Report on Antietam Tour #5 : Burnside's Attack



During lunch at the festival, I picked up a free copy of a booklet entitled

"A Walking Tour of Sharpsburg". Has some great content to take along on a

stroll thru town.



We met at Burnside's Bridge for the final tour of the day. Ranger Mike

Weinstein began with a discussion of the friction between Mac and Burnside.

We crossed to east side of creek and then south to Connecticut monument

(sorry! regimental number currently escapes me: 14th? 11th?).  We discussed

efforts by them and Rodman's men (to south) to ford the creek.



Questions were asked about why the Union batteries were ineffective in

driving off the Georgians.



Next we crossed over creek, ascended the heights, and headed onto the

privately-owned land (within park boundary) to the west. I've been over this

ground several times and read the accounts, yet this part of the battle is

still quite confusing. The terrain is vast, exceptionally undulating, and now

is becoming heavily overgrown. Mike provided several maps that certainly

helped.



There are many monuments in that area that are very rarely visited and hidden

behind high growth.  Mike noted much of the post-battle growth is now

including full-fledge trees that totally remove sightlines.



One thing that would assist in discussion of this area is having unique names

for the various terrain features. IIRC, the Antietam Game calls several

ridges by names of local farms, etc. It sure helps!



Mike and the group headed down into next valley (north of the 40-acre

Cornfield) and up to the park road on next ridgeline. By then the injury to

my knee (from my morning fall) was really hurting and I had to struggle back

to my car (sigh!).

rotbaron@... wrote:

>

> Report on Antietam Tour #5 : Burnside's Attack

>

<Snip>

>

> Questions were asked about why the Union batteries were ineffective in

> driving off the Georgians.



	 Whoa Tom, you can't just casually mention something like that and not

tell us what the general consensus was. I think I've asked this question

of every guide I've ever toured the field with, not to mention on

various groups, and have gotten different answers every time. So 'fess

up why weren't the Union batteries effective against the Georgians?



Regards,

Teej

>

>

In a message dated 09/19/2001 5:15:32 PM EST, teej@... writes:

<< Whoa Tom, you can't just casually mention something like that and not tell

us what the general consensus was. >>



Mike (our guide) had no explanation and looked forward to researching this

question further.

Perhaps we have other members who can provide some insight as to Union guns'

ineffectiveness in driving off the Georgians?



Tom Shay

I would guess that line of sight and an effective range would be two key issues.

Before the assault the Ninth Corps was situated in an area that had several

hills

between it and the high ground on the west side of the bridge. Unlike modern

warfare effective use of artillery in 1862 required direct line of sight in this

particular situation. Positions with direct line of sight were subject to

Confederate long range artillery fire from positions near Sharpsburg and small

arms fire. Long range solid shot would hardly be effective at scattering a line

of men that was spread out already. Before proceeding further I would need a map

(hint to TR) to make sure of my thesis. Remembering the terrain and the

timetable

of action I believe that either there were no effective positions or those

positions were not tenable without heavy loss to the gun crews.



Bill Christen

Bill & all,



This is an interesting question.



First, let me digress back to our discussion about

concealment. I have always considered woods to be

concealing. If we accept this, then I would say

immediately that no Union artillery would have

line of sight (los) with the Confederate Georgians,

since the Confederates were completely within woods,

and thereby concealed. Of course, Union artillery

would not need direct visual contact with Confederate

soldiers to know where they were located. Therefore,

let me say that the discussion following assumes that

the woods in which the Georgians were located did

not offer concealment.



To begin, we need to establish the locations of

Union batteries. I consulted Plate 9 of the

Carman-Cope maps, the relevant portion reproduced

here:



http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/talkantietam/ca000011.gif



Plate 9 depicts something like 10:30 am. There

is also Plate 10, which depicts 12:15. The

artillery positions are basically the same

between these maps, except that Taft has

moved down from the Middle Bridge, and

Simmonds has been brought up.



I have tried to locate these artillery positions

on a modern map. The placement is not exact;

I only eyeballed the approximate positions,

but I think it is close enough for this

discussion:



http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/talkantietam/base.gif



The Confederate position is marked in red,

and the Union artillery positions are in

blue. Contour lines are at 10 feet intervals.

For placement, I have attempted to combine

the artillery positions for plates 9 & 10.



Because contour lines are hard to interpret,

I have redrawn the map with elevation color

coded; as always, yellow is the lowest elevation,

then green, blue, and red being the highest:



http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/talkantietam/elev.gif



As can be seen, the Union artillery positions

dominate the Confederate position.



To get more analytical results, I considered the

los between these Unions positions and the Confederate

position:



http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/talkantietam/los.gif



In this image, each point in the Union positions

is evaluated to determine the percentage of

points in the Confederate position that have direct

los with it. The point is then color coded,

yellow being lowest (basically 0% of

the Confederate position visible), through

greens, blues, and reds, for which the

visibility is highest (100% of the Confederate

position visible).



As can be seen, a considerate amount of Union

artillery has excellent los: nearly all of

McMullen, Roemer, and Muhlenberg's, and some

of Cook's and Benjamin's have los at 100%



On the map above I drew a red line to indicate

the direction of 1 possible profile. Below,

I have drawn this profile:



http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/talkantietam/profile.gif



As can be seen, there is clear line of sight

between the Union and Confederate positions,

at least alone this profile.



Overall, I conclude that - considering only

geographic considerations - the Union artillery

positions had excellent los with the Confederate

Georgians.



Why the Lower Bridge defenders were not pounded

by Union artillery cannot be explained strictly

by the orientation of hills and terrain features.



Perhaps the woods in which the Georgians were located

did offer concealment. Or perhaps there were other factors -

such as battle smoke, which limited visibility. After

many guns had been discharged, one would think that a

considerable layer of smoke could fill the creek bed,

and create a literal 'fog of war', which could have

limited the effectiveness of Union artillery. This

is just speculation on my part.



It would be nice to do a field trip and visit the

actual Union artillery positions to see what you

can see from there. The area is private property,

so I have never been up there. On the other hand,

IIRC, the area is pretty much overgrown, so even

if you could get up there, you probably would

not be able to see the same view that was

present in 1862.



TR Livesey

westwood@...



Bill & Glenna Jo Christen wrote:

>

> I would guess that line of sight and an effective range would be two key

issues.

> Before the assault the Ninth Corps was situated in an area that had several

hills

> between it and the high ground on the west side of the bridge. Unlike modern

> warfare effective use of artillery in 1862 required direct line of sight in

this

> particular situation. Positions with direct line of sight were subject to

> Confederate long range artillery fire from positions near Sharpsburg and small

> arms fire. Long range solid shot would hardly be effective at scattering a

line

> of men that was spread out already. Before proceeding further I would need a

map

> (hint to TR) to make sure of my thesis. Remembering the terrain and the

timetable

> of action I believe that either there were no effective positions or those

> positions were not tenable without heavy loss to the gun crews.

>

> Bill Christen

>

>

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

TR Livesey wrote:



> In this image, each point in the Union positions is evaluated to determine the

> percentage of points in the Confederate position that have direct los with

it....As

> can be seen, a considerate amount of Union artillery has excellent los: nearly

all of

>

> McMullen, Roemer, and Muhlenberg's, and some of Cook's and Benjamin's have los

at

> 100%



TR



Thanks for this work. This is an excellent start to this study. It looks like

there was

more artillery than I imaged with LOS to the CS positions.



I think the next step it to figure out the location of the batteries from

sunrise until

the bridge was taken around 1 PM. One would suspect that all these batteries

were in

position by sunrise, but that might not be the case.  Another step will be to

check the

ORs and other accounts for time relationships to when any batteries were active.



> On the map above I drew a red line to indicate the direction of 1 possible

> profile...As can be seen, there is clear line of sight between the Union and

> Confederate positions, at least alone this profile.

>

> Why the Lower Bridge defenders were not pounded by Union artillery cannot be

> explained strictly by the orientation of hills and terrain features.



I agree. As this (the lower bridge action) was a "demonstration" per original

orders to

Burnside, perhaps not all batteries were ordered into action. Anticipation of

driving

the CS forces from the bridge without delay and the subsequent movement of

batteries to

positions overlooking Sharpsburg might have caused the batteries to remain

limbered.



> ...Or perhaps there were other factors...



Firing downward at CS units at the base of the bridge along the creek would be

hamper

by the ability to angle the guns in an effective manner. Also smoke and later

the

presence of US forces along the east bank of the creek would prohibit effect

fire.



> It would be nice to do a field trip and visit the actual Union artillery

positions to

> see what you can see from there.



I am planning to be at the Harpers Ferry 1860 Election Day event on 13 October

(Saturday) and would consider a small "scout" in the area early on Friday or

Sunday

mornings. I am also planning to be in the area just on the Gettysburg

Remembrance Day

weekend in November. Let me know if anyone can join me. We need the Pflum boys

to help

us with Ninth Corps artillery details.



Ninth Corps Artillery...



Eighth MA (Cook's)

"...morning east of Antietam Creek...battery fired for an hour or two on two

rebel

batteries on the hills to the right and left of the village of Sharpsburg."



The left section (two or four guns?) of was detached on went into action AFTER

crossing

the bridge.



Second US, Btty E (Benjamin's or Carlisle's)

"morning...opened fire early on a battery which was shelling ...Rodman's

division...several times during the day we engaged a battery of eight guns to

the right

[north] of Sharpsburg...also fired on batteries left [south of the town] [no

tome is

specified for these actions].



PA Light, Btty D (Durell's)

"...morning...the enemy opened a heavy artillery fire, from which their

projectiles

fell thick in our [Sturgis' Brigade] camp, and I [Sturgis] sent Captain Rawole

forward

with Captain Durell's battery, which took position on an eminence and to the

left of

Captain Weed's battery [?], already engaged. Some of the enemy's batteries were

soon

silenced...it became necessary to send Captain Clark's battery up, which soon

got into

position on the left of...Durell's. I now received orders from...Burnside to

move still

farther to the left and front, and cross the Antietam Bridge. The batteries

were...withdrawn and placed in new positions, so as to aid in clearing the wood

on the

opposite bank...One section was placed on the right of Benjamin's battery, in

the rear

of the cornfield, through which the division moved toward the bridge. Another

section

was placed on the right of the road, about 400 yards from the bridge, but did

not open.

Captain Clark's battery was ordered to a position on the right of the woods,

near the

slope occupied by the division the previous night, and one section held in

reserve."



Fourth US, Btty E (Clark's)

"...Clark, of Battery E, Fourth Artillery, who did excellent service, and

received four

wounds during the day."

also see above



Fifth US, Btty A (Mulenberg's)

OH Light, First Btty (McMullin's)

McMullin's battery was in the thick of the action at Fox's Gap on the 14th. I do

not

know what shape it was in on the 17th.



KY Light (Simmond's Btty)

Third US, Btty L & M (Edward's)



At 10 AM Colonel Christ was "...ordered to support some batteries covering our

advance

near the stone bridge."



What battery was assigned to the Ninth New York?



> The area is private property, so I have never been up there.



We could at least get a sighting back toward the US positions while arrangements

can be

made for a spring walk.



Thanks again TR



Bill

Bill,

McMullin's has a monumnet on the ridge where the Ninth Corps guns were located. 

It is

right along the Burnside Bridge road, the real road, not the NPS road.  I'd be

happy to

show you if I am available.





Bill & Glenna Jo Christen wrote:



> TR Livesey wrote:

>

> > In this image, each point in the Union positions is evaluated to determine

the

> > percentage of points in the Confederate position that have direct los with

it....As

> > can be seen, a considerate amount of Union artillery has excellent los:

nearly all of

> >

> > McMullen, Roemer, and Muhlenberg's, and some of Cook's and Benjamin's have

los at

> > 100%

>

> TR

>

> Thanks for this work. This is an excellent start to this study. It looks like

there was

> more artillery than I imaged with LOS to the CS positions.

>

> I think the next step it to figure out the location of the batteries from

sunrise until

> the bridge was taken around 1 PM. One would suspect that all these batteries

were in

> position by sunrise, but that might not be the case.  Another step will be to

check the

> ORs and other accounts for time relationships to when any batteries were

active.

>

> > On the map above I drew a red line to indicate the direction of 1 possible

> > profile...As can be seen, there is clear line of sight between the Union and

> > Confederate positions, at least alone this profile.

> >

> > Why the Lower Bridge defenders were not pounded by Union artillery cannot be

> > explained strictly by the orientation of hills and terrain features.

>

> I agree. As this (the lower bridge action) was a "demonstration" per original

orders to

> Burnside, perhaps not all batteries were ordered into action. Anticipation of

driving

> the CS forces from the bridge without delay and the subsequent movement of

batteries to

> positions overlooking Sharpsburg might have caused the batteries to remain

limbered.

>

> > ...Or perhaps there were other factors...

>

> Firing downward at CS units at the base of the bridge along the creek would be

hamper

> by the ability to angle the guns in an effective manner. Also smoke and later

the

> presence of US forces along the east bank of the creek would prohibit effect

fire.

>

> > It would be nice to do a field trip and visit the actual Union artillery

positions to

> > see what you can see from there.

>

> I am planning to be at the Harpers Ferry 1860 Election Day event on 13 October

> (Saturday) and would consider a small "scout" in the area early on Friday or

Sunday

> mornings. I am also planning to be in the area just on the Gettysburg

Remembrance Day

> weekend in November. Let me know if anyone can join me. We need the Pflum boys

to help

> us with Ninth Corps artillery details.

>

> Ninth Corps Artillery...

>

> Eighth MA (Cook's)

> "...morning east of Antietam Creek...battery fired for an hour or two on two

rebel

> batteries on the hills to the right and left of the village of Sharpsburg."

>

> The left section (two or four guns?) of was detached on went into action AFTER

crossing

> the bridge.

>

> Second US, Btty E (Benjamin's or Carlisle's)

> "morning...opened fire early on a battery which was shelling ...Rodman's

> division...several times during the day we engaged a battery of eight guns to

the right

> [north] of Sharpsburg...also fired on batteries left [south of the town] [no

tome is

> specified for these actions].

>

> PA Light, Btty D (Durell's)

> "...morning...the enemy opened a heavy artillery fire, from which their

projectiles

> fell thick in our [Sturgis' Brigade] camp, and I [Sturgis] sent Captain Rawole

forward

> with Captain Durell's battery, which took position on an eminence and to the

left of

> Captain Weed's battery [?], already engaged. Some of the enemy's batteries

were soon

> silenced...it became necessary to send Captain Clark's battery up, which soon

got into

> position on the left of...Durell's. I now received orders from...Burnside to

move still

> farther to the left and front, and cross the Antietam Bridge. The batteries

> were...withdrawn and placed in new positions, so as to aid in clearing the

wood on the

> opposite bank...One section was placed on the right of Benjamin's battery, in

the rear

> of the cornfield, through which the division moved toward the bridge. Another

section

> was placed on the right of the road, about 400 yards from the bridge, but did

not open.

> Captain Clark's battery was ordered to a position on the right of the woods,

near the

> slope occupied by the division the previous night, and one section held in

reserve."

>

> Fourth US, Btty E (Clark's)

> "...Clark, of Battery E, Fourth Artillery, who did excellent service, and

received four

> wounds during the day."

> also see above

>

> Fifth US, Btty A (Mulenberg's)

> OH Light, First Btty (McMullin's)

> McMullin's battery was in the thick of the action at Fox's Gap on the 14th. I

do not

> know what shape it was in on the 17th.

>

> KY Light (Simmond's Btty)

> Third US, Btty L & M (Edward's)

>

> At 10 AM Colonel Christ was "...ordered to support some batteries covering our

advance

> near the stone bridge."

>

> What battery was assigned to the Ninth New York?

>

> > The area is private property, so I have never been up there.

>

> We could at least get a sighting back toward the US positions while

arrangements can be

> made for a spring walk.

>

> Thanks again TR

>

> Bill

>

>

>

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

My sincere thanks to Todd for some great maps. I surely will use them (and any

others) in my ongoing study of the action during Burnside's assault. They

greatly help in my gaining an understanding of this portion of the battle. I'll

pass them along to the Rangers.



You should (seriously!) consider putting together a book featuring your

topographical anyalsis of the battle.



Tom Shay - Cressona, PA

Tom;



I would second that assessment. Todd really has performed a

valuable service and I think a book similar to the format used by

Frassanito would be a most welcome addition to an understanding

of the battle.



Your humble servant,

Gerry Mayers

Co. B, "Tom Green Rifles",

Fourth Regiment, Texas Volunteer Infantry



"I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field

on which he has nobly laid down his life."     --General Robert

Edward Lee





----- Original Message -----

From: <rotbaron@...>

To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 12:17 AM

Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Tour: Burnside's Attack





> My sincere thanks to Todd for some great maps. I surely will

use them (and any others) in my ongoing study of the action

during Burnside's assault. They greatly help in my gaining an

understanding of this portion of the battle. I'll pass them along

to the Rangers.

>

> You should (seriously!) consider putting together a book

featuring your topographical anyalsis of the battle.

>

> Tom Shay - Cressona, PA

>

>

>

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

>

>

Tom S and Jerry,



I'm glad you find this kind of analysis interesting;

I do, but there doesn't seem to be anyone else doing

it.



I have attempted from time to time to bring together

some collection of analyses of the battlefield.

I am currently collecting them under



http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/topo_study



They are currently incomplete, unproofread, and

draft; a great deal of material there now is

a description of the methods used, which might

be somewhat tedious. I hope to be filling it

out over time. I will probably add this issue

of Union artillery at the Lower Bridge LOS to

the collection; it was a pretty interesting

question.



If anyone else has some burning questions that

a look at the topography might help, feel free

to make suggestions.



TR Livesey

westwood@...



NJ Rebel wrote:

>

> Tom;

>

> I would second that assessment. Todd really has performed a

> valuable service and I think a book similar to the format used by

> Frassanito would be a most welcome addition to an understanding

> of the battle.

>

> Your humble servant,

> Gerry Mayers

> Co. B, "Tom Green Rifles",

> Fourth Regiment, Texas Volunteer Infantry

>

> "I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field

> on which he has nobly laid down his life."     --General Robert

> Edward Lee

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: <rotbaron@...>

> To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>

> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 12:17 AM

> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Tour: Burnside's Attack

>

> > My sincere thanks to Todd for some great maps. I surely will

> use them (and any others) in my ongoing study of the action

> during Burnside's assault. They greatly help in my gaining an

> understanding of this portion of the battle. I'll pass them along

> to the Rangers.

> >

> > You should (seriously!) consider putting together a book

> featuring your topographical anyalsis of the battle.

> >

> > Tom Shay - Cressona, PA

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

> Service.

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Tom,



Can you actually get up to where the guns were? By my reconing, the

guns were up hill a good 80/100 feet over the current road bed.



I am assuming the spot of the monument you are referring to is

near where the modern road (in white) exits the bottom of this

image:



http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/talkantietam/base.gif



TR Livesey

westwood@...



Tom Clemens wrote:

>

> Bill,

> McMullin's has a monumnet on the ridge where the Ninth Corps guns were

located.  It is

> right along the Burnside Bridge road, the real road, not the NPS road.  I'd be

happy to

> show you if I am available.

>

TR,

With permission, yes.  The monument is located at the crest of the hill adjacent

to the road,

and yes the guns were well uphill from there.  As usual, your maps are

excellent.





TR Livesey wrote:



> Tom,

>

> Can you actually get up to where the guns were? By my reconing, the

> guns were up hill a good 80/100 feet over the current road bed.

>

> I am assuming the spot of the monument you are referring to is

> near where the modern road (in white) exits the bottom of this

> image:

>

> http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/talkantietam/base.gif

>

> TR Livesey

> westwood@...

>

> Tom Clemens wrote:

> >

> > Bill,

> > McMullin's has a monumnet on the ridge where the Ninth Corps guns were

located.  It is

> > right along the Burnside Bridge road, the real road, not the NPS road.  I'd

be happy to

> > show you if I am available.

> >

>

>

>

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/