It is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI and America's Civil
War.  I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased source.
Tom Clemens

Andy Mills wrote:

> Hello Guys
>
> This past weekend, I was in the bookstore, and saw a magazine
> titled "Antietam."  I was wondering if this is a good magazine, or
> anyone has ever heard of it.
>
> Thank you
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


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

In a message dated 08/19/2002 9:38:54 PM EST, clemens@... writes:
<< t is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI and America's Civil
War.  I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased source. >>

The Burnsides Bridge article by Tom Clemens does a great job at setting the
record straight regarding IX Corps' limited options for crossing the creek.

Tom Shay

Tom,

I have not seen the pub being discussed here but I have always had a
question concerning the effectiveness of  Union artillery on this sector of
the battlefield.  Perhaps you addressed this in the article?

Granted the defensive position of rebel troops at the bridge area extending
toward the ford was good,  several Union batteries (I cannot recall the
actual number  ) were concentrating their fire in this relatively small area
of this battlefield. Why was Union artillery not more effective?  Most of
these Union batteries were not subject to counter battery fire.

Given the relative strength of the artillery employed by both sides in this
sector of the battlefield, can we assume that Union artillery was not fully
or effectively employed?

David Lutton
Hollidaysburg Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine


> It is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI and America's
Civil
> War.  I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased source.
> Tom Clemens
>
> Andy Mills wrote:
>
> > Hello Guys
> >
> > This past weekend, I was in the bookstore, and saw a magazine
> > titled "Antietam."  I was wondering if this is a good magazine, or
> > anyone has ever heard of it.
> >
> > Thank you
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

David,
I do not address it at length, but yes, I agree that  the Union artillery was
not very effective.  There really were few good positions to fire upon the
Confederates above the bridge, and the rebs used the quarry pits and trees for
cover, making them hard to dislodge.  There was some CS counterbattery fire from
above the bridge and from Cemetery Hill too.  Some of the Union guns, Benjamin's
IIRC, ran out of ammo too.
Tom Clemens

David Lutton wrote:

> Tom,
>
> I have not seen the pub being discussed here but I have always had a
> question concerning the effectiveness of  Union artillery on this sector of
> the battlefield.  Perhaps you addressed this in the article?
>
> Granted the defensive position of rebel troops at the bridge area extending
> toward the ford was good,  several Union batteries (I cannot recall the
> actual number  ) were concentrating their fire in this relatively small area
> of this battlefield. Why was Union artillery not more effective?  Most of
> these Union batteries were not subject to counter battery fire.
>
> Given the relative strength of the artillery employed by both sides in this
> sector of the battlefield, can we assume that Union artillery was not fully
> or effectively employed?
>
> David Lutton
> Hollidaysburg Pa
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
> To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
>
> > It is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI and America's
> Civil
> > War.  I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased source.
> > Tom Clemens
> >
> > Andy Mills wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Guys
> > >
> > > This past weekend, I was in the bookstore, and saw a magazine
> > > titled "Antietam."  I was wondering if this is a good magazine, or
> > > anyone has ever heard of it.
> > >
> > > Thank you
> > > Andy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


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

Paula,

I'm a little late getting around to my email, and what a gem this is find
waiting.  Great article!  Thank you for putting it up.

Ron Church
Manchester MD

In a message dated 8/20/02 11:44:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rchurch@...
writes:


> Thank you for putting it up.
>

No problem Ron.  Sorry it took so long for me to put it up.

Enjoy!

Paula


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

Tom,

I agree the 9th Corps artillery support was lacking during this  part of the
fight.    Might I  further put forth a proposition that  Antietam was
perhaps the only battlefield of the war in the east where Union artillery
was outperformed during the war?  It seems to me that Rebel artillery was
very well positioned  and served during the battle.  Luck or talent?

David Lutton
Hollidaysburg Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine


> David,
> I do not address it at length, but yes, I agree that  the Union artillery
was
> not very effective.  There really were few good positions to fire upon the
> Confederates above the bridge, and the rebs used the quarry pits and trees
for
> cover, making them hard to dislodge.  There was some CS counterbattery
fire from
> above the bridge and from Cemetery Hill too.  Some of the Union guns,
Benjamin's
> IIRC, ran out of ammo too.
> Tom Clemens
>
> David Lutton wrote:
>
> > Tom,
> >
> > I have not seen the pub being discussed here but I have always had a
> > question concerning the effectiveness of  Union artillery on this sector
of
> > the battlefield.  Perhaps you addressed this in the article?
> >
> > Granted the defensive position of rebel troops at the bridge area
extending
> > toward the ford was good,  several Union batteries (I cannot recall the
> > actual number  ) were concentrating their fire in this relatively small
area
> > of this battlefield. Why was Union artillery not more effective?  Most
of
> > these Union batteries were not subject to counter battery fire.
> >
> > Given the relative strength of the artillery employed by both sides in
this
> > sector of the battlefield, can we assume that Union artillery was not
fully
> > or effectively employed?
> >
> > David Lutton
> > Hollidaysburg Pa
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
> > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
> >
> > > It is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI and America's
> > Civil
> > > War.  I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased source.
> > > Tom Clemens
> > >
> > > Andy Mills wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello Guys
> > > >
> > > > This past weekend, I was in the bookstore, and saw a magazine
> > > > titled "Antietam."  I was wondering if this is a good magazine, or
> > > > anyone has ever heard of it.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you
> > > > Andy
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

This officer is Col. Potter of the 51st PA. I finally found an
account of this in the regimental memoirs. Potter was cursing ans
swearing up a storm trying to exhort his regiment onward. He finally
leaped up on the parapet and waved his sword with great vigor, still
cursing a blue streak.

regards!


Scott

--- In TalkAntietam@y..., "scottmingus" <scottmingus@y...> wrote:
> On Don Stivers' painting of Burnside's Bridge, as well as on other
> depictions of the action, there is a Union officer shown standing
on
> the side wall rail of the bridge, waving his sword and exhorting
the
> men. Is this supposed to be the colonel of the 51st John Hartranft
or
> some junior officer? Are there contemporary accounts of this
officer?
>
> Scott

David,

I think it depends on how you look at the use of both armies'
artillery.

The Union artillery was able to perform some pretty effective
counter battery fire against Confederate artillery positions from
longer distances than the Confederate artillery could answer. By
this I mean the massed Union batteries on Elk Ridge on the
eastern side of The Antietam.

Confederate artillery, due to its shorter range and also problems
with non-functioning munitions, actually performed far better in
an anti-personnel role.

Tom Shay and Tom Clemens, would this be your take on the
comparative strengths and weaknesses of the artillery of both
sides at the battle?

Your humble servant,
Gerry Mayers
Pvt., CS Signals,
Longstreet's Corps

A Proud American by Birth, Southern by Choice!

"I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
on which he has nobly laid down his life."     --General Robert
Edward Lee

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lutton" <dunkerch@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine


> Tom,
>
> I agree the 9th Corps artillery support was lacking during this
part of the
> fight.    Might I  further put forth a proposition that
Antietam was
> perhaps the only battlefield of the war in the east where Union
artillery
> was outperformed during the war?  It seems to me that Rebel
artillery was
> very well positioned  and served during the battle.  Luck or
talent?
>
> David Lutton
> Hollidaysburg Pa
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
> To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
>
>
> > David,
> > I do not address it at length, but yes, I agree that  the
Union artillery
> was
> > not very effective.  There really were few good positions to
fire upon the
> > Confederates above the bridge, and the rebs used the quarry
pits and trees
> for
> > cover, making them hard to dislodge.  There was some CS
counterbattery
> fire from
> > above the bridge and from Cemetery Hill too.  Some of the
Union guns,
> Benjamin's
> > IIRC, ran out of ammo too.
> > Tom Clemens
> >
> > David Lutton wrote:
> >
> > > Tom,
> > >
> > > I have not seen the pub being discussed here but I have
always had a
> > > question concerning the effectiveness of  Union artillery
on this sector
> of
> > > the battlefield.  Perhaps you addressed this in the
article?
> > >
> > > Granted the defensive position of rebel troops at the
bridge area
> extending
> > > toward the ford was good,  several Union batteries (I
cannot recall the
> > > actual number  ) were concentrating their fire in this
relatively small
> area
> > > of this battlefield. Why was Union artillery not more
effective?  Most
> of
> > > these Union batteries were not subject to counter battery
fire.
> > >
> > > Given the relative strength of the artillery employed by
both sides in
> this
> > > sector of the battlefield, can we assume that Union
artillery was not
> fully
> > > or effectively employed?
> > >
> > > David Lutton
> > > Hollidaysburg Pa
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
> > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:44 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
> > >
> > > > It is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI
and America's
> > > Civil
> > > > War.  I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased
source.
> > > > Tom Clemens
> > > >
> > > > Andy Mills wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Guys
> > > > >
> > > > > This past weekend, I was in the bookstore, and saw a
magazine
> > > > > titled "Antietam."  I was wondering if this is a good
magazine, or
> > > > > anyone has ever heard of it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you
> > > > > Andy
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/mG3HAA/GmiolB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
------~->
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Scott,

Was it Potter or Hartranft who was so hoarse (from his yelling,
cussing and screaming) when his men finally started streaming
over the bridge that he could only exhort them on in an almost
whisper?

Your humble servant,
Gerry Mayers
Pvt., CS Signals,
Longstreet's Corps

A Proud American by Birth, Southern by Choice!

"I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
on which he has nobly laid down his life."     --General Robert
Edward Lee

----- Original Message -----
From: "scottmingus" <scottmingus@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 8:24 PM
Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Officer on Burnside's Bridge in
paintings?


> This officer is Col. Potter of the 51st PA. I finally found an
> account of this in the regimental memoirs. Potter was cursing
ans
> swearing up a storm trying to exhort his regiment onward. He
finally
> leaped up on the parapet and waved his sword with great vigor,
still
> cursing a blue streak.
>
> regards!
>
>
> Scott
>
> --- In TalkAntietam@y..., "scottmingus" <scottmingus@y...>
wrote:
> > On Don Stivers' painting of Burnside's Bridge, as well as on
other
> > depictions of the action, there is a Union officer shown
standing
> on
> > the side wall rail of the bridge, waving his sword and
exhorting
> the
> > men. Is this supposed to be the colonel of the 51st John
Hartranft
> or
> > some junior officer? Are there contemporary accounts of this
> officer?
> >
> > Scott
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/mG3HAA/GmiolB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
------~->
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Folks,

The subject header reminds me that at some point it would be nice if we could
start an "Antietam" magazine similar to the "Gettysburg" magazine. Bob Younger
of Morningside has said that he is too busy to venture into another magazine. I
am at least a year away from such a project, but perhaps someone else could get
it going.

Bill Christen

David,
Interesting question.  I do not claim expertise here, but will offer a few
thoughts.  No question that CS artillery had better organization.  They had
begun the artillery battalion system, had officers with authority and rank to
mass guns where needed and use them in numbers.  For example Lee on Dunker
Church plateau etc.  ALso lack of older officers, Walton for example, let
younger ones shine, ie. Pelham.  Stuart did a lot with CS artillery, and it was
good.  US were not approaching that level yet.  After Hunt only 1 field officer
(other than Tyler with HA) and that one, Maj.Arndt, was KIA 9/16.
CS on defense, and that makes artillery more effective.  Also CS preponderance
in smoothbores not as harmful when used in defense.
OTOH, Union had more and better guns, four batteries of 20 pdrs who made Col.
Lee's life "Artillery Hell" and a lot of others people too.  CS had no 20's
there.  CS still using 45 6-pdrs, US had none.  US guns not well used, only 22
batteries cross the creek and most of them used north of Sunken Rd.  US also had
trained cadre of regulars influencing volunteers, CS did not.

Summary, North seemed to have advantage, but CS made up deficiences in material
and men with circumstances of defense, proper command authority and dash.
Advantage - South.
Just off the top of my head, hope it helps.
Tom Clemens

David Lutton wrote:

> Tom,
>
> I agree the 9th Corps artillery support was lacking during this  part of the
> fight.    Might I  further put forth a proposition that  Antietam was
> perhaps the only battlefield of the war in the east where Union artillery
> was outperformed during the war?  It seems to me that Rebel artillery was
> very well positioned  and served during the battle.  Luck or talent?
>
> David Lutton
> Hollidaysburg Pa
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
> To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
>
> > David,
> > I do not address it at length, but yes, I agree that  the Union artillery
> was
> > not very effective.  There really were few good positions to fire upon the
> > Confederates above the bridge, and the rebs used the quarry pits and trees
> for
> > cover, making them hard to dislodge.  There was some CS counterbattery
> fire from
> > above the bridge and from Cemetery Hill too.  Some of the Union guns,
> Benjamin's
> > IIRC, ran out of ammo too.
> > Tom Clemens
> >
> > David Lutton wrote:
> >
> > > Tom,
> > >
> > > I have not seen the pub being discussed here but I have always had a
> > > question concerning the effectiveness of  Union artillery on this sector
> of
> > > the battlefield.  Perhaps you addressed this in the article?
> > >
> > > Granted the defensive position of rebel troops at the bridge area
> extending
> > > toward the ford was good,  several Union batteries (I cannot recall the
> > > actual number  ) were concentrating their fire in this relatively small
> area
> > > of this battlefield. Why was Union artillery not more effective?  Most
> of
> > > these Union batteries were not subject to counter battery fire.
> > >
> > > Given the relative strength of the artillery employed by both sides in
> this
> > > sector of the battlefield, can we assume that Union artillery was not
> fully
> > > or effectively employed?
> > >
> > > David Lutton
> > > Hollidaysburg Pa
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
> > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:44 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
> > >
> > > > It is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI and America's
> > > Civil
> > > > War.  I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased source.
> > > > Tom Clemens
> > > >
> > > > Andy Mills wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hello Guys
> > > > >
> > > > > This past weekend, I was in the bookstore, and saw a magazine
> > > > > titled "Antietam."  I was wondering if this is a good magazine, or
> > > > > anyone has ever heard of it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you
> > > > > Andy
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


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

Tom,

Exactly. With the rise of Hunt and others in the coming months,  Union
artillery would dominate this arm of the service for the rest of the war. By
Gburg it truly was a formidable force.  But at Antietam it seems to me that
Southern guns were better placed  and used at the 'points of contention'
throughout the day.

David Lutton
Hollidaysburg Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine


> David,
> Interesting question.  I do not claim expertise here, but will offer a few
> thoughts.  No question that CS artillery had better organization.  They
had
> begun the artillery battalion system, had officers with authority and rank
to
> mass guns where needed and use them in numbers.  For example Lee on Dunker
> Church plateau etc.  ALso lack of older officers, Walton for example, let
> younger ones shine, ie. Pelham.  Stuart did a lot with CS artillery, and
it was
> good.  US were not approaching that level yet.  After Hunt only 1 field
officer
> (other than Tyler with HA) and that one, Maj.Arndt, was KIA 9/16.
> CS on defense, and that makes artillery more effective.  Also CS
preponderance
> in smoothbores not as harmful when used in defense.
> OTOH, Union had more and better guns, four batteries of 20 pdrs who made
Col.
> Lee's life "Artillery Hell" and a lot of others people too.  CS had no
20's
> there.  CS still using 45 6-pdrs, US had none.  US guns not well used,
only 22
> batteries cross the creek and most of them used north of Sunken Rd.  US
also had
> trained cadre of regulars influencing volunteers, CS did not.
>
> Summary, North seemed to have advantage, but CS made up deficiences in
material
> and men with circumstances of defense, proper command authority and dash.
> Advantage - South.
> Just off the top of my head, hope it helps.
> Tom Clemens
>
> David Lutton wrote:
>
> > Tom,
> >
> > I agree the 9th Corps artillery support was lacking during this  part of
the
> > fight.    Might I  further put forth a proposition that  Antietam was
> > perhaps the only battlefield of the war in the east where Union
artillery
> > was outperformed during the war?  It seems to me that Rebel artillery
was
> > very well positioned  and served during the battle.  Luck or talent?
> >
> > David Lutton
> > Hollidaysburg Pa
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
> > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:45 PM
> > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
> >
> > > David,
> > > I do not address it at length, but yes, I agree that  the Union
artillery
> > was
> > > not very effective.  There really were few good positions to fire upon
the
> > > Confederates above the bridge, and the rebs used the quarry pits and
trees
> > for
> > > cover, making them hard to dislodge.  There was some CS counterbattery
> > fire from
> > > above the bridge and from Cemetery Hill too.  Some of the Union guns,
> > Benjamin's
> > > IIRC, ran out of ammo too.
> > > Tom Clemens
> > >
> > > David Lutton wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tom,
> > > >
> > > > I have not seen the pub being discussed here but I have always had a
> > > > question concerning the effectiveness of  Union artillery on this
sector
> > of
> > > > the battlefield.  Perhaps you addressed this in the article?
> > > >
> > > > Granted the defensive position of rebel troops at the bridge area
> > extending
> > > > toward the ford was good,  several Union batteries (I cannot recall
the
> > > > actual number  ) were concentrating their fire in this relatively
small
> > area
> > > > of this battlefield. Why was Union artillery not more effective?
Most
> > of
> > > > these Union batteries were not subject to counter battery fire.
> > > >
> > > > Given the relative strength of the artillery employed by both sides
in
> > this
> > > > sector of the battlefield, can we assume that Union artillery was
not
> > fully
> > > > or effectively employed?
> > > >
> > > > David Lutton
> > > > Hollidaysburg Pa
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
> > > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:44 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
> > > >
> > > > > It is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI and
America's
> > > > Civil
> > > > > War.  I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased source.
> > > > > Tom Clemens
> > > > >
> > > > > Andy Mills wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Guys
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This past weekend, I was in the bookstore, and saw a magazine
> > > > > > titled "Antietam."  I was wondering if this is a good magazine,
or
> > > > > > anyone has ever heard of it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you
> > > > > > Andy
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

IMHO, Antietam is the start of the AOP putting together an effective
command group and the docturn to use it's weapons.  Gettysburg is the
graduation battle.

The CSA never seemed to grow but stayed with what had worked thru the
summer of '62.  With Perryville and the Emancepation Proclamation the
war is lost.

Yes, I agree.

David Lutton wrote:

> Tom,
>
> Exactly. With the rise of Hunt and others in the coming months,  Union
> artillery would dominate this arm of the service for the rest of the war. By
> Gburg it truly was a formidable force.  But at Antietam it seems to me that
> Southern guns were better placed  and used at the 'points of contention'
> throughout the day.
>
> David Lutton
> Hollidaysburg Pa
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
> To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 11:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
>
> > David,
> > Interesting question.  I do not claim expertise here, but will offer a few
> > thoughts.  No question that CS artillery had better organization.  They
> had
> > begun the artillery battalion system, had officers with authority and rank
> to
> > mass guns where needed and use them in numbers.  For example Lee on Dunker
> > Church plateau etc.  ALso lack of older officers, Walton for example, let
> > younger ones shine, ie. Pelham.  Stuart did a lot with CS artillery, and
> it was
> > good.  US were not approaching that level yet.  After Hunt only 1 field
> officer
> > (other than Tyler with HA) and that one, Maj.Arndt, was KIA 9/16.
> > CS on defense, and that makes artillery more effective.  Also CS
> preponderance
> > in smoothbores not as harmful when used in defense.
> > OTOH, Union had more and better guns, four batteries of 20 pdrs who made
> Col.
> > Lee's life "Artillery Hell" and a lot of others people too.  CS had no
> 20's
> > there.  CS still using 45 6-pdrs, US had none.  US guns not well used,
> only 22
> > batteries cross the creek and most of them used north of Sunken Rd.  US
> also had
> > trained cadre of regulars influencing volunteers, CS did not.
> >
> > Summary, North seemed to have advantage, but CS made up deficiences in
> material
> > and men with circumstances of defense, proper command authority and dash.
> > Advantage - South.
> > Just off the top of my head, hope it helps.
> > Tom Clemens
> >
> > David Lutton wrote:
> >
> > > Tom,
> > >
> > > I agree the 9th Corps artillery support was lacking during this  part of
> the
> > > fight.    Might I  further put forth a proposition that  Antietam was
> > > perhaps the only battlefield of the war in the east where Union
> artillery
> > > was outperformed during the war?  It seems to me that Rebel artillery
> was
> > > very well positioned  and served during the battle.  Luck or talent?
> > >
> > > David Lutton
> > > Hollidaysburg Pa
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
> > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:45 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
> > >
> > > > David,
> > > > I do not address it at length, but yes, I agree that  the Union
> artillery
> > > was
> > > > not very effective.  There really were few good positions to fire upon
> the
> > > > Confederates above the bridge, and the rebs used the quarry pits and
> trees
> > > for
> > > > cover, making them hard to dislodge.  There was some CS counterbattery
> > > fire from
> > > > above the bridge and from Cemetery Hill too.  Some of the Union guns,
> > > Benjamin's
> > > > IIRC, ran out of ammo too.
> > > > Tom Clemens
> > > >
> > > > David Lutton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Tom,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have not seen the pub being discussed here but I have always had a
> > > > > question concerning the effectiveness of  Union artillery on this
> sector
> > > of
> > > > > the battlefield.  Perhaps you addressed this in the article?
> > > > >
> > > > > Granted the defensive position of rebel troops at the bridge area
> > > extending
> > > > > toward the ford was good,  several Union batteries (I cannot recall
> the
> > > > > actual number  ) were concentrating their fire in this relatively
> small
> > > area
> > > > > of this battlefield. Why was Union artillery not more effective?
> Most
> > > of
> > > > > these Union batteries were not subject to counter battery fire.
> > > > >
> > > > > Given the relative strength of the artillery employed by both sides
> in
> > > this
> > > > > sector of the battlefield, can we assume that Union artillery was
> not
> > > fully
> > > > > or effectively employed?
> > > > >
> > > > > David Lutton
> > > > > Hollidaysburg Pa
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
> > > > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:44 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
> > > > >
> > > > > > It is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI and
> America's
> > > > > Civil
> > > > > > War.  I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased source.
> > > > > > Tom Clemens
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Andy Mills wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello Guys
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This past weekend, I was in the bookstore, and saw a magazine
> > > > > > > titled "Antietam."  I was wondering if this is a good magazine,
> or
> > > > > > > anyone has ever heard of it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you
> > > > > > > Andy
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


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

James,

Perryville did not really accomplish much but it _did_ keep
Kentucky out of the Confederate camp permanently. However, the EP
is what truly changed the entire strategic course of the war.

The summer and early fall of 1862 was the true high water mark of
the Confederate States of America.

Gettysburg was merely the high water mark as far as
offensive-defensive operations of the Army of Northern Virginia
was to be concerned. To be fair to the CSA and ANV, at that point
the war could still have gone in favor of the South in terms of a
negotiated settlement. A victory for Lee and the ANV at
Gettysburg on clearly Yankee soil following the disaster at
Chancellorsville atop the disaster at Fredericksburg would have
sent the Lincoln administration reeling, IMHO, and might even
have brought the British Empire in to  the fray as making it
clearly known to the US Government that a negotiated settlement
of peace in favor of the Confederate States was now in order.

Your humble servant,
Gerry Mayers
Pvt., CS Signals,
Longstreet's Corps

A Proud American by Birth, Southern by Choice!

"I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
on which he has nobly laid down his life."     --General Robert
Edward Lee

----- Original Message -----
From: "james2044" <james2044@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 8:52 PM
Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Antietam Magazine


> IMHO, Antietam is the start of the AOP putting together an
effective
> command group and the docturn to use it's weapons.  Gettysburg
is the
> graduation battle.
>
> The CSA never seemed to grow but stayed with what had worked
thru the
> summer of '62.  With Perryville and the Emancepation
Proclamation the
> war is lost.
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/mG3HAA/GmiolB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
------~->
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Gary,

Keeping Kentucky in the Union was IMHO "much".  Perryville, is just
over looked as an important battle, as is most all of
the "Heartland".  We see the East and Grant but little else.

I don't know that a British goverment, comming in for the CSA, would
had lasted after the EP.  Britian had taken the lead in stopping the
slave trade and that would have been a major change.

James

Hi group,
Maybe Dr.Clemens can answer this one. I saw on
www.civilwarinteractive that a project is underway on the Daniel Wise
farm on the Sth Mtn. battlefield to look for the well where 58 Conf.
soldiers bodies were dumped. Do you or anyone in the group know who I
can get in touch w/ to volunteer for this project.
Thanks
-jason amico

Jason,

I remember a issue of I believe  Blue and Gray magazine several years ago
that dealt with the well area.  As to the story of the bodies being
deposited in the well, I not sure that it is factual.

David Lutton
Hollidaysburg Pa
----- Original Message -----
From: darkpharoh <darkpharoh@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 4:28 PM
Subject: [TalkAntietam] Fox's Gap hunt


> Hi group,
> Maybe Dr.Clemens can answer this one. I saw on
> www.civilwarinteractive that a project is underway on the Daniel Wise
> farm on the Sth Mtn. battlefield to look for the well where 58 Conf.
> soldiers bodies were dumped. Do you or anyone in the group know who I
> can get in touch w/ to volunteer for this project.
> Thanks
> -jason amico
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Al Preston, who is the MD State Ranger who runs South Mt.  Battlefield Park.
His e-mail address is AAPreston1@...     He is in charge of the thing and
just shared a progress report with me, very good work going on.

darkpharoh wrote:

> Hi group,
> Maybe Dr.Clemens can answer this one. I saw on
> www.civilwarinteractive that a project is underway on the Daniel Wise
> farm on the Sth Mtn. battlefield to look for the well where 58 Conf.
> soldiers bodies were dumped. Do you or anyone in the group know who I
> can get in touch w/ to volunteer for this project.
> Thanks
> -jason amico
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


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

Isn't Lincoln supposed to have said, "I hope God is on my side --- but
I must have Kentucky"?

I don't know what the deal is, but there seems to be some kind of
conspiracy to ignore Perryville. My own theory is that both sides
screwed up so incredibly badly, there is a long standing desire
to pretend it didn't happen.

The leadership screwed up, that is. The foot solders fought well--
given the circumstances--particually the Confederates. If you
thought McClellan had problems, at least he never missed a battle
sipping tea at his headquarters.

I finally got out to Perryville this summer. As luck would have it,
there was a pretty solid rain pouring when I got there, but I wasn't
going to let that bother me. So, I left my wife in the visitor's center,
and set out to do the battlefield 'double quick'. Now, I'm in pretty good
shape, wasn't encumbered by equipment, so I didn't think it would
be too difficult. Wrong! The first few stops of the tour route are
laid out basically by the route of the Confederate attack. Let me
say, after a short while I was huffing and puffing. What you have
is a series of ridges, from which the Confederates drove the Union
troops off the first, then off the next, etc. Quite an amazing
feat of physical endurance.

This is a great battlefield, in pristine condition. The major landmarks
of the battle are basically these hills and ridges (called 'knobs'),
and, unlike woodlots and cornfields, have not been removed, so
the battlefield can be explored today in almost the same condition
it was in at the time. Highly recommended.

Regards,
	 TR Livesey
	 tlivesey@...

james2044 wrote:
>
> Gary,
>
> Keeping Kentucky in the Union was IMHO "much".  Perryville, is just
> over looked as an important battle, as is most all of
> the "Heartland".  We see the East and Grant but little else.
>
> I don't know that a British goverment, comming in for the CSA, would
> had lasted after the EP.  Britian had taken the lead in stopping the
> slave trade and that would have been a major change.
>
> James
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

For those interested in the current "Antietam Commemorative Issue"  that I
mentioned, here are some of the articles:

To Antietam Creek - D. Scott Hartwig
Lost and Found: SO No. 191 - Stephen Sears
War on South Mountain - Mark Grimsley
Carnage in a Cornfield - Robert Cheeks
'Dear Union:' A Federal Artilleryman at Antietam - John Hennessy
Readers' Guide To Antietam - Thomas Clemens
Horrors of Bloody Lane - B. Keith Toney
Whay Did Burnside Cross the Bridge - Thomas Clemens
They Never Had a Chance (16th Conn Inf) - Lesley Gordon
Defeat or Victory? (South perspectives on Antietam) - Gary Gallagher
An Interview with John Howard (Superintendent of battlefield)
Preservation (SHAF's great efforts) - Robert Hodge

Tom Clemens' article notes that readers can anticipate (in future) Scott
Hartwig's multivolume study of the Maryland Campaign.

If you are desperate to find a copy, my local store has several on shelf. For
cost (4.99 + .30 tax) plus US postage, I get you a copy and send it off ASAP.

Tom Shay
rotbaron@...


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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Elliott West" <ewest@...>
To: <H-WEST@...>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 8:45 PM
Subject: Reply: Wyatt Earp


> >Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 05:53:27 -0600
> >From: Neal Ulevich <nulevich@...>
>
>
> For those interested, a photo of the Earps' grave is at:
http://www.watermargin.com/graves/gvdir.html
>
> Neal Ulevich

Jason,

Kindly get in touch with the South Mountain Maryland State Park.
I believe if you performed a Google.com search for the above, you
would at least find a phone number to contact.

Your humble servant,
Gerry Mayers
Pvt., CS Signals,
Longstreet's Corps

A Proud American by Birth, Southern by Choice!

"I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
on which he has nobly laid down his life."     --General Robert
Edward Lee

----- Original Message -----
From: "darkpharoh" <darkpharoh@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 4:28 PM
Subject: [TalkAntietam] Fox's Gap hunt


> Hi group,
> Maybe Dr.Clemens can answer this one. I saw on
> www.civilwarinteractive that a project is underway on the
Daniel Wise
> farm on the Sth Mtn. battlefield to look for the well where 58
Conf.
> soldiers bodies were dumped. Do you or anyone in the group know
who I
> can get in touch w/ to volunteer for this project.
> Thanks
> -jason amico
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/mG3HAA/GmiolB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
------~->
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

David,

Steve Stotlmeyer told me at the site of where he thinks the well
might have been (before the Old Sharpsburg Road was widened) back
in April that, while some bodies were certainly buried in that
vicinity, he is not sure if the story is entirely true. That is
part of the reason for the attempt to locate and excavate the
site of the old well.

Your humble servant,
Gerry Mayers
Pvt., CS Signals,
Longstreet's Corps

A Proud American by Birth, Southern by Choice!

"I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
on which he has nobly laid down his life."     --General Robert
Edward Lee

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lutton" <dunkerch@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Fox's Gap hunt


> Jason,
>
> I remember a issue of I believe  Blue and Gray magazine several
years ago
> that dealt with the well area.  As to the story of the bodies
being
> deposited in the well, I not sure that it is factual.
>
> David Lutton
> Hollidaysburg Pa
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: darkpharoh <darkpharoh@...>
> To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 4:28 PM
> Subject: [TalkAntietam] Fox's Gap hunt
>
>
> > Hi group,
> > Maybe Dr.Clemens can answer this one. I saw on
> > www.civilwarinteractive that a project is underway on the
Daniel Wise
> > farm on the Sth Mtn. battlefield to look for the well where
58 Conf.
> > soldiers bodies were dumped. Do you or anyone in the group
know who I
> > can get in touch w/ to volunteer for this project.
> > Thanks
> > -jason amico
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/mG3HAA/GmiolB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
------~->
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

James;

I believe your post was to me; my nickname can be seen below.

As to Perryville, yes, it was equally an important battle in the
Western theater at almost the same time as Confederate forces
were attempting to carve out a Confederate Southwest (Arizona,
New Mexico and Southern California areas).

1862 between August and October was the true High Tide of the
Confederacy!

As to the British Government, etc. had Lee won at Antietam,
Lincoln would have been unable to issue the EP and the British
Government might have been able to use its not inconsiderable
influence to arrange a negotiated peace. (Which is what the
Confederacy really wanted after all!)

Your humble servant,
Gerry Mayers
Pvt., CS Signals,
Longstreet's Corps

A Proud American by Birth, Southern by Choice!

"I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
on which he has nobly laid down his life."     --General Robert
Edward Lee

----- Original Message -----
From: "james2044" <james2044@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 5:05 AM
Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Antietam Magazine


> Gary,
>
> Keeping Kentucky in the Union was IMHO "much".  Perryville, is
just
> over looked as an important battle, as is most all of
> the "Heartland".  We see the East and Grant but little else.
>
> I don't know that a British goverment, comming in for the CSA,
would
> had lasted after the EP.  Britian had taken the lead in
stopping the
> slave trade and that would have been a major change.
>
> James
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/mG3HAA/GmiolB/TM
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
------~->
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Gerry,
I agree if "Lee had won", when he didn't and the EP was issued the
British Goverment could/would not work for the CSA.

James

If you
thought McClellan had problems, at least he never missed a battle
sipping tea at his headquarters.


Ahem....

David,

Earlier this year I had the opportunity to walk the area of the Wise Farm
with a gentleman who's name I unfortunately cannot remember.  He volunteers
part time with the Central Maryland Heritage League and occasionally does
tours.  He grew up in the area and remembered the location of the well from
his younger days.   He explained how fascinated he was when he was told that
the bodies of Confederate soldiers were dumped there, 58 of them.  The
location he showed me was in fact under the south edge of Reno Monument
Road, perhaps 60' - 75' west of where the present paved road (Appalachian
Trail) intersects Reno Monument Road.  If you look closely you can see a
difference in the vegetation, and a slight indentation in the embankment.
He also stated that the well was dry, even when the Confederates were dumped
into it.  So, due to the lack of moisture the bodies were actually in better
shape for removal and reinterment than their comrades who were buried in
shallow graves.

The CMHL has a website http://www.cmhl.org  lots of good information there.

Ron Church
Manchester MD



----- Original Message -----
From: "David Lutton" <dunkerch@...>
To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Fox's Gap hunt


> Jason,
>
> I remember a issue of I believe  Blue and Gray magazine several years ago
> that dealt with the well area.  As to the story of the bodies being
> deposited in the well, I not sure that it is factual.
>
> David Lutton
> Hollidaysburg Pa
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: darkpharoh <darkpharoh@...>
> To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 4:28 PM
> Subject: [TalkAntietam] Fox's Gap hunt
>
>
> > Hi group,
> > Maybe Dr.Clemens can answer this one. I saw on
> > www.civilwarinteractive that a project is underway on the Daniel Wise
> > farm on the Sth Mtn. battlefield to look for the well where 58 Conf.
> > soldiers bodies were dumped. Do you or anyone in the group know who I
> > can get in touch w/ to volunteer for this project.
> > Thanks
> > -jason amico
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

For those who might be interested.  As you can see the tour guide is
excellent!  <g>

If you have any questions, please direct them to Charlie Kelly(email below).
I am just the messenger!! <g>  (and of course plan to be on the trip!)

Tour Antietam Battlefield

with Battlefield Historian Dr. Thomas G. Clemens
and the
CWRT of Montgomery County

Sunday, October 13, 2002

$40.00

Price includes bus transportation via Hagey Tours, box lunch, bus driver tip,
and speaker fee.
Dinner at a Maryland Restaurant on your own.
Departs and Return parking lot of Historical Society of Montgomery County
1654 DeKalb St., Norristown, Pa
7AM-9PM
Call Charlie Kelly 610-825-4642 or email
Ckelly163@...





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