Brian Leiter question about 19th century

Over at Leiter Reports today, Brian asks the following:

It's an interesting question when the profession will come to realize that the kind of revolution in scholarship on ancient philosophy wrought by Owen and Vlastos fifty years ago has been going on in scholarship on 19th-century European philosophy for a generation now, and that the fruitful philosophical connections with many areas of contemporary interest are at least as plentiful there.

I love the point about connections with areas of contemporary interest, and would in fact retroject the claim. The period from the 18th century early critiques of Kant through to the nineteenth century giants (Hegel, the Hegelians (including Marx), and anti-Hegelians such as Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche) should be thought of as one period. And given the incredible richness of so many of the thinkers, I think this whole era is unduly neglected by non-historians. For that matter, given the scholarship Leiter mentions, it seems indefensible to me that so many departments stop the undergraduate history requirement with Kant.

I wish I knew the period better. I just discovered Frederick Beiser, and his histories of the period between Kant and Hegel are some of the most philosophically fruitful discussions I've read. Anyone into Graham Priest or McDowell and Brandom or Dummettiana (including Crispin Wright, Neil Tennant, etc.) will be amazed and intrigued by Beiser's work or for that matter the essays in Ameriks' Cambridge Companion to German Idealism, where you get amazing discussions of the myth of the given problematic and scheme-content worries as they arose in the work of the German Idealists (read either Beiser or Ameriks).

But I'm interested in other cases that verify Leiter's point with respect to the 19th Century. I know from reading Schopenhauer and Leiter's own work that it was a fascinating and now unduly neglected time for the development of philosophical naturalism and also philosophical thinking about the body. But I'd love to hear from actual historians about places to read in the 19th century for further illumination about contemporary issues, and also if anyone else thinks that we are severely shorting our students by not making the era from Kant to Kierkegaard mandatory.