Today, an article appeared on Yahoo. European book publishers take their arguments against Google even farther than I do. They claim that search engines that bring up even so much as a word of a copyrighted work constitutes a violation of the author’s copyright. “The new models of Google and others reverse the traditional permission-based copyright model of content trading that we have built up over the years,” said Francisco Pinto Balsemao, the head of the European Publishers Council, in prepared remarks for a speech at a Brussels conference.” He continued, “”It is fascinating to see how these companies ‘help themselves’ to copyright-protected material, build up their own business models around what they have collected, and parasitically, earn advertising revenue off the back of other people’s content,” he said. “This is unlikely to be sustainable for publishers in the longer term.”

Apparently, a French news agency is suing Google for copyright infringement for using photos and story excerpts from countless web sites without paying royalties for it.

This, I think, goes a lot farther than even my outrage with Google’s arrogance. I don’t have a big issue with Google mining web sites for information and for including tiny snippets in search results. However, providing entire copyrighted books without the author’s permission and without paying royalties clearly goes far beyond the pale.

Clearly, existing copyright law NEVER anticipated these issues, and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act provides no help of guidance. Congress needs to address these issues, and it needs to do so soon. The litigation has probably only just begun.

Until the issue is resolved, I will continue to vigorously support the lawsuits hoping to prevent Google from infringing upon my copyrights and the copyrights of every other author who stands to lose if the Google program goes forward.

Continue reading

Today at lunch, I was talking with a friend. She raised a question about some of the things that go into the drafting of a business plan, and I was describing some of the elements of a well-written business plan. Somehow, the issue of the difference between strategy and tactics came up, and I asked her if she knew the difference between strategy and tactics. She did, which surprised me a little bit. However, it got me thinking about those differences and how they play into the effectiveness of a battlefield commander.

Strategy is the “game plan”, if you will. It’s the grand scheme that sets out the final goal of a particular campaign or movement. Tactics, on the other hand, are the means by which the strategy is implemented. Here’s an analogy from my professional life. Coming up with a means of presenting a case to a jury is the strategy. Identifying the witnesses, choosing the exhibits, and coming up with the list of questions to ask that witness are the tactics by which that strategy is implemented. It is possible to be a great strategist and a lousy tactician. It’s also possible to be an excellent tactician but not a good strategist. Those differences become really critical the higher the rank that an officer possesses.

Here’s what I mean by that. An officer may be truly great at designing a grand strategy, but be really bad at making tactical decisions on the battlefield. Here’s a great example of an officer who was a great strategist but who was never known as being much of a tactician–William T. Sherman. Sherman, for instance, designed and implemented the strategy for taking the war to civilians and sapping their will to continue the war. At the same time, Sherman was never considered to be much of a battlefield tactician. In fact, he was generally known as being somewhat cautious and tentative on the battlefield.

William S. Rosecrans is another example of a brilliant strategist who was not great on the battlefield. Rosecrans designed one of the most brilliant campaigns in modern military history in the Tullahoma Campaign, when he, through a series of flanking maneuvers, pushed Braxton Bragg’s army all the way across the State of Tennessee and back to Chattanooga with almost no bloodshed. It covered nearly the entire state and was accomplished without a major battle being fought. However, as plainly demonstrated at Chickamauga, Rosecrans was no battlefield genius. In fact, his battlefield performance often left a LOT to be desired, and his fleeing from the field at Chickamauga and running all the way back to Chattanooga pretty much put the nail in the coffin of Rosecrans’ career as a battlefield commander.

The converse is also true. A guy like John Bell Hood was a truly great tactician on the battlefield at the divisional level, but once he was promoted to corps command and then to army command, he demonstrated no gift for much of anything other than attacking straight ahead. “All of the lion and none of the fox,” Robert E. Lee reportedly said when he learned that Hood had been given command of the Army of Tennessee, and Lee was absolutely correct. In a series of head-long attacks that took little or no account of terrain, strategy, or anything else, Hood pretty much sacrificed an entire army between Atlanta and Nashville.

The truly great captain is the one who has mastered both strategy AND tactics. Those generals are few and far between for what ought to be obvious reasons. The American Civil War produced two such men–Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant. Grant demonstrated his tactical brilliance again and again, but in no instance no more so than at Vicksburg. Lee’s remarkable string of battlefield victories is proof positive of his tactical genius, and he had a real gift for strategy–look at how he drove McClellan’s much larger army back from the outskirts of Richmond in the summer of 1862.

The distinction between strategy and tactics is an easy one to confuse, but it’s important never to lose sight of that difference. It’s the difference between a truly great commander and a mediocre one.

Continue reading

Let’s extend a big welcome to the blogosphere to David Woodbury. For those who don’t know David, he’s one of the founders of Savas-Woodbury Publishing, and was with the Stanford University Press for nine years. David’s been involved in the study of the Civil War for many years, and he brings some very welcome insights to the blogosphere. David’s first post is terrific. Please check it out.

Welcome aboard, David.

Continue reading

As promised, today I will address the issue of illustrations.

I believe that illustrations are nearly as important as maps. While illustrations are less important to understanding how combat played out, they are nevertheless essential to the presentation of the tale, as they put a human face on what would otherwise be a pretty bland and impersonal story.

I have always found that seeing what these men looked like–putting a human face on it, if you will–adds so much to a book. It’s easier to relate to what these men went through if you can put a face with the name. It’s tougher to care about someone who is faceless, just a name on a printed page. But if there’s a photo, that makes that person real. I likewise think that illustrations of important landmarks also add a lot to the way that the tale is told. Imagine, for instance, a telling of the story of the Alamo that didn’t feature an illustration of the Alamo. To me, that would be almost inconceivable. Modern-day depictions of sites can also be very useful and very helpful to battlefield trampers, and I like to include those, too.

Contemporary illustrations, such as the woodcuts that appeared in Harper’s Weekly, are also invaluable additions to the story, as they make the events seem more real, more vivid. A good example is the depiction of John F. Reynolds reeling in the saddle after receiving his mortal wound on July 1, 1863. It was an eyewitness representation, and it really adds a lot to our understanding of what happened. The sketches of war correspondent James E. Taylor can be really useful additions to books. Taylor was a gifted artist, and he left some excellent depictions.

Finally, there are the works of modern artists such as Dale Gallon and Don Troiani. These can also be helpful, as they’re typically in color and really bring things to life in vivid color. Some–such as Gallon and Troiani–are meticulous about researching details (although that wasn’t always the case with Gallon). I worked with Troiani on a print called McPherson’s Ridge, of John Buford placing Calef’s battery in position on the morning of July 1, 1863. I suggested the scene, and provided Don with my research on the subject, which is why this painting is the only depiction of Buford ever done that got the color of his horse right. That’s the level of detail that Don prides himself in, and it shows.

At the same time, for every Don Troiani, there’s a Mort Kunstler, who is much more interested in the artistic side than in getting the details right. While his paintings are always aesthetically pleasing, there’s always something about them that’s just plain wrong. He did a depiction of a charge of the Citadel Cadet Rangers at the Battle of Trevilian Station led personally by Wade Hampton. Again, while it’s an aesthetically pleasing depiction, the terrain is just plain wrong. Consequently, I’ve always tended to avoid his work.

I particularly like these types of illustrations on dust jackets. I think that they add a lot to books.

Again, pictures are another place where some publishers skimp, which saddens me. In this day of high resolution scanners, it’s easy enough to insert images into books. However, I have had publishers–university presses in particular–severely restrict the number of illustrations that they would permit. To me, the cost savings in production pales by comparison to what the illustrations add to a book. That’s why I give our authors at Ironclad carte blanche on illustrations. I have never yet told someone, “nope, too many pictures, you need to pull some”, and I don’t expect to, either.

It’s all about producing the best book possible that makes the customer–who has forked over his or her hard-earned dollars–feel likey he or she has gotten his or her money’s worth when they buy that book.

Continue reading

In my mind, maps and illustrations are important elements of every book that I buy. If, for instance, it’s not an action that I am familiar with, maps are absolutely indispensable to understanding the action. Here’s an example of what I mean here. Some months ago, I wrote a review of a recent book on the Battle of Bentonville. Bentonville, a favorite of mine, is a large and complex action. One of my favorite Civil War books of the past decade or so is Mark L. Bradley’s excellent Last Stand in the Carolinas: The Battle of Bentonville. One of the things that makes this book so good is the inclusion of a superb and extremely detailed map series by Mark Anderson Moore, who does some of the finest maps of anyone in the business. Some of Mark Moore’s maps can be found on the Bentonville Battleground’s web site. Mark Moore’s maps are so good, in fact, that the map series was published as a separate volume, which is indispensable to anyone wanting to stomp the battlefield. Not surprisingly, both of these books were published by Savas Publishing, Ted Savas’ prior publishing venture.

The same thing also holds true for Chris Fonvielle’s terrific study of the Wilmington Campaign, which also features a large and remarkable map series by Mark Moore. Again, Mark Moore’s maps were published in a separate volume this is similarly indispensable to touring the sites associated with the campaign.

By contrast, Broadwater’s book, which was published by the Mercer University Press, by comparison, does not contain a single map. If I did not (a) have Mark Moore’s maps available to me and (b) have some familiarity with it from touring the battlefield with Mark Bradley twice, there is absolutely no way that I could have made heads or tails out of Broadwater’s book. That this book was published by a respected university press makes it all the more stunning that there isn’t a single map in this book.

I tend to follow the philosophy of Ted Savas, of Savas-Beatie Publishing, which is that one can never have enough maps in a book. That’s the primary reason why I approached Ted to publish my forthcoming work on the Battle of Monroe’s Crossroads–Ted was wiling to go with my entire map series, which is something like 25 maps. We do the same thing at Ironclad–within reason, I will let the authors have carte blanche on maps, even if it does add pages to the book. I would rather have more pages with lots of good, usable maps than a smaller, cheaper book that LOOKS cheaper because we scrimped on important things like maps.

I have always believed that good maps are absolutely essential to making a book usable to the user, and the more good maps, the better. Cutting back on maps to save pages is the sort of corner-cutting that makes me absolutely crazy. I tip my hat to Ted for doing things the right way.

Tomorrow, I will address the issue of illustrations.

Continue reading

This review of Tom Carhart’s crappy book appears in the current issue of Civil War News:

“Several authors have recently ‘discovered’ the horse soldiers who clashed at Gettysburg’s East Cavalry Field. Most of them assert that J.E.B. Stuart’s cavalry endeavored to strike the Union rear in conjunction with Pickett’s Charge on July 3, or at the very least cause havoc if the Confederate infantry assault was successful.

Dr. Tom Carhart vociferously argues the former case. Forty percent of the book is devoted to causes of the war, the formative years of Robert E. Lee, Jeb Stuart and George A. Custer, battles in history that inspired this trio of generals, and the Civil War in the Eastern Theater. The remainder is devoted to Gettysburg, with about 40 percent of the tale devoted to the final day.

The text is peppered with errors, ranging from the dates of the Louisiana Purchase, South Carolina’s secession and Custer’s birth, to the location of John Buford’s cavalry on July 3. Endnotes are meager, and serious omissions of sources include cavalry accounts by Eric Wittenberg and Pickett’s Charge narratives by Earl Hess and George Stewart.

Meade — erroneously cited as George ‘C.’ Meade — is lambasted for taking the defensive and using interior lines to his advantage. Contradictorily, Lee is praised for employing the same tactics at Antietam.

Readers are asked to believe that Lee, Stuart and Custer virtually conducted world history seminars prior to battles, reminiscing about wars studied in their West Point days. In the same spirit, there are battle maps of Cannae, Leuthen and Austerlitz, but only one concerning Gettysburg.

Even more perplexing are the conspiracy theories. David Gregg, believing he was in a hopeless situation against Stuart, delegated Custer (who was not in his division) to repel Stuart’s attacks, thereby sparing his own command the ignominy of defeat. Lee, meanwhile, shared his plan of a coordinated attack between Stuart and Pickett with almost no one, and was reticent afterward to protect Stuart’s sparkling reputation.

There’s inadequate space in a book review to cite each factual error, contradiction and unsupported theory. Suffice to say, this reads more like a novel than historical analysis.”

The author of this review is David F. Riggs, a National Park Service historian who is the curator of the museum at Colonial National Historical Park, Yorktown. He has a BA in history from Lock Haven University and an MA in history from Penn State. His publications include Embattled Shrine: Jamestown in the Civil War and Vicksburg Battlefield Monuments.

David’s first book, which was actually his master’s thesis, was titled East of Gettysburg: Custer vs. Stuart, so he knows a bit about the fight on East Cavalry Field and is qualified to render an objective opinion of just how awful Carhart’s book is. I might also point out that David’s book was the first modern, book-length treatment of this action, and he led the way for those of us who have followed, me included.

It’s quite gratifying to know that I’m not the only one who sees this festering pile of garbage for what it really is.

Continue reading

As promised, I am today addressing the issue of the recent U. S. Supreme Court decision on eminent domain. Before I do, though, I thought I would complete the airport saga. Our plane did not push back from the gate at Atlanta’s Hartsfield International Parking Lot until 2:05 AM this morning, meaning we did not get to Columbus until almost 3:30. Until we got to the car and drove home, it was 4:00, and until we got the dogs settled down and we got to bed, it was 4:30. Needless to say, I am fading fast as the afternoon drags on. At least I’m home.

Now to the topic at hand.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The final clause is the so-called “takings clause”, which makes it illegal for government entities to take private property for public use without compensating the owner of the property. The power to take private property for public use is called the power of eminent domain.

On June 23, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Kelo v. City of New London. The issue in this case was whether the City of New London, Connecticut could use the power of eminent domain for use of the land by a commercial developer in a for-profit venture intended to stimulate the local economy. A severely divided court found that the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment in fact permitted this outcome: “In affirming the City’s authority to take petitioners’ properties, we do not minimize the hardship that condemnations may entail, notwithstanding the payment of just compensation. We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose ‘public use’ requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law, while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised. As the submissions of the parties and their amici make clear, the necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of legitimate public debate. This Court’s authority, however, extends only to determining whether the City’s proposed condemnations are for a ‘public use’ within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Because over a century of our case law interpreting that provision dictates an affirmative answer to that question, we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek.”

Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court Justice with the longest tenure of the present roster, and the author of the Kelo opinion, later said it was one of the most difficult decisions he’s ever had to make, and also indicated that he felt it was consistent with settled law. However, it has generated a blizzard of criticism, and for good reason. Even the likes of Tom DeLay, with whom I virtually never agree on anything, has called it a dreadful decision, and it is certainly that.

Many states have already taken Justice Stevens’ invitation to enact legislation to limit this power, and the House of Representatives has passed a bill to limit funding to states that permit this sort of atrocity to occur. Interestingly, the City of New London, responding to the firestorm of criticism, has apparently even shelved the project that spawned this litigation in the first place.

Having set the stage, we now turn to the issue of battlefield preservation and the implications of the Kelo decision. Unfortunately, as pointed out last night, there is a developer in Georgia who intends to develop the Lovejoy Station battlefield using Kelo as his weapon. If this occurs, then the U. S. Supreme Court’s decision, which most people believe is one of the worst it’s ever made, will serve as a tool for taking even more battlefield land instead of protecting it–it would take private land and use it for commercial development.

Traditionally, it worked the other way around. Congress used its power of eminent domain to acquire the Stuart’s Hill parcel at Second Manassas, albeit at great cost. However, it was a way to take threatened land, and turn it into national park land, something that is clearly a “public use”. The problem here is that Kelo gives developers a tool to do just the opposite. And that scares the daylights out of me. What about land owned by, say, the Save Historic Antietam Foundation? What if a developer wanted to build a big Wal-Mart right next to the Antietam battlefield? Under Kelo, if the local government went along with it, it could happen. Irreplaceable battlefield land would be lost forever.

Therefore, please write your Senators and ask them to support legislation to roll back Kelo. Do the same with your state legislators. We, as people interested in battlefield preservation, have only one chance to do this, and we have to do this right. Help stop anyone else from having their property seized by eminent domain for commercial development.

Continue reading

I’m sitting in the airport in Atlanta as I write this, waiting for my connecting flight on the way home to Columbus. Due to weather, our flight is delayed about three hours, and I am now looking at not getting off the plane in Columbus until 2:30 AM. Sound like fun?

There are few things in life that I despise more than sitting in airports. It’s lost time, time that cannot ever be recaptured. I’ve often thought about sending the airlines bills for my time at my normal hourly billing rate. I know the bills would never get paid, but it surely would make me feel better. Call it civil disobedience if you like.

Of course, wasting time in airports lends itself well to all sorts of random thoughts, a few of which are worthy of including here.

Although it’s not a Civil War book, I’m reading a really fascinating book at the moment. It’s a joint biography of George S. Patton, Jr. and Erwin Rommel by a fellow named Dennis Showalter. It’s really an interesting study–Showalter points out that Patton and Rommel both took different courses to become brilliant armored commanders, both of whom left a tremendous thumbprint on modern warfare. Patton, of course, was an old horse cavalryman who saw the parallels between horse cavalry and modern armor, which Rommel made his fame as a hard-charging infantry officer in the mountains of Italy during World War I. I’m just over halfway through the book–I expect to make a lot more progress on it tonight as I kill time here in this miserable airport. However, of what I’ve seen so far of this book, I can recommend it without hesitation to anyone with an interest in military history.

Being in Atlanta also reminds me of the fragile and terribly delicate nature of Civil War battlefields. Some of the most ferocious fighting of the Civil War took place in and around Atlanta, but with a few notable exceptions, such as Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park, precious little has been preserved. In fact, the vast majority of the battlefields here have been developed and no vestiges of them even remain to give a clue as to how to interpret the fighting that took place there. Pine Mountain–where Lt. Gen. Leonidas Polk was blown to bits by Union artillery–is the home to multi-million dollar houses, and very little survives, other than an obelisk to Polk that is difficult to find and really requires trespassing to reach.

During the Atlanta Campaign, the chief engineer of the Army of Tennessee, a man named Shoupe, designed arrow-shaped redoubts for the defenses of the river crossings. They were unique, groundbreaking designs, and were really novel. They had 18-foot-high walls, and covered the river crossing sites. I am not aware of them being used anywhere else before or since. The remaining shoupades are under dire threat of development, but apparently a recent deal with the developer has been struck to preserve the last two remaining shoupades. Of the original 36 shoupades, only two remain. All in the interest of progress.

Quite coincidentally, Mike Koepke has a post on his blog today about the imminent destruction of another battlefield from the Atlanta Campaign, the Battle of Lovejoy Station. It really is very sad indeed to see the wholesale destruction of these important sites. The post on Mike’s blog indicates that the developer is relying upon the U. S. Supreme Court’s horrific ruling of earlier this year permitting the seizing of private property by eminent domain for commercial development. I will do an entire post on this Supreme Court decision later this week.

Now, I’m all for development and progress, but as I have said here before, there has to be a way for developers and preservationists to work together, and any effort that leads to the voluntary preservation of any historically critical piece of ground is one that I support wholeheartedly. As Rodney King so famously said, “Can’t we all just get along?”

I hope to be able to post again tomorrow, but with as late as we’re going to get home, I don’t know if I will make it. Stay tuned. My own bed is going to look awfully good tonight……

Continue reading

Susan and I are headed to her brother’s home in California for Thanksgiving, so I will be gone for a few days.

To everyone who gives a little piece of their day to indulge my rantings, I am both flattered and humbled all at the same time. The reaction to this site has been remarkable, and it never fails to humble me that there are people out there who find what I have to say worth their time. To all of you who do so, I am grateful.

And to all who come here, Susan and I hope that each and every one of you has a happy and healthy Thanksgiving. And please keep those good men and women who are defending this great country of ours around the globe in mind as you do.

Continue reading

Reenactors and Living Historians – Definition?

Eric has asked me to write a little piece concerning the definitions of “reenactor” and “living historian.” For the most part, the public doesn’t see much of a difference between the terms, and uses them interchangeably in a generic sense. There are, however, several important differences. Since “reenactor” is a more specific term, I’ll define it first.

A reenactor is one who does a military impression and participates in battles and the resulting “camping” scenario. To put it plainly, these are the soldiers that one sees at battle reenactments. Reenactors are typically members of particular units, and there is a structure to the rank system, just as there is in modern military units. Most often a captain commands the unit, but ranks can be higher. New recruits start at the rank of private and can work their way higher to non-commissioned and commissioned levels.

The term living historian applies to a much broader group. Simply, a living historian is any individual who portrays a historical person – and it can be a military or civilian impression. A reenactor is a living historian, but not all living historians are reenactors. There are many types of living historians, portraying a variety of historical personalities, including but not limited to:

• Military – common soldier, non-commissioned and commissioned officers
• Civilian – common citizen of the period, medical personnel, musical, religious, sutler, wife of a soldier, etc.
• Political – politically significant historical figures (one example would be an impression of Abraham Lincoln)

Therefore, one can see that all reenactors are indeed living historians, but not the other way around. But because the term “reenactor” seems like a general term, the public often applies it to everyone mentioned above.

The term “living historian” is different, by definition, than simply a “historian.” Anyone, such as an author of historical works, a teacher, a researcher etc., is a historian, but a “living historian” presents their avocation by portraying an individual from history. This can be a specific individual, such as Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Clara Barton, etc., or simply a non-specific person of the period.

All of these terms, incidentally, apply to any period of history. There are many WWII reenactors who dress in the uniform of the period and reenact battles and camp life of the time. If someone resembles, and dresses like, for instance Dwight D. Eisenhower, and only speaks to the public as that persona without actually participating in battles and encampments, then that person is a living historian.

I hope this helps clear up the similarities and differences in the two terms. Once again, “living historian” is the broader term of the two, encompassing military reenactors and those who portray individuals of a particular period in history, and present themselves as such. “Reenactor” is much more specific, applying only to those soldiers who participate in battle reenactments and encampments that the public identifies with particular events throughout the year.

J. D. Petruzzi

Continue reading