Interview With Dr. Joseph L. Harsh

28 03 2015

Joe2Click here for the transcript of an interview with Dr. Harsh that appeared in a 1995 issue of Civil War magazine. Hat tip to Drew Wagenhoffer. Good stuff and, if you’re amenable, thought-provoking. If you know all there is to know, and are just looking for confirmation of same, don’t click.

When you’re done, click here for an  old old post regarding the influence of Dr. Harsh’s scholarship on interpretation at Antietam National Battlefield. Be sure to read the comments.

Smith Memorial Arch, Philadelphia

12 10 2013

Reynolds & McClellan Equestrian Statues Philadelphia

11 10 2013

Popular Drivel

24 08 2012

If you haven’t heard about “historian” Richard Slotkin’s new book on Antietam, Google it. I will not link to it here. I refuse. Just like the Supreme Court and prior restraint, the book has been roundly rejected by a number of Antietam scholars I know. But check out this critique of a recent interview this “historian” – make that “MAJOR historian” – recently did with NPR.

Was AL More Like GBM Than HUG?

27 01 2011

The recent flood of posts on various blogs resulting from the Lowry controversy has been fascinating.  Now there’s one out there that’s tangential but tantalizing – tangentializing?  Check out Dmitri’s riff on Crossroads’ retort to Opinionator’s opinion.  It’s a shame that Dmitri doesn’t allow comments (that’s his right, of course), but if you want to express your thoughts – recognizing they be thoughts on the post and not knee-jerk reactions to the poster and whatever you suspect his motivations to be – feel free to comment away!  I know this is supposed to be my blog, and you may think it inappropriate for me to entertain a discussion of another blogger’s post, but hell, it IS my blog and I can do whatever I want, so there.

On Firing Generals

1 07 2010

I stayed away from the whole McChrystal flap – I tend to think comparisons of modern to historical events are nothing more than parlor tricks: you can construct them to make whatever point you choose.  (For example, was Lincoln’s condemnation of living off of the sweat of another’s brow an indictment of the welfare state or of capitalism – or just of slavery?)  But I think fellow blogger Dmitri has a good commentary here.  The notebooks to which he refers were discussed here (the first of four parts).

Update #3 on “Letters” Citation Flap

22 12 2009

[This update updated at 3:00 PM 12/23/2009] It ain’t over yet.  See here  and here for yet more updates on the series of posts most recently updated here.  I think it’s settled that the “letterbook”, while in McClellan’s hand and in the LOC, is anything but a collection of letters, and in the absence of those original letters all that can be said about it is that it is a collection of McClellan’s impressions of some of the content of letters we may assume were written.  While I realize that some folks have made up their minds (some of those minds doubtless made up as soon as it was learned who was involved, regardless of what any of them was actually saying), do read the blogger’s latest posts: it’s obvious quite a lot of work went into them, and their arguments appear valid – even if you don’t approve of the writer or question his motives.  As far as I’m concerned I’m not going to be able to reach a decision one way or another until I hear from someone else who has attempted to track down what Prof. McPherson is saying can be tracked down, using his instructions – the citation – and nothing else (the blogger explains why it can’t be done, while the author states that it can).  Who’s up for it?

Part I

Part II

Part III

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine