Interview: Murray, “An Ornament to His Country”

Published in 2023, An Ornament to His Country: The Life and Military Career of Benjamin Franklin Davis, is a biography of the man perhaps best known for leading the breakout of his cavalry from Harper’s Ferry on the eve of the Battle of Antietam. The author discusses her project below:

—————

BR: Can you tell us a little bit about yourself?

SAM: I am a native Idahoan, with degrees in history and mining engineering from the University of Idaho. While completing graduate work I wrote two theses, The Marshall Lake Mines: Their History and Development (1979) and A Preliminary Economic Evaluation of the Golden Anchor Mine (1984). I have also had at least eight articles on Idaho mining history published in magazines including the International California Mining Journal and Idaho Yesterday. I worked in both surface and underground precious metal mines and spent almost 20 years managing leasing and mined land reclamation programs for the Idaho Department of Lands before retiring in 2009. In 2010 I moved east to volunteer at Antietam National Battlefield. Four years later I became a national park service certified battlefield guide at Antietam.

BR: What got you interested in the Civil War?

SAM: I became interested in the Civil War in college and began studying the war in earnest and traveling to battlefields in 2003. I initially focused on the Western Theatre but after moving east concentrated on the Eastern Theatre. I have always been interested in the life histories and careers of the men who fought in the war.

BR: So, why Grimes Davis?

SAM: I first became interested in Grimes Davis while researching a program I offered to present for a summer lecture series in Sharpsburg, Maryland about the exodus of the cavalry from Harpers Ferry on September 14, 1862. Davis appeared to have been one of the most significant figures in the drama but there was minimal information about him in published source, so I started digging. With perseverance, hard work, and encouragement from the late Ted Alexander I finally dredged up enough information about him, predominately from primary sources, to write his biography.

BR: I think the easiest way to begin discussing your new book is to start with the title: “An Ornament to His Country.“ What’s the story behind that?

SAM: When Davis was seeking an appointment to the United State Military Academy in 1849 his friends and supporters referred to him as having the potential to be “An Ornament to His Country.” In June 1863 when his commanding officer Brigadier General John Buford, mentioned his mortal wounding at Brandy Station, Buford noted in his official report Davis was “An Ornament to His Country” and “a bright star in his profession.”

BR: So, who was Benjamin Franklin Davis, and why is he called “Grimes”?

SAM: Benjamin Franklin Davis, who was born in Alabama in 1831, and raised in Louisiana and Mississippi, was a Mexican War veteran at age 16, a West Point graduate (1854) and a career United States Army officer, who served with distinction in the First U.S. Dragoons (renamed the First U. S. Cavalry in August 1861), the First California Volunteer Cavalry Battalion and the Eighth New York Volunteer Cavalry. He was mortally wounded soon after leading the brigade he commanded across the Rappahannock at Beverley’s Ford at dawn on June 9, 1863, during the opening hours of the Battle of Brandy Station. He is buried at the West Point Cemetery. He was nicknamed “Grimes” or “Old Grimes” by fellow cadets at West Point (1850-1854). I have been unable to ascertain where the nickname came from, however.

BR: What were the most surprising things you turned up during the process? Did anything conflict with or confirm your preconceived notions? What were the major stumbling blocks you had to overcome?

SAM: I was surprised and delighted to find the names of his parents and various maternal relatives, his birth date, and that he had five younger brothers and two younger half-brothers. Three of his younger brothers served with Mississippi infantry regiments in the Civil War. Two of them were regimental color bearers. One brother, who was wounded twice and captured twice, was the only one to survive the war. I was also surprised to find out that he was one of four Captains of Cadets at West Point in 1854 (his firstie year), and how highly he was regarded by superior officers, those under his command, and fellow officers who served with him during the Civil War. I did not really have any preconceived notions about Davis because there was such little information about him in published sources that it was impossible to form an opinion. When I started the research, I never thought I would find enough material about his life and career to write a short article let alone a book. One thing led to another and after going down a lot of rabbit holes and verifying information from some sources for accuracy I was finally able to piece together his life story. It is a story worth telling of a very accomplished, courageous, gallant, gentlemanly young American who deserves to be remembered.

BR: Can you describe your research and writing process? What online and brick and mortar sources did you rely on most? How did technology, the easier availability of source materials like newspapers and digitized archives, affect how you went about it?

SAM: I completed the majority of the research before I commenced writing the book however I would periodically continue my research while writing as additional resources are often posted to online sites. Once I started writing I focused on describing Davis’s life chronologically from birth until his untimely death. When I found new material, I would weave it into the narrative where appropriate. Most of the research was done online. Digitized archives, books, family trees, and records available predominately on Google Books, Ancestry.com, Fold3.com and Newspapers.com were invaluable as were digitized records from the United States Military Academy Library and the National Archives. Staff at the West Point Library were kind enough to email me several sets of records specific to Davis’s time at the academy and his burial. The book probably never would have been written without the information that is available online with the click of a mouse because there is too little information available in brick and mortar sources.

BR: How has the book been received?

SAM: The book has been well received by those who have purchased it either from me or from online sources. It is now available at the bookstore at Antietam National Battlefield and hopefully will soon be available at Harpers Ferry National Historical Park.

BR: What’s next for you?

SAM: I am working on updating the draft of a book I completed many years ago but never published about the history of dredge mining in Idaho. I might also work on a biography of another distinguished cavalry officer Thomas Casimer Devin.

Interview: Vignola, “Contrasts in Command”

Author Victor Vignola at the Adams House on the Fair Oaks battlefield.

Victor Vignola’s Contrasts in Command: The Battle of Fair Oaks, May 31-June 1, 1862 is a 2023 release from Savas Beatie. Vic has kindly taken some time to answer a few questions about this new book (254 pp).

—————

BR: Can you tell us a little bit about yourself?

VV: I am a lifelong student of American History. Over time, the study of the Civil War has grown into my passion, which my wife and sons appreciate since it means my time is occupied. I worked for the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) for forty-six years. Much of the time spent in labor relations as a representative of OMH senior management often representing OMH in hearings and at inter-agency levels. In addition, I was recognized for a project conducted with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for my expertise in the development of OMH policy and training initiatives geared toward reducing the occurrence of client on staff workplace violence.

As you can see, my professional career had little to do with my recent endeavors. My introduction to conducting research and writing first occurred in the early 2000’s when I wrote of a Union soldier from Orange County, New York. The story of Hiram Willis appeared in the Orange County Historical Society Magazine in 2010. Contrasts in Command is my first book. In October 2022, North & South magazine published a short article summarizing the Battle of Fair Oaks based upon my work. This January, the America’s Civil War magazine will publish an article titled Very Convenient Truth which describes how James Longstreet and Joseph Johnston conspired to scapegoat Benjamin Huger for their failures during the Battle of Seven Pines.

Since the journey of writing Contrasts in Command began, the most significant achievement has been the American Battlefield Trust’s acquisition of the nearly twelve acres of property at the Adams House location on the Fair Oaks battlefield. The acquisition of this property is significant as it is the only parcel of preserved ground on the entire Seven Pines (Fair Oaks) battlefield. The stars aligned to bring the property owner, my research, and the resources of the Trust together to make the preservation possible.

BR: What got you interested in the Civil War?

VV: There’s no singular event or book that piqued my interest. I developed an early interest in reading stories about the Revolutionary and Civil Wars while growing up on and near farms in New York. Even then, my focus centered around my attempt at trying to understand how the fighting unfolded. This included my study of available maps while envisioning how the battle scenes might have developed. Eventually, I discovered the Time/Life Pictorial books and Bruce Catton’s books, which fed my zeal to understand even more. Of course, after I made my first trip to Gettysburg I was hooked for life. Now I am happiest when I am on a field, any field, with books and maps on hand.

BR: Why did you decide to focus on The Battle of Fair Oaks?

VV: The short answer: the Battle of Fair Oaks made the decision for me.

The writing of this book was quite accidental as I had no intention of writing anything until I began digging into the story of the struggle for the Adams House. Over the years, Charlie Fennel – a good friend and an emeritus Gettysburg LBG – and I have conducted tours at various Civil War locations. Our 2019 tour focused on delivering an in-depth field study of the Seven Days battles. As prep for describing events which led to the Seven Days, what battle would be a better place to start than … Seven Pines?

During one of our scouting trips, I asked Bobby Krick about the Adams House and if the house still existed. Bobby informed me of the location and from his information I wrote a letter to the property owner asking permission to research her property and to bring our small tour group there. After gathering more information regarding the struggle at Fair Oaks and the Adams House, I was hooked.

The story is an amazing one that had previously never been told with any depth. Freeman, Dowdey, Sears, and Newton each wrote accounts which focused more on the Seven Pines sector of the fight and of James Longstreet’s alleged misunderstanding of his orders. All that had been written about Fair Oaks was Sumner’s brave soldiers crossing the flooded Chickahominy River and Johnston’s wounding which then led to Robert E. Lee’s appointment to command of the Army of Northern Virginia.

Johnston’s wounding at Fair Oaks pretty much summed up all I knew of Seven Pines (Fair Oaks) prior to beginning my research. To help connect the research threads I was blessed to have access to the files Bobby Krick maintains at Richmond National Battlefield Park. In addition, Jeff Stocker supplied me with several letters that he transcribed from newspapers. As the threads began connecting it became exciting as I realized the puzzle was coming together, which then fostered more enthusiasm to continue the digging.

The story behind the Battle of Fair Oaks and the struggle for the Adams House made the decision to write the story in book form an easy one.

BR: I think the easiest way to begin discussing your new book is to start with the title: “Contrasts in Command.“ Can you briefly discuss what the contrasts and commanders are at the Battle of Fair Oaks?

VV: Wow! Where to start! There are a few, but the biggest contrast is the aforementioned indecisive conduct of Joseph E. Johnston on May 31, 1862 when compared to the assertive decision making exhibited by Edwin Vose ‘Bull’ Sumner. True, Johnston’s plan was disrupted by the actions of James Longstreet; but Johnston failed to adapt to the situation. At no time on May 31 did Johnston assertively lead by personally taking charge. Simply put, Johnston failed to rise to the situation confronting him. Vigorous and assertive leadership by Johnston could have overcome the issues Longstreet created. Victory was in his grasp if he chose to seek it.

Instead, as EP Alexander, who served on Johnston’s staff during the battle, stated “his [Johnston’s] leadership was an utter failure.” Johnston’s comment to Maj. Samuel French, “I wish the troops had remained in their camps” was telling as it illustrated his docile acceptance of events. Instead of going to see where the problem existed and salvage his attack plan, Johnston remained complacent and had no intention of engaging on May 31 until stirred by a note from Longstreet urging him forward.

In contrast, Sumner was immediately motivated into action upon hearing the opening sounds of battle. Sumner saved an hour of precious time by decisively ordering his divisions to immediately assemble at their bridges. Upon receiving orders to cross the Chickahominy, Sumner crossed with his troops urging them to move quickly. He also ensured that a battery of artillery crossed the flooded river, even as it required the dragging of the guns through the mud so they would be present in battle. In contrast, Johnston brought no guns with him asserting the conditions of the roads were too poor to advance with artillery. The presence of Federal guns and the lack of Confederate guns proved decisive.

Upon his arrival at the Adams House, Sumner immediately took charge by barking out orders and positioning his defenses. He brilliantly recognized the terrain offered the opportunity for him to create an inverted salient which turned his front into a killing field. Sumner actively and visibly led from the front, which is in direct contrast to Johnston’s leadership. May 31, 1862 may have been Sumner’s best day as a commanding officer during the Civil War.

There are other contrasts as well. Longstreet’s lack luster leadership paled in comparison to the dynamic presence of D. H. Hill. A star was born through the leadership provided by Micah Jenkins. I also pitied the position encountered by William ‘Chase’ Whiting as the temporary commander of Gustavus Smith’s division. Can you imagine the difficulty he encountered while advancing into battle with Johnston riding alongside him and with Smith trailing closely behind? How much authority could he have possibly had in making command decisions?

On the Federal side Couch and John Abercrombie recognized an opportunity to escape the crisis facing them and assertively responded. Their decision to occupy the ‘slight eminence’ at the Adams House blocked the Confederate advance along the Nine Mile Road. Soon they were joined by the arrival of Sumner accompanying Willis Gorman’s Brigade. Couch, Abercrombie, and Gorman actively participated in ensuring the successful defense of the Adams House position.

I hope people now understand the significance of Fair Oaks. Johnston’s indecisive dithering when combined with Longstreet’s ineffective leadership tossed away a golden opportunity for a massive Confederate victory. It was the gritty and determined leadership exhibited by Sumner, Couch, Abercrombie, and Gorman that ended Johnston’s hopes for victory.

BR: Can you give us some context on the battle, how it fits in to the Peninsula Campaign, and why it’s important in the overall course of the war?

VV: Although indecisive, the biggest outcome of the battle of Seven Pines (Fair Oaks) lay with the division of McClellan’s army by the Chickahominy River. McClellan spent the balance of June forever promising Lincoln that victory was imminent; while also forever promising that his “arrangements for tomorrow … will leave me to strike the enemy.” Neither promise, just like his promise of “On to Richmond” ever came true.

The battle was the first major battle in the East since the July 1861 battle at Manassas (Bull Run). The growing pains evident through leadership, tactics, and poor staff work was in full view at Seven Pines. Immediately after the battle, Lee recognized the need for a reorganization of his artillery and command structures. The opposing armies each began the construction of formidable earthworks and entrenchments, the construction of which would improve steadily throughout the war.

When McClellan ceased his patient advance toward Richmond after Seven Pines, he effectively transferred the initiative to Lee, who promptly capitalized on the opportunity. Lee’s June 26 attack on Porter’s IV Corps at Beaverdam Creek opened a sequence of fighting known as the Seven Days Battles. Lee’s aggressive campaign exposed McClellan’s flaws as Lee exposed the flaws of others throughout the course of the war.

BR: What were the most surprising things you turned up during the process? Did anything conflict with or confirm your preconceived notions? What were the major stumbling blocks you had to overcome?

VV: Starting with the last part of your question first, the major stumbling blocks were the lack of earlier scholarship, Confederate accounts and accurate maps. Of the possible twenty two Confederate reports of the Fair Oaks fight, only two were submitted (Smith and Dorsey Pender). Whiting refused to write a report, informing Smith that such a report would not reflect well on Johnston, Whiting’s mentor.

With the exception of Smith’s maps, which provided a general macro view of the entire battle, the maps were all over the place. For whatever reason, the only events surrounding Fair Oaks that captured prior attention by writers was Sumner’s timely arrival and Johnston’s wounding.

The most surprising thing I turned up during my research revolved around how Johnston and Longstreet totally conspired to scapegoat Huger. Longstreet, with Johnston’s complicity, was able to establish the alleged ‘misunderstanding’ of his orders narrative while affixing blame for the failure at Seven Pines on Huger. The opportunity for Confederate victory on May 31 was massive. Only through Longstreet’s misconduct and Johnston’s leadership failure was it possible for the plan to fail. Neither man ever paid a price for their Seven Pines failure. For all the grief Longstreet bears for Gettysburg, he deserves much more for his conduct on May 31 & June 1, 1862. I defy anyone to defend it.

I kind of chuckle at the preconceived notions part of the question. I really didn’t have any because I didn’t know enough about the battle to develop notions of any kind. Remember, all I wanted to know was “where’s the Adams House?” The discovery of informational threads only improved my understanding of the fighting.

BR: Can you describe your research and writing process? What online and brick and mortar sources did you rely on most? Over the course of the years, how did technology, the easier availability of source materials like newspapers and digitized archives, change how you went about it?

VV: Not having the availability of reports and accounts meant I had to dig for the story. Again, I credit Bobby Krick for his assistance. Bobby not only helped me navigate my search but he also served as a sounding board. As I have alluded earlier, so much of what I gathered was threads from letters, newspapers and lost accounts. It took a bit of time and analysis to piece the threads together and when I did, Bobby patiently listened to my analysis, challenged it and made my analysis develop to a higher level.

There were two key discoveries that shaped my research. The first was discovering a number of Confederate accounts that mentioned crossing the muddy fields while approaching the Federal lines. But then I noticed accounts from Pettigrew’s Brigade mentioning swamp-like conditions that affected their ability to maintain their battle line. The crowning gem came from Capt. John Beall (Bell) of the 19th Georgia when he mentioned crossing “a lagoon” and how the “lagoon” forced his regiment to the right. It was then that I realized a nameless stream that appeared on all the period maps had flooded which forced a shifting of the Confederate attack to the right. That fact combined with how the 1st Minnesota formed its position by placing three companies to the front while swinging seven companies to its right in order “to provide enfilade fire down the line” that I realized the Federals couldn’t be flanked and the Confederates were in a narrow attack funnel of about 400 yards in width.

Factor in Sumner’s placement of a section of artillery on his right flank with the manner in which the rest of the artillery was deployed; and the protection of four regiments for the artillery, that I then realized Sumner had created an inverted salient. After the threads revealed the nameless stream and the inverted salient all the remaining accounts jelled. It was then just a matter of telling the story. The piecing together of the threads resulted in understanding how the attack developed and how the Confederates lost their opportunity for victory when they could/should have advanced down the Nine Mile Road at least 1-2 hours earlier than they did.

There is no doubt the accessibility of primary source materials on the internet greatly assisted my research. I found a good number of materials through the hathitrust.org and archives.org sites. I found Steven Newton’s PhD dissertation (William & Mary) on Johnston’s Defense of Richmond to be an enormous help in piecing together the challenges Johnston faced. In addition, I was blessed with discovering a good number of accounts written within the month of the fighting. The lack of previous scholarship actually assisted me since it made me focus on the quality of the threads I found.

BR: How has the book been received?

VV: I believe the book is selling well. I hope it is! I was again blessed to have received an outstanding review from Drew Wagonhoffer at the Civil War Books and Authors site. Drew also listed my book as a Top 10 book for 2023 – which pleases me and humbles me all at the same time. Call it beginner’s luck for not knowing what I don’t know but I am happy it all came together so well. Again, as happy as I am with the book, it’s a bigger achievement to have played a part in seeing the Adams property preserved by the Trust. Never again can it be said that there’s nothing to see at Seven Pines (Fair Oaks). I hope someday the Trust places a trail and wayside markers there. For sure, one can tell the story of the fight of Fair Oaks from the Adams House location.

BR: What’s next for you?

VV: I am currently researching the battle of Seven Pines, May 31, 1862. It was never my intention to follow-up with a Seven Pines book but I see there’s a need for a fresh look at the battle. I am hesitant to say this will be titled Contrasts in Command – the Battle of Seven Pines as I am still piecing the threads together. There’s a fair amount of Confederate reports and documents readily available to assist with the telling of that part of telling the story. There’s also the drama of a Federal scapegoat narrative that’s long endured as well – that being soldiers of Silas Casey’s division “fleeing by the 1,000’s!” Well, that’s what the newspapers of the day said anyway but it looks like the narrative is less than truthful. I am just starting to piece the threads I have found and I know I will find more as time goes on.

Interview: Styple, “General Philip Kearny: A Very God of War”

William B. Styple has worn many hats: researcher, author, speaker, publisher, and reenactor. Many of you may have encountered him in the Gettysburg NMP’s Visitor Center bookstore over the years, peddling his wares and tales. In 2022 he published his so-far life’s work, General Philip Kearny: A Very God of War. Bill recently took some time to discuss the new book.

——————–

BR: Can you tell us a little bit about yourself?

WBS: I have been a student of the Civil War since the 1960s, and actively writing since the 1980s. I co-wrote the video documentary series, Echoes of the Blue & Gray with the late Brian Pohanka; the documentary depicts Civil War veterans recorded on motion-picture film during the 1890s-1950s. I can honestly say that Brian Pohanka was my earliest influence, and he is greatly missed. Before Brian passed away in 2005, he was consulting on my book: Generals in Bronze, Interviewing the Commanders of the Civil War. That volume contained over 50 previously unknown interviews made by artist James E. Kelly (1855-1933) with Generals Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Hancock, Hooker, Webb, Warren, Sickles, to name a few. In their book review, Civil War Times Illustrated called Generals in Bronze “a blockbuster History of the Civil War.” And it certainly was: the Kelly interviews have forever changed the history the Civil War.

I also published three volumes of letters written by the common soldier, both Union and Confederate; all totaling about a thousand letters documenting the history of the war as told from the front lines—the collection is called Writing & Fighting the Civil War.

Another important discovery I made in 2012 was the unpublished writings of Colonel Thomas M. Key, who served as General George B. McClellan’s “Confidential Aide” and “Political Adviser.” General McClellan’s posthumously published memoir was called, McClellan’s Own Story; and so in turn I called my book McClellan’s Other Story, The Political Intrigue of Colonel Thomas M. Key. Here is a documented story from the Civil War that McClellan and his supporters do not want you to read. A never-before-told history that contains many astounding revelations—which sometimes tends to upset some of those so-called Civil War experts. Apparently, discovering the unpublished letters of Colonel Key did hurt some egos; but I do not apologize. (See his Amazon Author Page here.)

BR: What got you interested in the Civil War?

WBS: I was raised in the small town of Kearny, New Jersey, founded in 1867, and named after its most famous resident killed in the Civil War. My family home was not far from where Philip Kearny built his gothic-style mansion—known to us townsfolk as Kearny Castle. Also standing nearby was the New Jersey Home for Disabled Soldiers & Sailors, a care facility for those Union veterans who had borne the battle. From 1887-1932, some 20,000 Civil War veterans resided in my neighborhood, living out their final years at the Old Soldiers’ Home; those toddling, blue-clad, octogenarians were beloved members of our community, and it was a common sight for passersby to see the old veterans sitting under shade trees, telling a group of wide-eyed youngsters remembrances of Bull Run, Antietam, and Gettysburg, along with memories of President Lincoln and, of course, legendary stories of the fiery One-Armed Devil—Phil Kearny.

Those recollections told to the eager young listeners in my hometown were later passed down to me; so naturally, the Civil War and Phil Kearny became a life-long passion, and for over 50 years, I’ve collected anything relating to General Kearny: his personal military equipage, his correspondence, books from his library, artwork from his private collection, furniture from his domicile, and other trivial effects. I literally started writing the Kearny biography decades ago; it has been my full time occupation since the 1980s. The book contains one million words, and a thousand footnotes, 880 total pages.

BR: We’ve never seen a biography of Kearny of this depth (or length). In a nutshell, what does your book contribute to the literature that has not already been contributed?

WBS: The two prior biographies of Philip Kearny were written by family: Cousin John Watts De Peyster wrote the first in 1869; and Grandson Thomas Kearny, wrote another in 1937. Both of those biographies are unreadable—full of nonsense—and they do not tell the whole story of Phil Kearny. Another book was published in the 1960s, mainly for children, which contains lots of silly, invented, dialogue. Unfortunately, modern-day writers/historians source these three books, which only propagated the erroneous myth of Philip Kearny. In fact, most writers of books/articles continue to spell Kearny’s name incorrectly—so if you are reading a battle history and the author spells General Kearny’s name: KEARNEY, they really don’t know anything about Phil Kearny. And I can say with certainty: I have never read a Kearny-related article published in the various Civil War magazines since the 1960s, which are not full of errors.

My biography of Philip Kearny tells the whole story of his life, both personal and military, both positive and negative. John Watts De Peyster chose not tell of Kearny’s life scandals, and Thomas Kearny may have touched upon those scandals somewhat, but did not tell the whole story. My book contains the entire story—the whole truth—describing one of the greatest scandals of the 1850s (until Dan Sickles shot Philip Barton Key); Philip Kearny was divorced from his first wife in 1858 and the procedure records were ordered sealed for 100 years. I was the first to untie the red tape and learn the whole truth—spicy details which historians and even Kearny’s own descendants were entirely unaware of.

BR: Give us the skinny on Kearny. Can you sum him up in a paragraph or two that will make folks want to read more?

WBS: I’m afraid it’s impossible to sum up Phil Kearny in a single paragraph—just as it’s equally impossible to present a one-hour lecture on his life (he died at age 47). Phil Kearny was a born soldier, who fought in five wars—fighting in Africa, Mexico, the West, Italy, and the Civil War. In every battle, in each war, he rode straight into the enemy lines and fought his way out. It cost him an arm in Mexico, his life at Chantilly. He was the first American soldier to receive the Legion of Honor from France.

At the onset of the Civil War, Phil Kearny was the most combat-experienced soldier—he had seen more war on a grand scale than any general, north or south, with the possible exception of Winfield Scott—who called Kearny: “The bravest man I ever knew, and a perfect soldier.” And that’s coming from the top, folks. In fact, Lee, Grant, Longstreet, all the antebellum army officers, considered Kearny to be the most gallant and “perfect soldier.” During the Civil War, Kearny was a non-West Pointer, who came to the rescue of several West Pointers (Federals) on numerous battlefields. He literally saved the Army of the Potomac from disaster at Williamsburg, Seven Pines, and Glendale. Kearny’s role in the Second Battle of Bull Run has been misrepresented by a legion of jealous commanders, and in my book, I explain how and why.

The bullet that killed Kearny at Chantilly/Ox Hill, and the note his wife Agnes wrote upon the envelope in which it was sent to her (Courtesy W. B. Styple)

BR: Your book has been in the works a long time. Can you describe how long it took, what the stumbling blocks were, what you discovered along the way that surprised you or went against the grain, what firmed up what you already knew? When did you know you were “done?”

WBS: I started learning about Phil Kearny in 1967; his portrait hung in my elementary school classroom, alongside portraits of Washington and Lincoln; the more I learned about Kearny, the more I wanted to learn. But, it wasn’t till the late 1980s when I commenced serious research on Kearny’s life. I decided early on to make this biography totally unique. Of the thousands of Civil War biographies written since 1865, no one has done one like this. I had to know where Kearny was every week of his life, and every detail of the five wars he fought in. Some of his earlier life was difficult to piece together, but I believe I have accomplished what I set out to do. There were several important discoveries made along the way, as I have mentioned before, the Kelly interviews, Colonel Key’s letters, etc.

After writing the chapter covering the details of Kearny’s death at Chantilly, I still wasn’t finished; there are four more chapters covering the days, weeks, months, decades after Kearny’s demise.

BR: Can you describe your research and writing process? What online and brick and mortar sources did you rely on most? Over the course of these many years, how did technology, the easier availability of source materials like newspapers and digitized archives, change how you went about it?

WBS: I made countless trips to the National Archives to research Kearny and everyone connected to him militarily; also the New Jersey Historical Society, the Library of Congress, and libraries scattered throughout the United States, and France. Digitized newspapers were a great help over the past ten or so years, much easier than the old microfilm rolls which I used in the 1980s and 90s. General Kearny commanded about 20 regiments; and each regiment was raised in a hometown—scattered in Michigan, Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey; and I would comb through those hometown newspapers for soldier-letters describing Kearny in camp and battle; the result was I found hundreds of important battle descriptions written by Kearny’s soldiers, within hours/days of the fight; the best source material.

BR: How has the book been received?

WBS: Most folks are very pleased with my work and research, especially the newly-discovered letters/battle accounts. I’ve learned that if you can present something new to the students of the Civil War—something they haven’t read before, they are very gratified. My favorite comment was: “Thank you for not writing about Grant or Lee.”

BR: What’s next for you?

WBS: I am currently working on an updated/revised edition of Generals in Bronze for 2024, which will contain about 40 additional pages of previously unpublished accounts of the Battle of Gettysburg and other Civil War events; also, never-before-told stories of Grant, Lee, Lincoln, and others. To be sure, this will be another blockbuster-history of the Civil War. I guarantee it.

Interview: Hartwig, “I Dread the Thought of the Place”

It’s been a long wait for D. Scott Hartwig’s follow up to To Antietam Creek, but so far, I Dread the Thought of the Place, The Battle of Antietam and the End of the Maryland Campaign has made that wait worthwhile. Scott graciously took the time to answer a few questions on the new book. We spoke 11 years ago on the publication of volume one of his Maryland Campaign opus here, so I won’t rehash all of that below. (By the way, you can find a description of the mortal wounding of my great-grandma’s brother James Gates of the 8th Pa Reserves on page 130.)

—————

BR: Scott, a lot has happened since our 2012 interview on To Antietam Creek. Can you tell us a little bit about what’s been going on with you since then?

SH: Well, 2013 was a big year for me at Gettysburg NMP, since it was the 150th anniversary. That was a huge amount of work but well worth it because everything came off really well. I retired from the NPS in January 2014 and after a few months of doing whatever I felt like, I started work on I Dread the Thought of the Place. It became my new job but I got to set the hours. I typically wrote Mon-Fri in the mornings after returning from my battlefield dog walk. Some days I would work in the afternoon but four hours is about the max you can sit in front of a computer and write and be productive. I am pretty disciplined, particularly when I would be deep into a particular chapter, and I love the process of research and writing.

BR: To Antietam Creek took you twenty years to write. Of course, much of that work carried over to I Dread the Thought of the Place, which took another eleven years. Can you describe any changes in your research process from one volume to the next? How has technology, new documents, or recent scholarship affected it? Feel free to discuss your research and writing process here.

SH: A great deal more material is available today online than when I was writing To Antietam Creek, which was a great help. Also, some major collections, such as the John Gould Antietam Collection, became available on microfilm. A friend of mine got these and loaned them to me. I then took the reels to Gettysburg College which had microfilm readers that allowed me to copy and save each image as a pdf. This was a huge help as Gould’s correspondence with fellow Antietam veterans is probably the single most important collection for the battle around the cornfield and East Woods. Having it in a format that you can organize by regiment/brigade/division/corps made it easy and efficient to make the most effective use of the correspondence. Other online sources that were very helpful were the Carman maps on the Library of Congress webpage, and their Antietam photo collection. Many of these historic images can be downloaded at a very high resolution which reveals details not discernable in the lower res images we typically see in a publication. For an example the September 19 image of Captain Joseph Knap’s Pennsylvania battery near the Smoketown Road (below), shows that the Miller cornfield was not completely trampled as is popularly believed, or were the stalks cut cleanly off as with a knife, as General Joe Hooker famously reported. It also showed the fence line held by Colonel Marcellus Douglass’s Georgia brigade south of Miller’s cornfield. This was significant because, for some reason, Ezra Carman left it off his definitive maps. But we know it was there and Douglass’s men used it for cover.

As for my writing process over time I evolved into creating a research document for each chapter that included every source I had that related to the subject. This made it easier than having books and papers spread all over the place and dozens of documents open on your PC. Everything you needed to write the chapter was in one document. So, for example, the notes document for Chapter 10, one of the Sunken Lane chapters, was 55 pages long. It included biographical info about key leaders, but the heart of the document was all the letters, diaries, journals, regimental histories, official reports, etc., that concerned this part of the battle. I organized it by order of battle and typed in everything from each document that was both pertinent to the subject and that I might quote from. It was a tremendous amount of work but it made the writing of a chapter far more efficient and you were less likely to forget something that was interesting or important. When I finished a chapter, I let it sit for a few days then went through it with a ruthless eye, cutting, slashing, and revising to make it read better. Then I sent the chapter to two friends, both very sharp on Antietam and the war, but the one was highly knowledgeable about Antietam and the other was good with sentence structure and grammar, which is not my strong suit, and they made their suggestions and revisions. Once I had reviewed their comments and made changes, I considered the chapter nearly complete. But before I sent the manuscript off to the publisher, I went through every chapter again to make further revisions. It is a long process but how you produce a book that reads well.

BR: Just to set the scene, where does To Antietam Creek leave off and I Dread the Thought of the Place pick up?

SH: To Antietam Creek ends on the night before the Battle of Antietam and I Dread the Thought of the Place opens on the early morning of September 17. But I pause after some of the first shots are fired to provide background for those readers who did not read To Antietam Creek, on the political/social/military issues that shaped the campaign, led to the battle, and made the battle so significant. This is the work of the preface. The book then makes it way through the entire battle, including some phases that have not been covered in much detail, such as the Regulars action over the Middle Bridge, and the 6th Corps operations. The book then examines September 18, the Confederate retreat to Virginia, and the Battle of Shepherdstown on September 20. A battle and a campaign are more than troops shooting at each other. Battle’s have serious consequences and often political consequences, so the final chapters of the book examine the battle’s aftermath, the medical story as well as the civilian one; there is a chapter on the preliminary emancipation proclamation, and particularly on how the armies and their leaders reacted to it, and finally chapters on how the Army of Northern Virginia recovered from the battle, and the events that led to McClellan’s removal from command in November 1862.

BR: Were there any surprises along the way? Have you had to reevaluate any notions you held in 2012?

SH: I learned something I did not know in every chapter. There were plenty of surprises, or I should say, evidence I discovered through research that challenged some standard narratives that had evolved over the years. For example, I always remembered the NPS wayside back in the 1970s that presented the debacle that befell Sedgwick’s division in the West Woods as an ambush. I even remember the artwork, which showed Sedgwick’s men approaching the woods and Confederates hiding in the trees waiting for them. For some reason that stuck with me and for many years I imagined that the Confederates had seen Sedgwick approaching and organized a defense in the West Woods that took the Federals by surprise and led to his disastrous defeat. Nothing of the sort happened. The Confederate concentration that led to Sedgwick’s defeat was part luck and part good coordination on their part, plus Lee taking risks to move troops from one part of his line to a more threatened part. But the calamitous decision making of Edwin Sumner placed Sedgwick in a very vulnerable position and this had a great deal to do with his defeat. But getting back to this idea of Sedgwick’s attack and defeat as a straightforward event, I imagined when I reached this part of the book that one good chapter would cover it. What I discovered was a far more complex series of events, a sprawling battle involving attack and counterattack, and which took three chapters, two pretty big ones and one smaller one, to tell it adequately.

I should also mention here that although this is a big book it is also a huge story, and although I tell it in some detail, I always had an eye out for making sure it was not too much detail, so that it overwhelmed and bored the reader. Every detail, every story you tell, needs a purpose and must contribute to the narrative.

Another surprise was the story of Captain Hiram Dryer and the U.S. Regulars who crossed Antietam Creek at the Middle Bridge to support the Union horse artillery that had crossed the creek. I devoted a chapter to this story and expected it to be somewhat dull compared to the chapters preceding it on the Cornfield, West Woods, Sunken Lane, etc. It turned out to be one of the most interesting chapters I wrote. Dryer was a remarkable officer and quite skilled at making the most of the strengths of the regulars, which was discipline, proficiency at skirmishing, and marksmanship. What he accomplished with a relatively small number of men, with, for Antietam, extremely low casualties, was extraordinary. Had his commander, General George Sykes, not been so timid and convinced of overwhelming Confederate numbers, and instead reinforced Dryer and encouraged him to push on, they might have cracked Lee’s line in front of Sharpsburg and forced a redeployment of A. P. Hill’s division.

While this does not fall under surprises, one of the most interesting parts of the book I worked on was the section on trauma in the aftermath chapter about the battle’s casualties. Many soldiers wrote about suffering after the battle; severe headaches, depression, etc. I thought it was important to explore the battle’s mental/psychological consequences which we focus on a great deal in modern conflicts but not so much in the Civil War.

BR: The title – can you share the origins of the quote I Dread the Thought of the Place?”

SH: The title is from a letter that Lt. Col. Rufus Dawes of the 6th Wisconsin wrote in June 1863 during the Gettysburg Campaign. His regiment had bivouacked for the night near Leesburg, Virginia, on June 18 after a hard day of marching and Dawes got his hands on a newspaper with a headline that read, “Rebels in Pennsylvania – Another battle at Antietam on the tapis.” Dawes wrote his girlfriend, Mary B. Gates, about this and added, “I hope not. I never want to fight there again. The flower of our regiment were slaughtered in that terrible corn-field. I dread the thought of the place.” I thought no contemporary statement better captured how those who were in the thick of the battle remembered Antietam which made it the perfect title.

BR: How has the book been received so far?

SH: So far the reception has been very good.

BR: What’s next for you?

SH: Not another book on this scale! I have several ideas. The one I am leaning towards is an exploration of how many of the historical myths that took hold in the public’s memory of Gettysburg originated, such as the Confederates came looking for shoes on July 1, and what the historical record tells us what happened. It is remarkable how resilient some of these myths are and how fascinating their origins can be.

BR: Sounds interesting. There’s the myth of a certain one-armed general’s torpedo launch I’d like to discuss with you, if you have the time and inclination.

Interview: Newsome, “Gettysburg’s Southern Front”

I met Hampton Newsome a few weeks ago during a symposium at the Carnegie Public Library and Music Hall in Carnegie, PA, where he was presenting on the topic of his book Gettysburg’s Southern Front: Opportunity and Failure at Richmond. He was good enough to answer some questions about himself and his book.

—————

BR: Can you tell us a little bit about yourself and your writing?

HN: First off, thanks so much for reaching out about my book – I really appreciate it. As for me, I’ve been researching and writing about the Civil War for about twenty years. In that time, while focusing on subjects that haven’t received a lot of attention, I’ve completed a few book length narratives and one co-edited volume. These titles include: Civil War Talks: Further Reminiscences of George S. Bernard and His Fellow Veterans – edited by Hampton Newsome, John Horn, and John Selby (Univ. of Virginia Press, 2012); Richmond Must Fall: The Richmond-Petersburg Campaign, October 1864 (Kent State Univ. Press, 2013); The Fight for the Old North State: The Civil War in North Carolina, January-May 1864 (Univ. Press of Kansas, 2019); and Gettysburg’s Southern Front: Opportunity and Failure at Richmond (Univ. Press of Kansas, 2022).

BR: What got you interested history in general, and the Civil War in particular? Who/what were your early influences?

HN: My interest in the Civil War has pretty much been a lifelong affliction. It probably began with the subscription to Civil War Times Illustrated I received from my parents when I was a kid. And, like so many dealing with the same condition, I owned (and still own) a well-worn copy of Bruce Catton’s American Heritage Picture History of The Civil War with its detailed and endlessly-fascinating David Greenspan maps.

For a long time, my Civil War-related activities simply involved reading whatever books I could get my hands on. However, about two decades ago, I decided to give a shot at writing an article about the Battle of Burgess Mill, which occurred in October of 1864 during the Petersburg Campaign. After a lot of research and writing, the project mushroomed into a full-blown book, which was later published as Richmond Must Fall.

As for influences, I’ve always admired the books of Gordon Rhea, John Hennessey, Elizabeth Varon, and David Blight – among others. By combining deep research with clear writing, these historians have produced engaging narratives about important campaigns, notable events, and complicated personalities.

BR: Why the Union actions around Richmond during Lee’s foray into Pennsylvania in the summer of 1863, in particular?

HN: I guess I was drawn into this latest project by the fact that, during the Gettysburg Campaign, a force of 20,000 U.S. troops threatened Richmond as part of a multi-faceted effort to damage Robert E. Lee’s chances in Pennsylvania – and very few people seem to know much about it. After doing some digging, I was convinced the operation would make for an engaging story. Indeed, it was quite satisfying to research and write about such an understudied set of events. After turning over a lot of rocks, I found more material than I could possibly fit into a standard monograph. The advance on Richmond involved an array of fascinating characters, multi-angled decisions, and intriguing events. For me, it represents one of the more interesting “what-ifs” of the war.

BR: Can you briefly describe the actions covered in the book?

HN: This book describes the attempt by Major General John Dix to threaten Richmond and its communications during the Gettysburg Campaign. The brainchild of Henry Halleck, the operation reflected one of several little-noticed Federal attempts to damage Confederate supply lines in the east as Lee marched north into Pennsylvania. Dix’s campaign at Richmond, launched from a temporary supply base on the Pamunkey River just outside of the city, involved a cavalry raid against the rail bridges over the South Anna River, an infantry advance toward Confederate defenses on the Chickahominy, and a large expedition against the railroad bridges north of the city. The book also delves into diplomatic efforts by Confederate officials in Richmond at the time, namely, the unsuccessful mission by Vice President Alexander Stephens to seek negotiations with the Lincoln administration, most likely with the aim of ending the war.

BR: What did you find most surprising in your research? Did anything diverge from any preconceived notions you had?

HN: I think the most surprising thing is the fact that this operation is virtually unknown to so many people, even those with a deep interest in the Civil War. For good reason, authors have flyspecked the Gettysburg Campaign for years producing hundreds of books on this famous campaign alone. Yet, this particular aspect of the Gettysburg story – Dix’s advance on Richmond – has received little attention beyond a few journal articles.

I was also surprised at the information I stumbled on about the participation of Black Virginians in Dix’s campaign. This wasn’t a topic of focus when I began my research but as I gathered sources and read about the military operations outside Richmond, I was struck at how enslaved people stepped forward seemingly at every turn to aid U.S. commanders in the field. Black individuals throughout the region routinely identified Confederate troop locations and provided details about local roads and key geographic features. Further, in the thousands, they joined the U.S. columns in the countryside east of Richmond throughout the operation seeking to gain their own freedom. Of course, this was not an unusual occurrence during the war and has been chronicled in many other campaigns. However, it was notable to me how clear and consistent that participation was as revealed in contemporary accounts.

BR: Can you describe how long it took to write the book and what the general steps were in the process?

HN: I usually spend about four or five years on a book. This one began around 2018. I gathered research for a year or two, spent some time producing a draft, did some follow-up research, and then a lot of rewriting. This project was particularly compelling because nearly everything covered in it had received limited attention in the secondary literature. So, even those relevant portions of the Official Records (the O.R.) – that well-worn primary source for nearly all similar projects – came across as new and fresh to me and pointed to many other research opportunities.

BR: Can you describe your research and writing process? What online and brick and mortar sources did you rely on most?

HN: With regard to research, I try to use everything I can find. The Official Records, memoirs, regimentals, and campaign studies written by the participants usually form the building blocks of my projects. In addition, I use whatever material I can find at research repositories. Every project involves trips to the National Archives and Library of Congress. But I also try to find relevant material in collections from various research institutions – going in person whenever I can and leaning on archivists and local researchers when I can’t. In addition to the usual sources, I’ve found a gold mine of material through period newspapers, many of which have only become widely available to researchers in a searchable form over the last decade or so. While the frontpage news articles can be marginally useful, the soldiers’ letters appearing in the back pages provide a compelling array of eyewitness accounts and descriptions about troop movements and engagements unavailable elsewhere.

As for writing, let’s just say my first drafts aren’t pretty. When I finally begin writing, I try to get things down as quickly as possible to avoid leaving anything of substance out. Then, I go back and edit the work – rewriting over and over (and over) again while trying my best to repress any emotional attachment I may have with the text. After putting the manuscript aside and conducting more, targeted research, I pick it up again and do more revisions, and then do more of the same.

BR: How has the book been received so far?

HN: I’ve been happy with the response. For certain, many readers understandably prefer to stay on the beaten path. However, the positive reviews, awards, and feedback for Gettysburg’s Southern Front suggests there is an appetite out there for something beyond the well-known, well-covered events. Also, I’d be remiss not to thank the staff at University Press of Kansas. They are amazing to work with and have produced, at least in my view, a great looking book.

BR: What’s next for you?

HN: I’m working on a study of the Appomattox Campaign. While there are several excellent books on various aspects of this final struggle between Grant and Lee, I don’t think there are nearly enough. With this new project, I hope to cover the military issues involved in the campaign from April 3 to April 9 – the movements and battles – with a focus on U.S. command decisions along with a variety of additional angles. So far, I am enjoying it. We will see how it goes!

Interview: McLean, “Cutler’s Brigade at Gettysburg”

I’ve known James L. McLean, Jr. for twenty or so years, ever since I met him when he was the bookseller at a Civil War conference I attended. You may know Jim as the owner of Butternut and Blue, which reprinted so many fine Civil War titles with superior quality. I was really glad to hear that Savas Beatie was publishing a new edition of Cutler’s Brigade at Gettysburg. Jim recently sat down and answered a few questions about himself, his book, his writing and research, and his future plans.

—————

BR: Can you tell us a little bit about yourself?

JM: I have had a life-long interest in early American history, especially the Civil War era.

I graduated from Towson State College (now Towson University) with majors in history and education as well as a minor in mathematics. I taught mathematics for 30 years, covering courses from remedial arithmetic to calculus. Concurrently, my wife and I operated a new and out-of-print Civil War book business, Butternut and Blue, from 1983-2016.

My first edition of Cutler’s Brigade at Gettysburg came out in 1987, followed by a revised edition in 1994. I have had two articles published: “The First Union Shot at Gettysburg” appeared in the spring 1980 issue of the Lincoln Herald; “The Execution of John Wood on the March to Gettysburg” appeared in The Gettysburg Magazine (Issue 45, July 2011).

BR: What got you interested history in general, and the Civil War in particular?

JM: When I was seven or eight years old, my parents took me on a Gettysburg bus tour. I still remember being mesmerized by the rock formation at Devil’s Den. At an early age, I gravitated toward history books at my local library, titles such as Fletcher Pratt’s The Civil War or Earl Schenck Miers The How and Why Book of the Civil War. On subsequent trips to Gettysburg, I purchased Frederick Ray’s Gettysburg Sketches and Human Interest Stories of the Three Days’ Battle at Gettysburg by Grimm and Roy. As I got older, I received as gifts Bruce Catton’s American Heritage histories of the Civil War and Gettysburg. When I was 12, my father took me to my first Civil War Round Table meeting (the night before JFK was assassinated). My obsession with the Civil War, particularly Gettysburg, has never waned.

BR: Why Cutler’s Brigade at Gettysburg, in particular?

JM: In the 1970s, I delivered several talks to my local Round Table. Around 1978, I decided to make my next presentation about a single brigade’s performance at Gettysburg. I didn’t want to cover the obvious choices, such as the Western Iron Brigade or the Texas Brigade, so I did some digging. Sifting through my volumes of New York at Gettysburg led to my selection of Cutler’s brigade.

I gave the talk in September 1979, but I felt there was more to the story. I have pursued information about the brigade, especially concerning the 14th New York State Militia/14th Brooklyn ever since, which has now led to this third, revised edition of Cutler’s Brigade at Gettysburg.

BR: Can you briefly describe the actions of the history of the brigade and its actions at Gettysburg?

JM: The components of the brigade that Cutler commanded at Gettysburg came together slowly. At 2nd Bull Run, Abner Doubleday led the brigade, where its three regiments, the 76th and 95th New York and 56th Pennsylvania, saw their first combat. After the battle, the 7th Indiana joined the brigade. Together, the four regiments fought a night action at South Mountain. The brigade saw limited action at Antietam, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville.

Cutler assumed command of the brigade in early 1863. In March, the untested 147th New York was assigned to the brigade. Cutler’s final Gettysburg component, the 14th Brooklyn, was added in early June after all the two-year units it had been brigaded with were mustered out. The 14th Brooklyn became the brigade’s most experienced regiment.

On July 1, 1863, Cutler’s brigade led the 1st Corps’ march to Gettysburg where it fired the first Federal infantry shots on the battlefield. As a result of Reynolds’s orders, the brigade soon split into three distinct sections to meet the threat posed by Confederate General Heth’s division and to support Hall’s 2nd Maine battery. Cutler’s men delayed the advance of Archer’s and Davis’s Southern brigades. Then two of its regiments, in conjunction with the 6th Wisconsin, attacked the Rebels holding the railroad cut, which not only ended the morning fight but also led to the capture of a significant number of Southerners.

Despite heavy losses, Cutler’s brigade maintained its battlefield integrity, enabling it to serve along Seminary Ridge on the afternoon of July 1 and on Culp’s Hill the next two days. Cutler’s brigade was one of the few units to fight all three days of the battle, becoming one of only five brigades in the conflict to suffer in excess of 1,000 casualties.

BR: You published the most recent edition of Cutler’s Brigade at Gettysburg 29 years ago. What has happened with this work in the interim?

JM: When Ted sought permission to reprint Cutler’s Brigade, I agreed as long as I could make some changes. The result is a fuller, slightly expanded, revised edition.

When I reformatted the footnotes, I occasionally added extra analysis to emphasize points I made in the text. I not only addressed a few historical flaws but I also included several more soldier accounts that described the July 1 fighting. My ongoing research into the exploits of the 14th Brooklyn led to my discovery of daily field returns for the brigade throughout the campaign. The document, housed at the National Archives and Records Administration, specifies the number of men present for duty each day of the battle, so I incorporated those numbers for the regiments’ strengths rather than the ones I used in the second edition. The maps have been redrawn (and slightly adjusted), and three new appendices have been added. I added a postscript to explain what happened to the brigade and some of its personalities after Gettysburg campaign. Instead of a photographic supplement, the increased number of photos and illustrations has been interspersed throughout the text. Finally, this version of Cutler’s Brigade sports an attractive, full-color dust jacket featuring Allen Redwood’s painting of the 14th Brooklyn at the railroad cut.

BR: Can you describe how long it took to write the book, what the stumbling blocks were, what you discovered along the way that surprised you or went against the grain, what firmed up what you already knew? When did you know you were “done”?

JM: I started my research in 1978, so it took nearly ten years before the first volume appeared in 1987. The expanded, second edition, was published seven years later. I continue to collect source material.

As I mentioned earlier, this volume was intended to be a reprint, but I not only incorporated a fair amount of new material but I also made several revisions or clarifications to the text. When the Gettysburg portion of my 14th Brooklyn study becomes available, readers will find even greater detail concerning that regiment’s role in the battle. However, my subsequent findings confirm the conclusions I made in the three iterations of Cutler’s Brigade.

As for stumbling blocks, there are no memoirs or regimental histories for half of the units in the brigade. With the exception of J. William Hofmann, very few of Cutler’s men left published records of what they had experienced.

Three findings surprised me when I started my research 45 years ago. I soon realized that the 147th New York fought in an isolated position during the morning of July 1. Earlier accounts of the battle placed the regiment in line with the 56th Pennsylvania and 76th New York, which is understandable since their three monuments are together aligned north of the middle railroad cut. Second, I had been unaware of the important role Cutler’s men played in securing and holding Culp’s Hill. On July 2, Greene’s brigade had plenty of help defending the height. Finally, I was surprised by how dismissive many 6th Wisconsin soldiers were to the role of the 14th Brooklyn and 95th New York in capturing the railroad cut, to the point where some of them even claimed that the 14th Brooklyn never made a charge.

I don’t think my research will ever be “done” —I continue to look for information that will enhance or alter my views of what happened on the morning of July 1 at Gettysburg, especially the part played by the 14th Brooklyn.

BR: Can you describe your research and writing process? What online and brick and mortar sources did you rely on most?

JM: When I started this project in 1978, I relied heavily on the following: the MOLLUS Civil War Library and Museum in Philadelphia, which no longer exists; the War College Library in Carlisle, which became the U. S. Army Military History Institute (USAMHI) before changing its name to the United States Army Heritage and Education Center (USAHEC). Since then, I have personally worked at the New York State Archives, the Museum of the Confederacy, the Library of Congress newspaper files, the Library of Virginia, and the National Archives and Records Administration. Additionally, librarians from the Brooklyn Historical Society, the Oswego Historical Society, the New York State Military Museum, the New York State Library, the New York Historical Society, the State Historical Society of Wisconsin, and the Historical Society of Pennsylvania have kindly forwarded material that I have requested.

Numerous trips to the battlefield helped me visualize and understand the accounts left by the battle’s participants.

I compose my manuscripts the old-fashioned way, with paper and pencil. After several revisions, I bang out the text on my computer.

BR: How has the book been received so far?

JM: The first two editions received favorable reviews. I hope readers will enjoy this revised and expanded Savas Beatie edition.

BR: What’s next for you?

JM: I am working on a multi-volume history of the 14th Brooklyn/14th NYSM. The first volume, already submitted to Savas Beatie, awaits its place in the company’s production schedule. It covers April 1861, when the regiment recruited to wartime strength, through the 2nd Bull Run campaign. The manuscript features 36 full-color maps as well as numerous illustrations and photographs. I am half-way through volume 2.

Preview: Cameron, “Tar Heels in Gray”

A 2021 release from McFarland & Company is Tar Heels in Gray: Life in the 30th North Carolina Infantry in the Civil War, by the late John B. Cameron. This is an interesting work, akin to Joseph Glatthaar’s Soldiering in the Army of Northern Virginia, with lots of statistics digging into the makeup of the regiment. In fact, some of the many tables in the book compare the author’s findings in the micro to Glatthaar’s in the macro. From the jacket:

The 30th North Carolina Infantry was involved in most of the major battles in Virginia from the Seven Days through the surrender at Appomattox, and saw some of the bloodiest fighting of the American Civil War. Two-thirds of these men volunteered early; the others were enlisted at the point of a bayonet. Their casualty rate was high, the rate of death from disease was higher and the desertion and AWOL rate was higher still. What was the war actually like for these men? What was their economic status? To what extent were they involved in the institution of slavery? What were their lives like in the Army? What did they believe they were fighting for and did those views change over time? This book answers those questions and depicts Civil War soldiers as they were, rather than as appendages to famous generals or symbols of myth. It focuses on the realities of the men themselves, not their battles. In addition to the author’s personal collection of letters and other contemporary records, it draws upon newly discovered letters, diaries, memoirs, census records, and published works.

What you get:

• 138 pages of text, in 10 chapters, a preface, an intro, a conclusion, and an appendix. The chapters are broken down by topic. The history is not chronological.
• 23 pages of endnotes
• Full bibliography including unpublished and archival sources.
• Index
• Numerous tables and graphs

Interview: O’Neill, “Small But Important Riots”

A new release from Potomac Books is Robert F. (Bob) O’Neill’s Small But Important Riots: The Cavalry Battles of Aldie, Middleburg, and Upperville. I’ve known Bob for about six years now, ever since we spent a week together out west visiting Indian Wars sites, including Little Bighorn. Bob graciously consented to discussing his new book, below.

—————

Bull Runnings: Can you tell us a little bit about yourself?

Bob O’Neill: My wife and I live in King George, VA. I am a retired police officer, and law enforcement instructor. Virginia Country’s Civil War published my first article in 1984. I have also published articles in Blue & Gray, Gettysburg Magazine, America’s Civil War, and the Little Big Horn Associates, Research Review. In addition to the 1993 H. E. Howard edition of The Cavalry Battles of Aldie, Middleburg, and Upperville, I published Chasing Jeb Stuart and John Mosby, The Union Cavalry in Northern Virginia from Second Manassas to Gettysburg in 2012. The latter study follows Maj. Gen. Julius Stahel’s Union cavalry, attached to the Defenses of Washington, and examines John Mosby’s first six months as a partisan commander from the viewpoint of Stahel’s troopers, using previously unpublished contemporary documents.

Dave Roth, owner, and editor of Blue & Gray, and I became good friends while working together on several Civil War articles. He had long wanted to publish an issue on the Little Big Horn, and in the early 2000’s we made two trips to the battlefield and several other nearby battlefields. Those trips and numerous related discussions led to my article in a later issue on the 1876 fights at Powder River and Rosebud. My work with Dave also resulted in my guiding two Custer related tours for Bruce Venter and America’s History, LLC.

Lastly, I publish a cavalry related blog, (Small But Important Riots), and several appendices not published in the new edition may be found on that site.

BR: What got you interested in history in general, and the Civil War in particular? Who/what were your early influences?

B’ON: Beyond grade-school classes, I learned to read and to enjoy reading by reading the books in my parent’s library. My dad, a naval officer in WW2 and Korea, had an extensive military library, including naval studies, Lincoln biographies, and Civil War histories. I began reading during the Civil War Centennial and studies such as Bruce Catton’s Army of the Potomac trilogy sparked my interest, as well as heavily illustrated books from American Heritage and similar publications. An early family trip to Gettysburg when I was nine or ten also left an indelible impression that continues to this day.

BR: Why Civil War cavalry, in particular?

BO’N: A couple of reasons: At Gettysburg, my parents hired a Licensed Battlefield Guide for the day, and while I do not remember much of the visit, I have never forgotten our first stop at the John Buford Memorial. I do not recall the guide’s description of the stand made by Buford’s cavalry, but the regimental markers and the Buford statue provided an early spark. I had also received by then a Landmark Series account of George Custer and his fight at the Little Big Horn. I loved the book, and my parents soon bought me more accurate studies of Custer and his demise. My interest in Buford and Custer has never waned. Finally, I have to credit Hollywood depictions of the cavalry and cavalry uniforms. Inaccurate though they often are, the bold colors caught my eye and sparked my interest in both the cavalry and the American West.

BR: You published The Cavalry Battles of Aldie, Middleburg and Upperville with H. E. Howard 30 years ago. What has happened in the interim?

BO’N: A lot. The book was very well received and sold very well but has been long out of print. Used copies commanded very high prices and remained out of reach for most folks who may have wanted to purchase a copy. The towns of Aldie, Middleburg, and Upperville, the battlefields, and other historic landmarks throughout the Loudoun Valley faced intense pressure from developers in 1993 when Harold Howard published the book. The book brought attention to the history of the Loudoun Valley at an opportune time, just as citizens were organizing preservation efforts to save historic sites, including the battlefields. The efforts of many dedicated residents have resulted in hundreds of acres of land protected by preservation easements, several battlefield sites are now under the protection of the Northern Virginia Park Authority, roads retain their historic integrity and structures once on the verge of collapse have been saved. The battlefields have been mapped, with core and study areas defined, while opportunities to view and understand the battlefields, most of which remain in private hands, have been improved by construction of paved roadside pull-offs, and placement of Civil War Trails interpretive markers.

The first edition opened many doors, and I have met many residents of the area who have shared their time and knowledge and who remain friends.

BR: So, what have you turned up since the publication of the first version in 1993?

BO’N: No author had attempted a book-length study of the fighting in the Loudoun Valley prior to my effort. In his 1965 book Here Come the Rebels!, Wilbur Nye dedicated two chapters to the cavalry actions in the Loudoun Valley. Likewise, Ed Longacre discussed the events around Aldie, Middleburg, and Upperville in two chapters of his 1986 book, The Cavalry at Gettysburg. All of the battlefields remained largely inaccessible in private hands, and only one monument and a couple highway markers marked the fields. Interpretation of the fighting remained in its infancy. Likewise, my own abilities, or lack thereof, as a researcher, as well as a deadline and format imposed by the publisher hampered by work. Publication and positive reviews, however, opened many doors for me, and the late John Divine, who had guided me over the fields, as he had guided Wilbur Nye, introduced me to many historians who have continued to offer assistance. Most importantly, John introduced me to Mike Musick, then the dean of Civil War archivists at the National Archives. I had made a couple brief forays into the archives for the first edition, but a combination of factors limited my work there. Mike, as the late Horace Mewborn used to say, broke the code for us at the archives. With Mike’s patient guidance, I grew comfortable there and learned to accept the time one needs to put in, in order to realize the real rewards the archives offers. Those rewards, as I will discuss below, convinced me that I, as well as all who came before me and after me, had erred in our interpretation of the events. The importance of one of those errors convinced me to re-write the book.

BR: Can you describe how long it took to write the book, what the stumbling blocks were, what you discovered along the way that surprised you or went against the grain, what firmed up what you already knew? When did you know you were “done”?

BO’N: The author of one online review site has declined to review Small but Important Riots, because he sees the book as a revised edition of my previous work, and he maintains a policy of not reviewing revised editions. And I cannot argue with him too strongly, as most revised editions contain very little new material. However, this edition is completely new from the first page to the last page. I spent nine years looking at every aspect of the study, taking advantage of improved access to the battlefields, my familiarity with the National Archives, the advent of online resources and a wealth of material gathered over the preceding thirty years, as well as the wise counsel of many knowledgeable friends. Not wishing to give everything away, I will offer, by way of example, the change that convinced to redo the book.

Every preceding study, to include my own, has been based around one over-riding theme, that Maj. Gen. Alfred Pleasonton, commander of the Union Cavalry Corps, had disobeyed his orders from army commander, Joseph Hooker, to take his cavalry and find Gen. Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, regardless of the cost. The editors of the Official Records defined that premise, by the communications they chose to include in Volume 27. The editors included thirteen messages between Hooker and his superiors, including President Abraham Lincoln, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, and Gen. Henry Halleck from the night of June 16-17, 1863, in which they emphatically told Hooker to send his cavalry to find the enemy and Hooker appears to agree with them. But thirty years of experience has convinced me that the editors, faced with a monumental task, left out more information than they included.

Thirty years ago, as a novice researcher, I drank all the anti-Pleasonton Kool-Aid and ignored evidence to the contrary, including his testimony before the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War. But I went away from the process convinced that I and others painted Pleasonton with a very broad brush, being too lazy to parse the truth from the fiction. Over time, I found the evidence that Pleasonton had told the truth: Hooker had told his superiors one thing and told Pleasonton another. Hooker’s orders were emphatic, Pleasonton was not to send his corps in search of Lee. Rather, Hooker granted him permission to send only one regiment to do so. But Pleasonton disobeyed his orders. He disobeyed that he might find Lee and in doing so he precipitated the fighting.

I have also corrected many lesser, though still embarrassing, errors of fact or interpretation. Some errors had lingered the entire time. That is, I knew there was a problem but I did not have a solution. Others had gone unrecognized until I began the writing process.

Covid told me I was done, and, as odd as it may sound, I am grateful for the events that forced me to move on.

BR: Can you describe your research and writing process? What online and brick and mortar sources did you rely on most?

BO’N: I enjoy researching much more than writing and never considered myself much of a writer. I often described my style as police report writing 101. Luckily, a friend with a deep well of patience convinced me during the last nine years to change my style and I believe, with his help, Small But Important Riots is, by far, the best narrative I have produced. I spent nine years working on the book, re-examining every facet of the events covered.

One challenge in writing of these events is that they fall between the larger battles at Brandy Station and Gettysburg. Many soldiers did not have time to write accounts of the Loudoun Valley fighting before being engulfed by events in Pennsylvania. Thirty years ago, I chased down letters and diaries as primary sources of information. As often as not the efforts proved unrewarding, but I never ceased to gather such accounts, and several proved vital in correcting errors. Rather than focusing my efforts again on letters and diaries, I determined to focus on documents in the National Archives, including pension and service records, regimental records, unpublished reports and communications, ordnance records and quartermaster records. The first edition included just three entries from the archives, whereas the new edition includes thirty-five.

The advent of online digital newspaper databases proved extremely beneficial. Thirty years ago, my bibliography included accounts from nineteen newspapers. I cite eighty-nine in the new edition. The online Fold3 database has also accelerated the process of reviewing service records and pension files. Whereas I examined maybe a dozen pension files in the first edition, I checked more than three hundred for the new edition.

Ancestry.com also proved invaluable. The combination of online newspapers, online ancestry records and my wife’s investigative skills with family and property records, as well as Wynne Saffer’s invaluable work on 1860 property boundaries, helped me to pinpoint the property where the 1st Rhode Island Cavalry met near total ruin on June 18, 1863.

BR: How has the book been received so far?

BO’N: The reviews so far, both in print and online, have been very positive. I am grateful for all who have published their thoughts and comments and I encourage everyone who reads the book to do so.

BR: What’s next for you?

BO’N: I work very slowly. Nine years spent re-writing a book I had already written may seem a bit extreme to some. But I had started almost from scratch thirty years ago. There was simply no template for these events. I have expanded the narrative and corrected many errors of interpretation, but much remains to be done. But for Covid, I might still be researching the book. I hope that someone will continue to expand our knowledge of these events in the not-too-distant future.

At the pace I work, I doubt I have another book in me. At present, and with the National Archives again open, I am helping some friends research their own projects and enjoy doing so. I am currently working on a presentation involving the Michigan Cavalry Brigade on the Plains, following the end of the Civil War. That study continues to expand and intrigue me and who knows what might follow.

Preview: New from Savas Beatie with Bull Run Links

Two new releases from Savas Beatie have Bull Run ties.

The Civil Wars of General Joseph E. Johnston, Confederate States Army, Vol. I: Virginia and Mississippi, 1861-1863 by Richard R. McMurry looks at various aspects of the career of the commander of the Army of the Shenandoah at First Bull Run. From the dust jacket:

In The Civil Wars of General Joseph E. Johnston, Richard M. McMurry argues persuasively that the Confederacy’s most lethal enemy was the toxic dissension within the top echelons of its high command. The discord between General Johnston and President Jefferson Davis (and others), which began early in the conflict and only worsened as the months passed, routinely prevented the cooperation and coordination the South needed on the battlefield if it was going to achieve its independence. The result was one failed campaign after another, all of which cumulatively doomed the Southern Confederacy.

McMurry’s study is not a traditional military biography but a lively and opinionated conversation about major campaigns and battles, strategic goals and accomplishments, and how these men and their decision-making and leadership abilities directly impacted the war effort. Personalities, argues McMurry, win and lose wars, and the military and political leaders who form the focal point of this study could not have been more different (and in the case of Davis and Johnston, more at odds) when it came to making the important and timely decisions necessary to wage the war effectively.

You get:

• 326 pages of narrative in 12 chapters
• Foreword by Stephen Davis (who concludes McMurry’s assessment of Johnston in this work “is one of the most scathing that exists in the voluminous Civil War literature”)
• Four Edward Alexander maps
• (Bibliography will follow in Vol. II)
• Bottom of page footnotes
• Index

The Military Memoirs of a Confederate Line Officer, edited by William R. Cobb, are the recollections of John C. Reed, who was a lieutenant in Co. I, 8th Georgia Infantry, at First Bull Run (read his account of the battle, which is included in this volume, here). From the website:

John C. Reed fought through the entire war as an officer in the 8th Georgia Infantry, most of it with General Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. The Princeton graduate was wounded at least twice (Second Manassas and Gettysburg), promoted to captain during the Wilderness fighting on May 6, 1864, and led his company through the balance of the Overland Campaign, throughout the horrific siege of Petersburg, and all the way to the Appomattox surrender on April 9, 1865.

The Military Memoirs of a Confederate Line Officer is a perceptive and articulate account filled with riveting recollections of some of the war’s most intense fighting. Reed offers strong opinions on a wide variety of officers and topics. This outstanding memoir, judiciously edited and annotated by William R. Cobb, is published here in full for the first time. The Military Memoirs of a Confederate Line Officer is a valuable resource certain to become a classic in the genre.

You get:

• 176 pages of memoir, in 28 chapters.
• Foreword by Lt. Col. (Ret) Henry Persons
• Bottom of page footnotes
• Nine maps (Hampton Newsome and Hal Jesperson) – including an interpretation of Reed’s map found here
• Bibliography listing five sources used, including numerous CSRs from Fold3
• Index

Preview: Three Recent Releases from Savas Beatie

I apologize for the delay in posting this, but here are recaps for three recent Savas Beatie publications.

From the jacket:

“When Hell Came to Sharpsburg” investigates how the battle and its armies wreaked emotional, physical, and financial havoc on the people of Sharpsburg. For proper context, the author explores the savage struggle and its gory aftermath and explains how soldiers stripped the community of resources and spread diseases. Cowie carefully and meticulously follows fortunes of individual families like the Mummas, Roulettes, Millers, and many others—ordinary folk thrust into harrowing circumstances—and their struggle to recover from their unexpected and often devastating losses.”

What you get:

• 464 pages of text in 12 chapters
• 34 page bibliography, including numerous manuscript and newspaper sources.
• Index
• Bottom of page footnotes
• Forewords by Dennis Frye and John Schildt
• 8 Hal Jesperson maps, including town plat map and list of lot owners
• Photos and illustrations throughout

From the jacket:

Scott L. Mingus Sr. and Eric J. Wittenberg, the authors of more than forty Civil War books, have once again teamed up to present a history of the opening moves of the Gettysburg Campaign in the two-volume study “If We Are Striking for Pennsylvania”: The Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of the Potomac March to Gettysburg. This compelling study is one of the first to integrate the military, media, political, social, economic, and civilian perspectives with rank-and-file accounts from the soldiers of both armies as they inexorably march toward their destiny at Gettysburg. This first installment covers June 3–21, 1863, while the second, spanning June 22–30, completes the march and carries the armies to the eve of the fighting.

You get:

• 409 pages of text in 19 chapters, by day
• Appendix on the itineraries of the armies
• Bibliography to follow in volume 2
• 14 page Dramatis Personae
• Index
• Bottom of page footnotes
• Foreword by Dr. Jennifer Murray
• 31 Edward Alexander maps
• Photos and illustrations throughout

From the jacket:

In Six Miles from Charleston, Five Minutes to Hell: The Battle of Secessionville, June 16, 1862, historian Jim Morgan examines the James Island campaign and its aftermath. By including several original sources not previously explored, he takes a fresh look at this small, but potentially game-changing fight, and shows that it was of much more than merely local interest at the time.

You get:

• 151 pages of text in 12 chapters
• 2 appendixes: driving tour and the Campbell brothers of the 79th New York Volunteers
• Order of Battle
• 14 page Dramatis Personae
• Foreword by Dr. Kyle Sinisi
• 10 Edward Alexander maps
• Photos and illustrations throughout