PvtClewell
Corporal
- Joined
- May 20, 2008
CC, you raised my curiosity about this (for the past few days now) in the "What was McClellan's Problem with Lincoln" thread when you wrote:
If that's the case, then where do you draw the line separating the historians we can trust from those we can't?
Is current Civil War scholarship suggesting (I don't know) the snub might not have happened?
One of my favorite authors is Stephen Sears, and in his 1988 biography of McClellan 'George B. McClellan: The Young Napolean', (which I consider still to be the definitive biography of McClellan) he relates the snub story. The passage is heavily footnoted, citing among other items McClellan's Own Story (p. 152); the SamuelP. Heintzelman diary, Nov. 11, 1861, Library of Congress; John Hay's Diaries and Letters (Nov. 13, 1861, pp 34-35), and William Howard Russell's My Diary (Oct. 9, 1861). Russell, a correspondent for the London Times, apparently saw a previous snub of Lincoln by McClellan a month earlier at Mac's HQ. This particular incident seems to corroborate the nature of the more famous second one, and goes directly to illustrate Mac's character and arrogance.
To me, the sources (there are several others in the footnote) appear to be valid. Why should I doubt them? And should I doubt all sources? All historians? And if so, then who or what should I believe? Why even have history if the best we can do is doubt its very veracity?
Not fussing. Just curious as to what you think.
Go Phillies, by the way.
So, CC, I'm a little confused and maybe I'm not quite grasping what you are apparently suggesting — that historians, in some cases, are basically sloppy either in their research or in their interpretation of their research?Same is true for the ‘source’ of the infamous Lincoln snub story too (went straight upstairs to bed, etc., etc.,). Doesn't mean this didn't happen, but it does bring into question the ability of the source (there's only one source for this story and it's uncorroborated by everyone else present) to accurately relate this story. I can't help but think that some of this stuff is fairly sloppy research (although some of it might be innocent mistakes, oversights, etc.). To that end, not suggesting that there’s a conspiracy or anything like that – it’s just the condition of some of these sources really should be carefully considered. Not all source material is of the same quality. You gotta ask yourself at the end of the day, if it was anybody else but McClellan...would people tolerate this kind slippery handling of source material? (That's just a rhetorical question...doesn't need to be answered...just pondering.)
If that's the case, then where do you draw the line separating the historians we can trust from those we can't?
Is current Civil War scholarship suggesting (I don't know) the snub might not have happened?
One of my favorite authors is Stephen Sears, and in his 1988 biography of McClellan 'George B. McClellan: The Young Napolean', (which I consider still to be the definitive biography of McClellan) he relates the snub story. The passage is heavily footnoted, citing among other items McClellan's Own Story (p. 152); the SamuelP. Heintzelman diary, Nov. 11, 1861, Library of Congress; John Hay's Diaries and Letters (Nov. 13, 1861, pp 34-35), and William Howard Russell's My Diary (Oct. 9, 1861). Russell, a correspondent for the London Times, apparently saw a previous snub of Lincoln by McClellan a month earlier at Mac's HQ. This particular incident seems to corroborate the nature of the more famous second one, and goes directly to illustrate Mac's character and arrogance.
To me, the sources (there are several others in the footnote) appear to be valid. Why should I doubt them? And should I doubt all sources? All historians? And if so, then who or what should I believe? Why even have history if the best we can do is doubt its very veracity?
Not fussing. Just curious as to what you think.
Go Phillies, by the way.