Chickamauga

I've been rereading Glenn Tucker's "Chickamauga: Bloody Battle in the West" for research this past week. Its been awhile since I've read it and this past week has made me realize again how nice a read it is. Oh sure it has its errors and sometimes the order of things is a little odd, but Tucker was a good writer.

Next up I'll read Peter Cozzens' "This Terrible Sound" to flesh out the details and use that as my source material. I read Tucker just to refresh my mind about the flow of the battle. I'll use Cozzens for the meat. Cozzens' book is a good read too, I've read his four western theater battle books and enjoyed them all.

I also have the five Blue & Gray magazines that were recently done on this campaign handy. And then I'll use the new "Maps of Chickamauga" by David Powell to pinpoint any loose details. I noticed that Steven Woodworth has edited a volume of Chickamauga essays that is coming out at the end of April. So hopefully I'll be able to get a copy of that soon too to get another perspective. Truthfully we have a bunch of Chickamauga related literature available right now. Things are looking up.

Then I can really get working on my own Chickamauga project. Hopefully I'll be able to make it as readable as Tucker but have all the facts right too. Luckily I'm not trying to write a whole new battle history, just a smaller project, I don't have the time (or motivation) for that.

Roundtable

Last night for the first time in 8 years I attended a roundtable meeting where I wasn't asked questions about the newsletter. It was kinda weird not being the point man for questions about the group. I was just a normal member. Maybe not entirely normal as I'm still involved in other roundtable activities that the average member is not, like the symposium. It was nice not doing the newsletter, I didn't really miss it at all. I was able to use my time to edit my manuscript on Chattanooga, I'm now halfway through that. Its been a little while since I've had time to work on it so it was nice to get back to it. Also being away from the project gave me some perspective on the manuscript and I had an idea the other night that I think will make the whole thing read better and be stronger. With the holidays coming up I doubt I'll get too much done on it but my goal right now is to have it ready to mail to publishers on January 1st. That's my goal and I'm going to try to stick to it.

Recently I was posting some Shiloh tablets on Historical Marker Database and going back over my Shiloh manuscript gave me an idea of how to improve my Chickamauga maps. Not sure if my recent burst of creativity and productivity is a result of having fewer roundtable responsibilities but it does feel good to get these projects moving forward again.

Rocky Mountain Civil War Roundtable Newsletter

A few nights ago I wrote my last newsletter for the Rocky Mountain Civil War Roundtable. I'd been trying to find a replacement for the last few months and was able this month to end my time as newsletter editor. I started this job 8 years ago with the October 2000 issue so it actually was kinda nice that this month became my last issue, 8 full years. It does though leave me with 97 issues, my wife suggested maybe I should do it three more months to hit the 100 mark, but 97 is a good tally too.

When I took over the newsletter it was simply a one page, two-sided issue. I kept that format for awhile but eventually I increased it to 4 pages and finally to 6 pages. I leave this post with a little sadness. After 8 years this has kinda become my baby. Every month, no matter what else is going on in my life, I've written a newsletter. Some have suffered due to a lack of time. Some have been fairly good, things I'm proud to have my name attached to.

As for me I'll be using the new free time to do more improvement projects on my house, take care of my son, and of course spend more time with my wonderful wife.

In my final newsletter I shared two personal stories and I'd like to share them with you too. My wife is not a Civil War buff, not at all. She humors me but this is not her passion like it is for me. So when we were picking paint colors for our new house she said that she didn't want to do any decorating for the Civil War. But then she picked blue and gray as the main paint colors. After the walls were painted I pointed out that the two main sides wore blue and gray. To this day she says I tricked her.

My mother got my wife a small book on the Civil War, just general facts that are mostly correct for the beginner. Mom got it as a joke. My son really liked the pictures on the front and wanted me to read it to him. I thought it wouldn't be anything he'd like but I read him the page on John Brown. It was the first page I opened to. He now loves John Brown. Nearly every night long after he's gone to bed he'll come out of his room, find us and yell "John Brown!" Since then I've tried to expand his knowledge with Lee or Sherman but John Brown has stayed his favorite.

In recent months he's started coming to meetings. He talks about these meetings all Thursday. On Fridays he tells his mother all about "his meeting." He thinks all of the roundtable members are his friends, I'm now secondary at the meetings. At each meeting he opens up a bit more with the other guys too. At the first one he was my shadow. At his most recent one he spent more time following our president around than he did with me. At first I was worried about bringing him but he keeps pretty quiet, his only complaint is that no one ever brings a picture of John Brown.

Peer Review Process

Last week I promised some more information on the peer review process and here it is. This is what UT Press does, I'd imagine other publishers are pretty similar.

The reviewer has 4 possible recommendations. There is:
1) I strongly recommend publication
2) I recommend publication. I offer some suggestions for revision, but the author's adoption of these should be left to the discretion of the press.
3) I recommend the press proceed with consideration of the manuscript if the revisions suggested in the attached report are made.
4) I do not recommend publication.

My buddy who has been published thru UT a few times said that usually the first report comes back marked #3, very rarely is it marked #2. My first review came back marked #3. Those changes were made and the same reviewer read it again and marked it #2. That second version was also sent to a second reviewer and he marked it #2.

UT also sends out a list of questions the reviewer should think about as they read the manuscript. I'm not going to retype the list as its pretty lengthy but it mostly deals with things like; is the scholarship sound, does the manuscript make any significant contribution to its field, how does it fit in with other books in its field, could the organization of the book be improved, are there any stylistic revisions needed and finally what other suggestions for revision are there? The UT editor also includes a cover letter in which he highlights the changes he thinks are most needed.

In my case it is kinda interesting that some of the things the first reviewer wanted added (and I did add) the second reviewer wanted removed. For instance the nature of my book meant that there was not a large bibliography and it was suggested that I add some of the major secondary books on the battle so that readers would have an idea of where to go to learn more about the battle. The second reviewer did not like this idea believing the bibliography should only reflect books that were cited in the book. I see his point (in fact that is how I had originally done it) but that meant that no modern treatment of the battle appeared in the bibliography. Perhaps this could be solved with a section titled "For Further Reading."

A Rant

Regular readers probably know that I had a book project killed due to one bad review. One reviewer wrote very positive things about the project and another wrote nearly the opposite. The publisher decided to kill the project even though they admitted that the negative reviewer was probably wrong, but that if they fought him on the issue it probably would not end well. So they gave up the fight. I'm taking the project elsewhere and have been working on making corrections, even some of the corrections offered up by the very negative reviewer.

About a month ago I found out that the negative reviewer [I've never used his name and won't start now although there might be enough details in here for someone to figure it out] published a book a year ago that somehow passed everyone's radar. I got the book thru interlibrary loan mostly to see if he followed his own suggestions. The main suggestion that rankled me was that every time I mentioned a battle or a personality I needed to include at least a paragraph of background. For instance in an introductory chapter I was explaining that the war in early 1862 was going badly for the Confederates, and rattled off a list of defeats; Mill Springs in Kentucky, the fall of Forts Henry and Donelson, Pea Ridge in Missouri and the advance of McClellan on the peninsula towards Richmond. According to this reviewer I needed a paragraph to explain the battles and leaders just mentioned. A simple sentence or two now morphed into like 6 paragraphs. If the intent of the book was to detail the war in 1862 that would make sense but the book was about Shiloh and bios of McClellan and Joe Johnston etc really had no place in the book.

So I was interested to see if he followed his own advice. And he did. And it was really cumbersome to read. Two of the worst examples of this sort; the author actually was editing a veteran's memoirs. The veteran mentioned the county farm, which is a rural poorhouse. For me a simple note that the county farm is a rural example of a poorhouse would have been sufficient. The editor proceeded to write nearly 200 words giving the history of poor houses in America and even mentioned the New Deal. Another time the veteran made a reference to Waterloo, the point being that every regiment eventually faces a supreme test of combat and this is their Waterloo. A note explaining that point would have been fine but the editor went on to explain the number of men involved in the battle of Waterloo, the countries represented, the leaders commanding the armies and the outcome. I didn't count the words this time but it again struck me as overkill. There are other times when he provided notes for things that did not seem to me to need notes. For instance the veteran said some cannons were shotted, and the editor added a note to explain that shotted meant loaded.

Another instance of overkill I actually can commend the editor for. The veteran often listed casualties for the big battles, and the names of the men he enlisted with. The editor went through and for each man gave as much info as the Iowa roster had, info such as age, occupation and location of enlistment and if he survived the war. It didn't add much to the story but if one of those soldiers had been a relative of mine I would have loved seeing that extra touch.

One thing about the notes that really bothered me was that they were at the end of the chapter. I would have preferred foot notes or end of book notes. Being at the end of the chapter really interrupted the flow of the book. I would have preferred foot notes and when a long list of casualties appeared a note directing the reader to a roster at the end of the book (since footnotes at that point would have simply filled the page). This is what the editor did when it came to the big name personalities. He simply had a note directing the reader to the biographical section at the end. In general I thought the notes were too lengthy and there were too many of them (the veteran had 190 pages and the editor added 95 pages of notes in a very small type).

The regiment in the book served under Sherman throughout the war. It was first engaged at Arkansas Post, then at Vicksburg, Chattanooga, the Atlanta campaign, the March to the Sea and through the Carolinas. The memoir was not too useful for battle descriptions. In one case the veteran wrote, after saying the regiment moved forward to the assault, "To describe that moment requires an abler pen than mine. The very earth trembled while the roar of artillery, screeching of shells, and zipping of minie balls, mingled with the sharp and heavy guns of the navy; the dense smoke that enveloped the field and the cries of the wounded and dying can better be imagined than described." Of course the editor added a 100 word note on the history of the creation of the minie ball. And while I understand that individual soldiers saw very little of a battlefield when I read the battle section of a memoir I want more than "I can't write the scene well enough, imagine it for yourself, it was loud and smoky."

A final complaint; there is no bibliography. The notes do offer a full citation so one could search out the editors sources but I thought including a bibliography was pretty standard stuff.

An oddity; this book was published by a small publisher in Helena, Montana that has published very little history and what they have published is on Montana's old west legacy. When I think about great Civil War publishers my mind quickly goes to Montana. Oh sure most people would think one of the big university presses (Tennessee, LSU, North Carolina, Texas A&M, even Nebraska's Bison Books) or one of the various independent publishers (Savas Beatie and Ironclad spring to mind), but somehow this editor went with a little publisher in Montana that has never published a Civil War book before. Why? Did he strike out at the other publishers I just named? As best I can tell the editor is not from Montana and the veteran apparently did not move to Montana after the war. I think going with this small publisher was a mistake because as best I can tell from searching the internet the book has not been reviewed by many people at all, I only found two reviews online and one of them was a simple paragraph that gave an overview that could have been obtained from the dust jacket.

If I did not have a beef against the editor would I buy this book? Yes if I wanted a book for the non battle moments in the life of a soldier. This book is good for that. If I wanted a book for great first hand accounts of battles this is not it. That is not fault of the editor, as stated earlier the veteran simply did not include them. Perhaps he was smart enough in his old age not to write battle scenes that he was not sure of. In my case I have enough books that simply tell the story of solider life so I do not need this one. But if I needed another one this one would be worthy of inclusion. Of course since I haven't told you the editor's name, the veteran's name or regiment, or the name of the publisher it will be kinda hard for you to add it to your bookshelf.

A rant from recent reading

I am a horrible speller and my grammar is not much better but there is one little grammar rule that really irks me, and I've seen a lot of it recently. I noticed it used a lot while reading Shiloh and the Western Campaign of 1862 by O. Edward Cunningham (edited by Gary D. Joiner and Timothy B. Smith). I've noticed it in of other books recently too, Cunningham's is just the first example that springs to mind because it was the book I most recently finished reading.

It's the use of "try and." As in "Bragg needed to try and take the Sunken Road position." It really should be "Bragg needed to try to take the Sunken Road position." The first sentence indicates that Bragg was going to try to do something and that he was going to do the same thing. If that's the case just say that you are going to do the something. This is probably the only grammar lesson that has stuck with me over the years.

I hear it everyday in conversations and it doesn't bother me but I find it annoying to read. When I see it I can be pretty sure that the copy editor used was not first rate. If the publisher skimped here, did they also skimp in the peer review process?

I find it so annoying to read that I have actually stopped reading some books that use it a lot. One in particular was a Revolutionary War overview that seemed to have a good amount of information. But "try and" was used all the time and it got so annoying that I put the book away. I'll probably never finish the book and since then I've been leery of that publisher (I've seen it in other books from that publisher too which makes me wonder what sort of copy editing process they use.)

Sorry for the rant. It was just bothering me. I'll try to not let it get to me as much in the future.

Some news

I've got some good news, a little early yet to be too happy, but a good sign nonetheless. I was recently contacted by Civil War News to be a book reviewer. And I jumped at the opportunity. Friday I got my first book to review and have already started reading it. So far so good. The one caveat though is that I have decided I will not post my review here until after the issue comes out. They did not tell me to do this but it seems like the proper thing to do. So in the near future you hopefully see me in print too. I'm just reserving some happiness so far until my review passes muster.

The Gap at Chickamauga

The topic of my August 9th presentation at the Rocky Mountain Civil War roundtable is the gap in the line at Chickamauga. Roughly two-three years ago I submitted this article to America's Civil War magazine and it was accepted. The publisher though said that the topic wasn't quite their normal fare so it would take awhile to figure out when to use it. Since its been so long I decided to dust it off and present it to the roundtable. I've since worked on it, fleshed out some things, and its a different article than what was submitted those years ago. I'm looking forward to presenting it so that I'll get some more feedback and can make further corrections. And then perhaps I'll resubmit the article and see if anything happens this time around.

I go into the relationship between generals William S. Rosecrans and TJ Wood, and how that effected Wood's decision. I obviously talk a bit about the situation in the battle at the moment Wood moved out of line. But one of the major focuses of my article is what might have happened. I don't mean it as revisionist history, just examining the troops available to both sides in that area, the terrain that could have utilized, things like that. Then try to come to some conclusions on what might have happened if Wood had not pulled out of line. I point out the reasons Wood had for staying plus the reasons he had for leaving.

Overall I think I make a pretty good argument that Wood should have stayed in line. And I think I give a fair description of what the defensive possibilities of Dyer Ridge were. In the confusion that drips the Union right after the gap is exploited by Longstreet we forget just how many cannon and troops Rosecrans had at his disposal. If he had been given time to form a line along Dyer Ridge I believe it would have held and made Chickamauga a Union victory.

Then just for fun I play around with how the war might have been different if Chickamauga had been a Union victory. The short version is that I think the war last just about as long as it really lasted. The main difference I see is that Grant probably is not made general-in-chief and spends 1864 in the west. Grant might spend his time with Rosecrans and allow Sherman to conduct his own campaign against Mobile and/or Montgomery. Then maybe Sherman marches towards Atlanta from the southwest. At the same time though one wonders how Meade would have done against Lee. Would he have followed the formula that Grant used in 1864 or would he have followed the pattern of the past few commanders of the Army of the Potomac; fight a big battle, retreat to lick wounds, then in 2 months try it all again. I don't know enough about Meade to know what he would have done. I guess I need to find letters from Meade from the winter of 1863-64 describing his strategy for the coming spring campaign.