Some of you know that I have been involved with the Trevilian Station Battlefield Foundation for a number of years. I sit on the TSBF’s advisory board, and was the author of the text that appears on the Virginia Civil War Trails markers that grace the battlefield. It’s been a pleasure to be involved with what began as a successful grass roots movement by some dedicated local citizens who have done brilliant work with the assistance of the CWPT.

Unfortunately, these groups tend to be plagued by political problems and political issues. One of the founding members of the organization, who had been a board member, has had a major falling-out with the organization and is now a major problem and no longer an asset. This person apparently had ulterior motives–he wanted to see a state battlefield park developed out of the land, so he could get a job. When that didn’t happen, he launched his own campaign. That campaign, in turn, has created significant problems for the TSBF. I haven’t heard anything further about this situation since this article was brought to my attention. I hope that this meeting ended the problems and have permitted folks to get back to the important business–saving a battlefield.

The problem, of course, is that everyone has their own agenda, and often those agendas are in conflict with the goals of the organization. What happened here is a classic example of just that, and it saddens me a great deal to see this organization, with whom I have sweated, toiled, and labored, having problems because someone else had different political agenda. The TSBF has enough financial problems that it doesn’t need its circumstances further complicated by a disgruntled person whose personal agenda was thwarted.

Unfortunately, this is all too common of a problem in not-for-profit organizations and especially in battlefield preservation groups where there is no real heirarchy. “I don’t get paid, so therefore I can do what I want, even if what I want is inconsistent with the needs of the group,” seems to be the common theme when this happens. In a perfect world, everyone sets aside his or her own personal agenda and works toward the common good. I can only hope that that happens more often than not in these organizations. Otherwise, a lot of hard work and the money of decent people will go to waste. And that would be a real tragedy.

Continue reading

One aspect of battlefield preservation that was not addressed yesterday is the issue of picking and choosing.

Some preservationists draw a line in the sand each and every time that someone even remotely threatens something that they consider to be important. Their posture is much like that of the NRA–never, ever give an inch because it will lead to giving yards. The problems with that approach are numerous:

1. It causes people to look at preservationists as unreasonable and irrational.
2. It means that relationships with developers and zoning authorities are contentious instead of cooperative.
3. It means that everything is costly and emotional when it need not be so.
4. It means that, at times, the baby ends up being thrown out with the bathwater.

In short, this sort of approach may win the occasional battle, but it usually loses wars. People get the perception that preservationists are irrational nut cases who cannot and will not listen to reason.

There are, of course, times when this sort of approach is necessary. The battlefield at Brandy Station probably would not have been saved if it had not been for this sort of full court press, and everyone–including me–celebrating the success there.

I tend to take a much more pragmatic approach to these things. Perhaps it’s my professional life coming through. When I was a young lawyer oh so many years ago, an old gray beard asked me if I knew what a good settlement was. When I said no, he told me that a good settlement is one that both sides walk away from equally unhappy. That made a lot of sense to me, and as events have played out in my career, this statement has proved to be very true.

Consequently, I recognize that not every parcel can or should be saved. I know that what I’m about to say is sacriligious, but I didn’t cry any tears about Camp Letterman at Gettysburg. It was a hospital. There was no fighting there. I would rather lose that ground than ground where actual fighting took place, and you can’t stop all progress. Given that choice, I will always choose the hospital over the actual battlefield. So, I believe in picking and choosing battles and selecting only those fights that are worth alienating people over. Ultimately, some developers will actually work with preservationists and accomplish a satisfactory result.

If you need an example of what I’m referring to here, take a look at the partnership that was forged between the CWPT and a developer at Bristoe Station in Virginia. The deal means that Centex Homes, the developer, agreed to preserve the critical portion of the battlefield in return for the CWPT’s dropping its objections to the rest of the development. The developer is donating 127 of the 340 acres that it owns to the CWPT in order for that ground to be turned into a battlefield park. That, in my mind, is a win-win scenario that meets precisely my definition of a good settlement. Both sides gave up something to get something, and both sides ended up walking away with a compromise. In my mind, this is a real formula for successful future preservation efforts, and I hope that local preservation groups learn something from it.

Continue reading

Those who know me know how important the cause of battlefield preservation is to me. Perhaps that’s part of the legacy that I inherited from Brian Pohanka and my friend Bud Hall, who were two of the three founders of the Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites (“APCWS”). The APCWS was, of course, merged with a rival group, the Civil War Trust, forming the current organization, which is called the Civil War Preservation Trust (“CWPT”).

The folks at the CWPT are dedicated professionals who are determined to do the right thing and the best that they can do to preserve battlefield land. Of that, I have no doubt. I’ve worked with them on several occasions, and they honored me greatly on two different occasions by offering my books to donors as a premium. It certainly helped me with book sales, and I was flattered and honored to have been asked.

However, I do have some issues with CWPT.

First, not every dime that is donated to a specific cause ends up going to that specific cause. That strikes me as being somewhat misleading of the public, and it also means that funds being raised for specific causes end up going to other uses.

Second, the organization has professional staff who, quite understandably, expect to be paid for their time. That’s perfectly reasonable–I don’t work for free either, and I have bills to pay just as these folks do. In addition, the CWPT has to pay for expensive office space in Washington, D. C. In short, the organization has a lot of overhead, meaning that a significant portion of the moneys collected by the CWPT end up going to overhead and not to battlefield preservation.

At the same time, I find it quite telling that Brian Pohanka, who helped found the CWPT, left some very large and very generous gifts to other organizations. The following paragraph comes from an article by Deborah Fitts in the current issue of Civil War News pertaining to some of the bequests Brian made:

“In September a representative of Pohanka’s estate notified the Central Virginia Battlefields Trust (CVBT), Save Historic Antietam Foundation (SHAF) and Richmond Battlefield Association (RBA) that they would receive a total of more than $1 million. Pohanka, 50, died in June after a long struggle with cancer.”

Conspicuously absent from this list is the CWPT. I’m not sure whether Brian left nothing to them, or if it is a private gift, or just hasn’t been announced yet. If he left nothing to the CWPT, that’s a real slap in the face to an organization he helped to found. At the same time, when Brian died, his widow Cricket asked that, in lieu of flowers, etc., that folks make a donation to the CWPT.

What’s significant about CVBT, SHAF, and RBA is that they are entirely volunteer organizations with no paid professional staff, and very little in the way of overhead. Nearly every dollar that gets donated to them goes to the purchase of battlefield land. The CVBT, in particular, has done an absolutely magnificent job of buying and preserving land in the Fredericksburg area, where rapid development threatens a lot of really important Civil War sites. The CVBT purchased a significant portion of the first day’s battlefield at Chancellorsville and then donated it to the National Park Service, saving a critical piece of ground from development along Route 3.

I still believe in what the CWPT’s doing, and I still strongly support their efforts. However, I would really like to see some of my concerns addressed, and I would love to see a larger percentage of each dollar donated end up being used for the purchase of land and less toward overhead.

Continue reading

Copyediting is an integral part of the publishing process.

Let’s get this way out of the way first. EVERYONE needs the services of a good editor. I don’t care who you are, or how good a writer you may think you are….you’re not as good as you think you are. That includes me too, by the way. I am painfully aware of my own shortcomings as a writer. I have always had a tendency to overuse the passive voice, and it’s a constant, and never-ending battle for me to keep that particular problem under control. I also am occasionally prone to using unduly long and unnecessarily complex sentence structures when there are times that simpler is clearly better.

Let’s also be clear about this: a good copy editor can make or break a book. Poor copy editing and poor proof reading is embarrassing. It says that product quality is not important, just getting it out there (that, by the way, is my primary complaint with White Mane). Poor production values can trash the credibility of what otherwise might be a worthy and worthwhile project. It’s absolutely guaranteed to bring about terrible reviews, and hurt the sales of the book, and harm the credibility of the author.

The job of the copy editor is to work with the author and the author’s work product and make it better while maintaining the fundamental integrity of the work. In other words, the best editor is the one who has the ability to take the author’s existing product and make it the best it can possibly be. The best editor will clean things up, point out inconsistencies, ask pertinent questions to resolve inconsistencies or to clear up that which is unclear, and will definitely maintain the fundamental essence of what the author has written. For historical works like the ones I write, a good working knowledge of the subject is absolutely critical. Otherwise, how can the editor do an effective job of determining what the author was trying to say, or be able to tell whether the author’s got it right or wrong?

I had an editor on one of my projects–I won’t name the book or the publisher to protect the guilty–who was atrocious. This fellow didn’t know the first thing about the subject and also violated the cardinal rule–instead of working with my style, which is uniquely my own, he insisted in injecting himself into the book. Mix in the multitude of idiotic questions he asked, and by the time I got through the draft, I was ready to blow a gasket and was also ready to throttle the clown. I told the editor in chief of that particular press that if they ever let this guy near one of my manuscripts again, I would refuse to work with him, even if it meant that I terminated the contract with the publisher. He made it a thoroughly unpleasant experience, to the point that I was prepared to pull the plug with the publisher if that’s what it took. The compromise was that we would finish the project with the guy, as unpleasant of a prospect as that might have been, but that he would never come anywhere near another one of my projects again, no matter what.

I was extremely fortunate to have an excellent editor for my next book. He is actually a friend of mine and is familiar with my style. He has a good working knowledge of the events that are the subject of the book, and he knows better than to try to interject himself into my work. Instead, he works hard at making me the best I can be, and I am very grateful to him for that.

I’ve been an editor myself, and I know how difficult it can be not to interject yourself into the work. I respect anyone who can. And I definitely respect and appreciate those editors who have helped to make my work the best that it can be.

Continue reading

I’ve already unleashed a fair number of rants about publishers on this blog. It turns out that I’m not finished.

I have some strong ideas about what I do and do not like about books. Here are a few general rules:

1. More pictures/illustrations are preferable to less.
2. There can NEVER be too many maps.
3. Footnotes are preferable to end notes.
4. If end notes are the only option, then do not use one for an entire paragraph and lump a bunch of different sources together.
5. Any book without a bibliography is not a book that I will buy.
6. The same holds true for an index.

Those are my general rules for what I look for in books. The obvious exception to this rule is if it’s something that I need for one of my research projects. Then, I will buy it even if it doesn’t meet my criteria. So, it’s not a hard and fast rule.

I have spent about ten years researching and writing a new regimental history of the Sixth Pennsylvania Cavalry, also known as Rush’s Lancers. In the course of gathering material for this book, I have accumulated about 75 photographs of members of the regiment, about half of which come from private collections and which have never before been published. There are other photos as well, such as the regimental monuments on the battlefield at Gettysburg that will need to be included, and several reunion photos. In short, there will be close to 100 illustrations when it’s all said and done. I also expect to have between 15 and 20 maps; this unit was involved in dozens of engagements over the course of the war. I’m also in the process of putting together a roster of the more than 1000 men who served in this unit that will be a cornerstone of the overall project. Using all of these items is important to me, so finding a publisher that shares my philosophy about them is critical.

The book was originally supposed to be a joint venture between Ed Longacre and me, but Ed withdrew from the project due to conflicts with his other book projects. We had originally signed a contract for the book with Combined Books, which has published a number of Ed’s books. Combined was a Philadelphia company, and the Lancers were a Philadelphia unit, so it was a logical connection. However, Combined was sold to Perseus Books and made a part of its DaCapo impression. Instead of a small Philadelphia-based publisher, suddenly, I was faced with the prospect of having a megapublisher do my book. I quickly decided that DaCapo was NOT the right place for my modest regimental history, even though they were prepared to honor the contract. If I got 20 of my illustrations included in the book, I would have considered myself lucky. The roster–forget it. It wasn’t going to happen. I terminated the contract, repaid the miniscule advance (a whopping $250), and got my freedom from DaCapo.

The problem, of course, is finding someone to publish it. I have a few ideas, and have had one conversation with a publisher that shares my philosophy. I’m going to submit the manuscript next week, and we will see where it leads. I hope that this particular publisher wants the book, as I really believe it’s the best possible opportunity for the book to be published in accordance with my vision for it. We shall see what happens.

I just wish that more publishers shared my philosophy about what makes up a good history book. However, in a shrinking industry where many publishers aren’t interested in including lots of illustrations and rosters, the range of candidates is slim and growing slimmer all the time. And therein lies the tragedy.

Continue reading

For a number of years, I have been fascinated by Ulric Dahlgren. He’s a young man who definitely had “the right stuff,” to borrow a line from Tom Wolfe. He had all of the tools to become a truly great cavalryman. A colonel at 21, he was dead at 22, having been completely disavowed by the Army.

In May 1863, just after the Battle of Chancellorsville, then-Capt. Dahlgren accompanied Joseph Hooker to Washington when Hooker went to consult with Secretary of War Stanton and President Lincoln. At that time, Dahlgren was serving on Hooker’s staff. Because his father, Rear Admiral John A. Dahlgren, was a close friend of the President, the young captain had unprecedented access to the White House and to Lincoln, certainly more so than any other 21-year-old captain.

During that meeting, Ully Dahlgren pitched a raid on Richmond to the President and to Stanton, proposing to free the POW’s being held on Belle Isle and in Libby Prison. The proposal was rejected for lots of reasons, but Ully Dahlgren continued to harbor his idea.

In the winter of 1863-64, Judson Kilpatrick revived the idea, and Ully Dahlgren, then in Washington and still recuperating from the loss of a leg to a terrible combat wound on July 6, 1863, eagerly signed on to the project. The raid was approved by Lincoln and Stanton over the objections of Cavalry Corps commander, Maj. Gen. Alfred Pleasonton, and over the objection of Army of the Potomac commander Maj. Gen. George G. Meade. In short, the raid had the specific approval of the highest echelons of the Union command, right up to the White House itself. Dahlgren led a column of the raid, which was intended to enter Richmond, free the POW’s, and then head down the Peninsula.

On March 2, Ully Dahlgren was killed in King and Queen County when he was ambushed by home guards and elements of the 9th Virginia Cavalry. On his body were found certain incriminating documents, which were published verbatim in one of the Richmond newspapers. This triggered an extraordinary exchange of correspondence:

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA
April 1, 1864

Maj. Gen. George G. Meade, Commanding Army of the Potomac:

General:

I am instructed to bring to your notice two papers found upon the body of Col. U. Dahlgren, who was killed while commanding a part of the Federal cavalry during the late expedition of General Kilpatrick. To enable you to understand the subject fully I have the honor to inclose photographic copies of the papers referred to, one of which is an address to his officers and men, bearing the official signature of Colonel Dahlgren, and the other, not signed, contains more detailed explanations of the purpose of the expedition and more specific instructions as to its execution. In the former this passage occurs:

We hope to release the prisoners from Belle Island first, and having seen them fairly started, we will cross the James River into Richmond, destroying the bridges after us and exhorting the prisoners to destroy and burn the hateful city; and do not allow the rebel leader Davis and his traitorous crew to escape. The prisoners must render great assistance, as you cannot leave your ranks too far or become too much scattered, or you will be lost.

Among the instructions contained in the second paper are the following:

The bridges once secured, and the prisoners loose and over the river, the bridges will be secured and the city destroyed. The men must keep together and well in hand, and once in the city it must be destroyed and Jeff. Davis and cabinet killed. Pioneers will go along with combustible material.

In obedience to my instructions I beg leave respectfully to inquire whether the designs and instructions of Colonel Dahlgren, as set forth in these papers, particularly those contained in the above extracts, were authorized by the United States Government or by his superior officers, and also whether they have the sanction and approval of those authorities.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

R. E. Lee,
General

Not surprisingly, this letter triggered a flurry of correspondence and exchanges among the Union high command. On April 17, Meade responded:

HDQRS, ARMY OF THE POTOMAC
April 17, 1864

General Robert E. Lee, Comdg. Army of Northern Virginia:

General:

I received on the 15th instant, per flag of truce, your communication of the 1st instant, transmitting photographic copies of two documents alleged to have been found upon the body of Col. U. Dahlgren, and inquiring “whether the designs and instructions contained in the above extracts, were authorized by the United States Government or by his superior officers, and also whether they have the sanction and approval of these authorities.” In reply I have to state that neither the United States Government, myself, nor General Kilpatrick authorized, sanctioned, or approved the burning of the city of Richmond and the killing of Mr. Davis and cabinet, nor any other act not required by military necessity and in accordance with the usages of war.

In confirmation of this statement I inclose a letter from General Kilpatrick and have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

Geo. G. Meade,
Major-General

Brig. Gen. Judson Kilpatrick, the overall commander of the failed cavalry raid on Richmond, wrote:

HEADQUARTERS THIRD DIVISION, CAVALRY CORPS,
April 16, 1864

Brig. Gen. S. Williams, A.A.G., Army of the Potomac:

General:

In accordance with instructions from headquarters, Army of the Potomac, I have carefully examined officers and men who accompanied Colonel Dahlgren on his late expedition.

All testify that he published no address whatever to his command, nor did he give any instructions, much less of the character as set forth in the photographic copies of two papers alleged to have been found upon the person of Colonel Dahlgren and forwarded by General Robert E. Lee, commanding Army of Northern Virginia. Colonel Dahlgren, one hour before we separated at my headquarters, handed me an address that he intended to read to his command. That paper was indorsed in red ink, “Approved,” over my official signature. The photographic papers referred to are true copies of the papers approved by me, save so far as they speak of “exhorting the prisoners to destroy and burn the hateful city and kill the traitor Davis and his cabinet,” and in this, that they do not contain the indorsement referred to as having been placed by me on Colonel Dahlgren’s papers. Colonel Dahlgren received no orders from me to pillage, burn, or kill, nor were any such instructions given me by my superiors.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

J. Kilpatrick,
Brigadier-General Volunteers

And with that, the United States Army disavowed Ulric Dahlgren and a great controversy began that continues to rage to this day.

I am convinced that the documents were real, and I am likewise convinced that Dahlgren intended to do just what he proposed if the opportunity presented itself. There is some evidence that suggests that Kilpatrick lied in his March 16 letter (imagine that) and that he not only knew of Dahlgren’s plan, but approved of it.

The question, therefore, is just how much did Lincoln know, and did he approve the assassination of Davis and his cabinet as a means of shortening the war? Clearly, there is no written record to indicate his knowledge or approval, but that may have been intentional in order to provide for what’s commonly called plausible deniability. Some suggest that the raid was approved by Stanton and Lincoln for the specific purpose of using the chaos caused by the freed prisoners to take out Davis and his cabinet.

I tend to think that plausible deniability was at work. I think Stanton knew and approved it, without telling Lincoln.

I wonder what others think?

Continue reading

I grew up in Berks County, Pennsylvania. The county seat of Berks County is the City of Reading. When Bvt. Maj. Gen. David McMurtrie Gregg resigned his commission in February 1865, he settled in his wife’s home town of Reading. Her family, the Heister family, was one of the leading families of Berks County, and they were wealthy, prominent citizens. Thus, it made sense that Gregg, who grew up in Huntington, Pennsylvania, would settle in Reading.

Berks County, in turn, readily and enthusiastically embraced David Gregg, treating him as a favorite son. The old soldier became a regular on the rubber chicken circuit, and he wrote extensively about his service in the United States Army. He became a leading leading citizen of the community, and was very active in the community. General Gregg died in 1916, and was buried in Charles Evans Cemetery. In 1922, the citizens of Reading raised money to erect a handsome equestrian monument to the general just a few hundred yards from his final resting place. I used to have a photo of the monument on this web site, back in its original configuration. I will see about having that photo restored somewhere on this web site.

David Gregg played a major role in developing my interest in Civil War cavalry. My family doctor’s office was right across the street from that handsome equestrian monument, and I saw it every week when I went in for my allergy shot. It always impressed me. It’s also caddycorner from the Berks County Historical Society, a place that naturally drew me in. It turns out that there is a large collection of General Gregg’s documents in the collection at the Historical Society, and I have spent some time reviewing them.

Not far from my parents’ house is a subdivision where all of the streets are named after prominent Pennsylvania generals, and sure enough, there is a Gregg Street. One of the local VFW posts is the David M. Gregg Post. Even though I was born 45 years after the general’s death, he still loomed large over the community of Reading, and as a boy, I was driven to find out just who this guy was whose name was plastered everywhere. In the process, I began learning about Civil War cavalry operations.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

Continue reading

Last spring, I attended a special event on Ohio’s only Civil War battlefield, the Battle of Buffington Island, in Meigs County, on the Ohio River. Buffington Island was fought on July 19, 1863, between Morgan’s Raiders and a large force of Union cavalry. The battlefield is in imminent danger of being destroyed by being dug up for a sand and gravel pit. I had been there once before, and wanted to see it again while it was still pristine.

The visit got me thinking about John Hunt Morgan. If ever there was a Confederate cavalry officer who was grossly overrated, it was John Hunt Morgan. Morgan had no talent for scouting, screening, or reconnaissance whatsoever, and was largely useless in those roles. He was also a terrible battlefield commander…a careful review plainly shows that his brother-in-law, Basil W. Duke, was the tactical brians behind Morgan’s operations. While he was a raider of some reknown, it raises a question of the value of a purely raiding force.

The raid that led to Morgan’s capture in Ohio was gross insubordination. Morgan asked for, and got permission to make a limited foray from Braxton Bragg. He took those orders and construed them as he saw fit, and then led his command on a 28 day raid through Indiana and Ohio that had absolutely no military value, ate up a lot good horseflesh, and led to the destruction of Morgan’s command, most of which ended up being captured. By the end, it wasn’t much more than a pursuit and capture operation that led to the theft of thousands of horses and a lot of atrocities being committed along the way. It’s no wonder that Morgan was thrown in the Ohio Penitentiary when he surrendered–he and his command acted like common horse thieves in an action that had no military value. When Morgan escaped, he received an extremely chilly reception from the Confederate high command instead of the accolades he expected. I suspect that the only reason why Morgan did not receive a court-martial for his actions is because he was captured.

There is no doubt that Morgan embodied the quintessential dashing cavalier. He was a dashing, handsome, courtly fellow of good breeding, and that lent an aura of legitimacy to his operations. While he embodied the beau sabreur, he was not the sort of soldier that Stuart, Fitz Lee, or Hampton were. Unless he was raiding, he really had no value at all to the army commanders he served under.

Although he was called the “Thunderbolt of the Confederacy,” an unblinking assessment of Morgan’s military career suggests that his reputation is grossly overstated, and that he really doesn’t deserve the accolades that he has received. I think that Duke was a better commander of troops, and ultimately, a better cavalryman.

Continue reading

In the course of researching the Sixth Pennsylvania Cavalry (also known as Rush’s Lancers), I found the story of Theodore J. Wint. This man fascinates me, and it’s really a shame that his story has been forgotten by history. I intend to rectify this.

Wint, who was born near Scranton, Pennsylvania on March 8, 1845, enlisted as a private in the Lancers at age sixteen in 1861. By June 1864, he wore a sergeant’s chevrons, and he was then commissioned first lieutenant on July 1, 1864. He served honorably until the expiration of his term of service on September 30, 1864, when he mustered out of the volunteer service as a nineteen-year-old lieutenant. On February 20, 1865, he enlisted as a private in the General Mounted Service of the United States Army, and served in this role until November 24, 1865, when he received a commission as a second lieutenant in the 4th U. S. Cavalry. In May 1866, he was promoted to first lieutenant, serving as regimental adjutant from August 1868 to December 31, 1871, serving under, and gaining regular praise from, Ranald S. MacKenzie, generally considered to be the most successful Indian fighter in the Army. On April 21, 1872, he was promoted to captain, and then in May, 1892, he was promoted to major and transferred to the 10th U. S. Cavalry, one of the famous “buffalo soldier” regiments consisting of African-American soldiers led by white officers.

In April 1899, he was promoted to lieutenant colonel and was again transferred, this time to the 6th U. S. Cavalry. He was promoted to colonel on February 2, 1891, and to brigadier general on June 9, 1902. Wint served in the frontier Indian Wars (1866 to 1888)(where he served with great distinction), in Cuba, during the Spanish-American War (1898)(where he was badly wounded in battle when a Mauser bullet broke his thighbone), China (1900-1901), the Philippine insurrection (1901-1904)(where he distinguished himself by capturing one of the leaders of the insurgency) and the Army of Cuban Pacification (1906-1907). Ironically, while operating in both Cuba and the Philippines, Wint served under the command of General Joseph Wheeler, a former Confederate cavalry officer who again donned the blue uniform of the United States Army. The U. S. Army’s Philippines fortifications were named Fort Wint in his honor. General Wint died suddenly of heart disease at the relatively young age of 62 on March 21, 1907, while still on active duty in the field. He was not scheduled to retire until 1909, when he would have been 64, and was a few months shy of receiving one final promotion, this time to major general, had he lived to finish out his career. “General Wint was a quiet man who did things,” said Secretary of War William Howard Taft upon hearing of Wint’s passing.

Although he has been almost entirely forgotten by history, General Wint was buried in Arlington National Cemetery, where one of the largest and most handsome monuments in the entire cemetery marks his grave.

Other than the six months from the end of his term of service with the Lancers and his re-enlistment in the U. S. Army, Wint spent his entire adult life as a soldier, a career that spanned 46 years. No member of the Lancers achieved higher military rank than did General Wint. Few American cavalrymen accomplished more than he did.

Here’s a tribute to a forgotten hero. Let’s hope that he’s not forgotten again.

Continue reading

Just to show that I’m an equal opportunity basher, I have plenty of gripes about some of the commercial presses operating out there.

There are some commercial houses out there that really have very little in the way of quality control. White Mane, as an example, is not much more than a vanity press. They have extremely indifferent editing, not much in the way of proofreading, they use really poor quality materials to manufacture their books, and they don’t seem to care about actually publishing books. What I mean when I say that is that my friend Ben F. Fordney, who has spent most of his retirement studying George Stoneman, has written a very good bio of Stoneman, the first full-length one written. White Mane had published Ben’s master’s thesis, and they had the right of first refusal for his manuscript. Ben signed a contract, and after nearly three years without them doing anything at all with it, he finally reached the limit of his patience and pulled the plug. When last I asked him, he was still looking for a publisher for it. I’ve often said that if I had to make a choice between having White Mane do one of my books or never publish another word the rest of my life, I would choose not publishing, and I mean it.

There’s another publisher in Virginia that had a great idea. This publisher would do regimental histories of every Virginia regiment, and also a series of books on the battles fought in Virginia. The regimental histories are, for the most part, useless. Why? NO detail. No endnotes or footnotes. Atrocious artwork. Indifferent editing. The average length is about 100 pages on the “history” portion of the book. The ONLY useful thing about these books is the rosters at the end. Other than that, they are, for the most part, useless. The battle histories are inconsistent. Some are quite good. Some are really bad. It all depends on the author, because the publisher exercises almost no quality control. If the author writes a good book, then a good book gets published. If the author writes a bad book–and there have been plenty of them in the series–then a bad book gets published. End of story.

Then, there are commercial presses that publish books without bothering to check whether the book has any value, or whether it is historically accurate. If you need an example of this, please see the comments on Amazon pertaining to Paul D. Walker’s book The Cavalry Battle That Saved the Union, which is just an atrocious book. With reviews like that, you would wonder what the publisher thinks.

Finally, there’s the marketing of some commercial houses. Just because they’re for-profit ventures doesn’t mean that they’re going to do a fabulous job of marketing. It’s a never-ending source of annoyance for me to visit the Barnes & Noble store less than five miles from my house and not see a single one of my titles on the shelf. Why? Because the publisher does a terrible job of marketing. I won’t name the publisher, but I have registered numerous complaints, so many, in fact, that I’ve simply given up.

Fortunately, Ted Savas seems to have a gift for marketing the books he publishes. I’m looking forward to seeing how well he does with my new book, which will be ready to go the printer shortly.

I like to think that I’m an equal opportunity ranter. 🙂

Continue reading