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

6818Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

Expand Messages
  • MikeL49NYVI@aol.com
    Jun 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      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]
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic