Could you be a little more specific? Best about what? 😉

It smacks of a self-congratulatory assessment resting on the construction of strawmen. Just doesn't come across well.

But clearly it has our attention.

Should it?

The other thing that strikes me as odd about this exchange is that it sounds like an academic conference. I've given this lecture ... as a lecture, alone ... and I thought the idea was to bring some historical insight to a broader audience. Gatekeeping? Really? Whatever. Who cares about infighting?

I guess I don't follow this line of discussion. There's a lot of stereotyping hiding behind a refusal to name names. This sort of thing tells me more about the people making the arguments and how they view things than it does about whatever is being described.

Jim Downs's assertion in this regard is ... interesting.

What I notice is how non-military historians of the ACW sometimes flaunt their ignorance of military issues, often to their detriment.

Maybe Jim needs to read more.

One would hope that one's work makes the reader engage with the past with empathy and insight. It's left to them to decide what to feel about what the historian has said. Intent is not impact.

What makes one person feel good (or understood) may not hold for someone else.

Sheridan was a year away from becoming a thing of the past when he said this.

Grant made that trip via Panama in 1852. Harrowing experience. As president he advocated building a canal.

Quite the obsessed fan.

But Democrats get in their own way.

Fire the person responsible for hiring this person.