At your behest, I have previously noted where Cozzens has made
errors, including--as I remember--the one to which you refer. I'm
not sure what you want me to do after that. You keep bringing it up;
do I have to apologize for his writing?
You've read Cozzens, I'm sure. He is critical of all of the major
actors at Chattanooga: Grant, Thomas, Sherman, Hooker, Granger, et
al. Please take another look at the decription of the pursuit.
Cozzens doesn't pull any punches in dealing with Thomas.
Other authors also get the facts wrong. Flipping through
Cleaves' "Rock of Chickamauga" today, I read that only three
divisions scaled Missionary Ridge.
What I look for when judging an author's work is whether the words
chosen, implications employed, and misstatements made tend in a
certain direction. I think that you, of course, highly favor Grant
in your writing. Unfortunately, you never responded to any but one
of the many problems which I had with just one chapter of your work.
Are you now ready to discuss the rest?
Date: Sat Jun 30, 2001 11:00 pm
Subject: Re: Seeing the Ground
--- In civilwarwest@y..., "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@y...> wrote:
> --- In civilwarwest@y..., josepharose@y... wrote:
> > I depend, in large
> > measure, on the writings of such well-regarded authors as James
Lee McDonough, Wiley Sword, and Peter Cozzens.
Mr. Rose has never responded to a major error I found in Cozzens's
work which would seem to betray his anti-Grant animus (at least if I
apply the same standards to Cozzens that Mr. Rose apples to others).
> Wasn't McDonough the guy who plagiarized someone's master's thesis
in a work he combined on with another author?