Civil War books and authors

I surprised myself and finished incorporating the letters into the final three chapters of the manuscript tonight and sent them off to the publisher. It is, at long, long last, finally and truly finished.

I know I’ve said this before, but the feeling is almost beyond description. I’ve been working on this for more than 12 years, and knowing that it is finally really and truly finished is beyond my words’ ability to describe.

Thanks for tolerating my constant ranting about this, but it’s been quite an adventure, and it’s finally time to move on.

Continue reading

I’ve spent the last three evenings working on incorporating the letters into the manuscript of my regimental history of the 6th Pennsylvania Cavalry. I’m making good progress–even better than expected. I’m up to the eve of Grant’s 1864 Overland Campaign–the Army of the Potomac is about to break its winter camp and take the field. That means that I am through 8 of the 12 chapters. I doubt I will finish tomorrow night, but I will definitely have it finished over the weekend and then, I can, at long last, put this thing to rest.

Continue reading

Time for just a bit of shameless self-promotion.

J. D. Petruzzi and I have been informed by our publisher, Ted Savas, that our new book on Stuart’s Ride to Gettysburg will be available just after September 1. We also plan to have a Special Gettysburg Edition, limited to only 100, individually numbered and signed by J. D., me, and hopefully, Mark Grimsley (who wrote the Foreword). Shortly we’ll release details on how folks can get hold of one of those babies.

J. D. and I are also putting together a website devoted to the book. Information on that to come.

Please see the Savas-Beatie web site for additional information on the book.

Personally, I’m eager to see it in print after all of these years of working on it. I first got interested in Stuart’s Ride and the associated controversy nearly 15 years ago, early in my intensive study of Civil War cavalry operations, and I started gathering material almost immediately, and I spent the better part of those 15 years researching it and mulling things over. J. D. apparently was doing the same thing, and when we put our heads together, this book resulted. We hope you’re as pleased with it as we are.

Continue reading

I’ve been busy. Beside my professional responsibilities, which are especially heavy at the moment with the still-ongoing transition to the new firm, I’ve spent most of the last two evening incorporating the good material from the letters into my Rush’s Lancers manuscript. I’m halfway through the manuscript, having gotten through six of the twelve chapters.

These letters are some of the best soldier letters I’ve ever read, and are definitely a major and important addition to the manuscript. They provide tons of additional details that really help to put additional meat on the bones of the manuscript. They go a long way toward rounding out the story and making the telling of this regiment all the more compelling.

I’m very grateful to my publisher, Bruce Franklin, of Westholme Publishing, who has been willing to put up with the disruptions to the production schedule by now granting me the latitude to add two full sets of letters to manuscript at quite literally the last moment.

I’m grateful to Bruce for permitting me to do so. The additions are tremendous and really add a great deal to the story. But for Bruce’s indulgence, I would not have had the opportunity add this excellent materail to my book, and would have a very different final product.

Stay tuned.

Continue reading

You may recall that when I got home from Richmond last month, I told you that another set of letters by a trooper of the 6th Pennsylvania Cavalry had surfaced, much to my shock and consternation. Fortunately, my publisher seems to have the patience of Job, because he agreed to push the thing back for the second time in order for me to add more primary source material to something that had already been submitted as a final product.

The letters arrived today, and I was unable to stop myself from reading a few of them. Before I knew it, I couldn’t put them down. I spent most of the morning reading them, yellow highlighter in hand, working on them instead of billing hours as I’m supposed to be doing. I found them compelling as hell. They’re very descriptive and the Irish soldier who wrote them was blessed with a terrific sense of humor, as they’re filled with humorous anecdotes and chuckles.

I told Rick Carlile, the owner of them, that I think that they are good enough to be published, and that I hope that they do get published on their own merits separate and apart from what I’m doing with my regimental history project.

Tonight, I got started incorporating material from them into my manuscript. I actually managed to get through five chapters worth of additions this evening. Some chapters had only a couple of things added, while others had very substantial additions. The Stoneman’s Raid chapter had about a dozen new endnotes worth of material added into it. Tomorrow night, I start with the Brandy Station chapter, and it will have major additions to it. Obviously, it means that I’ve had to interrupt my work on Scott Patchan’s manuscript, as I have to get this thing turned in to the publisher no later than August 26, and sooner if possible. Since I’ve already held the thing up significantly twice, I am on a mission to get it done as quickly as possible.

It’s going to be worth the wait. My regimental history will be as complete as it can be, and it’s going to be a full telling of the story. Most of all, I think that I will have done justice to the memories of the men of Rush’s Lancers. Or so I hope.

Continue reading

My friend Scott Patchan has spent about five years working on a manuscript on a long-overlooked but interesting period of the Civil War, the period of time between Jubal Early’s withdrawal from the Washington suburbs on July 13, 1864 until just before the Third Battle of Winchester, which was fought on September 19. Among the interesting events that took place during this time were thrashing of George Crook’s army at Second Kernstown, the burning of Chambersburg, the defeat of the Confederate cavalry at Moorefield, WV on August 7, and a lot of other similarly interesting events.

However, this period has received scant attention from historians. Perhaps it’s because this period lacks the drama of Sheridan’s Valley Campaign. Perhaps it’s because Horatio G. Wright and Crook aren’t compelling figures. Perhaps it’s because the combat that occurred was not major combat involving full-scale armies. For whatever reason, this time frame simply does not seem to attract attention.

Scott has put together a complete and compelling account of this period. I’d read, edited, and critiqued the first half of it a couple of years ago, and was really impressed by his thoroughness. Now, I’m working on the second half. I’ve reach the end of the Battle of Second Kernstown and Early’s pursuit of Crook’s beaten army.

Most of the time, I’m working on my own stuff. I rarely get to work on other people’s stuff, even though it’s something I really enjoy doing. The last time that I did something like this was the copy edit of Ironclad’s next book, which is titled The Battle Between the Farm Lanes: Hancock Saves the Union Center, Gettysburg, July 2, 1863. Since our normal copyeditor was one of the authors of that book, it fell upon me to do the copy edit, and I have to admit that I really enjoyed it.

I’ve read and commented upon approximately 110 pages of the second half of Scott’s manuscript since receiving it a couple of days ago. It’s got just the sort of tactical detail that I really enjoy, and it’s got great coverage of a tactically interesting but overlooked battle like Second Kernstown. I’m reading it for both style and content, meaning that I’m doing a full edit as well as looking for factual glitches or errors.

I’m pleased to say that this is going to be a terrific book once completed. It’s got just the right level of tactical detail while placing these events squarely in the context of the big picture, which is critical to understanding why these battles meant something other than some casualties and some interesting tactics.

It’s also providing a good break for me before starting with the tweaking of the Dahlgren manuscript. Taking a couple of weeks away from it before getting cranked up to edit it will ultimately do me good, as some space between drafts is always a good thing. Once I’ve finished with Scott’s manuscript, I will then get started with tweaking Dahlgren. Of course, along the way, I will probably have to interrupt both to incorporate that other set of letters into my Rush’s Lancers manuscript.

A historian’s work is never done.

Continue reading

Dimitri Rotov beat me to the punch on this one. Google’s at it again, still pressing forward with its scheme of massive copyright infringement. This time, its partner in crime is the University of California system.

Here’s the latest:

The University of California (UC) system announced on Wednesday that it has inked a pact with search giant Google to digitize millions of books in its libraries as part of the Mountain View, Calif.-based firm’s Google Books Library Project, an initiative that aims to digitize volumes from the world’s vast array of libraries and make content available online, The Daily Californian reports.

A handful of the parties involved in the Google Books Library Project have chosen not to scan copyrighted works, but the UC system will allow some copyrighted material to be digitized, The Daily Californian reports.

The last clause of the last sentence is the telling one. “The UC system will allow some copyrighted material to be digitized, the Daily Californian reports.” In short, the UC system is encouraging copyright infringement and the theft of intellectual property.

Let’s assume for a moment that we’re talking about the digitizing of millions of books, as the article says. Let’s also assume that only a percentage of them are in the public domain. That means that each and every other work that is digitized without the prior consent of the author constitutes a copyright infringement. This means that there are potentially millions of copyright infringements that will occur, and the University of California system is encouraging, and, in fact, facilitating them.

The issue with all of this, of course, is that if it’s done without the permission of the copyright holders–and I have specifically instructed my publishers to tell Google that I do NOT grant permission for the digitizing of my copyrighted work–it’s no different than stealing. It is, in fact, theft facilitated by precisely the sort of institution that is supposed to preserve and protect the intellectual property rights of even some of the academics who teach in the UC system.

It seems to me that the University of California system is engaging in hypocrisy of the worst variety.

It also seems to me that the only way to prevent this theft of intellectual property is for Congress to act. Sadly, with the Republican culture of corruption dominating Congress, the rights of the little guy are at the very bottom of the list of Congressional priorities. Thus, unless the courts issue the injunctions requested in the litigation pending against Google, authors like me will continue to be powerless to prevent the theft of our intellectual property.

And if that happens, then I will stop writing. There will be no reason to continue at that point if I can’t have some protection over the fruits of my hard labors and cannot expect to receive some return on the very large investment of money that I make in researching these books. If the fruits of my labor (and financial investment) can be stolen with alacrity and I am powerless to prevent it, why bother?

Continue reading

I told you all that I had finished the first draft of the Dahlgren biography the other evening, and I got to enjoy that fact for about 24 hours.

The hard part now begins. The difficult part is the process of editing and tweaking what I’ve written. I sent the very rough draft of two chapters to Frank O’Reilly for review and comment. Frank not only corrected the factual errors and the like, he also did an extremely thorough copy edit, probably much more than such an early draft required or deserved. I neglected to tell Frank that he was reading what was quite literally first draft, and he thought it was supposed to be something close to a finished product and went after it quite aggressively with his red pen. The copy editing job was first rate, but it took me most of the evening to incorporate his suggested revisions.

I also sent the Second Bull Run chapter to Scott Patchan for his review and comment, and Scott suggested adding some substantive material. That also took time.

That means that I got through two and a half chapters worth of comments this evening. Once done, I will then print the thing out and start editing it in earnest. The truth is that getting it down on paper is really just the start of the process of getting a manuscript ready for publication, not the end.

I have a long way to go. Before long, I will be thoroughly sick of the thing. 🙂

Continue reading

My list of pending projects is really kind of staggering:

1. Finish up the history of the 6th Pennsylvania Cavalry.
2. Turn in the material for the new edition of Trevilian Station.
3. Edit and finish the Dahlgren biography.
4. Complete the research and write the study of John Hunt Morgan’s Indiana and Ohio raid of 1863.
5. The Gettysburg cavalry project.
6. Complete the rewrite of my half of the John Buford biography.

Then there are ideas that are in the research phase:

1. Monocacy (this battle fascinates me, and has for a long time).
2. A study of Union cavalry operations in Pope’s Army of Virginia.
3. A biography of David McMurtrie Gregg.
4. A study of the Wilson-Kautz Raid (the research for this is actually finished; the project just keeps getting bumped)
5. A regimental history of the 6th Michigan Cavalry.
6. My study of the 11th Corps at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg.

And then tonight, someone I respect a great deal suggested that I do biographies of Jeb Stuart and Phil Sheridan. I actually laughed when I read that suggestion. Yeah, rrrriiiiiiiiigggghhhhhhttttt. Fortunately, I was able to beg off on the Stuart biography, as old friend Jeff Wert is actively working on just that, and I have every reason to believe that Jeff will do a first-rate job of it. That permitted me to beg off that suggestion.

As for Sheridan, there’s just no way. For one thing, I despise Phil Sheridan, and I don’t think it’s advisable for a biographer to hate his or her subject. My biases would prevent me from presenting a fair or balanced presentation of his life. so, while I definitely agree that Sheridan deserves a really good scholarly treatment of his life, I am DEFINITELY not the right guy for the job.

Fortunately, I was able to escape from this suggestion.

Then, on top of all of it, I have to finish reading Randy Saul’s manuscript, which I started in May and never finished, and I also promised old friend Scott Patchan that I would read his, too. On top of everything else I have to do….

Sometimes, I think I am certifiably insane.

Continue reading

There are more developments to discuss pertaining to the question of what Lincoln knew and when he knew it.

First, however, the good news: I just completed the first draft of the Dahlgren manuscript. After nearly a year of writing it, the first draft of this complex and fascinating young man’s life is complete. Plenty of work remains to be done; my writing style has always been to put things down on paper and then play with them, so I have lots of editing and tweaking to do. However, the first draft is, at long last, complete. It’s a great feeling.

I had an epiphany tonight about Stanton’s role, so I added a new paragraph to the chapter. By way of background: In February 1864, Maj. Gen. Benjamin F. Butler, commanding at Fortress Monroe, conceived of a plan to send Brig. Gen. Isaac J. Wistar on a “lightning” raid on Richmond to free the POW’s from the east; Wistar was stationed at Yorktown and commanded the garrison there. With about 4,000 troops, Wistar advanced on Richmond to free the POW’s in February 1864, less than a month before the Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid. His advance was detected, and the Confederates easily repulsed Wistar’s sortie. Recognizing that the element of surprise was lost, Wistar wisely broke off and withdrew. What’s important about his excursion is that many of the operative details were the same as what ended up in the Dahlgren Papers. Wistar penned a report that was endorsed and sent on my Butler.

Thus, Stanton was well aware of the Wistar raid and its objectives. I realized that tonight. Consequently, I added the following paragraph to my discussion, in the middle of my discussion about Stanton’s possible role in the Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid:

The similarity between the failed Wistar expedition of February and the plans set forth in the Dahlgren Papers also suggests strongly that someone high up in the administration was well aware of the plan and had authorized it. Otherwise, why would Kilpatrick have been summoned to Washington for consultations with Lincoln and Stanton? And why else would one-legged Ully Dahlgren have been selected, other than the fact that he was known to be a reliable confidant of the President?

Then there’s this quote, from a letter by John Singleton Mosby, who met Wistar at a post-war party in Philadelphia: “On a recent visit to Philadelphia I met socially with General Isaac Wister (sic) of the Federal army,” recounted Mosby. “He informed me that the infernal purposes of Kilpatrick and Dahlgren were correctly disclosed in the papers found on Dahlgren’s body; that he was in command at Yorktown at the time, that Kilpatrick after his retreat from Richmond spent several days at his headquarters, that Kilpatrick, who was then ignorant of Dahlgren’s death, told him all his plans which were identical with what was stated in the Dahlgren papers. He also said that [General Benjamin] Butler once ordered him on a similar expedition but that he positively refused to go.”

This letter has a great deal of credibility. Wistar was in command at Yorktown, Kilpatrick did end up in Yorktown for several days after being repulsed from Richmond, and Butler had ordered Wistar to advance on Richmond to free the prisoners of war prior to the Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid. It appears, therefore, that Wistar’s claim that Kilpatrick in fact knew of and approved the plan to kidnap and assassinate Jefferson Davis and his cabinet ring true.

This certainly adds food for thought, doesn’t it?

Here’s one final factor that further reinforces my suspicion of Stanton. I deal with this in the appendix to the book, where the issue of the authenticity of the Dahlgren Papers is addressed. Like so many other things associated with the Kilpatrick-Dahlgren Raid, the fate of the Dahlgren Papers themselves remains a mystery lost to the ages. When the Confederate leadership abandoned Richmond on April 2, 1865, they took the Confederate archives with them in an effort to protect them. After Gen. Joseph E. Johnston surrendered his army in North Carolina a few weeks later, he told the Federal authorities where to find the contents of the archives, and U. S. authorities took possession of the documents on May 16, 1865. Dr. Francis Lieber, head of a bureau in the office of the adjutant general, took custody of the documents for eventual publication and inclusion in the National Archives.

In November of that same year, Secretary Stanton ordered Dr. Lieber to turn over the Dahlgren Papers to him. Dr. Lieber responded on December 1, surrendering possession of four packages associated with the Dahlgren Papers, including Dahlgren’s notebook, the address to his men, a letter to Dahlgren marked “confidential,” and supporting documents gathered by the Confederate government to authenticate the documents found on Dahlgren’s body. These four packages then disappeared. There is no record of them remaining anywhere. When the official records of the Civil War were being compiled, a request was made for them, to be included. In 1879, the request for the Dahlgren Papers addressed to Adjutant General Edward Townsend came back endorsed, “No record is found upon the War Department books or files of the papers herein referred to.” Thus, once the Dahlgren Papers were delivered to Edwin Stanton in November 1865, they vanished. There has been no record of them since, other than a photographic copy that later surfaced in the Virginia Historical Society in 1975, and the accounts of them published in the Richmond newspapers in 1864.

Unless it was to cover his tracks, why would Stanton have caused the Dahlgren Papers to disappear when there is no evidence that any other such documents are also similarly missing?

The more I delve into this mystery, the more intrigued by it I find myself.

Continue reading