The reviews of Goodrich’s work praise his ability to give vivid descriptions and details that makes reading Bloody Dawn enjoyable. Rawley stated that Bloody Dawn surpassed other scholar’s studies of the Lawrence massacre in “its richness of detail and narrative power” and Unrau praised the author’s “careful and fair-minded treatment of the retribution”. All of the authors except Klunder agree with Unrau’s statement that Bloody Dawn was the “best account of the Lawrence Massacre”. Goodrich is praised by every reviewer except Walther for backing up each perspective and detail with ample evidence. To accurately create a detailed account of the Lawrence Massacre, Goodrich utilized “an impressive array of sources, including newspapers, manuscript collections, and previously published material” (Unrau). Rawley approved of Goodrich’s use of an “astonishing amount of source material” to relate the “barbarism” of…show more content… Klunder pointed out that Goodrich depicted William Quantrill, the leader of the Confederate raiders, as “a semi-heroic figure”. Klunder goes on to point out that Goodrich believed Quantrill held “a degree of humanity, even gallantry” in the massacre that left 150 people dead (76). Klunder and many readers question this opinion due to the violence and devastation that the supposedly humane Quantrill organized. Klunder agreed that Goodrich “is a fine storyteller”, but argued that his “work was flawed” by the authors portrayal of the victims as aggressors. Walther argued that Goodrich “overstates his case for the sake of telling a good story”. Walther voices concern over Goodrich’s statement that Kansas was “the most warlike state in the nation” (149) and that the Lawrence Massacre was “the war’s worst incident” (151). These opinions included in Goodrich’s work have little evidence supporting them and are heavily influenced by the author’s personal
