I remember enjoying Bernard Cornwell’s “Starbuck” series of novels, which culminates at Antietam with “The Bloody Ground.” I certainly can’t make any claims pro or con on the books’ historical accuracy but I enjoyed them and, prompted by my reading, made the journey up from DC to make a self-guided tour. What an eye opener that was, particularly the sunken road & the bridge.
I was at Antietam in February just after the last snow of the season had gone off. Not an ideal time but I did have the battlefield mostly to myself. I want to go back when I can actually walk more of the site. It was cold and the ground was still muddy.
I watched the videos. I think they fit well with the broad themes of the Gettysburg discussion we have been having. What really is the purpose of preserving the battlefields. The Trust certainly sees it as returning the battlefield to near battle day appearance. Dr Gannon I think has a different view as does Dr Muarry as do I suspect many of the subscribers to this group. I’d like to see Kevin host a zoom discussion on this topic. I realize it might need to be narrowed some; but what are we trying to do as we memorialize these sites
I will say that among the Antietam guides, The Landscape Turned Red does not have a good reputation. It is certainly well-written but we feel it is unfairly prejudiced against McClellan. And also just plain wrong about when McClellan got the “lost orders,” incorrectly accusing him of an inordinate delay. We recommend Joseph Harsh and, now, Scott Hartwig. McClellan certainly had his faults but he attacked an army in a strong defensive position (that he had been told had the same number of soldiers) and accomplished what he set out to do, driving them from Maryland. But if you want to go down well thought of in American history, not a good career move to run against Abraham Lincoln for president.
Thanks for the comment. I am not surprised to hear this. I suspect that any history book as old as Sears's will come under greater scrutiny. You are certainly correct that his interpretation of McClellan is problematic for the reasons you reference. I highly recommend Ethan Rafuse's wonderful study of McClellan for a much richer interpretation. That said, I would still recommend Landscape Turned Red as an introduction to Antietam. He's a wonderful writer.
Kevin, two questions.
1. Do you recommend Sears’ book as a first read for everyone? Is there a better book for us rookies?
2. Are there any historical fiction books you recommend on Antietam that is historically accurate and a great read?
1. I do, keeping in mind Michael's comment about McClellan.
2. I don't know of any good historical fictions about Antietam. Perhaps someone else can point you to a book.
I remember enjoying Bernard Cornwell’s “Starbuck” series of novels, which culminates at Antietam with “The Bloody Ground.” I certainly can’t make any claims pro or con on the books’ historical accuracy but I enjoyed them and, prompted by my reading, made the journey up from DC to make a self-guided tour. What an eye opener that was, particularly the sunken road & the bridge.
Perfect. Thanks for sharing, Ted.
Thank you, Kevin!
I was at Antietam in February just after the last snow of the season had gone off. Not an ideal time but I did have the battlefield mostly to myself. I want to go back when I can actually walk more of the site. It was cold and the ground was still muddy.
I watched the videos. I think they fit well with the broad themes of the Gettysburg discussion we have been having. What really is the purpose of preserving the battlefields. The Trust certainly sees it as returning the battlefield to near battle day appearance. Dr Gannon I think has a different view as does Dr Muarry as do I suspect many of the subscribers to this group. I’d like to see Kevin host a zoom discussion on this topic. I realize it might need to be narrowed some; but what are we trying to do as we memorialize these sites
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the suggestion. Perhaps I can put together a conversation with two or three people.. Stay tuned.
I will say that among the Antietam guides, The Landscape Turned Red does not have a good reputation. It is certainly well-written but we feel it is unfairly prejudiced against McClellan. And also just plain wrong about when McClellan got the “lost orders,” incorrectly accusing him of an inordinate delay. We recommend Joseph Harsh and, now, Scott Hartwig. McClellan certainly had his faults but he attacked an army in a strong defensive position (that he had been told had the same number of soldiers) and accomplished what he set out to do, driving them from Maryland. But if you want to go down well thought of in American history, not a good career move to run against Abraham Lincoln for president.
Refuse is excellent
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the comment. I am not surprised to hear this. I suspect that any history book as old as Sears's will come under greater scrutiny. You are certainly correct that his interpretation of McClellan is problematic for the reasons you reference. I highly recommend Ethan Rafuse's wonderful study of McClellan for a much richer interpretation. That said, I would still recommend Landscape Turned Red as an introduction to Antietam. He's a wonderful writer.