Lawrence B. Ebert is a registered patent lawyer from New Jersey. He maintains a blog called IPBiz that deals with the business of intellectual property. He has commented on this blog previously, and he also is an active member of the CWDG.
Last week, Mr. Ebert had an interesting post on plagiarism, and he selected Carhart’s festering pile of turds as the example for analysis. Referring to Paul D. Walker’s The Cavalry Battle that Saved the Union, which is, without doubt, one of the worst Civil War books ever published, Ebert points out that Walker’s book also claims that Stuart’s movement on East Cavalry Field was coordinated with Pickett’s Charge. Walker’s book, awful as it may be–and it is horrendous–was published a couple of years before Carhart’s. Mr. Ebert wrote, “The later guy in town had better credentials, better friends, and a better publisher, and few even knew of the earlier guy. How can ‘you know it when you see it’?”
On April 26, he also put up an extended post about the accounts of the veterans of the fight on East Cavalry Field wherein they addressed the theory that is the underpinning of Carhart’s theory. Following a lead that I gave him on the CWDG, he focused in on William Brooke-Rawle’s account of the fight on East Cavalry Field, wherein Brooke-Rawle stated, “It was obvious that he [Stuart] intended to accomplish this by way of the Baltimore Pike and the roads hereafter described, simultaneously with Pickett’s attack in front.”
The gist, therefore, is that Mr. Ebert appears to believe that Tom Carhart is a plagiarist who has claimed a novel theory as his own when it’s something that has been around for decades and is nothing new at all. I agree. I also have major issues with the fact that Carhart simply made stuff up. The combination of making stuff up and plagiarism equals fraud on the consuming public.
My hat’s off to Mr. Ebert for showing this festering pile of turds for what it really is.Scridb filter