Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

TalkAntietam · Let's Talk Antietam

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

  • Members: 213
  • Category: Civil War
  • Founded: Apr 25, 2001
  • Language: English
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Real people. Real stories. See how Yahoo! Groups impacts members worldwide.

Messages

Advanced
Messages Help
Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?   Topic List   < Prev Topic  |  Next Topic >
Summarize Messages Sort by Date  
#3250 From: "G E Mayers" <gerry1952@...>
Date: Wed Jan 31, 2007 1:30 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?
njrebel1999
Send Email Send Email
 
Richard,

You are absolutely correct. And if you really want to know, that
action by Mac to place Winnie Boy in command of Richardson's division
set him on the track towards his undying fame merited at Gettysburg.

Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers

To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
From: <richard@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?


>I believe Winfield Scott Hancock took over for Richardson and
>desperately wanted to push forward. He witnessed the conversation
>between Mac, Sumner, Franklin and (famously) Porter.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Scott Mingus
> To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:51 AM
> Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?
>
>
> There are a number of period biographies of Putnam available on the
> internet (published between 1818 and 1900). I scanned through a
> number
> of them, but find no direct connection between the Putnam family
> and
> the Richardsons, although, as Teej correctly stated, there are
> secondary sources that do claim a relationship, although I have yet
> to
> see one that purports the actual lineage.
>
> Richardson's death seemed to "take the starch out" of the Federal
> attack around the Piper Farm. One wonders how different Antietam
> (and
> perhaps history) would have been if he had not been struck down?
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>





#3251 From: Stephen Recker <recker@...>
Date: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:34 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?
virtualgetty...
Send Email Send Email
 
On Wednesday, January 31, 2007, at 08:30 AM, G E Mayers wrote:

> You are absolutely correct. And if you really want to know, that
> action by Mac to place Winnie Boy in command of Richardson's division
> set him on the track towards his undying fame merited at Gettysburg.
>
...where Hancock was also sent, not to fight, but to hold the line.

Stephen




#3252 From: "G E Mayers" <gerry1952@...>
Date: Wed Jan 31, 2007 2:38 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?
njrebel1999
Send Email Send Email
 
Stephen,

That may be... but Winnie Boy did want to continue the momentum
Richardson had won at such cost......

Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers

To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Recker" <recker@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?


> On Wednesday, January 31, 2007, at 08:30 AM, G E Mayers wrote:
>
>> You are absolutely correct. And if you really want to know, that
>> action by Mac to place Winnie Boy in command of Richardson's
>> division
>> set him on the track towards his undying fame merited at
>> Gettysburg.
>>
> ...where Hancock was also sent, not to fight, but to hold the line.
>
> Stephen
>
>





#3253 From: Stephen Recker <recker@...>
Date: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:59 pm
Subject: McClellan's after action reports
virtualgetty...
Send Email Send Email
 
Hello,

Where would you look for the best discussion of McClellan's Antietam
reports? Thanks.

Stephen Recker




#3255 From: "G E Mayers" <gerry1952@...>
Date: Thu Feb 1, 2007 1:21 am
Subject: Re: McClellan's after action reports
njrebel1999
Send Email Send Email
 
Stephen,

Have you checked out Dick Weeks' Civil War website? Check on Google
for Shotgun's Civil War Home.... I do not know if he has what you are
looking for, but it might help.

Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers

To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Recker" <recker@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 5:59 PM
Subject: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports


> Hello,
>
> Where would you look for the best discussion of McClellan's Antietam
> reports? Thanks.
>
> Stephen Recker
>
>





#3258 From: "Thomas Clemens" <clemenst@...>
Date: Thu Feb 1, 2007 2:10 pm
Subject: Re: McClellan's after action reports
eacarman1862
Send Email Send Email
 
Steve,
Off the top of my head, and without sources to look at, I think Rafuse discusses
both to some extent. Carman refers to both, but does not go into them in any
depth. My view is that the second one, which Carman calls his "elaborate"
report, was written after he was relieved and is much more self-justifying. He
also suggests that his plan was exactly how the battle worked out and I don't
believe that at all.


Thomas G. Clemens D.A.
Professor of History
Hagerstown Community College



>>> Stephen Recker <recker@...> 01/31/07 5:59 PM >>>

Hello,

Where would you look for the best discussion of McClellan's Antietam
reports? Thanks.

Stephen Recker





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




#3259 From: Stephen Recker <recker@...>
Date: Thu Feb 1, 2007 2:52 pm
Subject: Re: McClellan's after action reports
virtualgetty...
Send Email Send Email
 
Tom,

Thanks for the note. I got this from his August report:

My plan for the impending general engagement was to attack the enemy's
left with the corps of Hooker and Mansfield, supported by Sumner's and,
if necessary, by Franklin's, and, as soon as matters looked favorably
there, to move the corps of Burnside against the enemy's extreme right,
upon the ridge running to the south and rear of Sharpsburg, and, having
carried their position, to press along the crest toward our right, and,
whenever either of these flank movements should be successful, to
advance our center with all the forces then disposable.

Two points. First, I certainly agree that this is not how it unfolded.
Franklin was necessary, but not used. The move to the center never
happened.

Second, I seem to remember reading somewhere in Harsh about McClellan
having seen the salient at the Sunken Road, where the tower is, as
being the main point he wished to attack. I don't remember it being
footnoted, and remember thinking that it was the first place that I had
heard that.

Stephen



On Thursday, February 1, 2007, at 09:10 AM, Thomas Clemens wrote:

> Steve,
> Off the top of my head, and without sources to look at, I think Rafuse
> discusses both to some extent. Carman refers to both, but does not go
> into them in any depth. My view is that the second one, which Carman
> calls his "elaborate" report, was written after he was relieved and is
> much more self-justifying. He also suggests that his plan was exactly
> how the battle worked out and I don't believe that at all.
>




#3261 From: "G E Mayers" <gerry1952@...>
Date: Thu Feb 1, 2007 3:54 pm
Subject: Re: McClellan's after action reports
njrebel1999
Send Email Send Email
 
Dear Tom,

I would tend to go with Mac's initial report on Antietam rather than
his August 1863 report...which, as you state, is not only self serving
but also the writing of a, for lack of a better word, "cashiered"
general. Mac's orders to repair himself to Trenton and await further
orders...which were never sent....effectively "cashiered" him out of
active service.

A pretty neat trick by Stanton, IMHO.

Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers

To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Recker" <recker@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports


> Tom,
>
> Thanks for the note. I got this from his August report:
>
> My plan for the impending general engagement was to attack the
> enemy's
> left with the corps of Hooker and Mansfield, supported by Sumner's
> and,
> if necessary, by Franklin's, and, as soon as matters looked
> favorably
> there, to move the corps of Burnside against the enemy's extreme
> right,
> upon the ridge running to the south and rear of Sharpsburg, and,
> having
> carried their position, to press along the crest toward our right,
> and,
> whenever either of these flank movements should be successful, to
> advance our center with all the forces then disposable.
>
> Two points. First, I certainly agree that this is not how it
> unfolded.
> Franklin was necessary, but not used. The move to the center never
> happened.
>
> Second, I seem to remember reading somewhere in Harsh about
> McClellan
> having seen the salient at the Sunken Road, where the tower is, as
> being the main point he wished to attack. I don't remember it being
> footnoted, and remember thinking that it was the first place that I
> had
> heard that.
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 1, 2007, at 09:10 AM, Thomas Clemens wrote:
>
>> Steve,
>> Off the top of my head, and without sources to look at, I think
>> Rafuse
>> discusses both to some extent. Carman refers to both, but does not
>> go
>> into them in any depth. My view is that the second one, which
>> Carman
>> calls his "elaborate" report, was written after he was relieved and
>> is
>> much more self-justifying. He also suggests that his plan was
>> exactly
>> how the battle worked out and I don't believe that at all.
>>
>
>





#3262 From: "Thomas Clemens" <clemenst@...>
Date: Thu Feb 1, 2007 4:33 pm
Subject: Re: McClellan's after action reports
eacarman1862
Send Email Send Email
 
Yes, that is Harsh's main thrust.  He had a lot of that in TAF in its mss form,
but I talked him into putting in his trilogy for the Union side, so he took it
out. I regret that now.
It is my belief that Sumner was held in the center to cross the bridge with
Porter once Hooker's flankingattack had cleared Dunkard Church plateau. Hooker
would then move artillery there to enfilade the Cemetery hill force which
blocked Middle Bridge. Once that force feel back, Sumner and Porter were to
cross and follow up the retreating Confederate army. Of course that didn't
happen and so McClellan wrote his report to say that what did happen was what he
intended.

Thomas G. Clemens D.A.
Professor of History
Hagerstown Community College



>>> Stephen Recker <recker@...> 02/01/07 9:52 AM >>>

Tom,

Thanks for the note. I got this from his August report:

My plan for the impending general engagement was to attack the enemy's
left with the corps of Hooker and Mansfield, supported by Sumner's and,
if necessary, by Franklin's, and, as soon as matters looked favorably
there, to move the corps of Burnside against the enemy's extreme right,
upon the ridge running to the south and rear of Sharpsburg, and, having
carried their position, to press along the crest toward our right, and,
whenever either of these flank movements should be successful, to
advance our center with all the forces then disposable.

Two points. First, I certainly agree that this is not how it unfolded.
Franklin was necessary, but not used. The move to the center never
happened.

Second, I seem to remember reading somewhere in Harsh about McClellan
having seen the salient at the Sunken Road, where the tower is, as
being the main point he wished to attack. I don't remember it being
footnoted, and remember thinking that it was the first place that I had
heard that.

Stephen

On Thursday, February 1, 2007, at 09:10 AM, Thomas Clemens wrote:

> Steve,
> Off the top of my head, and without sources to look at, I think Rafuse
> discusses both to some extent. Carman refers to both, but does not go
> into them in any depth. My view is that the second one, which Carman
> calls his "elaborate" report, was written after he was relieved and is
> much more self-justifying. He also suggests that his plan was exactly
> how the battle worked out and I don't believe that at all.
>





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




#3263 From: "G E Mayers" <gerry1952@...>
Date: Thu Feb 1, 2007 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: McClellan's after action reports
njrebel1999
Send Email Send Email
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Clemens" <clemenst@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports


> Yes, that is Harsh's main thrust. He had a lot of that in TAF in
> its mss form, but I talked him into putting in his trilogy for the
> Union side, so he took it out. I regret that now. <<

Tom, any chance that perhaps what Joe Harsh already had and which you
talked out of putting in TAF could be published as a book in its own
right?

> It is my belief that Sumner was held in the center to cross the
> bridge with Porter once Hooker's flankingattack had cleared Dunkard
> Church plateau. Hooker would then move artillery there to enfilade
> the Cemetery hill force which blocked Middle Bridge. Once that
> force feel back, Sumner and Porter were to cross and follow up the
> retreating Confederate army. Of course that didn't happen and so
> McClellan wrote his report to say that what did happen was what he
> intended.
>
Boy, talk about CYA!!!!!!!!!!!

Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers

To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
God. --Anonymous





#3267 From: "Harry Smeltzer" <hjs21@...>
Date: Thu Feb 1, 2007 4:44 pm
Subject: RE: McClellan's after action reports
hjs212002
Send Email Send Email
 
Gee, Gerry, do you think this is the only time such a thing happened?  I'd
imagine this is typical for just about everything in the ORs.

Harry



-----Original Message-----
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of G E Mayers
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:39 AM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports



----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Clemens" <clemenst@hagerstown
<mailto:clemenst%40hagerstowncc.edu> cc.edu>
To: <TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports

> It is my belief that Sumner was held in the center to cross the
> bridge with Porter once Hooker's flankingattack had cleared Dunkard
> Church plateau. Hooker would then move artillery there to enfilade
> the Cemetery hill force which blocked Middle Bridge. Once that
> force feel back, Sumner and Porter were to cross and follow up the
> retreating Confederate army. Of course that didn't happen and so
> McClellan wrote his report to say that what did happen was what he
> intended.
>
Boy, talk about CYA!!!!!!!!!!!

Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers

To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
God. --Anonymous





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




#3268 From: "G E Mayers" <gerry1952@...>
Date: Thu Feb 1, 2007 5:13 pm
Subject: Re: McClellan's after action reports
njrebel1999
Send Email Send Email
 
Harry, Generally I would agree.

However, in the case of Mac, it is pretty blatant.

Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers

To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Smeltzer" <hjs21@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:44 AM
Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports


> Gee, Gerry, do you think this is the only time such a thing
> happened? I'd
> imagine this is typical for just about everything in the ORs.
>
> Harry
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of G E Mayers
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:39 AM
> To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Clemens" <clemenst@hagerstown
> <mailto:clemenst%40hagerstowncc.edu> cc.edu>
> To: <TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 11:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports
>
>> It is my belief that Sumner was held in the center to cross the
>> bridge with Porter once Hooker's flankingattack had cleared Dunkard
>> Church plateau. Hooker would then move artillery there to enfilade
>> the Cemetery hill force which blocked Middle Bridge. Once that
>> force feel back, Sumner and Porter were to cross and follow up the
>> retreating Confederate army. Of course that didn't happen and so
>> McClellan wrote his report to say that what did happen was what he
>> intended.
>>
> Boy, talk about CYA!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Yr. Obt. Svt.
> G E "Gerry" Mayers
>
> To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
> one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
> passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
> God. --Anonymous
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>





#3270 From: RoteBaron@...
Date: Thu Feb 1, 2007 7:00 pm
Subject: Re: McClellan's after action reports
RoteBaron@...
Send Email Send Email
 
I recall Harsh explaining that Mac's initial plan was to have Hooker cross the
creek and essentially have that force's left flank hug the Antietam as it
advanced south. The intent was to hit the angle (where Sunken Rd bends to west).
Attacking at this angle would avoid a frontal attack on any massed artillery at
this portion of line. It would also lead to uncovering of Middle Bridge for
Sumner and Porter.

However, the initial plan went awry when Hooker's force headed southwest at
Hoffman Farm.

Of course, I'd advise seeing TAF for the exact text.

Tom Shay

-------------- Original message --------------
From: Stephen Recker <recker@...>
Tom,

Thanks for the note. I got this from his August report:

My plan for the impending general engagement was to attack the enemy's
left with the corps of Hooker and Mansfield, supported by Sumner's and,
if necessary, by Franklin's, and, as soon as matters looked favorably
there, to move the corps of Burnside against the enemy's extreme right,
upon the ridge running to the south and rear of Sharpsburg, and, having
carried their position, to press along the crest toward our right, and,
whenever either of these flank movements should be successful, to
advance our center with all the forces then disposable.

Two points. First, I certainly agree that this is not how it unfolded.
Franklin was necessary, but not used. The move to the center never
happened.

Second, I seem to remember reading somewhere in Harsh about McClellan
having seen the salient at the Sunken Road, where the tower is, as
being the main point he wished to attack. I don't remember it being
footnoted, and remember thinking that it was the first place that I had
heard that.

Stephen

On Thursday, February 1, 2007, at 09:10 AM, Thomas Clemens wrote:

> Steve,
> Off the top of my head, and without sources to look at, I think Rafuse
> discusses both to some extent. Carman refers to both, but does not go
> into them in any depth. My view is that the second one, which Carman
> calls his "elaborate" report, was written after he was relieved and is
> much more self-justifying. He also suggests that his plan was exactly
> how the battle worked out and I don't believe that at all.
>




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




#3271 From: "Tom Shay" <RoteBaron@...>
Date: Fri Feb 2, 2007 12:05 am
Subject: Re: McClellan's after action reports
RoteBaron@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Here are some excerpts from TAF that corroborate what I had stated about Mac's
plan:

Pages 347-348:
"The opening attack would not continue westward after crossing the Antietam to
discover the end of the Confederate line approaching the river. Instead, it
would bear to its own left (east), keeping near the creek and aim for the end of
the heights at the point where Lee's line turned west in front of the Piper
farm. Thus, McClellan's object on the left was the hinge in the Confederate
line, where D.H. Hill's division bent from facing the Antietam and ran westward
to join the Hagerstown Pike."

Tom Shay




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




#3272 From: "G E Mayers" <gerry1952@...>
Date: Fri Feb 2, 2007 12:27 am
Subject: Re: McClellan's after action reports
njrebel1999
Send Email Send Email
 
Was that the actual original plan or what Mac wrote in August 1863,
when he was trying to defend himself against charges of mis management
of the AoP during the battle?

Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers

To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Shay" <RoteBaron@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports


> Here are some excerpts from TAF that corroborate what I had stated
> about Mac's plan:
>
> Pages 347-348:
> "The opening attack would not continue westward after crossing the
> Antietam to discover the end of the Confederate line approaching the
> river. Instead, it would bear to its own left (east), keeping near
> the creek and aim for the end of the heights at the point where
> Lee's line turned west in front of the Piper farm. Thus, McClellan's
> object on the left was the hinge in the Confederate line, where D.H.
> Hill's division bent from facing the Antietam and ran westward to
> join the Hagerstown Pike."
>
> Tom Shay
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>





#3273 From: "Harry Smeltzer" <hjs21@...>
Date: Fri Feb 2, 2007 12:31 am
Subject: RE: McClellan's after action reports
hjs212002
Send Email Send Email
 
I think Steve already posted the August description, Gerry.  And it does not
jive with what Tom posted.



Harry



-----Original Message-----
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of G E Mayers
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:27 PM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports



Was that the actual original plan or what Mac wrote in August 1863,
when he was trying to defend himself against charges of mis management
of the AoP during the battle?

Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers

To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Shay" <RoteBaron@comcast. <mailto:RoteBaron%40comcast.net> net>
To: <TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports

> Here are some excerpts from TAF that corroborate what I had stated
> about Mac's plan:
>
> Pages 347-348:
> "The opening attack would not continue westward after crossing the
> Antietam to discover the end of the Confederate line approaching the
> river. Instead, it would bear to its own left (east), keeping near
> the creek and aim for the end of the heights at the point where
> Lee's line turned west in front of the Piper farm. Thus, McClellan's
> object on the left was the hinge in the Confederate line, where D.H.
> Hill's division bent from facing the Antietam and ran westward to
> join the Hagerstown Pike."
>
> Tom Shay
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>





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




#3274 From: "Tom Shay" <RoteBaron@...>
Date: Fri Feb 2, 2007 1:02 am
Subject: Re: McClellan's after action reports
RoteBaron@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Gerry,
I would encourage you to read the cited TAF pages in this matter. I didn't check
the footnotes for his sources. Admittedly, Harsh's theory as to Mac's original
intentions certainly was one I hadn't recall seeing proposed by others. He also
goes on to describe how the plan went afoul when Doubleday moved westward rather
than southward.

Tom Shay


----- Original Message -----
From: Harry Smeltzer
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:31 PM
Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports


I think Steve already posted the August description, Gerry. And it does not
jive with what Tom posted.

Harry

-----Original Message-----
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of G E Mayers
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:27 PM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports

Was that the actual original plan or what Mac wrote in August 1863,
when he was trying to defend himself against charges of mis management
of the AoP during the battle?

Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers

To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Shay" <RoteBaron@comcast. <mailto:RoteBaron%40comcast.net> net>
To: <TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports

> Here are some excerpts from TAF that corroborate what I had stated
> about Mac's plan:
>
> Pages 347-348:
> "The opening attack would not continue westward after crossing the
> Antietam to discover the end of the Confederate line approaching the
> river. Instead, it would bear to its own left (east), keeping near
> the creek and aim for the end of the heights at the point where
> Lee's line turned west in front of the Piper farm. Thus, McClellan's
> object on the left was the hinge in the Confederate line, where D.H.
> Hill's division bent from facing the Antietam and ran westward to
> join the Hagerstown Pike."
>
> Tom Shay
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

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





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




#3275 From: "G E Mayers" <gerry1952@...>
Date: Fri Feb 2, 2007 1:41 am
Subject: Re: McClellan's after action reports
njrebel1999
Send Email Send Email
 
Tom;

I will. Any reason for why Doubleday went west rather than south, if
Hooker wanted him to advance on the Potomac side of the Hagerstown
Turnpike toward the Dunkard Church?

Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers

To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Shay" <RoteBaron@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports


> Gerry,
> I would encourage you to read the cited TAF pages in this matter. I
> didn't check the footnotes for his sources. Admittedly, Harsh's
> theory as to Mac's original intentions certainly was one I hadn't
> recall seeing proposed by others. He also goes on to describe how
> the plan went afoul when Doubleday moved westward rather than
> southward.
>
> Tom Shay
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Harry Smeltzer
> To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:31 PM
> Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports
>
>
> I think Steve already posted the August description, Gerry. And it
> does not
> jive with what Tom posted.
>
> Harry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of G E Mayers
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:27 PM
> To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports
>
> Was that the actual original plan or what Mac wrote in August 1863,
> when he was trying to defend himself against charges of mis
> management
> of the AoP during the battle?
>
> Yr. Obt. Svt.
> G E "Gerry" Mayers
>
> To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
> one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union,
> a
> passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the
> Almighty
> God. --Anonymous
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Shay" <RoteBaron@comcast.
> <mailto:RoteBaron%40comcast.net> net>
> To: <TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports
>
> > Here are some excerpts from TAF that corroborate what I had
> stated
> > about Mac's plan:
> >
> > Pages 347-348:
> > "The opening attack would not continue westward after crossing
> the
> > Antietam to discover the end of the Confederate line approaching
> the
> > river. Instead, it would bear to its own left (east), keeping
> near
> > the creek and aim for the end of the heights at the point where
> > Lee's line turned west in front of the Piper farm. Thus,
> McClellan's
> > object on the left was the hinge in the Confederate line, where
> D.H.
> > Hill's division bent from facing the Antietam and ran westward to
> > join the Hagerstown Pike."
> >
> > Tom Shay
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>





#3277 From: "Harry Smeltzer" <hjs21@...>
Date: Fri Feb 2, 2007 1:52 am
Subject: RE: McClellan's after action reports
hjs212002
Send Email Send Email
 
I think the rebels had something to do with it.



-----Original Message-----
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of G E Mayers
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 8:41 PM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports



Tom;

I will. Any reason for why Doubleday went west rather than south, if
Hooker wanted him to advance on the Potomac side of the Hagerstown
Turnpike toward the Dunkard Church?

Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers

To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Shay" <RoteBaron@comcast. <mailto:RoteBaron%40comcast.net> net>
To: <TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports

> Gerry,
> I would encourage you to read the cited TAF pages in this matter. I
> didn't check the footnotes for his sources. Admittedly, Harsh's
> theory as to Mac's original intentions certainly was one I hadn't
> recall seeing proposed by others. He also goes on to describe how
> the plan went afoul when Doubleday moved westward rather than
> southward.
>
> Tom Shay
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Harry Smeltzer
> To: TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:31 PM
> Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports
>
>
> I think Steve already posted the August description, Gerry. And it
> does not
> jive with what Tom posted.
>
> Harry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of G E Mayers
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:27 PM
> To: TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports
>
> Was that the actual original plan or what Mac wrote in August 1863,
> when he was trying to defend himself against charges of mis
> management
> of the AoP during the battle?
>
> Yr. Obt. Svt.
> G E "Gerry" Mayers
>
> To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
> one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union,
> a
> passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the
> Almighty
> God. --Anonymous
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Shay" <RoteBaron@comcast.
> <mailto:RoteBaron%40comcast.net> net>
> To: <TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports
>
> > Here are some excerpts from TAF that corroborate what I had
> stated
> > about Mac's plan:
> >
> > Pages 347-348:
> > "The opening attack would not continue westward after crossing
> the
> > Antietam to discover the end of the Confederate line approaching
> the
> > river. Instead, it would bear to its own left (east), keeping
> near
> > the creek and aim for the end of the heights at the point where
> > Lee's line turned west in front of the Piper farm. Thus,
> McClellan's
> > object on the left was the hinge in the Confederate line, where
> D.H.
> > Hill's division bent from facing the Antietam and ran westward to
> > join the Hagerstown Pike."
> >
> > Tom Shay
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>





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




#3276 From: "Tom Shay" <RoteBaron@...>
Date: Fri Feb 2, 2007 1:54 am
Subject: Re: McClellan's after action reports
RoteBaron@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Gerry,

Harsh explains the westward movements of I Corps on page 351. Here are two
excerpts pertaining to this topic:

"....Meade turned left into the open country, but the contours of the ground
carried him southwest, rather than south, and the lead brigade under Truman
Seymour eventually struck the Smoketown Road".

"Instead of turning left and filling the interval to the creek, Doubleday's
division continued westward."

Tom Shay

----- Original Message -----
From: G E Mayers
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports


Tom;

I will. Any reason for why Doubleday went west rather than south, if
Hooker wanted him to advance on the Potomac side of the Hagerstown
Turnpike toward the Dunkard Church?

Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers

To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Shay" <RoteBaron@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports

> Gerry,
> I would encourage you to read the cited TAF pages in this matter. I
> didn't check the footnotes for his sources. Admittedly, Harsh's
> theory as to Mac's original intentions certainly was one I hadn't
> recall seeing proposed by others. He also goes on to describe how
> the plan went afoul when Doubleday moved westward rather than
> southward.
>
> Tom Shay
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Harry Smeltzer
> To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:31 PM
> Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports
>
>
> I think Steve already posted the August description, Gerry. And it
> does not
> jive with what Tom posted.
>
> Harry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of G E Mayers
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:27 PM
> To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports
>
> Was that the actual original plan or what Mac wrote in August 1863,
> when he was trying to defend himself against charges of mis
> management
> of the AoP during the battle?
>
> Yr. Obt. Svt.
> G E "Gerry" Mayers
>
> To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
> one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union,
> a
> passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the
> Almighty
> God. --Anonymous
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Shay" <RoteBaron@comcast.
> <mailto:RoteBaron%40comcast.net> net>
> To: <TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
> yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports
>
> > Here are some excerpts from TAF that corroborate what I had
> stated
> > about Mac's plan:
> >
> > Pages 347-348:
> > "The opening attack would not continue westward after crossing
> the
> > Antietam to discover the end of the Confederate line approaching
> the
> > river. Instead, it would bear to its own left (east), keeping
> near
> > the creek and aim for the end of the heights at the point where
> > Lee's line turned west in front of the Piper farm. Thus,
> McClellan's
> > object on the left was the hinge in the Confederate line, where
> D.H.
> > Hill's division bent from facing the Antietam and ran westward to
> > join the Hagerstown Pike."
> >
> > Tom Shay
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>





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




#3279 From: Stephen Recker <recker@...>
Date: Fri Feb 2, 2007 2:04 am
Subject: Re: McClellan's after action reports
virtualgetty...
Send Email Send Email
 
I think this is amazing. It sure isn't talked about much.

Stephen

On Thursday, February 1, 2007, at 08:54 PM, Tom Shay wrote:

> Harsh explains the westward movements of I Corps on page 351. Here are
> two excerpts pertaining to this topic:
>
> "....Meade turned left into the open country, but the contours of the
> ground carried him southwest, rather than south, and the lead brigade
> under Truman Seymour eventually struck the Smoketown Road".
>
> "Instead of turning left and filling the interval to the creek,
> Doubleday's division continued westward."
>




#3278 From: "G E Mayers" <gerry1952@...>
Date: Fri Feb 2, 2007 2:02 am
Subject: Re: McClellan's after action reports
njrebel1999
Send Email Send Email
 
Ok,. I was wondering if Harsh gave any reasons for why Doubleday
continued west rather than south?

Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers

To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Shay" <RoteBaron@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports


> Gerry,
>
> Harsh explains the westward movements of I Corps on page 351. Here
> are two excerpts pertaining to this topic:
>
> "....Meade turned left into the open country, but the contours of
> the ground carried him southwest, rather than south, and the lead
> brigade under Truman Seymour eventually struck the Smoketown Road".
>
> "Instead of turning left and filling the interval to the creek,
> Doubleday's division continued westward."
>
> Tom Shay
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: G E Mayers
> To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 8:41 PM
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports
>
>
> Tom;
>
> I will. Any reason for why Doubleday went west rather than south,
> if
> Hooker wanted him to advance on the Potomac side of the Hagerstown
> Turnpike toward the Dunkard Church?
>
> Yr. Obt. Svt.
> G E "Gerry" Mayers
>
> To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
> one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union,
> a
> passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the
> Almighty
> God. --Anonymous
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Shay" <RoteBaron@...>
> To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 8:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports
>
> > Gerry,
> > I would encourage you to read the cited TAF pages in this matter.
> I
> > didn't check the footnotes for his sources. Admittedly, Harsh's
> > theory as to Mac's original intentions certainly was one I hadn't
> > recall seeing proposed by others. He also goes on to describe how
> > the plan went afoul when Doubleday moved westward rather than
> > southward.
> >
> > Tom Shay
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Harry Smeltzer
> > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:31 PM
> > Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports
> >
> >
> > I think Steve already posted the August description, Gerry. And
> it
> > does not
> > jive with what Tom posted.
> >
> > Harry
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] On
> > Behalf Of G E Mayers
> > Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:27 PM
> > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports
> >
> > Was that the actual original plan or what Mac wrote in August
> 1863,
> > when he was trying to defend himself against charges of mis
> > management
> > of the AoP during the battle?
> >
> > Yr. Obt. Svt.
> > G E "Gerry" Mayers
> >
> > To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even
> on
> > one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the
> Union,
> > a
> > passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the
> > Almighty
> > God. --Anonymous
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tom Shay" <RoteBaron@comcast.
> > <mailto:RoteBaron%40comcast.net> net>
> > To: <TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
> > yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 7:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] McClellan's after action reports
> >
> > > Here are some excerpts from TAF that corroborate what I had
> > stated
> > > about Mac's plan:
> > >
> > > Pages 347-348:
> > > "The opening attack would not continue westward after crossing
> > the
> > > Antietam to discover the end of the Confederate line
> approaching
> > the
> > > river. Instead, it would bear to its own left (east), keeping
> > near
> > > the creek and aim for the end of the heights at the point where
> > > Lee's line turned west in front of the Piper farm. Thus,
> > McClellan's
> > > object on the left was the hinge in the Confederate line, where
> > D.H.
> > > Hill's division bent from facing the Antietam and ran westward
> to
> > > join the Hagerstown Pike."
> > >
> > > Tom Shay
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>





#3254 From: <richard@...>
Date: Thu Feb 1, 2007 12:43 am
Subject: Re: Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?
richcro1862
Send Email Send Email
 
There was a fondness there.  It was Mac who dubbed Winnie Boy "The Supurb"
before he had ever seen his first fight.
----- Original Message -----
From: G E Mayers
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?


Richard,

You are absolutely correct. And if you really want to know, that
action by Mac to place Winnie Boy in command of Richardson's division
set him on the track towards his undying fame merited at Gettysburg.

Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers

To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
From: <richard@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?

>I believe Winfield Scott Hancock took over for Richardson and
>desperately wanted to push forward. He witnessed the conversation
>between Mac, Sumner, Franklin and (famously) Porter.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Scott Mingus
> To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:51 AM
> Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?
>
>
> There are a number of period biographies of Putnam available on the
> internet (published between 1818 and 1900). I scanned through a
> number
> of them, but find no direct connection between the Putnam family
> and
> the Richardsons, although, as Teej correctly stated, there are
> secondary sources that do claim a relationship, although I have yet
> to
> see one that purports the actual lineage.
>
> Richardson's death seemed to "take the starch out" of the Federal
> attack around the Piper Farm. One wonders how different Antietam
> (and
> perhaps history) would have been if he had not been struck down?
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>





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




#3257 From: "Harry Smeltzer" <hjs21@...>
Date: Thu Feb 1, 2007 3:12 am
Subject: RE: Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?
hjs212002
Send Email Send Email
 
I may be wrong, but I think it was after Williamsburg, a fight in which
Hancock participated.



-----Original Message-----
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of richard@...
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 7:44 PM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?



There was a fondness there. It was Mac who dubbed Winnie Boy "The Supurb"
before he had ever seen his first fight.
----- Original Message -----
From: G E Mayers
To: TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?

Richard,

You are absolutely correct. And if you really want to know, that
action by Mac to place Winnie Boy in command of Richardson's division
set him on the track towards his undying fame merited at Gettysburg.

Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers

To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
From: <richard@rcroker. <mailto:richard%40rcroker.com> com>
To: <TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?

>I believe Winfield Scott Hancock took over for Richardson and
>desperately wanted to push forward. He witnessed the conversation
>between Mac, Sumner, Franklin and (famously) Porter.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Scott Mingus
> To: TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:51 AM
> Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?
>
>
> There are a number of period biographies of Putnam available on the
> internet (published between 1818 and 1900). I scanned through a
> number
> of them, but find no direct connection between the Putnam family
> and
> the Richardsons, although, as Teej correctly stated, there are
> secondary sources that do claim a relationship, although I have yet
> to
> see one that purports the actual lineage.
>
> Richardson's death seemed to "take the starch out" of the Federal
> attack around the Piper Farm. One wonders how different Antietam
> (and
> perhaps history) would have been if he had not been struck down?
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

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





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




#3256 From: "Thomas Clemens" <clemenst@...>
Date: Thu Feb 1, 2007 3:25 am
Subject: Re: Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?
eacarman1862
Send Email Send Email
 
Whoa Gerry and Richard, a few questions please.
First off, the nickname of Hancock as "Winnie Boy" is only found in
Maxwell's Gettysburg movie, not even in Shaara's novel. Are you being
sarcastic, or do you truly believe that nickname was used for him?
Also, while he was a brigade commander in the Sixth Corps he may have
witnessed the argument between Sumner and Franklin, and may have been
there when McCllelan rode over to the East Woods to settle it, but I
find no record of him being anywheere near Porter and McClellan during
their conversation about sending in the Fifth Corps. How do you know
this happened?
And McCllean did not call Hancock "superb" until after the fight at
Williamsburg, where Hancock demonstrated that trait.
BTW, the anecdote in Tucker's book about Hancock and a regimental
commander on the evening of Sept. 16 is bogus. Hancock spent the night
ofthe 16th at Crampton's Gap, a loooong way from any cannon fire.
Tom Clemens

Thomas G. Clemens D.A.
Professor of History
Hagerstown Community College


>>> <richard@...> 01/31/07 7:43 PM >>>
There was a fondness there. It was Mac who dubbed Winnie Boy "The
Supurb" before he had ever seen his first fight.
----- Original Message -----
From: G E Mayers
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?


Richard,

You are absolutely correct. And if you really want to know, that
action by Mac to place Winnie Boy in command of Richardson's division
set him on the track towards his undying fame merited at Gettysburg.

Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers

To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
From: <richard@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?

>I believe Winfield Scott Hancock took over for Richardson and
>desperately wanted to push forward. He witnessed the conversation
>between Mac, Sumner, Franklin and (famously) Porter.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Scott Mingus
> To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:51 AM
> Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?
>
>
> There are a number of period biographies of Putnam available on the
> internet (published between 1818 and 1900). I scanned through a
> number
> of them, but find no direct connection between the Putnam family
> and
> the Richardsons, although, as Teej correctly stated, there are
> secondary sources that do claim a relationship, although I have yet
> to
> see one that purports the actual lineage.
>
> Richardson's death seemed to "take the starch out" of the Federal
> attack around the Piper Farm. One wonders how different Antietam
> (and
> perhaps history) would have been if he had not been struck down?
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>





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





#3260 From: "G E Mayers" <gerry1952@...>
Date: Thu Feb 1, 2007 3:49 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?
njrebel1999
Send Email Send Email
 
Dear Tom,

I was using the nickname from The Movie as a shortcut instead of
typing out the entire name.....but like you, do not know if he was
actually referred to as that.

The moniker "Superb" was indeed given to Hancock after the Battle of
Williamsburg by Little Mac........

As to the September 16th bogus story, it is news to me. As to the
other, I only know that he was in that meeting with Franklin, Sumner
and Mac about continuing the momentum Richardson had gained until his
unfortunate wounding.

Hope this all helps!

Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers

To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Clemens" <clemenst@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?


> Whoa Gerry and Richard, a few questions please.
> First off, the nickname of Hancock as "Winnie Boy" is only found in
> Maxwell's Gettysburg movie, not even in Shaara's novel. Are you
> being
> sarcastic, or do you truly believe that nickname was used for him?
> Also, while he was a brigade commander in the Sixth Corps he may
> have
> witnessed the argument between Sumner and Franklin, and may have
> been
> there when McCllelan rode over to the East Woods to settle it, but I
> find no record of him being anywheere near Porter and McClellan
> during
> their conversation about sending in the Fifth Corps. How do you
> know
> this happened?
> And McCllean did not call Hancock "superb" until after the fight at
> Williamsburg, where Hancock demonstrated that trait.
> BTW, the anecdote in Tucker's book about Hancock and a regimental
> commander on the evening of Sept. 16 is bogus. Hancock spent the
> night
> ofthe 16th at Crampton's Gap, a loooong way from any cannon fire.
> Tom Clemens
>
> Thomas G. Clemens D.A.
> Professor of History
> Hagerstown Community College
>
>
>>>> <richard@...> 01/31/07 7:43 PM >>>
> There was a fondness there. It was Mac who dubbed Winnie Boy "The
> Supurb" before he had ever seen his first fight.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: G E Mayers
> To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel
> Putnam?
>
>
> Richard,
>
> You are absolutely correct. And if you really want to know, that
> action by Mac to place Winnie Boy in command of Richardson's
> division
> set him on the track towards his undying fame merited at
> Gettysburg.
>
> Yr. Obt. Svt.
> G E "Gerry" Mayers
>
> To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
> one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union,
> a
> passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the
> Almighty
> God. --Anonymous
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <richard@...>
> To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel
> Putnam?
>
> >I believe Winfield Scott Hancock took over for Richardson and
> >desperately wanted to push forward. He witnessed the conversation
> >between Mac, Sumner, Franklin and (famously) Porter.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Scott Mingus
> > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:51 AM
> > Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?
> >
> >
> > There are a number of period biographies of Putnam available on
> the
> > internet (published between 1818 and 1900). I scanned through a
> > number
> > of them, but find no direct connection between the Putnam family
> > and
> > the Richardsons, although, as Teej correctly stated, there are
> > secondary sources that do claim a relationship, although I have
> yet
> > to
> > see one that purports the actual lineage.
> >
> > Richardson's death seemed to "take the starch out" of the Federal
> > attack around the Piper Farm. One wonders how different Antietam
> > (and
> > perhaps history) would have been if he had not been struck down?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>





#3264 From: "Harry Smeltzer" <hjs21@...>
Date: Thu Feb 1, 2007 3:55 pm
Subject: RE: Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?
hjs212002
Send Email Send Email
 
I think Richard may have combined two or more meetings into one.



-----Original Message-----
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of G E Mayers
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 10:50 AM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?



Dear Tom,

I was using the nickname from The Movie as a shortcut instead of
typing out the entire name.....but like you, do not know if he was
actually referred to as that.

The moniker "Superb" was indeed given to Hancock after the Battle of
Williamsburg by Little Mac........

As to the September 16th bogus story, it is news to me. As to the
other, I only know that he was in that meeting with Franklin, Sumner
and Mac about continuing the momentum Richardson had gained until his
unfortunate wounding.

Hope this all helps!

Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers

To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Clemens" <clemenst@hagerstown
<mailto:clemenst%40hagerstowncc.edu> cc.edu>
To: <TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?

> Whoa Gerry and Richard, a few questions please.
> First off, the nickname of Hancock as "Winnie Boy" is only found in
> Maxwell's Gettysburg movie, not even in Shaara's novel. Are you
> being
> sarcastic, or do you truly believe that nickname was used for him?
> Also, while he was a brigade commander in the Sixth Corps he may
> have
> witnessed the argument between Sumner and Franklin, and may have
> been
> there when McCllelan rode over to the East Woods to settle it, but I
> find no record of him being anywheere near Porter and McClellan
> during
> their conversation about sending in the Fifth Corps. How do you
> know
> this happened?
> And McCllean did not call Hancock "superb" until after the fight at
> Williamsburg, where Hancock demonstrated that trait.
> BTW, the anecdote in Tucker's book about Hancock and a regimental
> commander on the evening of Sept. 16 is bogus. Hancock spent the
> night
> ofthe 16th at Crampton's Gap, a loooong way from any cannon fire.
> Tom Clemens
>
> Thomas G. Clemens D.A.
> Professor of History
> Hagerstown Community College
>
>
>>>> <richard@rcroker. <mailto:richard%40rcroker.com> com> 01/31/07 7:43 PM
>>>
> There was a fondness there. It was Mac who dubbed Winnie Boy "The
> Supurb" before he had ever seen his first fight.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: G E Mayers
> To: TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:30 AM
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel
> Putnam?
>
>
> Richard,
>
> You are absolutely correct. And if you really want to know, that
> action by Mac to place Winnie Boy in command of Richardson's
> division
> set him on the track towards his undying fame merited at
> Gettysburg.
>
> Yr. Obt. Svt.
> G E "Gerry" Mayers
>
> To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
> one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union,
> a
> passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the
> Almighty
> God. --Anonymous
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <richard@rcroker. <mailto:richard%40rcroker.com> com>
> To: <TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel
> Putnam?
>
> >I believe Winfield Scott Hancock took over for Richardson and
> >desperately wanted to push forward. He witnessed the conversation
> >between Mac, Sumner, Franklin and (famously) Porter.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Scott Mingus
> > To: TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:51 AM
> > Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?
> >
> >
> > There are a number of period biographies of Putnam available on
> the
> > internet (published between 1818 and 1900). I scanned through a
> > number
> > of them, but find no direct connection between the Putnam family
> > and
> > the Richardsons, although, as Teej correctly stated, there are
> > secondary sources that do claim a relationship, although I have
> yet
> > to
> > see one that purports the actual lineage.
> >
> > Richardson's death seemed to "take the starch out" of the Federal
> > attack around the Piper Farm. One wonders how different Antietam
> > (and
> > perhaps history) would have been if he had not been struck down?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>





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




#3265 From: <richard@...>
Date: Thu Feb 1, 2007 5:05 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?
richcro1862
Send Email Send Email
 
You are absolutely right.

Richard
----- Original Message -----
From: Harry Smeltzer
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:12 PM
Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?


I may be wrong, but I think it was after Williamsburg, a fight in which
Hancock participated.

-----Original Message-----
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of richard@...
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 7:44 PM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?

There was a fondness there. It was Mac who dubbed Winnie Boy "The Supurb"
before he had ever seen his first fight.
----- Original Message -----
From: G E Mayers
To: TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?

Richard,

You are absolutely correct. And if you really want to know, that
action by Mac to place Winnie Boy in command of Richardson's division
set him on the track towards his undying fame merited at Gettysburg.

Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers

To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
From: <richard@rcroker. <mailto:richard%40rcroker.com> com>
To: <TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?

>I believe Winfield Scott Hancock took over for Richardson and
>desperately wanted to push forward. He witnessed the conversation
>between Mac, Sumner, Franklin and (famously) Porter.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Scott Mingus
> To: TalkAntietam@ <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:51 AM
> Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?
>
>
> There are a number of period biographies of Putnam available on the
> internet (published between 1818 and 1900). I scanned through a
> number
> of them, but find no direct connection between the Putnam family
> and
> the Richardsons, although, as Teej correctly stated, there are
> secondary sources that do claim a relationship, although I have yet
> to
> see one that purports the actual lineage.
>
> Richardson's death seemed to "take the starch out" of the Federal
> attack around the Piper Farm. One wonders how different Antietam
> (and
> perhaps history) would have been if he had not been struck down?
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

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

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





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




#3266 From: <richard@...>
Date: Thu Feb 1, 2007 5:06 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?
richcro1862
Send Email Send Email
 
Didn't intend any such implication.  Winnie Boy is pure fiction as far as I
know.
----- Original Message -----
From: Thomas Clemens
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?


Whoa Gerry and Richard, a few questions please.
First off, the nickname of Hancock as "Winnie Boy" is only found in
Maxwell's Gettysburg movie, not even in Shaara's novel. Are you being
sarcastic, or do you truly believe that nickname was used for him?
Also, while he was a brigade commander in the Sixth Corps he may have
witnessed the argument between Sumner and Franklin, and may have been
there when McCllelan rode over to the East Woods to settle it, but I
find no record of him being anywheere near Porter and McClellan during
their conversation about sending in the Fifth Corps. How do you know
this happened?
And McCllean did not call Hancock "superb" until after the fight at
Williamsburg, where Hancock demonstrated that trait.
BTW, the anecdote in Tucker's book about Hancock and a regimental
commander on the evening of Sept. 16 is bogus. Hancock spent the night
ofthe 16th at Crampton's Gap, a loooong way from any cannon fire.
Tom Clemens

Thomas G. Clemens D.A.
Professor of History
Hagerstown Community College

>>> <richard@...> 01/31/07 7:43 PM >>>
There was a fondness there. It was Mac who dubbed Winnie Boy "The
Supurb" before he had ever seen his first fight.
----- Original Message -----
From: G E Mayers
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?

Richard,

You are absolutely correct. And if you really want to know, that
action by Mac to place Winnie Boy in command of Richardson's division
set him on the track towards his undying fame merited at Gettysburg.

Yr. Obt. Svt.
G E "Gerry" Mayers

To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even on
one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the Union, a
passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from the Almighty
God. --Anonymous
----- Original Message -----
From: <richard@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?

>I believe Winfield Scott Hancock took over for Richardson and
>desperately wanted to push forward. He witnessed the conversation
>between Mac, Sumner, Franklin and (famously) Porter.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Scott Mingus
> To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 9:51 AM
> Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?
>
>
> There are a number of period biographies of Putnam available on the
> internet (published between 1818 and 1900). I scanned through a
> number
> of them, but find no direct connection between the Putnam family
> and
> the Richardsons, although, as Teej correctly stated, there are
> secondary sources that do claim a relationship, although I have yet
> to
> see one that purports the actual lineage.
>
> Richardson's death seemed to "take the starch out" of the Federal
> attack around the Piper Farm. One wonders how different Antietam
> (and
> perhaps history) would have been if he had not been struck down?
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

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





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




#3269 From: "Thomas Clemens" <clemenst@...>
Date: Thu Feb 1, 2007 5:45 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Richardson was son of Israel Putnam?
eacarman1862
Send Email Send Email
 
That's fine.  I just thought it was a jarring bit of fiction for the movie. 
Can't help thinking Hancock would have thrashed anybody who called him Winnie
Boy.

>>> <richard@...> 02/01/07 12:06 PM >>>

Didn't intend any such implication. Winnie Boy is pure fiction as far as I know.
Visit Your Group
Give Back
Yahoo! for Good
Get inspired
by a good cause.
Y! Toolbar
Get it Free!
easy 1-click access
to your groups.
Yahoo! Groups
Start a group
in 3 easy steps.
Connect with others..



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




 
 First  |  |  Next > Last 
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines NEW - Help