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.
Scridb filterComments
Comments are closed.
Sponsors
Back to top
Blogs I like 
- Andrew Duppstadt
- Andy Etman
- Blue Gray Daily
- Bob O'Neill
- Bottle Rocket Science
- Brooks Simpson
- Bruce Long
- Charlie Knight
- Civil Warriors
- Corey Meyer
- Craig Swain
- Damien Shiels
- Dave Powell
- David Woodbury
- Dimitri Rotov
- Drew Wagenhoffer
- Emerging Civil War Historians
- Harry Smeltzer
- J. D. Petruzzi
- Jack Dempsey
- Jim Miller
- Jim Rosebrock
- Jim Schmidt
- John Hoptak
- Kevin Levin
- Kraig McNutt
- Lee Hutch
- Mannie Gentile
- Mark Grimsley
- Matt Lively
- Michael Aubrecht
- Michael C. Hardy
- Michael Lynch
- Mike Block
- Mike Noirot
- Mysteries and Conundrums
- Rea Andrew Redd
- Richard J. Bell
- Richard McCormick
- Robert H. Moore, II
- Robert Redd
- Scott Mingus
- Scott Patchan
- Sean Heuvel
- Steve Light
- Susan Wittenberg
- Ted Savas
- TOCWOC
- Tom Clemens
- You Stink! blog
- Civil War Sites
- Central Ohio Civil War Roundtable
- Civil War Trust
- CWDG Online
- Dennis Morris
- J. David Petruzzi
- Ohio Civil War 150
- Ohio in the Civil War
- One Continuous Fight: The Retreat from Gettysburg and the Pursuit of Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, July 4-14, 1863
- Pennsylvania in the Civil War
- Plenty of Blame to Go Around: Jeb Stuart’s Controversial Ride to Gettysburg
- Randy Drais
- Rush’s Lancers, also known as the Sixth Pennsylvania Cavalry
- The Books of Eric J. Wittenberg
- Wade Sokolosky
- West Virginia in the Civil War
- Woodbury Historical Tours
- Compilation Blogs
- Other Sites
- Our sponsors
- Publishers of Civil War History
- Popular Pages
- Archives
Eric,
Correct me if my memory fails, but wasn’t there a rather lengthy book written just a few years ago about Morgan’s raid. That prompts my question…..is another really necessary???
Regards,
Christ
Christ:
Have you read the book in question? The subject of Morgan’s Raid is definitely in need of a modern scholarly treatment. IMHO, the afore mentioned book lacks tactics, analysis & a bibilgraphy.
Mike
Eric,
What do you think of Cooling’s Monocacy book? I’ve never read it so I don’t have an opinion on it. I think Cooling overall is a big mixed bag, from very good to nearly worthless.
Out of all your pending and idea phase projects, the Morgan raid one is certainly the one I am most interested in. Good luck with it all…LOL.
Drew
That’s alot of irons in the fire. I noticed these ‘projects’ didn’t include your day job. : )
How is the new firm?
Christ,
The book you refer to is God-awful. It was self-published and did not have the benefit of a competent editor. The research–such as it was–was pretty much limited to family oral history that cannot be corroborated, and the author missed major primary sources. As just one example, August V. Kautz was the commander of the 2nd Ohio Cavalry during that period, and there are two significant collections of Kautz’s papers that were never even consulted by the author, but which would have provided a great deal of good material.
So, the answer is yes, there is a definite need for a scholarly treatment of these events, because the last book most assuredly was not.
Eric
Drew,
The Monocacy book is actually quite good, some of his best work.
Eric
Middle America,
So far, things are great. For the first time in as long as I can remember, I am excited about and enthusiastic about the practice of law. Professionally, it’s going to turn out to be a very good thing indeed.
Eric
Eric,
My goodness, no need to say you think you’re certifiably insane. Let me put your mind to rest…
You are definitely certifiably insane 🙂
There, feel better now?
Seriously, that’s a lot of projects – but I know you well enough to know that you thrive on the activity, as do I. I’m working on finishing a couple articles, and as you know have been gathering more material for our Gettysburg cavalry project. The looking, searching, and gathering never stops, that’s for sure. That’s definitely one thing I thrive on.
J.D.
Eric–
That’s an impressive and daunting list! I must say that I admire your work ethic and your wellspring of ideas. And I’m pleased to hear that your new practice is off to a great start. Also, I wonder: your work is (broadly) divided into biographies, campaign or battle studies, and regimental or unit histories. Among these types, do you have a favorite that you enjoy researching/writing the most?
Best wishes and regards, Russ
Eric – we are certainly cut from the same cloth. I was just talking to an associate this morning about the stack of baseball and CW projects, engagements, and to-do lists that keeps getting longer and longer. My wife says that I need to learn to say “no” – and I say that I need an extra 10 hours in the day. That said, if we didn’t do this – what would we do? You spend your days as an attorney (me an Art Director) – and then we try to balance a family (you dogs – me kids) and a second career at night as historians. Some may say that we all (authors and historians) are madmen – but it keeps us off the streets and out of trouble.
Understood!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And your problem with Sheridan is?
Ian,
Rather than set forth an extensive treatise here, which is not appropriate, allow me to suggest to you that I’ve published a book that spells out my arguments about Sheridan in great detail.
Eric
JD,
No doubt about it. I’m determined to get through the list, and knowing me, new things will be added to it regularly. 🙂
Eric
Russ,
Honestly, I think I enjoy the battle studies most of all and the bios least.
However, the spread is really quite small.
Thanks for the good wishes. I’m having fun again for the first time in a LONG time.
Eric
Michael,
Amen, brother. 🙂
Eric
Ooh, ooh! Cough….Wilson-Kautz Raid!!!!!….Cough
Brett
Hey Eric,
I found your blog on so many ideas and so little time very applicable and have had the same thought many times. One of the projects at the top of my list is a Sheridan bio. I think that you have covered his weaknesses in depth but I still think that there is so much about him that is just not out there. He was not a hell-bent for leather cavalryman. I’m going to albany this fall to really get into the Averell papers – Averell was really given the shaft. In my opinion, he was the most successful division commander in the Valley area during the summer and early fall of 1864 – Merritt and Custer (brigade only) not excepted. Rutherford’s Farm (4 guns and 250 pow’s), Moorefield (4 guns and hundreds of pow’s) Opequon (1 gun and scores of pow’s).
Eric,
Having read LITTLE PHIL, I know why you seleced that title for your examination of Sheridan and it had nothing to do with using it as an affectionate nickname for the man. I regret that when I chaired the recent LBHA Panel discussion on Eastern Cavalry leaders that ominpresent demon named time got in the way my asking the panel for a general assessment of Sheridan as cavalry commander. Greg Urwin has a different take on Sheridan and it would have been interesting to hear your opinion collide with his, in a constructive way, of course. Instead, I asked the listless Fitzhugh Lee question. Oh well, maybe another time.
John
Scott,
I say go for it. You’ll do a great job on Sheridan.
As for Averell, you know my thoughts on him, and I’m with you on it.
Eric
John,
YOu will just have to find another opportunity to get that panel together and ask that question.
Hopefully, there won’t be any audio difficulties before hand.
Eric
Eric,
Yes, another time for the panel question but never again an audio problem of that nature at an LBHA!
John
I would really like to see something on D. McM Gregg. Why does it seem like he was the only cav guy who got along with Meade? Why did he leave?
Scott
Scott,
Gregg was quiet and unassuming, and went about his business. That, I suspect, is why he got long with Meade.
We don’t know why he left. His resignation letter says it was to take care of pressing business at home. The surgeon of the 6th Ohio Cavalry claimed it was because his nerves were shot. That may be, but we will never know–he never said anything publicly.
I have a theory: Gregg was friends with both Averell and Torbert, who were his West Point classmates. I think Gregg saw what sort of rotten treatment they got at the hands of Phil Sheridan, and I think Gregg figured that sooner or later–probably sooner–Sheridan would come back to the Army of the Potomac, and I don’t think Gregg was willing to serve under Sherdan’s command, and this was the only for him to avoid that. I can’t prove it, but I believe it to be true.
Eric
And yet, Grant seemed to be quite ‘stuck’ on ‘Little Phil” (and by the way, what was the ‘Fitzhugh Lee question’ that was ‘listless’ as mentioned above?). Why do you suppose that was?
Oh, and by the way, if you don’t like Sheridan, then the Berryville wagon train raid on 13 August, 1864 by Mosby and his command (his largest number of men in an action in the war) should have certainly tickled your fancy. It was a real stab to Phil’s ego and reputation and he had to ‘retrograde it’ back from whence he had started ten days earlier as a result! He got LOTS of guff from his superiors regarding that little calamity especially as Sheridan considered himself a great supply officer.
Actually, the yellowjackets probably got the best of BOTH commanders on that one!
The Fitzhugh Lee question sought a general appraisal of how he conducted himself throughout the war when in command of cavalry, what was his level of competentcy in the field. I called it listless since Fitz didn’t make make the sparks fly like Sheridan would have, our three panelist more or less agreed on Fitzhugh’s shortcomings.
And walk the battlefield at Wyse Fork!!
:))
Wade Sokolosky