 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 15 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Cool observation. I have noticed more attention too. For one, I'm glad to see reapraisal of all kinds of Civil War stereotypes, McClellan's included.
sjh wrote:What will revisionists come up with next? Maybe that Fredericksburg was a Union victory or that Franklin was a Confederate triumph?
I hear "revisionists" as written here pronounced with a sneer in it. I don't know if that was your intent.
I don't think people arguing McClellan was more than just a coward or an idiot correlates with denying an obvious defeat like Fredericksburg.
Constantly looking at the source material and questioning (or affirming) previous conclusions is a good thing. Without revisionism it's just Mythology, not History.
Very interesting post. I have nothing whatsoever against "reappraisal", as you have called it, of information so long as it leads to the discovery of truth. Neither do I have anything against revision since it sometimes can result in a more accurate understanding of events, people, etc. The Fredericksburg example was nothing more than the utilization of hyperbole and no correlation was intended as you may have assumed. No one with good sense will object to giving McClellan his due. He truly was "more than just a coward or idiot." He was an outstanding organizer and he undoubtedly drilled the Army of the Potomac into shape. He was able to generate the love and loyalty of his Army of the Potomac. In a real sense, it was his army.
While I don't have a problem with "revision", I do have difficulty with "re-writing" of history which may be done under the auspices of revisionism. I think there is a major difference. Revision in my thinking is adjusting, tweaking. Re-writing to me amounts to altering history. It will take major alteration and effort, in my view, to ever make McClellan into much more than an organizational genius. That truly would be myth, not history.