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

6820RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

Expand Messages
  • Thomas G. Clemens
    Jun 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      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]
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic