On the Future of the Show

War Stories Listeners,

Firstly, thank you. This show started with an email written on a whim. Staffer and I had recently appeared on a podcast episode together. In the episode, we talked about the dearth of history that occupied the space between popular and academic ones. More specifically, histories that showed you what it was like to be on the ground at a particular moment in history while also showing you that single, minute puzzle piece could be used as a gateway to understanding a larger picture. I didn’t then and I still don’t think there’s anything revolutionary about that model. Still, there were so many of these threads that occurred on the frayed edges of history. Ones you only heard as parlor stories. Instead, in the right setting, we thought they could illuminate something more. We built the show around that idea, not knowing whether it’d be too personal for the military audience, too niche for the storytelling crowd, or perhaps both. I’m glad you saw the same value we did and started listening.

When we began the show, we didn’t know what it’d take to finish a season. We didn’t know if we’d be able to finish a season at all. The response we received from you all made that decision easy. Still, once we started it up, we spent those four weeks between episodes constantly digging through primary sources, looking at official histories, technical manuals, writing and editing scripts, before eventually recording the thing then producing it. One slip in a schedule or a research track was enough to upset that episode’s release. And even then, we were coming out with a fraction of the number of shows we should have in a month in order to give you the continuous narrative you expected.

We never thought that was a viable way to run the show. But it’s how we did it for two seasons in order to keep up a relatively consistent output of episodes, letting you know, “Hey, we’re still here!” It’s also why we’re now putting the show on a break. It’s not a total shutdown, but short of funding that allows us (or me) to make this a full-time position, what we do come out with is going to look a little different than you’re used to. I’d say you should expect less frequent, longer specials on particular topics that’ll come out when we can manage it, with some fun ones that have caught our eye mixed in. It’ll allow us to look at topics that might not have taken up a full season, but are filled with the same sorts of personal stories that made War Stories resonate. I’m being careful not to promise too much or give too many details on what a schedule might look like; a lot of this is still up in the air. All the same, we hope you’ll listen in when we update the War Stories stream.

This means a few things more or less immediately. First, we’re going to keep the shows and website online. Don’t worry about suddenly not being able to retrieve anything we’ve done in the past. We will be shutting down our supporter program on Patreon and assuming I can find the source files, adding some additional bonus episodes to our regular stream. However, we’re going to leave our supporter Slack channel online. You just won’t have to pay for it anymore. If you’d like to be added, drop me a line (it’s where I’ll be running a series of alt history RPGs when there’s interest and/or time).

We do still have episodes that’ll be released over the next few months. Loose Rounds will continue through October. We’ll also be taking part in a live event around the annual Association of the U.S. Army conference in DC, so keep your eyes peeled for that. Finally, I have a special that’ll come out around October or November. After that, I’ll make sure to give you all an update about where we’re at.

I’ll be honest. The opportunities this show opened are part of the reason we’re making this shift. This was a passion project from the moment it began, one which hinged upon schedules that allowed for no small bit of flexibility, constant engagement between Staffer and I to develop research and topics, and learning how to work as a jack-of-all-trades between social media, production, writing, web development, and everything else that goes into running a show we’re proud of. The calculus just isn’t there to hold up all parts of that equation right now, and we’d be uncomfortable offering anything less than the standards we’ve set for ourselves. Regardless of how much time we can spend putting together stories specifically for this show, its spirit will continue on in the projects we continue working on. I know for at least a couple of mine, audio versions will come out on here first, I can promise you that. I hope you’re here to listen.

Until then, thanks for sharing in these stories.


2.9 – The Once and Future Sniper

Listen: Online | iTunes | RSS Feed

What’s the quality that defines a sniper? Is it the pulling of the trigger? The skilled stalking of their target in the hours or days prior to making a shot? The mathematical and physics-based knowledge that prevents them from making an error?

In our season finale, we look at the future of the sniper and whether the mythos they’ve cultivated over the centuries can withstand scopes that aim for them, guns that can fire thousands of yards, and robots that do what they do, only better.

Music in this episode was brought to you by: Blue Dot Sessions

2.8 – The White Feather

Listen: Online | iTunes | RSS Feed

In the Vietnam War, snipers returned to some of their earliest environmental roots while simultaneously reaching the pinnacle of their development: taking part in long missions, independently, where high value targets were taken out. Carlos Hathcock, a Marine from Arkansas, would grow to become one of the best of them.

Music in this episode was brought to you by: Chris Zabriskie, Blue Dot Sessions, Sergey Cheremisinov

2.7 – A Soviet Sniper’s American Journey

Listen: Online | iTunes | RSS Feed

By the time Lyudmila Pavlichenko joined the rest of her peers at the International Student Assembly at American University in Washington, DC, much of the country knew her name. As well as the Nazis who despised her for the deadly aim she took with her rifle.

Music in this episode was brought to you by: Blue Dot Sessions (Paper Feather, Hickory Shed, Hickory Interlude), Kai Engel (Visum, December), Chris Zabriskie – The Sun Is Scheduled to Come Out Tomorrow

2.6 – The White Death

Listen: Online | iTunes | RSS Feed

When the Soviet Union invaded Finland in late 1939—the action that kicked off the Winter War—they expected an easy fight, if there was one at all. Instead, they found a military with an intimate knowledge of Finland’s terrain, and one that was willing to fight. Among them was a man who very nearly became one with the freezing environment in an effort to take a stand against the invading nation.

Music in this episode was brought to you by: Podington Bear, Blue Dot Sessions, Uuriter

2.5 – A Duel in the Trenches

Listen: Online | iTunes | RSS Feed

We know World War I for a number of things: trenches, poison gas, the ever-present thrum of artillery. But it also served as the birthplace of the sniper. And one of the best couldn’t be found on the Western, or even Eastern Front. Instead, Billy Sing fought on the shores of Gallipoli.

Music in this episode was brought to you by: Podington Bear, Blue Dot Sessions, Lee Rosevere, Borrtex, Krackatoa, Rafael Archangel

Library Conversation with Dr. John Marszalek

Last week we hosted our first Library conversation for War Stories members. Dr. John Marszalek, David Nolen, and Louie Gallo, the editors of a new, annotated version of Ulysses S. Grant’s memoirs, the first of its kind, joined us in talking about Grant as a general and as a person. To join us in our next conversation, sign up via our Patreon.

You’ve been studying Grant for years. His memoirs are, if not the first, then close to the first, thing you think of when you think of him. Why publish this new, annotated version now?

With the completion of the 32 volumes of the Papers of Ulysses S. Grant, the time was right and necessary to produce an annotated edition that contextualizes the memoirs for the modern reader. We believe that the support from Mississippi State University and the university libraries made this long-term project possible. The USG Association, led by our president Frank J. Williams and the Board of Directors, gave us the support we needed to finish the project. We also received financial support from the NEH and the NHPRC.

Another point, in the 130 years that the memoirs have been in print, they have never been comprehensively annotated on this scale, and with the resurgence of Grant scholarship we thought the time was right.

To that point, how should the modern reader view the memoirs in context?

In this case, by reading this modern edition of the memoirs the reader gets a good insight into USG’s thought process during the war, and they get a good perspective on the era in which he lived. For example, the section on the Mexican War is a great character study of Grant and an insight into what the war was about and how it was waged. The annotations allow the modern reader to understand persons, places, and terms that he/she would probably not recognize without the aid of the annotations. The memoirs and the annotations reveal to current service members just how complicated and chaotic military life was, especially during the Civil War. The modern warrior will find themes and principles that resonate with their own experiences. Also, the book humanizes the experience of the Civil War and an individual who has been mythologized over the years.

Did revisiting Grant’s memoirs give you any different insights into the man than you’d had at the outset?

We found that an oft forgotten aspect of Grant’s character and ability was his skill as a storyteller. He was known in his era to be an impressive and engaging storyteller given the right circumstances. That unique voice comes through even more strongly than we imagined in the memoirs. Gertrude Stein and other great writers of the 19th and 20th century all agreed on the power of Grant’s prose.

Also, we were surprised by Grant’s sense of humor. He is always seen as a serious, stone-faced general, but his character goes much deeper. He was witty and clever.

In annotating his memoirs—which I can only imagine was a huge task—what were the primary resources that you used?

First, the Papers of USG were invaluable. The research done by John Y. Simon and his editors over the years made verifying Grant’s statements and contextualizing his writing in the memoirs much easier than it could have been. The fact that Dr. Simon’s widow, Harriet, was so willing to help in the editorial process with her sharp eye made our efforts more productive. The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion were essential in our work. The widespread publication on all aspects of the Civil War gave us secondary material that was helpful in our editorial process. Also, the Official Atlas of the Civil War really helped us to follow along with Grant’s narrative. But, one of the strengths of this edition is that we pull from a wide range of resources.

I’m interested in going back to your point about Grant’s ability as a storyteller. If my memory serves me correctly, he had some back-and-forth with his editor in his first memoir-based articles because they were too dry. Was it a matter of him separating those parts of his life, or something else?

One theory is that the qualities of a writer that make for a strong military communicator are different than the qualities of a storyteller. Grant was accustomed to writing as a military man and did not initially think of the writing process from a storytellers perspective. His “just the facts” approach made for succinct, clear orders to his subordinates, but that approach makes for a dry and difficult narrative. Grant had to reach into himself to find that not only was he a great military writer but he was able to illuminate the events of the war so that his readers were able to understand the emotions he experienced.

I’m wondering, with the gradual release and scholarly work surrounding Grant’s papers, certain influential characters in his life who we might have previously overlooked have risen to the surface.

With the completion of the papers project, it’s easier now to see just how important his family was in his life, especially his wife. For example, in Volume 32 of the Papers of USG, the supplemental volume, there are letters that Grant wrote to his cousins about his time at West Point. From a public figure standpoint, it’s easy to overlook his family ties and how they influenced his life.

In the memoirs, we were surprised by just how many people Grant mentions that were never identified in previous editions or studies. For example, Grant mentions a spy who gave him information which led to the capture of Paducah, KY, but he doesn’t give the man’s name. Luckily, we were able to identify the man as Charles De Arnaud. These types of annotations really highlight forgotten characters in the story of Grant.

From a behind-the-scenes perspective, could you tell us how you went about connecting the dots to identify that man?

Generally speaking, our process was to think about who would also have been writing about those events and to look at those sources. Usually, we would start with the secondary literature to see if those authors included additional details and then we would look to see what primary sources were cited. In the case of Arnaud, the secondary literature about spies and espionage during Civil War led us to consider Arnaud as a probable identification for that figure. This led us to a source from the National Archives discussing their holdings on Arnaud that contained additional biographical information.

On a different side of that same coin, or perhaps a similar one, are there characters from history we’ve been familiar with for some time, but are only now seeing their connection to Grant? Or perhaps an increased depth or different relationship we hadn’t previously known?

Where this idea comes out is in the “small world aspects” of the stories told in the memoirs. For example, Grant talks about an seemingly inconsequential meeting with a man named Jacob Thompson during the Vicksburg Campaign. However, in our research we discovered that Thompson, who had served as the Sec. of the Interior from 1857 to 1861, was later an un-indicted co-conspirator in the assassination plot to kill Lincoln. During Thompson’s trial in 1867, Grant actually testified about their 1863 meeting. Grant makes a casual reference to this encounter, but the importance of which is lost on the modern reader.

One of Grant’s most controversial campaigns was his Overland Campaign.  With the passage of time and in light of new materials, letters, etc., did you come to see that in a different light?

The Overland Campaign was one of the most complicated and difficult military campaigns of any war. The major difference in the way that Grant fought was in his determination to fulfill what he called his “superstition” that once he began something he never turned back. As difficult as it was for him to order men into battle and almost certain death, he realized that using this approach he would be saving lives in the long run by ending the war more quickly. With that said, our annotations are designed to provide factual/contextual information to help the reader come to his/her own conclusions and interpretations. We have adopted this same perspective on the exhibits we are in the process of creating for the US Grant Presidential Library.

Is there a particular letter or document which you could think of that really distills that internal conflict?

What we know about the process comes through Robert Underwood Johnson’s memoirs where he describes meeting with Grant to talk about his early draft of the Shiloh article. He points out that Grant took his advice and that the next draft was much more engaging. Also, there is a letter from Nov. 1883 written by Grant to Alfred D. Worthington where you can see Grant’s hesitation. Worthington offered to pay Grant to write his story, but Grant declined. He stated: “I feel much complimented by your proposition but I shrink from such a task.”

I hope this doesn’t pull from the great questions asked thus far. I am someone that wouldn’t know if there was more or less of, as you said, a ‘resurgence of Grant scholarship’ taking place.  What usually drives these shifts in attention with historians, and is there anything we can learn from why USG is seeing a resurgence?

One factor in this resurgence is access to primary sources on Grant. Since 1962 the Grant Association has been collecting a copy of every Grant letter that is in existence.  As Chernow stated, with the completion of the papers project and the opening of the collection to the public, scholars now have the opportunity to see accurate statements and insights about Grant. This added access to primary sources on Grant allows scholars to reevaluate prior assessments of Grant. The books by Ron White, Charles Calhoun, Joan Waugh, Edwina Campbell, and Brooks Simpson, among others, are examples of publications that represent this resurgence.

Looking down the line, do you think there are still new things to be discovered about Grant? I’m not sure if this is more a theoretical question or a practical one, but he does seem like someone whose life has been honed in on to such a great degree because of the particular arc of his life and work.

There are always new things to discover. Theoretically, there could be undiscovered Grant sources out there. For example, we don’t have Julia’s side of the correspondence with USG. Also, there are notebooks that Grant lost during his time at Jefferson Barracks. Grant mentions in the memoirs that he feared those notebooks would be found and that he would suffer embarrassment because of the private nature of the notebooks. In that same vein, the sources that we do have on Grant’s early life are scarce, which is disappointing because a person’s early life shapes who they would become later. The early years are still somewhat shrouded in mystery because of this lack of sources. Contrast that with his later years, which are so saturated with sources that its difficult to process everything that is available.

Finally, is there a particular quality or aspect of Grant’s life you think gets missed in our popular conception of him which is important?

Grant the family man is one of the most overlooked aspects of his life. The loving relationships between Grant and Julia, and Grant and his children, are often overlooked in popular conceptions of Grant as merely a general and president. Beliefs about him are so entrenched that the true side of his familial relationships are ignored. We see this when we give tours of our exhibit to the public. They are usually surprised when they learn about Grant’s sensitive and loving side.