Book Launch New book out

[PaulC]

That is exactly why I wrote this book, because I found so much history that had never been reported before…

 

[CaptSpook]

My own opinion - and it's an opinion - is that assessing actions by a President in the unprecedented context of a civil war is complicated, and a lot easier in hindsight.

Very important point, as your opinion suggests -- try to keep in mind "period context" whenever viewing past events from our lens of the 21st century.

 

[TallTallMan]

I'm a Lincoln fan but I do wonder about the wisdom of this order, more than the constitutionality. It may have only been necessary for the secessionist Maryland voters.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

You have to read the book….

I'm still waiting to be convinced that I should.

Scandalous expose about Lincoln's mistreatment of Maryland? Sounds too reminiscent of Rose and Varney with their scandalous expose of Grant's mistreatment of Rosecrans.

Mah precious freedoms and democracy? In the face of 11 states choosing to unilaterally secede without just cause because they didn't like how a democratic vote went? While others, like parts of Maryland, flirted with the idea? Ha!

 

[MarylandLine]

I'm still waiting to be convinced that I should.

Scandalous expose about Lincoln's mistreatment of Maryland? Sounds too reminiscent of Rose and Varney with their scandalous expose of Grant's mistreatment of Rosecrans.

Mah precious freedoms and democracy? In the face of 11 states choosing to unilaterally secede without just cause because they didn't like how a democratic vote went? While others, like parts of Maryland, flirted with the idea? Ha!

You know Dude, I don't know what your agenda is to keep crapping on Mr Callahan's book and abilities. What books about military history have you written? I know plenty of civil war authors, publishers, booksellers, licensed battlefield guides, park rangers. Never heard of you. So why don't you step off your little narcissistic pulpit and move along. Your opinion doesn't really matter if you don't buy and read the book. If I want to learn about lighthouses maybe I'll buy your little tome and see how it stacks up against the other lighthouse books. Also if you think you can write a better book than Frank Varney or Joseph Rose then do it.

 

[dlofting]

You know Dude, I don't know what your agenda is to keep crapping on Mr Callahan's book and abilities. What books about military history have you written? I know plenty of civil war authors, publishers, booksellers, licensed battlefield guides, park rangers. Never heard of you. So why don't you step off your little narcissistic pulpit and move along. Your opinion doesn't really matter if you don't buy and read the book. If I want to learn about lighthouses maybe I'll buy your little tome and see how it stacks up against the other lighthouse books. Also if you think you can write a better book than Frank Varney or Joseph Rose then do it.

I don't think anyone is "crapping" on the book or the author, just trying to get a sense of whether it's worth buying and reading.

Unfortunately the author himself didn't enlighten us much, other than saying that he has found some things that others have overlooked and we should just "read the book" to find out.

We've heard that before so are a bit cautious.

 

[MarylandLine]

One person has continually carried on and now includes Frank Varney and Joseph Rose in his slights. Maybe he can kindly tell us what his problems are with Varney and Rose. Which of their footnotes are wrong? Which of their conclusions are demonstrably false? Which sources does he have that counter what they have written?

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Maybe he can kindly tell us what his problems are with Varney and Rose.

There have been lengthy threads on CWT about their books.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I have literally a thousand books my To Read list. For those who will read anything I suppose all they care about is "does the book sound interesting?"

For me, I don't simply need to be interested in the subject, but have reason to believe in advance of reading it that it will be a good book. I don't read books to find out if they're worth reading; I find out if they're worth reading first. There are various ways to do that.

There are other ways to turn me off of a history book, other than bad reviews (not all of which apply to the book in question):

1. The author comes across as too enthralled with or hostile toward their subject. That includes most apologia.

2. The author is motivated by modern politics or trying too hard to explicitly tie past events to present events. (Besides issues of bias, the latter runs the risk of obseleting the book quickly when current events or information about them changes).

3. Any other sense that the author started with a conclusion and worked backwards. Historians should start with a question and let their research direct the conclusion.

4. The author is too enslaved to their thesis. A thesis is a central concept, not something to bludgeon the reader with every chapter. Usually just a problem with some academics.

5. The author is combative, evasive, hostile to questions or criticism, or otherwise gives me bad vibes when they try to promote their book.

6. Conspiracy theories.

I mostly read broadly, not deeply. I try to exclusively read well-written, well-researched, unbiased works. Whatever battle or person I'm reading about is likely the only book I will ever read focused on that particular topic, and I won't be rereading it again.

I've been reading a lot for my entire life, including 30-50 a year for the last two decades, about half of them about the American Civil War. So yeah I've got some strong ideas about good books.

And for the record: I'm an opinionated pedantic autistic, not a narcissist, but the confusion is understandable.

 

[GilbertFarney]

With all due respect to Mr. Callahan, who I hope will forgive me for posting these, here are 7 pages of his book for the curious to read. These pages cover the planned federal attack on Baltimore. They are indicative of the kind of material, sources, and citations readers will find. I hope that this sample will encourage others to give the book a try. I am finding it worth my time.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

With all due respect to Mr. Callahan, who I hope will forgive me for posting these, here are 7 pages of his book for the curious to read. These pages cover the planned federal attack on Baltimore. They are indicative of the kind of material, sources, and citations readers will find. I hope that this sample will encourage others to give the book a try. I am finding it worth my time.

That was interesting, although not anything shocking.

The newspaper that claimed an attack force of 100,000 was laughable. Even with Patterson it sounds like the total Union troops involved would have been less than 10,000. Who begged off participating because his troops weren't ready, which given his subsequent timid movements against Johnston on the grounds of unreliable troops this fits.

The Union Army was going to move to occupy Baltimore and reestablish a vital logistics line to Washington after an attack on federal soldiers and deliberate disruption of a vital railroad. Acts of treason as they were committed to actively aid the Confederacy which was at war with the USA.

If the Maryland state militia or Baltimore residents resisted this occupation they would be met with force (if being attacked at once from multiple directions did cause the militia to rout before shots were fired). Which they should have been, because such an act would have been armed rebellion.

Author seems to making a mountain out of sand dune.

If Maryland had passed a ordinance of secession I wonder if the author thinks the Lincoln administration should have slinked off to Philadelphia and let Maryland go, because "democracy" had spoken?

 

[Belfoured]

One person has continually carried on and now includes Frank Varney and Joseph Rose in his slights. Maybe he can kindly tell us what his problems are with Varney and Rose. Which of their footnotes are wrong? Which of their conclusions are demonstrably false? Which sources does he have that counter what they have written?

Just my opinion but it's probably not a good idea to open this up that way if you're looking for the book to be assessed objectively. As noted, there are plenty of threads about the other two.

 

[PaulC]

I'm still waiting to be convinced that I should.

Scandalous expose about Lincoln's mistreatment of Maryland? Sounds too reminiscent of Rose and Varney with their scandalous expose of Grant's mistreatment of Rosecrans.

Mah precious freedoms and democracy? In the face of 11 states choosing to unilaterally secede without just cause because they didn't like how a democratic vote went? While others, like parts of Maryland, flirted with the idea? Ha!

7 states seceded over the election, the other 4 seceded after Lincoln called up 75,000 men to enter into those 7 states to "enforce the laws." They believed such an action was unconstitutional as was stated by Pres. Buchanan and his attorney general J. Black. But my book is about Maryland and not the Confederacy, Maryland never flirted with secession, the news that the Legislature was going to secede Maryland was propaganda from Washington. The very first act of the special session of the Maryland Legislature when called into session in April 1861 was to publicly proclaim they had no constitutional authority to secede Maryland. Their second act was to state they would not arm their militia or to take any measure which would be construed as "hostile" towards the federal government. They also instructed all Marylanders not to resist in any way the federal occupation of Maryland.

 

[PaulC]

That was interesting, although not anything shocking.

The newspaper that claimed an attack force of 100,000 was laughable. Even with Patterson it sounds like the total Union troops involved would have been less than 10,000. Who begged off participating because his troops weren't ready, which given his subsequent timid movements against Johnston on the grounds of unreliable troops this fits.

The Union Army was going to move to occupy Baltimore and reestablish a vital logistics line to Washington after an attack on federal soldiers and deliberate disruption of a vital railroad. Acts of treason as they were committed to actively aid the Confederacy which was at war with the USA.

If the Maryland state militia or Baltimore residents resisted this occupation they would be met with force (if being attacked at once from multiple directions did cause the militia to rout before shots were fired). Which they should have been, because such an act would have been armed rebellion.

Author seems to making a mountain out of sand dune.

If Maryland had passed a ordinance of secession I wonder if the author thinks the Lincoln administration should have slinked off to Philadelphia and let Maryland go, because "democracy" had spoken?

 

[PaulC]

Mr. Joshim, You seem to know more about Maryland Civil War history than anyone on this site. Please tell us what the legislature of Maryland publically proclaimed to the People of Maryland about an ordinance of secesssion. Hint... they did this on April 26, 1861. What did they do about calling a Soverign Convention, or about arming the State milita? (publically published on May 9, 1861) What was a Soverign Convention as defined in the Maryland Constitution? Tell us what Gov. Hicks was doing during the summer of 1861 in regards to the weapons of the Maryland milita. Another hint about that, the State Legislaure investigated the governor's actions in June 1861. What positon was Gov. Hicks given by Pres. Lincoln after he left office? You have never read any of this in any history book, since this history had never been published until October 2023.

I along with a few others can tell you about it in a few words here and if you choose not to believe or think you already know everything there is about it, or want to believe the author is politically biased, then don't buy the book, I loose a wopping buck or two in royality. I really don't care if you buy it or not - but I will tell you that you do not know a fraction of the history that you think you do on this subject and you are arguing becuse you do not want to believe it or you view Pres. Lincoln and the Union as your "home town team and feel that you have to defend them.

It is really absurd to attempt to critique a book when someone hasn't even read it.

 

[PaulC]

With all due respect to Mr. Callahan, who I hope will forgive me for posting these, here are 7 pages of his book for the curious to read. These pages cover the planned federal attack on Baltimore. They are indicative of the kind of material, sources, and citations readers will find. I hope that this sample will encourage others to give the book a try. I am finding it worth my time.

Thank you so much for your post....

 

[PaulC]

IO

I don't think anyone is "crapping" on the book or the author, just trying to get a sense of whether it's worth buying and reading.

Unfortunately the author himself didn't enlighten us much, other than saying that he has found some things that others have overlooked and we should just "read the book" to find out.

We've heard that before so are a bit cautiou

I have literally a thousand books my To Read list. For those who will read anything I suppose all they care about is "does the book sound interesting?"

For me, I don't simply need to be interested in the subject, but have reason to believe in advance of reading it that it will be a good book. I don't read books to find out if they're worth reading; I find out if they're worth reading first. There are various ways to do that.

There are other ways to turn me off of a history book, other than bad reviews (not all of which apply to the book in question):

1. The author comes across as too enthralled with or hostile toward their subject. That includes most apologia.

2. The author is motivated by modern politics or trying too hard to explicitly tie past events to present events. (Besides issues of bias, the latter runs the risk of obseleting the book quickly when current events or information about them changes).

3. Any other sense that the author started with a conclusion and worked backwards. Historians should start with a question and let their research direct the conclusion.

4. The author is too enslaved to their thesis. A thesis is a central concept, not something to bludgeon the reader with every chapter. Usually just a problem with some academics.

5. The author is combative, evasive, hostile to questions or criticism, or otherwise gives me bad vibes when they try to promote their book.

6. Conspiracy theories.

I mostly read broadly, not deeply. I try to exclusively read well-written, well-researched, unbiased works. Whatever battle or person I'm reading about is likely the only book I will ever read focused on that particular topic, and I won't be rereading it again.

I've been reading a lot for my entire life, including 30-50 a year for the last two decades, about half of them about the American Civil War. So yeah I've got some strong ideas about good books.

And for the record: I'm an opinionated pedantic autistic, not a narcissist, but the confusion is understandable.

There are 870 end notes that reference nearly 1100 sources..... It really does not matter what you think about this author from few comments I have made. The only thing that is important in a book about our history is the sources. I did not "write" this history, hundreds of others who lived during that time and left a record did that. I only organized it into a readable format. My advice to you is to find some other book which the cover pleases you greatly and you can just tell by natural instinct that it is a good book. There is nothing written in my book that will give you any additional knowledge or insight. Please don't wast you time....

 

[PaulC]

You know Dude, I don't know what your agenda is to keep crapping on Mr Callahan's book and abilities. What books about military history have you written? I know plenty of civil war authors, publishers, booksellers, licensed battlefield guides, park rangers. Never heard of you. So why don't you step off your little narcissistic pulpit and move along. Your opinion doesn't really matter if you don't buy and read the book. If I want to learn about lighthouses maybe I'll buy your little tome and see how it stacks up against the other lighthouse books. Also if you think you can write a better book than Frank Varney or Joseph Rose then do it.

Wow! I think some of us Marylander are getting a bit fed up with those from everywhere else telling us what our history is....

 

[PaulC]

That was interesting, although not anything shocking.

The newspaper that claimed an attack force of 100,000 was laughable. Even with Patterson it sounds like the total Union troops involved would have been less than 10,000. Who begged off participating because his troops weren't ready, which given his subsequent timid movements against Johnston on the grounds of unreliable troops this fits.

The Union Army was going to move to occupy Baltimore and reestablish a vital logistics line to Washington after an attack on federal soldiers and deliberate disruption of a vital railroad. Acts of treason as they were committed to actively aid the Confederacy which was at war with the USA.

If the Maryland state militia or Baltimore residents resisted this occupation they would be met with force (if being attacked at once from multiple directions did cause the militia to rout before shots were fired). Which they should have been, because such an act would have been armed rebellion.

Author seems to making a mountain out of sand dune.

If Maryland had passed a ordinance of secession I wonder if the author thinks the Lincoln administration should have slinked off to Philadelphia and let Maryland go, because "democracy" had spoken?

Mr. Joshism, I find your comments very extreme and disturbing and your knowledge of Maryland Civil War history completely lacking. You obviously do not know about the meeting with Pres. Lincoln and Baltimore Mayor Brown shortly before the attack was ordered against Baltimore and what was agreed to in that meeting. But what is disturbing is that this is the 2nd time that you are somehow supporting the federal government attacking a civilian city in a state that had not seceded. There is something wrong with justifying that. There would be no doubt that thousands of innocent men, woman and children would have been slaughtered in such an event since on April 25, 1861 Lincoln had already directed Gen. Scott to "Bombard their cites" if there was a conflict and those instructions were passed by Scott to his field commanders. As for your statement that if the militia and citizens attempted to protect their city and families residing there then such would have been "armed rebellion." Have you ever read the Constitution and particularly the 2nd amendment? I can tell you have never served in our military since you have no understanding about "unlawful orders" or crimes against humanity. You universally assert that it would be justified to attack the entire city because a small minority caused a disturbance with the passing of the 6th Massachusetts. Have you ever thought that it would be in everyone's interest just to arrest those that committed violence during that event then to attack the entire city? This is what I find very disturbing in you comments and way of thinking. Would you support such actions today? Should we have brought in B-52's and carpet bombed entire cities because of the BLM riots that have taken place in our modern times or any city that had a disturbance or somehow defied federal authority? Please do not buy my book.........it is not written for you and because it does not matter how well it is sourced or what it says you will attempt overturn and deny this history at every step there is nothing there that will enlighten you.

 

[A. Roy]

I find this discussion thought-provoking in some ways. Discussion of the book's content, and the helpful sample pages that were posted here, remind me that what I know is minuscule compared to what is out there to be discovered. In my case, this book's subject is outside my area of research right now, so I'm not likely to read it. Because I haven't read it, I would not post a review on a site like Amazon or Goodreads. However, the kind of discussion that has been going on here doesn't seem really out of bounds for CivilWarTalk, except in one respect: I would just remind colleagues that this is not the place for insults and personal attacks. That kind of conduct can result in intervention by our excellent team of moderators...
ARB