<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Review: 1858: Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant, and the War They Failed to See by Bruce Chadwick</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.brettschulte.net/CWBlog/2008/05/19/review-1858-by-bruce-chadwick/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.brettschulte.net/CWBlog/2008/05/19/review-1858-by-bruce-chadwick/</link>
	<description>The Order of Civil War Obsessively Compulsed - Informed Amateurs Blog the American Civil War</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:08:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: 1858</title>
		<link>http://www.brettschulte.net/CWBlog/2008/05/19/review-1858-by-bruce-chadwick/comment-page-1/#comment-877</link>
		<dc:creator>1858</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:48:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brettschulte.net/CWBlog/?p=861#comment-877</guid>
		<description>[...] S. Grant, and the War They Failed to See. It looks to be very good.   Any comments?    David,  I reviewed 1858 on TOCWOC, my Civil War blog. I liked the book, but the subtitle seemed disingenuous (blame the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] S. Grant, and the War They Failed to See. It looks to be very good.   Any comments?    David,  I reviewed 1858 on TOCWOC, my Civil War blog. I liked the book, but the subtitle seemed disingenuous (blame the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.brettschulte.net/CWBlog/2008/05/19/review-1858-by-bruce-chadwick/comment-page-1/#comment-636</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 00:10:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brettschulte.net/CWBlog/?p=861#comment-636</guid>
		<description>Elektratig,

You are welcome on both counts.  I actually just received Stampp&#039;s book today.  I&#039;m going to have to read it soon in order to make the comparison more meaningful for myself, and hopefully in the process for my reviewers as well.

Brett</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Elektratig,</p>
<p>You are welcome on both counts.  I actually just received Stampp&#8217;s book today.  I&#8217;m going to have to read it soon in order to make the comparison more meaningful for myself, and hopefully in the process for my reviewers as well.</p>
<p>Brett</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: elektratig</title>
		<link>http://www.brettschulte.net/CWBlog/2008/05/19/review-1858-by-bruce-chadwick/comment-page-1/#comment-634</link>
		<dc:creator>elektratig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 23:23:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brettschulte.net/CWBlog/?p=861#comment-634</guid>
		<description>Brett,

Thanks for a thorough, thoughtful and interesting review -- and for the kind words.

It sounds like Mr. Chadwick may have both promised too much and delivered too little.  A claim that 1858 was &quot;THE year slavery became the overriding issue facing the United States&quot; is a bit of overkill.  On the other hand, the author did a poor job if he did not convince you that 1857-58 was a turning point of sorts.

Having read your review, it strikes me that Kenneth Stampp&#039;s 1857 is an even better comparator than I imagined.  Professor Stampp also argues that 1857-58 was tremendously important.  Disunion was significantly more likely after mid-1858 than it had been in the late summer of the year before.  I will be fascinated to see whether Stampp does a better job of persuading you of that proposition.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brett,</p>
<p>Thanks for a thorough, thoughtful and interesting review &#8212; and for the kind words.</p>
<p>It sounds like Mr. Chadwick may have both promised too much and delivered too little.  A claim that 1858 was &#8220;THE year slavery became the overriding issue facing the United States&#8221; is a bit of overkill.  On the other hand, the author did a poor job if he did not convince you that 1857-58 was a turning point of sorts.</p>
<p>Having read your review, it strikes me that Kenneth Stampp&#8217;s 1857 is an even better comparator than I imagined.  Professor Stampp also argues that 1857-58 was tremendously important.  Disunion was significantly more likely after mid-1858 than it had been in the late summer of the year before.  I will be fascinated to see whether Stampp does a better job of persuading you of that proposition.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
