Is it correct to conclude...

[Philip Leigh]

...that historians Stephen Sears and James McPherson have become popular merely by regurgitating dubious narratives as the expert in the link below argues? Is he also correct in arguing that McClellan is underrated while Grant is overrated? What do you think of his evaluation of the intellectual honesty of Douglas Freeman as compared to the two living historians noted above?


http://www.impedimentsofwar.org/singleshow.php?show=208

 

[OpnCoronet]

...that historians Stephen Sears and James McPherson have become popular merely by regurgitating dubious narratives and that McClellan is underrated while Grant is overrated, as the expert in the link below argues?
http://www.impedimentsofwar.org/singleshow.php?show=208

It would be, if you can prove it. Can You???


P.S. Some consider it correct that the historical record of Lee's generalship, leaves his reputation as 'genius' at risk.

 

[cash]

...that historians Stephen Sears and James McPherson have become popular merely by regurgitating dubious narratives as the expert in the link below argues? Is he also correct in arguing that McClellan is underrated while Grant is overrated? What do you think of his evaluation of the intellectual honesty of Douglas Freeman as compared to the two living historians noted above?


http://www.impedimentsofwar.org/singleshow.php?show=208

Sears/McPherson, no.
McClellan underrated, yes. Grant overrated, no. D.S. Freeman, too enamored of his subject.
Dmitri's a character, for sure.

 

[Bee]

Is he also correct in arguing that McClellan is underrated while Grant is overrated?

McClellan, underrated, yes. Grant, overrated? No, but some folks have made career out of this dispute, so the question persists.

 

[Yankeedave]

McClellan. he was needlesly complicated. Grant was gifted at one thing. He missed at everything else. I haven't read Douglas Southall except as a reference. Same as McPherson. Sears owns antietam. and i hope lee doesn't get robbed in history.

 

[John Winn]

I'd agree that McClellan is underrated. Unfortunately, he had one overriding trait which was an unwillingness to press an advantage and I think that just overshadows everything else, especially in the shadow of Grant who in the end won the war and later a presidential election (which McClellan failed at big time). Grant, in my opinion, isn't overrated as a general but I don't think he was an especially good president (and has been pointed out, not a good business man either).

I've not read Freeman or Sears so can't comment on them but I don't agree concerning McPherson (I've read three of his books). The commentator didn't provide any examples of what he termed "old interpretations on their last legs" that McPherson is accused of perpetuating. Thus, it's not possible to really debate anything other than a general opinion of McPherson as a historian. My opinion is he's a fine one and I've not heard anyone challenge his history (until today). I'd agree that his prose isn't anything like, say, Catton, but it's clear and quite readable. And I'd also disagree that "they sit around giving each other Pulitzers." That's more than a cheap shot.

 

[Andrew]

The link in the OP won't work for me. Concerning Sears, he is a terrific writer, regardless of what you think of his "dubious narratives". His book on Antietam may not be the most complete, accurate, up to date, etc., but it is the best written book (in my opinion) on the Maryland Campaign and one of the best Civil War books that I have read. I suspect his popularity has a lot to do with his writing skill.

Coincidentally, he is probably partially responsible for McClellan being underrated.

 

[Philip Leigh]

The link in the OP won't work for me. Concerning Sears, he is a terrific writer, regardless of what you think of his "dubious narratives". His book on Antietam may not be the most complete, accurate, up to date, etc., but it is the best written book (in my opinion) on the Maryland Campaign and one of the best Civil War books that I have read. I suspect his popularity has a lot to do with his writing skill.

Coincidentally, he is probably partially responsible for McClellan being underrated.

Did you try touching the MP-3 "play" buttons?

 

[Yankeedave]

Sears got me in antietam where i looked for more. I want/wanted to know more. Some parts are in micro detail love it, the cornfield/sunken road. but then Irwin's brigade attacks, things lije thsst are run over fast. He does note that the AoP was under 70,000. He also notes that lee received two divisions from richman/petersburg. There were conscripts with lee. They were sent into the valley when Lee crossed into maryland. I imagine they were the benefactors of milroy.

 

[Andrew]

Did you try touching the MP-3 "play" buttons?

I couldn't get the page to load at all. Tried a couple of different browsers.

 

[mobile_96]

I couldn't get the page to load at all. Tried a couple of different browsers.

Worked for me about 1 hr ago when I listened to the podcast (and one of my favorite places online), and again just now as a recheck

 

[James N.]

Sears got me in antietam where i looked for more. I want/wanted to know more. Some parts are in micro detail love it, the cornfield/sunken road. but then Irwin's brigade attacks, things lije thsst are run over fast. He does note that the AoP was under 70,000. He also notes that lee received two divisions from richman/petersburg. There were conscripts with lee. They were sent into the valley when Lee crossed into maryland. I imagine they were the benefactors of milroy.

Sears may "own" Antietam now, but he's not alone - for detail, especially on regimental level you should check out the former Antietam go-to classic, The Gleam of Bayonets by Edward G. Murfin. The reputations of the two generals have been discussed here in previous threads ad nauseum, but I've personally always been a fan of Little Mac, undoubtedly for all the wrong reasons: he looked like a general, looked after his men (too well!) and was loved by them.

 

[Yankeedave]

There are few before "landscape" and many after. I have my own personal problems with the book, but many of us grew up on it. And McClellan fights the war like there are twenty turns in the game, not the actual ten.

 

[Andrew]

Thanks for confirming the site is working. It's possible it's blocked here from work for some reason. I'll have to check it out later.

I have not read The Gleam of Bayonets but it's on my list. If you want details about the battle, Carman's
The Maryland Campaign of September 1862. Volume 2: Antietam, edited by Tom Clemens, is about as detailed as you can get, I would think.

 

[Two Eyed Jack]

The link in the OP won't work for me. Concerning Sears, he is a terrific writer, regardless of what you think of his "dubious narratives". His book on Antietam may not be the most complete, accurate, up to date, etc., but it is the best written book (in my opinion) on the Maryland Campaign and one of the best Civil War books that I have read. I suspect his popularity has a lot to do with his writing skill.

Coincidentally, he is probably partially responsible for McClellan being underrated.

Perhaps McClellan is responsible for McClellan being underrated. He was too cautious and constantly overestimated Lee's troop strength.

 

[MajGenl.Meade]

It's not easy not to underrate McClellan . Strategically he had one correct answer (the Peninsula) and one incorrect one (Richmond was the goal) - but he wasn't alone in that. Tactically he was awful - Antietam being the crowning glory of utter silliness.

Grant was not overrated as much as misunderstood. He was able to see a strategic goal and tried whatever tactics seemed likely to work to achieve it. Witness Vicksburg and "goes South". He reminds me of Edison who never once failed but made numerous discoveries of things that didn't work.

All historians have their quirks and scholarship moves on. There's no reason to diss McPh or Sears (except for those with an agenda). Freeman had definite goals in mind; he'd written Washington (for somewhat more time than I love Lucy lasted on TV) and in writing Lee his goal was to place the man on the same pedestal. He's good for some facts and tedious detail but one must rather squint at his presentation/slant. (My own thought was that no one made Washington look more boring - but I enjoy Lee much more).

 

[hanna260]

I agree about McClellan being underrated. Couldn't disagree more that Grant is overrated or as one poster suggested, was only good at one thing.

 

[Deleted User CS]

The link in the OP won't work for me. Concerning Sears, he is a terrific writer, regardless of what you think of his "dubious narratives". His book on Antietam may not be the most complete, accurate, up to date, etc., but it is the best written book (in my opinion) on the Maryland Campaign and one of the best Civil War books that I have read. I suspect his popularity has a lot to do with his writing skill.

Coincidentally, he is probably partially responsible for McClellan being underrated.

The best historian on the Maryland Campaign from the Confederate perspective by far is Joseph L. Harsh. His two works entitled: "Taken at the Flood: Robert E. Lee and Confederate Strategy in the Maryland Campaign of 1862" and "Confederate Tide Rising: Robert E. Lee and the Making of Southern Strategy, 1861-1862" are two of the best civil war books that I have ever read. Gary Gallagher even states: "that Harsh has examined Lee's planning and actions in late summer and autumn of 1862 in greater detail than any other previous historian.....his books belong on the short shelf of essential titles on Lee, his army and the war in the Eastern Theatre"

 

[Burning Billy]

Grant is underrated in my opinion. He was the single best 19th Century American strategist not named Winfield Scott, yet his reputation in popular imagination is often as a drunken butcher.

McClellan's reputation on the other hand is deserved and mostly accurate. You'd be hard pressed to find a general more capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[cash]

To the extent Sears "owns" Antietam, and I don't necessarily agree he does, another historian is about to take "ownership." Scott Hartwig is hard at work on Volume 2 of his history of the Maryland Campaign, and if Volume 2 is anything like Volume 1, it will serve as the definitive work on the battle.