The Missouri in the Civil War Message Board

Re: North & South article on Price's Raid

I too read the article and I wrote a response to the editor. Below is what I wrote and his response to my e-mail.
Robert,

Hmmm. You are right, our readers do deserve better. As you know, virtually all our articles are written by professional historians. In this case it was an enthusiastic amateur (Though his previous article—on a subject on which he has written a book, elicited no criticisms). Memo to self: when we do occasionally think a contribution from an amateur is worth publishing, have it vetted first by a professional. (Missouri in 1864 is not within my Civil War interests.)

Mea culpa

Keith

From: Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 2:03 PM
To: northandsouth@netptc.net
Subject: Price's Raid Article

Where do I start with comments on your article "Price's Raid" by D. Reid Ross? First, it is hardly an article about the entire Raid, but rather an article focused upon one person's experiences. This is not a bad thing, but it should not have been titled "Price's Raid." Unfortunately, it is shot through with errors.

1. I could find no attribution for the illustration on page 11. Where is this from?

2. The map on page 16 has several errors. First, Ewing did not withdraw to St. Louis, but rather evacuated Fort Davidson and marched to Leesburg on the Pacific Railroad, not too many miles east of Rolla where he fought an action against Gen. Marmaduke's men until rescued and relieved. Second, Price sent two columns, not one as on the map, from near the juncture of the Pacific Railroad. One column did go along the Missouri River as noted, but the other marched inland on the "Old State Road" and then both met at Jefferson City. Also, there was action at Lexington, but no Federal forces are noted in the area.

3. Major General Samuel Ryan Curtis (page 17) was promoted to Major General on March 21, 1862 after the Battle of Pea Ridge, not after the capture of Helena some months later.

4. On page 19, "From there he followed the Iron Mountain railroad and wrecked it to within 30 miles of St.Louis." Shelby burned a few bridges on the Iron Mountain and only a few miles north of Pilot Knob. He never was within 30 miles of St. Louis. Another part of Price's army moved to within 30 miles of St. Louis at today's Pacific and was repulsed by Union forces coming by train from St. Louis.

5. Just after the above noted problem, Ross, in print, commits the same error as noted in the map on page 16.

6. In the second column of page 19, Ross states "In later years, he [Reynolds] wrote a bitter letter attacking Price...." This letter was written Dec. 17, 1864 and published in the Dec. 23rd issue of the Marshal[Texas] Republican. This letter led to an abortive Court Marshall proceedings against Price in 1864. Ross may be mistaking Reynolds "General Sterling Price and the Confederacy" which he wrote in 1867 and which is held by the Missouri Historical Society in St. Louis and which I edited and was published by the Missouri Historical Society in 2009.

7. On page 22 at the top: "Thomas Caute Reynolds (1821-1887) .... threw himself down an elevator shaft in St. Louis in 1869." Typo?

8. On page 23, second column and again on page 25: Brig. Gen. M.Jeff Thompson was the Mayor of St. Joseph, Missouri, not St. Louis!

9. On page 25, top. It was my impression that General Shelby, not Colonel Jackman commanded the rear guard during the retreat south.

10. Page 25, first column. General Marmaduke was captured at the Battle of Mine Creek. Ross should have mentioned the event, not just imply sloppiness on Marmaduke's part.

11. Page 25, also first column. On Anderson and Quantrill. Ross implies Anderson was killed in Price's army. No so. He was killed October 26, 1864 near Albany, well north of the Missouri River. Quantrill died on June 6, 1865 in Louisville, KY, long after Price's Raid.

12. Finally - in the Endnotes, there is no note #19 (nor is there one in the manuscript). Within note 18 there is O.R. Report No. 84, p. 607. Nowhere in previous endnotes is there an explanation of O.R. and "Report No. 84 - which is Serial No. 84 - is never used in referring to the Official Reports. It should be, O. R. Series I, Vol. XLI, p. 607.

Readers of North and South deserved better.

Robert G. Schultz

Messages In This Thread

North & South article on Price's Raid
Re: North & South article on Price's Raid
Re: North & South article on Price's Raid
Re: North & South article on Price's Raid
Re: North & South article on Price's Raid
Re: North & South article on Price's Raid
Re: North & South article on Price's Raid
Re: North & South article on Price's Raid
Re: North & South article on Price's Raid
Re: North & South article on Price's Raid
Re: North & South article on Price's Raid
Re: North & South article on Price's Raid
Re: North & South article on Price's Raid
Re: North & South article on Price's Raid
Re: North & South article on Price's Raid
Re: North & South article on Price's Raid
Re: North & South article on Price's Raid