I should be walking the barrle field in less than 3 weeks.  I had
about 3 hours a few years ago and I'm looking forward to a full
day.  I want to grt into the Sunken Road and Burnside's Bridge w/o
rain.

James2044

I was actually amazed at how different the terrain around the Burnside
Bridge was when I saw it for the first time than from how I envisioned it
beforehand. Pictures don't show you how truly a nice defensive position that
was for the Confederates.

Brian

> I should be walking the barrle field in less than 3 weeks.  I had
> about 3 hours a few years ago and I'm looking forward to a full
> day.  I want to grt into the Sunken Road and Burnside's Bridge w/o
> rain.
>
> James2044
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Just hope those darned pesky little bugs aren't flitting around the bridge.
They pestered me so much I wrote 'em into my book.

A piece of advice -- the visitor center has a list of private tour guides
who know all the facts and all the secret little places you can go.  It's
worth the 25 bucks.  The guy who gave me mine (two spectacular days) has
since past away, but I'm sure there are others.

Richard Croker


----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Morris" <mrbean99@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] About 3 weeks ...


>
> I was actually amazed at how different the terrain around the Burnside
> Bridge was when I saw it for the first time than from how I envisioned it
> beforehand. Pictures don't show you how truly a nice defensive position
that
> was for the Confederates.
>
> Brian
>
> > I should be walking the barrle field in less than 3 weeks.  I had
> > about 3 hours a few years ago and I'm looking forward to a full
> > day.  I want to grt into the Sunken Road and Burnside's Bridge w/o
> > rain.
> >
> > James2044
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Dear Brian and James,

The other thing you want to remember is the Antietam Creek at the
Bridge does NOT look as if did in 1862! The banks originally were
NOT any wheres as steep looking as they are now. the banks of the
creek originally were a very gently sloping grade which also
meant the creek often overflowed when there was heavy rain.

I remain,
Your Humble and Obdt. Servant,
G. E. "Gerry" Mayers
Corporal,
Confederate Signal Corps,
Longstreet's Corps

"It is Well that WAR is so Terrible;
else we shall grow too fond of it."
--Robert E. Lee

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Morris" <mrbean99@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] About 3 weeks ...


>
> I was actually amazed at how different the terrain around the
Burnside
> Bridge was when I saw it for the first time than from how I
envisioned it
> beforehand. Pictures don't show you how truly a nice defensive
position that
> was for the Confederates.
>
> Brian
>
> > I should be walking the barrle field in less than 3 weeks.  I
had
> > about 3 hours a few years ago and I'm looking forward to a
full
> > day.  I want to grt into the Sunken Road and Burnside's
Bridge w/o
> > rain.
> >
> > James2044
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>       Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>             ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>   a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkAntietam/
>
>   b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>   c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of Service.
>
>

Dear Richard,

If you have a small group planning to make a visit, you can make
arrangements with the rangers there as well. Keith Snyder and
Brian Barancz are very knowledgeable types who are more than
happy to help.

I remain,
Your Humble and Obdt. Servant,
G. E. "Gerry" Mayers
Corporal,
Confederate Signal Corps,
Longstreet's Corps

"It is Well that WAR is so Terrible;
else we shall grow too fond of it."
--Robert E. Lee

----- Original Message -----
From: <richard@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 10:07 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] About 3 weeks ...


> Just hope those darned pesky little bugs aren't flitting around
the bridge.
> They pestered me so much I wrote 'em into my book.
>
> A piece of advice -- the visitor center has a list of private
tour guides
> who know all the facts and all the secret little places you can
go.  It's
> worth the 25 bucks.  The guy who gave me mine (two spectacular
days) has
> since past away, but I'm sure there are others.
>
> Richard Croker
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian Morris" <mrbean99@...>
> To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 9:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] About 3 weeks ...
>
>
> >
> > I was actually amazed at how different the terrain around the
Burnside
> > Bridge was when I saw it for the first time than from how I
envisioned it
> > beforehand. Pictures don't show you how truly a nice
defensive position
> that
> > was for the Confederates.
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > > I should be walking the barrle field in less than 3 weeks.
I had
> > > about 3 hours a few years ago and I'm looking forward to a
full
> > > day.  I want to grt into the Sunken Road and Burnside's
Bridge w/o
> > > rain.
> > >
> > > James2044
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>       Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>             ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>   a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkAntietam/
>
>   b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>   c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of Service.
>
>

I think the slope at Burnside Bridge was like now.  The floodplain is on both
sides of the cliff and on the Union side of the stream.
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: NJ Rebel
   To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 9:39 PM
   Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] About 3 weeks ...


   Dear Richard,

   If you have a small group planning to make a visit, you can make
   arrangements with the rangers there as well. Keith Snyder and
   Brian Barancz are very knowledgeable types who are more than
   happy to help.

   I remain,
   Your Humble and Obdt. Servant,
   G. E. "Gerry" Mayers
   Corporal,
   Confederate Signal Corps,
   Longstreet's Corps

   "It is Well that WAR is so Terrible;
   else we shall grow too fond of it."
   --Robert E. Lee

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: <richard@...>
   To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
   Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 10:07 PM
   Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] About 3 weeks ...


   > Just hope those darned pesky little bugs aren't flitting around
   the bridge.
   > They pestered me so much I wrote 'em into my book.
   >
   > A piece of advice -- the visitor center has a list of private
   tour guides
   > who know all the facts and all the secret little places you can
   go.  It's
   > worth the 25 bucks.  The guy who gave me mine (two spectacular
   days) has
   > since past away, but I'm sure there are others.
   >
   > Richard Croker
   >
   >
   > ----- Original Message -----
   > From: "Brian Morris" <mrbean99@...>
   > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
   > Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 9:02 PM
   > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] About 3 weeks ...
   >
   >
   > >
   > > I was actually amazed at how different the terrain around the
   Burnside
   > > Bridge was when I saw it for the first time than from how I
   envisioned it
   > > beforehand. Pictures don't show you how truly a nice
   defensive position
   > that
   > > was for the Confederates.
   > >
   > > Brian
   > >
   > > > I should be walking the barrle field in less than 3 weeks.
   I had
   > > > about 3 hours a few years ago and I'm looking forward to a
   full
   > > > day.  I want to grt into the Sunken Road and Burnside's
   Bridge w/o
   > > > rain.
   > > >
   > > > James2044
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > > Yahoo! Groups Links
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >       Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
   >             ADVERTISEMENT
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > ---------------------------------------------------------------
   -----------------
   > Yahoo! Groups Links
   >
   >   a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
   >   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkAntietam/
   >
   >   b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   >   TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   >
   >   c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
   of Service.
   >
   >







         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkAntietam/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

How much the slope on the Union side has changed is open to debate.
However, it has been reworked. There used to be a parking lot on the
east side of the creek right on the bridge's south side, and the bank
filled in somewhat to even the ground out. Improvements were also made
to deal with the flooding problem.  I have a copy of photos (probably
from the 1930s) of the creek being dredged at this point. The little dam
like obstruction about 100 yards downstream from the bridge also affects
the water level (it's designed to stabilize the water flow for the
measuring station that is there).

As I look at the period photos, I think the bank on the Union side seems
more steep today, but not necessary what I would call "NOT any wheres as
steep".

TR Livesey
tlivesey@...

robert blama wrote:

>I think the slope at Burnside Bridge was like now.  The floodplain is on both
sides of the cliff and on the Union side of the stream.
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: NJ Rebel
>  To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
>  Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 9:39 PM
>  Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] About 3 weeks ...
>
>
>  Dear Richard,
>
>  If you have a small group planning to make a visit, you can make
>  arrangements with the rangers there as well. Keith Snyder and
>  Brian Barancz are very knowledgeable types who are more than
>  happy to help.
>
>  I remain,
>  Your Humble and Obdt. Servant,
>  G. E. "Gerry" Mayers
>  Corporal,
>  Confederate Signal Corps,
>  Longstreet's Corps
>
>  "It is Well that WAR is so Terrible;
>  else we shall grow too fond of it."
>  --Robert E. Lee
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
>  From: <richard@...>
>  To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
>  Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 10:07 PM
>  Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] About 3 weeks ...
>
>
>  > Just hope those darned pesky little bugs aren't flitting around
>  the bridge.
>  > They pestered me so much I wrote 'em into my book.
>  >
>  > A piece of advice -- the visitor center has a list of private
>  tour guides
>  > who know all the facts and all the secret little places you can
>  go.  It's
>  > worth the 25 bucks.  The guy who gave me mine (two spectacular
>  days) has
>  > since past away, but I'm sure there are others.
>  >
>  > Richard Croker
>  >
>  >
>  > ----- Original Message -----
>  > From: "Brian Morris" <mrbean99@...>
>  > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
>  > Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 9:02 PM
>  > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] About 3 weeks ...
>  >
>  >
>  > >
>  > > I was actually amazed at how different the terrain around the
>  Burnside
>  > > Bridge was when I saw it for the first time than from how I
>  envisioned it
>  > > beforehand. Pictures don't show you how truly a nice
>  defensive position
>  > that
>  > > was for the Confederates.
>  > >
>  > > Brian
>  > >
>  > > > I should be walking the barrle field in less than 3 weeks.
>  I had
>  > > > about 3 hours a few years ago and I'm looking forward to a
>  full
>  > > > day.  I want to grt into the Sunken Road and Burnside's
>  Bridge w/o
>  > > > rain.
>  > > >
>  > > > James2044
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >       Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>  >             ADVERTISEMENT
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------
>  -----------------
>  > Yahoo! Groups Links
>  >
>  >   a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>  >   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkAntietam/
>  >
>  >   b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  >   TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  >
>  >   c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
>  of Service.
>  >
>  >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>              ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
>    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkAntietam/
>
>    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>    TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Richard,

Enjoyed talking to you the other night and look forward to possibly seeing
you when you come to Sharpsburg in a couple of weeks. If I can provide you
with any other observations of what you asked, don't hesitate to call or
e-mail.

Kevin Rawlings

*sigh* Is there any limit to how low spammers will go? The kicker is the lie
that makes it sound as if the owner of this list is responsable for their
garbage and suggests that members unsubscribe from the group if they don't
want spams.

A small suggestion as I moderate two other Yahoo lists where we've had
similar spam troubles. Set it so all new members are moderated upon
subscribing. That way the spammers can't join the group and instantly spam
it. Then the moderators/owner can unmoderate the legit members at their
leisure. It's worked on the two lists I moderate.

Brian

Sorry, all, about another Spam message.

I have taken Mr Morris' advice and I have set the list so all new
members must have posts moderated.  I hope that'll keep the spam out.

Thanks Brian!

Brian

--- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Morris" <mrbean99@e...> wrote:
> *sigh* Is there any limit to how low spammers will go? The kicker is
the lie
> that makes it sound as if the owner of this list is responsable for
their
> garbage and suggests that members unsubscribe from the group if they
don't
> want spams.
>
> A small suggestion as I moderate two other Yahoo lists where we've had
> similar spam troubles. Set it so all new members are moderated upon
> subscribing. That way the spammers can't join the group and
instantly spam
> it. Then the moderators/owner can unmoderate the legit members at their
> leisure. It's worked on the two lists I moderate.
>
> Brian

Hey guys!

I'm tentatively scheduled to do some signings up in Chambersburg (I believe)
and at the Antietam NBP bookstore.  July 23 and 24.  For those of you who
live up yonder, I'd love for ya to drop by.

I'll keep you posted as things get firmed up!

Richard Croker
www.rcroker.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Downey" <bdowney@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 10:04 AM
Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Important News for TalkAntietam Members


> Sorry, all, about another Spam message.
>
> I have taken Mr Morris' advice and I have set the list so all new
> members must have posts moderated.  I hope that'll keep the spam out.
>
> Thanks Brian!
>
> Brian
>
> --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Morris" <mrbean99@e...> wrote:
> > *sigh* Is there any limit to how low spammers will go? The kicker is
> the lie
> > that makes it sound as if the owner of this list is responsable for
> their
> > garbage and suggests that members unsubscribe from the group if they
> don't
> > want spams.
> >
> > A small suggestion as I moderate two other Yahoo lists where we've had
> > similar spam troubles. Set it so all new members are moderated upon
> > subscribing. That way the spammers can't join the group and
> instantly spam
> > it. Then the moderators/owner can unmoderate the legit members at their
> > leisure. It's worked on the two lists I moderate.
> >
> > Brian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Found this website recently that purports to show witness trees to certain
Civil War battles. Some I know are correct such as the Baltimore St.
Sycamores and Locust tree in the Cemetery in Gettysburg but the website also
makes claims about the White Oaks at the Copse of Trees which I know are not
old enough to be witness trees.
http://www.bivouacbooks.com/bbv2i1s4.htm

For the Antietam Battlefirld they show a picture of the Sycamore that sits
alongside the Burnside Bridge and then show a picture taken shortly after
the battle that shows a tree in that same area. OK, I'm not a big tree
expert here but I've stood next to that tree by the Burnside Bridge and it
does not strike me as a 140+ year old tree. Just because there was a tree in
that general location in 1862 doesn't make the one there in 2004 the very
same tree.

Is that tree next to the bridge a witness tree or do we have someone jumping
to conclusions here based off of two trees being in a similar area 140 years
apart?

Brian

I might be wrong on that. Looking at the pictures that I took of the bridge
and that tree from my trip last April, the tree definately looks much older
than I remember and how it looks in the photo on the website.

Brian

> Found this website recently that purports to show witness trees to certain
> Civil War battles. Some I know are correct such as the Baltimore St.
> Sycamores and Locust tree in the Cemetery in Gettysburg but the website
also
> makes claims about the White Oaks at the Copse of Trees which I know are
not
> old enough to be witness trees.
> http://www.bivouacbooks.com/bbv2i1s4.htm
>
> For the Antietam Battlefirld they show a picture of the Sycamore that sits
> alongside the Burnside Bridge and then show a picture taken shortly after
> the battle that shows a tree in that same area. OK, I'm not a big tree
> expert here but I've stood next to that tree by the Burnside Bridge and it
> does not strike me as a 140+ year old tree. Just because there was a tree
in
> that general location in 1862 doesn't make the one there in 2004 the very
> same tree.
>
> Is that tree next to the bridge a witness tree or do we have someone
jumping
> to conclusions here based off of two trees being in a similar area 140
years
> apart?
>
> Brian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Brian,

Looks like the Burnside's Bridge sycamore may very well be a witness
tree, judging by specs found at
http://www.2020site.org/trees/sycamore.html Have a look.

However, documenting such things seems impossible aside from locale.
The tree depicted in the postwar (Forbes?) engraving, compared to
current size and breadth, strongly suggests a logical growth
progession.

Suffice it to say that odds are more in favor of it being the real
thing. If it could only talk... despite recent injury.

Tim

--- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Morris"
<ironbrigade@k...> wrote:
> Found this website recently that purports to show witness trees to
certain
> Civil War battles. Some I know are correct such as the Baltimore
St.
> Sycamores and Locust tree in the Cemetery in Gettysburg but the
website also
> makes claims about the White Oaks at the Copse of Trees which I
know are not
> old enough to be witness trees.
> http://www.bivouacbooks.com/bbv2i1s4.htm
>
> For the Antietam Battlefirld they show a picture of the Sycamore
that sits
> alongside the Burnside Bridge and then show a picture taken
shortly after
> the battle that shows a tree in that same area. OK, I'm not a big
tree
> expert here but I've stood next to that tree by the Burnside
Bridge and it
> does not strike me as a 140+ year old tree. Just because there was
a tree in
> that general location in 1862 doesn't make the one there in 2004
the very
> same tree.
>
> Is that tree next to the bridge a witness tree or do we have
someone jumping
> to conclusions here based off of two trees being in a similar area
140 years
> apart?
>
> Brian

Here's a better and closer picture of the tree. This is a section cut out of
one of the pictures I took of the bridge (I take high resolution pictures
and then resize them down later) in April.
http://www.kswader.com/judi/civilwar/witnesstree.jpg

As you can see, the tree looks much older than it does in any of the other
pictures. I'm tending to think this one could very well be a witness tree
now that I'm looking at these pictures I took with the tree in them.

Brian



> Hi Brian,
>
> Looks like the Burnside's Bridge sycamore may very well be a witness
> tree, judging by specs found at
> http://www.2020site.org/trees/sycamore.html Have a look.
>
> However, documenting such things seems impossible aside from locale.
> The tree depicted in the postwar (Forbes?) engraving, compared to
> current size and breadth, strongly suggests a logical growth
> progession.
>
> Suffice it to say that odds are more in favor of it being the real
> thing. If it could only talk... despite recent injury.
>
> Tim
>
> --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Morris"
> <ironbrigade@k...> wrote:
> > Found this website recently that purports to show witness trees to
> certain
> > Civil War battles. Some I know are correct such as the Baltimore
> St.
> > Sycamores and Locust tree in the Cemetery in Gettysburg but the
> website also
> > makes claims about the White Oaks at the Copse of Trees which I
> know are not
> > old enough to be witness trees.
> > http://www.bivouacbooks.com/bbv2i1s4.htm
> >
> > For the Antietam Battlefirld they show a picture of the Sycamore
> that sits
> > alongside the Burnside Bridge and then show a picture taken
> shortly after
> > the battle that shows a tree in that same area. OK, I'm not a big
> tree
> > expert here but I've stood next to that tree by the Burnside
> Bridge and it
> > does not strike me as a 140+ year old tree. Just because there was
> a tree in
> > that general location in 1862 doesn't make the one there in 2004
> the very
> > same tree.
> >
> > Is that tree next to the bridge a witness tree or do we have
> someone jumping
> > to conclusions here based off of two trees being in a similar area
> 140 years
> > apart?
> >
> > Brian
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

I think you have a winner. Next time I'm over there (15 minutes
away) I'll take a closer look.

Tim

--- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Morris"
<ironbrigade@k...> wrote:
> Here's a better and closer picture of the tree. This is a section
cut out of
> one of the pictures I took of the bridge (I take high resolution
pictures
> and then resize them down later) in April.
> http://www.kswader.com/judi/civilwar/witnesstree.jpg
>
> As you can see, the tree looks much older than it does in any of
the other
> pictures. I'm tending to think this one could very well be a
witness tree
> now that I'm looking at these pictures I took with the tree in
them.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > Looks like the Burnside's Bridge sycamore may very well be a
witness
> > tree, judging by specs found at
> > http://www.2020site.org/trees/sycamore.html Have a look.
> >
> > However, documenting such things seems impossible aside from
locale.
> > The tree depicted in the postwar (Forbes?) engraving, compared to
> > current size and breadth, strongly suggests a logical growth
> > progession.
> >
> > Suffice it to say that odds are more in favor of it being the
real
> > thing. If it could only talk... despite recent injury.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Morris"
> > <ironbrigade@k...> wrote:
> > > Found this website recently that purports to show witness
trees to
> > certain
> > > Civil War battles. Some I know are correct such as the
Baltimore
> > St.
> > > Sycamores and Locust tree in the Cemetery in Gettysburg but the
> > website also
> > > makes claims about the White Oaks at the Copse of Trees which I
> > know are not
> > > old enough to be witness trees.
> > > http://www.bivouacbooks.com/bbv2i1s4.htm
> > >
> > > For the Antietam Battlefirld they show a picture of the
Sycamore
> > that sits
> > > alongside the Burnside Bridge and then show a picture taken
> > shortly after
> > > the battle that shows a tree in that same area. OK, I'm not a
big
> > tree
> > > expert here but I've stood next to that tree by the Burnside
> > Bridge and it
> > > does not strike me as a 140+ year old tree. Just because there
was
> > a tree in
> > > that general location in 1862 doesn't make the one there in
2004
> > the very
> > > same tree.
> > >
> > > Is that tree next to the bridge a witness tree or do we have
> > someone jumping
> > > to conclusions here based off of two trees being in a similar
area
> > 140 years
> > > apart?
> > >
> > > Brian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Tim and Brian,

It is a witness tree as it has been in (a tree witness protection program,
haha, could not resist)a historic tree program (I can't recall the proper
name right off the bat, but I was working for the Civil War Trust at the
time.)that they have made seedlings from. Some years back I was involved in
a promotional picture with Tom Clemens and Tom Lively as Union and
Confederate soldiers planting a new "cloned" tree for this historical tree
prgram that also featured treelings from other historic sites, civil war and
earlier eras. I have a flier from that program buried in my files somewhere.

Kevin Rawlings

-----Original Message-----
From: tjrhys62 [mailto:tjreesecg@...]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 3:25 PM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Interrogating a witness tree


I think you have a winner. Next time I'm over there (15 minutes
away) I'll take a closer look.

Tim

--- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Morris"
<ironbrigade@k...> wrote:
> Here's a better and closer picture of the tree. This is a section
cut out of
> one of the pictures I took of the bridge (I take high resolution
pictures
> and then resize them down later) in April.
> http://www.kswader.com/judi/civilwar/witnesstree.jpg
>
> As you can see, the tree looks much older than it does in any of
the other
> pictures. I'm tending to think this one could very well be a
witness tree
> now that I'm looking at these pictures I took with the tree in
them.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > Looks like the Burnside's Bridge sycamore may very well be a
witness
> > tree, judging by specs found at
> > http://www.2020site.org/trees/sycamore.html Have a look.
> >
> > However, documenting such things seems impossible aside from
locale.
> > The tree depicted in the postwar (Forbes?) engraving, compared to
> > current size and breadth, strongly suggests a logical growth
> > progession.
> >
> > Suffice it to say that odds are more in favor of it being the
real
> > thing. If it could only talk... despite recent injury.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Morris"
> > <ironbrigade@k...> wrote:
> > > Found this website recently that purports to show witness
trees to
> > certain
> > > Civil War battles. Some I know are correct such as the
Baltimore
> > St.
> > > Sycamores and Locust tree in the Cemetery in Gettysburg but the
> > website also
> > > makes claims about the White Oaks at the Copse of Trees which I
> > know are not
> > > old enough to be witness trees.
> > > http://www.bivouacbooks.com/bbv2i1s4.htm
> > >
> > > For the Antietam Battlefirld they show a picture of the
Sycamore
> > that sits
> > > alongside the Burnside Bridge and then show a picture taken
> > shortly after
> > > the battle that shows a tree in that same area. OK, I'm not a
big
> > tree
> > > expert here but I've stood next to that tree by the Burnside
> > Bridge and it
> > > does not strike me as a 140+ year old tree. Just because there
was
> > a tree in
> > > that general location in 1862 doesn't make the one there in
2004
> > the very
> > > same tree.
> > >
> > > Is that tree next to the bridge a witness tree or do we have
> > someone jumping
> > > to conclusions here based off of two trees being in a similar
area
> > 140 years
> > > apart?
> > >
> > > Brian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >






Yahoo! Groups Links

Thanks for the information guys. I'll be there next week somtime and
be sure to give that tree a little more attention. Outside of the
general topography of the of the battle grounds are their any other
significent natural features that remain?

That is the same tree    A tree 140 yrs old does not have to be that big
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Brian Morris
   To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 2:33 PM
   Subject: [TalkAntietam] Interrogating a witness tree


   Found this website recently that purports to show witness trees to certain
   Civil War battles. Some I know are correct such as the Baltimore St.
   Sycamores and Locust tree in the Cemetery in Gettysburg but the website also
   makes claims about the White Oaks at the Copse of Trees which I know are not
   old enough to be witness trees.
   http://www.bivouacbooks.com/bbv2i1s4.htm

   For the Antietam Battlefirld they show a picture of the Sycamore that sits
   alongside the Burnside Bridge and then show a picture taken shortly after
   the battle that shows a tree in that same area. OK, I'm not a big tree
   expert here but I've stood next to that tree by the Burnside Bridge and it
   does not strike me as a 140+ year old tree. Just because there was a tree in
   that general location in 1862 doesn't make the one there in 2004 the very
   same tree.

   Is that tree next to the bridge a witness tree or do we have someone jumping
   to conclusions here based off of two trees being in a similar area 140 years
   apart?

   Brian







         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkAntietam/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Speaking of witness trees -- I live close the the Kennesaw Mountain National
Battlefield Park where they tell you to look high in the trees and you can
see odd branching -- where it has split into four or five limbs where you
might only expect to see two.  They say that the deformity is a result of
being struck by cannon fire at a very young age.

Richard Croker
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Madison" <jamesmadison_1999@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 4:05 PM
Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Interrogating a witness tree


> Thanks for the information guys. I'll be there next week somtime and
> be sure to give that tree a little more attention. Outside of the
> general topography of the of the battle grounds are their any other
> significent natural features that remain?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Group,

I have finished my preliminary gallery of Antietam stereo views. Nearly
all the stereo images of Gardner's Sept/Oct 1862 series are included,
many of which are not found in Frassanito's Antietam book.  And, all
presented in their original stereo format. I have also provided material
on how to view on-line images in stereo, and how to obtain simple stereo
glasses.

There is no question that you have not seen these images until you have
seen them in their original stereo format.

Feel free to check it out:

Stereo gallery:
http://www.westwoodgalleries.com/antietam/jps/index.html

Main Antietam page:

http://www.westwoodgalleries.com/antietam

Regards,
     TR Livesey
     tlivesey@...

Todd,

What a great new resouce this is!

I'll get my stereo glasses soon, but even without, having the annotated Gardner
photos all in one place, with Bill Frassinito's orientation studies included, is
really exciting.

Congratulations and thanks for all that work.

Brian

------ Original Message ------
From: T.R. Livesey <tlivesey@...>
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Jul 06, 2004 02:28 AM
Subject: [TalkAntietam] New Antietam Stereo Gallery

>Group,
>
>I have finished my preliminary gallery of Antietam stereo views. Nearly
>all the stereo images of Gardner's Sept/Oct 1862 series are included,
>many of which are not found in Frassanito's Antietam book.  And, all
>presented in their original stereo format. I have also provided material
>on how to view on-line images in stereo, and how to obtain simple stereo
>glasses.
>
>There is no question that you have not seen these images until you have
>seen them in their original stereo format.
>
>Feel free to check it out:
>
>Stereo gallery:
>http://www.westwoodgalleries.com/antietam/jps/index.html
>
>Main Antietam page:
>
>http://www.westwoodgalleries.com/antietam
>
>Regards,
>    TR Livesey
>    tlivesey@...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Group,

I hope the following will be of interest.  It's the content of a
newsletter I created for the AotW site's members, but I think it may
have items of interest to this group as well ...

_________________________________
Issue 2:  8 July 2004


********************
Antietam in the News
********************

The National Battlefield Park staff have posted the Anniversary Week
events for 2004.  These are tours and other special presentations
occurring in the week or so around 17 September each year.  These,
along with all the other upcoming Park events are listed on AotW at:
http://aotw.org/exhibit.php?exhibit_id=news_index

and at the Battlefield website:
http://www.nps.gov/anti/pphtml/events.html

Of particular note is the Torchlight Tour on 18 September - a highly
recommended and very well attended Living History event.
Reservations are required, and may be obtained beginning 1 August by
calling the Park  If you can be at the Park that day, you owe it to
yourself to attend.

More about it: http://www.nps.gov/anti/pphtml/eventdetail12552.html

A related event we told you about last time is still on tap: the
reenactment of the fight at Burkittsville, MD on 14 September 1862
will be held 10-12 September 2004.
Registration for reenactors closes 1 August 2004.

See details at the event's website: http://www.burkittsville1862.com/

******************
The latest at AotW
******************

We've have had significant contributions of biographical and
photographic material from several members, as well as interested non-
members, in the last several months, which greatly enrich our site.

We also have another excellent piece from Tim Reese which is our
current Featured Article.  This is a detailed look at the US
Regular's role at Sharpsburg, and some of the what-ifs surrounding
their activity at the outskirts of town on the afternoon of 17
September 1862.
(http://aotw.org/exhibit.php?exhibit_id=371)

We've also made great strides in mapping the battle on the site.
We've completed the basic set of 13 detailed maps covering the action
on 17 September showing troop movements down to the regiment and
battery level - with links to more info about the units and their
commanders. These need more comprehensive narrative text, so please
contribute material on these if you have the inclination and
expertise.
(http://aotw.org/maps.php?map_number=main).

Our plan is to eventually create additional, supplemental maps to
cover other areas of interest, such as Federal reserve and
Confederate "horse" artillery positions, and the deployment of the
Federal VI Corps.

*****************************
Antietam Elsewhere on the Web
*****************************

We've seen some exciting progress with other sites on the Web in
recent months.  Check these out, if you haven't already done so.
Each contribute greatly to our understanding and appreciation of the
Maryland Campaign.

- Tim Reese has been busy. His recent effort to put the Battle of
Crampton's Gap on the web fills a significant hole in the online
literature, and gives that battle it's due in the larger picture that
is the Campaign.
(http://home.earthlink.net/~tjreesecg/index.html)

- Perhaps best known for his fine topographical studies of the
Antietam Battlefield at his "Photographic Tour" site
(http://www.westwoodgalleries.com/antietam/), Todd Livesey has
created another incredible resource by posting all of James Gardner's
1862 battlefield photographs available as stereo views, along with
clever software  so you can see them as originally intended - in 3-
D!  Amazing.
(http://www.westwoodgalleries.com/antietam/jps/index.html)

- As a hint of things to come, "Virtual Antietam" has appeared on the
Internet.  You probably know creator Stephen Recker from his Virtual
Gettysburg (http://www.virtualgettysburg.com/) product.  Well, he's
working on a similar virtual tour package for Antietam, due out in
Summer 2005.  Available online now is a searchable database of
battlefield monuments, which will soon include the more than 300 War
Department tablets.
(http://www.virtualantietam.com/)
_______________________________

That's it for now!

Brian

Here's a brain teaser for all you devotees. Where were McClellan's headquarters
located on Saturday, September 13, 1862, the day he acquired the "Lost Order"?
The general had moved toward Frederick, MD via the National Turnpike and was
conversing with several businessmen of that city when the order was brought to
him. I don't claim to know the locale. Maybe someone out there does.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

According to Stephen Sears in "Landscape Turned Red" oh page 113, MacCellan
replied to Lincoln about a previous communication from Frederick, MD. His
reply to Lincoln was almost immediately after receiving the "lost order"
Mary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Reese" <tjreesecg@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 5:24 PM
Subject: [TalkAntietam]


> Here's a brain teaser for all you devotees. Where were McClellan's
headquarters located on Saturday, September 13, 1862, the day he acquired
the "Lost Order"? The general had moved toward Frederick, MD via the
National Turnpike and was conversing with several businessmen of that city
when the order was brought to him. I don't claim to know the locale. Maybe
someone out there does.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Mary,

Thanks for the input. The Lincoln telegram you refer to was not sent almost
immediately after McClellan received the Lost Order. It was in fact sent twelve
hours later at midnight. See
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/P?mal:7:./temp/~ammem_D8Mf:: for digital
photo of original document. Also see AotW article at
http://aotw.org/exhibit.php?exhibit_id=358 for corrected 9/13 scenario. All too
often Sears is inexcusably sloppy with his sources, this being a salient
example.

We know GBM established HQ outside Frederick on the 13th, but where? It is my
hope that someone out there knows of an obscure reference citing a specific
locale: house, farm or whatever. This established, one can then measure the
distance between that and the order's point of discovery at the southeast edge
of town. Intriguing, don't you think?

Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: Mary Hawthorne
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 7/11/2004 5:53:19 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam]


According to Stephen Sears in "Landscape Turned Red" oh page 113, MacCellan
replied to Lincoln about a previous communication from Frederick, MD. His
reply to Lincoln was almost immediately after receiving the "lost order"
Mary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Reese" <tjreesecg@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 5:24 PM
Subject: [TalkAntietam]


> Here's a brain teaser for all you devotees. Where were McClellan's
headquarters located on Saturday, September 13, 1862, the day he acquired
the "Lost Order"? The general had moved toward Frederick, MD via the
National Turnpike and was conversing with several businessmen of that city
when the order was brought to him. I don't claim to know the locale. Maybe
someone out there does.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>








Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT






Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkAntietam/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks Tim. After I wrote that reply I thought to myself that you may have
wanted a specific location like a house or what ever. This may sound kind of
funny knowing GBM, but could the lack of a specific locale be because he was
on the move? As for Sears, I hear his one on Gettysburg is loaded with
mistakes. I am relatively new in studying positions of troops and really
need to get the perspective of other historians as well. As to the study of
where the order was found, yes that is intriguing!
Mary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Reese" <tjreesecg@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam]


> Hi Mary,
>
> Thanks for the input. The Lincoln telegram you refer to was not sent
almost immediately after McClellan received the Lost Order. It was in fact
sent twelve hours later at midnight. See
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/P?mal:7:./temp/~ammem_D8Mf:: for digital
photo of original document. Also see AotW article at
http://aotw.org/exhibit.php?exhibit_id=358 for corrected 9/13 scenario. All
too often Sears is inexcusably sloppy with his sources, this being a salient
example.
>
> We know GBM established HQ outside Frederick on the 13th, but where? It is
my hope that someone out there knows of an obscure reference citing a
specific locale: house, farm or whatever. This established, one can then
measure the distance between that and the order's point of discovery at the
southeast edge of town. Intriguing, don't you think?
>
> Tim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mary Hawthorne
> To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 7/11/2004 5:53:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam]
>
>
> According to Stephen Sears in "Landscape Turned Red" oh page 113,
MacCellan
> replied to Lincoln about a previous communication from Frederick, MD. His
> reply to Lincoln was almost immediately after receiving the "lost order"
> Mary
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Reese" <tjreesecg@...>
> To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 5:24 PM
> Subject: [TalkAntietam]
>
>
> > Here's a brain teaser for all you devotees. Where were McClellan's
> headquarters located on Saturday, September 13, 1862, the day he acquired
> the "Lost Order"? The general had moved toward Frederick, MD via the
> National Turnpike and was conversing with several businessmen of that city
> when the order was brought to him. I don't claim to know the locale. Maybe
> someone out there does.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkAntietam/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

You're more than welcome, Mary. GBM was indeed on the move that day, at least
until he reached Frederick. The overwhelming outpouring of relief and welcome
from the citizenry no doubt compelled him to opt for an HQ outside of town to
avoid being inundated. I'm trying to determine where exactly.

Throughout his literary career Sears has played fast and loose with source
citation, hence consistent errors. The Gettysburg book was no better nor worse
than those preceding. Dimitri Rotov (The Civil War Bookshelf website) accurately
characterizes him as a "mass-market storyteller." I must concur. In a November
email exchange he pleaded that he is not an academic historian. In reply I
retorted that neither am I, but we can endeavor to get our facts straight. It's
called intellectual honesty.

A common excuse for GBM's protracted length of time in studying/reacting to the
Lost Order is the purported distance between where it was found and where his HQ
were. See http://home.earthlink.net/~tjreesecg/id3.html for the former. As
circumstances become more clear GBM's locale would shed further light on the
sequence of events in consideration of time frame.

Truth is that thanks to Sears, and others of his ilk, the Md. campaign has been
grossly misunderstood in many key respects. Storytellers naturally need a
protagonist and antagonist around which to build their stories. GBM obviously
and routinely serves as the latter, a whipping boy to blame for campaign
happenstance. Complex questions deserve more than simplistic answers. In time
the whole picture will look far different than what we've been led to believe.

Now, if I could only pinpoint his HQ of the 13th...

Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: Mary Hawthorne
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 7/11/2004 6:47:11 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam]


Thanks Tim. After I wrote that reply I thought to myself that you may have
wanted a specific location like a house or what ever. This may sound kind of
funny knowing GBM, but could the lack of a specific locale be because he was
on the move? As for Sears, I hear his one on Gettysburg is loaded with
mistakes. I am relatively new in studying positions of troops and really
need to get the perspective of other historians as well. As to the study of
where the order was found, yes that is intriguing!
Mary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Reese" <tjreesecg@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam]


> Hi Mary,
>
> Thanks for the input. The Lincoln telegram you refer to was not sent
almost immediately after McClellan received the Lost Order. It was in fact
sent twelve hours later at midnight. See
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/P?mal:7:./temp/~ammem_D8Mf:: for digital
photo of original document. Also see AotW article at
http://aotw.org/exhibit.php?exhibit_id=358 for corrected 9/13 scenario. All
too often Sears is inexcusably sloppy with his sources, this being a salient
example.
>
> We know GBM established HQ outside Frederick on the 13th, but where? It is
my hope that someone out there knows of an obscure reference citing a
specific locale: house, farm or whatever. This established, one can then
measure the distance between that and the order's point of discovery at the
southeast edge of town. Intriguing, don't you think?
>
> Tim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mary Hawthorne
> To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 7/11/2004 5:53:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam]
>
>
> According to Stephen Sears in "Landscape Turned Red" oh page 113,
MacCellan
> replied to Lincoln about a previous communication from Frederick, MD. His
> reply to Lincoln was almost immediately after receiving the "lost order"
> Mary
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Reese" <tjreesecg@...>
> To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 5:24 PM
> Subject: [TalkAntietam]
>
>
> > Here's a brain teaser for all you devotees. Where were McClellan's
> headquarters located on Saturday, September 13, 1862, the day he acquired
> the "Lost Order"? The general had moved toward Frederick, MD via the
> National Turnpike and was conversing with several businessmen of that city
> when the order was brought to him. I don't claim to know the locale. Maybe
> someone out there does.
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkAntietam/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>








Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT






Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkAntietam/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello again, Mary,

It seems I was able to answer my own question. After a tumultuous arrival in
Frederick, GBM established HQ on the farm of Dr. Lewis Steiner west of town.
This is stated in Joseph Harsh's "Taken at the Flood," 237, cited to Paul E.
Steiner, "Medical-Military Portraits of Union and Confederate Generals," Phila.:
Whitmore, 1968.

Using period county maps and land records I now intend to pinpoint this
property, perhaps even track down a possible war claim filed at the National
Archives.

Tim

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Frederick County Court House might be of some assistance as well! Great
going! Now to refresh my memory, Is the location of the spot the order was
foun absolutely known?
Mary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Reese" <tjreesecg@...>
To: "TalkAntietam" <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 2004 7:55 PM
Subject: [TalkAntietam]


> Hello again, Mary,
>
> It seems I was able to answer my own question. After a tumultuous arrival
in Frederick, GBM established HQ on the farm of Dr. Lewis Steiner west of
town. This is stated in Joseph Harsh's "Taken at the Flood," 237, cited to
Paul E. Steiner, "Medical-Military Portraits of Union and Confederate
Generals," Phila.: Whitmore, 1968.
>
> Using period county maps and land records I now intend to pinpoint this
property, perhaps even track down a possible war claim filed at the National
Archives.
>
> Tim
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>