A Defense of Whitman Whether they loved or loathed his poetry, every writer or critic who encountered "Leaves of Grass" had to make some sort of reckoning with Walt Whitman . The Good Gray Poet, the grandfather of American poetry, has been deified by some and labeled a cultural and artistic barbarian by others. While Whitman freely admitted in his preface to the final publication of "Leaves of Grass" that the work was flawed and far from perfect, some critics see no redeeming qualities in Whitman's art. Henry James goes so far as to say, “Whitman’s verse…is an insult to art.” (James, p.16) James chastises Whitman for extolling and exploiting what James believes to be a truism. For James, Whitman's poetry is entirely self-congratulatory; it lacks substance and coherence. Through examination of a specific poem, "The Wound Dresser", the claims of James and other negative critics can be refuted. Broader, more general criticisms can be more easily dismissed. Henry James accuses Whitman of refusing to address challenging moral issues in his poetry. Whitman speaks of the evils of war, suffering, and senseless death in stark detail in "The Wound Dresser," but for James these evils are obvious targets for lesser poets. war, was longed for sympathetically and cut from newspaper corners because it possessed a certain simple melody." (James, p.16) James denies Whitman's poetry even a simple melody. Whitman is more an emotional opportunist than a poet. James he even states that Whitman's main goal is the glorification of the Union army. The poem in question, however, suggests a different conclusion "(was one side so brave? The other side was just as brave)" (Whitman , p.249).By addressing the supposed truisms, Whitman's poem begins to ask the question: whether the inherent evils of war, suffering, and senseless death are really so painfully evident to you, Henry James, and to your world, why are they so fervently supported? Why do they actually exist? Whitman happens to be writing from a sincere moral minority of which Henry James is a member. So to label Whitman as altruistic is to label James too. John Jay Chapman launches the most absurd attack on Whitman: "Man [Whitman] knew the world merely as an external observer, was never a living part of it, and not a mere external observer. The observer can understand the life around him.