Dead wrong. People who make serious and manifestly baseless accusations about a respected author's integrity are not people who "apply in my CW world". Either you have failed to access those linked accusations or you think that sort of posting in a public forum is acceptable. I sincerely hope it's the first.
So it was reviewed in two places, neither of which was an academic journal.
While reviews on Goodreads and Amazon may satisfy you, no professional historian would rely upon them given the nature of the beast. Neither would a blog review. You are correct that there are other Amazon reader reviews. I guess we should hold them to the same standard you advocate and ask whether the reviewers have done extensive archival research or published in peer-reviewed journals or wrote books. Amazon reviews and Goodreads reviews do not meet the standard of professional journal reviews. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how they operate. A book review editor solicits someone to do the review. The reviewer is not self-selected. There are professional standards that must be met. That's lacking in the self-selected reviews. Please don't confuse the two types of reviews.
I see that someone else has answered this question. Your comment seems unfair in light of that additional information. That's me judging for myself.
This seems to be a nasty personal attack rendered in snide fashion.
It's ironic given that he appears to find a meritless attack on another author's academic and publishing integrity acceptable. I really hope that he simply hasn't made himself aware of that attack, although it's been clearly referred to in multiple posts.
You'll come back. I don't understand why, but you always do.
Well, if you can't stand the heat ... especially when you are "under fire" ...
Hilarious. Rose has continually led discussions on Grant. Defended his work. One of the few Historians to repeatedly post here.
"Continually led discussions on Grant?" He has participated in discussions. It's strange to say he led discussions.
Nice try. Mr. Rose quit when people treated him like he treated various authors. It was "hilarious" to see him talk about "petty" disputes when readers see who tended to initiate those petty disputes (while speaking about "great crimes," etc.). He didn't lead discussions about Grant. He led attacks on Grant and people who disagreed with Mr. Rose. He excused or minimized the errors of those who agreed with him (see his Amazon review of Mr. Moore's book) and dismissed his own as inconsequential. It's not a good look to overlook that because someone agrees with Mr. Rose's perspective.
"Obviously he saw no reason to continue with a hand full of people who had no desire to civilly discuss these issues."
What also bears mention is that there are authors who are also members on this site and who never engage in the sort of public attack on a peer's scholarship and academic integrity as unfortunately occurred in these threads. Likewise, those authors carefully refrain from putting up posts to the effect that any other author who disagrees with their assessments and conclusions must be guilty of making "historical errors" and that their own interpretation is the definitively correct solution. They are well-regarded and respected historians for a reason.
We are sometimes judged by the quality of the sources we use.
General Halleck may have disagreed with President Lincoln about McClernand. Stanton and the rest of the cabinet developed a solution and Grant seemed to get other advice which prompted him to be patient.
I'm fine with posters supporting statements with sources. In fact, it can be informative to members who are simply looking for information about any number of topics. My objection is when sources are paraphrased in a misleading way, distorted, or "interpreted" in a manner that is plainly inaccurate when they are checked. If the post is on a topic the readers is familiar with, they can also determine whether relevant sources have been selectively omitted.
And President Lincoln seems to have played it correctly. McClernand obtained a new command under Banks and he McClernand stayed out of politics in 1864, which probably was the goal. Then President Lincoln won the Illinois EC votes in November.
We are not writing books on this website. But as one poster stated, an extraordinary claim should be supported by a solid citation. But citations are sometimes mislabeled and sometimes mis quoted. The only sanction here is a loss of credibility.
Bringing the