🙂

J.D.

If he studies hard for about 10-15 years, does a lot of reading, and asks a lot of questions to those of us who know what the hell we’re talking about, maybe he’ll be ready to give a little 5-minute presentation on something.

Maybe.

J.D. Petruzzi

It is definitely cool–there’s no doubt about that. However, this surfaced as close to being too late as is humanly possible.

They’ve at least been transcribed, so that will help.

And you’re absolutely right about Carhart and his crappy book.

Eric

New stuff is cool when it shows up, no matter what the source. New material is fun to add, but I confess I like it best when new stuff enhances or corroborates already existing accounts, especially ones where you only have a single source for detail. I hope these kick ass.

I would hate to have that little time to add material, however – I have found that I can go back to an account several times, and each time find small nuances that enliven other accounts, so I would like that stuff to gestate for a while. But you gets what you gets, so take it, I guess.

Are the letters transcribed, or do you have to pick through handwriting?

Carhart:

I have read enough of Carhart’s book to agree with you. A rambling, poorly thought out work that fails on several levels, and throws in a great deal of gratuitious military history from other periods that collectively, fails to enhance his point.

However, I was amused when you said he threw the publisher at you. Jason Blair had a big publisher behind him, too:)

More to the point, if his work could stand on its own, he could answer point by point and defend it, akin to a doctoral. Reverting to the publisher is that obnoxious “appeal to authority” thing that just screams diversion, to me.

Poor you, a week of ACW immersion:)

Dave Powell