I've been looking up various sources since this thread was recently active, and came across
this, or in it's original
here, or complete pdf of chapter 4
here. Was this the book
@ben89 was referring to
here?
After reading through chapters 3 and 4, I go back to all those who refused to admit that with over 200 years of retrospect, it is obvious that the Cherem was wrong.
To quote the final paragraph of the conclusion of chapter 3 (which ostensibly brings the point of view against chassidus):
Etkes in disagreement with the claim of Mondshine, that it was the askanim of Vilna who were at the forefront, and they just harnessed the Gr"a for their purposes.
Whether one accepts Mondshine's theory or Etkes' theory, the benefit of retrospect is irrefutable. As seeing the fight as
"a struggle concerning the essence of the way of Hasidism in worshiping G-d" and having
"The greatest scholar of the generation..deremined that the new Hasidism was a heresy.." could only lead to the conclusion that the Cherem was wrong, with over 200 years of retrospect and the spread of תורת החסידות, making it obvious that "the new Hasidism" (to use Etkes' definition) is definitely not heresy, and that it no-less valid "way of worshiping G-d".
As a side note, while not rejecting it vehemently as Mondshine, Etkes does tend to doubt
the extent of the alleged content of the exchange between the Tzemach Tzedek and the Aruch Hashulchan.
As I have stated earlier. There's little doubt that the meeting between the Tzemach Tzedek and the Aruch Hashulchan happened. It is also possible that the Tzemach Tzedek said something about a benefit that came about from the Cherem (or the wars against chassidim/chassidus), however to claim that the type of benefit is as brought down in the מקור ברוך, ignores the reality of what תורת החסידות is, and of how events unfolded. A more likely explanation of the benefit would be something along the lines described here in a letter from the Alter Rebbe (quoted in יחיד בדורו, pg. 119):
(I hope
@aygart is satisfied with the fact that I have exclusively quoted non-Lubavitch sources in this post).