The intra-cabinet feuding was beyond Lincoln's power to prevent, but he had let it go on much too long. Further, his willingness to let cabinet officers run their departments almost without supervision, except for the war office, had permitted vexatiously contradictory and independtent policies to go on at the same time. Though Stanton and Seward had learned better, Lincoln's slipshod ways encouraged Chase and Blair to assume viceregal attitudes when it pleased them and their ambitions to do so. As an administrator, Lincoln had a long way to go to excellence [in early 1863] and he never tried very hard to get there.From Thomas and Hyman, Stanton: the Life and Times of Lincoln's Secretary of War (Knopf, 1962). Nice antidote to the Goodwinian nonsense circulating just now.
2/27/2006
My own candidate for the Lincoln Prize
If it's ever reprinted, I would enjoy seeing a certain book submitted to the Lincoln Prize committee. Their reaction to this passage, especially, would be delicious to observe:
Coming soon
A têtê-a têtê with Civil War Preservation is shaping up. They seem like very nice people.
Dear Carol Bundy:
Welcome to nonfiction writing! It must be quite a transition from filmmaking to compiling biographies.
You have done very well for yourself, landing a major book contract with a big trade house (FSG), your subject being an obscure Civil War officer who briefly served as McClellan's ADC.
There is no Irvin McDowell biography yet, but we at least have one of Charles Russell Lowell, Jr., thanks to yourself and your publisher. And why not?!
Now, if I could give a few little tips.
As your subject is connected to George B. McClellan, it would be good to know something about General McClellan. For instance, you might want to correct the next edition of your work so that it does not say that Lowell's fellow aide Arthur McClellan was the general's nephew. Arthur was his brother.
You also have to be alert for footnote readers, a sly bunch, quick to argue, quick to find fault. When you make a statement like this, it sends the footnote readers scurrying: "As part of his [McClellan's] efforts to improve morale and to gain publicity, he frequently staged grand reviews, and the army was often paraded through Washington."
The footnote reader is intrigued by the possibility that you have a source for McClellan trying to gain publicity - that would be a fine catch for a researcher. This kind of reader is also challenged by the comment "frequently" set next to grand reviews as well as the assertion "often paraded through Washington."
Your humble and ignorant correspondent is wracking his brain for the exact number of grand reviews and is coming up with two, only one of which was staged in Washington. In despair of his own ignorance, he turns to your endnote for clarification, where he sees, "For more information on General McClellan, see Stephen W. Sears..."
Was that an "appeal to authority" in lieu of data? Hmmm. You know the learned genlemen who accepted your nomination for this year's Lincoln Prize may not approve of that kind of thing.
They may also be surprised, if they ever read your book, to see that Salmon Chase was a senator from Pennsylvania.
I know Goodwin beat you for the prize this year, I hope that Chase thing didn't do it.
I hope, also, that it wasn't your loose, pop-history language that gave the game to Doris. When you say that David Hunter was "an early convert to the use of black troops" it makes it sound as if Hunter bought in to someone else's earlier idea for USCT regiments. I think Hunter could reasonably be called the source of the idea, Carol.
And Carol, note this: Hunter armed slaves - he was not smoking a cigar in his study when he came up with a futuristic concept for USCT regiments. No, Hunter armed runaway slaves for combat operations against the CSA as federal volunteers in the early war. Does that seem like an interesting point to you? You see how that might add a little more juice to your story than He was an early conver to the idea that... ?
No? Oh well, then there's no use trotting out all these other points I've made out.
Carol, you've lost the Lincoln Prize but you are utterly and totally Pulitzer worthy, the Pulitzers being what they are nowadays.
Your pained but faithful reader,
Dimitri
You have done very well for yourself, landing a major book contract with a big trade house (FSG), your subject being an obscure Civil War officer who briefly served as McClellan's ADC.
There is no Irvin McDowell biography yet, but we at least have one of Charles Russell Lowell, Jr., thanks to yourself and your publisher. And why not?!
Now, if I could give a few little tips.
As your subject is connected to George B. McClellan, it would be good to know something about General McClellan. For instance, you might want to correct the next edition of your work so that it does not say that Lowell's fellow aide Arthur McClellan was the general's nephew. Arthur was his brother.
You also have to be alert for footnote readers, a sly bunch, quick to argue, quick to find fault. When you make a statement like this, it sends the footnote readers scurrying: "As part of his [McClellan's] efforts to improve morale and to gain publicity, he frequently staged grand reviews, and the army was often paraded through Washington."
The footnote reader is intrigued by the possibility that you have a source for McClellan trying to gain publicity - that would be a fine catch for a researcher. This kind of reader is also challenged by the comment "frequently" set next to grand reviews as well as the assertion "often paraded through Washington."
Your humble and ignorant correspondent is wracking his brain for the exact number of grand reviews and is coming up with two, only one of which was staged in Washington. In despair of his own ignorance, he turns to your endnote for clarification, where he sees, "For more information on General McClellan, see Stephen W. Sears..."
Was that an "appeal to authority" in lieu of data? Hmmm. You know the learned genlemen who accepted your nomination for this year's Lincoln Prize may not approve of that kind of thing.
They may also be surprised, if they ever read your book, to see that Salmon Chase was a senator from Pennsylvania.
I know Goodwin beat you for the prize this year, I hope that Chase thing didn't do it.
I hope, also, that it wasn't your loose, pop-history language that gave the game to Doris. When you say that David Hunter was "an early convert to the use of black troops" it makes it sound as if Hunter bought in to someone else's earlier idea for USCT regiments. I think Hunter could reasonably be called the source of the idea, Carol.
And Carol, note this: Hunter armed slaves - he was not smoking a cigar in his study when he came up with a futuristic concept for USCT regiments. No, Hunter armed runaway slaves for combat operations against the CSA as federal volunteers in the early war. Does that seem like an interesting point to you? You see how that might add a little more juice to your story than He was an early conver to the idea that... ?
No? Oh well, then there's no use trotting out all these other points I've made out.
Carol, you've lost the Lincoln Prize but you are utterly and totally Pulitzer worthy, the Pulitzers being what they are nowadays.
Your pained but faithful reader,
Dimitri
2/24/2006
Who's the bravest Civil War author of them all?
The one who keeps going back to Iraq to file stories while embedded with units....
Richard F. Miller, author of Harvard's Civil War begins podcasting from the front in a few weeks.
Stay tuned.
Richard F. Miller, author of Harvard's Civil War begins podcasting from the front in a few weeks.
Stay tuned.
2/23/2006
2/21/2006
Civil War Preservation Trust - secrecy and publicity
As we approach the Feb. 28 date for the release of Civil War Preservation Trust's highly idiosyncratic endangered battlefields list and press conference, it dismays me to say that the essayist and TV personality Ben Stein will be used to spark interest in this year's event. He should know better.Ben does a money show. I have a little money trick I could teach him. I go to the website of any charity appealing to me for money and I hunt down financials. If there are no financials, I don't consider donating.
Civil War Preservation Trust has never posted its financials but at least up to a couple of years ago, it had a link on its home page to Charity Navigator. By digging around Charity Navigator, you could eventually find links to their tax filings.
I can't find the tax filings in Charity Navigator any more. And CWPT has removed the link to Charity Navigator from its home page. (I notice that Charity Navigator downgraded CWPT to three stars. Coincidence?)
One thing, the Navigator is still good for is charting the disparity between income and outflow. Look at the revenue/expenses trend chart on this page. CWPT is saving more than $3 million a year from its intake; it was sitting on $16 million in assets in 2002 and the savings keep accumulating. My feeling is that the nonprofit is currently clutching $20 mln - $25 mln in unspent donations.
When the government runs a surplus, we define that as overtaxing. How do we define this? As misfeasance? Underperformance? Organizational dysfunction?
For every dollar you donate to CWPT, some 30 cents seems to go into a bank vault. Forever.
On February 28, CWPT will moan and groan about properties it could buy in a heartbeat. After your press conference, go out and buy some land, skinflints.
Tell, 'em how Ben, 'cause they don't have much experience there.
Morris Island - "maritime habitat"
As is their wont, Civil War Preservation Trust has been delighted to turn over the future of Morris Island to non-Civil War interests. The Trust for Public Land will lead in the next phase of the financial transactions designed to "save" that place.
Their Morris Island web site scares the hell out of me: its history page generously refers to the ACW in one of seven paragraphs. I see a bird sanctuary in Morris Island's future.
The Charleston Post and Courier, which knows how to apportion credit correctly, has named Bobby Ginn the hero of this idiotic drama, brought on, I hasten to add, by the unwillingness of CWPT to pay for the land. Not only is Ginn taking a $2 million loss in selling the tract to the Trust for Public Land, he is going to spend an additional $500,000 of his own "to plan and provide for public access." $2.5 million while CWPT sits on a 2004 surplus of $3 million in unspent donations and dues.
Mr. Ginn, if you do not stipulate public access in your sale to the naturalists who run the Trust, the public access facilities you build will be shut down by the new owners. We, in the Civil War community are depending on you to look out for our interests; we have no one else in position to make stipulations in this sale.
The Post and Courier is careful to point out to Charleston that "the island provides valuable maritime habitat in a rapidly developing metropolitan area."
Lovely. Sinking. Feeling.
Their Morris Island web site scares the hell out of me: its history page generously refers to the ACW in one of seven paragraphs. I see a bird sanctuary in Morris Island's future.
The Charleston Post and Courier, which knows how to apportion credit correctly, has named Bobby Ginn the hero of this idiotic drama, brought on, I hasten to add, by the unwillingness of CWPT to pay for the land. Not only is Ginn taking a $2 million loss in selling the tract to the Trust for Public Land, he is going to spend an additional $500,000 of his own "to plan and provide for public access." $2.5 million while CWPT sits on a 2004 surplus of $3 million in unspent donations and dues.
Mr. Ginn, if you do not stipulate public access in your sale to the naturalists who run the Trust, the public access facilities you build will be shut down by the new owners. We, in the Civil War community are depending on you to look out for our interests; we have no one else in position to make stipulations in this sale.
The Post and Courier is careful to point out to Charleston that "the island provides valuable maritime habitat in a rapidly developing metropolitan area."
Lovely. Sinking. Feeling.
My gripes with CWPT
There are some who believe I have a "personal" thing against Civil War Preservation Trust. Let me lay out my problems with the organization, so that I can link to this post the next time the issue arises. CWPT:
Keeps financials offline.
Keeps decisionmaking offline.
Keeps "endanged" site ranking methodology offline.
Avoids owning battlefields.
Defines land as "saved" which no tourist can ever visit.
Enters situations in confrontational mode.
Claims victories in which it has, at best, a supporting role.
Builds assets from dues and donations (should spend money, not build assets).
Avoids buying land; buys cheaper easements with partners opposed to tourism.
Keeps financials offline.
Keeps decisionmaking offline.
Keeps "endanged" site ranking methodology offline.
Avoids owning battlefields.
Defines land as "saved" which no tourist can ever visit.
Enters situations in confrontational mode.
Claims victories in which it has, at best, a supporting role.
Builds assets from dues and donations (should spend money, not build assets).
Avoids buying land; buys cheaper easements with partners opposed to tourism.
2/17/2006
"Mr. Smith goes to Washington"
That is the title of an analysis of Smith's sudden departure from Illinois. Highlights:
* The museum was caught flat footed. They think they'll need six months to find a replacement.
* Smith has no consulting contracts with the Lincoln Library or Museum, the usual sign of an amicable separation.
* He has no job in hand; the George Mason business is a fellowship that pays $30,000 per year; he is leaving behind about $120,000 per year (not $300,000 as the article implies). ["Honey, pack your bags! We're going to live in D.C. on $30,000 per year!"]
Hat tip to the friendly reader who sent in this interesting link.
* The museum was caught flat footed. They think they'll need six months to find a replacement.
* Smith has no consulting contracts with the Lincoln Library or Museum, the usual sign of an amicable separation.
* He has no job in hand; the George Mason business is a fellowship that pays $30,000 per year; he is leaving behind about $120,000 per year (not $300,000 as the article implies). ["Honey, pack your bags! We're going to live in D.C. on $30,000 per year!"]
Hat tip to the friendly reader who sent in this interesting link.
2/16/2006
Smith out
Grant scholar Brooks Simpson, editor of the Great Campaigns Series, kindly tipped me on a missed story: Richard Norton Smith (right) is on his way out of the Lincoln Library and Museum.Smith tends not to stay too long in these posts. He is off to George Mason, almost within arm's reach (choking distance?).
I don't think Smith was out front enough - that's very subjective but I don't think if I were the governor, I would consider Smith as having delivered to my project a sufficient number of media darling bonus points. A gut feeling.
Smith goes out with the kind of made-for-the-TV observation that gets under my skin:
Smith said his favorite memory from the museum was the time he watched a black family looking at statues of Sojourner Truth and Frederick Douglass, with the mother telling her children about the famous abolitionists. Inspiring people to talk about history from a personal viewpoint instead of just listening to the experts is exactly what the museum should be doing, he said. "It's not just our history," Smith said. "It's your history."Oh man.
I'm picturing a nightmare scenario: "Hey! Hey you people over there!" [Big, loud, tactless guy plants himself in front of a mother.] "It's not just our history," [thumps chest] "It's your history" [poking woman with index finger; children start to cry].
Cultural facilities can be very attractive as patronage dumps - Smith's job was to be the honest outside face of this Illinois project through launch phase. His job is done. Let the games begin.
2/15/2006
Morris Island - where credit is due
You stop doing the news feature on a blog like this and the news creeps up on you.Morris Island has been spared the latest development attempt. The news is here, and some analysis is here.
I have been in many a civic coalition: I'm in a civic struggle right now, as you read this. Civic organizations can expend masses of energy running down the wrong road and then avoid confronting the mistakes of the campaign just concluded. The way to do this is pass out the kudos and share the good feelings.
The Morris Island campaign, seen from this distance, does not encourage me.
The Morris Island Coalition spokesman is full of praise for Civil War Preservation Trust:
I told their board of trustees then that I truly felt that the Morris Island Coalition would not have succeeded in helping to preserve the island had it not been for the role played by the Civil War Preservation Trust. Their star glows brightest of all.Note the apportioning of credit here: the Coalition succeeded and CWPT was key to the Coalition succeeding. And yet the same author makes the interesting observation that
Mayor Riley volunteered to contact Bobby Ginn and ask him to allow the island to be purchased by the preservation community. To his immense credit, Mr. Ginn readily agreed...Get this, my friends: Riley steps in, calls on a friendship, and all this monumental sturm and drang ceases instantly. Riley asks a developer with an option to buy the property to exercise the option and sell the land to preservationists at a discount. The developer agrees! Crisis finished without reference to the Coalition and all its efforts.
And CWPT gets the credit of being key to the Coalition's success. I love it.
May I point out, in all humility, that the sale price of this place, a price that was so onerous as to generate a crisis, could have been paid at the outset, in a trice, by CWPT? Read their financials online; look at their assets. The cost of Morris Island matches hardly a quarter of their assets, which they could have mortgaged and paid off later out of dues or contributions.
We had a Morris Island crisis because of the way CWPT chooses to do the business of preservation.
Let that sink in.
Joe Riley stepped in after endless commotion and found a buyer less parsimonious than CWPT. Ginn will pay $6 million for the land and sell it for $4.5 million. Ginn will take the loss for Civil War buffs. And we now face a hugely complex disposition phase that could keep me and you off the ground.
All because CWPT did not want to lay out the asking price, own the island privately, and welcome tourists on terms friendly to battlefield visitors.
The Morris Island Coalition has done hard work - did it fight the battle in the right places? Did it enlist the right allies? Not if it all came down to Riley. Well, then, any port in a storm. But spare us the back patting.
I think I made it clear in this blog that the very first stop in this controversy should have been Riley's office, not CWPT's. I also lambasted CWPT for antagonizing the seller, just as they outraged the owner of Mullins Farm in Chancellorsville, endangering that site.
If CWPT's participation ultimately mobilized Riley, great. But this deal was done by a seasoned politician doing what seasoned politicians do best: impose on friendships and ask for favors. Simple stuff. Effective.
The real value begins now. Put the champagne away, guys, because saving Morris Island does not just mean saving it from housing it also means saving it for Civil War tourism.
If you can pull that off, I'll name my next child Morris Island Coalition.
(See also my Morris Island: Joe Riley bestirs himself and Morris Island - let's take heart)
2/14/2006
"The Friendly One"
I have the bad habit of picking out an emblematic tendency in some specific writing and then making the author the emblem of that tendency.
This has happened a couple of times with gentlemanly author Michael Aubrecht, who not only runs a conventional website but also a blog (50-50 baseball and Civil War).
I had recently groaned about book review editors letting reviewers run long content descriptions, using one of his reviews as an example. Michael says he was interpreting his editor's guidance correctly. A good rebuttal to my remarks appears here.
It's a new year and I am turning a new leaf; some of you have already noticed it, no doubt. Gratuitous complaints? Insulting insinuations? Out with the old.
When people ask of Civil War blogs, "Which one is Dimitri's," I want the answer to be, "The friendly one!"
p.s. People wanting to complain about my writings have been using the comments section of Eric's and Kevin's blogs to do so (perhaps other people's blogs also). You can complain to me directly at rotobo-x at mailcity dot com.
This has happened a couple of times with gentlemanly author Michael Aubrecht, who not only runs a conventional website but also a blog (50-50 baseball and Civil War).
I had recently groaned about book review editors letting reviewers run long content descriptions, using one of his reviews as an example. Michael says he was interpreting his editor's guidance correctly. A good rebuttal to my remarks appears here.
It's a new year and I am turning a new leaf; some of you have already noticed it, no doubt. Gratuitous complaints? Insulting insinuations? Out with the old.
When people ask of Civil War blogs, "Which one is Dimitri's," I want the answer to be, "The friendly one!"
p.s. People wanting to complain about my writings have been using the comments section of Eric's and Kevin's blogs to do so (perhaps other people's blogs also). You can complain to me directly at rotobo-x at mailcity dot com.
Blind man and the elephant
A minister reviews two pop histories about Lincoln and finds AL to be a "modern man" full of "Bible-based faith."
Oh, the human condition.
Oh, the human condition.
2/13/2006
Doris and me
Some net entrepreneurs have rigged up a site that makes it look like Doris Kearns Goodwin is blogging. And my link is next to her smiling face!
As the Instapundit likes to say, "Heh."
In other DKG news, it seems she has won the 2005 Lincoln Prize ... hat tip to Brian Dirck.
Brian notes:
One of the prizegivers gave me a little heartburn with this: "This is a once-in-a-generation scholarly achievement that has drawn hundreds of thousands of new readers into history's greatest story."
If you read three books in your lifetime, this might be once-in-a-generation stuff.
Gabor Boritt, who is the prime mover behind the prize was more realistic:
Up to a point. If you want masses of fiction readers stomping about your nonfiction area of interest thinking that history is dramaturgy, the prize is designed to help do that. If you want readers impatient with a nuanced description of a controversy, you've got it. If you want publishers flooding our space with copycat stuff even worse than a Goodwin original, this prize is for you.
One does get tired of these talespinners being labeled scholars, however. A real scholar is coughing blood while reading some choice pop history passages.
p.s. Kevin has more on this.
p.p.s. Brian notes that the Spielberg movie based on this book has been placed on indefinite hiatus. Book sales softness, methinks.
As the Instapundit likes to say, "Heh."
In other DKG news, it seems she has won the 2005 Lincoln Prize ... hat tip to Brian Dirck.
Brian notes:
In emails and casual conversation I have heard the opinion repeatedly expressed by my colleagues that Team of Rivals is an overrated disappointment with no original ideas (pretty much my reaction too, I'll admit). The general public, on the other hand, seems to have been much more enthusiastic about Goodwin's achievement, citing the book's storytelling qualities and general entertainment value.Once I go through her sales figures for this book I hope you'll agree with me that the public enthusiasm is not really there. Media enthusiasm, maybe.
One of the prizegivers gave me a little heartburn with this: "This is a once-in-a-generation scholarly achievement that has drawn hundreds of thousands of new readers into history's greatest story."
If you read three books in your lifetime, this might be once-in-a-generation stuff.
Gabor Boritt, who is the prime mover behind the prize was more realistic:
This prestigious award was originally and specifically designed to honor signal accomplishments in the field that are "aimed at the literate general public." This year's striking achievement by Doris Kearns Goodwin gives us the welcome opportunity to highlight this important aspect of the Lincoln Prize.I can endorse Goodwin's award on that basis.
Up to a point. If you want masses of fiction readers stomping about your nonfiction area of interest thinking that history is dramaturgy, the prize is designed to help do that. If you want readers impatient with a nuanced description of a controversy, you've got it. If you want publishers flooding our space with copycat stuff even worse than a Goodwin original, this prize is for you.
One does get tired of these talespinners being labeled scholars, however. A real scholar is coughing blood while reading some choice pop history passages.
p.s. Kevin has more on this.
p.p.s. Brian notes that the Spielberg movie based on this book has been placed on indefinite hiatus. Book sales softness, methinks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
