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

Re: [TalkAntietam] Burnside Bridge: 36th OHIO?

Expand Messages
  • William
    They were involved in the advance of the 9th Corps after the bridge was taken, not in the attack on the bridge itself. Crook somehow managed to get his troops
    Message 1 of 7 , Feb 24, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      They were involved in the advance of the 9th Corps after the bridge was taken, not in the attack on the bridge itself. Crook somehow managed to get his troops lost during the assault on the bridge.

      Wm.


      ---------------------------------
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • rotbaron@aol.com
      Still trying to determine any role played by 36th OHIO at the bridge, but found two more conflicting statements... Dennis Frye s ANTIETAM REVEALED states (on
      Message 2 of 7 , Feb 28, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Still trying to determine any role played by 36th OHIO at the bridge, but
        found two more conflicting statements...

        Dennis Frye's ANTIETAM REVEALED states (on pg 119) that Crook "held the
        largest of his three regiments, 800 men of the 36th Ohio, in reserve."

        THE MONUMENTS AT ANTIETAM by Charles S. Adams indicates that their monument's
        text states "This regiment advanced near the bridge over Antietam Creek on
        the morning of September 17, 1862, supporting Sturgis' Division. It participated
        in the charge by which the bridge was captured".

        Tom Shay


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Tim Reese
        OR 19/1: 471-472 HEADQUARTERS SECOND BRIGADE, KANAWHA DIVISION, Mouth of Antietam Creek, September 20, 1862. CAPTAIN: I have the honor to report that on the
        Message 3 of 7 , Feb 28, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          OR 19/1: 471-472

          HEADQUARTERS SECOND BRIGADE, KANAWHA DIVISION, Mouth of Antietam Creek, September 20, 1862.

          CAPTAIN: I have the honor to report that on the morning of the 17th instant I received orders from the general commanding corps to cross the bridge over Antietam Creek after General Sturgis had taken the bridge; but upon my arrival in the vicinity of the bridge I found that General Sturgis' command had not arrived; so I sent the Eleventh Regiment ahead as skirmishers in the direction of the bridge, and conducted the Twenty-eighth Regiment above the bridge to reconnoiter the enemy's position, leaving the Thirty-sixth Regiment as reserve. After a labor of two hours, I succeeded in establishing two pieces of Simmonds' battery in a position to command the bridge and getting five companies of the Twenty-eighth across the stream. I then intended taking the bridge with the Thirty-sixth Regiment, but soon after my battery opened on the bridge General Sturgis' command crossed the bridge. The brigade also participated in the charge on the enemy.
          I regret to have to report the death of Lieutenant-Colonel Clarke, of the Thirty-sixth Regiment, and Lieutenant-Colonel Coleman, of the Eleventh. These gallant officers fell while gallantly leading their men.
          The following is a list of the killed, wounded, and missing during the engagement, viz: Eleventh Regiment---4 killed, 12 wounded, and 5 missing; Twenty-eighth Regiment--- killed, and 19 wounded; Thirty-sixth Regiment---3 killed and 21 wounded. Total, killed, 8; wounded, 52, and missing, 5.

          I am, sir, very respectful]y, your obedient servant, GEORGE CROOK, Colonel, Commanding Second Brigade, Kanawha Division.


          ----- Original Message -----
          From:
          To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: 2/28/2005 5:44:58 PM
          Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Burnside Bridge: 36th OHIO?


          Still trying to determine any role played by 36th OHIO at the bridge, but
          found two more conflicting statements...

          Dennis Frye's ANTIETAM REVEALED states (on pg 119) that Crook "held the
          largest of his three regiments, 800 men of the 36th Ohio, in reserve."

          THE MONUMENTS AT ANTIETAM by Charles S. Adams indicates that their monument's
          text states "This regiment advanced near the bridge over Antietam Creek on
          the morning of September 17, 1862, supporting Sturgis' Division. It participated
          in the charge by which the bridge was captured".

          Tom Shay


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







          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          ADVERTISEMENT






          Yahoo! Groups Links

          To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TalkAntietam/

          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          TalkAntietam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Tim Reese
          Also see map at http://aotw.org/maps.php?map_number=9 Antietam on the Web. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Message 4 of 7 , Feb 28, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Also see map at http://aotw.org/maps.php?map_number=9 Antietam on the Web.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • rotbaron@aol.com
            Based on the OR Report provided by Todd, I am going with the assumption that the 36th OHIO remained in reserve during the assault on the bridge. Unless someone
            Message 5 of 7 , Feb 28, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Based on the OR Report provided by Todd, I am going with the assumption that
              the 36th OHIO remained in reserve during the assault on the bridge. Unless
              someone wishes to re-address this issue, I will consider it closed. I've got a
              few more questions that need your opinions!

              I assume that the maps on Antietam on the Web are using the Carman maps?

              Tom shay


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Tim Reese
              You assume correctly. Barring appearance of a detailed eyewitness 36th Ohio account, you ve likely gone as far as anyone can. [Non-text portions of this
              Message 6 of 7 , Feb 28, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                You assume correctly. Barring appearance of a detailed eyewitness 36th Ohio account, you've likely gone as far as anyone can.

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.