Interview: Ronald G. Griffin, “The 11th Alabama Volunteer Regiment in the Civil War”

Ronald Griffin’s The 11th Alabama Volunteer Regiment in the Civil War was published in 2008 by McFarland & Company and was recently reprinted in a more affordable paperback edition. Below, Mr. Griffin answers some questions about himself and the book.

BR:  As usual Ron, let’s start off with a little background.

RG: I am an ordained minister in the Southern Baptist Convention and have been a pastor for about  twenty-seven years. In addition, I have been a lecturer in Hebrew on the seminary level, and lectured as well on the College level. I have had the opportunity to study abroad at the University of Stellenbosch and the Queens University of Belfast.  I hold a doctoral degree from New Orleans Theological Seminary. I am married with three children and four grandchildren, and Mobile, Alabama, is my hometown. Outside of my unpublished master’s thesis and doctoral project, the 11th Alabama is my first published work.

BR: What got you interested in studying Civil War?

RG: I have always been interested in the Civil War. I remember playing with Civil War soldiers as a kid and hearing my Grandma Griffin talking about our family Civil War stories. I can’t point to one particular person who engendered my interest in the field, but simply a growing interest from childhood that culminated in intensive research in Civil War studies. A few works stand out in my budding interest in the field: Shelby Foote’s three volumes, The Civil War: A Narrative, Douglas S. Freeman’s Lee’s Lieutenants: A Study in Command, and McMillan’s The Alabama Confederate Reader. Other influential writers along my journey have been James M. McPherson, and James I. Robertson. The Official Records and the many published works by the soldiers who fought in the war have fueled my passion. I was also greatly influenced in pursuing academic excellence while studying under Dr. Allen C. Guelzo.

BR: What were you hoping to accomplish with The 11th Alabama Volunteer Regiment in the Civil War? What was the story you were trying to tell, and what did you want the reader to come away with after reading it?

RG: The work began on a personal note after discovering that several of my ancestors had fought in the 11th Alabama. It was out of researching their war records that the idea of researching the regiment was born.  I wanted to open up the world of the men who fought in the 11th Alabama for both scholars and interested descendants. I wanted to tell the story of the men, their individual journeys from 1861-1865, and their lives after the war. The 11th Alabama is not simply the unfolding of the story of an individual Confederate infantry regiment, but the personal journey the reader takes with the soldiers as they sit around a camp fire, describe the carnage on the battlefield, or double-quick over an open field toward the enemy works. It is my hope that readers will come away with a greater appreciation for both the regiment and the soldiers who fought in the 11th Alabama. The 11th Alabama was one of the hardest fighting regiments in the Army of Northern Virginia. Readers will learn of the bravery, patriotism, and motives of many of the men who comprised the unit.

BR: What makes your study stand out – what does it contribute to the literature that has not already been contributed?

RG: First of all, no definite work on the 11th Alabama had been written. George Clark’s reflections on the regiment had been published in 1914 entitled, A Glance Backward: Or Some Events in the Past History of My Life . Clark’s work was not a systematic treatment of the regiment. Second, the work contributes to our understanding of the Wilcox-Sanders Brigade in the Army of Northern Virginia. A great deal of primary material accessed provides helpful information on the role played by the brigade during the war. The work provides specific details of battle developments previously undocumented. Third, the 11th Alabama contributes to understanding how the typical Confederate regiment was raised as well as the dialogue regarding the motives for fighting in Confederate service. Finally, the work has a strong biographical component. Personal stories are scattered throughout the book, and the final chapter examines the lives of the soldiers following Appomattox.

BR: Can you describe your journey in writing the book?

RG: The research and writing of the 11th Alabama took about seven years. A formidable obstacle in writing a regimental history is the time needed to visit and study key locations. A regimental history requires a researcher to travel to the locations where the unit was formed, encamped, fought, and buried it’s dead. In addition, necessary time allotment for travel to the locations containing necessary research materials provided a challenge. I found it surprising that so many extant original sources for the 11th Alabama became accessible in the project.  The project was difficult to end. Academic research requires an exhaustive undertaking by the researcher which makes the decision to terminate a project difficult. Nevertheless, after tracing each soldier’s life following the war as far as I could, I knew the project was completed.

BR: Can you describe your research and writing process?

RG: Research began with the official muster rolls and Confederate service cards of the 11th Alabama (available at the Alabama Department of Archives and History in Montgomery, Alabama).  I recorded the daily data on every single soldier for the entire war. The daily data provided rich personal information for cataloging the regimental developments throughout the war. A wealth of information for the book is contained in the Department of Archives and History at Montgomery, Alabama, as well as the W.S. Hoole Special Collections at the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa. Using the official muster rolls as a chronological guide for the book, the research and writing traced the developments of the regiment from the original mustering in of the individual companies until the final parole at Appomattox Court House. Information from the Official Records, personal biographical information, and any additional relevant information was inserted within the basic chronological framework. The foundational sources for the 11th Alabama included: official muster rolls of the regiment, the Confederate service cards, the 11th Alabama Regimental Files, The Sydenham Moore Papers, The James McMath Diary, and the Dr. William H. Sanders Papers all from the Alabama Department of Archives and History at Montgomery, Alabama. In addition, the J.C.C. Sanders Papers (W.S. Hoole Special Collections the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa, Alabama), the Official Records, the Cadmus M. Wilcox Papers (Library of Congress Manuscript Division held in Washington, D.C.), the Velma and Stephens G. Croom Collection (held in the University of South Alabama Archives, Mobile, Alabama), and George Clark’s A Glance Backward. Online sites provided personal biographical information on individual soldiers as well as information on the location of needed primary sources. I took the time to solicit information online from ancestors of the soldiers who served in the 11th Alabama, and in response received everything from letters to photographs.

BR: I understand the book has been reprinted. Can you talk about that process, how the decision was made, etc.?

RG: The hard back copy of the 11th Alabama was released in 2008 by McFarland &Co. Inc. Publishers. The publishers decided that the sales of the book through 2011 merited a reprint but in a different format. In 2012 the 11th Alabama was released in soft cover form at a reduced price. We hope that offering the book at the reduced price might generate more book sales.

BR: What’s next for you?

SH: I am currently engaged in a new research project that I hope to publish upon its completion.  I am studying the contributions of the citizens of Mobile, Alabama, to the Confederate war effort from 1860-1865. The work focuses upon civilian efforts in support of the military. The work hopes to determine the how Mobilians contributed to the war effort in order to understand the diversity, development, and motivation of their labors.

Notes to Brig. Gen. Richard S. Ewell, On the Battle

A few notes on this post - Brig. Gen. Richard S. Ewell, On the Battle:

A copy of this letter, from Richard S. Ewell to Mary Custis Lee, was provided to me by researcher Tonia Smith of Pinehurst, NC. I received permission from the Virginia Historical Society to post a transcription and an image of the letter here.

Before posting the letter, I contacted Donald Pfanz of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park. Mr. Pfanz is the author of the definitive biography of Ewell, and has recently published a collection of his correspondence. As the letter in question was not included in his book, I wanted to give him a first look. He very graciously consented to transcribe its contents. Considering his familiarity with Ewell’s handwriting and composition, this was appropriate. With one minor exception, his transcription of the letter has been reproduced here as submitted, complete with edits - typically I don’t edit correspondence for punctuation, spelling, or abbreviations. However, as Mr. Pfanz was kind enough to do the work, I make an exception in this case.

Thanks to Ms. Smith, the VHS, and Mr. Pfanz.

American Experience: The Abolitionists

Things have been busy around here. Very busy indeed. So, despite having received the discs well in advance, my intention to view each of three episodes of PBS’s American Experience: The Abolitionists prior to their airing remains an intention. I do apologize. But here’s some info: the first part airs tomorrow night (Tuesday, January 8) in the Pittsburgh market, with parts II and III airing on successive Tuesdays. I’ll try to view the 2nd and 3rd parts in advance and hep you to them, but I can’t make any promises. Go here to view more details.

I tend to agree (will wonders never cease?) with the theme of Gary Gallagher’s The Union War that the pendulum has swung a bit too far to slavery as the cause of the war (not from an action standpoint, but from a motivational one, if you get my drift.) There’s too much stridency on the part of the pendulum swingers for my taste, but hey, that’s the way pendulums work. They go from one extreme to the other, right? While there are talking heads involved (usual suspect David Blight is first and foremost, but also a few folks with whom I’m unfamiliar – but “Abolition” titles total only 10 or so volumes of my library so that really doesn’t mean anything), The Abolitionists is a more theatrical presentation, with actors in the lead roles of Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, Angelina Grimke, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and John Brown. Most prominent among them, for me at least, is Richard Brooks as Douglass. You may know him better as Assistant DA Paul Robinette on Law and Order or, if you are a hopeless geek, as bounty hunter Jubal Early on Firefly.

Anyway, I will try to be better about filling you in on the next two episodes in advance, but if you want to talk about the show after it airs Tuesday we can do that here or over on the Facebook page.

Interview: Patrick Schroeder, Schroeder Publications

In addition to his steady NPS gig as Historian at Appomattox Court House NHP, Patrick Schroeder is owner of Schroeder Publications, which puts out quality Civil War books on an ecclectic range of topics. Patrick took some time from his very busy schedule to answer a few questions in this first (for Bull Runnings) two part interview. In Part I, we focus on Schroeder Publications in general. Part II will focus more narrowly on the recent release of what is without a doubt the most anticipated regimental history of the past couple of decades, the late Brian C. Phohanka’s history of the 5th New York Volunteer Infantry (Duryee’s Zouaves), Vortex of Hell.

To order any Schroeder Publications title, go to their website and click on the “Schroeder Books” tab. You’ll find the covers of all the books, and can click on the covers for descriptions of the books.

BR: For any of our readers out there who may only know you from the spine of your books, who is Patrick Schroeder?

PS: I can claim being both a Southerner and a Northerner.  I was born in Virginia when my father was in the army, but was raised in Utica, NY, until I was 13.  My father transferred with GE to Waynesboro, Virginia.  I attended Stuarts Draft High School in Augusta County and went to Shepherd College (now Shepherd University) specifically for their degree in Historical Park Administration, which they no longer offer.  I obtained my Master’s Degree in Civil War history at Virginia Tech, where Dr. James I. “Bud” Robertson chaired my thesis.  My family and I now live in Lynchburg, VA.  When not involved in history pursuits or entertaining the kids, I’m typically at an ice rink reffing or playing hockey.

BR: How did you catch the Civil War bug?

PS: I actually grew up on the Revolutionary War in central New York, where the Oriskany Battlefield and Fort Stanwix were close by, and not too far distant was Saratoga and Fort Ticonderoga, as well as Baron Von Steuben’s and General Herkimer’s homes.  My parents liked history and we travelled a good deal when I was young and we visited many historical sites during our family vacations.  We attended many National Park programs, and I always would be in front and answer all of the Ranger’s questions to the group.  My interest changed to Civil War when we moved to Waynesboro, Virginia, when I was thirteen and saw the re-enactment at New Market Battlefield.

BR: Why did you decide to get into publishing Civil War titles?

PS: While working as a seasonal at Appomattox Court House National Historical Park I did a college project focusing on Myths about Lee’s Surrender and eventually developed it into my first little book Thirty Myths About Lee’s Surrender (1993), which sold at the park and various places in Appomattox.  People suggested that I see if other historical sites, shops, and bookstores, would want to carry it, and many places did.  After writing More Myths About Lee’s Surrender and publishing a reprint of The Fighting Quakers with additional materials, others approached me with projects.  The Historian at Appomattox asked me to reprint Five Points in the Record of North Carolina in the Great War 1861-65 and Brian Pohanka asked me to print a book called A Duryee Zouave, the recollections of Thomas Southwick which previously had only been printed for the family, but is an excellent account, perhaps my favorite.  I added photos to the North Carolina book and put a more marketable cover on the book and titled it Tarheels and kept the former title as the subtitle.  I had done a good deal of leg work getting the Myth books out and now had more than 100 places carrying our titles.  When I finished my 500+ page book “We Came To Fight”:  The History of the 5th New York Veteran Volunteer Infantry, Duryee’s Zouaves 1863-1865 (that started as my master’s thesis) and spoke to several publishers about taking it on.  I found out that they really would not do anything more for my book, and probably less, than I was already doing.  So, we published it and marketed it on our own.

BR: What makes your books stand out – what does Schroeder Publications have to offer to both writers and readers that is not already provided by other publishers?

PS: Honestly, I’m not sure.  We’re not limited to a certain Civil War genre, our books cover a wide range of areas and topics in the Civil War realm—cemeteries, battles, letters, Zouaves, African-Americans, regimental histories, photo studies, biographies, and memorials.  People really like our books on animals in the Civil War.  Mike Zucherro’s book, Loyal Hearts:  Histories of Civil War Canines is our best seller.  Civil War Animal Heroes:  Mascots, Pets and War Horses by Charles Worman is very popular as well.

I’ve seen Civil War books printed where the publisher has no idea about the subject and just printed the material as is.  I read through the manuscripts and am able to make corrections, ask questions, or even add something to the work.  We love using large and numerous photos in our books, something that is shied away from by larger main-stream publishers.

BR: Can you describe how you go about attracting manuscripts and authors, or how you decide to republish an out of print work?

PS: We do not solicit manuscripts as more than enough come in on their own, which we take as a nice compliment.  We only publish one or two titles a year and have a backlog of titles to publish, so we have to be selective.  We’d like to print them all, but time, a limited staff, finances and the marketability of some titles, just does not make it feasible.  This year, we pushed hard and were able to release three new books.   “My Country Needs Me”  The Story of Corporal Johnston Hastings Skelly Jr.:  87th Pennsylvania Infantry, A Son of Gettysburg and Confidant of Jennie Wade by Enrica D’Alessandro; then Nicholas Redding’s A History and Guide to Civil War Shepherdstown:  Victory and Defeat in West Virginia’s Oldest Town; and lastly Brian Pohanka’s long awaited Vortex of Hell:  History of the 5th New York Volunteer Infantry, Duryee’s Zouaves 1861-1865.  We receive a considerable number of submissions by mail and e-mail, but often it is someone that talks to us in person.   Sometimes it is a friend with an idea.  These days, a title needs to have a definite selling market.  So whether it is a new title, a reprint, or the printing of an out of print book, the market and demand has to be there. This year we also reprinted (new to Schroeder Publications) Brian Bennett’s book The Beau Ideal of a Soldier and Gentleman:  The Life of Col. Patrick Henry O’Rorke From Ireland to Gettysburg; another reprint , this time in soft cover, is Four Years in the First New York Light Artillery:  The Papers of David F. Ritchie, edited by Norman L. Ritchie; and Thomas McGrath’s Shepherdstown: Last Clash of the Antietam Campaign September 19-20, 1862 was brought out in soft cover.

BR: Can you describe your production process, from manuscript acceptance, through editing, to publication, promotion, distribution and sales?

PS: After accepting a manuscript , I will read and edit the manuscript for historical accuracy, grammar and style.  I often do this when the manuscript is first submitted.  My wife, Maria, or I will work on the layout, and typically, Maria will design a cover.  We use several printers depending on the size of the book.  Both are excellent to work with.  We submit books for review to various papers and magazines.  Then we work on getting the books out to our sources.  We don’t do too much advertising, but concentrate more on getting the books out to certain historical sites and venues.  It usually takes six months to a year to get a book selling well.  We are also attending re-enactments and shows to push the book during the 150th Anniversary.

BR: What’s in the Schroeder Publications pipeline?

PS: The next book we plan to release is Cooper Wingert’s Emergency Men:  The 26th Pennsylvania Volunteer Militia and the Gettysburg Campaign.  Cooper is a young fellow, still in high school, but already has two good books to his credit.  When he submitted it, I was very impressed with the research he had done and his writing style, and I’m a fan of good regimental histories.  This seemed like a good title to accept as I was always intrigued by the 26th Pennsylvania Militia monument at Gettysburg on Chambersburg Street of the young boy not wearing a jacket but sporting boots and a rifle at port arms.  I never knew the whole story about that unit, but now I do and others will soon too.  We will have it out in March or April, well in time for the 150th events at Gettysburg.  By taking on other peoples’ projects to publish, my works have been sitting for years.  I do hope to get out a collection of letters by various 20th Maine soldiers before the Gettysburg Anniversary as well, and the transcribed letters and diary of Axel Leatz—a Swedish officer who served in the 5th New York Veteran Volunteer Infantry, Duryee’s Zouaves, 1863-1865.  The letters and diary were all in Swedish, so I had to recruit some Swedish friends to help on this one—it is a very unique perspective.  There are several other titles on our list, and I’d like to do a second book on the Pennsylvania Bucktails with Ronn Palm – he has so many great photos of those soldiers.  Researching what happened to each one is fun; the writing of their stories is a bit harder.

Part II coming soon…

What To Do? What To Do?

Notice that Bull Runnings has been very focused on building the Resources section with soldiers’ correspondence. There are several reasons for the concentration. First, the Resources is why the site came about. I use blogging software to do it because it’s simple and so am I. And also because I like the way it develops. Second, I’ve decided to move a lot of the “newsy” or “discussion oriented” items that I used to post here over to Facebook. I found there was a lot of stuff going on here that I felt could be better served there. But I hope you’ve noticed I’ve kept up with the author interviews here, and of course I intend to continue with them here.

But I’ve also used Bull Runnings over the past six(!) years as an outlet for original content. I’ve let things slip in that area, mostly due to time constraints. So, I think in the coming year I’m going to get back to writing about the campaign and its personalities. To start with, I think I’ll serialize some/all/even more of what I’ve uncovered over the years about Peter Conover Haines, the man who “opened the ball” at Bull Run with a shot from his 30 pounder Parrott. You may remember I linked to this video of a Haines program I presented to the Loudoun Civil War Roundtable in 2011. I contacted several folks I know in “the business” about publishing an article presenting his story, but I had trouble hearing their enthusiastic responses over the hum of my air conditioning and an occasional cricket. Ditto for an annotated version of Haines’s 1911 Cosmopolitan Magazine article. So I think I’ll get cracking on both those items – look for them in (hopefully) the first quarter of 2013.

In the meantime, to keep up with other items of interest, like Bull Runnings on Facebook and subscribe to the Twitter feed.

Interview: Bryce A. Suderow, “The Petersburg Campaign”

Savas Beatie has recently published The Petersburg Campaign Volume I: The Eastern Front Battles June-August, 1864, by Edwin C. Bearss with Bryce A. Suderow. Bull Runnings has previously interviewed Mr. Bearss here. You may or may not be familiar with his partner in this effort, Bryce Suderow, but you’ve likely read works which have benefitted from his efforts.

——————–

BR:  Bryce, most of our readers have been exposed to your work, but in many cases may not be aware of it. Can you tell them something about yourself?

BAS: I was born in Chicago in 1950 and grew up in one of its suburbs, South Holland.  I attended Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois and moved to California in 1973 to attend graduate school at Sonoma State University where I got a Masters in American History.  Although my focus was on early American History, my thesis was on a Civil War battle.

My career as a writer began in 1973 when I published an article in the Westport Historical Quarterly.  Since that time I have published articles in Civil War Times Illustrated, North and South and other magazines.

My first book was actually my thesis on the Battle of Pilot Knob, Thunder in Arcadia Valley.  After that I was co-editor for theSupplement to the Official Records.  My third book is Volume 1 of The Petersburg Campaign.

My career as a researcher began in 1991 when Noah A. Trudeau hired me to do some research.  I liked the work so much that I decided to switch over to  doing research for a living.  Over the next twenty years I did research at the Library of Congress and the National Archives for J.D. Petruzzi, Eric Wittenberg, Gordon Rhea and many others.  I was among the first researchers to use Civil War era newspapers as sources and now the practice is quite common.

BR: What got you interested in studying the American Civil War?

BAS:  When the Civil War Centennial arrived, I was at the very impressionable age of eleven.  Chicagoans took the Civil War very seriously.  Ralph Newman and some others started the first Civil War Round Table.  Newman’s nationally known bookstore attracted Civil War writers and Civil War buffs from all over the country, including Bruce Catton. 

Newman was a local legend, so the Chicago Tribune persuaded him to write a weekly column on the Civil War called Ralph Newman’s Scrapbook for their Sunday magazine section.  The Trib even published a comic strip series every Sunday called Old Glory at the Crossroads which dealt with the events that had occurred one hundred years ago that week.  The Newman Scrapbook and the Old Glory series were among my earliest influences.  About the same time I was also influenced by two comic books on the Civil War published by Classics Illustrated and by the multi-part Life Magazine series on the Civil War.

The greatest influence from an individual came from my Social Studies teacher, Ted Gunaka, who was a Civil War buff.  He assigned each of his fifth grade students a Civil War battle and required us to write a paper and deliver an oral speech on it.  I chose the Battle of the Crater and the Siege of Petersburg.  Gunaka thus put me on the path to researching the Civil War.

All this occurred when I was a pre-teen.

As a teenager I read all of Bruce Catton’s Civil War books.  His writings thrilled me and instilled in me a deep love of the Civil War.  When I was in my twenties I moved to California and majored in History and got my Masters Degree at Sonoma State University.  I decided to specialize in the war west of the Mississippi and it was then that I became aware of Edwin C. Bearss and his writings taught me and inspired me.  Also important were two other writers, Richard Brownlee and John R. Margreiter, both of whom wrote about the battle of Pilot Knob, Missouri.  I wrote my Master’s Thesis on that battle and it was published as a book in 1985 under the title Thunder in Arcadia Valley.

BR: Why Petersburg?

BAS: After years of studying and writing about the war in the Trans-Mississippi, I changed my focus to the Siege of Petersburg because the 1864-65 campaigns in Virginia won the war.  I wrote a series of articles on the early battles of the siege for a long-defunct magazine called The Kepi.  I also began research on the First Battle of Deep Bottom and even wrote a manuscript on the battle.  Unfortunately, though this was 25 years ago, it has not yet been published.

BR: What makes this work on Petersburg stand out from others?

BAS: There are a number of books that deal with particular battles or offensives of the Siege of Petersburg, the Crater being the most popular topic.  However, there are only two books that cover the entire Siege of Petersburg.  One of them is Noah A. Trudeau’s The Last Citadel.  The other is John Horn’s The Petersburg Campaign.  Both books have their strengths and weaknesses, but both are far too short to cover the siege in the detail it deserves.

The Bearss book stands out for two reasons.  One of the book’s strengths is that deals with the entire siege in-depth. Each chapter is devoted to one battle and each chapter is around 70 pages long.  No one has ever done this.  For the first time people who want to walk the battlefields will know where to go.

Another strength is Bearss’ writing style.  He writes so clearly that any layman can understand him and so dramatically that readers are hooked on the story he tells.

BR: What is your role in The Petersburg Campaign project?

BAS: I had two roles when I worked on Vol. I.  First, I was editor of the material that Bearss wrote and second  I was co-author since I wrote the introductions and conclusions to each chapter.  In Vol. II I am also the editor.  My writer role has expanded.  In addition to the intros and conclusions, I am adding material to some chapters, material that came to light after Bearss wrote his ms.

At the request of the Federal Government Bearss wrote a series of studies on the Petersburg battles in the mid-1960s.  He never intended to publish them.  For years the only people who knew about them were the employees at Petersburg battlefield park and scholars of the battle.  I obtained copies of some of the studies and was impressed by them.

Five or six years ago I decided they should be published, but first I needed to obtain copies of all the studies.  The park employees were kind enough to provide those.

Next I needed volunteers to type the chapters into their computers.  On a site called The Civil War Message Board Portal I posted a message calling for volunteers to help publish a book by Edwin C. Bearss.  The effect of his name was magical and a surprisingly large number of people volunteered to do the typing.  Once the computer version of the book was typed, I called for volunteers to make certain each chapter followed the same format.  Again the volunteers came forward.  This phase was completed three years ago.

Finally, I approached Ted Savas and told him about the manuscript.  He was enthusiastic and immediately agreed.  The biggest obstacles to publishing were finding someone to create the maps and finding authors to write about two battles Bearss did not cover, the Battle of the Crater and the Battle of Fort Stedman.  This took a couple of years.  Finally this year we found two experts who were eager to co-author a book with Edwin C. Bearss.  Patrick Brennan wrote the Crater chapter and Bill Wyrick wrote the Stedman chapter.  Also this year I chose George Skoch to create the maps.  He did a score of superb maps in just a few months.

BR: Can you describe your research and writing process?

BAS: To write the introductions and conclusions in Vol. I I used John Horn’s book, The Petersburg Campaign.  For Vol. II I am using that book, plus the Official Records, the Supplement to the Official Records and various published and unpublished accounts.

People who read this book are in for a real treat.  Most Civil War enthusiasts have a completely wrong idea about the siege.  They think the siege consisted of static warfare and doomed Union attacks against Confederate trenches.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Of the ten battles that took place during the siege, only three involved Union attacks on the Confederate lines.  There were the initial Union assaults of June 15-18, 1864, the assault at the Crater on July 30, 1864, and the Union attack that led to a breakthrough on April 2, 1865.  All the other battles took place in the woods and fields around the city and occurred because Grant was sending portions of his army to seize and/or destroy the Weldon and Southside Railroads.

Each of the battles is interesting because different corps and corps commanders were engaged in the various battles and they commanded their men differently.  For example contrast the union generalship in two battles for the Weldon Railroad.  On August 18 Warren seizes the railroad and quite prudently wants to fortify his position against the inevitable Confederate attacks.  Grant and Meade insist that he press up against the Confederate fortifications which places him in dense woods where he can’t see the Confederates coming.  As a result on August 18 and 19 the Confederates attack his flanks, surprise his men and rout them, so  he suffers tremendous losses, mostly in prisoners.  On August 20 Grant and Meade allow him to do what he asked permission to do.  He fortifies and the next day a big Confederate attack is repulsed.

Hancock fights a battle at ream’s station four days later and his style is quite different.  He occupies a badly planned and laid out fortification constructed in June by the VI Corps and is seemingly indifferent to improving the strength of his position.  Instead he spends his time destroying the railroad.  As a result the Confederates attack him while he’s holding this weak position and the II Corps is routed and driven from the field with a large loss in prisoners.  The difference between the two generals is clear.  Warren was more astute than Hancock so he was acutely aware of the danger Lee’s army posed and Hancock was not.  Warren was also aware that fortifications were necessary because the quality of his men had deteriorated because of excessive casualties.

The book is also fascinating because it shows the rise and fall of fortunes of Confederate high commanders at Petersburg.  A.P. Hill was so ill that he often turned over command to Henry Heth or William Mahone.  Mahone  rose to the occasion and became one of the two most outstanding commanders on the Confederate side.  The other stellar commander was Wade Hampton.  It was he who persuaded Lee to attack the isolated Hancock at Ream’s Station and he played a key role in the victory.

I guarantee that anyone who reads this book will end up fascinated by the Siege of Petersburg.

BR: What’s next for you?

BAS: I hope to co-author a book on Five Forks with Mike McCarthy.  Mike wrote a dissertation on the battle and on the Warren Court of Inquiry.  I found him a publisher and we’ve become friends.  And I want to publish my Deep Bottom manuscript.

Good luck with your future work, Bryce. We’re all looking forward to Volume II of The Petersburg Campaign.

Stephen Spielberg at Gettysburg

Here’s Stephen Spielberg’s speech at the Dedication Day ceremony in the National Cemetery at Gettysburg yesterday (crank up the volume.)

My favorite line? “But we are filmmakers; we are not scholars, we are not historians.” It would be nice if everyone could keep that in mind.

As for Mr. Spielberg’s new film, Lincoln, I saw it with friends over the weekend. A great flick – two thumbs up. Cool stuff to look for: Kelly Leak; Brother D-Day; Dan’s Appendage; King Arthur’s Son; That Amish Kid.

Saving Lincoln

A while back, I was contacted by a screenwriter working on this project. I don’t think she was quite satisfied with my opinion regarding Lincoln and soldiers returning from Bull Run. But they seem to have endeavored to persevere despite the withholding of my imprimatur for the proposed scene.

Lincoln C. K.

Two of my favorite people all rolled into one.

Interview: John Schmutz, “The Battle of the Crater: A Complete History”

I did a brief preview of John Schmutz’s The Battle of the Crater: A Complete History for America’s Civil War back when it first came out in 2009. At the time the format of my column paired books together, and I gave Schmutz’s book the edge over Richard Slotkin’s No Quarter. But I did take the book to task, as I did most McFarland publications, for its just-plain-silly price. The Battle of the Crater will soon be released in paperback and at a more reasonable $35. Since many folks may have been turned off by the price tag three years ago, I thought it would be fair to Mr. Schmutz to give everyone a little refresher on the book, and to that end John agreed to answer a few questions.

——————————————–

BR: What can you tell the readers about John Schmutz?

JS: I am a native of Oneida, New York, and currently live with my wife of many years in San Antonio, Texas.  We have three adult children currently located in various parts of the U.S.  I hold a B.S. from Canisius College, and law degrees from both The University of Notre Dame and George Washington University.  Following a tour in the U.S. Army as a lawyer, I enjoyed a rewarding career as a corporate attorney, initially in private practice, and then as general counsel and a member of senior management for several public companies.  Given a long-standing ambition to one day find the time to write on the Civil War, I seized an opportunity to reduce my legal workload and became a founding principal in a business venture which ultimately allowed me the time and flexibility to do so.

While I had published a number of legal theses throughout my career, The Battle of the Crater: A Complete History was my first full-length book.  It enjoyed considerable success when it was first published, and was highly regarded by reviewers generally.  The Civil War Times indicated that “[f]or anyone who sees the Crater as the decisive battle that could and should have been, this book will provide the long-awaited answer to prayers.”  Civil War News wrote that “Schmutz has set the standard for a study of this period of Civil War history.”  Civil War Books and Authors remarked that there “exists no great shortage of books and articles written about the … Battle of the Crater, but it’s safe to say none are remotely comparable to John F. Schmutz’s recently published study.”  Unfortunately, the publisher’s pricing ($75.00), placed a considerable damper upon retail sales, and was the one universal criticism of the work.  Thus, I was most happy to learn that sales of the book were nonetheless strong enough that a soft cover edition was just published at a much reduced price.

In addition to immersing myself in Civil War history and writing, I enjoy genealogical research, and reading generally.  I still do pro bono legal work for charitable organizations, as well as serving on several boards.  I am an avid golfer and sports fan and have a fascination for international travel, which my wife and I continue to indulge in whenever we can.

BR: What set you along the path to researching the Civil War?

JS: I have always enjoyed a deep-seated interest in all aspects of the Civil War.  I attribute this particular trait to my father and grandfather, both of whom were Civil War enthusiasts.  Some of my earliest childhood memories are of trekking around the battlefields at Antietam and Gettysburg, as well as listening to Richard Bales’ recordings of The Union and The Confederacy.  I remember at the age of seven taking my accumulated savings, about $.50, to an estate auction where I learned of a Civil War rifle that was on the auction block.  Needless to say, I did not complete that purchase.  However, my interest in the Civil War grew exponentially.  Early in my formative years, I was fascinated by Bruce Catton’s easily readable works, and later by Shelby Foote’s magnum opus, The Civil War, A Narrative.

When I became a parent, family trips with the kids would most often included at least one stop at a Civil War battlefield, regardless of the ultimate destination.  While I was serving on active duty in the Army in Washington, DC, I was part of a group which routinely walked the battlefields of Virginia, and hunted for relics (legally).  Some of my prized possessions remain those finds.

Throughout my career, I remained an avid reader of Civil War history, and dreamed of the day when I might find the time to research and write for myself.  In this regard, I was inspired early on by the example of a senior partner in the first law firm for which I worked, Alan Nolan, who published The Iron Brigade while he was still immersed in the practice of law.  This encouraged me that having chosen the law as a career did not preclude becoming a Civil War author.

BR: Why The Crater?

JS: Everyone who delves into the history of the Civil War has, on some level, heard of the siege of Petersburg and the Battle of the Crater. My interest in this particular event as the subject for a book was based initially upon two factors.  First, the elements which went into making the narrative of this battle were both intriguing and utterly fascinating.  Secondly, through my genealogy research, I discovered that I had two ancestors who were involved in the action – one was a member of the 14th New York Heavy Artillery, which ultimately became the first unit to enter the breach and, as a consequence, suffered horribly.  The other was with the 2nd New York Heavy Artillery, which was in a reserve position during the fight, but still felt the effects considerably.

The promise of the action’s carefully devised battle plan was that the action would not only allow the Union to lift its siege on Petersburg, but hopefully would result in a favorable resolution of that dreadful war, which had by then had entered its fourth year, claiming close to 500,000 lives and countless wounded.  By that time, the conflict was sorely testing the very foundations of the republic, with many Northerners questioning the merits of its further prosecution.

Despite a total lack of support from the high command of the Army of the Potomac, and with a bevy of detractors, a mine of over 510 feet in length was constructed without utilizing any visible ventilation system which would have alerted the enemy to the project.  With very few exceptions, officers with any engineering experience had contended that completion of a mine of such length was impossible.  Upon its completion, everything was in place for the assault subsequent to the mine’s detonation to result in a huge military success.  The majority of the Confederate forces had been drawn away from the Petersburg lines by a massive diversionary movement on Richmond.  Fresh troops had been identified and trained to take the lead in assaulting the breach and rolling up any remaining Confederate opposition on both flanks of the breach.  The Federals enjoyed overwhelming numerical superiority, and additionally, had two more corps to envelop the flanks of the breach once the assault started, further ensuring victory.  Given these extremely favorable conditions, all elements seemed in place to guarantee a solid, rather unmistakable Union victory.  Regardless, the battle ended in disaster for the Federals, with the magnitude of the defeat being decisive, almost too bitter to swallow.  As one of the Union officers engaged in the fight later proclaimed, it “was agreed that the thing was a perfect success, except that it did not succeed.”  Ulysses Grant, in command of all Federal forces, commented that this was “the saddest affair I have witnessed in this war.”  Instead of a decisive victory, the Union suffered a humiliating defeat and the bitter war waged on for almost another nine more months, claiming another 100,000 plus lives and countless more wounded and maimed.

The Battle of the Crater is one of the lesser known or understood, yet most intriguing battles of the Civil War.  It is set amongst the brutal and unendurable trench warfare at Petersburg, Virginia, which served as a remarkable foreshadowing of the situation faced by the adversaries in France fifty years later.  The battle itself, and the machinations leading up to it, present a plot worthy of the most creative piece of fiction – so much so that one might find  it incredulous if it was not entirely factual.  The plot has all the elements necessary for the weaving of a great novel – political considerations trumping sound tactical judgments, the commander of the critical lead element drunk and hiding in a bomb shelter as his troops passed into harm’s way, a titanic clash of egos and petty jealousy at the high command, and an unusually colorful cast of characters.  Add to this mix the employment of unique military tactics and movements, war atrocities, the destruction of the military career of one of the war’s most famous generals, the blundering of an officer considered the war’s worst general, and then throw in a Congressional investigation, and one has all the makings of remarkable novel, though perhaps one that strains credulity.  However, these elements are all documented facts.  Given all these considerations, my feeling is that I could not have chosen a better topic for a book.

BR: In a nutshell, who in your mind was ultimately responsible for the failure of the Federal operation that day?

JS: As I detailed in the book, Burnside was quickly set up to take the overall fall for the failure, and indeed, he fell quite short in his leadership that day.  However, blame can also be assigned to many throughout the Union command that day.  While there were a number of brave and competent regimental and brigade commanders who led their men into battle as best they could, there were few commanders above the brigade level who could be considered competent on that particular day, with the possible exception of Brigadier General John Turner.  Conversely, some were guilty of gross malfeasance, such as Brigadiers James H. Ledlie and Edward Fererro.  However, considerable blame should also be assessed to George Meade and his total disconnect with the actions that day, as well as his attempt thereafter to stack the deck against his subordinate, Ambrose Burnside.  Ultimately, Ulysses Grant has to bear a portion of the fault for not becoming even tangentially involved when he knew that the newly revised battle plan and its leadership clearly indicated that the situation was ripe for disaster.

BR: What does your book contribute to the literature on The Battle of the Crater?

JS: At the time I undertook my work on The Battle of the Crater, this intriguing subject had been dealt with only twice to any extent.  The first work, entitled The Battle of the Crater: “The Horrid Pit” June 25-August 6, 1864, by Michael Cavanaugh and William Marvel is part of the Virginia Civil War Battles and Leaders series.  It is a remarkable study of this most intriguing battle.  Then in 2002, John Cannan wrote The Crater: Burnside’s Assault on the Confederate Trenches, July 30, 1864, which was published in a paperback format as part of the Battleground America Guides, which contained additional reflections on the battle.  While both of these works are scholarly endeavors, they are both considerably brief in their presentation of the events leading up to the battle, and in the additional testimony of events by the participants themselves.  The Cavanaugh work consists of a mere ninety-four pages of text.  On the other hand, my book consists of 407 pages, with considerable explanation of the relative positions of the two armies based upon what had transpired in the two month’s leading up to the battle.  The mood of the country is carefully examined.  Additionally, considerable care was taken to bring in anecdotal material from the participants themselves, in order to give a perspective which is otherwise often missing from a discussion of the bare facts alone.  Combine this with graphics, maps and an easy to follow presentation, and this book provides the reader with a fascinating story that is sure to captivate him or her.

Following the publication of my book, there have been several other works on the subject.  However, in my humble opinion, The Battle of the Crater: A Complete History remains the best study of the events leading up to the battle, the reasons for the Union’s  failure and the ultimate impact it had on the remaining course of the war.  That feeling is clearly borne out by a number of reviews.

BR: Can you describe the process of writing your book, and anything you turned up about The Battle of the Crater that particularly struck you?

JS: It took me a little over six years in research and writing to complete the book, with the majority of that time involving research and analysis.  In the process, I tried judiciously to maintain the role of an objective observer, letting the soldiers speak for themselves whenever possible, and sifting through conflicting evidence to reach what I felt were the true facts.  I had no preordained conclusion on the reasons for the Union’s failure to capitalize on what appeared to be a sound plan and the presence of overwhelming strength.   I did not encounter what I would consider to be “major” stumbling blocks in the research; however, there were considerable difficulties in locating the regimental histories for several key units.  In the case of the 14th New York Heavy Artillery, the first unit into the breach, I finally located what appeared to be the only copy left in a small town library in Oregon.  I also encountered occasions where eyewitness accounts on a particular incident were diametrically opposed to each other.  In those instances, I had to undertake considerable background research to decide between these conflicting accounts, or, in some instances, to conclude that the truth was somewhere in the middle.

As I delved deeper into the background, I was quite surprised at the ineptitude of the Union command at that particular point in time.  It was, in my opinion, extremely dysfunctional at the time, and in the book I attempt to cite the many reasons therefor.  The backstabbing and distribution of blame following the battle made for an unsatisfactory conclusion for me, as did the court of inquiry orchestrated by Meade with Grant’s apparent blessing.  I finally felt that I had a satisfactory resolution when I wrote the chapter on the hearings and findings of the Joint Congressional Committee on the Conduct of the War, which refocused fault to include the Union high command.

BR: Can you describe your research and writing process, and the sources you consluted?

JS: Regarding sources, I am deeply indebted to a panoply of institutions and organizations.  Of particular note would be the Petersburg National Battlefield archives, the South Caroliniana Library of the University of South Carolina, the Virginia Historical Society, the University of Virginia Library, as well as the Albert and Shirley Small Special Collections Library of that same school, the Museum of the Confederacy and the U. S. Army Military History Institute at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, and a host of others.  I relied significantly on the Southern Historical Society Papers, the MOLLUS journals, and the Confederate Veteran Magazine for background materials in the development of my research.

Research has been rendered much easier with the proliferation of materials on the Internet.  One can locate a wealth of source material online and/or learn exactly where it may be obtained.  Many libraries were quite willing to copy files and furnish them at a modest cost once I identified the needed material from their respective online catalogues.  The Making of America website provides a wealth of information for research, including the entire Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, of which I made extensive use.  Unit histories were extremely important, and locating them sometimes proved difficult, as I have already mentioned, but this work was greatly aided by the Internet.

I began my generalized research with the battle itself as the topic, in order to get my arms around the subject matter.  Not having embraced the “notebook” method of note taking, I took my notes on loose-leaf paper, each limited to a single topic, with sources cited.  Once I fully grasped the subject matter, I began looking for unit histories to fill out accounts, and then broke the subject into specific categories for intensified research.  After about three years of this type of research, I commenced drafting certain chapters where I was confident that I had amassed all the material that was needed.  I did this to vary my workload and obtain a sense of accomplishment that there was, indeed, a light at the end of the tunnel.  Otherwise, one could tend to bury oneself in the research, and easily become discouraged by the lack of an end in sight.

Once I sensed that I had a good grasp of the subject matter covered in the research, I began organizing potential chapters and pulling the whole thing together. I outlined each chapter with extensive subheadings, which might reach ten to fifteen pages in length.  Then, taking my notes, all of which had individual headings, I organized them by codes related to the subheadings of a particular chapter.  Then I began to write the narrative of each chapter using the organized notes. This process was tedious, and I went through a series of drafts on each chapter.  Once I pulled all the chapters together into a draft manuscript, I began the process of fine-tuning the manuscript into a free-flowing whole.  Again, this involved numerous drafts, and many months of intensified work.  Once I was satisfied with the content of the entire manuscript, I then began the process of pulling it all together in a readable narrative.  This process involved considerable cuts, which were often quite painful for an author who was immersed in his work.  Often, I would find in the process that more research was needed on a particular topic.

Finally, I reached the point where I felt that a complete manuscript had been obtained.  I then drafted a detailed book proposal to begin the process of identifying a publisher.

BR: What’s next for you?

JS: After writing a detailed account of a battle that lasted only a number of hours, I decided to change course and follow a particular unit through the entire Civil War.  Currently, I have a manuscript depicting the history of the Fifth Texas Infantry Regiment of Hood’s Texas Brigade at the publishers.  The book will follow this regiment of that fabled brigade from its organization in the summer of 1861 through the end at Appomattox and the long journey home following the war.  This intrepid regiment took part in just about every major engagement in the East, as well as Chickamauga.  The book is scheduled to be published in the late spring of 2013.

Good luck with that regimental history, John. And kudos for being the first author to use “panoply” in an interview here at Bull Runnings!