Hilarious and depressing blunder in a history text I was reading.

A Dr. James T. Baker of Western Kentucky University compiled a short book on Nat Turner's Rebellion and was responsible for the explanatory text on the documents provided. In the chapter entitled Nat Turner in History, Dr. Baker makes the following statement about Thomas Wentworth Higginson:

Although he was white, Higginson later led an all-black battalion into the war and died with his men. One hundred and thirty years later he was the subject of a major motion picture entitled Glory.

Higginson did indeed lead a company of men - two in fact. From 1861 to 1862 Higginson was a captain in the 51st Massachusetts Volunteers, and from November 1862 to October 1864 he was colonel of the First South Carolina Volunteers, which was formed of former slaves (the first such regiment of its kind, in fact). However, Higginson was not killed in the Civil War. How could a dead man have published a memoir on his experiences during the war, Army Life in a Black Regiment, in 1870? Higginson was retired from the Army in 1864 after being wounded in battle and lived a prolific life until his death - of natural causes - in 1911, at the age of 88.

Further, the film Glory which Dr. Baker claims was based on the experiences of Thomas Wentworth Higginson, was actually based on Col. Robert Gould Shaw, the white commander of the all-black 54th Massachusetts Volunteers. Unlike Higginson, Shaw was indeed killed with his men in July of 1863 while trying to take Confederate Fort Wagner.

Perhaps I am being to hard on Professor Baker, but that seems like a pretty big mistake to me.

Ghost written!

Do a quick search on the web for articles about Higginson and the movie. You'll find this bit of misinformation is everywhere.

The Columbia Online Encyclopedia says that Glory was based on Higginson's book.

There was a time when I was trying dilligently to inform each and every website I ran across of the difference between Shaw and Higginson. I have all but given up. Most websites never respond. Others somehow try to argue the point, calling Shaw a composite character (which he was to a very small extent, but still) ... A few privately maintained websites that had copied this inaccuracy from others were willing to change, but that's about it.

"Jackson Explodes In Pope's Rear"

:-)

I recall having rancorous laughter among a close circle of friends about that one.

You are indeed correct. Stackpole has a couple really, um, interesting chapter titles.

I don't think we know each other. I picked up the book in a bookstore, read that, and burst out laughing.

People started edging away from me with wary looks...

Sounds like he didn't cite that little passage you put up, so he was essentially b/s-ing or writing off the top of his head something he'd read years before.