“Writing about military maneuvers and military commanders is a tricky business that can lead to confusion and cameo biographies indistinguishable from each other. These are traps that Leepson does not entirely avoid. He seemed more at home in a previous book, Saving Monticello, in which military history was of no consequence.”

I’m waiting for a book on Monocacy that explains why Wallace get so much credit when one division of Early’s army did all the fighting and wiped out Ricketts. Was Washington saved at Monocacy or when Early dawdled around Harper’s Ferry and Maryland Heights for several days prior to the battle?

For the entire book I primarily examined strategy and personalities. Yes, most of the sources I used were “published,” including the reminiscences from the National Tribune, which you accused me of not including. Not all of them were, however. They came from letters and diaries in several archives.

Thank you for acknowledging that the book was well written. I do consider myself primarily a journalist. I have written for countless publications since I began my career at Congressional Quarterly in 1974. You can find a list of some of them on my website, http://www.marcleepson.com

But I also am a historian. I received my M.A. in History (George Washington University, 1971), and teach U.S. History at Lord Fairfax Community College. My aim in this book was to write a readable account that was thoroughly researched.

This is my sixth book, and fourth history book. I can provide dozens of sterling reviews of all four books from book reviewers and historians. No one ever has accused me of doing anything but thorough research. That’s one reason I had to respond to the inaccuracies in your post.