Concerning this new self-published book, I actually ran across Dan in the North & South yahoo group. When I showed him what I consider to be definitive evidence that Gregg's retreat was covered by an ad-hoc brigade of 1100 cavalry (300 mounted infantry from WHT Walker's Brigade + 800 men under Wirt Adams), somewhat explaining McPherson's alleged "overestimation" of the enemy, the exchange ended like this:

"I have been to numerous seminars and discussions on the VC
and Raymond in particular, (30 years worth) with all of historians previously mention (Bearss, Winschel, Grabau, Hills, Woodrick, etc). All of them agree that the 3 KY showed up at the end of the battle, but was uninvolved. They have all read the same OR, regimental histories, and primary source material that you have and yet none of them, not one ever, has ever concluded that Walker's Brigade (save the token appearance of the 3rd KY) was even close to Raymond at the time of the battle. The same goes for Adam's Cavalry. He was just not there. That being said, you can argue that the OR and regimental histories point you in a different direction, but a peer review would eliminate the possibility of anything like that from being published because no 'expert' would interpret or has interpreted the data that way. We are all entitled to our opinions, but none of us are entitled to our own facts."

:D

Sadly, I checked the dates, and this "shut up, I explained" attitude was not taken because he had already solidified his story on paper ... this exchange occured before he released his self-published book, and he simply didn't want to hear something that contradicted the traditional literature.