Just a quick post to wish one and all a happy and healthy Thanksgiving.

And be careful not to overdose on tryptophan….  :-) 

 

Continue reading

Susan and I went to see the new James Bond movie, Casino Royale, on Saturday night. I wondered what this movie would be like for months before it was released.

I liked Pierce Brosnan’s portrayal of Bond. Honestly, it’s a role he was born to play. Brosnan was plagued with a couple of really bad scripts and a couple of completely unbelievable story lines. His last Bond film, Die Another Day, was beyond atrocious, although it wasn’t Brosnan’s fault that it was so bad. The script was absolutely ridiculous, the story line was completely unbelievable, and Halle Berry was so awful in it that it was hard to believe that this same woman won an Oscar. I genuinely feared that the Bond series had reached its end, and that this horrendous movie was the reason.

The initial buzz was that Clive Owen, whose work I really like, would be the next Bond, and I really thought he’d make a great 007. However, that didn’t happen, and the search for a new Bond dragged on for several more years. Finally, the producers announced that they had cast Daniel Craig as Bond. Craig, who has proven himself to be a gifted actor in other films such as Munich, has blonde hair and blue eyes, and looks nothing at all like George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, or Brosnan, all of whom have very dark hair. As a result, there was a firestorm of controversy, with lots of web sites protesting the choice of Craig.

Casino Royale was Ian Fleming’s first Bond novel, and it relates the story of how James Bond became a 00 agent, and how he evolved into the suave and debonaire secret agent portrayed in so many movies. It’s been filmed twice before, once in an hour-long version in 1954, and the awful 1967 farce with David Niven playing a retirement-age Bond with Woody Allen and Peter Sellers.

This telling of the story begins with Bond’s promotion to 00 status. M, played by the wonderful Dame Judi Dench, the head of MI-6, describes him as a blunt instrument, a stark contrast to the Connery version. There are no whiz-bang gadgets and no absurd special effects. The only gadgets are things we normal folks carry–cell phones and laptop computers. My only complaint is that the movie, at about 2:40 is too long.

Having said that, Craig was tremendous. His portrayal of Bond is probably the closest to the way that Fleming wrote the character of any yet attempted. He gave a nuanced but powerful performance, and he pulls off some very realistic fight scenes with aplomb. In short, I think that all of the criticism and fears that Craig would not make a good Bond was unfair and not well-considered. This guy, at age 38, could continue to play Bond for years to come. And I hope he will.

Bond is back. With a vengeance.

Continue reading

Here’s another installment in my periodic series of profiles of forgotten cavalrymen. I discovered Oliver Blachly Knowles during the course of my research and work on William H. Boyd and his company of Philadelphians who served in the First New York (Lincoln) Cavalry.

Much of the information contained in this profile comes from old friend Blake A. Magner’s excellent little research reference, At Peace with Honor: The Civil War Burials of Laurel Hill Cemetery, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Knowles was born in Philadelphia on January 3, 1842, the son of a prominent merchant named Levi Knowles and Elizabeth Adeline Croskey. He attended local public schools and two years of high school before joining his father’s business. The young man loved horses, and was known as an excellent horseman. He was tall–six foot, two inches and well-proportioned–and was fair complected.

With the coming of war in 1861, nineteen-year-old Knowles enlisted in Capt. William H. Boyd’s Co. C of the First New York (Lincoln) Cavalry. He became Boyd’s orderly, and quickly developed a reputation for his dedication to duty and willingness to obey orders.

The Lincoln Cavalry saw action for the first time at Pohick Church near Alexandria, Virginia. During a sharp skirmish, Knowles demonstrated leadership, good judgment, and courage in helping to lead a detachment of Philadelphia horse soldiers to safety after they were nearly cut off. Knowles received a promotion to corporal for his gallantry in September 1861. However, Boyd had to force the young man to accept the promotion.

In January 1862, he was promoted again, this time to orderly sergeant, and as a result of excellent service during the Peninsula Campaign, he received a commission as second lieutenant at the conclusion of McClellan’s campaign. “He was never sick, always ready for duty, and seemed to regard the most fatiguing service or hazardous undertaking as pastime,” recorded Capt. James H. Stevenson of the Lincoln Cavalry in one of the two published histories of the regiment.

The Lincoln Cavalry participated in the Antietam Campaign, and then was assigned to serve in the Shenandoah Valley as part of the command of Brig. Gen. Robert H. Milroy (Milroy received a promotion to major general in March 1863). The Lincoln Cavalry spent most of the spring of 1863 chasing the guerrillas of John Singleton Mosby. Knowles was commissioned first lieutenant in April 1863 and then took a furlough. He rejoined the regiment in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania while the Gettysburg Campaign was already underway, Milroy’s cavalry having escaped from Winchester before it fell to the Confederates on June 13, 1863. Knowles helped Boyd dog the advance of the Confederates, and performed excellent service during the Gettysburg Campaign.

In August 1863, when the 21st Pennsylvania Cavalry mustered in with Boyd as its colonel, Knowles became one of the newly-formed regiment’s three majors. The 21st Pennsylvania was dismounted and served as infantry during the latter portion of the 1864 Overland Campaign, and when Boyd was badly wounded during the Battle of Cold Harbor, Knowles took command of the regiment, which participated in the siege of Petersburg. In October 1864, with the 21st Pennsylvania now mounted and acting as cavalry again, Knowles was promoted to colonel at the age of 22, and his unit was attached to the cavalry forces still serving the Army of the Potomac at Petersburg.

The 21st Pennsylvania participated in the various actions in and around Petersburg at the end of March and beginning of April 1865, and in the Appomattox Campaign. In June 1865, Knowles received a brevet to brigadier general of volunteers to date from March 1, 1865, for meritorious service in the war.

The twenty-three-year-old war hero mustered out of the volunteer service on July 4, 1865, and returned home to Philadelphia. He ended up in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where he participated in the grain trade, and sought (and obtained) a commission as a major in one of the Regular Army’s new cavalry regiments; ironically, the commission arrived the day after he died. However, on December 5, 1866, Knowles was stricken by cholera and died five hours later. He was only 24. His young life, so full of promise, ended much too soon. One can only speculate just how many great things he might have accomplished had he lived to old age.

His remains were taken home to Philadelphia, and like so many other brave young men, he was buried in Laurel Hill Cemetery, overlooking the waters of the Schuylkill River. His gravestone reads:

He was:
Gentle, yet Courageous,
Firm, but Magnanimous,
Beloved by all.

“The conduct of Colonel Knowles throughout his entire military career, from that of a private carrying the carbine to his last charge when the foremost of all the Confederate leaders had been compelled to surrender, was most devoted and heroic, winning the respect and affection of those beneath him, and the confidence and admiration of his superiors. His unaffected simplicity of manner, genial bearing, and never-failing wit won for him troops of friends wherever he moved,” recorded the eminent Pennsylvania historian, Samuel P. Bates. “As a token of their esteem, he was presented by his companions in arms with a horse, sword and equipments. He was warmly commended by Generals Sickel, Gregg, and Sheridan, and it was at the suggestion of the two latter that shortly after the surrender he was commissioned a Brigadier-General, as a special recognition of his merit in the final campaign.”

Here’s to Bvt. Brig. Gen. Oliver Blachly Knowles, who rose from private to colonel during the course of the war, and who was brevetted to brigadier general of volunteers at the tender age of 23.

Continue reading

I live in Columbus, Ohio.  I am, however, a native Pennsylvanian. I grew up rooting for Penn State.  I genuinely could not care less about Ohio State and its football program.

However, here in Columbus, if one does not bow and scrape at the temple of Woody Hayes, one is looked at suspiciously.  I’m absolutely convinced that OSU football is some strange, bizarre, and fatal disease for which there is no cure.  It causes otherwise normal, rational people to turn into drooling, wild-eyed, raving lunatics.  It really is unbelievable.

There’s actually some bozo in this town who makes a living doing a Woody Hayes impression.  Never mind that Woody’s been dead for something like 25 years, and never mind that he disgraced himself at the end of his career.  This guy gets on the radio every week and makes personal appearances, and just jibbers on and on, sounding like a brain damaged moron, and people actually PAY him for this….I just don’t get it. 

Tomorrow is the OSU vs. Michigan game.  Even under the worst of circumstances, it’s an obsession and the focus of an entire city’s existence for a week or so every year.  This year, however, with both teams undefeated and ranked one and two, you can only imagine what it’s like.  One of the local anchors put it quite well indeed last Sunday morning when she said (while wearing scarlet and gray), “If you are the sort of person who gets sick of Ohio State football, you’re in the wrong place this week.” 

It’s been the lead story on the local news every broadcast for a week.  It’s been on the front page of the local rag every day this week.  Enough, already!!!!  Everywhere you go, people greet each other by saying things like “Go Bucks!” or “OH”, to which the appropriate response is “IO”.  It’s kind of like some secret fraternity handshake thing, except it’s not a secret.  And when you genuinely couldn’t give a damn, like me, people look at you funny. Our office manager is decked out in OSU regalia today.  I’m not.  I’m sure it’s going to engender some strange looks today to see someone NOT wearing scarlet and gray, but I don’t care.  I don’t own a single OSU item, and I intend to keep it that way.

The clincher happened this morning.  The morning radio show that I have listened to for years was having some Bacchanalian OSU fest, and when I got in the car, I was greeted by nothing but screams “OH” by the DJ’s and “IO” by the drunken crowd.  I finally couldn’t take it anymore and changed the station to Bob and Tom so I just wouldn’t have to listen to it anymore… 

All I can say is that I can’t stand it anymore…..this damned game can’t be over soon enough….

And God forbid that they lose….

Continue reading

It’s been a while since we last checked on the results of the unscientific poll on favorite Civil War battlefields on the CWDG web site. Tonight, with 132 votes registered to date, here are the current results:

Antietam 15.91% (21)
Chancellorsville 2.27% (3)
Chickamauga 6.82% (9)
Fredericksburg 3.03% (4)
Gettysburg 46.97% (62)
Petersburg 0.76% (1)
Richmond 0.00% (0)
Shiloh 6.82% (9)
Vicksburg 3.79% (5)
Other–tell us what! 13.64% (18)

Total Votes: 132

Not surprisingly, Gettysburg continues to hold an enormous lead. No news there. I was one of the three votes for Chancellorsville. I wonder who the other two were….

Continue reading

Fellow blogger Kevin Levin has a lengthy post on his blog today that spells out, in great detail, the plagiarism scandal that has hit the realm of Civil War academia. Prof. R. Fred Ruhlman, who teaches Civil War history at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, apparently plagiarized most of his new book on Capt. Henry Wirz and the Andersonville prison camp from the work of Prof. William Marvel.

From the excerpts posted on Kevin’s blog, it’s quite obvious that Ruhlman simply re-packaged Marvel’s work and published it under his own name. In short, it is plagiarism of the worst variety.

As Peter Carmichael points out in a comment to Kevin’s post, the process of peer review employed by university presses usually catches this sort of thing, but this one got through. Ruhlman is, of course, responsible for his own actions, but the fact that this book got through the vetting process at the University of Tennessee Press, which is a very well-respected university press, doesn’t speak well for the Press.

At the same time, I am willing to defer to Pete Carmichael on this one. Pete is the series editor for a series being published by the UT Press, and he’s quite knowledgeable about how things are done there, what the objective is for certain books, and the steps it takes to ensure that work is original and not plagiarized.

I can only hope that Ruhlman is fired immediately, and that his work is repudiated by all as a consequence of his flagrant plagiarism. I also hope that the UT Press gets over its black eye, but that it tightens things up a bit to ensure that this sort of flagrant rip-off doesn’t happen again.

Continue reading

I know that I have discussed this here in the past, but my work on William H. Boyd in the Gettysburg Campaign has pointed out yet another gaping hole in the coverage of the Civil War.

One of the most important aspects of the Gettysburg Campaign was the capture of Winchester by troops of Lt. Gen. Richard S. Ewell’s Second Corps on June 14, 1863. Ewell captured most of Maj. Gen. Robert H. Milroy’s division, and took possession of the important town in only a single day. His well-designed and well-executed plan resembled the handiwork of the late Stonewall Jackson, and suggested that Ewell would be a worthy successor to the lamented Jackson. Ewell took only a few hundred casualties in capturing Winchester.

Unfortunately, there is a huge, gaping hole in the body of literature regarding Second Winchester. There have only been two monographs published that address the Second Battle of Winchester, and both were published by companies with reputations for publishing spotty work. The first, published in 1989, is Charles S. Grunder and Brandon H. Beck, The Second Battle of Winchester, June 12-15, 1863, published by the H. E. Howard Company of Lynchburg, Virginia. The second, Larry B. Maier’s Gateway to Gettysburg: The Second Battle of Winchester was published by White Mane’s imprint Burd Street Press in 2002.

The Howard company published two series of books. One was a series of histories–primarily rosters–of all Virginia units, and the other was its Virginia Civil War Battles and Leaders Series. These books are of extremely uneven quality. None of the regimental histories has a single footnote, which limits their value for the researcher. The books in the Battles and Leaders Series are especially hit and miss. Some of them are quite good. Some are simply atrocious. The book on Second Winchester is solid, but its battle narrative is only about 85 pages long, meaning that there’s not a great deal of depth there.

The Maier book is a classic White Mane book: no editing to speak of, poor production values, poor quality materials, and apparently no peer review. I have often said that if faced with the option of never publishing another word, or being published by White Mane, I would choose to never publish another word. I intend to do a detailed review of this book later this week, so I will limit my comments for now.

Suffice it to say that neither of these books provides the level of detail that this action deserves. With all of the books published on the Gettysburg Campaign, the Second Battle of Winchester remains a vast, gaping hole in the coverage of the Civil War and of the Gettysburg Campaign in particular.

This is just one of a number of similar gaping holes in the coverage of the war, but it provides an excellent illustration of the problem faced. Instead of yet another book on Pickett’s Charge, I would really prefer to see a talented historian tackle this action and give it the definitive treatment that it deserves. We would all benefit from such a study.

Continue reading

I’ve had a couple of dozen articles on the Civil War and four scholarly articles on the law published over the course of my writing career. Writing articles is actually how I got started. When I started law school, I had already finished all of the course work for my master’s degree in international affairs (it was a four-year, dual degree program). During my second year of law school, I wrote my master’s thesis on a piece of legislation, the Arms Export Control Act of 1976. I was able to use my thesis to satisfy my law school scholarly writing requirement. My thesis ended up being published in a law review, and that got me started with doing serious writing for publication.

I graduated from law school in 1987. By 1991, I’d had four scholarly pieces on the law published in various law reviews. At that point, I said, “Been there, done that, got the t-shirt” and realized that I was bored with writing about the law. Feeling the need to write in order to keep my incredibly restless–probably ADD-afflicted–mind busy, I decided to try my hand at writing something on the Civil War, with which I had a life-long fascination and a voracious appetite. Other than the legal writing that I do for my job, I’ve never written another scholarly piece on the law since then, at least in part because I can’t find something that interests me enough to invest the amount of time and effort required.

Hence, in 1989, I wrote an absolutely dreadful article about Joshua L. Chamberlain that was published in the long-defunct Civil War magazine. It was actually published in June 1992, the same week that Susan and I got married. Candidly, I’m not sure how it got published, because it’s not good, and I had not learned about how to go about doing primary source research.

The next one was on the Battle of Monocacy. In the spring of 1992, I made my first visit to the Monocacy National Battlefield, which had just become a national park. In fact, at that time, it was part of the Antietam unit and had not yet become its own park. There was absolutely no interpretation whatsoever available other than the handful of monuments put up by the vets. I knew next to nothing about the fight there, and decided to try to educate myself. I bought a couple of books and learned what I could, but it left me wanting more.

I learn by teaching myself. I teach myself by researching and writing; the process of immersing myself into a project forces me to learn the substance of the material. So, that’s how I learned the Battle of Monocacy. And my second article was then published.

And so on.

I had about a dozen articles published in various magazines before my first book was published in 1998. By then, I’d learned the ins and outs of doing primary source research, and was growing familiar with what worked and what didn’t work. I find that writing is like anything else–the more of it one does, the better one gets at it. For me, it was a matter of finding my legs and learning how to write history and not the boring legal arguments that have paid the household bills for the last 19 years. As I read my current stuff and compare it to that first article on Joshua Chamberlain, it’s shocking to see just how far my writing has come.

I’ve been very focused on writing books for a long time now. Those of you who either know me or who read this blog regularly know of my Gettysburg love-hate relationship. Try as I might, I continue to be drawn to this battle, and no matter what, I always return to it. I’ve always enjoyed writing stuff for Gettysburg Magazine, but for seven or eight years, I refused to do it due to conflict that I had with the former owner of the magazine that prompted me to declare that I would never write anything for it again for so long as he continued to own it. I actually had one article written on John Buford’s withdrawal from Gettysburg on July 2, 1863 that never got submitted for that reason. I wrote it specifically for that magazine, and then sat on it for years.

Since the former owner died earlier this year and the magazine has been sold to Andy Turner, the long-time editor of the magazine, things have changed dramatically. There’s no longer any reason for me not to write for Gettysburg Magazine. J. D. and I did an article for Andy on Corbit’s Charge at Westminster, Maryland that will appear in the next issue, and I have submitted that article on Buford’s withdrawal from Gettysburg that I’ve been sitting on for years. It also unloosed the series of article ideas that I’ve been sitting on for years. When I asked the new publisher about them, he liked all of my ideas.

So, I’m taking a little break from book writing to work on some of these articles that have been cluttering up my brain for too long. I will feel MUCH better once I’ve finally scratched those particular itches. I’m working on the first one, on the role of William H. Boyd and his Company C of the First New York (Lincoln) Cavalry during the Gettysburg Campaign. This is one of those projects that I’ve kicked around for years–and invested a lot of time and effort into researching–but which had no other viable outlet for publication other than Gettysburg Magazine. I’m enjoying finally indulging a story I’ve wanted to tell–and which has fascinated me–for years.

Continue reading

Dimitri Rotov’s blog entry for today points out the launching of yet another Civil War blog, called Civil War Gazette. According to the blog’s owner, it is a webzine dedicated to telling the story of the common soldier. There is some good information there. I’ve added a link.

I’m just flabbergasted by the proliferation of Civil War-related blogs. That makes four new ones in the past week or so, and another one that I elected not to include. What’s the deal here? Why the sudden burst in activity?

Don’t get me wrong–it’s all good, and anything that spreads the word is a good thing. I’m all for adding to the body of knowledge. I’m just amazed by the sudden blitz of additions to the Civil War blogosphere.

Good luck to all.

Continue reading

Blogging seems to be converting more and more enthusiasts. Just this week, I’ve learned of two more Civil War blogs that I’ve added to the links on the right.

Mark Wade has started his blog, which is called Maryland Rebel. Mark is a mainstay on the CWDG forum boards, and has decided to plunge into the blogging world. Knowing Mark, I expect good things from his blog.

The other belongs to Texan John Banks, who seems to have a particular interest in the 1862 Maryland Campaign. There are some very interesting items on John’s blog, and I look forward to continuing to enjoy his insights.

Welcome to the blogosphere, guys. Check out their blogs.

Continue reading