read
      or are reading it, is finding the book. I have gone through large
      portions and am very dissatisfied with the professor's writing. As a
      case in point, he attempts to refute statements by Generals Banks and
      Franklin concerning Grant's inebriation and injury at New Orleans by
      asking irrelevant questions about why these men allowed Grant to do
      what he did. The author also seems to take stands and then "proves"
      them through the absence of evidence (e.g., If this person is
      correct, than why doesn't anybody else say so?).

      Regarding Chattanooga, Simpson seems to want Grant to look good no
      matter what the cost to the historical record. In an exchange of
      posts with him, he made several unreasonable assertions to me.

      On a lighter note, I envy everyone who goes to the muster.

      Joseph
    • Robert Taubman
      Joseph, I m only about a 5th of the way into the book. I enjoy Brooks writing style and there is, IMHO, a nice flow to the text. I ve not the experience or
      Message 2 of 5 , May 8, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Joseph,

        I'm only about a 5th of the way into the book. I enjoy Brooks' writing style
        and there is, IMHO, a nice flow to the text. I've not the experience or the
        knowledge of particular battles that you and some others here have and probably
        would have problems separating the chaff from the wheat. That was my reasoning
        for asking about the book prior to reading it. I was looking for areas that
        raised questions in fact so that I may check what Brooks wrote and what other
        sources say.

        Will let you know my further thoughts when I have finished reading the book.

        Bob

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: <josepharose@...>
        To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 1:05 AM
        Subject: [civilwarwest] Redman's Non-Review of Simpson's Grant


        | To all:
        |
        | Bob Redman just e-mailed me; at least, I am pretty sure it was him--
        | nowadays, it seems you can't always trust the names you see on posts
        | and e-mails, unlike the good old days of the mid-nineties.
        |
        | He just asked me to tell you all that the review written in his name
        | of Brooks Simpson's book on Amazon.com was a complete hoax. He also
        | stated that he didn't care for the book, which shouldn't come as much
        | of a surprise; Simpson seems to dislike the same people (e.g.,
        | Rosecrans and Thomas) that Grant did.
        |
        | I would like to know how Bob Taubman, among any others who have read
        | or are reading it, is finding the book. I have gone through large
        | portions and am very dissatisfied with the professor's writing. As a
        | case in point, he attempts to refute statements by Generals Banks and
        | Franklin concerning Grant's inebriation and injury at New Orleans by
        | asking irrelevant questions about why these men allowed Grant to do
        | what he did. The author also seems to take stands and then "proves"
        | them through the absence of evidence (e.g., If this person is
        | correct, than why doesn't anybody else say so?).
        |
        | Regarding Chattanooga, Simpson seems to want Grant to look good no
        | matter what the cost to the historical record. In an exchange of
        | posts with him, he made several unreasonable assertions to me.
        |
        | On a lighter note, I envy everyone who goes to the muster.
        |
        | Joseph
        |
        |
        |
        |
        | Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        |
        |
        |
      • laurarose1886@aol.com
        Brooks Simpson s book on Grant is an excellent and balanced treatment of this enigmatic, unique man, who accomplished what none of the others could, victory
        Message 3 of 5 , May 9, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Brooks Simpson's book on Grant is an excellent and balanced treatment of this
          enigmatic, unique man, who accomplished what none of the others could,
          victory and reunification of the country.  Simpson has spent years going
          through the archives and studying his subject. Unlike many other authors
          today, he is not a generalist jumping between centuries and wars, but rather
          a specialist who has earned his credential spurs under the glaring spotlight
          of the discerning community of professional historians.

          No matter how you look at it, Joseph and the rest of us are amateurs dabbling
          in hypotheses that are grounded in our own agendas, appetites, bias and the
          viewpoints formulated by our environment and value system.  We use history as
          a way to validate today and confirm our conclusions as well as tp stroke our
          hobbyist interest.   The professional, like Dr. Simpson, however,  is trained
          to set all that aside and look at evidence and under the myths and around the
          smoke screens.

          By contrast some of us get caught up in minutia and our own brilliance. We
          brush over that which we do not want to see because it conflicts with our
          preconceived cherished belief system.  I've learned to check the credentials
          of all authors before swallowing whatever he/she says.  I may debate an issue
          with others like myself, but in the end I want look to the professional for
          drawing a definitive conclusion.  So far, I can't find any fault with Dr.
          Simpson.  Now I am reading the new Smith biography on Grant which is very
          sympathetic to the General.  Wonder what Joseph will have to say about that
          one.  In addition, since he admits to *not* reading Simpson, his opinion on
          the book is nebulous at best.
        • hvonbork@aol.com
          We use history as a way to validate today and confirm our conclusions as well as tp stroke our hobbyist interest I certainly agree with that portion. By
          Message 4 of 5 , May 9, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            We use history as
            a way to validate today and confirm our conclusions as well as tp stroke our
            hobbyist interest
                 
                       I certainly agree with that portion.

            By contrast some of us get caught up in minutia and our own brilliance. We
            brush over that which we do not want to see because it conflicts with our
            preconceived cherished belief system

                 Amen to that also.
                 
                       Jack
          • marshaedavis@yahoo.com
            Good heavens it appears that some of us trolls are starting to speak up! *laughing out loud* I have read the book in question cover to cover. I throughly
            Message 5 of 5 , May 9, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Good heavens it appears that some of us 'trolls' are starting to
              speak up! *laughing out loud*
              I have read the book in question cover to cover. I throughly enjoyed
              it and I know I learned alot. But what the heck according to
              the "Redman & Plezia" Gang I am a troll!
              Sincerely
              M. Davis
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.