Book Chat
A Little Short of Boats
The Fights at Ball's Bluff and Edwards Ferry
By
James A. Morgan III

This chat took place in the Civil War Home Chatroom on 4/23/06 and covered Chapter 8 and the Conclusion.  This chat was participated in by Jim Morgan, the author of the book.

4/23/2006 7:59 pm (et) ks: Tonight we conclude our discussions of A Little Short of Boats: The fights at Ball's Bluff and Edwards Ferry. First up with be Chapter 8, "Where All Was Lost Excepting Honor" wherein we read more on the melancholy tidings of Colonel Baker's death. So glad you can be here to help us finish out, Jim. :) Any comments on Chapter 8 are welcome...

4/23/2006 8:01 pm (et) ks: The incident that stood out so graphically in my mind was the account of "fishing for dead Yankees". I've never read about actually using hooks on lines to drag on the river bottom so as to bring up the body and then pick its pockets.

4/23/2006 8:03 pm (et) jim morgan: Not specifically about chap 8 but one thing I'd like everyone to get out of the book is an appreciation for how the terrain determined the way the battle was fought. Part of the mythology of BB is that Eppa Hunton of the 8th Va created and organized a brilliant envelopment of the Union troops. Aside from the fact that Hunton was NOT in overall command of the rebs throughout the day, the way they deployed really depended more on the lay of the land than on anyone's decisions.

4/23/2006 8:04 pm (et) jim morgan: I've seen several references to the Confederates "fishing for dead Yankees." Its not something that was much talked about at the time, probably because it comes across as being somewhat ghoulish. But it did happen.

4/23/2006 8:04 pm (et) ks: Imagine that'd be MUCH easier to appreciate if one has set foot on the land. I keep studying the maps and photos included in the book, but don't (as shotgun likes to say) have my arms wrapped around that yet.

4/23/2006 8:07 pm (et) Teej: The Hinks/Tammany controversy is interesting. Any idea why Hinks continued to push the issue even after Stone confirmed that the Tammanys were following orders?

4/23/2006 8:07 pm (et) mobile_96: Jim, in your book you indicate there were 161 officially missing to give a probable official count of about 250 for Union Casualties, In Long's Day by Day, he indicates 714 missing, many probably drowned, plus 158 wounded plus the '49' killed for to give a total of 921 casualties, why the big difference between these numbers?

4/23/2006 8:07 pm (et) jim morgan: ks: I like to describe the battlefield this way: picture one of those big, wide-mouth jars that restaurants get their mustard in. Lay it on its side. The mouth of the jar is the current parking lot; the bottom of the jar is the bluff. The sides are the rough terrain that kept both sides largely pinned in. The fighting had to be back and forth between the mouth and bottom of the jar. If one side was in the bottom and the other side managed to put the lid on the jar, it became a killing ground. In the end, that's exactly what happened to the yanks.

4/23/2006 8:08 pm (et) jim morgan: mobile: The OR provides the 49 Union KIA and other standard numbers. The Union surgical reports, published long before the OR, says 223 yanks were killed and 226 wounded. That count includes the dead who were found in the river later. The OR's 49 does not, but lists them as missing (that's the 161).

4/23/2006 8:09 pm (et) ks: That's *very* visual. There's something I can grasp. ;) Hoping to stand in the mouth and bottom of that jar sometime this year so I can put the rest together in my mind.

4/23/2006 8:09 pm (et) jim morgan: I think the OR number is a distortion of the report of Capt Vaughn (commanded the burial party the next day) who reported burying 47 Union bodies which, he said, was about 2/3 of the bodies they'd identified. They never got back to bury the rest. I think a clerk mistook Vaughn's 47 for 49 and it got into the OR that way.

4/23/2006 8:10 pm (et) mobile_96: And you believed the Surgical reports to be more accurate.  Understood about the 49, book covers that very well.

4/23/2006 8:11 pm (et) jim morgan: The source that says 714 missing (Long's book) actually takes the 553 POWs and adds the 161 "missing" from the OR figure. That comes to 714. I think the surgical reports are much more accurate.

4/23/2006 8:12 pm (et) ks: Glad to see you ask about the Hinks/Tammany situation, Teej. Kept wondering about that myself.

4/23/2006 8:12 pm (et) mobile_96: Thank you for clearing that up for me

4/23/2006 8:12 pm (et) jim morgan: The surgical reports were compiled from reports done immediately or shortly after the battle. There never has been any evidence to back up the OR's figure of 49. But, its in the OR so that's what everyone cites.

4/23/2006 8:13 pm (et) ks: Also wondering if Jim saw your question. :) Teej: The Hinks/Tammany controversy is interesting. Any idea why Hinks continued to push the issue even after Stone confirmed that the Tammanys were following orders?

4/23/2006 8:14 pm (et) jim morgan: Teej: Not sure why Hinks kept it up after Stone's note except that Hinks did see the Tammanies leave before he'd heard they should and probably resented it. He was in command on Harrison's Island and wouldn't have appreciated being superceded like that.

4/23/2006 8:17 pm (et) jim morgan: Re Hinks, it may also be (I can't prove this) that he felt the same way about the Tammanies that the other Massachusetts troops did. They didn't much like them. Several officers from the 20th Mass accused the Tammanies of panicking and of essentially hiding behind the Mass boys. Hinks commanded the 19th Mass and would have heard those stories.

4/23/2006 8:18 pm (et) Teej: Were the stories true?

4/23/2006 8:20 pm (et) jim morgan: Teej: The Tammanies were deployed ahead of the 20th Mass for a time. According to the 20th Mass accounts, they fired once or twice, broke ranks, went through the 20th, and reformed behind them. I find the accounts from the 20th to be credible. And it does fit with the "early withdrawal" of the Tammanies from Harrison's Island. After all, even though Stone had ordered them relieved, their relief had not yet arrived when they abandoned their positions and left the island.

4/23/2006 8:21 pm (et) ks: This may seem a silly question, but I've often wondered and haven't read the answer. You speak often of the weather at the time pre during and post battle. I realize participants would have recorded memories of the weather, but are there actual weather accounts kept by some agency that go back to that time? Are all of your comments based upon the soldier's accounts (concerning the weather, I mean)??

4/23/2006 8:22 pm (et) Teej: So that would be desertion, no?

4/23/2006 8:23 pm (et) ks: Thinking of the mention of the captured Union soldier's march to Manassas with the "four or five pounds of the sacred soil of VA" caked to their brograns slowing the march.

4/23/2006 8:23 pm (et) jim morgan: My comments about the weather are based on soldier comments. I used the NOAA sunrise-sunset calculator to determine the times of those events but I'm not familiar with any formal accounting for daily weather going back to then.

4/23/2006 8:24 pm (et) jim morgan: It would be desertion if they hadn't been able to refer to Stone's order. There's no question that they left before they should have.

4/23/2006 8:24 pm (et) Teej: I think Steve Meserve said NOAA had weather records dating back that far.

4/23/2006 8:24 pm (et) jim morgan: ks: As usual after a Civil War battle, it rained the next day. Why does that happen so often? The weather for the next 2-3 days was stormy and very windy according to reports.

4/23/2006 8:25 pm (et) mobile_96: ks, first time I've read that problem, even with all the mud marches I've encountered.

4/23/2006 8:26 pm (et) jim morgan: Teej: Steve would know but I used soldier accounts from letters and, in some cases, from pension records. Many soldiers with complaints of conditions resembling arthritis or rheumatism, referred to their exposure to the cold from swimming the river.

4/23/2006 8:26 pm (et) ks: Huh. Interesting. Thanks...

4/23/2006 8:26 pm (et) jim morgan: Living in Virginia, and often working out around my barn, I can attest to the fact that the Sacred Soil does accumulate quickly on one's boots.

4/23/2006 8:26 pm (et) ks: Mobile, first time I've read it in those terms. Of course we've read of mud marches...

4/23/2006 8:27 pm (et) mobile_96: That red clay in Ala, can do the same thing

4/23/2006 8:27 pm (et) Teej: LOL...Steve's father was a chief analyst with NOAA and once commented to Steve that there was a decided increase in rain and snow for the whole 4 years of the war.

4/23/2006 8:27 pm (et) jim morgan: Of course, that could just be horse poop.

4/23/2006 8:28 pm (et) ks: Any other comments on Chapter 8? If not, we can move on to Conclusion: Success To The Right and the rest of the book. I'm speaking of the tour section, appendices, etc.

4/23/2006 8:28 pm (et) ks: Perhaps the earth shedding tears... :(

4/23/2006 8:29 pm (et) mobile_96: ks, since 5-6# left the shoes on, wonder it the accounts of troops losing their shoes would have been due to 7-8# of mud?

4/23/2006 8:31 pm (et) jim morgan: Re the appendices, I tried, hopefully successfully, to rehabilitate poor Lt. Church Howe who always gets way too much blame, IMO, for the yanks being in that position on the bluff. And I sincerely hope that readers get a better picture of that little worm, Lt. Francis Young.

4/23/2006 8:31 pm (et) Teej: Was the wearing of the coats belonging to the 15th Mass by the Reb cavalry meant to send a message?

4/23/2006 8:31 pm (et) ks: That conclusion section incident from which comes the title (titles well chosen btw) was pretty fascinating in itself. The thought of these "enemies" gathered to pass around the "hospitable canteen" and toast each other...

4/23/2006 8:32 pm (et) mobile_96: Only to headquarters that they needed more clothing .

4/23/2006 8:32 pm (et) Teej: Lt. Francis Young, the Dan Sickles of Ball's Bluff?

4/23/2006 8:32 pm (et) ks: With ref to the Reb Cavalry wearing the Union overcoats...seems to me like an invitation to get shot - friendly fire.

4/23/2006 8:33 pm (et) jim morgan: I'm sure that the rebs didn't mind rubbing it in a bit by wearing the captured coats. And comparing Young to Sickles is an insult to Sickles.

4/23/2006 8:33 pm (et) Teej: One can only imagine what was going through Palfrey's mind when he and the rest of his party saw that.

4/23/2006 8:33 pm (et) Teej: LOL...re: Sickles.

4/23/2006 8:34 pm (et) Teej: At least Sickles didn't give himself promotions at will.

4/23/2006 8:34 pm (et) jim morgan: ks: Many of the rebs wore pieces of Union uniforms after the battle. One reb, I forget from which unit, wrote a letter home saying something to the effect that you'd think they were all Union soldiers if you didn't know better.

4/23/2006 8:35 pm (et) jim morgan: The rebs had a great deal of fun with themselves about their post-battle appearance due to new clothes and new weapons.

4/23/2006 8:36 pm (et) Teej: Of all the various stories concerning Baker's death, which is your favorite, Jim?

4/23/2006 8:38 pm (et) jim morgan: My favorite Baker death story? There are two. Both utterly false. One is the knightly single combat story about how Col Baker and Col Burt met alone in the middle of the field and Burt slew his adversary. The other is an account of how a band of Confederate cavalry rode up, captured the mounted Baker, and were about to ride off with him when they were charged by Union infantry and sent packing, following which a lone reb steps up and shoots Baker with a pistol. Good stuff that.

4/23/2006 8:38 pm (et) ks: Young does come off as a dangerous snake in the grass. Well, perhaps not so well hidden as he was quite bold in his dishonesty by what we've read. Even attempting to forge an order from Stone?! How frustrating it had to have been for Stone when the press latched on to Young's accounts.

4/23/2006 8:39 pm (et) Teej: I REALLY like the first one.

4/23/2006 8:39 pm (et) jim morgan: Re Baker's death, note that I say in the book that I'd found 39 different stories. Since then I've found three more.

4/23/2006 8:39 pm (et) ks: Are those accounts from soldiers?? wow...

4/23/2006 8:41 pm (et) Teej: You still think Baker was killed during a volley?

4/23/2006 8:41 pm (et) jim morgan: I cannot be at all objective about Young. I'm convinced, though cannot prove, that he was taking kickbacks from civilian contractors and that's what his reprimand was about. His "report" was utterly absurd BUT he was one of the first men to speak to the press following the battle so his report was immediately reported and became the basis for many later stories. Lt Col Wistar called him a coward and liar who never got within two miles of the battlefield, though Young portrays himself as being in the thick of it.

4/23/2006 8:42 pm (et) Teej: Didn't the JCC accept Young's testimony as well?

4/23/2006 8:42 pm (et) jim morgan: ks: The accounts come from soldier writings, newspapers, etc. Teej: yes, I still think Baker was hit by a volley from the 18th Miss though it is unclear how many bullets he took initially. I think many of his wounds probably came when he was lying on the ground dead.

4/23/2006 8:43 pm (et) jim morgan: The committee LOVED Young. He told them exactly what they (i.e., Wade's buddy Sumner) wanted to hear about Stone. And remember that Young testified two weeks after he'd been cashiered but still presented himself as a captain.

4/23/2006 8:45 pm (et) Teej: Did Young ever attempt to get reinstated?

4/23/2006 8:46 pm (et) ks: All of the material concerning Stone's railroading was fascinating (although very frustrating). I'm no McClellan fan, and to read that he was protecting himself and ordering Stone to not respond to the public attacks being directed against him because "your military superiors are attacked, and that consideration involves the propriety of abstaining just now." :( Little Mac slips even lower in my estimation.

4/23/2006 8:46 pm (et) jim morgan: Young sent letters to Lincoln and McClellan, whiny letters about how he was being persecuted for telling the truth. Happily, it didn't work. Some 20 years after the war, he was still writing letters to people claiming that McClellan had personally reinstated him, which Mac had not done.

4/23/2006 8:47 pm (et) jim morgan: Mac seems to have been operating by the rule that if you feed the alligators, they'll eat you last.

4/23/2006 8:47 pm (et) Teej: But didn't Mac initially try to protect Stone and only changed when he realized he was becoming the focus of the Committee.

4/23/2006 8:48 pm (et) Teej: Good analogy, Jim.

4/23/2006 8:48 pm (et) jim morgan: Mac publicly exonerated Stone on Oct 24, saying that Baker, not Stone, was at fault for the defeat. As things heated up, his support cooled down.

4/23/2006 8:48 pm (et) ks: How did he initially try to protect him, Teej?

4/23/2006 8:48 pm (et) Teej: That's what I meant. He didn't execute the arrest order immediately, right?

4/23/2006 8:49 pm (et) ks: Ahhh...he saw which way the wind was blowing and changed course.

4/23/2006 8:49 pm (et) Teej: ks, by publicly stating that it was Baker's fault. He even told Lincoln that a lot of good soldiers would die before it was all over or something similar to that.

4/23/2006 8:50 pm (et) Teej: *good officers*

4/23/2006 8:50 pm (et) jim morgan: ks: Mac sent out a circular letter to his subordinate commanders that also got printed in the press. It was in that circular that he exonerated Stone. He did, later, try to get Stanton to help Stone by NOT executing the arrest order right away. That's why Stone got his second appearance before the Committee, not that it was anything but a formality. Mac could have done much more, like called a court-martial, but he didn't.

4/23/2006 8:53 pm (et) Teej: Stone asked for a court martial, didn't he?

4/23/2006 8:53 pm (et) jim morgan: Mac could and should have called a court-martial for Stone. Stone wanted one. But Mac kept saying that it was hard to find enough general officers for it. That was nonsense.

4/23/2006 8:53 pm (et) jim morgan: Mac was feeding the alligators. And Lincoln could and should have ordered Mac to call a court martial or otherwise stepped in to end the farce.

4/23/2006 8:54 pm (et) Teej: How many general officers were required?

4/23/2006 8:54 pm (et) ks: Absolutely. After all we know McClellan said he could "do it all". ;) Attempt to do all that HE wanted anyway

4/23/2006 8:54 pm (et) ks: Too caught up in his own grief though.

4/23/2006 8:55 pm (et) ks: Speaking of Lincoln on that last...

4/23/2006 8:55 pm (et) jim morgan: Good question. I'm not sure how many were required for the c-m of a general officer. Probably at least five, but I'm not sure.

4/23/2006 8:55 pm (et) Teej: Not Lincoln's finest hour.

4/23/2006 8:56 pm (et) jim morgan: At first, Lincoln no doubt grieved at the loss of his best friend. About the time Stone was arrested, Lincoln was grieving the loss of his son. One can sympathize to a point but he was still the president and had a job to do. He should have ordered a court-martial for the man who had guaranteed his own safety during the inauguration and early days of his presidency.

4/23/2006 8:57 pm (et) Teej: Orton's drum head court martial was made up of nine officers but it might be different for a formal court martial.

4/23/2006 8:58 pm (et) Teej: He was still nursing that grudge or whatever you want to call it, two years later.

4/23/2006 8:59 pm (et) Teej: That's what I've always found amazing, that Lincoln didn't have any more faith in a man who put his own life on the line to protect Lincoln early on.

4/23/2006 8:59 pm (et) jim morgan: Teej: you mean Lincoln? If so, then yes, he was. Stone wrote him in 1864 asking him for some kind of statement clearing his name. Lincoln acted as if he didn't know what Stone was talking about.

4/23/2006 8:59 pm (et) ks: I'm reading another CW book that has accounts in this time frame. I didn't realize how much grief McClellan was giving Winfield Scott by undermining his authority and going around him. The accounts of his ignoring direct requests for reports was so like his ignoring the requests from Lincoln. Impressed me that way...

4/23/2006 9:00 pm (et) Teej: That's the letter I was referring to. Stone said it would be the last time he brought it to Lincoln's attention, didn't he?

4/23/2006 9:00 pm (et) jim morgan: ks: What are you reading? I just got a copy of Bill Marvel's new book, "Mr. Lincoln Goes to War" which also covers the early war period.

4/23/2006 9:01 pm (et) jim morgan: Teej: Yes. Stone was giving it one last shot.

4/23/2006 9:01 pm (et) Teej: I'm reading the Marvel book, too. BTW, you can find that letter on the LoC site. Well worth reading, IMO.

4/23/2006 9:02 pm (et) jim morgan: I believe its also in Basler's Lincoln collection.

4/23/2006 9:02 pm (et) ks: Catton's "Terrible Swift Sword" I've recently begun reading the Catton books people have recommended to me for YEARS.

4/23/2006 9:03 pm (et) jim morgan: Catton is essential. He does, however, get Ball's Bluff wrong. : - )

4/23/2006 9:03 pm (et) ks: So that's why YOUR work was necessary, Jim. To get Ball's Bluff right. :)

4/23/2006 9:03 pm (et) ks: Other questions on the book? Some silent people out there.

4/23/2006 9:03 pm (et) Teej: You have no problem sensing Stone's frustration and dying hope as he wrote that letter. Sorry to keep going back to it, but it really stuck with me.

4/23/2006 9:04 pm (et) jim morgan: ks: Quite right, he said, shuffling his feet modestly.

4/23/2006 9:04 pm (et) ks: I have one. :) That Walking/Driving Tour in the book, I'm presuming that you compiled/created that, Jim? How long did it take you to put that together. I guess I'm asking how long it took YOU to wrap your arms around this battle?

4/23/2006 9:05 pm (et) mobile_96: Doing fine here, some excellent questions already being posted.

4/23/2006 9:05 pm (et) Vickie: Just lurking here

4/23/2006 9:05 pm (et) jim morgan: Let me note a correction I'd make were I writing the book now. I said that the 20th Mass hauled the flatboat across the island to use on the Virginia side. I've become convinced, however, that they poled it upriver on the Maryland side, around the tip of the island, then floated it downriver to the crossing site. Arm-wrestled that question with Bill Marvel for a while and he convinced me that I was wrong.

4/23/2006 9:06 pm (et) Teej: What did he say that convinced you?

4/23/2006 9:06 pm (et) Babs: Lurking with Vickie. I can think of nothing to add.

4/23/2006 9:06 pm (et) ks: Teej, I'd appreciate more specifics on this letter you say can be found on the LOC site. Searching with what words and where? I'd like to find it and read, but I don't know enough about it to attempt the search...just yet. :)

4/23/2006 9:07 pm (et) jim morgan: ks: Yes, I did the walking tour. Writing up the tour didn't take all that long. "Wrapping my arms around the battle" is another thing. I began to feel doubts about the traditional story almost immediately. Within a year or so, I felt that I was onto something. From there it was a question of verifying my hunches and filling in the details.

4/23/2006 9:08 pm (et) ks: At least you're all still with us. Was doing a head count there, making sure you'd not been bumped into cyberspace. ;)

4/23/2006 9:08 pm (et) Teej: Go to the LoC site, if you don't have the address, I'll send it to you. Type "Lincoln + Stone" in the search engine and it will do the rest. Isn't the date on that letter July 4, Jim?

4/23/2006 9:08 pm (et) jim morgan: Teej: it wasn't just one thing that Bill said. We compared notes on various soldier accounts. They can be taken both ways. But, in the end, I just feel it makes a bit more sense for them to have kept the boat in the water than hauled it across nearly 400 yards of land.

4/23/2006 9:09 pm (et) jim morgan: I think July 4 is about right.

4/23/2006 9:09 pm (et) ks: Thanks. I have the address. Normally have just gone there to lift images for projects. Sent myself an email with your comments. That's my internet Post It note process. ;)

4/23/2006 9:10 pm (et) Teej: I don't think that was a coincidence. :-)

4/23/2006 9:11 pm (et) Teej: LOL..mine, too, ks.

4/23/2006 9:11 pm (et) ks: Great minds, Teej. ;) Whatever works, and it DOES.

4/23/2006 9:11 pm (et) jim morgan: I would like to extend an open invitation to all on here. If you're in the area and would like to tromp around Ball's Bluff some time, please let me know. With a little advance notice, I'll arrange to get us into Ft Evans and really do the battlefield in detail.

4/23/2006 9:12 pm (et) Teej: I've done the tour a couple of times and saw something new each time.

4/23/2006 9:12 pm (et) mobile_96: Thanks for the offer Jim.

4/23/2006 9:13 pm (et) ks: I'd love to take you up on that, Jim. I was hoping to be able to tour pre-muster in June. But now muster's no longer in my plans. Next trip out east for me is in early August for a wedding in McLean. I don't know if I can convince the rest of the family that I should be excused for part of the time for CW-ing. ;) If I can, I'll be in touch.

4/23/2006 9:14 pm (et) jim morgan: We have our regular weekend tours beginning in May and going through October. Tours at 11 and 2 every Saturday and Sunday. Those usually take 60-90 minutes depending on the guide, the size of the crowd, the conditions, etc. But, for CW groups, I do what I call the "Full Gilligan" because its "a three hour tour, a three hour tour." Covers ALL the ground.

4/23/2006 9:14 pm (et) jim morgan: ks: It would be my pleasure.

4/23/2006 9:15 pm (et) Teej: Wear your hiking boots, ks. :-)

4/23/2006 9:15 pm (et) ks: I want the FULL Gilligan! ;) Would love to see shotgun again too.

4/23/2006 9:16 pm (et) ks: I typically do really well with hiking, Teej. I'm one of the "front of the pack" types rather than a straggler...unless I'm taking pictures of the stragglers. ;) Other comments on the book??

4/23/2006 9:16 pm (et) jim morgan: Haven't see shotgun in a while myself. Kind of hoped he be here tonight.

4/23/2006 9:17 pm (et) mobile_96: Just that I enjoyed reading it

4/23/2006 9:17 pm (et) Teej: Thanks for being here, JIm.

4/23/2006 9:17 pm (et) ks: He's been very busy since Peggy's fall. But he did bring her home last Tuesday. Very busy with nurses and rehab people coming to the house now. But he says things are going well.

4/23/2006 9:18 pm (et) Vickie: ks you wont be at muster?

4/23/2006 9:18 pm (et) jim morgan: Well, let me thank the group again for choosing my book as the topic. That's very flattering. I'm proud of it, as you'll imagine. Currently working on a biography of General Stone. There isn't one and I think he deserves one. It'll be a while before it appears but I've slowly been gathering material on him. A VERY interesting guy.

4/23/2006 9:18 pm (et) Teej: Yes, he had to bow out of the Winchester muster.

4/23/2006 9:19 pm (et) ks: Ditto. Thanks so much for participating in these discussions, Jim. It's MADE this book chat. A real pleasure to have you on hand. And I hope you will consider joining us for further book chats.

4/23/2006 9:19 pm (et) Teej: Looking forward to the Stone book, Jim.

4/23/2006 9:20 pm (et) jim morgan: ks: What's the next book for these chats?

4/23/2006 9:20 pm (et) Teej: You might want to remind everyone about your article on Stone coming out soon.

4/23/2006 9:21 pm (et) ks: Vickie, no, I won't. It's hard breaking my perfect attendance record, but a number of things are making it a good decision to sit this one out. That wedding I mentioned earlier is a major cause. Flying all five of us to Virginia will be costly. Plus two in college this Fall AND my job has a lot of working coming up for me in June. Just not in the cards.

4/23/2006 9:21 pm (et) mobile_96: In North & South?

4/23/2006 9:22 pm (et) jim morgan: Ah yes. Next issue of CW Times will have an article on Stone that focuses on his treatment by Sumner and the Committee. June issue which should be out pretty soon.

4/23/2006 9:22 pm (et) ks: Jim, on the logon page you'll find a link entitled "Sunday Book Chat Schedule". It's linked to a discussion board on Civil War Interactive where I update the chat schedule. Next book up is "We Are Lincoln's Men: Abraham Lincoln and His Friends" by David Herbert Donald. I don't see starting it before May 7th. We'll take at least a week off.

4/23/2006 9:22 pm (et) mobile_96: Will have to watch for that one

4/23/2006 9:23 pm (et) ks: Is that an excerpt from the upcoming book?

4/23/2006 9:23 pm (et) jim morgan: One thing re the CW Times article. That mag, unfortunately, does not include footnotes though I'd understood that they were going to start doing that and would have done so by the time the June issue came out. However, it didn't happen. If anyone wants to see my sources, just ask. The article is thoroughly documented.

4/23/2006 9:24 pm (et) jim morgan: ks: Thanks. I'll pick up a copy.

4/23/2006 9:24 pm (et) jim morgan: ks: No, not an excerpt, though I'll be discussing that in the book as well.

4/23/2006 9:25 pm (et) Babs: ks, So the book on Day Three of Gettysburg will not be read before muster?

4/23/2006 9:25 pm (et) Teej: Tell them the title, Jim.

4/23/2006 9:26 pm (et) jim morgan: The title of the article is "A Table Full of Civilians" which is a quote from a Stone letter in which he complains that this "table full of civilians" hadn't done anything for the defense of the Union and he didn't much like having to justify himself to them. He was, of course, right.

4/23/2006 9:27 pm (et) Teej: LOVE the title. :-)

4/23/2006 9:27 pm (et) ks: Babs, I'll admit I haven't looked ahead to see how long it'll take us to get through the Lincoln book. Basecat and I did agree some time back to alternate the Sunday/Monday titles on Sunday nights. The *intention* remains to read the Day 3 book before muster. But we may not get through it all. I'll talk to Base when he returns from Mecca. ;) Actually I wouldn't think it a bad thing to not complete it. Folks might return from muster more psyched to finish the read.

4/23/2006 9:27 pm (et) jim morgan: Teej gets some credit for the article (or, if you will, some blame) as she read my drafts more than once and made some helpful hints.

4/23/2006 9:29 pm (et) Teej: Not worried about "blame" on this one.

4/23/2006 9:30 pm (et) mobile_96: Lincoln book is not very long.

4/23/2006 9:31 pm (et) Babs: I need to go. Thanks for the great chat.

4/23/2006 9:31 pm (et) ks: We've thanked Jim, but thanks are also due to all who've taken part in these Sunday night book chats. REALLY appreciate your sharing the reads. You all are the motivators that keep whittling away at the pile of "to be read" books here. Gracias!

4/23/2006 9:32 pm (et) ks: I didn't think it was either, mobile. Night, Babs. :)

4/23/2006 9:32 pm (et) Teej: Night, Babs.

4/23/2006 9:32 pm (et) mobile_96: Just over 200 pages.

4/23/2006 9:32 pm (et) mobile_96: 6 chapters.

4/23/2006 9:33 pm (et) mobile_96: Night Babs.

4/23/2006 9:33 pm (et) jim morgan: Thanks again to all of you. Catch you later.

4/23/2006 9:33 pm (et) mobile_96: Night Jim

4/23/2006 9:33 pm (et) Teej: Need to go too. ks, I'll send you the letter.

4/23/2006 9:34 pm (et) ks: And we seem to move at a good pace through any of the Lincoln reads we do. We should get through that very quickly, mobile. That said, I sure hope that MAP puts Springfield on the Western theater muster list soon. I've hinted/suggested this repeatedly.

4/23/2006 9:34 pm (et) ks: Thanks, Teej. I appreciate it.

4/23/2006 9:34 pm (et) Vickie: I need to be going too

4/23/2006 9:34 pm (et) Vickie: good night all

RETURN TO INTRO PAGE