Rogers [an outside PR specialist hired by the union] says he has printed 100,000 copies of a leaflet titled "The Great Emancipator Meets a Great Prevaricator," which revisits embarrassing episodes of alleged copying that bedeviled Goodwin in 2002. Keith Anderson, the head of AMFA's Boston-based Local 2, says the union's 80 local members will hand out leaflets in Concord, where Goodwin lives, at the airport, and at Goodwin's promotional events. In a letter, AMFA national director O.V. Delle-Femine has informed Goodwin that "we intend to notify a great many interested parties . . . that you are unfit to serve on the Northwest board and should resign immediately."I wish I had a way to donate to that worthy cause.
... in the book-lined living room of her 150-year-old renovated farmhouse in the suburbs of Boston, Goodwin uses just that word to describe the 16th president. Sexy.Have you ever wondered how far you yourself would go to promote a book? Would you go that far?
It is obvious from his treatment of these subjects that McPherson strongly dislikes the idea that these myths (which he apparently has repeated on his tours) are now being challenged by more recent research.The case for shoes at Gettysburg being a myth has been nicely covered by author and Gettysburg specialist Tom Desjardin in this interview on Civil War Talk Radio. Here are McPherson's own comments on the matter:
Generations of historians--and battlefield guides--have said that the advance brigade of Heth's division was heading to Gettysburg to find a rumored supply of shoes in town. Young people especially are captivated by the story that the battle of Gettysburg started because of shoes. Recently, however, some historians have debunked this anecdote as a myth. There was no shoe factory or warehouse in Gettysburg, they point out; the twenty-two shoemakers listed in the 1860 census as living in Gettysburg were barely sufficient to make or repair the footwear worn by county residents. And if there had been a surplus of shoes in town, they would have been cleaned out by Brigadier General John Gordon's brigade of Major General Jubal Early's division when they came through Gettysburg five days earlier.If you listen to Desjardin's summary of the shoe story revision, it does not match McPherson's recap. Desjardin says that the only source for any shoe theory is the one remark made by Heth and that the remark is quoted out of context; that the "revisionists" (researchers?) have searched for evidence of Rebel comments about shoes or beliefs about shoes and drilled only dry holes. He says that a certain pop historian took on an out-of-context Heth quote and in the retelling among pop historians using that secondary source, the tale ballooned.
The shoe story, claim these historians, was concocted by General Heth (pronounced Heath) to explain why he blundered into a firefight contrary to Lee's orders not to bring on a battle until the army was concentrated. Heth said that he thought the Union pickets he encountered on the Chambersburg Pike were merely local militia who could be brushed aside, so he kept going to "get those shoes."
The revisionists have made one good point: there were no shoes in Gettysburg except those worn by the inhabitants still in town (many had fled). But that does not necessarily discredit the shoe story. The Confederates may well have thought there were shoes; several of them later said so. In any case, the anecdote serves an important purpose in that it illustrates that the battle of Gettysburg began as a "meeting engagement," or "encounter engagement." Neither commander intended to fight at Gettysburg; the battle built up step by step from that first encounter on the Chambersburg Pike. Let us concede that the shoe story can neither be proved nor disproved; let us follow the current fashion and call Heth's advance a "reconnaissance in force" to probe toward the enemy; the end result was the same.
Flyers are circulating announcing Doris Kearns Goodwin's appearances promoting her first post-scandal work, Team of Rivals. Author Richard Miller has been good enough to send me a few paragraphs from one that he encountered; very interesting stuff it is and I am grateful.In this highly original work, Ms. Goodwin illuminates Lincoln's political genius as he rises from the obscurity of a one-term congressman/prairie lawyer to become president and prevail over three gifted rivals with national reputations.
Throughout the turbulent 1850s, Goodwin demonstrates that Lincoln's success was the result of a character that had been forged by life experiences that raised him above his more privileged and accomplished rivals. He won because he possessed an extraordinary ability to put himself in the place of other men, to experience what they were feeling and to understand their motives and desires.
It was this capacity that enabled Lincoln, as president, to bring his disgruntled opponents together, create the most unusual cabinet in presidential history, and marshal their talents to the task of preserving the Union and winning the war.
We view the long, horrifying struggle from the vantage point of the White House, as Lincoln copes with incompetent generals, hostile congressmen, and his raucous cabinet. He overcomes the obstacles by winning the respect of his former competitors, and in the case of Seward, finds a loyal and crucial friend to see him through the struggle that was the Civil War.
Little Phil has the best chapter titles and subtitles I’ve seen since J.G. Randall’s Lincoln biography: “Sheridan’s Disobedience to Orders,” “Sheridan’s Mendacity,” “A Victorious Campaign Bereft of Decision,” “Little Phil’s Cavalier Destruction of Lives and Careers.”Sheridan was not a great commander of cavalry.The worst restaurant has the longest menu, as experience teaches - but this is a very manageable kitchen.
Sheridan’s performance in the Shenandoah Valley was laxckluster.
Sheridan had a wide streak of insubordination and was not dependable in a subordinate role.
Sheridan tended to prevaricate…
[Those] who drew his ire [were ruined]
Eric started into this Sheridan revision the way I started into my McClellan rethink (if I read his introduction correctly): reading, one encounters a consensus; it is monolithic and inescapable. At the same time, researching other matters constantly uncovers more material detrimental to the consensus.
How do you assess a reputation?
Listen for me on Civil War Talk Radio this Friday (12 noon EST) when host Gerald Prokopowicz (right) and I will discuss McClellan, public history, and the Internet.
You have been hanging on the edges of your seats for the answers to those N.B. Buford questions raised yesterday, no doubt, and Eric Wittenberg has graciously allowed me to excerpt bits of his email to me on the subject. (He has been researching the Buford family for a new book.)
I, Robert E. Lee, of Lexington, Virginia, do solemnly swear, in the presence of Almighty God, that I will henceforth faithfully support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Union of the States thereunder, and that I will, in like manner, abide by and faithfully support all laws and proclamations which have been made during the existing rebellion with reference to the emancipation of slaves, so help me God.
We tend to talk more about John Buford than about his half-brother BG Napoleon Bonaparte Buford (right).
Al Zuckerman, the famous movie producer, called me about acquiring the movie rights. When I told him he would have to deal with Whitmore, he said "It would be a nightmare getting rights from them" and told he he'd pass.Fulgham has taken the odd step of extracting a nonfiction book from his novel and shopping it to another publisher.
My anger, frustration and disappointment has melted away now and I am prepared for the long wait [i.e., rights reverting from the publisher’s control]. […]All I can think of to do is give away enough free copies to create a kind of underground legend about this weird book that deals with the wild hogs stalking wounded Civil War soldiers. Then, when the Whitmore contract expires, I can try to place it with a real press.Beware the Macmillan model.
Crawford and Clay are both accused of removing and damaging bullets and other archaeological resources within the historic Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park in Fort Oglethorpe — a site, Murphy pointed out, that had seen "one of the most important and far-reaching battles of the Civil War."He would have gotten a less stiff sentence for a less important battlefield? For community service, let him dig the foundations of the homes going in at Shepherdstown battlefield. He could keep the bullets and the developers would get their earth moved. That would be a win-win, wouldn't it?
"I didn’t think I was doing it to hurt the American people. But if I did, I’m sorry," he said when asked if he wanted to address the judge Friday.He damaged an old bullet. A bullet representing The People.
...you begin with what you regard as a self-evident truth ... and then you clutch scattered droppings of evidence supporting your generalization...Edward Ayers on James McPherson:
Like [Ken] Burns, McPherson uses quotation extensively and effectively; he lets the words of his protagonists carry his story. Persuasive Northern speakers come in at key points to make the liberal and nationalist statements attractive to McPherson.
The remains of General Anton Ivanovich Denikin (right) have been brought back to Russia for a state funeral, something I never dreamed I'd see in my lifetime.
s, broad orders, fatherly and gentlemanly demeanor. It got him within 200 miles of Moscow from a staring point just north of the Caucasus. Peter Nikolayevich Wrangel (right) was the fiery and dynamic battlefront commander succeeding him after his resignation. (Remember when resignation followed failure?) Wrangel at one point took Tsaritsyn (Stalingrad, Volgagrad) with a combined air/cavalry/armor attack. This is 1920, mind you.
