Chancellorsville land sale status

A friend of this blog wrote to Civil War Preservation Trust to clarify the status of the 140 acre Tricord land sale. The response was quick and clear:

CWPT closed on the property in December 2004, and it is now owned by the organization. That same month, we began a fundraising campaign to pay our share of the $3 million purchase price. Since CWPT needed to pay for the property before the fundraising campaign had a fair chance to get going, we secured a short-term loan to pay our share of the $3 million purchase price. I am happy to say we are ahead of schedule to pay off that loan by the target date of September 2005.

Excellent. The news is now on this website: why not post this on the CWPT website as well?

NEWS | Mountain Legion's materials donated to library * Vanderbilt loses legal action - must restore "Confederate" name * Confederate Memorial statue dedicated at new location

Independent publishers this spring

Pioneer Publishing has made itself known to me today and seems to carry a lot of Civil War material geared for Southern genealogists; have a look. Pioneer - not a subsidy house - is looking for authors, by the way.

I note also that Savas Beatie is releasing two ACW titles in May, both artillery-related. The status of their March title, Capital Navy, seems ambiguous.

Thomas Publications, on the other hand, seems to be heading down the path of vintage battlefield photography this season offering Gettysburg and Antietam images.

The Morningside Press is going strong, although it is difficult to confirm which are spring publication dates on these 11 new and reissued titles (see left column here).

Mercer University is offering a couple of titles, a bio of W.H.T. Walker and another about "Confederate Soldier-Christians."

Rutledge Hill Press is offering just one item this spring, The Commanders of Chancellorsville by Longacre. "As equally matched in skill as they were opposite in personality..." We're talking Hooker and Lee, by the way. Longacre has drunk too much from the cup of Sears, it seems.

Stackpole seems to have scaled back its ACW efforts. Dittos for Da Capo. Meanwhile the Texas A&M University Press keeps up its end with a number of Vandiver reprints.

I'll collect my impressions of this ACW season generally and post it soon.

Automating ACW writing

Struggling through James McPherson's carefully hedged nonsense yesterday while doing Jean Smith plagiarism analysis, I asked myself "Where have I seen this kind of writing before?"

In style and tone it matches, SCIgen, a famous and very good Internet joke.

SCIgen is a program that churns out technology papers. You plug in the names of some authors, and SCIgen's engine spits out carefully hedged insights in the blink of an eye. Some pranksters have successfully submitted these papers to conferences.

Here's a paper I generated under the name of James M. McPherson; we've made him a computer scientist. "Dr. McPherson," SCIgen version, writes:

Unified wearable methodologies have led to many key advances, including kernels and replication. Even though prior solutions to this problem are encouraging, none have taken the pseudorandom approach we propose in this paper. To put this in perspective, consider the fact that famous analysts largely use von Neumann machines to solve this question. However, suffix trees alone can fulfill the need for signed models.

Dr. McPherson, acclaimed Civil War writer, actually penned this:

It is hard to separate fact from fiction in this matter. Many wartime stories of Grant's drunkenness are false; others are at best dubious. Grant's meteoric rise to fame provoked jealousy in the hearts of men who indulged in gossip to denigrate him. Subject to sick headaches brought on by strain and loss of sleep, Grant sometimes acted unwell in a manner to give observers the impression that he had been drinking. But even when the myths have been stripped away, a hard substratum of truth about Grant's drinking remains.

Eerie, is it not? A random and meaningless string of assertions that somehow hang together. The paragraphs also end similarly. "But even when the myths have been stripped away, a hard substratum of truth about Grant's drinking remains" = "However, suffix trees alone can fulfill the need for signed models."

If the publishing industry gets hold of SCIgen and makes a few changes for Civil War nonfiction, there won't be enough Pulitzers in all creation to award to the robotic prizewinners.

Jerseymen ponder locomotive model

The Baldwin company's American locomotive is a staple of Civil War imagery. Some of my piney friends have discovered what may turn out to be a working 6-foot model of this classic machine.

NEWS | Iowans organize guerilla raid society * Civil War show slated for Ohio fairground * Detroit will premier slave opera "Margaret Garner" - Cincy and Philly to follow

Jean Smith and Grant (cont.)

In his Battle Cry of Freeedom, James McPherson follows a narrative timeline - and timelines are a boon to storytelling but a bane to analysis.

The matter of Grant's Civil War drinking, which demands analysis, can be introduced naturally at a number of points on any narrative timeline.

McPherson takes up the drinking question just before Stanton's spy Charles Dana is assigned to watch Grant. This is because McPherson has told his story in a way that skirts the drinking controversy and he will confuse readers by introducing Dana without a review of boozy charges.

In other words, McPherson's choice is idiosyncratic, based on his story structure. Perhaps I'm wrong, but so it seems to me. And I hear alarm bells if another storyteller interrupts his tale for a drinking analysis at exactly the same point as McPherson.

Jean Smith does so in Grant.

Having decided to deal with matters alcoholic, McPherson, in Battle Cry, then chooses a way to ease into the topic. He begins with the anecdote about Lincoln "telling a a delegation of congressmen that he would like to know Grant's brand of whiskey so he could send some to his other generals." [P. 588*]

I find this choice idiosyncratic, as well. Jean Smith launches his digression with the same anecdote, although he recites it in detail. [P. 231*]

McPherson next plunges into a long passage of doubletalk about Grant's drinking and not drinking. Smith avoids the nonsense and boils things down to a simple sentence: "The evidence is overwhelming that during the Vicksburg campaign he [Grant] occasionally fell off the wagon." After this, the parallels intensify. These passages appear in the same sequence in each work:

McPherson: "He may have been an alcoholic in the medical meaning of that term. He was a binge drinker." [P 588]
Smith: "Grant was a binge drinker. In a clinical sense, he may have been an alcoholic." [P. 231]

McPherson: "For months he could go without liquor, but if he once imbibed it was hard for him to stop." [P 588]
Smith: "He could go for months without a drink, but once he started it was difficult for him to stop." [P. 231]

McPherson: "His wife and his chief of staff John A. Rawlins were his best protectors." [P 588]
Smith: "For the most part, Grant remained sober, protected from alcohol by his adjutant, Colonel John Rawlins, and especially by Julia." [P. 231]

The effect is that of Smith lifting an entire section of someone else's work and modifying the parts that don't work for him, while leaving the narrative stucture intact.

The following comments were made about Stephen Ambrose and they resonate here:

"When two or more significant words are quoted in the same form and juxtaposition as in the original, and are not enclosed in quotation marks, that is plagiarism." - Lee Nash, Professor of History, George Fox University

Let us not neglect our old acquaintance Peter Charles Hoffer:

Authors must paraphrase with great care if they are to avoid falling into plagiarism, for paraphrasing lends itself to a wide range of errors. In particular, a paraphrase, particularly after some time has passed in the course of research, may be mistaken by the author for his or her own idea or language and reappear in the author's piece without any attribution. Mosaic paraphrases patching together quotations from a variety of secondary sources, and close paraphrases, wherein the author changes a word or two and reuses a passage from another author without quotation marks, also constitute plagiarism.

Note also the outcome of the 2003 case of Prof. Brian VanDeMark. His employer, the US Naval Academy examined a pop history tome he penned and found "improper borrowing and inadequate paraphrasing and that these improprieties constituted plagiarism." [Emphasis added.] VanDeMark was busted down in rank, reprimanded, deprived of tenure, and his pay reduced by $10,000.

Have a look at these definitions of plagiarism and draw your conclusions about Grant.

Is Marshall University paying attention?

- - - -

* These page numbers come from the editions whose online contents were made searchable by Amazon at these links:

Smith and McPherson.

You can compare the passages yourself by using the Amazon "search inside" functionality and then pasting distinctive word strings from the quotes above into the search boxes.

I am indebted to a reader for pointing me to these passages. We'll do some additional Smith vs. Catton analysis soon.

Escapism

Mark Grimsley has me thinking:

... men read books on military history the way women read Harlequin romances, as escapist entertainment.

This exposes the root of problem with Civil War publishing. Waves of history-innocent readers wash into this field seeking strong non-fiction storytelling. Some read a lot of this nonfiction entertainment and then imagine themselves "experts."

What looks like the truth
is truth enough for fools.
- Guillaume Sulpice Chevalier

And "truth enough for fools" is big business.

Senate historian considers the press

Long-time Senate historian Donald Ritchie has a lot to say about dealing with the press in an article that contains a few surprises.

Some recent journalists seem never to have taken a college course in history or political science. During President Clinton’s impeachment, for instance, a reporter called me to ask breathlessly: “Who was Andrew Johnson and why was he impeached?” You wind up offering a History 101 lecture, and hope that they are taking good notes.

This was also a surprise to me:

Lincoln’s biographers, for instance, have long dismissed the idea that President Abraham Lincoln met with a congressional committee to defend his wife’s expenditures of public funds at the White House. A presidential appearance before a congressional committee was a significant issue for the Historical Office. The chief source of the story was the memoirs of the Boston Journal correspondent Benjamin Perley Poore, who certainly liked a good story and may have embellished them as he retold them. But Poore had a professional reputation to uphold and his contemporaries in the press would have called him to task for fabrication. Instead of rejecting his story as myth, we hunted for corroborating evidence and eventually found an article in the New York Herald, dated February 13, 1862 that stated: "President Lincoln today voluntarily appeared before the House Judiciary Committee. . . ."

Gold-plating the ironclads

Back in 2002, William H. Roberts did a really interesting thing with the annals of Union ironclad construction - he researched, then wrote the history of the U.S. ironclads as procurement projects. Gone was the gripping "race" against the Virginia's menace as plot device and storyline. Instead, his Civil War Ironclads delivered insights about weapons systems procurement then and now.

The only review I've seen that gives a taste of Roberts' purpose is this one by Scott Stabler.

It's a little dry, but well worth a look.

NEWS | Government tries to determine Gettysburg Tower worth * Auctions feature Southern curiosities * Marszalek will appear on TV May 22 * Virginia sprouts a Lincoln society

Harsh rumors

Mitch Hagmaier has finished Joseph Harsh's Taken at the Flood and has some insights.

Mitch is wondering how close we are to the next book in Harsh's series. Or as one Col. Len Fullenkamp explained in a fine review,

This, one hopes, is a promise of things to come, for Harsh has much yet to say about the Antietam campaign. Among the later volumes planned for this series is a similarly detailed study of McClellan's generalship from the spring of 1861 through August 1862; the generalship of McClellan in the Maryland Campaign; and a grand-tactical and tactical study of Federal and Confederate generalship at the Battle of Antietam.

Rumor has it that there will not be follow-up volumes by Harsh; the best outcome seems to be that one of his students may finish one or more of these projects for him.

If the rumor is true, this constitutes a minor disaster in the revision of Civil War history.

Jean Smith and Grant (cont.)

I received this message from a reader last week and it speaks for itself.

Your posts about Jean Edward Smith's Grant biography greatly amused me. Aside from the plagiarism issue, I strongly suspect Smith really knows nothing at all about Grant, period. It is my belief that all the book's research, and possibly a good deal of the writing, was done by anonymous assistants. I came to this conclusion from an e-mail exchange I recently had with him.

One of the illustrations in his Grant bio is a drawing that the caption states was done by USG at Monterey, during the Mexican War. I was a bit puzzled by this, as I had never seen this drawing before, and I had never heard that Grant continued to create artwork after he left his drawing classes at West Point. The book's photo credits said the drawing was in the "Ulysses S. Grant Papers," without specifying where this particular set of "papers" is located. I wrote to the Library of Congress, where the bulk of Grant's papers are kept, asking them about this drawing. They replied that they did not have it, and suggested that I ask John Simon about the drawing's provenance. I did so, and got back a very nice reply from him saying that he did not believe Grant produced any artwork in Mexico, he had never seen that particular picture before, and would very much like to know where Smith got his information! Dr. Simon gave me Smith's address, so I (feeling a bit like Captain Ahab in search of the whale, at this point,) wrote to the author himself, hoping for an end to this mystery.

Nope. Smith replied that he couldn't remember where he found this drawing or where he got the idea that Grant drew it in Mexico, but he said that he thought it could be found in Volume One of the published Grant papers. (This, after I mentioned in my letter to him that John Simon, editor of the Grant papers, had no idea where the picture came from.) Smith said he would check his Grant material and tell me what his sources were regarding this enigmatic picture. Well, that was nearly three months ago, and I have yet to hear back from him. I'm not sure if he forgot to send me the information--or if he simply had no information to send! Either way, I definitely got the impression that in the back of his mind he was thinking, "Ulysses who?"

If this is typical of professional historians nowadays, I say bring on the amateurs.

More on Smith and Grant later this week.

For whom the slot bells toll

The Gettysburg hotel/spa/slot machine proposal is being sold, by its supporters, as a regional tourism magnet. I disagree and think its purpose is to separate the existing tourism stream from more of its money.

Meanwhile, this story notes that the developers have not selected a casino theme yet and that the Civil War motif is still an option. A critic notes that if the casino is themed per the battle, "It would be a slap in the face of all the tens of thousands of men killed on the battlefield."

They are beyond slapping, sir. Look to your own cheeks.

Here's another story with pious comments by Civil War entertainers Shaara and McPherson.

"Civil War" is a winner for Utah theatre

Think of it as indoor re-enactment with singing:

Another [packed] show, another standing ovation. It's become a nightly occurrence for "The Civil War," an unlikely musical smash that has been wowing crowds for three years at this community playhouse in a strip mall beside a supermarket.

In addition to Yankees and Rebels, a solid dozen black actors are needed in the production.

In a state where blacks comprise less than 1 percent of the population, the pool of experienced black actors is not deep. To recruit performers for the slave roles, McKay visited Baptist churches and even stopped blacks on the street. "It's not easy to go up to a black person and say, 'Hey, do you want to be in a show?'" he says. "And do you mind wearing chains?'"

As to historic content, I see that

The musical climaxes with the battle of Gettysburg, which leaves "slain" soldiers strewn across the stage. An angel in white appears above the fallen men, inviting them to "sleep in my arms . . . all your pain is past." Sniffles ripple throughout the audience. This emotional punch may explain the enduring appeal of a story whose ending everyone already knows. Not everybody wants a history lesson, but almost everyone likes a good cry.

NEWS | AL poll puts states' rights ahead of slavery as war cause * Illinois town rededicates ACW monument * Flagpole at Grant's muster camp to be restored

Get that springtime feeling

... when you look at this ACW print. To avoid accidents, be sure to put down any sharp objects and empty your mouth before clicking.

Hat tip to art lovin' Mark Grimsley.

See you Monday.

Jean Smith and Grant (cont.)

The American Historical Association is always good for a few laughs, nowhere moreso than in its ethics. Taking that body's Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct for what it is, lax guidelines for ethically challenged historians, it may be worth looking at a couple of harder passages and applying these to the Smith situation in Grant. AHA: "A basic rule of good note-taking requires every researcher to distinguish scrupulously between exact quotation and paraphrase."

That's pretty black-and-white for this gray organization. Consider also that "No matter what the context, the best professional practice for avoiding a charge of plagiarism is always to be explicit, thorough, and generous in acknowledging one’s intellectual debts." [Emphasis in the original.]

Two key concepts are embedded in this tract: "Plagiarism, then, takes many forms. The clearest abuse is the use of another’s language without quotation marks and citation." Also: "When appraising manuscripts for publication, reviewing books, or evaluating peers for placement, promotion, and tenure, scholars must evaluate the honesty and reliability with which the historian uses primary and secondary source materials."

With that in mind, look again at our recent Smith/Grant entry:

Smith: The President's casket, draped in black crepe, rested on a raised platform under a domed black canopy.
Catton: Draped in crepe and black cloth, the President's casket lay in the East Room under a domed canopy of black cloth.

Smith: President Johnson, the Supreme Court, members of the cabinet and the diplomatic corps and other dignitaries, were seated in the room.
Catton: President Johnson, members of the Supreme Court and the cabinet, the uniformed diplomatic corps and other dignitaries, were seated in the room.

Smith: Correspondent Noah Brooks reported that the general "was often moved to tears."
Catton: Correspondent Noah Brooks said that the general "was often moved to tears."

And so it goes.

This comparison comes from the Grant Amazon page, where there are more intriguing hints of what might be happening.

Candace Scott, who manages an excellent Grant website, says on Amazon, "Most disturbing is Smith's propensity to borrow liberally from other authors in his interpretations. Certain sections of this book read similarly to words written by previous Grant biographers. See particularly his views on Grant's drinking, which are similar to McPherson's sections in his book, "Battle Cry of Freedom."

An anonymous Amazon reviewer says, "Further evidence that large parts of the book feel like a rush-job comes from the occasional word-for-word remarks "borrowed" from authors like Lloyd Lewis and William McFeely. Such (...) comments are jarring, and deepen the impression that Smith just did not put much mental effort into much of his work."

A reviewer named Hua Quach notes, "The almost verbatim lifting of passages from other books should be a call to the publishers this is not exactly the watermark of scholarship."

Where are the publishers in a matter of plagiarism associated with their author in a venue as big as Amazon.com?

More on Smith and Grant next week.

The inscrutable Chancellorsville land deal

The story so far...

Late last year, Mr. John Mullins agreed to sell some Chancellorsville battlefield land he owned to a Virginia developer named Tricord; Tricord agreed to sell 140 acres of this same land to Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT) for $3 million. Central Virginia Battlefield Trust (CVBT) agreed to help raise part of that money for CWPT and in an initial fund raising message suggested that there was a March 31 deadline associated with this transaction. That website letter was later edited to remove "March 31."

Both CWPT and CVBT have fundraising appeals on their websites; both appeals use contingent language to suggest that the underlying deal is at risk in some way.

March 31 has come and gone. There has never been an article in the Spotsylvania papers to announce a sale closing; the deal is simply reported as consummated. But the language these nonprofits use suggest it is not at all a done deal. Here is CWPT with my emphasis added:

The Civil War Preservation Trust needs to raise $1.25 million to match another $1.75 million, to pay for 140 acres of hallowed American ground at Chancellorsville. [Without payment, there is no deal, I assume - DR]
[...]
If there was ever a time when I needed your help, this is it. If you never give another dollar to help save another battlefield, I need you to help with this one. It is that important. [Again, contingency.]
[...]
Our future is in the balance today. If we succeed in raising the $1.25 million we need to pay for this land, not only will we save 140 essential acres at Chancellorsville... [Look at this explicit linkage.]
[...]
As you look at the map of the 140-acre property we are buying... [Present tense, the deal is open.]
[...]
... a portion of the land was sold to another local, family-owned development company, Tricord Homes, which has proven to be a reasonable organization that wants to be a good neighbor and do the right thing.
[...]
Tricord agreed to sell us the historically vital 140 acres for $3 million, allowing us to protect the core ground, most of the "viewshed," and the existing National Park. Once we pay for this land, it will be preserved forever, and this will truly be our greatest victory.

And that is the key phrase, "Once we pay for this land..." Has it been paid for?

On April 15, I asked George Whitehurst, the reporter who has been coverning this matter for the Free-Lance Star. No answer.

On April 20, I asked Linda Wandres, Exec. Dir. of CVBT. Here is her answer:

The Tricord/CWPT land purchase is indeed, as CVBT President Mike Stevens put it, "a done deal." All issues and contingencies have been resolved at this point. As a result, 140 acres of the May 1 Chancellorsville battlefield will be preserved forever. CWPT and its partners, including CVBT, are now working to raise the $3 million dollar purchase price of the land. CVBT itself has committed to raising $250,000 for the purchase of this very important area of "dirt and grass." If you have more specific questions, please let me know.

I wrote back on April 25:

Thank you Linda, I appreciate it. As I understand your explanation, the land has not been paid for yet but the the deal is final and ownership cannot revert to Tricord due to failure to make timely payments. Please let me know if I have that straight.

No answer.

Next steps: I will contact Tricord and the Spostsylvania County supervisors.

These nonprofits do not give up their secrets easily, do they? Not even when they ask for your money.

NEWS | Hancock impersonator visits PA schools * Civil War mansion opens in MN * Artifacts collector focuses on Germantown, TN