General musings

Last month, I dealt with the issue of neo-Confederate hooey here. I related the problems I had with a member of the Civil War Discussion Group that I own and operate.

Last week, this clown went off on rant about black Confederates. Although the guy denies that he has a neo-Confederate agenda, he clearly does have one. If you read his posts about black Confederates, it becomes obvious that he’s beating the neo-Confederate drum as loudly as possible. I called him on it. I posted:

“Time for me to put on my moderator/owner hat.

This site does NOT exist for the pushing of any particular group’s agenda. Mr. Tucker has apparently decided that this web site exists to promote the agenda of the SCV, and, in particular, of the radical wing of the SCV that is presently in control.

Here’s the bottom line, folks.

This stuff stops now. I am not interested in seeing another self-serving neo-Confederate post from Mr. Tucker or anyone else. The next time it happens, not only is the post gone, the person who posted it is gone, too.

And, to reiterate what I’ve said before: This is my web site. I own it. I pay for it. Therefore, I also get to make the rules. My rules are what they are. They are neither negotiable, nor are there any exceptions to them. Once a decision is made about whether the rules have been violated, there is no discussion of it, and there most assuredly is no right of appeal. If you don’t like my rules, Mr. Tucker, you are more than welcome to leave on your own.

I am a benevolent despot until pushed. And now, I’ve been pushed. That means it’s time for me to step in and end the problem.

I trust that I have made myself abundantly clear.

Eric”

The guy then posted a lame apology that attempted to explain his conduct. I responded and told him that he would get one more chance, and the nect time he stepped so much as an inch out of line, he was history. He promised to straighten up and fly by my rules. It lasted exactly one week.

Today, he posted yet another neo-Confederate rant, trying to claim that slaves loved their masters and gladly fought for the Confederacy, blah, blah, blah. I dropped the nuclear weapon:

“Mr. Tucker has been warned repeatedly that this web site does not exist for the promotion of his neo-Confederate agenda. The last time that this happened, I informed him that the next time I got even so much as an inkling that he was using this web site for the promotion of his agenda, he would be excommunicated. He agreed to my terms, and I hoped that would be the end of it. Well, it lasted less than a week.

As a result of this post, Mr. Tucker has, in fact, been permanently excommunicated from this web site. We will not be bothered by him and his agenda any longer.

This thread is now being locked.

Let us speak no more of this.

The Management”

The fight against neo-Confederate hooey never ends. And I will always remain vigilant and will always fight that fight. Bring it on. 🙂

Continue reading

This rant has been brewing all day.

Please put this in the “stuff I hate” category. It also fits squarely within the “stuff that frustrates the hell out of me” category.

In the course of researching my Ulric Dahlgren biography, I found the published pamphlet of the eulogy for Ully delivered by Rev. Bernard Sunderland, the minister who watched Ully grow up. The eulogy was delivered a few weeks after Dahlgren’s death even though the body was missing, and then the thing was published shortly thereafter. There is a frustrating, tantalizing little tidbit in this thing that has been driving me nuts.

By way of background, Ulric Dahlgren attended Rittenhouse Academy in Washington, DC as a boy. He left there without graduating in 1858 at the age of 16 to go and study law as an apprentice to his uncle in Philadelphia. The school no longer exists.

I found the following passage in the published eulogy:

“It was this stirring period [early June 1862], while on the road between [Harpers] Ferry and Winchester, that two young officers, once associates and pupils of the Rittenhouse Academy, each ignorant of the other’s connection with the Army, met in the middle of the night, one marching with his regiment eastward, the other with a body of cavalry rapidly riding to the west. As they were sweeping by, though under cover of the darkness, one hearing the other’s voice giving an order to his men, instantly recognized him, and the two former school-fellows drew night for a short greeting and a swift good-bye, and each strode on again. They were Major Morrison and Captain Dahlgren, both cut down in the flower of their young manhood, both sleeping in a soldier’s sepulchre, and both cherished in every loyal heart as the true sons of America, the noble scions of her noblest race.”

This reference clearly made sense to the folks who attended the funeral. Obviously, they knew who this Major Morrison was, and it’s entirely possible that he was also a member of Reverend Sunderland’s Episcopal congregation. Sadly, it makes absolutely no sense to me. I have bene trying to figure out who this Major Morrison was for several months now, and I keep coming up dry. I would love to include this fascinating little anecdote in my book–it’s great stuff–but there seems to be no way of finding out who this myseterious Major Morrison was.

I’ve called in favors. Tom Clemens even gave up his time to search the roster of volunteer officers for me, and we found nothing that matched–there was no Major Morrison killed during the time frame when Ully Dahlgren was still alive. That leads me to believe that this guy may have been brevetted, but who knows. I just know that I have run into a roadblock at every turn, leaving me scratching my head and cursing Reverend Sunderland for not naming this guy so I could tell the story in my book.

Damn, it’s frustrating.

Continue reading

As he so often does, Mark Grimsley’s blog features an especially interesting line of discussion about where the discipline of military history fits into an academic world that treats it like the proverbial red-headed stepchild. The recent trend among academic history seems to be to downplay military history; Mark mentions a request that was posted on an H-Net list by a modern historian who was far from excited about the prospect of his students looking at issues of military history.

Some have tried to cross this gap by doing interdisciplinary work. George Rable’s book on the Fredericksburg Campaign attempts to do this and fails to provide a complete view of either the military or the social aspects. Ed Hagerty tried to turn a regimental history into a social history with his book on the 114th Pennsylvania Infantry, and bored me so terribly that I never was able to finish it.

Finding a way around this problem is a common theme on Mark’s blog, as he struggles to try to help military history find its niche in the overall scheme of the history discipline. Fortunately, I’m not plagued by this particular burden; not being an academic historian permits me to focus solely on those issues that interest me to the exclusion of those that don’t. And, I must admit, as a general statement, social history is a discipline that bears absolutely no interest for me. Genuinely, I couldn’t care less. Issues such as slavery and its consequences, and the consequences for the freedmen simply are of no interest to me. What interests me are the military aspects–the battles, the men who fought them, and their motivations. Social trends mean nothing to me in the big scheme of things, with the lone exception of how they might impact on those aspects that do interest me.

My fellow blogger Kevin Levin, on the other hand, seems to be primarily interested in the social history aspects of the war, with particular focus on the race relations issues. I tip my hat to Kevin–just because those issues hold no interest to me doesn’t mean that they’re not worthy or that Kevin isn’t to be commended for studying them. In fact, they are worthy, and I do commend Kevin for his interest and pursuit of them. That is, as they say, why there are different flavors of ice cream–each can find his or her favorite flavor. My favorite flavor happens NOT to be social history.

It was, for instance, impossible for me to study the 6th Pennsylvania Cavalry without looking at the gap between the regiment’s officer corps and its enlisted men, and what dynamic was created by that gap. So, to some extent, I had to look at the social history of Philadelphia to get a better understanding of that. However, that social history is quickly subsumed by my focus on the military aspects of this excellent regiment.

What stuns me about all of this is that there are some really fine military historians who can’t find work in the academic world. My friend Mark Bradley is working on his Ph.D. dissertation. Mark wrote one the best campaign studies I’ve ever seen in his study of Sherman’s Carolinas Campaign and an equally impressive study of the events that led to Johnston’s surrender at Bennett Place in April 1865. His degree will be from a very reputable place, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Yet, Mark is finding it very difficult to find a job. Why? He’s a guy whose primary focus is military history. So, in order to hedge his bets, he’s had to compromise. His dissertation deals with Reconstruction, and his project after that will focus on the Freedmen’s Bureau. He’s doing this to “prove” that he also has the chops to do social history, and thereby make himself hireable.

Now, please don’t get me wrong–I fully understand why Mark’s doing what he’s doing. A job is a job, and Mark needs one. So, he’s doing what he must, and nothing I’m saying here should be construed as a criticism of him. It’s not. I will never criticize someone for doing what he or she has to do for their own survival or advancement. That’s not the issue. The issue, rather, is my befuddlement with why the SYSTEM is forcing him to have to make those choices. Isn’t it time that the academics stop treating military history as a red-headed stepchild and give it the respect it deserves, so that a quality individual like Mark Bradley can focus on what he does best?

What’s wrong with this picture?

Continue reading

WARNING: Today’s post has absolutely nothing to do with the Civil War.

After three-plus months of inexplicable delays, Susan and I today began our grand adventure.

As I write this, the excavators are finishing up the digging of the hole for the foundation for our new house. The process of building a house is something entirely new for both of us. I grew up in a condo complex, and the house we live in now was built in 1969. Susan grew up in two houses–one more than one hundred years old, and the other more than fifty. Consequently, this whole process is pretty alien to both of us.

We’re building in a very small but rapidly expanding community. Five years ago, it was a small, rural town of perhaps 2000 people with no recent development. However, the inevitable spread of Columbus’ urban sprawl has reached this little town, and in the past several years, there have been at least four large subdivisions begun. Two, including the one we’re building in, are for larger, more expensive homes. One is for mid-sized production homes by a large developer, and the other consists of very small, densely packed houses that I call, not lovingly, “cheeseboxes.” All of this explosive growth–and there WILL be more–strains the infrastructure of this small town, which has only one guy responsible for building permits, plan approvals, and inspections. The poor guy is probably swamped with work most of the time.

Initially, it took forever to get the construction loan approved. Why? We’re building the biggest house in the area in years, and they had a difficult time finding comps to make sure that the value would support the price. This added a month to that process. Foolish me. I assumed–incorrectly–that if I signed a contract to build a house, that was the price, and that was the value of the house. WRONG! In reality, they still do a full appraisal–even before the house is built, based on the plans–to ensure that the house will have sufficient resale value to support the contract price. That was a real eye-opener for me. I had no idea. The thought of appraising something that had not yet been constructed simply never occurred to me.

Then came finalizing plans, etc. They were supposed to dig on February 1. However, the permit guy (see above) was hospitalized, and there was nobody to sign off on the plans and issue the permit. Then, we got bumped back to February 9. No permit yet; it finally issued that day, too late for the work to be done. So, the excavation had to be rescheduled again. They FINALLY commenced digging the hole today.

They tell me it will be six months from today to closing, plus or minus two weeks. We have a LOT to do between now and then to get the existing house ready to sell and to unclutter our very cluttered lives. We will keep everyone posted.

However, for now, it’s a bold new world, and one I’ve never visited previously. To say that it will be an adventure is an understatement…..

Continue reading

This post is related to my last post on the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.

For a long time, I’ve been a bit embarrassed by just how little I knew about the Spanish-American War, so I made a conscious choice to change that after Susan and I visited Key West in October 2003. I made a point of seeking out and finding the memorial to the dead sailors of the U.S.S. Maine who were interred in the city cemetery in Key West. Interestingly, the anchor of the Maine is in my home town of Reading, PA, and I always knew that, but I knew very little about how it got there or its significance.

One thing that strikes me about what have become known as America’s Splendid Little Wars (thanks to William Randolph Hearst for that gem) is their connection to the Civil War.

The Secretary of State in the McKinley Administration was John Hay–the same John Hay who was Lincoln’s personal secretary. Nelson Miles was the commanding general of the armies. Maj. Gen. Wesley Merritt was the highest ranking Army officer in the field, and was actually recommended for promotion to lieutenant general as a reward for his performance during the Span-Am War. The rank of lieutenant general had been retired after Sheridan’s death, so major general was, once again, the highest rank in the Army. Merritt, at the time of his retirement, was the second ranking officer in the Army as a major general. Unfortunately, lieutenant general was not reinstated in time for him to enjoy its fruits.

The Secretary of War in the McKinley Administration was Russell A. Alger, who had commanded the 5th Michigan Cavalry during the Civil War. McKinley, of course, was also a Civil War veteran, as evidenced by the ridiculous monument to him at Antietam.

When the drums of war began to beat again in 1898, Alger was terribly worried that Southerners would not flock to sign up as a result of remaining bitterness over losing the Civil War. So, Alger had an absolutely brilliant idea….he would recruit several former Confederate generals to don the blue uniform of the U. S. Army once again. Three of the four were now politicians, so they were safe.

He chose Thomas L. Rosser, Fitz Lee, the governor of Virginia, Joe Wheeler, Congressman from Alabama, and Matthew C. Butler, US Senator from South Carolina. All were commissioned as major generals of volunteers. Butler, in particular, had impressed Alger during the Civil War, and, specifically, Butler’s brilliant defense at Trevilian Station, where some of Butler’s troops came within a whisper of capturing Alger during what I often describe as “Custer’s First Last Stand.” Lee weighed about 350 pounds at that point and was not fit for duty in the field, and never left the U.S. Butler had had a foot blown off at Brandy Station in June 1863, and also was unfit for duty in the field.

However, unlike Lee and Butler, Wheeler, who was still vigorous and active, assumed command of the U. S. cavalry forces in Cuba and was in field command of them at San Juan Hill. It’s been reported that in the heat and excitement of battle, Wheeler slipped and referred to the Spaniards as “Yankees.” Wheeler performed so well in his role in Cuba that he was offered a commission as a brigadier general in the Regular Army, which he accepted. Wheeler was sent to assume command of U. S. forces in the Philippines when a local insurrection broke out. Wheeler did quite well in this role. Theodore J. Wint, about whom I’ve written here, served under Wheeler in the Philippines.

On June 10, 1898, President McKinley appointed Rosser a brigadier general of United States volunteers during the Spanish-American War. His first task was training young cavalry recruits in a camp near the old Civil War battlefield of Chickamauga in northern Georgia. He was honorably discharged on October 31, 1898, and returned home.

When the Boxer Rebellion broke out in China in 1901, Brig. Gen. Adna R. Chaffee, Sr. was sent to take command. He was one of the highest-ranking officers in the Army, and was destined to become the Army chief of staff. Chaffee was badly wounded as a 21-year-old lieutenant at the July 3, 1863 Battle of Fairfield. He was brevetted for obeying a War Department order and not giving his parole when he was captured after being wounded. This began his rise to the highest echelons of the U. S. Army. Again, my guy Wint served under Chaffee, Sr. in China, and, in fact, commanded all of the Allied cavalry forces there, which included the U. S., British, and German troops.

James Harrison Wilson, the famed Union cavalryman of the Civil War, who designed and implemented the first truly mobile strike force with his all-cavalry army of 1865, became a major general of volunteers in the Puerto Rican campaign against the Spanish, and was involved in fighting in the center of the island, near Coamo and Aibonito. Wilson retired in 1901, with the rank of brigadier general in the Regular Army.

What’s particularly interesting to me about this is that of these officers, Nelson Miles was the only one who was not a cavalryman. Another interesting point is that three of the four ex-Confederates (Lee, Rosser, and Butler) were former adversaries of Alger’s, and all four of them had fought on the same field at Trevilian Station. Hmmmmm……..

There is a lot of interesting stuff to be gleaned from all of these “Splendid Little Wars,” and I am now working on learning some of it. While our present “splendid little wars” do not involve the standard form of imperialism that drove these wars of the late Nineteenth Century, we’re presently engaged in some similar conflicts around the world. I cannot help but be drawn back to the words of Alphonse Karr after the French Revolution: “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” ~ Translation: “The more things change, the more they remain the same.”

Continue reading

A few observations about the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, which I’ve done some reading about over the past few years:

1. Napoleon III most assuredly did not inherit his uncle’s military prowess. In fact, he was almost completely incompetent. He reminds me a great deal of the current occupant of the White House: all gung-ho for war, and then incapable of doing the job correctly. Both were utterly incompetent war-time leaders.

2. The Schlieffen Plan worked big time in 1870, just like it did in 1940, and as it nearly did in 1914. You would have thought that the French would have learned something from that, but they certainly didn’t.

3. If the Civil War was the last Napoleonic war, the Franco-Prussian War, just five years later, was definitely the first truly modern war. Talk about an instance where technology made a huge difference….the guns manufactured by Krupp were a quantum leap in the artillery (the French were still using their smoothbore Napoleons), and they made all prior artillery obsolete. Just five years after the end of the Civil War, virtually all soldiers on both sides were armed with breech loading repeating rifles and not the muzzle loaders that were so prominent during the Civil War. The German General Staff also demonstrated, once and for all, that a modern staff system like the ones used today were far preferable to a single commander a la Henry W. Halleck. What’s particularly interesting about this is the quantum leap in technology that occurred in just five years from the end of the Civil War. That is, I think, what I find most striking about it.

4. The seizing of Alsace-Lorraine by the Germans made WWI inevitable. The French were bound and determined to get it back, no matter what. It also was a major bone of contention in the days leading up to the beginning of WWII. Once again, you would think that the French would have learned something over the years, but it’s also pretty obvious to me that they haven’t here, either.

5. The Franco-Prussian War of 1870 is an example of what happens when the press fans the flames and events spiral out of control. The same phenomenon brought about the Spanish-American War of 1898, and also played a major role in the outbreak of World War I. This aspect fascinates me.

6. The defeat of the French was a direct trigger to the Paris Commune. This undoubtedly laid the seeds of Communism, and showed that Republicansim was the first stage of the process, i.e., Russia and China. The direct result of the Russian Empire being defeated in World War I was the rise of the Bolsheviks. Hence, it’s clear that the defeat of the French Republic had far-reaching consequences that went far beyond what was obvious at the time that the war was commenced. It seems to me that the present occupant of the White House could have learned a few important lessons from this before invading Iraq.

7. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are bound to repeat the same mistakes again and again. See item #1 above.

Continue reading

As I have mentioned here previously, I provide forum boards for discussion for folks at the Civil War Discussion Group. Although these boards were already in the works at the time of the demise of a prior group run by a con man who conned me and a lot of others, upon the demise of that group–which was solely devoted to the Battle of Gettysburg–my boards replaced the con man’s boards. Thus, the majority of my members are Gettysburg people. I get that. In fact, it even makes sense to me. In a very real sense, I am a Gettysburg person, too. It’s always been–and always will be–my first love when it comes to the Civil War.

At the same time, I think that a measure of a person’s growth is his or her capacity to learn. I have an insatiable thirst for learning, in almost any area of endeavor, but especially in the realm of the Late Unpleasantness. Consequently, I have expanded my horizons significantly. In fact, in a lot of ways, I now find the Battle of Chancellorsville more interesting and often more compelling than Gettysburg. Perhaps it’s that I don’t know the ground as well. Perhaps that I’m a relative newcomer to the study of C-ville. Perhaps it’s my firm belief that nobody can really and truly understand the Battle of Gettysburg without having a solid understanding and knowledge of Chancellorsville. Perhaps it’s that I have a very short attention span and need variety to keep from losing my mind. So, while Gettysburg remains one of my primary interests, I cannot say that it is my sole interest. It hasn’t been since I was a child, and I can’t see it ever being that way again.

Yet, I know folks that are that way. There’s one fellow I know–a fellow lawyer and a good guy–who once told me that he had made a conscious decision that it was better for him and more important to him that he focus exclusively on Gettysburg to the exclusion of everything else. What that means is that he’s taking a micro perspective on things that overlooks the big picture, and expecially that portion of the big picture that places Gettysburg in its proper historical context, including seeing the inexorable connection between Chancellorsville and Gettysburg that I described in more detail in an earlier post on this blog.

Then, there’s another fellow who has been a CWDG regular since day one–a good guy, too–who is so focused on Gettysburg that he developed his own acronym to describe the affliction–GAS, which means not too many baked beans but rather Gettysburg Addiction Syndrome. He recently proceeded to list an entire litany of symptoms of this dreaded affliction, such as ” You consider the best vacation you have ever had was spent at one of the anniversarys of the Battle” or “You keep trying to convince your MRS that we MUST move to Gettysburg or at least closer to it!” Obviously, he is afflicted by all of these maladies and many more.

I can appreciate that, as this fellow has a famous forebear who made his mark at Gettysburg, but at the sime time, I can’t comprehend having such an all-consuming obsession with one particular battle as to largely ignore all others. Maybe it’s just me and my short attention span, but I would go bonkers if all I ever studied was Gettysburg. Another thing I don’t get are the endless arguments that come up time and time again about specific points of controversy, such as whether Sickles should have advanced to the Emmitsburg Road plateau on July 2. That drives me crackers. Most of the time, I won’t even read it when that happens, as I have no interest in hashing the same thing over and over again when there is no new evidence to warrant a reconsideration.

And finally, there’s the one thing that bugs me most of all. There seems to be a need among some to propound bizarre new theories about the battle, irrespective of whether there’s any evidence to support them. There are a few folks out there that seem to feel a pathological need to do this, in the hope of making some big find. Perhaps they like the sound of their own voices. Perhaps they feel some overwhelming, compelling need to find something new or to leave their mark on the interpretation of the battle. These folks will ignore you when you make an effort to disprove them with evidence, or they lash out at you, with insult after insult. Some insults are wrapped up in a prettier package–couched in seemingly polite terms but in reality condescending and tinged with disgust that you’re not on the same plane of existence because you cannot or will not accept the validity of this novel theory, just because the proponent says you should.

In addition, the proponent has certain disciples (minions?) who seem to (a) defend him unfailingly, even when you point out that he’s being condescending and insulting and that you have a legitimate gripe about how you’re being treated. The minion immediately shuts you down, claiming that you’re actually the one in the wrong and defending the proponent, no matter what, even though the other person has just given you the extremely polite and condescending digital version of the Finger and (b) accept the proponent’s BS unquestioningly, just because he says it’s so. I see way too much of this going on on one of the other forum board sites to the point that I’ve pretty much stopped reading the posts there. It’s caused me to pretty much lose all respect for the principal defender who is, by the way, one of the moderators of the site. You can dress it up any way you like, but a pig dressed in a tuxedo is still a pig, no matter how you slice it. Condescending and insulting is still condescending and insulting even when it’s dressed up in courteous and respectful tones.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand this trait or tendency. Folks, there WERE other battles. Other things of significance did happen in the Civil War–it did not begin or end with those three days at Gettysburg. Open your eyes–there’s a big world out there, full of interesting things that really did happen, and not a fantasy world filled with bizarre and unsupportable theories. Wake up and smell the coffee, folks. There is more. Live it, learn it, love it. You will be a better and more well-rounded person for it.

Continue reading

The following statement now appears on the web site of Western Union: “Effective January 27, 2006, Western Union will discontinue all Telegram and Commercial Messaging services. We regret any inconvenience this may cause you, and we thank you for your loyal patronage. ” This means that there is no company left in the United States that offers telegram services.

The telegram, of course, has become obsolete. The downhill slide began with the deregulation of long distance telephone services–cheap long distance meant that people slowed down their use of telegrams. Then, the advent of cell phones, the Internet, and e-mail all combined to make telegrams completely obsolete. There really is no reason to use telegrams any more, and Western Union made a logical and reasonable business decision that I cannot really criticize.

At the same time, the advent of the telegram was a major technological leap forward. During the Civil War, the telegram provided the primary means of communication between armies in the field and the national command authority back in Washington and Richmond. The speed of telegraph communication–nearly instantaneous–made it possible for information to flow quickly and easily and for commanders to keep their respective presidents abreast of situations as they played out. I spend a lot of time working in the Official Records, and I know that a large percentage of the correspondence that is included in the OR was transmitted by telegraph and not by mail or by courier. From a technological standpoint, the telegraph was a quantum leap forward that played a significant role in the progression of the Civil War.

However, technology inevitably marches on. Next came the telephone, which was even more instantaneous because it did not require a telegraph operator to translate. Then came wireless radios, which untethered commanders in the field wanting to communicate with anyone. And now we have satellite communications and wireless Internet. The demise of the telegram was, therefore, inevitable.

That, however, does not mean that the end of an era isn’t noteworthy or worthy of commemorating. January 27, 2006 marked the end of an era, the severing of another tie with our past.

Continue reading

Every now and again, you find materials in repositories that cause you to say, “how is that this has never been published?”

There are a number of instances of this that I can think of.

When John Pope commanded the Army of Virginia, he had a staff officer named T.C.H. Smith. Smith was extremely loyal, and decided to write a defense of Pope’s conduct during the Second Bull Run Campaign. He spent years corresponding with various veterans of both sides, gathering material. Smith then wrote a book manuscript telling the story of the campaign his way. For some reason, the book has never been published, even though Smith completed the manuscript. The entire collection–manuscript AND correspondence–is at the Ohio Historical Society. I looked at it years ago, when I was researching cavalry operations in the Second Bull Run Campaign, and came away wondering why nobody has ever published the thing. While it probably won’t sell a ton of copies, it would definitely make a good university press book project.

Here’s another example. Perhaps the single best soldier diary I have ever read was written by a sergeant of the 1st Maine Cavalry named Nathan Webb. Webb’s diary is at the Clements Historical Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. The descriptions are fabulous, and so is the detail. The problem with the diary is that it’s (a) huge and (b) cannot be photocopied. That means that anybody wanting to use it has to sit and transcribe it by hand with a pencil or on a laptop. Obviously, those are not terribly good or productive options for making something useful. The last time I wanted to use some of it, I ended up having to pay an undergraduate student to go to the library and sit and transcribe the thing for me. It took weeks to get the stuff, and was expensive to pay the kid to do the work. I wish someone would publish this diary–it’s well worth it, and it would make an excellent addition to the body of knowledge.

Here’s a final example–a career soldier named John Bigelow, Jr. made chronicling the Battle of Chancellorsville his life’s mission. Like John B. Bachelder did at Gettysburg, Bigelow also collected a tremendous volume of correspondence from participants describing their part in the battle in their own words. He then used those materials to write a history of the battle that was published with a very impressive map series. This incredible collection of correspondence was donated to the Library of Congress, where it resides to this day. It seems to me that a worthy addition to the existing body of knowledge would be for someone to compile all of that correspondence and publish it as David and Audrey Ladd did with the papers of John B. Bachelder pertaining to his research on the Battle of Gettysburg, which have become one of my very favorite Gettysburg sources.

Tom Clemens has been working on editing Ezra Carmen’s history of the Battle of Antietam, which is a previously unpublished account of the battle, and it had its genesis in his Ph.D. dissertation. It seems to me that there are lots of other good, useful projects out there that would make fabulous Ph.D. projects. I can only hope that someone will figure that out and take advantage of them. The three mentioned here undoubtedly barely scratch the surface of what’s still out there.

Continue reading

Speaking is something I do a lot of. It’s not unusual for me to give 20-30 talks per year, all around the country. Sometimes, I love it. Sometimes, I despise it.

Here’s the thing. Some of the talks that I do, I just can’t stand any more. Like the Sheridan bashing talk that I do. Mind you, I’ve never particularly enjoyed that talk from the beginning. I don’t like Sheridan, and the thought of giving the same talk over and over again just doesn’t excite me a bit, particularly with a subject I dislike as much as I dislike Sheridan. I was invited to speak to a Civil War Round Table in Tennessee in March, and the program chair asked me to do my Sheridan bash talk. I literally cringed when I read that. I genuinely don’t have any interest in ever giving that talk again, and the thought of forcing myself to do it one more time makes me greatly unhappy.

Then there are ones that I really enjoy. I really enjoy my Stuart’s ride to Gettysburg talk. Being the contrarian that I am, I love arguing in Stuart’s favor–which is actually pretty easy to do if you really study the subject. I haven’t yet gotten tired of that one. Another one I really enjoy is my Trevilian Station talk, which I haven’t given in a couple of years now. I made one up last year in about half an hour comparing and contrasting Stuart and Hampton that is a lot of fun to give. I gave one today at lunch for the first time on Ully Dahlgren and the so-called “Dahlgren Papers” found on his body when he was killed. That was fun. I pretty much made up the talk as I went, although I had a mental game plan for it when I went into the room.

I actually do that a LOT. Being an experienced trial lawyer, you learn how to speak and think on your feet, and I really enjoy that. I never work from notes at all if I can help it, and I try not to ever read a script. Most times, I am able to speak off the cuff–audiences seem to love that–but it means that I never give the same talk the same way twice in a row. That helps keep it fresh for me, and I can never remember exactly what I’ve said anyway. I am able to remember where my laugh lines are and to pause for them, but for the most part, every talk is made up as I go. Sometimes, though, I do have to read stuff. In order for the Stuart’s ride talk to be effective, it’s pretty much mandatory to read the orders to the crowd, since those orders provide the operational backdrop for the analysis. So, those things I will read. But that’s pretty much it. The rest of the Stuart’s ride talk is then done off the cuff.

There are times when I get really burned out on speaking. I hadn’t done one in a few months before today, so it was okay. I had fun making a circumstantial evidence case to a room full of lawyers, including a judge. I got to show off just a little bit. I particularly love doing the Conference on Leadership in the Civil War held in Middleburg, VA every October. I’ve done that one three times. Middleburg is one of the most affluent communities on earth, and they put the speakers up in these absolutely spectacular private homes. We never even saw the main house the first year–the guest house was as big as our house now. The folks there are great too, and so is the cause. I will always say yes to Middleburg when they ask. The same goes for old pal Ted Alexander’s events in Chambersburg, just because I like working with Ted.

May, on the other hand, will be difficult. I have three CWRT’s in North Carolina in a span of like eight days. That will be exhausting. But, these talks take me to places I’ve never been–the last one is in Duck on the Outer Banks. We’ve never been to the Outer Banks, so we’re going to stay for a few days to recuperate. Last fall, I had to give the Stuart vs. Hampton talk in Raleigh, NC after being up pretty much all night flying from Las Vegas. To say I was exhausted probably is an understatement, and I definitely was not as mentally sharp as I might otherwise want to be. But a commitment is a commitment, and I had agreed to do this. So, I sucked it up and did it. I know it wasn’t the best talk I’ve ever done, but it wasn’t the worst, either. Or there was the time a few years ago when I had Milwaukee and Chicago on back to back nights, while Susan was home in bed really sick with pneumonia. That was not fun. I felt like I had no business being there, but again, a commitment is a commitment, and it would not have been right to leave them high and dry. So, I went.

Speaking gives me an opportunity to meet new people, and to renew contacts with others. Every listener is a potential book buyer, and I am always painfully aware of that. The trips give me an excuse to visit new places. Some are great (North Carolina, New York City) and some aren’t (Kankakee). But, that’s the chance I take every time that I agree to speak to a group. And I know that going in.

All in all, I’m glad that I do this. All things considered, it continues to be a positive experience.

Continue reading