Taken at the Flood is a book. Priest's books are good but have flaws in them....

   -----Original Message-----
   From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of certainreasons
   Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41 AM
   To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up



   Hello All, Thanks for the helpful replies! Some scatter shot responses - I
have some familiarity with the Maryland Campaign, having read several accounts
of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak book on South Mountain. What do you
folks think of his defense of McClellan? Is it controversial among buffs? The
standard accounts always put the blame for not destroying Lee's Army on McC.The
Priest book focusing on soldiers memoirs at Antietam is a favorite. Just
received the Rafuse battlefield guide, have not looked at it yet. Not familiar
with "Taken At the Flood" - is it a book? Has anyone used the Civil War Trails
map to visit the historical markers? I was considering the AT for exploring
South Mt., 45 min each way is no problem, a few hours to reach Crampton's Gap
perhaps...is the South Mt. Inn in the same structure or the same site as the
oft-mentioned Mountain House? If I hire a guide, how far in advance do I need to
arrange it? What are the going rates? Am planning to visit next Thursday &
Friday and as a general approach plan to stay close to a chronological order if
feasible. Again, thanks for the help, Chris






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

McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and demoralized force, in three days had
it ready to take the field.  From Sept. 6 to Sept. 19 he marched that army 70
miles, fought two battles where he drove Lee's army from the field, forcing him
to retreat night from one of them.  Why would he need defending?????  Name me
another commander who did that.
Tom Clemens

________________________________
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]On
Behalf Of certainreasons
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41 AM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

Hello All, Thanks for the helpful replies! Some scatter shot responses - I have
some familiarity with the Maryland Campaign, having read several accounts of
varying detail, most recently the Hoptak book on South Mountain. What do you
folks think of his defense of McClellan? Is it controversial among buffs? The
standard accounts always put the blame for not destroying Lee's Army on McC.The
Priest book focusing on soldiers memoirs at Antietam is a favorite. Just
received the Rafuse battlefield guide, have not looked at it yet. Not familiar
with "Taken At the Flood" - is it a book? Has anyone used the Civil War Trails
map to visit the historical markers? I was considering the AT for exploring
South Mt., 45 min each way is no problem, a few hours to reach Crampton's Gap
perhaps...is the South Mt. Inn in the same structure or the same site as the
oft-mentioned Mountain House? If I hire a guide, how far in advance do I need to
arrange it? What are the going rates? Am plan ning to visit next Thursday &
Friday and as a general approach plan to stay close to a chronological order if
feasible. Again, thanks for the help, Chris

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




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

Just for the sake of an interesting discussion:

     True, McCellan did revitalize the army, however, the 2nd  and the 6th
Corps had not been beaten at 2nd Bull Run. In fact Mac's slowness in  sending
them to Pope (in defiance of orders) could have been taken as
insubordination or even traitorous.
So, it was not the entire army that was beaten down.
      He was given the opportunity of a lifetime when  Lee's orders were
discovered. Yet he moved at his own pace and allowed Harpers  Ferry to be
taken, and for Lee to concentrate at Sharpsburg.  70 miles in  13 days comes out
to about 5-1/2 miles a day. They could not have been mistaken  for Jackson's
"Foot Cavalry" at that rate.

    Once he got to Sharpsburg, he wasted an entire day, sitting  there, and
then telegraphed his punch by having the 1st and 12 corps move into
position the night before the battle. Lee and Stonewall knew exactly where to
concentrate their brigades.

    He allowed Burnside to have a childish tantrum, which made for  a very
awkward chain of command, and a delay in getting orders acted upon.

     He never left the Pry House yard to see what was  actually going on
during the battle, and had the entire 5th corps and most of  the 6th sit there,
and do nothing when the fight hung in the balance.

      And to be frank, he really didn't "drive" Lee off  the battlefield.
The Confederates sat there the next day, almost daring Mac to  attack again.
They then left that night, when they were good and ready to  leave.

   From my humble perspective and that of many contemporaries,  historians
and authors I'd say these are issues that invite the need for a  defense.

Mike Lavis





In a message dated 6/1/2012 1:27:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tgclemens@... writes:

McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and demoralized force, in  three days
had it ready to take the field.  From Sept. 6 to Sept. 19 he  marched that
army 70 miles, fought two battles where he drove Lee's army from  the field,
forcing him to retreat night from one of them.  Why would he  need
defending?????  Name me another commander who did that.
Tom  Clemens

________________________________
From:  TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
On  Behalf Of certainreasons
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41 AM
To:  TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject:  [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

Hello All, Thanks for the helpful  replies! Some scatter shot responses - I
have some familiarity with the  Maryland Campaign, having read several
accounts of varying detail, most  recently the Hoptak book on South Mountain.
What do you folks think of his  defense of McClellan? Is it controversial
among buffs? The standard accounts  always put the blame for not destroying
Lee's Army on McC.The Priest book  focusing on soldiers memoirs at Antietam is a
favorite. Just received the  Rafuse battlefield guide, have not looked at
it yet. Not familiar with "Taken  At the Flood" - is it a book? Has anyone
used the Civil War Trails map to  visit the historical markers? I was
considering the AT for exploring South  Mt., 45 min each way is no problem, a
few
hours to reach Crampton's Gap  perhaps...is the South Mt. Inn in the same
structure or the same site as the  oft-mentioned Mountain House? If I hire a
guide, how far in advance do I need  to arrange it? What are the going rates?
Am plan ning to v
isit next  Thursday & Friday and as a general approach plan to stay close
to a  chronological order if feasible. Again, thanks for the help,  Chris

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




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



------------------------------------


Yahoo!  Groups Links






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

________________________________
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of
MikeL49NYVI@... [MikeL49NYVI@...]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:23 AM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up



See my comments below, I don't mind an interesting discussion, but it would be
nice to do some research first.



Just for the sake of an interesting discussion:

True, McCellan did revitalize the army, however, the 2nd and the 6th
Corps had not been beaten at 2nd Bull Run. In fact Mac's slowness in sending
them to Pope (in defiance of orders) could have been taken as
insubordination or even traitorous.



Or extreme sanity in the face of panic.  Sending the 6th Corps into  without
artillery or trains into an unknown situation was ludicrous and he said so.

So, it was not the entire army that was beaten down.



No, but those not beaten were demoralized at being withdrawn from 20 miles of
Richmond in defiance of any logical strategy.

He was given the opportunity of a lifetime when Lee's orders were
discovered. Yet he moved at his own pace and allowed Harpers Ferry to be
taken, and for Lee to concentrate at Sharpsburg. 70 miles in 13 days comes out
to about 5-1/2 miles a day. They could not have been mistaken for Jackson's
"Foot Cavalry" at that rate.



Too little space to furnish all arguments, but when 191 was found his army was
already in motion, no CS infantry closer than 12 miles at best, no evidence of
the size of Lee's army, CS cavalry blocking Hagan's Gap until 2 p.m., and by the
time 191 was verified as accurate, it was dark.  He moved quickly the next day
and drove Lee's forces from two gaps in the afternoon, one after dark, and
making Lee's army  retreat after dark.

Once he got to Sharpsburg, he wasted an entire day, sitting there, and
then telegraphed his punch by having the 1st and 12 corps move into
position the night before the battle. Lee and Stonewall knew exactly where to
concentrate their brigades.



He didn't sit the whole day, and the facts are indisputable.  He reconnoitered,
placed artillery, formulated a plan  and ordered Hooker across the creek by
1:00, even though he could not see across the creek until 9:00.


He allowed Burnside to have a childish tantrum, which made for a very
awkward chain of command, and a delay in getting orders acted upon.



See OR 19, pt. 2, for his orders to Burnside.  Firm, direct and to the point. 
And no, Burnside had no tantrum, but was reluctant.

He never left the Pry House yard to see what was actually going on
during the battle, and had the entire 5th corps and most of the 6th sit there,
and do nothing when the fight hung in the balance.



Again this is easliy and demonstrably disproven.  For instance, he rode across
the creek in early afternoon to East Woods, not returning until after 4.  Have
you really read anything on the battle?  Sykes' division crossed Middle bridge
and was engaged, suffered 109 casualties, while two of Morrell's brigades were
sent to, and then recalled from, East Woods.  Sixth Corps was sent to same
place, lost 439 casualties, and was under bombardment on the 17th and 18th.

And to be frank, he really didn't "drive" Lee off the battlefield.
The Confederates sat there the next day, almost daring Mac to attack again.
They then left that night, when they were good and ready to leave.



Any casual study of the ANV will show they were shattered, and if they didn't
leave until were good and ready to leave it begs the question, Why did they
leave?


From my humble perspective and that of many contemporaries, historians
and authors I'd say these are issues that invite the need for a defense.



If any professional historian wrote the inaccuracies you cite above they need to
be drummed out of the profession.  Read Joseph Harsh, Taken at the Flood, Ethan
Rafuse, McClellan's War and either edition of Ezra Carman's manuscript of the
campaign.

Mike Lavis





In a message dated 6/1/2012 1:27:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu> writes:

McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and demoralized force, in three days
had it ready to take the field. From Sept. 6 to Sept. 19 he marched that
army 70 miles, fought two battles where he drove Lee's army from the field,
forcing him to retreat night from one of them. Why would he need
defending????? Name me another commander who did that.
Tom Clemens

________________________________
From:
TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkA\
ntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mail\
to:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
On Behalf Of certainreasons
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41 AM
To:
TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkA\
ntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

Hello All, Thanks for the helpful replies! Some scatter shot responses - I
have some familiarity with the Maryland Campaign, having read several
accounts of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak book on South Mountain.
What do you folks think of his defense of McClellan? Is it controversial
among buffs? The standard accounts always put the blame for not destroying
Lee's Army on McC.The Priest book focusing on soldiers memoirs at Antietam is a
favorite. Just received the Rafuse battlefield guide, have not looked at
it yet. Not familiar with "Taken At the Flood" - is it a book? Has anyone
used the Civil War Trails map to visit the historical markers? I was
considering the AT for exploring South Mt., 45 min each way is no problem, a few
hours to reach Crampton's Gap perhaps...is the South Mt. Inn in the same
structure or the same site as the oft-mentioned Mountain House? If I hire a
guide, how far in advance do I need to arrange it? What are the going rates?
Am plan ning to v
isit next Thursday & Friday and as a general approach plan to stay close
to a chronological order if feasible. Again, thanks for the help, Chris

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

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

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

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





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

Good refutes Tom!

Mike, I know Tom Clemens personally, and he is one of the few persons I would
unhesitatingly say is a "True Expert" on the campaign and battle.

Taken at the Flood by Harsh is a very good read and well worth the study; the
companion book Sounding the Shallows is also good as it is Dr Harsh's research
notes for TATF.

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

"True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels them--the
desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances which govern their
actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new order of things." --
Robert E. Lee





> -----Original Message-----
> From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
> Thomas G. Clemens
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 3:22 PM
> To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of
> MikeL49NYVI@... [MikeL49NYVI@...]
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:23 AM
> To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
>
>
>
> See my comments below, I don't mind an interesting
> discussion, but it would be nice to do some research first.
>
>
>
> Just for the sake of an interesting discussion:
>
> True, McClellan did revitalize the army, however, the
> 2nd and the 6th
> Corps had not been beaten at 2nd Bull Run. In fact
> Mac's slowness in sending
> them to Pope (in defiance of orders) could have been taken as
> insubordination or even traitorous.
>
>
>
> Or extreme sanity in the face of panic.  Sending the
> 6th Corps into  without artillery or trains into an
> unknown situation was ludicrous and he said so.
>
> So, it was not the entire army that was beaten down.
>
>
>
> No, but those not beaten were demoralized at being
> withdrawn from 20 miles of Richmond in defiance of any
> logical strategy.
>
> He was given the opportunity of a lifetime when Lee's
> orders were
> discovered. Yet he moved at his own pace and allowed
> Harpers Ferry to be
> taken, and for Lee to concentrate at Sharpsburg. 70
> miles in 13 days comes out
> to about 5-1/2 miles a day. They could not have been
> mistaken for Jackson's
> "Foot Cavalry" at that rate.
>
>
>
> Too little space to furnish all arguments, but when
> 191 was found his army was already in motion, no CS
> infantry closer than 12 miles at best, no evidence of
> the size of Lee's army, CS cavalry blocking Hagan's
> Gap until 2 p.m., and by the time 191 was verified as
> accurate, it was dark.  He moved quickly the next day
> and drove Lee's forces from two gaps in the afternoon,
> one after dark, and making Lee's army  retreat after dark.
>
> Once he got to Sharpsburg, he wasted an entire day,
> sitting there, and
> then telegraphed his punch by having the 1st and 12
> corps move into
> position the night before the battle. Lee and
> Stonewall knew exactly where to
> concentrate their brigades.
>
>
>
> He didn't sit the whole day, and the facts are
> indisputable.  He reconnoitered, placed artillery,
> formulated a plan  and ordered Hooker across the creek
> by 1:00, even though he could not see across the creek
> until 9:00.
>
>
> He allowed Burnside to have a childish tantrum, which
> made for a very
> awkward chain of command, and a delay in getting
> orders acted upon.
>
>
>
> See OR 19, pt. 2, for his orders to Burnside.  Firm,
> direct and to the point.  And no, Burnside had no
> tantrum, but was reluctant.
>
> He never left the Pry House yard to see what was
> actually going on
> during the battle, and had the entire 5th corps and
> most of the 6th sit there,
> and do nothing when the fight hung in the balance.
>
>
>
> Again this is easily and demonstrably disproved.  For
> instance, he rode across the creek in early afternoon
> to East Woods, not returning until after 4.  Have you
> really read anything on the battle?  Sykes' division
> crossed Middle bridge and was engaged, suffered 109
> casualties, while two of Morrell's brigades were sent
> to, and then recalled from, East Woods.  Sixth Corps
> was sent to same place, lost 439 casualties, and was
> under bombardment on the 17th and 18th.
>
> And to be frank, he really didn't "drive" Lee off the
> battlefield.
> The Confederates sat there the next day, almost daring
> Mac to attack again.
> They then left that night, when they were good and
> ready to leave.
>
>
>
> Any casual study of the ANV will show they were
> shattered, and if they didn't leave until were good
> and ready to leave it begs the question, Why did they leave?
>
>
> From my humble perspective and that of many
> contemporaries, historians
> and authors I'd say these are issues that invite the
> need for a defense.
>
>
>
> If any professional historian wrote the inaccuracies
> you cite above they need to be drummed out of the
> profession.  Read Joseph Harsh, Taken at the Flood,
> Ethan Rafuse, McClellan's War and either edition of
> Ezra Carman's manuscript of the campaign.
>
> Mike Lavis
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 6/1/2012 1:27:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstow
> ncc.edu> writes:
>
> McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and demoralized
> force, in three days
> had it ready to take the field. From Sept. 6 to Sept.
> 19 he marched that
> army 70 miles, fought two battles where he drove Lee's
> army from the field,
> forcing him to retreat night from one of them. Why
> would he need
> defending????? Name me another commander who did that.
> Tom Clemens
>
> ________________________________
> From:
> TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
> ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntieta
> m%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
> On Behalf Of certainreasons
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41 AM
> To:
> TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
> ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
>
> Hello All, Thanks for the helpful replies! Some
> scatter shot responses - I
> have some familiarity with the Maryland Campaign,
> having read several
> accounts of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak
> book on South Mountain.
> What do you folks think of his defense of McClellan?
> Is it controversial
> among buffs? The standard accounts always put the
> blame for not destroying
> Lee's Army on McC.The Priest book focusing on soldiers
> memoirs at Antietam is a
> favorite. Just received the Rafuse battlefield guide,
> have not looked at
> it yet. Not familiar with "Taken At the Flood" - is it
> a book? Has anyone
> used the Civil War Trails map to visit the historical
> markers? I was
> considering the AT for exploring South Mt., 45 min
> each way is no problem, a few
> hours to reach Crampton's Gap perhaps...is the South
> Mt. Inn in the same
> structure or the same site as the oft-mentioned
> Mountain House? If I hire a
> guide, how far in advance do I need to arrange it?
> What are the going rates?
> Am plan ning to v
> isit next Thursday & Friday and as a general approach
> plan to stay close
> to a chronological order if feasible. Again, thanks
> for the help, Chris
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Yes, Gerry I knew exactly who His Holiness was before I wrote that. I also
knew that I was opening myself up to what I hoped was a decent come back by
  someone who knows more about the subject than I do.

I generalized some of my comments in order to be brief, and figuring that
since everyone here knows a lot about the subject I didn't need to
elaborate, or  quote chapter and verse on everything. Much of what I said has
been
discussed  since the end of the battle itself.

   However what I did not expect was a series of insults and the  attitude
that seems to say
  "How dare you question ME? I am far superior to you and everyone  else,
therefore I can pass judgement upon lowly insignificant peons and say
whatever I wish about them. And then have all my adoring public congratulate me 
on
my great intellect."

I was once told by a Pastor that you can tell the maturity of a man by how
he treats others. I have found that to be true, 100% of the time.

Anything else I might say, or any response to the points  raised would
most likely degenerate into more of the same tone as Tom's and I do not think
this forum would be the better for it.

I think it best that I be removed from this mailing list. I can't respect
anyone who treats people in this manner, no matter who they may be.

Very Sincerely
Mike Lavis

In a message dated 6/2/2012 3:38:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
gerry1952@... writes:




Good refutes Tom!

Mike, I know Tom Clemens personally, and he is  one of the few persons I
would unhesitatingly say is a "True Expert" on the  campaign and battle.

Taken at the Flood by Harsh is a very good read  and well worth the study;
the companion book Sounding the Shallows is also  good as it is Dr Harsh's
research notes for TATF.

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

"True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act  exactly contrary, at one
period, to that which it does at another, and the  motive which impels
them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The  circumstances which
govern their actions change; and their conduct must  conform to the new order
of things." -- Robert E. Lee

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
>  [mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com) ]On  Behalf Of
> Thomas G. Clemens
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012  3:22 PM
> To: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
>  Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
> [_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com) ]
on behalf of
> _MikeL49NYVI@..._ (mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...)
[_MikeL49NYVI@..._ (mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...) ]
> Sent:  Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:23 AM
> To: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
>  Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
>
>
>
> See my comments below, I don't mind an interesting
>  discussion, but it would be nice to do some research first.
>
>
>
> Just for the sake of an interesting discussion:
>
> True, McClellan did revitalize the army, however, the
> 2nd  and the 6th
> Corps had not been beaten at 2nd Bull Run. In fact
> Mac's slowness in sending
> them to Pope (in defiance of  orders) could have been taken as
> insubordination or even  traitorous.
>
>
>
> Or extreme sanity in the face  of panic. Sending the
> 6th Corps into without artillery or trains into  an
> unknown situation was ludicrous and he said so.
>
>  So, it was not the entire army that was beaten down.
>
>
>
> No, but those not beaten were demoralized at being
> withdrawn  from 20 miles of Richmond in defiance of any
> logical  strategy.
>
> He was given the opportunity of a lifetime when  Lee's
> orders were
> discovered. Yet he moved at his own pace  and allowed
> Harpers Ferry to be
> taken, and for Lee to  concentrate at Sharpsburg. 70
> miles in 13 days comes out
> to  about 5-1/2 miles a day. They could not have been
> mistaken for  Jackson's
> "Foot Cavalry" at that rate.
>
>
>
> Too little space to furnish all arguments, but when
> 191 was  found his army was already in motion, no CS
> infantry closer than 12  miles at best, no evidence of
> the size of Lee's army, CS cavalry  blocking Hagan's
> Gap until 2 p.m., and by the time 191 was verified  as
> accurate, it was dark. He moved quickly the next day
> and  drove Lee's forces from two gaps in the afternoon,
> one after dark,  and making Lee's army retreat after dark.
>
> Once he got to  Sharpsburg, he wasted an entire day,
> sitting there, and
> then  telegraphed his punch by having the 1st and 12
> corps move  into
> position the night before the battle. Lee and
> Stonewall  knew exactly where to
> concentrate their brigades.
>
>
>
> He didn't sit the whole day, and the facts are
>  indisputable. He reconnoitered, placed artillery,
> formulated a plan  and ordered Hooker across the creek
> by 1:00, even though he could not  see across the creek
> until 9:00.
>
>
> He allowed  Burnside to have a childish tantrum, which
> made for a very
>  awkward chain of command, and a delay in getting
> orders acted  upon.
>
>
>
> See OR 19, pt. 2, for his orders to  Burnside. Firm,
> direct and to the point. And no, Burnside had no
> tantrum, but was reluctant.
>
> He never left the Pry  House yard to see what was
> actually going on
> during the  battle, and had the entire 5th corps and
> most of the 6th sit  there,
> and do nothing when the fight hung in the balance.
>
>
>
> Again this is easily and demonstrably disproved.  For
> instance, he rode across the creek in early afternoon
> to  East Woods, not returning until after 4. Have you
> really read  anything on the battle? Sykes' division
> crossed Middle bridge and was  engaged, suffered 109
> casualties, while two of Morrell's brigades  were sent
> to, and then recalled from, East Woods. Sixth Corps
> was sent to same place, lost 439 casualties, and was
> under  bombardment on the 17th and 18th.
>
> And to be frank, he really  didn't "drive" Lee off the
> battlefield.
> The Confederates sat  there the next day, almost daring
> Mac to attack again.
> They  then left that night, when they were good and
> ready to leave.
>
>
>
> Any casual study of the ANV will show they were
> shattered, and if they didn't leave until were good
> and  ready to leave it begs the question, Why did they leave?
>
>
> From my humble perspective and that of many
> contemporaries,  historians
> and authors I'd say these are issues that invite the
> need for a defense.
>
>
>
> If any  professional historian wrote the inaccuracies
> you cite above they  need to be drummed out of the
> profession. Read Joseph Harsh, Taken at  the Flood,
> Ethan Rafuse, McClellan's War and either edition of
> Ezra Carman's manuscript of the campaign.
>
> Mike  Lavis
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated  6/1/2012 1:27:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> _tgclemens@..._ (mailto:tgclemens@...)
<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstow
>  ncc.edu> writes:
>
> McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and  demoralized
> force, in three days
> had it ready to take the  field. From Sept. 6 to Sept.
> 19 he marched that
> army 70  miles, fought two battles where he drove Lee's
> army from the  field,
> forcing him to retreat night from one of them. Why
>  would he need
> defending????? Name me another commander who did  that.
> Tom Clemens
>
>  ________________________________
> From:
> _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
>  ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
>  [mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com) <mailto:TalkAntieta
>  m%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
>  On Behalf Of certainreasons
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41  AM
> To:
> _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
>  ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject:  [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
>
> Hello All, Thanks for the  helpful replies! Some
> scatter shot responses - I
> have some  familiarity with the Maryland Campaign,
> having read several
>  accounts of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak
> book on South  Mountain.
> What do you folks think of his defense of McClellan?
> Is it controversial
> among buffs? The standard accounts always  put the
> blame for not destroying
> Lee's Army on McC.The Priest  book focusing on soldiers
> memoirs at Antietam is a
> favorite.  Just received the Rafuse battlefield guide,
> have not looked  at
> it yet. Not familiar with "Taken At the Flood" - is it
> a  book? Has anyone
> used the Civil War Trails map to visit the historical
> markers? I was
> considering the AT for exploring South Mt., 45  min
> each way is no problem, a few
> hours to reach Crampton's  Gap perhaps...is the South
> Mt. Inn in the same
> structure or  the same site as the oft-mentioned
> Mountain House? If I hire  a
> guide, how far in advance do I need to arrange it?
> What are  the going rates?
> Am plan ning to v
> isit next Thursday &  Friday and as a general approach
> plan to stay close
> to a  chronological order if feasible. Again, thanks
> for the help,  Chris
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been  removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been  removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this  message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>






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

Dear Mike;

I myself nor anyone else, intended to insult you on this or any other board.
However, perhaps you should have stated you were making "general" comments?

If you can indicate what you have already read on the Campaign and battle and
then offer specific areas for discussion (friendly, agree to disagree, etc.), I
think we can all benefit....

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

"True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels them--the
desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances which govern their
actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new order of things." --
Robert E. Lee



   -----Original Message-----
   From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of MikeL49NYVI@...
   Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:27 PM
   To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up



   Yes, Gerry I knew exactly who His Holiness was before I wrote that. I also
   knew that I was opening myself up to what I hoped was a decent come back by
   someone who knows more about the subject than I do.

   I generalized some of my comments in order to be brief, and figuring that
   since everyone here knows a lot about the subject I didn't need to
   elaborate, or quote chapter and verse on everything. Much of what I said has
been
   discussed since the end of the battle itself.

   However what I did not expect was a series of insults and the attitude
   that seems to say
   "How dare you question ME? I am far superior to you and everyone else,
   therefore I can pass judgement upon lowly insignificant peons and say
   whatever I wish about them. And then have all my adoring public congratulate
me on
   my great intellect."

   I was once told by a Pastor that you can tell the maturity of a man by how
   he treats others. I have found that to be true, 100% of the time.

   Anything else I might say, or any response to the points raised would
   most likely degenerate into more of the same tone as Tom's and I do not think
   this forum would be the better for it.

   I think it best that I be removed from this mailing list. I can't respect
   anyone who treats people in this manner, no matter who they may be.

   Very Sincerely
   Mike Lavis

   In a message dated 6/2/2012 3:38:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
   gerry1952@... writes:




   Good refutes Tom!

   Mike, I know Tom Clemens personally, and he is one of the few persons I
   would unhesitatingly say is a "True Expert" on the campaign and battle.

   Taken at the Flood by Harsh is a very good read and well worth the study;
   the companion book Sounding the Shallows is also good as it is Dr Harsh's
   research notes for TATF.

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

   "True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
   period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels
   them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances which
   govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new order
   of things." -- Robert E. Lee

   > -----Original Message-----
   > From: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_
   (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
   > [mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_
   (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com) ]On Behalf Of
   > Thomas G. Clemens
   > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 3:22 PM
   > To: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
   > Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
   >
   >
   >
   > ________________________________
   > From: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_
   (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
   > [_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com) ]
   on behalf of
   > _MikeL49NYVI@..._ (mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...)
   [_MikeL49NYVI@..._ (mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...) ]
   > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:23 AM
   > To: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
   > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
   >
   >
   >
   > See my comments below, I don't mind an interesting
   > discussion, but it would be nice to do some research first.
   >
   >
   >
   > Just for the sake of an interesting discussion:
   >
   > True, McClellan did revitalize the army, however, the
   > 2nd and the 6th
   > Corps had not been beaten at 2nd Bull Run. In fact
   > Mac's slowness in sending
   > them to Pope (in defiance of orders) could have been taken as
   > insubordination or even traitorous.
   >
   >
   >
   > Or extreme sanity in the face of panic. Sending the
   > 6th Corps into without artillery or trains into an
   > unknown situation was ludicrous and he said so.
   >
   > So, it was not the entire army that was beaten down.
   >
   >
   >
   > No, but those not beaten were demoralized at being
   > withdrawn from 20 miles of Richmond in defiance of any
   > logical strategy.
   >
   > He was given the opportunity of a lifetime when Lee's
   > orders were
   > discovered. Yet he moved at his own pace and allowed
   > Harpers Ferry to be
   > taken, and for Lee to concentrate at Sharpsburg. 70
   > miles in 13 days comes out
   > to about 5-1/2 miles a day. They could not have been
   > mistaken for Jackson's
   > "Foot Cavalry" at that rate.
   >
   >
   >
   > Too little space to furnish all arguments, but when
   > 191 was found his army was already in motion, no CS
   > infantry closer than 12 miles at best, no evidence of
   > the size of Lee's army, CS cavalry blocking Hagan's
   > Gap until 2 p.m., and by the time 191 was verified as
   > accurate, it was dark. He moved quickly the next day
   > and drove Lee's forces from two gaps in the afternoon,
   > one after dark, and making Lee's army retreat after dark.
   >
   > Once he got to Sharpsburg, he wasted an entire day,
   > sitting there, and
   > then telegraphed his punch by having the 1st and 12
   > corps move into
   > position the night before the battle. Lee and
   > Stonewall knew exactly where to
   > concentrate their brigades.
   >
   >
   >
   > He didn't sit the whole day, and the facts are
   > indisputable. He reconnoitered, placed artillery,
   > formulated a plan and ordered Hooker across the creek
   > by 1:00, even though he could not see across the creek
   > until 9:00.
   >
   >
   > He allowed Burnside to have a childish tantrum, which
   > made for a very
   > awkward chain of command, and a delay in getting
   > orders acted upon.
   >
   >
   >
   > See OR 19, pt. 2, for his orders to Burnside. Firm,
   > direct and to the point. And no, Burnside had no
   > tantrum, but was reluctant.
   >
   > He never left the Pry House yard to see what was
   > actually going on
   > during the battle, and had the entire 5th corps and
   > most of the 6th sit there,
   > and do nothing when the fight hung in the balance.
   >
   >
   >
   > Again this is easily and demonstrably disproved. For
   > instance, he rode across the creek in early afternoon
   > to East Woods, not returning until after 4. Have you
   > really read anything on the battle? Sykes' division
   > crossed Middle bridge and was engaged, suffered 109
   > casualties, while two of Morrell's brigades were sent
   > to, and then recalled from, East Woods. Sixth Corps
   > was sent to same place, lost 439 casualties, and was
   > under bombardment on the 17th and 18th.
   >
   > And to be frank, he really didn't "drive" Lee off the
   > battlefield.
   > The Confederates sat there the next day, almost daring
   > Mac to attack again.
   > They then left that night, when they were good and
   > ready to leave.
   >
   >
   >
   > Any casual study of the ANV will show they were
   > shattered, and if they didn't leave until were good
   > and ready to leave it begs the question, Why did they leave?
   >
   >
   > From my humble perspective and that of many
   > contemporaries, historians
   > and authors I'd say these are issues that invite the
   > need for a defense.
   >
   >
   >
   > If any professional historian wrote the inaccuracies
   > you cite above they need to be drummed out of the
   > profession. Read Joseph Harsh, Taken at the Flood,
   > Ethan Rafuse, McClellan's War and either edition of
   > Ezra Carman's manuscript of the campaign.
   >
   > Mike Lavis
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > In a message dated 6/1/2012 1:27:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
   > _tgclemens@..._ (mailto:tgclemens@...)
   <mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstow
   > ncc.edu> writes:
   >
   > McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and demoralized
   > force, in three days
   > had it ready to take the field. From Sept. 6 to Sept.
   > 19 he marched that
   > army 70 miles, fought two battles where he drove Lee's
   > army from the field,
   > forcing him to retreat night from one of them. Why
   > would he need
   > defending????? Name me another commander who did that.
   > Tom Clemens
   >
   > ________________________________
   > From:
   > _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
   <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
   > ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
   > [mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_
   (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com) <mailto:TalkAntieta
   > m%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
   > On Behalf Of certainreasons
   > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41 AM
   > To:
   > _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
   <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
   > ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
   > Subject: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
   >
   > Hello All, Thanks for the helpful replies! Some
   > scatter shot responses - I
   > have some familiarity with the Maryland Campaign,
   > having read several
   > accounts of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak
   > book on South Mountain.
   > What do you folks think of his defense of McClellan?
   > Is it controversial
   > among buffs? The standard accounts always put the
   > blame for not destroying
   > Lee's Army on McC.The Priest book focusing on soldiers
   > memoirs at Antietam is a
   > favorite. Just received the Rafuse battlefield guide,
   > have not looked at
   > it yet. Not familiar with "Taken At the Flood" - is it
   > a book? Has anyone
   > used the Civil War Trails map to visit the historical
   > markers? I was
   > considering the AT for exploring South Mt., 45 min
   > each way is no problem, a few
   > hours to reach Crampton's Gap perhaps...is the South
   > Mt. Inn in the same
   > structure or the same site as the oft-mentioned
   > Mountain House? If I hire a
   > guide, how far in advance do I need to arrange it?
   > What are the going rates?
   > Am plan ning to v
   > isit next Thursday & Friday and as a general approach
   > plan to stay close
   > to a chronological order if feasible. Again, thanks
   > for the help, Chris
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >
   > ------------------------------------
   >
   > Yahoo! Groups Links
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >
   >
   >
   > ------------------------------------
   >
   >
   > Yahoo! Groups Links
   >
   >
   >

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






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

Mike,
I di not intend to insult you.  If you'd brought up your points as questions or
for discussion instead of arrogantly and directly challenging my statement I
would have responded differently.  As far as I am concerned, you started it. I
responded inkind.  If you intended otherwise it sure didn't show.  But I did
enjoy being called His Holiness, never heard that before.
Tom Clemens
________________________________
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of G
E Mayers [gerry1952@...]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 10:40 PM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up



Dear Mike;

I myself nor anyone else, intended to insult you on this or any other board.
However, perhaps you should have stated you were making "general" comments?

If you can indicate what you have already read on the Campaign and battle and
then offer specific areas for discussion (friendly, agree to disagree, etc.), I
think we can all benefit....

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

"True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels them--the
desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances which govern their
actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new order of things." --
Robert E. Lee

-----Original Message-----
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]On
Behalf Of MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:27 PM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

Yes, Gerry I knew exactly who His Holiness was before I wrote that. I also
knew that I was opening myself up to what I hoped was a decent come back by
someone who knows more about the subject than I do.

I generalized some of my comments in order to be brief, and figuring that
since everyone here knows a lot about the subject I didn't need to
elaborate, or quote chapter and verse on everything. Much of what I said has
been
discussed since the end of the battle itself.

However what I did not expect was a series of insults and the attitude
that seems to say
"How dare you question ME? I am far superior to you and everyone else,
therefore I can pass judgement upon lowly insignificant peons and say
whatever I wish about them. And then have all my adoring public congratulate me
on
my great intellect."

I was once told by a Pastor that you can tell the maturity of a man by how
he treats others. I have found that to be true, 100% of the time.

Anything else I might say, or any response to the points raised would
most likely degenerate into more of the same tone as Tom's and I do not think
this forum would be the better for it.

I think it best that I be removed from this mailing list. I can't respect
anyone who treats people in this manner, no matter who they may be.

Very Sincerely
Mike Lavis

In a message dated 6/2/2012 3:38:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
gerry1952@...<mailto:gerry1952%40verizon.net> writes:

Good refutes Tom!

Mike, I know Tom Clemens personally, and he is one of the few persons I
would unhesitatingly say is a "True Expert" on the campaign and battle.

Taken at the Flood by Harsh is a very good read and well worth the study;
the companion book Sounding the Shallows is also good as it is Dr Harsh's
research notes for TATF.

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

"True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels
them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances which
govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new order
of things." -- Robert E. Lee

> -----Original Message-----
> From: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
> [mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>) ]On
Behalf Of
> Thomas G. Clemens
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 3:22 PM
> To: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
> Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
> [_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>) ]
on behalf of
> _MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>_
(mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>)
[_MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>_
(mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>) ]
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:23 AM
> To: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
>
>
>
> See my comments below, I don't mind an interesting
> discussion, but it would be nice to do some research first.
>
>
>
> Just for the sake of an interesting discussion:
>
> True, McClellan did revitalize the army, however, the
> 2nd and the 6th
> Corps had not been beaten at 2nd Bull Run. In fact
> Mac's slowness in sending
> them to Pope (in defiance of orders) could have been taken as
> insubordination or even traitorous.
>
>
>
> Or extreme sanity in the face of panic. Sending the
> 6th Corps into without artillery or trains into an
> unknown situation was ludicrous and he said so.
>
> So, it was not the entire army that was beaten down.
>
>
>
> No, but those not beaten were demoralized at being
> withdrawn from 20 miles of Richmond in defiance of any
> logical strategy.
>
> He was given the opportunity of a lifetime when Lee's
> orders were
> discovered. Yet he moved at his own pace and allowed
> Harpers Ferry to be
> taken, and for Lee to concentrate at Sharpsburg. 70
> miles in 13 days comes out
> to about 5-1/2 miles a day. They could not have been
> mistaken for Jackson's
> "Foot Cavalry" at that rate.
>
>
>
> Too little space to furnish all arguments, but when
> 191 was found his army was already in motion, no CS
> infantry closer than 12 miles at best, no evidence of
> the size of Lee's army, CS cavalry blocking Hagan's
> Gap until 2 p.m., and by the time 191 was verified as
> accurate, it was dark. He moved quickly the next day
> and drove Lee's forces from two gaps in the afternoon,
> one after dark, and making Lee's army retreat after dark.
>
> Once he got to Sharpsburg, he wasted an entire day,
> sitting there, and
> then telegraphed his punch by having the 1st and 12
> corps move into
> position the night before the battle. Lee and
> Stonewall knew exactly where to
> concentrate their brigades.
>
>
>
> He didn't sit the whole day, and the facts are
> indisputable. He reconnoitered, placed artillery,
> formulated a plan and ordered Hooker across the creek
> by 1:00, even though he could not see across the creek
> until 9:00.
>
>
> He allowed Burnside to have a childish tantrum, which
> made for a very
> awkward chain of command, and a delay in getting
> orders acted upon.
>
>
>
> See OR 19, pt. 2, for his orders to Burnside. Firm,
> direct and to the point. And no, Burnside had no
> tantrum, but was reluctant.
>
> He never left the Pry House yard to see what was
> actually going on
> during the battle, and had the entire 5th corps and
> most of the 6th sit there,
> and do nothing when the fight hung in the balance.
>
>
>
> Again this is easily and demonstrably disproved. For
> instance, he rode across the creek in early afternoon
> to East Woods, not returning until after 4. Have you
> really read anything on the battle? Sykes' division
> crossed Middle bridge and was engaged, suffered 109
> casualties, while two of Morrell's brigades were sent
> to, and then recalled from, East Woods. Sixth Corps
> was sent to same place, lost 439 casualties, and was
> under bombardment on the 17th and 18th.
>
> And to be frank, he really didn't "drive" Lee off the
> battlefield.
> The Confederates sat there the next day, almost daring
> Mac to attack again.
> They then left that night, when they were good and
> ready to leave.
>
>
>
> Any casual study of the ANV will show they were
> shattered, and if they didn't leave until were good
> and ready to leave it begs the question, Why did they leave?
>
>
> From my humble perspective and that of many
> contemporaries, historians
> and authors I'd say these are issues that invite the
> need for a defense.
>
>
>
> If any professional historian wrote the inaccuracies
> you cite above they need to be drummed out of the
> profession. Read Joseph Harsh, Taken at the Flood,
> Ethan Rafuse, McClellan's War and either edition of
> Ezra Carman's manuscript of the campaign.
>
> Mike Lavis
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 6/1/2012 1:27:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> _tgclemens@...<mailto:_tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu>_
(mailto:tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu>)
<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstow
> ncc.edu> writes:
>
> McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and demoralized
> force, in three days
> had it ready to take the field. From Sept. 6 to Sept.
> 19 he marched that
> army 70 miles, fought two battles where he drove Lee's
> army from the field,
> forcing him to retreat night from one of them. Why
> would he need
> defending????? Name me another commander who did that.
> Tom Clemens
>
> ________________________________
> From:
> _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
> ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
<mailto:TalkAntieta
> m%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
> On Behalf Of certainreasons
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41 AM
> To:
> _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
> ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
>
> Hello All, Thanks for the helpful replies! Some
> scatter shot responses - I
> have some familiarity with the Maryland Campaign,
> having read several
> accounts of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak
> book on South Mountain.
> What do you folks think of his defense of McClellan?
> Is it controversial
> among buffs? The standard accounts always put the
> blame for not destroying
> Lee's Army on McC.The Priest book focusing on soldiers
> memoirs at Antietam is a
> favorite. Just received the Rafuse battlefield guide,
> have not looked at
> it yet. Not familiar with "Taken At the Flood" - is it
> a book? Has anyone
> used the Civil War Trails map to visit the historical
> markers? I was
> considering the AT for exploring South Mt., 45 min
> each way is no problem, a few
> hours to reach Crampton's Gap perhaps...is the South
> Mt. Inn in the same
> structure or the same site as the oft-mentioned
> Mountain House? If I hire a
> guide, how far in advance do I need to arrange it?
> What are the going rates?
> Am plan ning to v
> isit next Thursday & Friday and as a general approach
> plan to stay close
> to a chronological order if feasible. Again, thanks
> for the help, Chris
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[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, Gerry:

    I had no intention of being arrogant, or challenging, that is  always
the problem with e-mails and forums. I fully acknowledged that most of  you
know more about the entire campaign than I do. And I never think I am the
last word on any subject. That is why I began with saying I was looking for a
decent discussion.
    Also, I was on my way to a memorial service for my Great Aunt,  and
noticed I was running very late. (My 83 year old mom can get feisty) and  while
I felt some of my wording, especially the last sentence was "weak" I  didn't
want to redo the entire thing all over again. So I hoped that it would
read OK.


I guess it didn't......
For that I do apologize

Interestingly enough I am about to leave for Sharpsburg, to look over the
reenactment site, and spend a bit of time on the battlefield. I have to do
it in  one day, - work issues

I have been called many things, some printable, some not. "Commander of the
  Galaxy"
  and "Empire Builder" are my personal favorites.

Mike Lavis




In a message dated 6/2/2012 11:07:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tgclemens@... writes:

Mike,
I di not intend to insult you.  If you'd brought up  your points as
questions or for discussion instead of arrogantly and directly  challenging my
statement I would have responded differently.  As far as I  am concerned, you
started it. I responded inkind.  If you intended  otherwise it sure didn't
show.  But I did enjoy being called His  Holiness, never heard that before.
Tom  Clemens
________________________________
From:  TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on
behalf of G E  Mayers [gerry1952@...]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 10:40  PM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM  visit follow up



Dear Mike;

I myself nor anyone else,  intended to insult you on this or any other
board. However, perhaps you should  have stated you were making "general"
comments?

If you can indicate  what you have already read on the Campaign and battle
and then offer specific  areas for discussion (friendly, agree to disagree,
etc.), I think we can all  benefit....

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

"True patriotism  sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
period, to that  which it does at another, and the motive which impels
them--the desire to do  right--is precisely the same. The circumstances which
govern their actions  change; and their conduct must conform to the new order
of things." -- Robert  E. Lee

-----Original Message-----
From:  TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
On  Behalf Of MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>
Sent:  Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:27 PM
To:  TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject:  Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

Yes, Gerry I knew exactly who  His Holiness was before I wrote that. I also
knew that I was opening myself  up to what I hoped was a decent come back by
someone who knows more about  the subject than I do.

I generalized some of my comments in order to be  brief, and figuring that
since everyone here knows a lot about the subject  I didn't need to
elaborate, or quote chapter and verse on everything. Much  of what I said
has been
discussed since the end of the battle  itself.

However what I did not expect was a series of insults and the  attitude
that seems to say
"How dare you question ME? I am far superior  to you and everyone else,
therefore I can pass judgement upon lowly  insignificant peons and say
whatever I wish about them. And then have all  my adoring public
congratulate me on
my great intellect."

I was once  told by a Pastor that you can tell the maturity of a man by how
he treats  others. I have found that to be true, 100% of the time.

Anything else I  might say, or any response to the points raised would
most likely  degenerate into more of the same tone as Tom's and I do not
think
this  forum would be the better for it.

I think it best that I be removed  from this mailing list. I can't respect
anyone who treats people in this  manner, no matter who they may be.

Very Sincerely
Mike  Lavis

In a message dated 6/2/2012 3:38:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight  Time,
gerry1952@...<mailto:gerry1952%40verizon.net>  writes:

Good refutes Tom!

Mike, I know Tom Clemens personally,  and he is one of the few persons I
would unhesitatingly say is a "True  Expert" on the campaign and battle.

Taken at the Flood by Harsh is a  very good read and well worth the study;
the companion book Sounding the  Shallows is also good as it is Dr Harsh's
research notes for  TATF.

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

"True patriotism  sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
period, to that  which it does at another, and the motive which impels
them--the desire to  do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances
which
govern their  actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new
order
of things."  -- Robert E. Lee

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
>
[mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
   ]On Behalf Of
> Thomas G. Clemens
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012  3:22 PM
> To:
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
>  Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow  up
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From:
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
>  [_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@ya
hoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)  ]
on behalf of
>  _MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>_
(mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>)
[_MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>_
(mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>) ]
>  Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:23 AM
> To:
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
>  Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow  up
>
>
>
> See my comments below, I don't mind an  interesting
> discussion, but it would be nice to do some research  first.
>
>
>
> Just for the sake of an interesting  discussion:
>
> True, McClellan did revitalize the army, however,  the
> 2nd and the 6th
> Corps had not been beaten at 2nd Bull Run.  In fact
> Mac's slowness in sending
> them to Pope (in defiance of  orders) could have been taken as
> insubordination or even  traitorous.
>
>
>
> Or extreme sanity in the face of  panic. Sending the
> 6th Corps into without artillery or trains into  an
> unknown situation was ludicrous and he said so.
>
> So,  it was not the entire army that was beaten  down.
>
>
>
> No, but those not beaten were  demoralized at being
> withdrawn from 20 miles of Richmond in defiance  of any
> logical strategy.
>
> He was given the opportunity  of a lifetime when Lee's
> orders were
> discovered. Yet he moved  at his own pace and allowed
> Harpers Ferry to be
> taken, and for  Lee to concentrate at Sharpsburg. 70
> miles in 13 days comes  out
> to about 5-1/2 miles a day. They could not have been
>  mistaken for Jackson's
> "Foot Cavalry" at that  rate.
>
>
>
> Too little space to furnish all  arguments, but when
> 191 was found his army was already in motion, no  CS
> infantry closer than 12 miles at best, no evidence of
> the  size of Lee's army, CS cavalry blocking Hagan's
> Gap until 2 p.m., and  by the time 191 was verified as
> accurate, it was dark. He moved  quickly the next day
> and drove Lee's forces from two gaps in the  afternoon,
> one after dark, and making Lee's army retreat after  dark.
>
> Once he got to Sharpsburg, he wasted an entire  day,
> sitting there, and
> then telegraphed his punch by having  the 1st and 12
> corps move into
> position the night before the  battle. Lee and
> Stonewall knew exactly where to
> concentrate  their brigades.
>
>
>
> He didn't sit the whole day,  and the facts are
> indisputable. He reconnoitered, placed  artillery,
> formulated a plan and ordered Hooker across the  creek
> by 1:00, even though he could not see across the creek
>  until 9:00.
>
>
> He allowed Burnside to have a childish  tantrum, which
> made for a very
> awkward chain of command, and a  delay in getting
> orders acted upon.
>
>
>
>  See OR 19, pt. 2, for his orders to Burnside. Firm,
> direct and to the  point. And no, Burnside had no
> tantrum, but was  reluctant.
>
> He never left the Pry House yard to see what  was
> actually going on
> during the battle, and had the entire  5th corps and
> most of the 6th sit there,
> and do nothing when  the fight hung in the balance.
>
>
>
> Again this is  easily and demonstrably disproved. For
> instance, he rode across the  creek in early afternoon
> to East Woods, not returning until after 4.  Have you
> really read anything on the battle? Sykes' division
>  crossed Middle bridge and was engaged, suffered 109
> casualties, while  two of Morrell's brigades were sent
> to, and then recalled from, East  Woods. Sixth Corps
> was sent to same place, lost 439 casualties, and  was
> under bombardment on the 17th and 18th.
>
> And to be  frank, he really didn't "drive" Lee off the
> battlefield.
> The  Confederates sat there the next day, almost daring
> Mac to attack  again.
> They then left that night, when they were good and
>  ready to leave.
>
>
>
> Any casual study of the ANV  will show they were
> shattered, and if they didn't leave until were  good
> and ready to leave it begs the question, Why did they  leave?
>
>
> From my humble perspective and that of  many
> contemporaries, historians
> and authors I'd say these are  issues that invite the
> need for a  defense.
>
>
>
> If any professional historian wrote  the inaccuracies
> you cite above they need to be drummed out of  the
> profession. Read Joseph Harsh, Taken at the Flood,
> Ethan  Rafuse, McClellan's War and either edition of
> Ezra Carman's manuscript  of the campaign.
>
> Mike  Lavis
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated  6/1/2012 1:27:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>  _tgclemens@...<mailto:_tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu>_
(mailto:tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu>)
<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstow
>  ncc.edu> writes:
>
> McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and  demoralized
> force, in three days
> had it ready to take the  field. From Sept. 6 to Sept.
> 19 he marched that
> army 70 miles,  fought two battles where he drove Lee's
> army from the field,
>  forcing him to retreat night from one of them. Why
> would he  need
> defending????? Name me another commander who did that.
>  Tom Clemens
>
> ________________________________
>  From:
>  _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
>  ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
>
[mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
   <mailto:TalkAntieta
>  m%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
>  On Behalf Of certainreasons
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41  AM
> To:
>  _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
>  ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject:  [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
>
> Hello All, Thanks for the  helpful replies! Some
> scatter shot responses - I
> have some  familiarity with the Maryland Campaign,
> having read several
>  accounts of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak
> book on South  Mountain.
> What do you folks think of his defense of McClellan?
>  Is it controversial
> among buffs? The standard accounts always put  the
> blame for not destroying
> Lee's Army on McC.The Priest book  focusing on soldiers
> memoirs at Antietam is a
> favorite. Just  received the Rafuse battlefield guide,
> have not looked at
> it  yet. Not familiar with "Taken At the Flood" - is it
> a book? Has  anyone
> used the Civil War Trails map to visit the historical
>  markers? I was
> considering the AT for exploring South Mt., 45  min
> each way is no problem, a few
> hours to reach Crampton's  Gap perhaps...is the South
> Mt. Inn in the same
> structure or  the same site as the oft-mentioned
> Mountain House? If I hire a
>  guide, how far in advance do I need to arrange it?
> What are the going  rates?
> Am plan ning to v
> isit next Thursday & Friday and  as a general approach
> plan to stay close
> to a chronological  order if feasible. Again, thanks
> for the help, Chris
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups  Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been  removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of  this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups  Links
>
>
>

[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]



------------------------------------


Yahoo!  Groups Links






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

Agreed Mike, email is a difficult way to communicate.  And I note by your
address that you have an interest in the 49th NY, one of the 6th Corps regiment
engaged on the 17th.  In the Battlefield Board Papers are 5 or 6 letters from
veterans of the 49th, interested in copies?  Mostly from someone named Alberger.
Tom Clemens
________________________________
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of
MikeL49NYVI@... [MikeL49NYVI@...]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 11:25 PM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up



Tom, Gerry:

I had no intention of being arrogant, or challenging, that is always
the problem with e-mails and forums. I fully acknowledged that most of you
know more about the entire campaign than I do. And I never think I am the
last word on any subject. That is why I began with saying I was looking for a
decent discussion.
Also, I was on my way to a memorial service for my Great Aunt, and
noticed I was running very late. (My 83 year old mom can get feisty) and while
I felt some of my wording, especially the last sentence was "weak" I didn't
want to redo the entire thing all over again. So I hoped that it would
read OK.


I guess it didn't......
For that I do apologize

Interestingly enough I am about to leave for Sharpsburg, to look over the
reenactment site, and spend a bit of time on the battlefield. I have to do
it in one day, - work issues

I have been called many things, some printable, some not. "Commander of the
Galaxy"
and "Empire Builder" are my personal favorites.

Mike Lavis




In a message dated 6/2/2012 11:07:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu> writes:

Mike,
I di not intend to insult you. If you'd brought up your points as
questions or for discussion instead of arrogantly and directly challenging my
statement I would have responded differently. As far as I am concerned, you
started it. I responded inkind. If you intended otherwise it sure didn't
show. But I did enjoy being called His Holiness, never heard that before.
Tom Clemens
________________________________
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
[TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>] on
behalf of G E Mayers [gerry1952@...<mailto:gerry1952%40verizon.net>]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 10:40 PM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

Dear Mike;

I myself nor anyone else, intended to insult you on this or any other
board. However, perhaps you should have stated you were making "general"
comments?

If you can indicate what you have already read on the Campaign and battle
and then offer specific areas for discussion (friendly, agree to disagree,
etc.), I think we can all benefit....

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

"True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels
them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances which
govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new order
of things." -- Robert E. Lee

-----Original Message-----
From:
TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkA\
ntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mail\
to:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
On Behalf Of
MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:27 PM
To:
TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkA\
ntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

Yes, Gerry I knew exactly who His Holiness was before I wrote that. I also
knew that I was opening myself up to what I hoped was a decent come back by
someone who knows more about the subject than I do.

I generalized some of my comments in order to be brief, and figuring that
since everyone here knows a lot about the subject I didn't need to
elaborate, or quote chapter and verse on everything. Much of what I said
has been
discussed since the end of the battle itself.

However what I did not expect was a series of insults and the attitude
that seems to say
"How dare you question ME? I am far superior to you and everyone else,
therefore I can pass judgement upon lowly insignificant peons and say
whatever I wish about them. And then have all my adoring public
congratulate me on
my great intellect."

I was once told by a Pastor that you can tell the maturity of a man by how
he treats others. I have found that to be true, 100% of the time.

Anything else I might say, or any response to the points raised would
most likely degenerate into more of the same tone as Tom's and I do not
think
this forum would be the better for it.

I think it best that I be removed from this mailing list. I can't respect
anyone who treats people in this manner, no matter who they may be.

Very Sincerely
Mike Lavis

In a message dated 6/2/2012 3:38:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
gerry1952@...<mailto:gerry1952%40verizon.net><mailto:gerry1952%40verizon\
.net> writes:

Good refutes Tom!

Mike, I know Tom Clemens personally, and he is one of the few persons I
would unhesitatingly say is a "True Expert" on the campaign and battle.

Taken at the Flood by Harsh is a very good read and well worth the study;
the companion book Sounding the Shallows is also good as it is Dr Harsh's
research notes for TATF.

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

"True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels
them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances
which
govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new
order
of things." -- Robert E. Lee

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_Ta\
lkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mail\
to:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
>
[mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><ma\
ilto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mail\
to:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
]On Behalf Of
> Thomas G. Clemens
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 3:22 PM
> To:
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_Ta\
lkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mail\
to:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
> Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From:
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_Ta\
lkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mail\
to:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
>
[_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_T\
alkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@ya
hoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>) ]
on behalf of
>
_MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.co\
m>_
(mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40a\
ol.com>)
[_MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.c\
om>_
(mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40a\
ol.com>) ]
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:23 AM
> To:
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_Ta\
lkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mail\
to:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
>
>
>
> See my comments below, I don't mind an interesting
> discussion, but it would be nice to do some research first.
>
>
>
> Just for the sake of an interesting discussion:
>
> True, McClellan did revitalize the army, however, the
> 2nd and the 6th
> Corps had not been beaten at 2nd Bull Run. In fact
> Mac's slowness in sending
> them to Pope (in defiance of orders) could have been taken as
> insubordination or even traitorous.
>
>
>
> Or extreme sanity in the face of panic. Sending the
> 6th Corps into without artillery or trains into an
> unknown situation was ludicrous and he said so.
>
> So, it was not the entire army that was beaten down.
>
>
>
> No, but those not beaten were demoralized at being
> withdrawn from 20 miles of Richmond in defiance of any
> logical strategy.
>
> He was given the opportunity of a lifetime when Lee's
> orders were
> discovered. Yet he moved at his own pace and allowed
> Harpers Ferry to be
> taken, and for Lee to concentrate at Sharpsburg. 70
> miles in 13 days comes out
> to about 5-1/2 miles a day. They could not have been
> mistaken for Jackson's
> "Foot Cavalry" at that rate.
>
>
>
> Too little space to furnish all arguments, but when
> 191 was found his army was already in motion, no CS
> infantry closer than 12 miles at best, no evidence of
> the size of Lee's army, CS cavalry blocking Hagan's
> Gap until 2 p.m., and by the time 191 was verified as
> accurate, it was dark. He moved quickly the next day
> and drove Lee's forces from two gaps in the afternoon,
> one after dark, and making Lee's army retreat after dark.
>
> Once he got to Sharpsburg, he wasted an entire day,
> sitting there, and
> then telegraphed his punch by having the 1st and 12
> corps move into
> position the night before the battle. Lee and
> Stonewall knew exactly where to
> concentrate their brigades.
>
>
>
> He didn't sit the whole day, and the facts are
> indisputable. He reconnoitered, placed artillery,
> formulated a plan and ordered Hooker across the creek
> by 1:00, even though he could not see across the creek
> until 9:00.
>
>
> He allowed Burnside to have a childish tantrum, which
> made for a very
> awkward chain of command, and a delay in getting
> orders acted upon.
>
>
>
> See OR 19, pt. 2, for his orders to Burnside. Firm,
> direct and to the point. And no, Burnside had no
> tantrum, but was reluctant.
>
> He never left the Pry House yard to see what was
> actually going on
> during the battle, and had the entire 5th corps and
> most of the 6th sit there,
> and do nothing when the fight hung in the balance.
>
>
>
> Again this is easily and demonstrably disproved. For
> instance, he rode across the creek in early afternoon
> to East Woods, not returning until after 4. Have you
> really read anything on the battle? Sykes' division
> crossed Middle bridge and was engaged, suffered 109
> casualties, while two of Morrell's brigades were sent
> to, and then recalled from, East Woods. Sixth Corps
> was sent to same place, lost 439 casualties, and was
> under bombardment on the 17th and 18th.
>
> And to be frank, he really didn't "drive" Lee off the
> battlefield.
> The Confederates sat there the next day, almost daring
> Mac to attack again.
> They then left that night, when they were good and
> ready to leave.
>
>
>
> Any casual study of the ANV will show they were
> shattered, and if they didn't leave until were good
> and ready to leave it begs the question, Why did they leave?
>
>
> From my humble perspective and that of many
> contemporaries, historians
> and authors I'd say these are issues that invite the
> need for a defense.
>
>
>
> If any professional historian wrote the inaccuracies
> you cite above they need to be drummed out of the
> profession. Read Joseph Harsh, Taken at the Flood,
> Ethan Rafuse, McClellan's War and either edition of
> Ezra Carman's manuscript of the campaign.
>
> Mike Lavis
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 6/1/2012 1:27:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>
_tgclemens@...<mailto:_tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu><mailto:_tgclem\
ens%40hagerstowncc.edu>_
(mailto:tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu><mailto:t\
gclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu>)
<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstow
> ncc.edu> writes:
>
> McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and demoralized
> force, in three days
> had it ready to take the field. From Sept. 6 to Sept.
> 19 he marched that
> army 70 miles, fought two battles where he drove Lee's
> army from the field,
> forcing him to retreat night from one of them. Why
> would he need
> defending????? Name me another commander who did that.
> Tom Clemens
>
> ________________________________
> From:
>
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_Ta\
lkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mail\
to:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
> ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
>
[mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><ma\
ilto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mail\
to:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
<mailto:TalkAntieta
> m%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
> On Behalf Of certainreasons
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41 AM
> To:
>
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_Ta\
lkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mail\
to:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
> ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
>
> Hello All, Thanks for the helpful replies! Some
> scatter shot responses - I
> have some familiarity with the Maryland Campaign,
> having read several
> accounts of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak
> book on South Mountain.
> What do you folks think of his defense of McClellan?
> Is it controversial
> among buffs? The standard accounts always put the
> blame for not destroying
> Lee's Army on McC.The Priest book focusing on soldiers
> memoirs at Antietam is a
> favorite. Just received the Rafuse battlefield guide,
> have not looked at
> it yet. Not familiar with "Taken At the Flood" - is it
> a book? Has anyone
> used the Civil War Trails map to visit the historical
> markers? I was
> considering the AT for exploring South Mt., 45 min
> each way is no problem, a few
> hours to reach Crampton's Gap perhaps...is the South
> Mt. Inn in the same
> structure or the same site as the oft-mentioned
> Mountain House? If I hire a
> guide, how far in advance do I need to arrange it?
> What are the going rates?
> Am plan ning to v
> isit next Thursday & Friday and as a general approach
> plan to stay close
> to a chronological order if feasible. Again, thanks
> for the help, Chris
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[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]

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

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





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

Thank you Tom:
I would love some copies, and will gladly pay for any cost incurred.
Alberger was the major of the 49th, and the Mayor of Buffalo's brother. He
was wounded in the face by a shell fragment during the battle, and
disabled.

We have a difficult time finding letters and artifacts from the 49th. We
suspect that they were in a GAR hall in Buffalo, and were supposed to end up
at  the Historical Society. They never got there.

Mike L



In a message dated 6/2/2012 11:40:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tgclemens@... writes:

Agreed  Mike, email is a difficult way to communicate.  And I note by your
address that you have an interest in the 49th NY, one of the 6th Corps
regiment engaged on the 17th.  In the Battlefield Board Papers are 5 or 6
letters from veterans of the 49th, interested in copies?  Mostly from  someone
named Alberger.
Tom  Clemens
________________________________
From:  TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on
behalf of  MikeL49NYVI@... [MikeL49NYVI@...]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012  11:25 PM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam]  A/SM visit follow up



Tom, Gerry:

I had no intention of  being arrogant, or challenging, that is always
the problem with e-mails and  forums. I fully acknowledged that most of you
know more about the entire  campaign than I do. And I never think I am the
last word on any subject.  That is why I began with saying I was looking
for a
decent  discussion.
Also, I was on my way to a memorial service for my Great Aunt,  and
noticed I was running very late. (My 83 year old mom can get feisty)  and
while
I felt some of my wording, especially the last sentence was  "weak" I didn't
want to redo the entire thing all over again. So I hoped  that it would
read OK.


I guess it didn't......
For that I do  apologize

Interestingly enough I am about to leave for Sharpsburg, to  look over the
reenactment site, and spend a bit of time on the battlefield.  I have to do
it in one day, - work issues

I have been called many  things, some printable, some not. "Commander of the
Galaxy"
and "Empire  Builder" are my personal favorites.

Mike Lavis




In a  message dated 6/2/2012 11:07:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight  Time,
tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu>  writes:

Mike,
I di not intend to insult you. If you'd brought up  your points as
questions or for discussion instead of arrogantly and  directly challenging
my
statement I would have responded differently. As  far as I am concerned, you
started it. I responded inkind. If you intended  otherwise it sure didn't
show. But I did enjoy being called His Holiness,  never heard that before.
Tom  Clemens
________________________________
From:  TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
[TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]  on
behalf of G E Mayers
[gerry1952@...<mailto:gerry1952%40verizon.net>]
Sent:  Saturday, June 02, 2012 10:40 PM
To:  TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject:  RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

Dear Mike;

I myself nor  anyone else, intended to insult you on this or any other
board. However,  perhaps you should have stated you were making  "general"
comments?

If you can indicate what you have already read  on the Campaign and battle
and then offer specific areas for discussion  (friendly, agree to disagree,
etc.), I think we can all  benefit....

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

"True patriotism  sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
period, to that  which it does at another, and the motive which impels
them--the desire to  do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances
which
govern their  actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new
order
of things."  -- Robert E. Lee

-----Original Message-----
From:
TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkA\
ntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
On  Behalf Of
MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>
Sent:  Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:27 PM
To:
TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkA\
ntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject:  Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

Yes, Gerry I knew exactly who  His Holiness was before I wrote that. I also
knew that I was opening myself  up to what I hoped was a decent come back by
someone who knows more about  the subject than I do.

I generalized some of my comments in order to be  brief, and figuring that
since everyone here knows a lot about the subject  I didn't need to
elaborate, or quote chapter and verse on everything. Much  of what I said
has been
discussed since the end of the battle  itself.

However what I did not expect was a series of insults and the  attitude
that seems to say
"How dare you question ME? I am far superior  to you and everyone else,
therefore I can pass judgement upon lowly  insignificant peons and say
whatever I wish about them. And then have all  my adoring public
congratulate me on
my great intellect."

I was  once told by a Pastor that you can tell the maturity of a man by how
he  treats others. I have found that to be true, 100% of the time.

Anything  else I might say, or any response to the points raised would
most likely  degenerate into more of the same tone as Tom's and I do not
think
this  forum would be the better for it.

I think it best that I be removed  from this mailing list. I can't respect
anyone who treats people in this  manner, no matter who they may be.

Very Sincerely
Mike  Lavis

In a message dated 6/2/2012 3:38:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight  Time,
gerry1952@...<mailto:gerry1
952%40verizon.net><mailto:gerry1952%40verizon.net>  writes:

Good refutes Tom!

Mike, I know Tom Clemens personally,  and he is one of the few persons I
would unhesitatingly say is a "True  Expert" on the campaign and battle.

Taken at the Flood by Harsh is a  very good read and well worth the study;
the companion book Sounding the  Shallows is also good as it is Dr Harsh's
research notes for  TATF.

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

"True patriotism  sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
period, to that  which it does at another, and the motive which impels
them--the desire to  do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances
which
govern their  actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new
order
of  things." -- Robert E. Lee

> -----Original Message-----
>  From:
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto
:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
>
[mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com
><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
]On  Behalf Of
> Thomas G. Clemens
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 3:22  PM
>  To:
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto
:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
>  Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow  up
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From:
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto
:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
>
[_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_T\
alkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@ya
hoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)  ]
on behalf of
>
_MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.co\
m>_
(mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI
%40aol.com>)
[_MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40a
ol.com>_
(mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI
%40aol.com>)  ]
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:23 AM
>  To:
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto
:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
>  Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow  up
>
>
>
> See my comments below, I don't mind an  interesting
> discussion, but it would be nice to do some research  first.
>
>
>
> Just for the sake of an interesting  discussion:
>
> True, McClellan did revitalize the army, however,  the
> 2nd and the 6th
> Corps had not been beaten at 2nd Bull Run.  In fact
> Mac's slowness in sending
> them to Pope (in defiance of  orders) could have been taken as
> insubordination or even  traitorous.
>
>
>
> Or extreme sanity in the face of  panic. Sending the
> 6th Corps into without artillery or trains into  an
> unknown situation was ludicrous and he said so.
>
> So,  it was not the entire army that was beaten  down.
>
>
>
> No, but those not beaten were  demoralized at being
> withdrawn from 20 miles of Richmond in defiance  of any
> logical strategy.
>
> He was given the opportunity  of a lifetime when Lee's
> orders were
> discovered. Yet he moved  at his own pace and allowed
> Harpers Ferry to be
> taken, and for  Lee to concentrate at Sharpsburg. 70
> miles in 13 days comes  out
> to about 5-1/2 miles a day. They could not have been
>  mistaken for Jackson's
> "Foot Cavalry" at that  rate.
>
>
>
> Too little space to furnish all  arguments, but when
> 191 was found his army was already in motion, no  CS
> infantry closer than 12 miles at best, no evidence of
> the  size of Lee's army, CS cavalry blocking Hagan's
> Gap until 2 p.m., and  by the time 191 was verified as
> accurate, it was dark. He moved  quickly the next day
> and drove Lee's forces from two gaps in the  afternoon,
> one after dark, and making Lee's army retreat after  dark.
>
> Once he got to Sharpsburg, he wasted an entire  day,
> sitting there, and
> then telegraphed his punch by having  the 1st and 12
> corps move into
> position the night before the  battle. Lee and
> Stonewall knew exactly where to
> concentrate  their brigades.
>
>
>
> He didn't sit the whole day,  and the facts are
> indisputable. He reconnoitered, placed  artillery,
> formulated a plan and ordered Hooker across the  creek
> by 1:00, even though he could not see across the creek
>  until 9:00.
>
>
> He allowed Burnside to have a childish  tantrum, which
> made for a very
> awkward chain of command, and a  delay in getting
> orders acted upon.
>
>
>
>  See OR 19, pt. 2, for his orders to Burnside. Firm,
> direct and to the  point. And no, Burnside had no
> tantrum, but was  reluctant.
>
> He never left the Pry House yard to see what  was
> actually going on
> during the battle, and had the entire  5th corps and
> most of the 6th sit there,
> and do nothing when  the fight hung in the balance.
>
>
>
> Again this is  easily and demonstrably disproved. For
> instance, he rode across the  creek in early afternoon
> to East Woods, not returning until after 4.  Have you
> really read anything on the battle? Sykes' division
>  crossed Middle bridge and was engaged, suffered 109
> casualties, while  two of Morrell's brigades were sent
> to, and then recalled from, East  Woods. Sixth Corps
> was sent to same place, lost 439 casualties, and  was
> under bombardment on the 17th and 18th.
>
> And to be  frank, he really didn't "drive" Lee off the
> battlefield.
> The  Confederates sat there the next day, almost daring
> Mac to attack  again.
> They then left that night, when they were good and
>  ready to leave.
>
>
>
> Any casual study of the ANV  will show they were
> shattered, and if they didn't leave until were  good
> and ready to leave it begs the question, Why did they  leave?
>
>
> From my humble perspective and that of  many
> contemporaries, historians
> and authors I'd say these are  issues that invite the
> need for a  defense.
>
>
>
> If any professional historian wrote  the inaccuracies
> you cite above they need to be drummed out of  the
> profession. Read Joseph Harsh, Taken at the Flood,
> Ethan  Rafuse, McClellan's War and either edition of
> Ezra Carman's manuscript  of the campaign.
>
> Mike  Lavis
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated  6/1/2012 1:27:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>
_tgclemens@...<mailto:_tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu><mailto:_tgclem\
ens%40hagerstowncc.edu>_
(mailto:tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu><mail
to:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu>)
<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstow
>  ncc.edu> writes:
>
> McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and  demoralized
> force, in three days
> had it ready to take the  field. From Sept. 6 to Sept.
> 19 he marched that
> army 70 miles,  fought two battles where he drove Lee's
> army from the field,
>  forcing him to retreat night from one of them. Why
> would he  need
> defending????? Name me another commander who did that.
>  Tom Clemens
>
> ________________________________
>  From:
>
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_Ta\
lkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
>  ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
>
[mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com
><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
<mailto:TalkAntieta
>  m%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
>  On Behalf Of certainreasons
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41  AM
> To:
>
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_Ta\
lkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
>  ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject:  [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
>
> Hello All, Thanks for the  helpful replies! Some
> scatter shot responses - I
> have some  familiarity with the Maryland Campaign,
> having read several
>  accounts of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak
> book on South  Mountain.
> What do you folks think of his defense of McClellan?
>  Is it controversial
> among buffs? The standard accounts always put  the
> blame for not destroying
> Lee's Army on McC.The Priest book  focusing on soldiers
> memoirs at Antietam is a
> favorite. Just  received the Rafuse battlefield guide,
> have not looked at
> it  yet. Not familiar with "Taken At the Flood" - is it
> a book? Has  anyone
> used the Civil War Trails map to visit the historical
>  markers? I was
> considering the AT for exploring South Mt., 45  min
> each way is no problem, a few
> hours to reach Crampton's  Gap perhaps...is the South
> Mt. Inn in the same
> structure or  the same site as the oft-mentioned
> Mountain House? If I hire a
>  guide, how far in advance do I need to arrange it?
> What are the going  rates?
> Am plan ning to v
> isit next Thursday & Friday and  as a general approach
> plan to stay close
> to a chronological  order if feasible. Again, thanks
> for the help, Chris
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups  Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been  removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of  this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------------
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups  Links
>
>
>

[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]

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups  Links

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





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



------------------------------------


Yahoo!  Groups Links






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

That happens way too often, sorry.  Contact me off-line with your address and
I'll send them along.  Don't worry about cost, it'll make up for my snapping at
you.  :-)
Tom Clemens
________________________________
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of
MikeL49NYVI@... [MikeL49NYVI@...]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 11:46 PM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up



Thank you Tom:
I would love some copies, and will gladly pay for any cost incurred.
Alberger was the major of the 49th, and the Mayor of Buffalo's brother. He
was wounded in the face by a shell fragment during the battle, and
disabled.

We have a difficult time finding letters and artifacts from the 49th. We
suspect that they were in a GAR hall in Buffalo, and were supposed to end up
at the Historical Society. They never got there.

Mike L



In a message dated 6/2/2012 11:40:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu> writes:

Agreed Mike, email is a difficult way to communicate. And I note by your
address that you have an interest in the 49th NY, one of the 6th Corps
regiment engaged on the 17th. In the Battlefield Board Papers are 5 or 6
letters from veterans of the 49th, interested in copies? Mostly from someone
named Alberger.
Tom Clemens
________________________________
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
[TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>] on
behalf of MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>
[MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 11:25 PM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

Tom, Gerry:

I had no intention of being arrogant, or challenging, that is always
the problem with e-mails and forums. I fully acknowledged that most of you
know more about the entire campaign than I do. And I never think I am the
last word on any subject. That is why I began with saying I was looking
for a
decent discussion.
Also, I was on my way to a memorial service for my Great Aunt, and
noticed I was running very late. (My 83 year old mom can get feisty) and
while
I felt some of my wording, especially the last sentence was "weak" I didn't
want to redo the entire thing all over again. So I hoped that it would
read OK.

I guess it didn't......
For that I do apologize

Interestingly enough I am about to leave for Sharpsburg, to look over the
reenactment site, and spend a bit of time on the battlefield. I have to do
it in one day, - work issues

I have been called many things, some printable, some not. "Commander of the
Galaxy"
and "Empire Builder" are my personal favorites.

Mike Lavis

In a message dated 6/2/2012 11:07:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu><mailto:tgclemens\
%40hagerstowncc.edu> writes:

Mike,
I di not intend to insult you. If you'd brought up your points as
questions or for discussion instead of arrogantly and directly challenging
my
statement I would have responded differently. As far as I am concerned, you
started it. I responded inkind. If you intended otherwise it sure didn't
show. But I did enjoy being called His Holiness, never heard that before.
Tom Clemens
________________________________
From:
TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkA\
ntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
[TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:Talk\
Antietam%40yahoogroups.com>] on
behalf of G E Mayers
[gerry1952@...<mailto:gerry1952%40verizon.net><mailto:gerry1952%40verizo\
n.net>]
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 10:40 PM
To:
TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkA\
ntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

Dear Mike;

I myself nor anyone else, intended to insult you on this or any other
board. However, perhaps you should have stated you were making "general"
comments?

If you can indicate what you have already read on the Campaign and battle
and then offer specific areas for discussion (friendly, agree to disagree,
etc.), I think we can all benefit....

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

"True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels
them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances
which
govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new
order
of things." -- Robert E. Lee

-----Original Message-----
From:
TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkA\
ntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mail\
to:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
On Behalf Of
MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><\
mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:27 PM
To:
TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkA\
ntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

Yes, Gerry I knew exactly who His Holiness was before I wrote that. I also
knew that I was opening myself up to what I hoped was a decent come back by
someone who knows more about the subject than I do.

I generalized some of my comments in order to be brief, and figuring that
since everyone here knows a lot about the subject I didn't need to
elaborate, or quote chapter and verse on everything. Much of what I said
has been
discussed since the end of the battle itself.

However what I did not expect was a series of insults and the attitude
that seems to say
"How dare you question ME? I am far superior to you and everyone else,
therefore I can pass judgement upon lowly insignificant peons and say
whatever I wish about them. And then have all my adoring public
congratulate me on
my great intellect."

I was once told by a Pastor that you can tell the maturity of a man by how
he treats others. I have found that to be true, 100% of the time.

Anything else I might say, or any response to the points raised would
most likely degenerate into more of the same tone as Tom's and I do not
think
this forum would be the better for it.

I think it best that I be removed from this mailing list. I can't respect
anyone who treats people in this manner, no matter who they may be.

Very Sincerely
Mike Lavis

In a message dated 6/2/2012 3:38:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
gerry1952@...<mailto:gerry1952%40verizon.net><mailto:gerry1
952%40verizon.net><mailto:gerry1952%40verizon.net> writes:

Good refutes Tom!

Mike, I know Tom Clemens personally, and he is one of the few persons I
would unhesitatingly say is a "True Expert" on the campaign and battle.

Taken at the Flood by Harsh is a very good read and well worth the study;
the companion book Sounding the Shallows is also good as it is Dr Harsh's
research notes for TATF.

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

"True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels
them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances
which
govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new
order
of things." -- Robert E. Lee

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_Ta\
lkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto
:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mail\
to:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
>
[mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><ma\
ilto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com
><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mail\
to:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
]On Behalf Of
> Thomas G. Clemens
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 3:22 PM
> To:
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_Ta\
lkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto
:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mail\
to:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
> Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From:
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_Ta\
lkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto
:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mail\
to:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
>
[_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_T\
alkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@ya
hoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>) ]
on behalf of
>
_MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.co\
m><mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>_
(mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40a\
ol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI
%40aol.com>)
[_MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.c\
om><mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40a
ol.com>_
(mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40a\
ol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI
%40aol.com>) ]
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:23 AM
> To:
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_Ta\
lkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto
:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mail\
to:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
>
>
>
> See my comments below, I don't mind an interesting
> discussion, but it would be nice to do some research first.
>
>
>
> Just for the sake of an interesting discussion:
>
> True, McClellan did revitalize the army, however, the
> 2nd and the 6th
> Corps had not been beaten at 2nd Bull Run. In fact
> Mac's slowness in sending
> them to Pope (in defiance of orders) could have been taken as
> insubordination or even traitorous.
>
>
>
> Or extreme sanity in the face of panic. Sending the
> 6th Corps into without artillery or trains into an
> unknown situation was ludicrous and he said so.
>
> So, it was not the entire army that was beaten down.
>
>
>
> No, but those not beaten were demoralized at being
> withdrawn from 20 miles of Richmond in defiance of any
> logical strategy.
>
> He was given the opportunity of a lifetime when Lee's
> orders were
> discovered. Yet he moved at his own pace and allowed
> Harpers Ferry to be
> taken, and for Lee to concentrate at Sharpsburg. 70
> miles in 13 days comes out
> to about 5-1/2 miles a day. They could not have been
> mistaken for Jackson's
> "Foot Cavalry" at that rate.
>
>
>
> Too little space to furnish all arguments, but when
> 191 was found his army was already in motion, no CS
> infantry closer than 12 miles at best, no evidence of
> the size of Lee's army, CS cavalry blocking Hagan's
> Gap until 2 p.m., and by the time 191 was verified as
> accurate, it was dark. He moved quickly the next day
> and drove Lee's forces from two gaps in the afternoon,
> one after dark, and making Lee's army retreat after dark.
>
> Once he got to Sharpsburg, he wasted an entire day,
> sitting there, and
> then telegraphed his punch by having the 1st and 12
> corps move into
> position the night before the battle. Lee and
> Stonewall knew exactly where to
> concentrate their brigades.
>
>
>
> He didn't sit the whole day, and the facts are
> indisputable. He reconnoitered, placed artillery,
> formulated a plan and ordered Hooker across the creek
> by 1:00, even though he could not see across the creek
> until 9:00.
>
>
> He allowed Burnside to have a childish tantrum, which
> made for a very
> awkward chain of command, and a delay in getting
> orders acted upon.
>
>
>
> See OR 19, pt. 2, for his orders to Burnside. Firm,
> direct and to the point. And no, Burnside had no
> tantrum, but was reluctant.
>
> He never left the Pry House yard to see what was
> actually going on
> during the battle, and had the entire 5th corps and
> most of the 6th sit there,
> and do nothing when the fight hung in the balance.
>
>
>
> Again this is easily and demonstrably disproved. For
> instance, he rode across the creek in early afternoon
> to East Woods, not returning until after 4. Have you
> really read anything on the battle? Sykes' division
> crossed Middle bridge and was engaged, suffered 109
> casualties, while two of Morrell's brigades were sent
> to, and then recalled from, East Woods. Sixth Corps
> was sent to same place, lost 439 casualties, and was
> under bombardment on the 17th and 18th.
>
> And to be frank, he really didn't "drive" Lee off the
> battlefield.
> The Confederates sat there the next day, almost daring
> Mac to attack again.
> They then left that night, when they were good and
> ready to leave.
>
>
>
> Any casual study of the ANV will show they were
> shattered, and if they didn't leave until were good
> and ready to leave it begs the question, Why did they leave?
>
>
> From my humble perspective and that of many
> contemporaries, historians
> and authors I'd say these are issues that invite the
> need for a defense.
>
>
>
> If any professional historian wrote the inaccuracies
> you cite above they need to be drummed out of the
> profession. Read Joseph Harsh, Taken at the Flood,
> Ethan Rafuse, McClellan's War and either edition of
> Ezra Carman's manuscript of the campaign.
>
> Mike Lavis
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 6/1/2012 1:27:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>
_tgclemens@...<mailto:_tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu><mailto:_tgclem\
ens%40hagerstowncc.edu><mailto:_tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu>_
(mailto:tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu><mailto:t\
gclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu><mail
to:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu>)
<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstow
> ncc.edu> writes:
>
> McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and demoralized
> force, in three days
> had it ready to take the field. From Sept. 6 to Sept.
> 19 he marched that
> army 70 miles, fought two battles where he drove Lee's
> army from the field,
> forcing him to retreat night from one of them. Why
> would he need
> defending????? Name me another commander who did that.
> Tom Clemens
>
> ________________________________
> From:
>
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_Ta\
lkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mail\
to:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
> ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
>
[mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><ma\
ilto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com
><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mail\
to:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
<mailto:TalkAntieta
> m%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
> On Behalf Of certainreasons
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41 AM
> To:
>
_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_Ta\
lkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mail\
to:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
> ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
>
> Hello All, Thanks for the helpful replies! Some
> scatter shot responses - I
> have some familiarity with the Maryland Campaign,
> having read several
> accounts of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak
> book on South Mountain.
> What do you folks think of his defense of McClellan?
> Is it controversial
> among buffs? The standard accounts always put the
> blame for not destroying
> Lee's Army on McC.The Priest book focusing on soldiers
> memoirs at Antietam is a
> favorite. Just received the Rafuse battlefield guide,
> have not looked at
> it yet. Not familiar with "Taken At the Flood" - is it
> a book? Has anyone
> used the Civil War Trails map to visit the historical
> markers? I was
> considering the AT for exploring South Mt., 45 min
> each way is no problem, a few
> hours to reach Crampton's Gap perhaps...is the South
> Mt. Inn in the same
> structure or the same site as the oft-mentioned
> Mountain House? If I hire a
> guide, how far in advance do I need to arrange it?
> What are the going rates?
> Am plan ning to v
> isit next Thursday & Friday and as a general approach
> plan to stay close
> to a chronological order if feasible. Again, thanks
> for the help, Chris
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

[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]

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

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

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

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

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





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

Read through all the 102nd NY stuff, nothing on Pauline Cushman, sorry.  Lot of
dissention i nthe regiment, a Lt. Col. that nobody liked it seems.
________________________________
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of
Bill and Glenna Jo Christen [gwjchris@...]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 8:21 AM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Captain Merwin Eugene Cornell, 102nd New York
Infantry KIA Antie



Tom,

Thanks, There is no deadline. The young lady who claimed to be a soldier
corresponded with Pauline Cushman (according to Cushman's 1865 biography). It is
just one of those "rest of the story" items.

Bill

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





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

Tom:

  The 49th NY letters came today, thank you once again.
  I dove right into them.

Lt Colonel Alberger clearly was a well educated man, and had great
penmanship. I only had trouble with 2-3 words in all the letters.  We can  now
pinpoint the movements of the 49th at Gettysburg, Cedar  Creek, Spotsylvaina,
and Antietam.

The letters did answer one of my questions about their advance. Their
brigade was only to go as far as the "small hill" near the Dunker Church  and
wait for the rest of the division. He mentions having to hold the 49th back,
as they wanted to go farther on.
I had always wondered why they stopped with the CSA line so thin right
there.
  It appears to me that they were sent in to guard and support the  flank of
French's Division from another push such as Cooke had just made with  his
two NC regiments.
If you or anyone else on this forum has  more information on this I'd love
to hear it.
We will be doing a Living History Field Hospital on the Mumma farm in
October, and I am going to take the 49th where they marched and  fought.

Too bad Lt. Col. Alberger didn't relay the details of the "few words" he
exchanged with Gen. Hancock as they passed by his brigade. That could have
been  interestingly insightful concerning both men, about to go into a
desperate battle as they were. I'll wager that Hancock expected to be ordered to
follow Irwin's brigade at any moment.

Another one of those "what-if's"

Thanks again
Mike Lavis

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

One of the things i learned reading the letters; Carman and board originally
wrote text for a tablet describing Baldy Smith's division being "checked" in
their advance.  Smith, and eventually Franklin, vociferously objected, wrote
several letters arguing the point and even visted the field, along with Hyde of
the 7th ME.  Carman relented because Smith insisted his orders were only to
advance that far, and there was no intended attack.  After 30+ year it still
made a huge difference to him to say his division was not "checked.!"   Fun
stuff.

Which weekend in October?

________________________________
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of
MikeL49NYVI@... [MikeL49NYVI@...]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 4:49 PM
To: talkantietam@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [TalkAntietam] 49th letters



Tom:

The 49th NY letters came today, thank you once again.
I dove right into them.

Lt Colonel Alberger clearly was a well educated man, and had great
penmanship. I only had trouble with 2-3 words in all the letters. We can now
pinpoint the movements of the 49th at Gettysburg, Cedar Creek, Spotsylvaina,
and Antietam.

The letters did answer one of my questions about their advance. Their
brigade was only to go as far as the "small hill" near the Dunker Church and
wait for the rest of the division. He mentions having to hold the 49th back,
as they wanted to go farther on.
I had always wondered why they stopped with the CSA line so thin right
there.
It appears to me that they were sent in to guard and support the flank of
French's Division from another push such as Cooke had just made with his
two NC regiments.
If you or anyone else on this forum has more information on this I'd love
to hear it.
We will be doing a Living History Field Hospital on the Mumma farm in
October, and I am going to take the 49th where they marched and fought.

Too bad Lt. Col. Alberger didn't relay the details of the "few words" he
exchanged with Gen. Hancock as they passed by his brigade. That could have
been interestingly insightful concerning both men, about to go into a
desperate battle as they were. I'll wager that Hancock expected to be ordered to
follow Irwin's brigade at any moment.

Another one of those "what-if's"

Thanks again
Mike Lavis

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





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

Have you (or anyone else here) ever seen the poem "When the Boys In  Blue
Are Gone" by John Hendricks? He was a veteran of the 89th Indiana.
It was given to me just before a reenactment in Kentucky, in  1993-1994 and
I have carried it with me ever since.
I have also read it to the men at several events, and publicly at different
  dedications and ceremonies.
     There is not way to improve upon the sentiments of that  poem, and to
better illustrate what their soldier life, and experiences meant to  them.

It is not overly long and I can reproduce it here it desired.

We are going to take part in the "Aftermath of Battle" weekend on the 13th
and 14th of October. It is our first time working as the 49th NY with the
NPS,  so we hope it will come off OK.

I will be very easy to find down there, a friend is bringing some horses,
and we have permission to ride them. So being mounted, I will be a field
level  officer, depending on what shoulder  straps I have on at that time. Most
  likely Colonel.

More fun stuff-   On a 2nd reading of the letters I caught  something I
missed the first time. In his letter dated 20 Feb. 1905  Col.  Alberger wrote
that after he got the regiment into their final position he was  approached
by Adjutant General Long
"with the compliments of General Smith (in a flask)"
He remembered that flask 43 years later.

Mike L





In a message dated 6/8/2012 8:22:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tgclemens@... writes:

One of  the things i learned reading the letters; Carman and board
originally wrote  text for a tablet describing Baldy Smith's division being
"checked" in their  advance.  Smith, and eventually Franklin, vociferously
objected,
wrote  several letters arguing the point and even visted the field, along
with Hyde  of the 7th ME.  Carman relented because Smith insisted his orders
were  only to advance that far, and there was no intended attack.  After 30+
  year it still made a huge difference to him to say his division was not
"checked.!"   Fun stuff.

Which weekend in  October?

________________________________
From:  TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on
behalf of  MikeL49NYVI@... [MikeL49NYVI@...]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 4:49  PM
To: talkantietam@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [TalkAntietam] 49th  letters



Tom:

The 49th NY letters came today, thank you  once again.
I dove right into them.

Lt Colonel Alberger clearly was  a well educated man, and had great
penmanship. I only had trouble with 2-3  words in all the letters. We can
now
pinpoint the movements of the 49th at  Gettysburg, Cedar Creek,
Spotsylvaina,
and Antietam.

The letters did  answer one of my questions about their advance. Their
brigade was only to  go as far as the "small hill" near the Dunker Church
and
wait for the rest  of the division. He mentions having to hold the 49th
back,
as they wanted  to go farther on.
I had always wondered why they stopped with the CSA line  so thin right
there.
It appears to me that they were sent in to guard  and support the flank of
French's Division from another push such as Cooke  had just made with his
two NC regiments.
If you or anyone else on this  forum has more information on this I'd love
to hear it.
We will be doing  a Living History Field Hospital on the Mumma farm in
October, and I am  going to take the 49th where they marched and fought.

Too bad Lt. Col.  Alberger didn't relay the details of the "few words" he
exchanged with Gen.  Hancock as they passed by his brigade. That could have
been interestingly  insightful concerning both men, about to go into a
desperate battle as they  were. I'll wager that Hancock expected to be
ordered to
follow Irwin's  brigade at any moment.

Another one of those "what-if's"

Thanks  again
Mike Lavis

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





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



------------------------------------


Yahoo!  Groups Links






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

Mike,
No, I don't think I've seen it, and would like a copy.  Also, as a favor, if you
or someone, transcribe those 49th letters I'd like copies.  I sometimes post
letters on my blog, and it is always easier to read typescripts when I am
looking for something.  I'll check my calendar, and if nothing conflicts that
weekend I'll stop by.
Tom
________________________________
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of
MikeL49NYVI@... [MikeL49NYVI@...]
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 2:48 PM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] 49th letters



Have you (or anyone else here) ever seen the poem "When the Boys In Blue
Are Gone" by John Hendricks? He was a veteran of the 89th Indiana.
It was given to me just before a reenactment in Kentucky, in 1993-1994 and
I have carried it with me ever since.
I have also read it to the men at several events, and publicly at different
dedications and ceremonies.
There is not way to improve upon the sentiments of that poem, and to
better illustrate what their soldier life, and experiences meant to them.

It is not overly long and I can reproduce it here it desired.

We are going to take part in the "Aftermath of Battle" weekend on the 13th
and 14th of October. It is our first time working as the 49th NY with the
NPS, so we hope it will come off OK.

I will be very easy to find down there, a friend is bringing some horses,
and we have permission to ride them. So being mounted, I will be a field
level officer, depending on what shoulder straps I have on at that time. Most
likely Colonel.

More fun stuff- On a 2nd reading of the letters I caught something I
missed the first time. In his letter dated 20 Feb. 1905 Col. Alberger wrote
that after he got the regiment into their final position he was approached
by Adjutant General Long
"with the compliments of General Smith (in a flask)"
He remembered that flask 43 years later.

Mike L





In a message dated 6/8/2012 8:22:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu> writes:

One of the things i learned reading the letters; Carman and board
originally wrote text for a tablet describing Baldy Smith's division being
"checked" in their advance. Smith, and eventually Franklin, vociferously
objected,
wrote several letters arguing the point and even visted the field, along
with Hyde of the 7th ME. Carman relented because Smith insisted his orders
were only to advance that far, and there was no intended attack. After 30+
year it still made a huge difference to him to say his division was not
"checked.!" Fun stuff.

Which weekend in October?

________________________________
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
[TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>] on
behalf of MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>
[MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 4:49 PM
To: talkantietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:talkantietam%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [TalkAntietam] 49th letters

Tom:

The 49th NY letters came today, thank you once again.
I dove right into them.

Lt Colonel Alberger clearly was a well educated man, and had great
penmanship. I only had trouble with 2-3 words in all the letters. We can
now
pinpoint the movements of the 49th at Gettysburg, Cedar Creek,
Spotsylvaina,
and Antietam.

The letters did answer one of my questions about their advance. Their
brigade was only to go as far as the "small hill" near the Dunker Church
and
wait for the rest of the division. He mentions having to hold the 49th
back,
as they wanted to go farther on.
I had always wondered why they stopped with the CSA line so thin right
there.
It appears to me that they were sent in to guard and support the flank of
French's Division from another push such as Cooke had just made with his
two NC regiments.
If you or anyone else on this forum has more information on this I'd love
to hear it.
We will be doing a Living History Field Hospital on the Mumma farm in
October, and I am going to take the 49th where they marched and fought.

Too bad Lt. Col. Alberger didn't relay the details of the "few words" he
exchanged with Gen. Hancock as they passed by his brigade. That could have
been interestingly insightful concerning both men, about to go into a
desperate battle as they were. I'll wager that Hancock expected to be
ordered to
follow Irwin's brigade at any moment.

Another one of those "what-if's"

Thanks again
Mike Lavis

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

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

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

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





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

Mike;

Please share that poem with us if possible.

Gerry
   -----Original Message-----
   From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of MikeL49NYVI@...
   Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2012 2:49 PM
   To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] 49th letters



   Have you (or anyone else here) ever seen the poem "When the Boys In Blue
   Are Gone" by John Hendricks? He was a veteran of the 89th Indiana.
   It was given to me just before a reenactment in Kentucky, in 1993-1994 and
   I have carried it with me ever since.
   I have also read it to the men at several events, and publicly at different
   dedications and ceremonies.
   There is not way to improve upon the sentiments of that poem, and to
   better illustrate what their soldier life, and experiences meant to them.

   It is not overly long and I can reproduce it here it desired.

    <snip>


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

OK everyone, here is the poem. It really speaks for itself,  and all I can
say is that every time I read it I hope that I have done enough to  fulfill
the last sentence.

Mike L


When the Boys In Blue Are Gone

                          When the comrades have  departed,

When the veterans are no  more,
When the bugle call is  sounded
On that everlasting  shore.
When life's weary march is  ended,
When campfires slumber  long,
Who will tell the world the  story
When the boys in blue are  gone?

                             Who will tell about their  marching,

From Atlanta to the  sea?
Who will halt, and wait and  listen,
When they hear the  reveille?
Who will join to swell the  chorus,
Of some old, Grand Army  song?
Who will tell the  story
When the boys in blue are gone?

                              Sons and daughters of this  nation,
You must tell of triumphs  won,
When on earth our work is  ended,
And the veteran claims his  own.
You must all cherish Old  Glory,
And its teachings pass  along.
You must tell the world the  story,
When the boys in blue are gone.

                              To that flag, our country's  emblem,
You must pledge allegiance,   too.
To that flag, our country's  emblem,
May your hearts be ever  true.
That the nation be  protected,
'Gainst injustice, and all  wrong;
You must tell the world the  story
When the boys in blue are  gone.

You must keep your country's  honor,
From each stripe withhold all  stain;
You must take the veterans  places
And repeat the roll of  fame.
You must keep your country's  honor
And your flag above all  wrong,
Then we'll trust you with the  story
When the boys in blue are gone

                              John Hendricks    89th Indiana  Infantry

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

Wow. That is quite a poem. Wonder if there was anything similar for the
Confederate veterans?

Gerry
   -----Original Message-----
   From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of MikeL49NYVI@...
   Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 10:21 PM
   To: talkantietam@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: [TalkAntietam] John Hendricks poem




   OK everyone, here is the poem. It really speaks for itself, and all I can
   say is that every time I read it I hope that I have done enough to fulfill
   the last sentence.

   Mike L


   When the Boys In Blue Are Gone

   When the comrades have departed,

   When the veterans are no more,
   When the bugle call is sounded
   On that everlasting shore.
   When life's weary march is ended,
   When campfires slumber long,
   Who will tell the world the story
   When the boys in blue are gone?

   Who will tell about their marching,

   From Atlanta to the sea?
   Who will halt, and wait and listen,
   When they hear the reveille?
   Who will join to swell the chorus,
   Of some old, Grand Army song?
   Who will tell the story
   When the boys in blue are gone?

   Sons and daughters of this nation,
   You must tell of triumphs won,
   When on earth our work is ended,
   And the veteran claims his own.
   You must all cherish Old Glory,
   And its teachings pass along.
   You must tell the world the story,
   When the boys in blue are gone.

   To that flag, our country's emblem,
   You must pledge allegiance, too.
   To that flag, our country's emblem,
   May your hearts be ever true.
   That the nation be protected,
   'Gainst injustice, and all wrong;
   You must tell the world the story
   When the boys in blue are gone.

   You must keep your country's honor,
   From each stripe withhold all stain;
   You must take the veterans places
   And repeat the roll of fame.
   You must keep your country's honor
   And your flag above all wrong,
   Then we'll trust you with the story
   When the boys in blue are gone

   John Hendricks 89th Indiana Infantry

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






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

Hi Gerry:

Yes it is quite a message as to what the veterans have asked of us.

I have seen a few poems written by the Confederates, but off hand cannot
place them.
However I cannot recall anything quite like this.
But then being a NY'er it is easier to identify with the "Boys in  Blue"

Mike L


In a message dated 6/11/2012 7:43:57 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
gerry1952@... writes:




Wow. That is quite a poem. Wonder if there was anything similar for the
Confederate veterans?

Gerry
-----Original Message-----
From: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
  [mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_
(mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com) ]On  Behalf Of _MikeL49NYVI@..._
(mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...)
Sent: Sunday,  June 10, 2012 10:21 PM
To: _talkantietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:talkantietam@yahoogroups.com)
Subject:  [TalkAntietam] John Hendricks poem

OK everyone, here is the poem. It  really speaks for itself, and all I can
say is that every time I read it I  hope that I have done enough to fulfill
the last sentence.

Mike  L

When the Boys In Blue Are Gone

When the comrades have  departed,

When the veterans are no more,
When the bugle call is  sounded
On that everlasting shore.
When life's weary march is ended,
When campfires slumber long,
Who will tell the world the story
When the boys in blue are gone?

Who will tell about their  marching,

From Atlanta to the sea?
Who will halt, and wait and  listen,
When they hear the reveille?
Who will join to swell the  chorus,
Of some old, Grand Army song?
Who will tell the story
When  the boys in blue are gone?

Sons and daughters of this nation,
You  must tell of triumphs won,
When on earth our work is ended,
And the  veteran claims his own.
You must all cherish Old Glory,
And its  teachings pass along.
You must tell the world the story,
When the boys  in blue are gone.

To that flag, our country's emblem,
You must  pledge allegiance, too.
To that flag, our country's emblem,
May your  hearts be ever true.
That the nation be protected,
'Gainst injustice,  and all wrong;
You must tell the world the story
When the boys in blue  are gone.

You must keep your country's honor,
From each stripe  withhold all stain;
You must take the veterans places
And repeat the  roll of fame.
You must keep your country's honor
And your flag above all  wrong,
Then we'll trust you with the story
When the boys in blue are  gone

John Hendricks 89th Indiana Infantry

[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]

Mike:

Here is something that might be comparable from a Confederate standpoint:

Lines on a Confederate Note
Representing nothing on God's earth now,
   And naught in the waters below it,
As the pledge of a nation that's dead and gone,
   Keep it, dear friend, and show it.

Show it to those who will lend an ear
   To the tale that this trifle can tell
Of Liberty born of the patriot's dream,
   Of a storm-cradled nation that fell.

Too poor to possess the precious ores,
   And too much of a stranger to borrow,
We issued to-day our promise to pay,
   And hoped to redeem on the morrow.

The days rolled by and weeks became years,
   But our coffers were empty still;
Coin was so rare that the treasury'd quake
   If a dollar should drop in the till.

But the faith that was in us was strong, indeed,
   And our poverty well we discerned,
And this little check represented the pay
   That our suffering veterans earned.

We knew it had hardly a value in gold,
   Yet as gold each soldier received it;
It gazed in our eyes with a promise to pay,
   And each Southern patriot believed it.

But our boys thought little of price or of pay,
   Or of bills that were overdue;
We knew if it brought us our bread to-day,
   'Twas the best our poor country could do.

Keep it, it tells all our history o'er,
   From the birth of our dream to its last;
Modest, and born of the Angel Hope,
   Like our hope of success, it passed.Major S A Jonas, cited from
http://www.civilwarpoetry.org/confederate/postwar/note.html-----Original
Message-----
   From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of MikeL49NYVI@...
   Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 10:21 PM
   To: talkantietam@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: [TalkAntietam] John Hendricks poem




   OK everyone, here is the poem. It really speaks for itself, and all I can
   say is that every time I read it I hope that I have done enough to fulfill
   the last sentence.

   Mike L


   When the Boys In Blue Are Gone

   When the comrades have departed,

   When the veterans are no more,
   When the bugle call is sounded
   On that everlasting shore.
   When life's weary march is ended,
   When campfires slumber long,
   Who will tell the world the story
   When the boys in blue are gone?

   Who will tell about their marching,

   From Atlanta to the sea?
   Who will halt, and wait and listen,
   When they hear the reveille?
   Who will join to swell the chorus,
   Of some old, Grand Army song?
   Who will tell the story
   When the boys in blue are gone?

   Sons and daughters of this nation,
   You must tell of triumphs won,
   When on earth our work is ended,
   And the veteran claims his own.
   You must all cherish Old Glory,
   And its teachings pass along.
   You must tell the world the story,
   When the boys in blue are gone.

   To that flag, our country's emblem,
   You must pledge allegiance, too.
   To that flag, our country's emblem,
   May your hearts be ever true.
   That the nation be protected,
   'Gainst injustice, and all wrong;
   You must tell the world the story
   When the boys in blue are gone.

   You must keep your country's honor,
   From each stripe withhold all stain;
   You must take the veterans places
   And repeat the roll of fame.
   You must keep your country's honor
   And your flag above all wrong,
   Then we'll trust you with the story
   When the boys in blue are gone

   John Hendricks 89th Indiana Infantry

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






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

Folks,

Was wondering if anyone has any information or can point me towards
information on what and how much Federal clothing and equipment Hill's
men were wearing on their march to Sharpsburg after capturing Harpers Ferry.

Thanks,

Brett Bondurant

Brett,

My understanding from reading sources is, quite a bit. You might want to check
the article on Jackson's operations at Harpers Ferry in the Battles and Leaders,
vol II, by H K Douglas.

   -----Original Message-----
   From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of Brett Bondurant
   Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 10:43 AM
   To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
   Subject: [TalkAntietam] Hill's Light Division march



   Folks,

   Was wondering if anyone has any information or can point me towards
   information on what and how much Federal clothing and equipment Hill's
   men were wearing on their march to Sharpsburg after capturing Harpers Ferry.

   Thanks,

   Brett Bondurant





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

From my research, i think this is overblown.  If they are coming up in rear of
their own troops how would they avoid getting shot by their own people?  I have
seen a quote from a guy Gen. Hill told to take off the jacket before someone
shot him.  Much of the Union sources  for this come from 16th CT guys trying to
justify the disaster that happened to them.
________________________________
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of G
E Mayers [gerry1952@...]
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 10:47 AM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] Hill's Light Division march



Brett,

My understanding from reading sources is, quite a bit. You might want to check
the article on Jackson's operations at Harpers Ferry in the Battles and Leaders,
vol II, by H K Douglas.

-----Original Message-----
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]On
Behalf Of Brett Bondurant
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2012 10:43 AM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [TalkAntietam] Hill's Light Division march

Folks,

Was wondering if anyone has any information or can point me towards
information on what and how much Federal clothing and equipment Hill's
men were wearing on their march to Sharpsburg after capturing Harpers Ferry.

Thanks,

Brett Bondurant

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





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

Hey, man don't you go dissin' the boys in the 16th CT. The 'disaster' was the
fault of the 4th RI. ;-)

--- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas G. Clemens" <tgclemens@...> wrote:
>
> From my research, i think this is overblown.  If they are coming up in rear of
their own troops how would they avoid getting shot by their own people?  I have
seen a quote from a guy Gen. Hill told to take off the jacket before someone
shot him.  Much of the Union sources  for this come from 16th CT guys trying to
justify the disaster that happened to them.
> ________________________________

Brett,

I agree with Tom in that much of this is overblown. One of the park rangers also
presented an interesting theory that some men in Gregg's brigade wore dark gray
uniforms that may have been mistaken for blue in the late afternoon light.

I did, however, come across a couple of sources about the Confederate
acquisition of Federal uniforms at Harpers Ferry, noted in Keith Bohannon's
essay "Confederate Logistical Problems in the 1862 Maryland Campaign" in Gary
Gallagher's "Antietam Campaign," page 114.

Captain Andrew B. Wardlaw, 14th South Carolina, Gregg's Brigade, wrote in his
diary that "the whole ground�was pretty well covered in places with old clothes
which our soldiers had thrown off, substituting news ones."

Robert T. Mockbee wrote in the regimental history of the 14th Tennessee that so
many men from Archer's brigade clothed themselves in new Federal uniforms "but
for the tattered Battle flags might have been taken for a brand new Brigade from
Boston."

Steve

--- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, Brett Bondurant <bbondo1@...> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Was wondering if anyone has any information or can point me towards
> information on what and how much Federal clothing and equipment Hill's
> men were wearing on their march to Sharpsburg after capturing Harpers Ferry.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brett Bondurant
>

Teej - Capt.
William Morris, commanding the 37th North Carolina Troops, Branch's brigade,
Light Division, writes home on September 23, 1862:  “…we went to harpers
Ferry & captured
Twelve Thousand yankeys and all of there arms & stores.  they surrendered
without Much fighting.  We had a fine time at harpers fery.  Got Plenty Shugar
& Coffee, in fact all
most any thing we could wish, clothing, etc.” 
He writes again
on September 28, 1862: “I have Clothes plenty to Doo Me all winter as we all
Got what we wanted at Harpers Ferry.”
There are
probably other examples in other letter sets. I just happen to be more familiar
with the 37th NCT.
Kindest Regards,
Michael
North Carolina and the Civil War blog
2010-11 North Carolina Historian of the Year


________________________________

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

Michael,
Are William Morris's letters found in a book on the 27th North Carolina?
Regards
Jim Rosebrock



________________________________
  From: Michael Hardy <mchardy@...>
To: "TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com" <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:25 AM
Subject: [TalkAntietam] Hill's Light Division March


 
Teej - Capt.
William Morris, commanding the 37th North Carolina Troops, Branch's brigade,
Light Division, writes home on September 23, 1862:  “…we went to harpers
Ferry & captured
Twelve Thousand yankeys and all of there arms & stores.  they surrendered
without Much fighting.  We had a fine time at harpers fery.  Got Plenty Shugar
& Coffee, in fact all
most any thing we could wish, clothing, etc.” 
He writes again
on September 28, 1862: “I have Clothes plenty to Doo Me all winter as we all
Got what we wanted at Harpers Ferry.”
There are
probably other examples in other letter sets. I just happen to be more familiar
with the 37th NCT.
Kindest Regards,
Michael
North Carolina and the Civil War blog
2010-11 North Carolina Historian of the Year


________________________________

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




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

Thanks Mike.  I am always skeptical of regimental histories, too much post-war
influence on the writes.   I do not doubt that some guys were wearing captured
clothing, but I doubt enough of them to fool anyone to think they were a Union
unit.  I recall somewhere, no time to look now, a CS soldier saying unlike
others, he only took underclothing, not wanting to be shot mistakenly.  Good
stuff!

________________________________
From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of
Jim Rosebrock [pointsalines@...]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:55 AM
To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Hill's Light Division March



Michael,
Are William Morris's letters found in a book on the 27th North Carolina?
Regards
Jim Rosebrock

________________________________
From: Michael Hardy
<mchardy@...<mailto:mchardy%40michaelchardy.com>>
To: "TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>"
<TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 10:25 AM
Subject: [TalkAntietam] Hill's Light Division March



Teej - Capt.
William Morris, commanding the 37th North Carolina Troops, Branch's brigade,
Light Division, writes home on September 23, 1862:  ��we went to harpers Ferry &
captured
Twelve Thousand yankeys and all of there arms & stores.  they surrendered
without Much fighting.  We had a fine time at harpers fery.  Got Plenty Shugar &
Coffee, in fact all
most any thing we could wish, clothing, etc.�
He writes again
on September 28, 1862: �I have Clothes plenty to Doo Me all winter as we all
Got what we wanted at Harpers Ferry.�
There are
probably other examples in other letter sets. I just happen to be more familiar
with the 37th NCT.
Kindest Regards,
Michael
North Carolina and the Civil War blog
2010-11 North Carolina Historian of the Year

________________________________

[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]