Wow…I don’t even know what to say…..

Some guy I’ve never heard of previously named James R. Leighton left a review on Amazon of my 2001 book, Glory Enough for All: Sheridan’s Second Raid and the Battle of Trevilian Station. I read it and was floored. I actually was left speechless by it and had to share my exchange here.

The title of the review is “Another biased Civil War book.” This is what the review says:

Like so many books and articles as well as art I found this book heavily in favor of the South. The North is often made to seem lacking in good Generals or often even in good horses. It is always something!! I really only liked this book because it was about a train station and I am a train collector. Actually I have read many books about the civil war since I was 16 years old and have visited many of the important battle sites. I even collect toy soldiers and here I am 68 years old!

What are the good points about this book? One is that it is easily readable and the story flows evenly with good maps which is rare in civil war books. It also does a good job of describing the content of the battle, going into the purpose of the raid, as well as the many difficulties of being in a troop of some 9000 men trying to engage an elusive enemy. I also found that Sheridan’s tactics in trying to lead the Southern cavalry away from Grant’s movements to Petersberg were justified. Also remember it was under Grant’s approval that this raid was conducted. Since that goal was accomplished I would say that the raid was successful and disagree with the authors opinion that it was a failure.

What is not so good about this book? I would say that it could have used a few more maps in some strategic places, that the battle of Samaria seemed more like an after thought and was not very well described. Most of all, the books inherent Southern bias made me wonder how accurately the battle is described in spite of the rather large amount of documentation included at the end of each chapter. But since the documentation included many references to the First Maine Cavalry in which some of my relatives served at least now I have to find another book to read which is often the outcome of reading one book on the very Lost Cause.

Wow. I’ve been called a lot of things in my day, but a Lost Causer? Inherent Southern bias? Say what? Those of you who read this blog regularly know that nobody has EVER accused me of having inherent Southern bias or of being a Lost Causer before. I was blown away and had to respond. Here’s my response:

Wow. I’m blown away by this. I’ve been accused of a lot of things, but one thing I have NEVER been called is a Southern partisan. If anything, I’m known for my work on the UNION cavalry. The Union cavalry has always been the primary focus on my work. I am most assuredly NOT a Lost Causer. NOBODY has ever accused me of that before. Wow.

So, he responded. Get a load of this:

Whether or not you write about the Union cavalry is is not the issue. The issue is the fact that you are and other writers are critical of the Union side of the war until the last year of the war. You depict Sheridan as basically incompetent just like other writers about Sherman and Grant. Why is this? The Battle of Travilian Station was another victory of the Union not a loss as you depict it. Sherman gave the South exactly what it deserved with a constitution that approved of slavery and so did Sheridan. Even Mort Kuntsler depicts the South in a positive light. I cant find one artist or writer including you that depicts the South as basically a criminal society. Such is revisionist history!!

Let me see if I’ve got this right: anyone who doesn’t portray the South as a criminal society is a revisionist Lost Causer with an inherent Southern bias. Anyone who criticizes the Union high command–even when it’s appropriate and deserved–is a Lost Causer. Hmmmmm….that’s a new one on me, and I thought I’d heard pretty much everything in my years of working with the Civil War.

My reply:

That’s a very strange definition you use, Mr. Leighton.

You seem to think that I should have preconceived notions rather than go where the evidence leads me. If it takes being what you criticize to satisfy you as to my work, I’ll take a pass, thanks.

By every definition–tactical and strategic–Sheridan failed miserably. You and he are the only ones who call it a victory. How is being driven from the battlefield after failing to achieve your objective a victory? That’s one strange definition you have, sir.

Good luck to you.

Normally, I would be terribly amused by this sort of thing, but I’m actually troubled by it. The only thing that will satisfy this bozo is something that condemns the South as a criminal society and compares Jefferson Davis to Adolf Hitler. It really concerns me that this guy takes such a viewpoint seriously. He can say what he wants about me–I don’t care what he thinks about me. I am, however, worried now about how many others are out there who share this absurd viewpoint.

It seems that I have found the mirror image of the Lost Causers and neo-Confederates that I so despise. I guess I now have a new category of moron to contend with, and that concerns me. What do we even call this viewpoint?