General News

I would also be remiss if I didn’t wish all of you a happy Valentine’s Day. So, happy Valentine’s Day to you and yours!

Continue reading

While doing some updating to my Rush’s Lancers manuscript this evening to incorporate some of the material that I put up last night on Albert P. Morrow, I noticed that Morrow’s service records indicated that while he was a POW the last time, he was charged with a violation of Article 42 of the Articles of War. Now mind you, I may be a lawyer, but I’m not particularly familiar with the Articles of War as they existed in 1863. In fact, my knowledge of them is minimal at best. So, in order to describe this episode accurately in the footnote, I had to find out precisely what he was being charged with doing.

Consequently, I did a Google search to see if I could find the 1863 version of the Articles of War in order to determine precisely the nature of the charges against Morrow. I found a nice AOL member site that includes both the Union and Confederate Articles of War. Both sets of Articles are repeated there verbatim, and it was interesting to compare and contrast them. They are quite similar, with the obvious exception of how they deal with the issue of runaway slaves and contrabands.

Article 42 of the Union version provides: “No officer or soldier shall be out of his quarters, garrison, or camp without leave from his superior officer, upon penalty of being punished, according to the nature of his offense, by the sentence of court-martial.” Thus, when Morrow was arrested, he was charged with being AWOL from the time he was captured on May 13 until he reported back to the regiment. Those charges were dropped immediately upon his showing that his being AWOL was as a result of his being a guest in Libby Prison.

It’s an interesting site that provides useful information.

Dr. Tom Lowry has done some interesting work on Lincoln’s interventions to commute the death sentences of soldiers sentenced to die by courts-martial, on the court-martials of 50 Union surgeons, and on the court-martials of 50 Union lieutenant colonels and colonels. Obviously, the Articles of War–long since supplanted by the Uniform Code of Military Justice–provided the framework for these court-martials, so it’s clear that there is interest in these legal issues. Lowry’s done good work. Check it out if this legal stuff interests you.

Continue reading

Okay, here’s another dilemma.

I use DHL Express for my overnight shipping needs. I was a loyal Airborne Express customer, and then when DHL merged with Airborne, my account switched over. In the legal business, we do a lot of overnight shipping of things. I’m convinced that we lawyers keep FedEx and DHL in business. Sending stuff overnight has become routine.

I’m also an Internet junkie. That comes from previously owning an Internet service provider, which Susan and I did at one time. Consequently, e-mail has become crucial to my way of life. Because of that, I’ve been toying with the idea of getting a Blackberry (aka Crackberry, as they’re so damned addictive) for some time. The thing that has held me back is that Blackberry just lost a major patent infringement suit that threatens to shut down their U. S. operations entirely if the case doesn’t settle. As things sit at the moment, it’s not looking good for Blackberry. The threat of a shut down is, candidly, the only reason why I haven’t taken the plunge. I didn’t want to spend the money and then have the thing shut down.

Today, I was notified by DHL that, because I shipped with them during a specific time when they were running a promotion, I can get a free Crackberry from them as a premium for having shipped then. Mind you, it was nothing intentional by me–I had a need, and I used my normal vendor. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, I have the chance to get the Crackberry for free, but the threat of a shutdown still looms, and nobody knows when things will change, if at all.

So, I’m now faced with a real dilemma, and I candidly don’t have a clue about what to do about it…..

Continue reading

Dimitri Rotov has a fabulous post on his blog today about Ethan Rafuse’s treatment of the crisis of command that occurred between September 1-5, 1862. In an extremely thoughtful and thought-provoking analysis of Ethan’s discussion of these events, Dimitri has done much to educate me. This is a period that is of interest to me, but at the same time, it’s always been tangential to my work, so I’ve not gone into a great deal of detail in examining it. In reading Dimitri’s post today, I’ve learned a great deal in the process.

What I like about Dimtri’s approach here is that he’s very methodical and very analytical, giving credit where Ethan got something right, and pointing out where got something wrong. It’s the same sort of scholarly approach that I tried to use when I did the critical analysis of Tom Carhart’s festering pile of crap in one of my first entries on this blog. Like Dimitri, I tried to use a detailed, scholarly analysis to show where all of the problems were with the book and to show where it was wrong. The difference, of course, is that Dimitri found a lot of merit in Ethan’s work, whereas I found none at all in Carhart’s.

Simply shredding something for the sake of shredding is fine. It obviously has more credibility if you have the horsepower to back it up, and that’s how I’ve tried to approach critiquing the work of others.

Kudos to Dimitri for a really outstanding post.

Continue reading

One thing I’ve learned after ten years of very active participation in on-line Civil War discussion groups is that there are a few topics that never, ever lead to anything good, and which should be avoided at all costs. The primary one, of course, is the question of whether the secession of the Southern states in 1861 was illegal. Normally, I avoid that one like the plague, but yesterday, I made the mistake of jumping into that discussion in one of the e-mail groups to which I belong. Big mistake. I used some purely legal analysis to rebut the argument that just because the Constitution does not specifically address the topic does not make it legal.

Today, the following neo-Confederate hooey was posted in response:

“Eric, there is no law against secession; therefore you are going to prosecute the perpetrators? For what crime are you going to prosecute them? If you are indeed a lawyer, then you should know that your saying an action is wrong does not make it so. Many legal minds of the day, both before and after the Civil War stated there was NO LAW against secession. There is none. The writers of the Constitution did not consider the fact. Nobody stood over any of the 13 Colonies with a club and told them they had to agree to accept the Constitution. They were not forced to agree to accept it and they could reject it at any time. It is not ‘Confederate hoey’, thank you very much. It is history. In the end, states really do have rights.

You know, it was people in the role of leadership who thought they could make up their own rules as they went along that led to the Civil War to start with. Do any of you know any facts about the causes and the effects of the American Civil War or are you just talking?”

It bears noting that the author of this wonderful little neo-Confederate rant misquoted me. Nowhere did I write “Confederate hoey.” What I very specifically wrote was “neo-Confederate hooey.” Obviously, there is a significant difference.

Now, it’s my fault for violating my own rule and engaging in this discussion. I accept responsiblity for that bad decision on my part. So, to the extent that I did something stupid by engaging in this discussion, I guess I deserved a response, and perhaps even a neo-Confederate rant in response. However, there are few things that irritate me more than neo-Confederate hooey. These neo-Confederates have an agenda–the Lost Cause, at all costs, including disregard of the historic truth–and have no qualms about letting the truth get in the way of accomplishing that agenda.

I responded the only way I know how, in an equally insulting and snotty way that was intended to remind this person that she doesn’t know as much as she thinks she does:

“I choose not to waste my valuable time arguing subtle nuances of the law with someone who is not a lawyer and has neither the professional training nor experience to do so. I have a busy practice to worry about, a publishing company to run, and a book manuscript to complete. I have no time to waste in engaging in fruitless and eminently frustrating exercises that accomplish nothing but pissing me off.

I likewise choose not to waste my extremely valuable and all too rare free time engaging in an endless debate with you over this issue.

You have your opinion. I have mine. Leave it at that. And yes, if it was up to me, the leaders of the illegal secession movement, most prominently Jefferson Davis, would have been prosecuted for treason.

And, to answer your very insulting question about whether I know anything about the causes of the Civil War, you should be aware that I have spent more than 35 years of my nearly 45 years on this planet engaged in the intensive study of the American Civil War. After a two year break, my eleventh book on the subject is about to go to the printer, with another one due out at the end of June. My books have won awards. My record of Civil War scholarship speaks for itself, and I will not allow you, or any other neo-Confederate espouser of the Lost Cause, to insult me simply because you don’t agree with me. When the duration and intensity of your study, and your record of accomplishment in the field approximates mine, then you will have the privilege of insulting my professional work. Until then, I invite you to keep your opinions to yourself.

As a closing note, Trish is absolutely correct about Texas v. White.

You need not bother responding, unless you really feel the need to, as I will not respond to anything further posted by you about this topic.”

I signed the e-mail with my professional signature–the law firm’s full name, address, etc., that shows my name as a named partner. Now, I fully realize that this was really snotty and probably made me sound like a bit of a pompous ass, but I wanted this neo-Confederate to understand that her little games were not going to work with me, and that I’m not going to be intimidated by these sorts of arguments. It remains to be seen whether this will put this to rest for now, but I continue to fight the neo-Confederate wars every day of my adult life. It will flare up again. Of that, I have no doubt.

It’s kind of like the Bush White House–never let the truth get in the way of a good story or a good justification for doing something that it was going to do no matter what anyway.

In any event, I digress.

My point is that there are few things for which I have less patience and which irritate me more than people who are bound and determined to push their agendas and the truth be damned. I have made the correction and baiting of these people one of my life’s goals, and I usually wait until I know that I have a good point to make that I can support to pounce, and when I do, it’s swiftly and it’s aggressively. I despise these neo-Confederates who wouldn’t see the truth if they tripped over it, and I will continue to do this sort of thing whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Continue reading

Well, here are a couple of important updates on things discussed here in the last week.

1. I found out today that the maps for Monroe’s Crossroads are, at long last, all completed. The CD-ROM will be sent to Ted Savas tomorrow, and once Ted imports them into the manuscript, we’re off to the printer. That is stupendous news, which makes me feel a lot better about things.

2. J. D. Petruzzi is going to bail me out and take over the Custer project for me. I have every confidence that J. D. will do his usual superb job, and I’ve told him that I will be happy to provide him with copies of anything and everything that I bought while doing the research for this book. This gets me off the hook, assures Brassey’s that they will get a first-rate product, and allows me to continue to focus on the Dahlgren bio, which is something that I have VERY much wanted to do for years.

3. My regular readers are familiar with my rants about university presses, and about my stated lack of enthusiasm for having one publish another one of my books. It is, therefore, with a great deal of irony that I announce to you all I learned this week that Bison Books, a division of the University of Nebraska Press, has agreed to pick up and do a new edition of my 2001 book Glory Enough for All: Sheridan’s Second Raid and the Battle of Trevilian Station, which Brassey’s allowed to go out of print in 2003, over my loud protests, and to my everlasting mystification. It looks like Bison will permit me to add some of the new material that has surfaced in the years since the publication of the book, and that it will, ultimately, be an even better book than it already was. The irony, of course, is not lost on me.

That’s all the news that fit to report today. For a change, it’s all good news.

Continue reading

I would be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge the passing of Robert J. Younger, the owner and publisher of Morningside Books and Gettysburg Magazine. Those of us who care about Civil War books and Civil War history owe Bob Younger a great debt.

Sweet Old Bob, or SOB, as he liked to call himself, was an irascible, difficult fellow. I seriously doubt that I’ve ever met a more stubborn man than Bob. He had a retail store but didn’t want people coming into it. Go figure. If he liked you, he would give you the shirt off his back. If he didn’t like you–and the list of Bob Younger’s enemies is enormous–forget it. If he didn’t like you, he wouldn’t sell you a book. If he was in a bad mood, he wouldn’t sell you a book. He didn’t care if it was costing him business.

I’ve actually been in both camps. I started out as a favorite of his, and then, as the bearer of bad news, I became the enemy. A group I led tried to buy Morningside a number of years ago, and due to the health of Bob’s business, we couldn’t finance the deal with a bank, and the transaction died on the vine because he wouldn’t seller finance the entire deal. Instead of recognizing that he had a role in the deal dying–it was the health of his business, not anything I did or said, that caused multiple lenders to decline to do the deal–I became the bad guy and hence an enemy. Never mind the fact that his magazine had published five of my articles and that I was one of his mainstays. Never mind that I spent $1500 a year buying books from him. It didn’t matter. I was now one of the enemy. I never published another word in his magazine after that.

In spite of all of that, Bob made it possible for dozens of otherwise out of print books to become available again. He virtually invented the Civil War book reprinting business himself, and did some books that are still not available anywhere else, even to this day. The regimental history of the 8th Illinois Cavalry is just one that comes to mind immediately. His reprints included the Officials Records (both army and naval), the Confederate Veteran, the Southern Historical Society Papers, and lots of the Neale books. An old printer, Bob often did the printing himself and by hand. He also brought out some quality new titles under the Morningside imprint such as the James E. Taylor Scrapbook of the 1864 Shenandoah Valley Campaign, which is one of my favorite books. His books were never pretty to look at, but I don’t buy books because they’re pretty. I buy them because of what’s in them, and he published some good ones, such as Ed Bearss’ trilogy on the Vicksburg Campaign and also Ed’s study of the Battle of Brice’s Crossroads.

Bob was also responsible for Gettysburg Magazine. Although the quality of the articles has gone down in the past several years, it still remains the premier publication for those interested in the Gettysburg Campaign. It was entirely his baby, and I can’t help but wonder what will happen to it now that he’s gone. I hope that it will live on.

So, although I had my issues with Bob, I never lost my respect for him. I recognize his place in this book business of ours, and I had to recognize his passing.

Rest in peace, SOB. I wouldn’t want to be St. Peter today….I imagine you’re giving him hell just like you did with the rest of us.

Continue reading

To all who give part of their day to indulge my rantings, I hope that 2006 is a happy, healthy and prosperous year for all of us, filled with lots of good Civil War books.

Happy new year!

Eric and Susan
Augie, Cleo, and Nero (the golden retriever gang)

Continue reading

To all of you who give a little bit of your day to indulge my rantings, please accept my wishes to you and yours for a joyous holiday season–whichever holiday you may celebrate–and a happy, healthy, and prosperous new year filled with lots of good Civil War books. 🙂

Eric and Susan
Augie, Cleo, and Nero (the golden retriever gang)

Continue reading

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