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

Re: Review of "Triumph Over Adversity"

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.