What is your opinion on Carl Sandburg?

[Rob Wick]

Dave,

I've been a bit busy at work so I haven't taken the opportunity to respond to your post, which I have to say I generally agree with. The only issue I really have with Foote is that he is too "Lost Cause-y" for my tastes, but no reasonable person can dispute his writing ability and the success he has garnered with it.

My main problem with Swanson is that his picture of the Garrett Farm Patrol as reward-hungry cowards who couldn't take Booth alive is so far off the mark of what they were really doing. Certainly an argument can be made for either storming the tobacco barn or not, but Conger et al did what was prudent, and no one of the Patrol was hurt or killed. The reward is a special issue for me, because every writer who has claimed that the Patrol was only interested in lining their pockets degrades their memory unconscionably and with no evidence.

That said, I agree with your larger point regarding the author and his/her audience, but when you say

Quote:it's also fair to recognize this author's effort as not academic

I wonder who is qualified to make that claim and what do we make of such a judgement? As I'm sure you are aware, there are a number of books written by avocational historians that are respected by vocational historians and are used in their classroom. Also, a small cadre of vocational historians consistently sell in trade outlets, although I would argue they are mainly senior scholars whose attempts to get tenure have long passed, and they can pretty much do whatever they want without fear of professional reprisal (for an interesting account of what happened to James McPherson when Battle Cry of Freedom came out, see "What's The Matter With History" in Drawn With the Sword).

I guess what I wonder is, who are the gatekeepers and by what virtue are they appointed? As I've studied this issue over the years, I seem to lean further toward the idea that east is east, etc. In other words, vocational historians can have their own sandbox and avocational historians can have theirs. Neither is better than the other. Of course, that can very well be considered naive and pollyannish, but maybe its the most logical endpoint. I have the feeling that those who dislike Sandburg will not find much that will change their mind, and the McCullough-Foote-Goodwin fan will continue to ignore the more academic work.

Best
Rob