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]

>

>

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

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

>

>

Hello,



Where would you look for the best discussion of McClellan's Antietam

reports? Thanks.



Stephen Recker

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

>

>

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]

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.

>

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.

>>

>

>

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]

----- 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

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]

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]

>

>

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]

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]

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]

>

>

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]

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]

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]

>

>

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]

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]

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."

>

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]

>

>

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]

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]

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]

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]

>

>

>

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]

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]

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]

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]