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

Review of "Triumph Over Adversity"

Expand Messages
  • josepharose@yahoo.com
    People have questioned my criticism of Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph over Adversity, by Dr. Brooks Simpson. Although another person s agreement with my position
    Message 1 of 23 , Sep 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      People have questioned my criticism of "Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph
      over Adversity," by Dr. Brooks Simpson. Although another person's
      agreement with my position doesn't necessarily make my stance
      correct, maybe it will be somewhat harder to dismiss out-of-hand. I
      don't know David Long or who he is--maybe he has his own axe to
      grind, as the common put-down around here goes--but his critique
      matches my own.

      Joseph


      The book review, as copied and pasted from the website at
      http://www.thehistorynet.com/reviews/bk_cwtimay00lead.htm follows:

      In Let Us Have Peace (1991), Brooks Simpson's first book about
      Ulysses S. Grant, Simpson told us what we already knew about his
      subject--that in time of war he was a more than competent general
      officer who combined battlefield tenacity with political savvy to
      attain a level of success that placed him among the giants of U.S.
      military history. Then Simpson went much further and attempted, in
      the words of respected historian Hans L. Trefousse, "to rehabilitate
      Ulysses S. Grant as a statesman of political sagacity, a public
      figure with a vision of reuniting the country while doing justice to
      blacks." John Y. Simon, the widely respected editor of the Ulysses S.
      Grant Papers, wrote that "Simpson's Grant can do no wrong."

      In his new book, Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph over Adversity, 1822-1865,
      Simpson, a professor of history and humanities at Arizona State
      University, again lionizes his hero unabashedly. He credits Grant
      with such superior intelligence and political acumen that the reader
      is left to wonder how the man could ever have piled up the succession
      of business and personal failures that he did during the antebellum
      years. If Grant's military genius and political sagacity during the
      war were as profound as Simpson suggests, then it is difficult to
      reconcile the victorious general with the naïve postwar president
      whose handpicked appointees pillaged the national trust. That several
      of these unqualified and dishonest officials were his wife's
      relatives, or former military cronies, speaks eloquently of Grant's
      failings as president.

      The Grant of 1822-1861, to whom Simpson dedicates less than one-sixth
      of the total text in this book, is as unremarkable as he is
      unpretentious. The reader again is left to wonder why it was that the
      enormous potential that Simpson suggests always existed could never
      bloom except in the deadly and violent panorama of civil war. Simpson
      tells us that young Grant frequently suffered from what 19th-century
      writers referred to as "melancholy," or what today would be diagnosed
      as depression. It is a rationalization that hardly explains his
      antebellum failures. Abraham Lincoln waged a lifelong battle
      against "melancholia," and yet became one of the most successful
      lawyers in Illinois history and eventually one of the nation's
      greatest presidents.

      Almost every section of Simpson's book contains labored
      generalizations that the author constructs to defend his hero. It is
      not that Simpson has failed to consult the available primary sources
      in doing his research. He has certainly relied upon the best
      available evidence. The problem is that he has taken facts clearly
      established by those sources and interpreted them to cast Grant in
      the best possible light. In Simpson's view, Grant acted upon the
      noblest of motives, emerging as an unstained hero worthy of our
      loftiest praise.

      Simpson's rosy interpretations often are a quantum leap beyond the
      evidence used to support them. For example, Simpson informs us that
      during the war Grant wholeheartedly supported Lincoln's racial
      policies. Yet there is little in the early life of Grant to suggest
      that the institution of slavery deeply offended him. Grant's
      emergence as a racial egalitarian seems to have been the product of
      political expediency and a recognition of the shifting sands of
      social and cultural change during the Civil War.

      Throughout the book there are similar instances of Simpson's
      subtleties in attempting to portray Grant's actions and motives. Many
      of these reflect Simpson's feverish attempts to convince us to adopt
      Grant as the Civil War's other unstained hero (besides Lincoln).
      Simpson wants us to believe Grant played a more important role than
      any of his contemporaries in saving the Union, freeing the slaves,
      and preserving democracy in a world still largely hostile to it.

      One example of Simpson's optimism regarding Grant is his handling of
      Grant's role in the Second Battle of Cold Harbor and its aftermath.
      The defeat at Cold Harbor, Virginia, in early June 1864 was possibly
      the most devastating setback inflicted upon the Army of the Potomac
      during the war. Though Grant did not initially admit Robert E. Lee
      had whipped him in the battle, in later conversations with other
      officers and in his postwar reports, he acknowledged that it was the
      one fight he regretted, and that if he had it to do over again, he
      would not order the attack of June 3. Grant ignored the fact that it
      was not just the appalling losses that his army suffered that made
      Cold Harbor so horrible. It was the experience of the days following
      the battle, when thousands of blue-clad soldiers lay between the
      battle lines, wounded and dying. Any attempt to assist dying
      colleagues in the face of Confederate sniper fire would have been
      suicidal for the Federal soldiers who crouched in their trenches only
      yards away from the killing field. The heat was unbearable, and the
      agony of those wounded soldiers was beyond description. Yet Grant did
      nothing to initiate a truce between the armies for more than two days
      after the battle. When he finally acted, he wanted Meade to be the
      one to propose a truce. It was only after it became clear that Lee
      would honor a cease-fire request only it if came from Grant himself
      that Grant finally proposed one.

      Subsequent negotiations bogged down because Lee insisted a flag of
      truce first be sent and accepted, a condition Grant was reluctant to
      accept. The two generals did not agree on cease-fire terms until more
      than four days after the battle. When the stretcher bearers went
      forth, only two of the thousands of men who had fallen on the morning
      of June 3 were still alive.

      The Cold Harbor tragedy was one of Grant's worst moments of the war.
      It created an image of a man very unlike the youth who was sickened
      at the sight of slaughtered animals at his father's tannery. Yet
      clearly Grant's reluctance to raise a flag of truce was due not so
      much to a lack of compassion, but to his refusal to admit defeat. His
      dispatches after the battle also reveal a commander unwilling to
      admit the scope of his army's loss. Simpson conveniently neglects to
      mention Grant's initial telegraphic message from the battlefield on
      June 3. In that correspondence, Grant described his casualties
      as "not severe," even though he had lost at least five men for every
      one Rebel casualty. This was the act of a man either distorting the
      truth, or of a commander who was not very well acquainted with the
      condition of his own army.

      Instead of acknowledging Grant's part, and fault, in this whole
      matter, Simpson nitpickingly contests every assertion made by
      historians that questions Grant's judgment on June 3 and the days
      that followed. He attempts to shift the onus for the needless
      suffering of those soldiers from Grant to Lee. "Lee's final proposal
      on June 7 was no different from the one Grant had made the previous
      morning," he writes. "And not all the dead and wounded between the
      lines were wearing blue uniforms.... Lee seemed to take grim
      satisfaction in forcing Grant to follow the procedures he outlined."
      Some of Simpson's defenses amount to little more than
      rationalizations; others border on intellectual dishonesty.

      In a book about a historical personage who has been written about as
      much as Grant, we are forced to ask the question, "Does this new work
      contribute anything new to what we know about its subject?" Simspon
      zealously defends Grant's every foible and fault, but it is not clear
      that he has added anything valuable to existing scholarship.

      David E. Long
      East Carolina University
    • sdwakefield@prodigy.net
      ~~*~~Slowly sadly shaking my head~~*~~ I guess Mr. Rose still does not get it. ~sad very sad~
      Message 2 of 23 , Sep 30, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        ~~*~~Slowly sadly shaking my head~~*~~

        I guess Mr. Rose still does not get it.

        ~sad very sad~
      • hvonbork@aol.com
        Howdy all- Just a brief comment solely on the subject of David Long ...and pointedly avoiding any reference to the VERY lengthy Rose/Simpson debate :) : The
        Message 3 of 23 , Sep 30, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Howdy all-
                Just a brief comment solely on the subject of David Long ...and pointedly avoiding any reference to the VERY lengthy  Rose/Simpson debate :) :
                The David Long I recall is an attorney who is now a professor in, I think, Eastern South Carolina.  He is particularly noted for his expertise on the subject of Lincoln's "Summer House."  Additionally, I recall his mention of book-in-process on the Peninsula Campaign.  Prior to his move to Carolina he had been very active in the CWRT on Florida's West Coast.
                Lastly, with the sparsity of compliments versus the usual vitriol on this board, let me add, IMO, he's one hell of a  pleasant, non-pompous gentleman.
                      Jack
        • sdwakefield@prodigy.net
          Jack, is Mr. Long really a plesant,non-pompus,gentleman who is critical of U.S. Grant? Gosh, such a person would sure be a welcome addition to the group!
          Message 4 of 23 , Sep 30, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Jack, is Mr. Long really a plesant,non-pompus,gentleman who is
            critical of U.S. Grant? Gosh, such a person would sure be a welcome
            addition to the group!
            Regards-
            Wakefield


            --- In civilwarwest@y..., hvonbork@a... wrote:
            > Howdy all-
            > Just a brief comment solely on the subject of David
            Long ...and
            > pointedly avoiding any reference to the VERY lengthy Rose/Simpson
            debate :) :
            > The David Long I recall is an attorney who is now a
            professor in, I
            > think, Eastern South Carolina. He is particularly noted for his
            expertise on
            > the subject of Lincoln's "Summer House." Additionally, I recall
            his mention
            > of book-in-process on the Peninsula Campaign. Prior to his move to
            Carolina
            > he had been very active in the CWRT on Florida's West Coast.
            > Lastly, with the sparsity of compliments versus the usual
            vitriol on
            > this board, let me add, IMO, he's one hell of a pleasant, non-
            pompous
            > gentleman.
            > Jack
          • brooksdsimpson@yahoo.com
            ... vitriol on this board, let me add, IMO, he s one hell of a pleasant, non-pompous gentleman. Sorry to burst your bubble, Jack. Mr. Long is very unhappy
            Message 5 of 23 , Sep 30, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              > Lastly, with the sparsity of compliments versus the usual
              vitriol on this board, let me add, IMO, he's one hell of a pleasant,
              non-pompous gentleman.

              Sorry to burst your bubble, Jack.

              Mr. Long is very unhappy with me because his institution asked me for
              a letter evaluating his scholarship as part of his candidacy for
              tenure. This was several years ago, before the appearance of my
              book. At the same time I got the request to review his work Mr. Long
              invited me to participate in a Civil War event in Florida the
              following January, all expenses paid, a week in the sun (hey, I'm
              from Arizona now, so that's not a big deal), a stipend, etc.

              I offered a candid appraisal of his work, noting the lack of referred
              publications, professional presentations, and other activites
              expected of a scholar in the academy, while noting his willingness to
              speak before public groups (all of which he had painstakenly
              documented). As Mr. Long had drawn attention to his recent essay on
              Cold Harbor, excerpted from his (unreferred) book, I felt it
              incumbent to point out the serious flaws in his research (other Civil
              War historians, including James McPherson and Gordon Rhea, also
              dismiss Long's story). I concluded by saying that the people at
              Eastern Carolina were well aware of Long's record when they hired
              him, so I had supposed that what he had done met with no real
              objection; however, the record raised questions I was bound to
              address. I made no recommendation either way as to whether he should
              be promoted, since that was outside the scope of the request.

              Apparently people who did not favor Mr. Long's advancement and tenure
              used my letter to their advantage. Needless to say, Mr. Long quickly
              withdrew his invitation for Florida, specifically citing his problems
              with ECU as the reason. That came as no surprise, especially in
              light of the tinming of the invitation. Mr. Long had a prolonged
              struggle, including what I have heard to be threats (or more) of
              legal action, to secure his position. Ever since then Mr. Long has
              been an unhappy camper, and understandably so.
            • brooksdsimpson@yahoo.com
              Sigh ... ... I ... Let s take Mr. Rose at his word -- that Mr. Long s approach matches his own. ... I understand that several of you have copies of my book.
              Message 6 of 23 , Sep 30, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Sigh ...

                --- In civilwarwest@y..., josepharose@y... wrote:

                > People have questioned my criticism of "Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph
                > over Adversity," by Dr. Brooks Simpson. Although another person's
                > agreement with my position doesn't necessarily make my stance
                > correct, maybe it will be somewhat harder to dismiss out-of-hand.
                I
                > don't know David Long or who he is--maybe he has his own axe to
                > grind, as the common put-down around here goes--but his critique
                > matches my own.

                Let's take Mr. Rose at his word -- that Mr. Long's approach matches
                his own.

                Now let's look at something Mr. Long said:

                > The Cold Harbor tragedy was one of Grant's worst moments of the
                > war.
                > It created an image of a man very unlike the youth who was sickened
                > at the sight of slaughtered animals at his father's tannery. Yet
                > clearly Grant's reluctance to raise a flag of truce was due not so
                > much to a lack of compassion, but to his refusal to admit defeat.
                > His
                > dispatches after the battle also reveal a commander unwilling to
                > admit the scope of his army's loss. Simpson conveniently neglects
                > to
                > mention Grant's initial telegraphic message from the battlefield on
                > June 3. In that correspondence, Grant described his casualties
                > as "not severe," even though he had lost at least five men for
                > every
                > one Rebel casualty.

                I understand that several of you have copies of my book. Turn to
                page 326, lines 9-12.

                You will there see the very dispatch Mr. Long says I neglected to
                mentioned discussed (as well as offering information that Mr. Long's
                own work neglected, namely that Charles A. Dana provided solid
                updates within the next 24 hours as reports came in).

                Draw your own conclusions about the professional scholarship and
                personal integrity of David Long; I assume newsgroup participants
                have already reached some sort of conclusion about Mr. Rose, who has
                commended Mr. Long's review and pointed out how much they have in
                common. No need for me to continue that discussion. Thank you.
              • hvonbork@aol.com
                Without any semblance of a bubble nor any axe to grind allow me to reiterate, if you please, IMO, David Long is one of a hell pleasant, non-pompous
                Message 7 of 23 , Sep 30, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Without any semblance of a "bubble" nor any axe to grind allow me to reiterate, if you please, IMO, David Long is one of a hell pleasant, non-pompous gentleman.
                        Jack
                • brooksdsimpson@yahoo.com
                  ... to ... pleasant, ... IYO.
                  Message 8 of 23 , Sep 30, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In civilwarwest@y..., hvonbork@a... wrote:
                    > Without any semblance of a "bubble" nor any axe to grind allow me
                    to
                    > reiterate, if you please, IMO, David Long is one of a hell
                    pleasant,
                    > non-pompous gentleman.

                    IYO.
                  • LWhite64@aol.com
                    Folks, Just to chime in on this briefly, David Long worked here at Chickamauga as a seasonal last summer, so if this is him, then it wasnt Mr. Rose as some
                    Message 9 of 23 , Sep 30, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Folks,
                             Just to chime in on this briefly, David Long worked here at Chickamauga as a seasonal last summer, so if this is him, then it wasnt Mr. Rose as some have said.  Mr. Long was quite anti Grant as well.

                      Lee
                    • brooksdsimpson@yahoo.com
                      ... wasnt Mr. ... I d like to make a few points. Mr. Long s character or bias need not be a topic of conversation here (especially as he is not present to
                      Message 10 of 23 , Oct 1, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In civilwarwest@y..., LWhite64@a... wrote:
                        > Folks,
                        > Just to chime in on this briefly, David Long worked here at
                        > Chickamauga as a seasonal last summer, so if this is him, then it
                        wasnt Mr.
                        > Rose as some have said. Mr. Long was quite anti Grant as well.

                        I'd like to make a few points.

                        Mr. Long's character or bias need not be a topic of conversation here
                        (especially as he is not present to defend himself). Two other
                        posters, including the original poster, brought those topics up, and
                        only then did I feel compelled to respond. Does Mr. Long have an axe
                        to grind? Is his purposeful misrepresentation of my book the act of
                        a gentleman? That's up to each of you to decide.

                        Mr. Long's review questioned my integrity, much as Mr. Rose has
                        questioned my integrity. I hope that in the past and in the flurry
                        aroused by this discussion that we now understand whose integrity is
                        properly at issue. Had Mr. Rose wanted to survey the scholarly
                        reception to my book, he might have pointed to reviews by James
                        McPherson, Peter Parish, and Robert Remini to set Mr. Long's review
                        in context. I've already pointed to a section of Mr. Long's review
                        that should raise questions about his scholarship.

                        Finally, I thought that whatever the merits of previous exchanges, a
                        good number of members of this newsgroup have tired of this
                        discussion. I post only because I have come under criticism yet
                        again from a familiar source, and I do have the right of self-defense
                        (and if I don't, the moderators can remove me immediately). If that
                        leads to a new chorus of "a plague on both your houses," I'll simply
                        submit that I can't wait until you come under attack here; let's see
                        how you respond. Mr. Rose has taken his road show elsewhere on the
                        net, repeating the same sort of things debated to death here as if
                        nothing has changed his mind in the slightest; other people have
                        notified me that he nags them with posts and messages. Thus it seems
                        useless to debate him except insofar as it might be important not to
                        allow his assertions, when mistaken or flawed, to go unchallenged;
                        we've seen how that process degenerates. I look forward to his
                        promised essays.
                      • josepharose@yahoo.com
                        ... here (especially as he is not present to defend himself).... It appears that Dr. David E. Long is a history professor and has a doctorate. As he is not
                        Message 11 of 23 , Oct 1, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In civilwarwest@y..., brooksdsimpson@y... wrote:
                          >
                          > Mr. Long's character or bias need not be a topic of conversation
                          here (especially as he is not present to defend himself)....

                          It appears that Dr. David E. Long is a history professor and has a
                          doctorate. As he is not present and if his character or bias need
                          *not* be topics, I see no reason to accuse him of "purposeful
                          misrepresentation" or question his status as a gentleman.

                          Joseph Rose



                          --- In civilwarwest@y..., brooksdsimpson@y... wrote:
                          > --- In civilwarwest@y..., LWhite64@a... wrote:
                          > > Folks,
                          > > Just to chime in on this briefly, David Long worked here
                          at
                          > > Chickamauga as a seasonal last summer, so if this is him, then it
                          > wasnt Mr.
                          > > Rose as some have said. Mr. Long was quite anti Grant as well.
                          >
                          > I'd like to make a few points.
                          >
                          > Mr. Long's character or bias need not be a topic of conversation
                          here
                          > (especially as he is not present to defend himself). Two other
                          > posters, including the original poster, brought those topics up,
                          and
                          > only then did I feel compelled to respond. Does Mr. Long have an
                          axe
                          > to grind? Is his purposeful misrepresentation of my book the act
                          of
                          > a gentleman? That's up to each of you to decide.
                          >
                          > Mr. Long's review questioned my integrity, much as Mr. Rose has
                          > questioned my integrity. I hope that in the past and in the flurry
                          > aroused by this discussion that we now understand whose integrity
                          is
                          > properly at issue. Had Mr. Rose wanted to survey the scholarly
                          > reception to my book, he might have pointed to reviews by James
                          > McPherson, Peter Parish, and Robert Remini to set Mr. Long's review
                          > in context. I've already pointed to a section of Mr. Long's review
                          > that should raise questions about his scholarship.
                          >
                          > Finally, I thought that whatever the merits of previous exchanges,
                          a
                          > good number of members of this newsgroup have tired of this
                          > discussion. I post only because I have come under criticism yet
                          > again from a familiar source, and I do have the right of self-
                          defense
                          > (and if I don't, the moderators can remove me immediately). If
                          that
                          > leads to a new chorus of "a plague on both your houses," I'll
                          simply
                          > submit that I can't wait until you come under attack here; let's
                          see
                          > how you respond. Mr. Rose has taken his road show elsewhere on the
                          > net, repeating the same sort of things debated to death here as if
                          > nothing has changed his mind in the slightest; other people have
                          > notified me that he nags them with posts and messages. Thus it
                          seems
                          > useless to debate him except insofar as it might be important not
                          to
                          > allow his assertions, when mistaken or flawed, to go unchallenged;
                          > we've seen how that process degenerates. I look forward to his
                          > promised essays.
                        • brooksdsimpson@yahoo.com
                          ... Mr. Rose first raised the issue of motivation and bias, if readers will recall his initial post. Mr. Rose has also remained silent on Mr. Long s
                          Message 12 of 23 , Oct 1, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In civilwarwest@y..., josepharose@y... wrote:
                            > --- In civilwarwest@y..., brooksdsimpson@y... wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Mr. Long's character or bias need not be a topic of conversation
                            > here (especially as he is not present to defend himself)....
                            >
                            > It appears that Dr. David E. Long is a history professor and has a
                            > doctorate. As he is not present and if his character or bias need
                            > *not* be topics, I see no reason to accuse him of "purposeful
                            > misrepresentation" or question his status as a gentleman.

                            Mr. Rose first raised the issue of motivation and bias, if readers
                            will recall his initial post.

                            Mr. Rose has also remained silent on Mr. Long's misrepresentation of
                            what I had to say about Cold Harbor.
                          • brooksdsimpson@yahoo.com
                            ... So is Joan Waugh. But you trashed her. And, unlike Long, she had no problem gaining tenure. She s also very knowledgeable about Grant. It s so
                            Message 13 of 23 , Oct 1, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In civilwarwest@y..., josepharose@y... wrote:
                              > --- In civilwarwest@y..., brooksdsimpson@y... wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Mr. Long's character or bias need not be a topic of conversation
                              > here (especially as he is not present to defend himself)....
                              >
                              > It appears that Dr. David E. Long is a history professor and has a
                              > doctorate.

                              So is Joan Waugh. But you trashed her. And, unlike Long, she had no
                              problem gaining tenure. She's also very knowledgeable about Grant.

                              It's so unfortunate when people confuse disagreement with being
                              disagreeable.
                            • Bob Huddleston
                              To look specifically at the review, 1. Depression is a difficult and, even today, hard to treat disorder. Some people can bloom quickly and overcome it --as
                              Message 14 of 23 , Oct 1, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                To look specifically at the review,

                                1. Depression is a difficult and, even today, hard to treat disorder.
                                Some people can bloom quickly and overcome it --as Lincoln did. Others
                                may take longer, as Grant did.

                                But there is no question that if USG did suffer from depression, he rose
                                above it.

                                2. As for the second paragraph, any person who would manumit a slave, at
                                a moment when the erstwhile owner is in deep financial trouble (remember
                                that he ended up hocking his watch for Christmas presents), *does*
                                suggest that USG had problems with slavery. His one slave was worth
                                $800-1,000.

                                To place that in perspective, the initial 1863 income tax exempted
                                salaries under $800, which was considered to be the average blue collar
                                salary. As a captain of Infantry, Grant had been making $194/month,
                                $2228 per year.

                                That "most successful lawyer in Illinois history" averaged, in the
                                1850s, averaged about $3,500-5,000 per year.

                                I suspect that USG's income at Hardscabble was a whole lot less than he
                                had made in the Army.

                                How many of us would give away a year's salary (former Captain Grant),
                                or 1/2 (for Captain Grant) or 1/3 (for Lincoln) of our salary when we
                                would quickly turned that commodity into ready cash?

                                If the details in a review are wrong, then why should the opinion be
                                entitled to any respect?

                                Take care,

                                Bob

                                Judy and Bob Huddleston
                                10643 Sperry Street
                                Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
                                303.451.6276 Adco@...

                                " Simpson
                                tells us that young Grant frequently suffered from what 19th-century
                                writers referred to as "melancholy," or what today would be diagnosed
                                as depression. It is a rationalization that hardly explains his
                                antebellum failures. Abraham Lincoln waged a lifelong battle
                                against "melancholia," and yet became one of the most successful
                                lawyers in Illinois history and eventually one of the nation's
                                greatest presidents.

                                ....

                                "Simpson's rosy interpretations often are a quantum leap beyond the
                                evidence used to support them. For example, Simpson informs us that
                                during the war Grant wholeheartedly supported Lincoln's racial
                                policies. Yet there is little in the early life of Grant to suggest
                                that the institution of slavery deeply offended him. Grant's
                                emergence as a racial egalitarian seems to have been the product of
                                political expediency and a recognition of the shifting sands of
                                social and cultural change during the Civil War.
                              • josepharose@yahoo.com
                                Dr. Simpson: You accuse me of trashing Professor Waugh. That is a gross mischaracterization; I did nothing of the sort. I wrote: Professor Waugh also
                                Message 15 of 23 , Oct 1, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Dr. Simpson:

                                  You accuse me of "trashing" Professor Waugh. That is a gross
                                  mischaracterization; I did nothing of the sort. I wrote: "Professor
                                  Waugh also wrote a remarkably similar review of "Grant," by Jean
                                  Edward Smith. In the two reviews, there is little or no criticism of
                                  the authors' work and hardly any more of Grant as either a general or
                                  president."

                                  As soon as I learned you had a doctorate, I dropped my use of Mr.
                                  when referring to you. Is there any reason we should not extend to
                                  Dr. David Long the same courtesy?

                                  Joseph Rose



                                  From: brooksdsimpson@y...
                                  Date: Mon Oct 1, 2001 8:38 pm

                                  Subject: Re: Review of "Triumph Over Adversity"

                                  --- In civilwarwest@y..., josepharose@y... wrote:
                                  > --- In civilwarwest@y..., brooksdsimpson@y... wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > > Mr. Long's character or bias need not be a topic of conversation
                                  > here (especially as he is not present to defend himself)....
                                  >
                                  > It appears that Dr. David E. Long is a history professor and has a
                                  > doctorate.

                                  So is Joan Waugh. But you trashed her. And, unlike Long, she had no
                                  problem gaining tenure. She's also very knowledgeable about Grant.

                                  It's so unfortunate when people confuse disagreement with being
                                  disagreeable.
                                • Dave Smith
                                  ... Completely different question. Is Joan Waugh related to Jack Waugh, author of Class of 1846 and Reelecting Lincoln? Jack lives in Texas, and Joan is
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Oct 2, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In civilwarwest@y..., brooksdsimpson@y... wrote:

                                    > So is Joan Waugh. But you trashed her. And, unlike Long, she had
                                    > no problem gaining tenure. She's also very knowledgeable about
                                    > Grant.

                                    Completely different question. Is Joan Waugh related to Jack Waugh,
                                    author of Class of 1846 and Reelecting Lincoln?

                                    Jack lives in Texas, and Joan is obviously on the West Coast.

                                    Just curious.

                                    Dave
                                  • FLYNSWEDE@AOL.COM
                                    In a message dated 10/2/01 2:29:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, josepharose@yahoo.com writes:
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Oct 2, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      In a message dated 10/2/01 2:29:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                      josepharose@... writes:

                                      << Dr. Simpson:

                                      You accuse me of "trashing" Professor Waugh. That is a gross
                                      mischaracterization; I did nothing of the sort. I wrote: "Professor
                                      Waugh also wrote a remarkably similar review of "Grant," by Jean
                                      Edward Smith. In the two reviews, there is little or no criticism of
                                      the authors' work and hardly any more of Grant as either a general or
                                      president."

                                      As soon as I learned you had a doctorate, I dropped my use of Mr.
                                      when referring to you. Is there any reason we should not extend to
                                      Dr. David Long the same courtesy?

                                      Joseph Rose
                                      >>
                                      Mr Rose,
                                      It would be greatly appreciated if you would confine your continued arguments
                                      with Dr. Simpson via personal email. I personally do not think that this
                                      forum is the place for such discussions, and I am quite sure that the
                                      majority of the members of this forum would concur with this request.

                                      Respectfully,

                                      Wayne C. Bengston
                                    • ecm777@aol.com
                                      Gentlemen, when is this going to stop? Would you please take all this bantering back and forth to private email. I personally don t have time to sort through
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Oct 2, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Gentlemen, when is this going to stop?  Would you please take all this bantering back and forth to private email.  I personally don't have time to sort through it all!

                                        Regards
                                        Colleen aka CWgal
                                      • Dick Weeks
                                        I agree Wayne. I do not want to see another critique of Dr. Simpson s book, good or bad posted on this board. I think we all know how each person that has
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Oct 2, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I agree Wayne. I do not want to see another critique of Dr. Simpson's
                                          book, good or bad posted on this board. I think we all know how each
                                          person that has posted on this subject feels and it needs no further
                                          amplification. I have already let this go on a little longer than I
                                          should have.

                                          I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
                                          Dick (a.k.a. Shotgun)
                                          http://www.civilwarhome.com

                                          FLYNSWEDE@... wrote:

                                          > In a message dated 10/2/01 2:29:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                          > josepharose@... writes:
                                          >
                                          > << Dr. Simpson:
                                          >
                                          > You accuse me of "trashing" Professor Waugh. That is a gross
                                          > mischaracterization; I did nothing of the sort. I wrote: "Professor
                                          > Waugh also wrote a remarkably similar review of "Grant," by Jean
                                          > Edward Smith. In the two reviews, there is little or no criticism of
                                          > the authors' work and hardly any more of Grant as either a general or
                                          > president."
                                          >
                                          > As soon as I learned you had a doctorate, I dropped my use of Mr.
                                          > when referring to you. Is there any reason we should not extend to
                                          > Dr. David Long the same courtesy?
                                          >
                                          > Joseph Rose
                                          > >>
                                          > Mr Rose,
                                          > It would be greatly appreciated if you would confine your continued arguments
                                          > with Dr. Simpson via personal email. I personally do not think that this
                                          > forum is the place for such discussions, and I am quite sure that the
                                          > majority of the members of this forum would concur with this request.
                                          >
                                          > Respectfully,
                                          >
                                          > Wayne C. Bengston
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                        • brooksdsimpson@yahoo.com
                                          ... Waugh, ... No relation of which I m aware. Both are very pleasant, intelligent people.
                                          Message 20 of 23 , Oct 2, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Dave Smith" <dmsmith001@y...> wrote:

                                            > Completely different question. Is Joan Waugh related to Jack
                                            Waugh,
                                            > author of Class of 1846 and Reelecting Lincoln?
                                            >
                                            > Jack lives in Texas, and Joan is obviously on the West Coast.

                                            No relation of which I'm aware. Both are very pleasant, intelligent
                                            people.
                                          • sdwakefield@prodigy.net
                                            Colleen- I agree I really think we need to get back to the donut debate. Please, ackowledge publicly that you were all wrong in the Krispy Kreme v. Donut
                                            Message 21 of 23 , Oct 2, 2001
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Colleen-
                                              I agree I really think we need to get back to the donut debate.
                                              Please, ackowledge publicly that you were all wrong in the Krispy
                                              Kreme v. Donut Palace Debate of last summer!
                                              VBG
                                              Regards-
                                              Wakefield


                                              -- In civilwarwest@y..., ecm777@a... wrote:
                                              > Gentlemen, when is this going to stop? Would you please take all
                                              this
                                              > bantering back and forth to private email. I personally don't have
                                              time to
                                              > sort through it all!
                                              >
                                              > Regards
                                              > Colleen aka CWgal
                                            • brooksdsimpson@yahoo.com
                                              ... this ... time to ... That s why it s so useful to access this group through the web page. :)
                                              Message 22 of 23 , Oct 2, 2001
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                --- In civilwarwest@y..., ecm777@a... wrote:
                                                > Gentlemen, when is this going to stop? Would you please take all
                                                this
                                                > bantering back and forth to private email. I personally don't have
                                                time to
                                                > sort through it all!

                                                That's why it's so useful to access this group through the web
                                                page. :)
                                              • brooksdsimpson@yahoo.com
                                                ... this ... Colleen-- Once attacked in public, I believe I have the right to self-defense.
                                                Message 23 of 23 , Oct 2, 2001
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  --- In civilwarwest@y..., ecm777@a... wrote:
                                                  > Gentlemen, when is this going to stop? Would you please take all
                                                  this
                                                  > bantering back and forth to private email.

                                                  Colleen--

                                                  Once attacked in public, I believe I have the right to self-defense.
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.