Book Chat
For Cause & For Country
A Study of the Affair at Spring Hill and the Battle of Franklin
Eric A. Jacobson and Richard A. Rupp

This chat took place in the Civil War Home Chatroom on 01/28/07 and covered Chapter 1

1/28/2007 8:01 pm (et) Basecat: Welcome to the return of the weekly Sunday Night Book Chats. Tonight we will be having the first discussion on the book For Cause For Country- A Study of the Affair at Spring Hill and the Battle of Franklin The authors of the book are Eric A Jacobson, and Richard A. Rupp. Tonight's discussion will feature Chapter 1 The Road To Destiny.

1/28/2007 8:02 pm (et) Basecat: BTW...wondering if any caught the only real typo I saw in Chapter 1?

1/28/2007 8:03 pm (et) ks: I have to admit that I was impressed from the first paragraphs. I don't recall ever saying that about one of our book chat selections previously. Probably as good or the best concise summation of the situation as I've read or heard.

1/28/2007 8:03 pm (et) ole: Think I did Base, but don't pay much attention to typos.

1/28/2007 8:03 pm (et) Babs: I had a comment from the acknowledgements

1/28/2007 8:03 pm (et) amhistoryguy: With this book, I'd have to start with the cover art - very well done IMO.

1/28/2007 8:04 pm (et) Widow: That first sentence, "Compromise was dead." That pulls you right into it.

1/28/2007 8:04 pm (et) ks: Okay...Babs, what about the acknowledgements and ahg...I agree on the art. ;)

1/28/2007 8:04 pm (et) mobile_96: I agree KS, actually, I think that for someone just starting on the CW could follow it pretty well

1/28/2007 8:04 pm (et) ole: I was impressed by that, as well.

1/28/2007 8:05 pm (et) Babs: on page x he thanked Ed Peterson a soldier whose grave he saw. I liked that.

1/28/2007 8:07 pm (et) amhistoryguy: From the Preface, I thought a very important point was made, in that there were few CSA reports filed after the battle. I never gave that a lot of thought before, but it is important if you look to the OR for info on the battle.

1/28/2007 8:07 pm (et) ks: Babs, that was something that also caught my eye and captured my imagination. I guess I came away thinking that I appreciated the author's sentiment and looked forward to more.

1/28/2007 8:07 pm (et) Basecat: Babs.. Thought it was a nice touch as well Babs.

1/28/2007 8:08 pm (et) ks: ahg, like you, I'd not read that previously and appreciated it being pointed out in the beginning. Boy, good thing Eric's not here. He might think we were flattering him or something. ;)

1/28/2007 8:08 pm (et) Widow: And, Guy, his "discovery" of the National Tribune was especially interesting. That no one has tapped that source! Incredible!

1/28/2007 8:09 pm (et) Widow: Pages 1-16 summarize the first two years in the Western Theater. Complicated subject, handled clearly and succinctly.

1/28/2007 8:09 pm (et) Basecat: AMHG...A good point and one that is overlooked. Hard to believe that anyone did write a report. That and the fact that those who would have been in position to, could not for one reason, but am getting ahead here.

1/28/2007 8:09 pm (et) ks: Widow, that reminded me of the Hatcher & Piston book on Wilson's Creek and their use of previously unpublished material. Seemed promising of something fresh.

1/28/2007 8:10 pm (et) Babs: That is exactly how I became interested in the Civil War. I was visiting family graves. My great grandfather died when I was eight. So he was a real person to me and I could imagine him being a child. In the next plot were his parents. His father's unit was listed on his grave and suddenly they war was about real people related to me and not just boring school stuff.

1/28/2007 8:11 pm (et) Widow: Babs, so many are drawn in by that same experience. I don't have CW ancestors, so I just pretend.

1/28/2007 8:11 pm (et) ks: I know Basecat mentioned this sometime last week IIRC, but I SO appreciated the notes being on the same page. It is making a faithful footnote reader out of me for this text. That's not always the case with other books.

1/28/2007 8:12 pm (et) Widow: Agree, ks. Endnotes are fine, but footnotes are better.

1/28/2007 8:13 pm (et) Basecat: In a way, I'm glad none of my ancestors were involved in the war. Here I just adopt the soldiers I read about. They are my Civil War ancestors.

1/28/2007 8:13 pm (et) ole: Agreed, ks. I was so pleased when I went to the back to check the first footnote and there was nothing there. It was on the same page! I wish everyone did that. Saves on bookmarks.

1/28/2007 8:13 pm (et) Babs: Yes, it is nice not to have to flip to the back.

1/28/2007 8:13 pm (et) ks: How about surprises in the read? I was finding myself surprised again and again by facts I thought I should have known. Anything like that stand out to the rest of you? Albert Sidney Johnston considered himself a Texan? Do tell. ;) Nashville was a psychological loss from which the CSA never recovered? Should I have know that? How about you all??

1/28/2007 8:14 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Because of my CW ancestor, I've got an adopted battery as "my boys."

1/28/2007 8:14 pm (et) ks: ole! Amen! LOL This is a one bookmark read for me. That's SO not been the case with other materials.

1/28/2007 8:14 pm (et) Widow: Texas adopted lots of people. Or rather, lots of people adopted Texas, it was the frontier.

1/28/2007 8:15 pm (et) Babs: Base, in away they are all your ancestors because what they did effects your situation now.

1/28/2007 8:15 pm (et) Basecat: ks. Nashville was a big blow to the Confederate Cause, as it was one of the cities of the south that actually had manufacturing capabilities already there when the war started. Major mistake that those in that part of CW never could recover from, IMHO.

1/28/2007 8:15 pm (et) Widow: Losing Nashville without firing a shot. Maybe that's the Psychological blow.

1/28/2007 8:15 pm (et) Basecat: Babs...I agree...except for Dan Sickles.;)

1/28/2007 8:15 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Sometimes it is not up to the author, publishers sometimes dictate endnotes or footnotes.

1/28/2007 8:16 pm (et) ole: Nashville was one of the premier cities of the Confederacy. Davis wanted to save them all. To loose Nashville by not protecting Donelson must have doubled his grief.

1/28/2007 8:17 pm (et) Babs: :^) He too effected you. We all have a few nuts in our family tree.

1/28/2007 8:17 pm (et) Widow: I was struck by the several variations on the theme: Hood was aggressive. Rash. Bold. And those remarks from other fighting generals. He must have been ferocious.

1/28/2007 8:17 pm (et) ks: Basecat - and I thought Jacobson did a fine job of making the case explaining about Nashville. Just had never seen it expressed in those terms. "psychological loss" jumped off the page. I half-expected to see highway signs "Psychological Loss, TN". ;)

1/28/2007 8:18 pm (et) mobile_96: Ferocious to a fault.

1/28/2007 8:18 pm (et) Widow: Ole, when you consider ASJ's assignment, it's a miracle he could do anything.

1/28/2007 8:18 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Loss of Nashville eliminated a northern natural line for the Confederacy, the Cumberland River.

/28/2007 8:18 pm (et) ks: LOL! Psychological Loss Music? Never mind.....

1/28/2007 8:18 pm (et) Babs: I didn't realize Hood was so young. I thought of him as older I guess because he kept losing parts.

1/28/2007 8:18 pm (et) Widow: I believe it was Lee who once said about Hood "All lion and no fox." Wasn't he paraphrasing an earlier quotation by some famous general?

1/28/2007 8:19 pm (et) Basecat: Just a comment on Davis, Had he deemed Nashville so important, he sure made it hard to defend by sending Stevenson's troops to Vicksburg...IMHO, Vicksburg was the beat all to end all in Davis's way of thinking.

1/28/2007 8:19 pm (et) Widow: Something like, "To be a great general one must have the courage of the lion and the cunning of the fox." Lee had Hood pegged perfectly.

1/28/2007 8:19 pm (et) mobile_96: And his photo makes him look older.

1/28/2007 8:20 pm (et) ks: Ferocious, and like Babs said, so young. I too was aware of commentary on his brashness, but his age shocked me, especially as I thought of his photos. Ahh...great minds, mobile.

1/28/2007 8:20 pm (et) Widow: Well, Basecat, Vicksburg WAS the most important place. Lose it, you lose the whole river.

1/28/2007 8:20 pm (et) Widow: Ks, the actor who played Hood in Gettysburg must have been 30 years too old.

1/28/2007 8:21 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Vicksburg should not have been as important that early in the war, IMO

1/28/2007 8:21 pm (et) mobile_96: Widow, not the whole river so much as major crossing points for Confederate supplies to go east

1/28/2007 8:21 pm (et) ole: Believe that photo was made while he was recovering from the loss of his leg.

1/28/2007 8:21 pm (et) ks: That MOVIE does leave one with impressions that aren't easily changed. ole, so you're saying his injuries had aged him? Makes sense.

1/28/2007 8:21 pm (et) Widow: Mobile, thanks.

1/28/2007 8:22 pm (et) Basecat: Widow...Not at that time...He compounded the bad news in TN by sending close to 10,000 men there who had yet to come close to being attacked yet. Bad judgment on his part, IMHO.

1/28/2007 8:22 pm (et) Widow: Base, not sure I follow you. Help, please?

1/28/2007 8:24 pm (et) Basecat: Vicksburg at the time Nashville was abandoned was not the problem...yet. Add the fact that he lost New Orleans as well, so early in the war, which to me is just as important and that too was abandoned without much of a fight.

1/28/2007 8:25 pm (et) Widow: By "he" do you mean Davis?

1/28/2007 8:25 pm (et) Widow: Or AS Johnston?

1/28/2007 8:25 pm (et) Basecat: Yeah...He was in charge...Just made bad decisions at the worst times, IMHO.

1/28/2007 8:25 pm (et) Basecat: Davis.

1/28/2007 8:27 pm (et) Widow: Hood was conniving and ambitious. Several of his colleagues recognized that in him, but liked his fighting style, at least for a while.

1/28/2007 8:27 pm (et) Basecat: As the book shows...Davis had a lot of problems with how Joe Johnston retreated, and yet Bragg's retreat after Perryville was even worse, and took up more territory, and yet he kept him around.

1/28/2007 8:27 pm (et) ks: Could someone back up a bit to pages 4-5? The author refers to Halleck's "duplicity". Why attempt to discredit Grant and have Smith gain permanent command? Is this referring to rumors of drink or something else entirely?

1/28/2007 8:28 pm (et) ole: enters the chatroom.

1/28/2007 8:29 pm (et) Basecat: ks...IMHO, Halleck's problem was that Grant was getting too much of the credit for the victories out there. Jealousy, as he felt left out of the congratulatory esteem Grant received after the 2 forts fell.

1/28/2007 8:29 pm (et) Widow: KS, that was Halleck's smear campaign. He wrote to Washington with vague innuendoes intended to get Grant out of the way. The War Dept. required Halleck to back up his statements with evidence. He had none, so he shut up. Suddenly he's Grant's best friend.

1/28/2007 8:29 pm (et) mobile_96: Think that was over Grants dispatches getting lost so Halleck didn't know what was going on, or that Grant had headed to Nashville.

1/28/2007 8:30 pm (et) mobile_96: Plus being jealous.

1/28/2007 8:30 pm (et) Basecat: Until what happened at Shiloh, and then became his enemy again.:) Halleck was a piece of work at this time of the War.

1/28/2007 8:30 pm (et) Widow: Old Brains could scratch his elbows but couldn't fight.

1/28/2007 8:30 pm (et) ole: That was part of it, mobile, but Halleck did personally have it in for Grant.

1/28/2007 8:30 pm (et) ks: Yes, I realized that, Widow. But I wondered "why"? Base's explanation/opinion seems plausible to me. Of course I'm no Henry Halleck fan.

1/28/2007 8:31 pm (et) ks: ole, he didn't? So you're not of the opinion he was jealous?

1/28/2007 8:31 pm (et) Widow: Grant's description of the advance to Corinth from Shiloh: "A moving siege."

1/28/2007 8:32 pm (et) Widow: That definitely wasn't Grant's fighting style.

1/28/2007 8:32 pm (et) ole: ks: There are quite a few interpretations of why Halleck kept grinding his axe. The most logical one is that he wanted command and Grant was getting all the ink.

1/28/2007 8:33 pm (et) Widow: Bingo. Young upstart from Illinois, who's he think he is? Not in MY department, by god.

1/28/2007 8:34 pm (et) Widow: Hood's Texans loved him. What did the soldiers in the AOT think when he was given command?

1/28/2007 8:34 pm (et) ks: Okay...thanks for your thoughts on Halleck. Other topics brought about by tonight's read?

1/28/2007 8:35 pm (et) ole: They loved Johnston more.

1/28/2007 8:36 pm (et) ks: :) Widow, I've no answer to your question, but it brings to mind my own thoughts on the JEJ portions of the read. Description of their affection for Johnston reminded me of the AoP for Little Mac.

1/28/2007 8:36 pm (et) Basecat: Widow...Not happy with him at all, especially because of their affection for Johnston. Add to the fact that rumors went around the army as to how Hood got the job, and that did not sit well with those who did the actual fighting.

1/28/2007 8:37 pm (et) Babs: Ks, I thought of Lil Mac as well, in that the men felt he took care of them.

1/28/2007 8:37 pm (et) Widow: KS and Base, I can see that, now. Hood didn't like the way they fought from entrenched positions. While facing Sherman.

1/28/2007 8:37 pm (et) Basecat: Am always amused when I read that Hood was "shocked" he got the job...;)

1/28/2007 8:38 pm (et) Widow: "Shocked" that it took so long? :=))

1/28/2007 8:39 pm (et) Babs: "so astounded me that I remained in deep thought throughout the night." Give me a break!

1/28/2007 8:39 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I thought the description of Longstreet's breakthrough at Chickamauga, followed by "Personally leading some of Longstreet's veteran soldiers was Maj. Gen. John Bell Hood," was a bit misleading. While Hood may well have led some of Longstreets troops, he was far from the breakthrough achieved by Deas and Anderson. Struck me as an attempt to build up Hood a bit.

1/28/2007 8:39 pm (et) Widow: I have the sense that Hood wasn't much interested in the rank and file. Except for his Texans.

1/28/2007 8:40 pm (et) Basecat: Babs...Am guessing he did think about it, as in just what in the hell have I gotten myself into now? :)

1/28/2007 8:41 pm (et) Widow: AHG, whose "attempt" ? The author's, or the people he quoted?

1/28/2007 8:41 pm (et) Basecat: amhg, plus the fact, and IIRC Hood was wounded very early in the fight there.

1/28/2007 8:41 pm (et) amhistoryguy: The author

1/28/2007 8:42 pm (et) Widow: AHG, Hood couldn't lead from the rear, any more than Old Pete. So of course he'd be in front.

1/28/2007 8:43 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Before noon on the second day IIRC Basecat, about the time of the breakthrough.

1/28/2007 8:43 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Hood was far from where the breakthrough took place Widow.

1/28/2007 8:44 pm (et) Widow: Those two horrible wounds within two months. Most men would have been sent home for good.

1/28/2007 8:44 pm (et) Basecat: Thanks AMHG, much like the wound at Gettysburg, right before the real **** hit the fan.

1/28/2007 8:44 pm (et) ks: My knowledge of the action isn't so great as to have an opinion there, AHG. Interesting to read yours. Glad you're still here. You've been pretty quiet. :)

1/28/2007 8:44 pm (et) Basecat: Widow...It's amazing that he lived thru the amputation of the leg. Most did not.

1/28/2007 8:44 pm (et) Widow: Oh, thank you, AHG, I missed your point, sorry.

1/28/2007 8:45 pm (et) Widow: Even today, an amputation close to the hip is the most serious and risky.

1/28/2007 8:45 pm (et) ole: The closer to the torso, the higher the casualty rate.

1/28/2007 8:46 pm (et) ks: I'd not realized the short expanse of time before he was back in action until it was pointed out in Chapter One.

1/28/2007 8:46 pm (et) amhistoryguy: That is one part of Chickamauga I'm pretty familiar with, as Deas, and Anderson's Confederates ran over "my boys" along with my beloved Lytle.

1/28/2007 8:47 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Hood's surgeon must have been very very good.

1/28/2007 8:47 pm (et) Babs: I believe my Wilder's Brigade saw some rough times there too.

1/28/2007 8:47 pm (et) ole: ks: That's the reason for all the speculation on painkillers, etc.

1/28/2007 8:47 pm (et) ks: Ahh, I see. So you've put some study into that part of the history. Would be interested in the author's response. Suspect he'll read this and possibly get back to us.

1/28/2007 8:47 pm (et) Basecat: ks..IIRC, he was sent back to Richmond to recover from his wound at Gettysburg, but when told of the move out west, no way he was not going to go.. Trying to remember if Pete tried to talk him out of going. Has been a while since I have delved into Pete so bear with me on that one.

1/28/2007 8:48 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Wilder's Brigade could have changed the whole course of the battle, except for that little *(&^ Dana - but that's another story !

1/28/2007 8:48 pm (et) ole: ahg: Not only would Hood's surgeon have been good, chances are he was operated on in a private residence rather than the field hospital.

1/28/2007 8:49 pm (et) Widow: I think that while in Richmond Hood was courting a Virginia belle, but she wasn't interested. Mary Chesnut wrote about it. So add a broken heart to the other injuries.

1/28/2007 8:49 pm (et) Basecat: BTW...I see the name Rosecrans, and still to this day I think of Coy. ;)

1/28/2007 8:49 pm (et) ks: Cleburne related question whenever anyone's ready to switch tracks...
I knew his proposal concerning blacks was shocking, but had not previously read that it was something kept secret from the public for over 30 years. Did I miss that in previous reads, or was this news to others as well?

1/28/2007 8:50 pm (et) Widow: Good observation, ole.

1/28/2007 8:50 pm (et) ks: Basecat, me too. :) As I read the Rosey comments I thought Coy should be here tonight and throughout the read.

1/28/2007 8:50 pm (et) Babs: Yes, Coy and I both had kinfolk in the Illinois 123rd.

1/28/2007 8:50 pm (et) mobile_96: Knew it for some time, found out when reading a bio on him.

1/28/2007 8:51 pm (et) Widow: Secret even after he was killed. Secret even after the war. Shows how touchy they were about it.

1/28/2007 8:51 pm (et) ole: Cleburne's indiscretion was the primary story. Many writers leave it at that and don't go on with the coverup.

1/28/2007 8:52 pm (et) ks: mobile, would that have been Stonewall of the West or some similar title?

1/28/2007 8:52 pm (et) Basecat: And as alluded to in the book probably ruined any chance for Cleburne to get promoted. General Walker had major influence with those in Richmond, IIRC.

1/28/2007 8:52 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Another passage that bothered me some, was the author's mention that Grant - "only days after arriving (Chattanooga) he had reopened the Union supply line. "Baldy" Smith had developed the plan for opening the "Cracker line" before Grant took command. All Grant did was to ok the implementing of Smith's plan. Smith opened the supply line, not Grant.

1/28/2007 8:52 pm (et) Widow: Jacobson couldn't find any evidence to prove that was why Cleburne was passed over, but he makes it clear that in his opinion that was probably the reason.

1/28/2007 8:52 pm (et) mobile_96: Plus I think it was covered in a book on the discussions in '65 about using blacks.

1/28/2007 8:53 pm (et) Basecat: amhg, and Rosey really came up with that idea first before Smith, but did not think it out as well as Smith did.

1/28/2007 8:53 pm (et) Widow: AHG, we are talking about a 16-page summary of the first two years or so. I agree that it was Smith's plan, not even Smith's actually, but some lower-level man.

1/28/2007 8:53 pm (et) mobile_96: Same here amhg, seems every author keeps telling that story, they all must use Horn for a reference.

1/28/2007 8:54 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Grant doesn't need to be given credit for opening the supply line.

1/28/2007 8:54 pm (et) Widow: But to keep the narrative moving, I think it's OK to touch lightly on it. Grant was in command when the line opened, so that's sufficient.

1/28/2007 8:54 pm (et) mobile_96: Just like the Jackson Lemon story, they All quote Taylor's book, nothing else.

1/28/2007 8:55 pm (et) amhistoryguy: I've read a couple who get it right Mobile.

1/28/2007 8:55 pm (et) ole: Going along with Widow; sorry ahg.

1/28/2007 8:55 pm (et) ks: ahg, I swear you're channeling Joe Rose. *No disrespect inteded, Joe.* ;)

1/28/2007 8:55 pm (et) Basecat: ks...Stonewall of the West bio. of Cleburne by Craig Symonds, and one I have actually read..:)

1/28/2007 8:56 pm (et) Widow: From what I've read, Jackson should have been the Cleburne of the East.

1/28/2007 8:56 pm (et) ks: And does it mention the 30 year cover up as you recall, Base?

1/28/2007 8:56 pm (et) Basecat: ks..It does...and makes Robert E. Lee a part of the idea to keep it quiet as well.

1/28/2007 8:57 pm (et) Widow: Whew! That leads to a whole 'nother topic in itself!

1/28/2007 8:57 pm (et) amhistoryguy: Lincoln was commander in chief, but I would not give him credit for opening the supply line either.

1/28/2007 8:57 pm (et) ks: REL?? I'm more intrigued. Would like to read the book.

1/28/2007 8:57 pm (et) Babs: Do you think the cover up continued because he died?

1/28/2007 8:58 pm (et) ole: I'm guessing the original decision to keep it quiet was to spare Cleburne's reputation and possibly career.

1/28/2007 8:58 pm (et) ks: Babs "he" being Cleburne or Lee?

1/28/2007 8:59 pm (et) Widow: Just my wild guess, here, Babs, but after losing the war, they didn't want to admit Cleburne would have been right. Witness the last-minute attempt to recruit slaves into the army.

1/28/2007 8:59 pm (et) Babs: Cleburne

1/28/2007 8:59 pm (et) ks: That's a wild guess that makes sense to me, Widow. Hadn't thought of it in those terms.

1/28/2007 8:59 pm (et) Basecat: Babs...Nope..To arm slaves to fight for the South went against the main reason why they seceded in the first place...They would lose their "cause."

1/28/2007 8:59 pm (et) ole: Good wild guess, Widow.

1/28/2007 9:00 pm (et) ole: Better reason, bc.

1/28/2007 9:00 pm (et) Babs: Widow, Oh that's an idea! I was thinking they were sparing his memory, but they probably were not that noble.

1/28/2007 9:00 pm (et) mobile_96: Agree Base

1/28/2007 9:00 pm (et) ks: But Basecat, they did the last minute attempt anyway eventually.

1/28/2007 9:01 pm (et) Widow: Base, Jacobson points out that to Cleburne, INDEPENDENCE was the goal, with or without slavery.

1/28/2007 9:01 pm (et) Widow: Exactly counterpart to Lincoln's goal of saving the Union, with or without slavery.

1/28/2007 9:01 pm (et) Basecat: ks...Very true, but at the time Cleburne came up with the idea, they still felt they could win the war without doing something as "rash" as that.

1/28/2007 9:01 pm (et) ks: As Lincoln had UNION as the goal, with or without slavery (in the beginning anyway).

1/28/2007 9:01 pm (et) mobile_96: And the others wanted Independence With slavery.

1/28/2007 9:01 pm (et) ks: You're too quick for me, Widow. :)

1/28/2007 9:02 pm (et) Basecat: Widow, which I agree with, but most others in command did not...especially a guy like Walker.

1/28/2007 9:02 pm (et) ks: Yes, completely understand that, Base. But I'm wondering about a reason for the 30 year cover-up. Widow's thoughts seem very plausible to me. :)

1/28/2007 9:03 pm (et) ole: I'd imagine that no one wanted to talk about it.

1/28/2007 9:04 pm (et) Basecat: Tend to think it stayed covered up because the original documents were not found until 30 years after the war. Highly doubt it was done in any consideration for Cleburne, but that's me.

1/28/2007 9:04 pm (et) Widow: So, by attrition, Hood advances up in command.

1/28/2007 9:04 pm (et) Widow: Base, that's IT! Perfect explanation. No conspiracy, just lost the papers. That's the way it usually works out.

1/28/2007 9:04 pm (et) Basecat: Widow, and those who Davis could have used for the job, he did not trust. Lee even told him that Hood was not the right man for the job.

1/28/2007 9:05 pm (et) Widow: But that was one time Davis ignored Lee's advice.

1/28/2007 9:05 pm (et) ks: Basecat, you'd have never made it as a writer for the X-files. It was a conspiracy, don't you know? ;)

1/28/2007 9:06 pm (et) Babs: I am awful, I know, but I think Hood's leg should be in that museum with Sickles' .

1/28/2007 9:06 pm (et) Widow: KS, most conspiracies fail after a while. Why? Because people can't keep their mouths shut.

1/28/2007 9:06 pm (et) ks: LOL....Babs

1/28/2007 9:06 pm (et) Basecat: ks...Have been told what I lack in imagination, I make up for it by being a fountain of misinformation.;)

1/28/2007 9:06 pm (et) Widow: Babs, you're right. That's even awfuller.

1/28/2007 9:07 pm (et) ks: Way back over an hour ago (time flies when the book is good and people show up, doesn't it?) AHG or someone commented on the cover art. Please don't depart without telling me why it impressed you. I too was impressed. Curious about others....

1/28/2007 9:07 pm (et) Widow: I like the upper pictures with that well-made buck fence and the farm buildings beyond. Gives me a sense of place.

1/28/2007 9:08 pm (et) Basecat: ks...I liked the idea of using the photo for the back of the Muster official Tshirt.;)

1/28/2007 9:08 pm (et) Babs: The crackly weathered look gives it just the right touch.

1/28/2007 9:08 pm (et) Widow: The lower picture is hard to discern. The silhouettes of the advancing soldiers are pretty much covered by the authors' names.

1/28/2007 9:08 pm (et) ks: I would love to know if the original art is/was in that crackled state, or if the artist who put together the cover work put it through some filter. It's the cracked effect that made it outstanding to me.

1/28/2007 9:08 pm (et) ks: Babs...I've MISSED you. ;)

1/28/2007 9:09 pm (et) Basecat: Wait...that's not the Pizza Hut which was built where Cleburne was killed?? Learn something new every day. ;)

1/28/2007 9:09 pm (et) ole: Cover was nicely done. If I had to find any fault with it, it's that the ampersand isn't clearer.

1/28/2007 9:09 pm (et) mobile_96: They might even give us a copy to use, If we ask nice.

1/28/2007 9:09 pm (et) Widow: The back cover picture is too obscured as well. Just a rooftop, that's all.

1/28/2007 9:09 pm (et) Vickie: The soldiers at the bottom of the front cover to look like they are approaching that farm.

1/28/2007 9:09 pm (et) amhistoryguy: To me it spoke of both war and peace - I liked the effect of being on crackled paint.

1/28/2007 9:09 pm (et) Basecat: ole...which I missed completely when I posted the title of the book at the start.:)

1/28/2007 9:10 pm (et) Widow: Offer him a T-shirt, ks.

1/28/2007 9:11 pm (et) Widow: The silhouetted bayonets seem to be extended by the crackled effect. I found it distracting and annoying.

1/28/2007 9:11 pm (et) Babs: The author thanks someone for the cover. Maybe when he visits here we can ask about the original photos.

1/28/2007 9:11 pm (et) ole: The silhouettes on the front cover are most likely overlays.

1/28/2007 9:12 pm (et) mobile_96: Its not like we're going to set up a stand to sell on the street. plus its free advertising for the book.

1/28/2007 9:12 pm (et) ks: Huh. Distracting and annoying...didn't strike me that way at all, Widow. But as I often say, this world takes all kinds. Would be boring if we all had the same tastes. :)

1/28/2007 9:12 pm (et) Widow: Ole, I didn't want to know that. I like to think those pictures are authentic originals. :=((

1/28/2007 9:13 pm (et) Vickie: I like the crackle effect.

1/28/2007 9:13 pm (et) Basecat: Mobile...Then again we could make a small fortune, as when I wear the shirts in Gettysburg, folks always ask me where did I get it..;)

1/28/2007 9:13 pm (et) Widow: Can't judge a book by its cover, right ks? Terrific book, I don't like one part of the cover.

1/28/2007 9:13 pm (et) ks: It also struck me as possible wonderful merchandise material. Suspect it's copyrighted.

1/28/2007 9:14 pm (et) Babs: I think the one on the far right is a flag staff not a bayonet.

1/28/2007 9:14 pm (et) mobile_96: Base, guess we could buy a bundle of books and sell that way

1/28/2007 9:14 pm (et) ole: I've seen those pictures before. Just can't remember where.

1/28/2007 9:14 pm (et) Vickie: ghost soldiers at the bottom of the cover ;-)

1/28/2007 9:14 pm (et) ks: Widow, I love the cover...and fortunately I like what's inside as well. :) Babs, now that you've mentioned it, I am seeing it as a flag.

1/28/2007 9:15 pm (et) Basecat: ole...Probably at the Carter House...

1/28/2007 9:15 pm (et) ole: Babs: I took it for an officer's sword.

1/28/2007 9:16 pm (et) Widow: The first figure on the right is the color bearer. The officer's sword reaches ahead of him. But the silhouettes make us guess.

1/28/2007 9:16 pm (et) ks: More questions that Eric can answer when he's read the chat. BTW he's been invited to attend any chat on the book. Told him that EVERY chat wasn't expected. Whatever fits his schedule is great.

1/28/2007 9:16 pm (et) Widow: The picture's fine, ks, really. I think the crackling confuses my poor old eyes.

1/28/2007 9:17 pm (et) Basecat: Homework for next week will be Chapter 2. Lot of info. in there to discuss, and a REMINDER Chat will be held on Monday evening next week at 8 PM EST.

1/28/2007 9:17 pm (et) mobile_96: Maybe online, its a photo from the USArmy MI at Carlisle , PA......Battle field and Carter cotton gin

1/28/2007 9:17 pm (et) ks: I'll get the homework updated on YODB. Remember to refer there when in doubt about time, date, assigned reading.

1/28/2007 9:19 pm (et) Widow: Thx, everyone, for a great conversation. It's so fun to talk with people who love this subject too.

1/28/2007 9:19 pm (et) Babs: I do appreciate the earlier start time. I know it's tough for those of you out on the windswept prairie.

1/28/2007 9:19 pm (et) Widow: I'll say good night, everybody. See you next Monday for sure for sure.