Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2319Re: [TalkAntietam] bibliography

Expand Messages
  • Thomas Clemens
    Sep 24, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      It wasn't important to identify the author, soI didn't :-)
      I have not read Teetor's book, waiting for Dennis Frye's. Kagel is
      worth reading, and IIRC, there were so many bad reviews of the other
      book that I didn't read it either. I am away from home right now so I
      cannot put my hands on things to jog memory. As for the Carman
      manuscript & Sid Mier, Joe Harsh typed most of the manuscript. What is
      in the LOC is handwritten and very difficult to read. He sold that to
      Sid, which helped fund his research for TAF, etc. Mier only wanted the
      battle chapters so he ignored the chapters you mention, all the way
      through Chap. 29.
      I have done a lot of work editing the first seven or so, but when I got
      to the battle chapters I discovered Carman was leaning heavily on the
      OR's, but also on letters and interviews with veterans who returned to
      the field. Frequently he copies these works word-for-word, but often
      without citations. Because I am trying to find out HOW Carman came to
      know what he wrote, and how accurate it is, I needed to get the letters
      organized. That is proving a mammoth undertaking.
      The letters are scattered, some in the Nat'l. Archives, some in the NY
      Public Lib, some in the New Jersey Historical Society, and he had access
      to some of the Gould Papers. So far I have collected about 6-700 hard
      copies of letters, maps, notes by Carman, etc, from these repositories
      and put them in folders by brigade, etc. I am now going through the NA
      microfilm to see what else exists, and it is a lot. Likely over 600
      more entries, maybe more. When I can assemble all of that, then I can
      compare what Carman wrote to what sources he used. Essentially I am
      just compiling one H*** of a lot of footnotes and a bibliography.
      He is usually as accurate as any later study, but there are times when
      he is wrong, such as believing John Walker's B&L account, but he is far
      more often correct. Maddeninly, there are time when there appears to be
      no source at all for some of his stories, such as Lee's viewing the
      field from the east ridge of the Antietam on Sept. 15 a.m. He must have
      gotten it from someone, but who? No clue so far.
      There are, BTW, some great stories and anecdotes in the letters. Don't
      look for my work being published anytime soon.
      Tom C

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

      >>> nickrelee@... 09/23/05 8:47 PM >>>
    • Show all 22 messages in this topic