I first met Sean Dail through the Gettysburg Discussion Group a number of years ago. Since then, I’ve had a number of opportunities to stomp battlefields with Sean (most notably, Spotsylvania, with Gordon Rhea as tour leader). Sean’s a good guy, and a fellow lawyer. Sean has just launched his own blog. Check it out.

Welcome to the blogosphere, Sean.

Continue reading

On Friday, I posted about a debate that we’ve been having within the management group of Ironclad Publishing. It prompted an e-mail exchange with Drew Wagenhoffer, who correctly identified the campaign that I described but went out of my way not to describe. That e-mail exchange, in turn, pointed out the inherent conflict between Gettysburg scholarship and the rest of the Civil War.

It never ceases to amaze me how many Gettysburg books have been written, and how deeply the Gettysburg craze goes. There are, for instance, multiple (at least six that I can think of off the top of my head) books that address nothing but the impact of the battle on the civilians of Gettysburg, as if that particular town was the only one so effected throughout the course of the war. Mark Nesbitt seems tomake a living writing books about, and advancing, Gettysburg ghost lore, having published half a dozen books just on that particular topic alone. There is a magazine devoted completely to the Battle of Gettysburg that has so far published something like 36 issues that delves into minutae like no other magazine I’ve seen. The depths of Gettysburg have been plumbed so deeply, in fact, that we’re left with utter garbage like Carhart’s book as the only “new” insights into the battle. Given that Carhart’s book is fiction masquerading as truth, that’s a pretty pathetic statement indeed.

The percentage of Civil War devoted to the Battle of Gettysburg seems to run close to 50%. This means that there are only a relatively small percentage of books devoted to the other 10,000 or so battles and skirmishes that took place during the Civil War. This means that there are still plenty of fascinating actions that deserve a detailed treatment but have been completely overlooked by history for whatever reasons. There are, likewise, other large and extremely important battles that have not received the sort of detailed examination that they deserve. Chickamauga and Shiloh are two that come to mind immediately. Chickamauga, in particular, deserves a good microtactical examination, but it has not received one. I’m not sure why. Perhaps it’s that the battle is not perceived as being decisive. Perhaps it’s because Braxton Bragg is such a thoroughly dislikeable fellow. Perhaps it’s that William S. Rosecrans, the Federal commander disgraced himself and trashed an otherwise admirable career by fleeing the battlefield in the midst of battle. Perhaps it’s the perception that books on the Western Theater of the war will not sell. Perhaps, most of all, it’s that neither Robert E. Lee nor Stonewall Jackson nor Ulysses S. Grant were there. Whatever the reason, Chickamauga has been treated as a red-headed stepchild by many in the Civil War community, but it was one of the most tactically interesting and strategically significant actions of the Civil War.

Another example comes to mind. There was, perhaps, no more important or significant campaign of the war than the Petersburg Campaign. Filled with hard, intense fighting interspersed among long periods of seeming inactivity, it was the Petersburg Campaign that ultimately broke the back of the Confederacy and finally hastened the end of the Civil War in the Eastern Theater. It involved both Lee and Grant, and the armies that seem to spark the most interest, the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of the Potomac. However, other than Noah Andre Trudeau’s book The Last Citadel, I am unaware of there being any other comprehensive study of the campaign. given that this campaign lasted eight months, I find that remarkable.

Personally, I’ve always been drawn to the obscure. The more obscure, the better. Things like Pickett’s Charge hold less than no interest to me. I couldn’t possibly care less about Pickett’s Charge, and if I never heard of it again, I wouldn’t be terribly disappointed. Although Gettysburg has traditionally been my first love, I’ve reached the point where I find the Battle of Chancellorsville more interesting. I’m much more interested in obscure actions such as the Wilson-Kautz Raid, or Sheridan’s Trevilian Raid, or Sterling Price’s 1864 Missouri Raid.

It seems to me that there ought to be a happy medium, and that there ought to be a way to level the playing field a bit and to ensure that some of these other actions also get the attention that they deserve. It’s long overdue, but I’m also not holding my breath. The book business is already hurting, and the odds of publishers taking chances on things that are worthy but which may not have the commercial appeal of a Gettysburg book instead of yet another ridiculous and fictional version of Lee’s “real” plan for the Battle of Gettysburg are, sadly, not good.

Continue reading

We’ve been having a major discussion among the ownership group at Ironclad Publishing about where we go from here in terms of continuing to grow our business.

Several years ago, I came up with the idea for “The Discovering Civil War America Series.” The concept behind the series is to do a detailed tactical study accompanied by an equally detailed walking or driving tour. My idea was to focus on either a small and overlooked portion of a large battle, or an overlooked or interesting smaller action. There was a third prong to this, although we have yet to actually publish a book like this: a study of the role played by a specific city, such as Richmond, Atlanta, Charleston, etc. What I didn’t want to do was to cover something for a battle where there is already a Luvaas and Nelson guide, or something like it. The first book in the series was my study of the fight on East Cavalry Field at Gettysburg, an important but often overlooked aspect of the main battle of July 3.

The second bookin the series is Jim Morgan’s excellent study of the Battle of Ball’s Bluff, which has sold far better than I imagined it would. The the third is our most recent title, a study of Sherman’s Carolinas Campaign from Fayetteville to Averasboro. Although this book has only been out for about six weeks, I’ve already had to order a second printing of it. It has also done far better than I had imagined it would.

The second and third entries into the series fall into the second category of books that I described, while my book falls into the first category. The next volume, which will go to the printer in a few weeks, addresses the fighting by Winfield Scott Hancock’s Second Corps on the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg. It will, therefore, fall into the first category of books.

Recently, we’ve been having a discussion about where to go from here. One of my partners has been advocating a study of a campaign that, while strategically interesting, did not feature a major battle. While it’s interesting, and while there might even be something of a market for a book on this particular campaign, I can’t imagine that it would sell enough copies to make it worth our while. As it would also be a full campaign study, it would not fit into any of the three categories for books in our series. I just don’t think that it’s worth investing a lot of our limited funds and resources into a book that would have limited market appeal and which would not fit into our business model. Most of my partners agree with me on this, but the person who has been advocating it remains steadfast about pushing it.

These sorts of debates are good for a company. The free flow of ideas and the ability to air our differences is clearly good for the company. However, there also comes a point where the discussion becomes frustrating, as neither side is able to persuade the other to see things as they do. I won’t change my mind about this, and I doubt that my partner will change his. Hence, we’re at loggerheads here. Since we run our company as a democracy, he will be outvoted, but I can’t help but wonder if he will understand that the reason is that it doesn’t make business sense, and not because we think he’s got a bad idea.

Continue reading

I had lunch with fellow blogger blogger Mark Grimsley today. We had a chance to discuss a number of interesting topics, including blogging.

Mark was one of the very first entrants into the blogosphere, and either maintains or participates in three different blogs, including Civil Warriors, a blog that he maintains with Brooks Simpson and Steve Woodworth. When I started this blog, I specifically Mark’s blog as one of my primary inspirations for undertaking blogging.

One thing that strikes both of us is the wide variety of people who give their time and energy to indulge our blogs. Mark tracks statistics on his sites, and has been really amazed by the number of people who regularly read his posts. In my case, I’m just getting started with paying attention to the statistics, but the number of regular readers who indulge my rantings really humbles and impresses me, all at the same time. Both of us also paid tribute to the godfather of Civil War blogging, Dimitri Rotov. In my case, Dimitri was the other primary inspiration for my decision to begin ranting.

In case I haven’t expressed my gratitude to all of you who indulge my rants, I hope you all understand how much I appreciate that you find time in your busy schedules to indulge me and my rantings. I really appreciate it.

Continue reading

Here’s the bottom line. Since Cleo had her stroke, I haven’t written a word on my book manuscript. Not one.

First was dealing with her and dealing with grieving. Then came little Aurora. And she is a handful. Like most nine-week-old puppies, she’s a fountain of energy. She knows two speeds: full bore and crash and burn. There is no middle ground. She goes and goes and goes until she hits the wall, and then it’s sound asleep. The problem is that, like most puppies, she’s incredibly curious, wanting to investigate everything and see what it is. So, she’s all over the place all the time, either exploring or wrestling with Nero. That, in and of itself, is not that bad.

What’s bad is that the overwhelming majority of nine-week-old puppies are not housebroken, and neither is Aurora. We’ve got her on the road to housebreaking by crate training her and by taking her out every half an hour or so and then praising her when she pees outside, but the fact is that she has at least one accident per day in the house. One of us has to watch her virtually every minute in the hope of fending off accidents. This morning, while I was in the shower and Susan was getting ready for work, Aurora peed a big one on the rug in our bedroom because Susan was getting dressed and took her eye off her for a moment. It happens that quickly. So, when I’m at home, I’m usually chasing after her.

There’s also the sleep deprivation factor, which cannot be underestimated. The rule of dog care in our house is that we alternate nights/mornings. That way, the load is shared equally. Last night was my night. Aurora got me up to go outside at 2, 4:50, and 6. Of course, I had to go outside with her, dressed in shorts, t-shirt, and slippers on a windy night that got down into the low 20’s. Needless to say that by the time I finally got her to pee, I was one seriously cold guy. Then, it’s back upstairs, put her back in her crate (for which she will whine and cry for a while), and try to go back to sleep. The second time was that she was awake, was lonely and bored, and wanted attention. She didn’t even have to go when I took her outside.

The net result is that I am terribly sleep deprived today. And I don’t see it getting any better for another month or so, until she’s a little older and a little bigger. That, however, means that not much productive will get done on my various writing projects between now and then…..

Continue reading

When J. D. and I wrote our manuscript on Stuart’s Ride in the Gettysburg Campaign, we wanted the book to have a foreword written by a prominent historian. Experience shows that a good foreword can help sell books, and it can also lend credibility to the work. I’ve been fortunate enough to have the likes of Jeff Wert and Gordon Rhea write forewords for my work, which I have always really appreciated.

One well-known academic historian had originally agreed to do this for us, but circumstances prevented him from fulfilling the obligation. Unfortunately, he waited until the last moment to tell us. We have perhaps two weeks before it would be entirely too late, as we are in the process of reviewing page galleys and making final revisions as I write this. If the book is going to be out in mid-June, as we have planned, there is very little play available in the schedule or else we won’t be able to meet that date.

Fortunately, I know Mark Grimsley, who teaches history at Ohio State, and who maintains two different blogs that are linked to this blog. I approached Mark today, hat in hand, and asked him if he could help us out and get a foreword together for us in just two weeks, as that’s literally all the time that’s available for getting this done and for us to meet our publication deadline. It’s going to cost me lunch at a nice restaurant, and I will, of course, now be indebted to Mark. However, I definitely think it’s worth it, and I really appreciate Mark’s willingness to do this for us, especially on such short notice.

Mark is a guy with a great deal of credibility, and having his name appear on our book and having his words in it will only make what we hope is already a good book an even better one. Thanks, Mark.

In addition, while I was in Tennessee last week, I had a chance to peruse a rarely seen and rarely used source. Basil Duke, who was John Hunt Morgan’s chief lieutenant, was the editor of a Confederate veterans’ publication called The Southern Bivouac, which was very similar to the Southern Historical Society Papers. The Bivouac was, in fact, patterned on the SHSP. However, unlike the SHSP, the Bivouac was only published for six years. It’s very rare. I didn’t know that my friend Greg had a set of the Broadfoot reprints of the Bivouac until I got to his house; it’s a recent acquisition by him. So, after my talk the other night, I spent an hour or so, going through the six volumes one page at a time, looking for whatever might be of interest, but in particular, looking for stuff on Morgan’s 1863 Indiana and Ohio Raid (I found and copied half a dozen or so articles, none of which appear in any bibliography of the raid I’ve yet seen).

Imagine my surprise when I found an account of Stuart’s cavalry in the Gettysburg Campaign–including Stuart’s Ride–that I had never seen or even heard of previously. None of the prior published accounts of the raid mention this account, let alone use it. What’s more is, it’s GOOD. There’s some really good material in this thing. So, here we are, at the last moment, adding new and previously unused primary source material to the book. Again, we’re fortunate here. We’re lucky to have Ted Savas, who is not only understanding but also supportive, even though we’re adding work for him by making significant additions at the last possible moment–in this case, during the process of reviewing and correcting page galleys.

This process of researching and finding new materials seems never-ending. And, my experience shows that it is, in fact, never-ending. That’s what makes this so much fun.

Continue reading

Someone calling themself Jaywalker tried to leave a comment on my latest post about Google. The content of the comment was not objectionable, and had this person followed my rules, I gladly would have permitted it to post.

The problem, however, is that this person refused to use a real name or to leave an e-mail address with the comment. Without one or the other, I have no way of knowing whether I’m being spammed or scammed, and my operating rule is no e-mail address, no comment. Sorry, Jaywalker. Your comment was deleted because you didn’t play by my rules. And since it’s my site, I get to make the rules.

To anyone else who is not a spammer and who wants to leave comments on this site, you MUST do so with a valid e-mail address, or else your comment will never see the light of day. There are no exceptions to this rule, and there is no right of appeal.

Continue reading

In addition to being St. Patrick’s Day, today also marks the 143rd anniversary of the Battle of Kelly’s Ford, fought on March 17, 1863, along the banks of the chilly Rappahannock River.

On February 24, 1863, Confederate Brig. Gen. Fitz Lee, under orders to find the end of the Union line, led a raid of 500 hand-picked troopers of his brigade on the far right flank of the Army of the Potomac at Hartwood Church. Marching forty miles across country in deep snow, Fitz’s men launched a vicious dawn surprise attack that scattered the Federal cavalry pickets. Lee’s men chased them until they came under the guns of the 124th New York Infantry. Having found the Federal infantry, Fitz broke off and withdrew, although not before taunting the Federal cavalry commander responsible for the sector.

Brig. Gen. William Woods Averell and Fitz Lee had been very close friends at West Point, and they remained friends. Fitz left his old friend a bag of tobacco and a taunting note. “Dear Averell, If you won’t go home, why not pay me a visit? I hear your horse is faster than mine. Fitz.” Infuriated, Averell vowed revenge. He got his chance a couple of weeks later.

Averell took his division of Federal cavalry on an expedition designed to break up a concentration of Confederate cavalry in the vicinity of Culpeper, Virginia. He left three hundred of his 2100 men behind to guard his rear and marched.

Arriving at Kelly’s Ford early on the morning of March 17, he found intense preparations by the Confederates awaiting him. They had dug rifle pits and felled trees to block the way, and Averell had to fight his way across the river, a process that took most of the morning. When he finally got across, he engaged in a bitter six hour long fight with the 800 men of Fitz Lee’s Brigade that featured saber charges and counter charges, the Yankee horsemen going boot-to-boot with their Southern rivals. Maj. John Pelham, commander of the Confederate horse artillery, had foolishly decided to lead a saber charge, and paid for it with his life when a fragment of a Union artillery shell lodged itself in his brain. The Gallant Pelham died a few hours later as a weeping Jeb Stuart stood by his deathbed.

At the end of the day, with victory in his grasp, Averell broke off and withdrew. He thought he had heard trains bringing reinforcements to Fitz Lee, and knowing he was alone and far behind the enemy lines, Averell felt he had done enough, even though he had not fulfilled his orders for the mission. Before leaving, he left a bag of coffee and a note for Fitz Lee that said, “Dear Fitz, Here’s your visit. How’d you like it? How’s your horse? Averell”

By any measure, Kelly’s Ford was a Confederate victory. They held the battlefield at the end of the day, and Averell utterly failed to fulfill his strategic objectives for the raid. However, the importance of Kelly’s Ford cannot be overstated. First, and foremost, it proved definitively that the Union cavalry could hold its own against the very best that the Confederacy had to offer. Second, it cost the life of Pelham, the very competent commander of the Stuart Horse Artillery. Pelham had no business leading that charge, and it cost him–and the Army of Northern Virginia–dearly. Finally, it demonstrated that the Confederate cavalry could be beaten on the field of battle under the right commander.

Kelly’s Ford marks a milestone in the maturation process of the Union cavalry. For that reason alone, it is worth studying.

So, hoist a green beer to the memory of the Gallant Pelham today, and also recognize the bravery of the cavaliers who fought long and hard that day.

Continue reading

There are three new blogs that have popped up. Thanks to Mike Koepke for pointing out two of them, and to Andy MacIsaac for pointing out the other.

First is Brian Downey’s new Antietam-based blog. Brian is a renowned authority on the 1862 Maryland Campaign, and he should have some good insights to share.

The other two are joint blogs.

Another is Andy Etman’s Strike The Tent: A Reference & Research Destination With Peer-Reviewed Sources, Published By An Unemployed Historian And A Self-Proclaimed Civil War Nut, which contains the following description: “This is ‘Andy’s Civil War Blog’, to be used as a companion and reference guide to HIST 320-02, ‘Topics in History: The Civil War’ being taught by Professor Dr. Frances Jones-Sneed at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts.” It appears to be a collaboration by several members of the class and its instructor. There are some interesting posts to be had there.

Finally, there is the new joint blog of Mark Grimsley, Steven Woodworth, and Brooks Simpson, all well regarded academic historians. It’s called Civil Warriors, and its stated mission–as defined by Mark Grimsley–is “Thinking about the issues involved in publicizing one’s own books — the overwhelming majority of books that appear each year are surprisingly undermarketed, and authors really need to learn to fend for themselves — I (Mark Grimsley) got the idea for creating (yet another) blog. This one would be a collaborative effort among several Civil War historians. The point of the blog — its drawing card — would be to focus on the craft of Civil War history. We’d talk candidly about what we were doing, why we did it, what we hoped would emerge from it.” These well-respected academic historians bring useful insight to the study of the Civil War.

All three of these blogs have been added to the links secction here.

Welcome aboard, everyone.

Continue reading

Those of you who know me, know that I love obscure battlefield sites most of all. From my perspective, the more obscure, the better. They fascinate me endlessly. In the past two days, I have added two more such sites to my list of places visited.

Last night, I spoke to the Clarksville, TN Civil War Roundtable, which is run and operated by our friends Greg and Karel Lea Biggs. It was a quick trip, down yesterday and back today, as poor Susan needs help with running our business and with managing Rory. It was made clear to me that I had to be gone as short a time as possible. However, I had a chance to do a little bit of battlefield stomping while I was gone.

Yesterday, Greg took me to see Fort Defiance, the earthen fort in Clarksville. The fort itself is completely intact. It overlooks the Cumberland River, and was build to defend the town and the river during the early stages of the war. It faced only the river. Then, after it surrendered to Grant after Donelson and Henry fell, Union troops built another side to it to defend from the land side. The entire fort is there, you can see where the heavy guns were located on the river side, and see where the light guns were placed on the land side, the magazine is there, and it’s one of the most nicely preserved earthworks I’ve seen in a long time. There is interpretation on markers all around the fort to help visitors understand what happened where inside the fort, and it’s got plenty of parking. And it’s a city park. Kudos to the City of Clarksville for preserving the fort and for making it a nice place to visit.

Today, I took a detour to take visit the battlefield at Corydon, Indiana. My route of travel was by way of Louisville, and Corydon is twenty miles west of Louisville along I-64. Since I have no idea when I will be that way again, I decided to take the opportunity and visit the battlefield. By way of background, John Hunt Morgan and his 2400 raiders crossed the Ohio River and entered Indiana on July 8, 1863. By the next day, they were closing in on Corydon, which was the first state capital of Indiana. It’s a lovely little town, bissected by a river, and with towering bluffs overlooking the town from the south. The local militia commander decided to defend the town in the hope that regular Union forces would catch up to Morgan’s force if they delayed him long enough. So, with about 400 men to try to stop Morgan’s division, the local militia prepared a defense.

They constructed some rude breastworks of logs atop a ridge overlooking the town, and they waited. Morgan approached, and a stiff firefight occurred. Basil Duke, Morgan’s brother-in-law and chief lieutenant, praised the defense by the militiamen, noting that they had “zealously defended their log piles.” Eleven of Morgan’s men were killed in the fighting, and several were wounded. Three of the home guardsmen were killed and over 350 of them were captured. They were then paroled, and Morgan entered the town, ransoming it, and then moving on. In the big scheme of things, it was a pretty small engagement, but it was the only Civil War battle fought in the State of Indiana. It being the middle of the day on a Thursday, it’s not much of surprise that I had the place to myself.

The folks at Corydon are, rightfully, quite proud of their battle. The battlefield itself is small, and it’s almost perfectly preserved. Why? Because the town owns it, and it’s a public park. The park consists of about five acres. There’s a walking trail, and there’s a six pound howitzer there. There is some interpretation there, a log house that was apparently on another part of the battlefield and relocated, and a marker to commemorate the dead of both sides. There are no maps, and not much tactical detail, but someone with experience in evaluating terrain will have little problem figuring out what happened there. The position was eventually flanked, as the Union line was too short to hold for long. At the same time, appears that the town holds interpretive talks at the site, as there are a number of wooden benches in front of the log house that are obviously aligned to hear a talk by someone on the front porch of the log house.

It really is a very nice little park, and I was very impressed by it. Hats off to the folks of Corydon for their terrific treatment of their little battlefield.

It stands in stark contrast to Ohio’s only battlefield. I have mentioned the disgraceful treatment received by the Buffington Island battlefield here in a previous post. Although nearly 12,000 cavalrymen fought there over several hundred acres, only four of those acres have been protected. In short, a space smaller than that at Corydon is protected even though it was a full-scale battle that ranged over hundreds of acres. All I can say is, “what’s wrong with this picture?” Obviously, the powers that be here in Ohio have a lot to learn and even more to be ashamed of for letting such a thing happen.

Continue reading