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

Burnside Bridge Photo

Expand Messages
  • darinb20855
    Hello all, I am an artist--a photographer, now living in California. Last year, though, I was living in the DC suburbs and, March through June, drove to
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 11, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello all,

      I am an artist--a photographer, now living in California. Last year, though, I was
      living in the DC suburbs and, March through June, drove to Antietam three or four
      times a week, weather permitting to make photographs.

      In the next week or two I'll be putting up on a non-public web site a sample of twenty
      or so of those images--the web site is intended primarily for the use of galleries,
      museums, and book publishers to look at the work--but I will put the link here too if
      there is interest. I hope this post is appropriate for the forum--if not please delete.

      I do have one photo from the series on my weblog. It is the March 6th entry at

      http://www.darinboville.com/wordpress/index.php

      I had a great experience in my visits to Antietam. I hope some of you find a little
      pleasure in the image.

      --Darin

      www.darinboville.com
    • T.R. Livesey
      Darin, I look forward to seeing the rest of your series. I would quibble over a few points in your commentary, however. There was was not going to end to this
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 12, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Darin,

        I look forward to seeing the rest of your series.

        I would quibble over a few points in your commentary, however. There was
        was not going to end to this war until 1 side pulverized the other side
        into the ground. The short term outcome, of course, might have been
        quite different. There might have been some sort of peace agreement;
        there might have been European intervention. The war might have ended
        without reunion. None of these things, nothing short of 'unconditional
        surrender', however, would have ended the 'conflict', which would have
        raged indefinitely. North and South would have continued to clash along
        their long border; they would have clashed over the West, and possibly
        Cuba; they would have certainly clashed over slavery. Ironically, the
        South had a better chance of preserving slavery inside the Union than
        outside of it. Inside the Union, it could use its influence to protect
        slavery outside the slave states: legislation to insure the admission
        more slave states, appointment/election to Federal offices (Postmasters,
        judges, etc.) of persons supporting or sympathetic to slavery, Supreme
        Court rulings protecting slavery, fugitive slave laws requiring free
        states to recognize slavery rights. All this, of course, would have been
        washed away even if the war ended without the North conquering the
        South. The northern border would have become a gigantic slave magnet,
        drawing slaves off far worse then before the war, when, in theory, law
        enforcement was required to return them. And, if the South decided to
        attempt to reopen the slave trade, they would have found themselves in
        conflict with their former European allies. The North certainly would
        have helped prevent any Southern expansion into Mexico. One can image a
        situation like that between Rome and Carthage which flared up, then
        subsided, then flared up again, over and over, until 1 side finally
        utterly vanquished the other. It was going to end no other way.

        No, the South did in fact need to inflict serious blows to the North to
        'win', which is why Antietam is important to study - it is where the
        South failed to demonstrate the necessary military superiority. It was
        the high tide for the South, and they still were turned back. Many
        historians today dismiss the importance of Antietam, but I agree with
        you wholeheartedly that the nation definitely reached a crossroads at
        Antietam.

        Regards,
        TR Livesey
        tlivesey@...


        darinb20855 wrote:

        >Hello all,
        >
        >I am an artist--a photographer, now living in California. Last year, though, I was
        >living in the DC suburbs and, March through June, drove to Antietam three or four
        >times a week, weather permitting to make photographs.
        >
        >In the next week or two I'll be putting up on a non-public web site a sample of twenty
        >or so of those images--the web site is intended primarily for the use of galleries,
        >museums, and book publishers to look at the work--but I will put the link here too if
        >there is interest. I hope this post is appropriate for the forum--if not please delete.
        >
        >I do have one photo from the series on my weblog. It is the March 6th entry at
        >
        >http://www.darinboville.com/wordpress/index.php
        >
        >I had a great experience in my visits to Antietam. I hope some of you find a little
        >pleasure in the image.
        >
        >--Darin
        >
        >www.darinboville.com
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Jeff
        Darin, Please keep up the good work and when you have your Antietam Site posted let us know. Antietam is now one of the most serene places on Earth, it seems
        Message 3 of 9 , Mar 13, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Darin,
          Please keep up the good work and when you have your Antietam Site
          posted let us know. Antietam is now one of the most serene places on
          Earth, it seems inconceivable thet it was a place of such carnage.
          Your photogragh captures that serenity.
          Thanks
          Jeff

          --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "darinb20855" <darin@d...> wrote:
          >
          > Hello all,
          >
          > I am an artist--a photographer, now living in California. Last
          year, though, I was
          > living in the DC suburbs and, March through June, drove to Antietam
          three or four
          > times a week, weather permitting to make photographs.
          >
          > In the next week or two I'll be putting up on a non-public web site
          a sample of twenty
          > or so of those images--the web site is intended primarily for the
          use of galleries,
          > museums, and book publishers to look at the work--but I will put
          the link here too if
          > there is interest. I hope this post is appropriate for the forum--
          if not please delete.
          >
          > I do have one photo from the series on my weblog. It is the March
          6th entry at
          >
          > http://www.darinboville.com/wordpress/index.php
          >
          > I had a great experience in my visits to Antietam. I hope some of
          you find a little
          > pleasure in the image.
          >
          > --Darin
          >
          > www.darinboville.com
        • richard@rcroker.com
          Actually, according to many of the time, it would be a week before the war would become one of total conquest. Men on both sides believed that for as long
          Message 4 of 9 , Mar 14, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Actually, according to many of the time, it would be a week before the war would become one of "total conquest." Men on both sides believed that for as long as the issue remained "Union" there was a possibility of "a return to the Union as it was." i.e., with the vile institution still intact. Status quo antebellum, they would have called it. The Emancipation Proclamation changed that. Lincoln knew it -- McClellan knew it -- Lee knew it. Prior to the EP, the total destruction of the Army of Northern Virginia -- OR the capture of Washington, Baltimore, Harrisburg or Philadelphia, might well have resulted in a negotiated settlement -- or at least so these men believed. These thoughts were contained in one of McClellan's tirades to Mary Ellen. He claimed that the war was now "a war of servile insurrection," and "just too infamous," and that the South would never agree to any settlement that didn't preserve slavery. About this (at least) -- he was correct.


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "T.R. Livesey" <tlivesey@...>
            To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 2:39 PM
            Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Burnside Bridge Photo


            >
            > Darin,
            >
            > I look forward to seeing the rest of your series.
            >
            > I would quibble over a few points in your commentary, however. There was
            > was not going to end to this war until 1 side pulverized the other side
            > into the ground. The short term outcome, of course, might have been
            > quite different. There might have been some sort of peace agreement;
            > there might have been European intervention. The war might have ended
            > without reunion. None of these things, nothing short of 'unconditional
            > surrender', however, would have ended the 'conflict', which would have
            > raged indefinitely. North and South would have continued to clash along
            > their long border; they would have clashed over the West, and possibly
            > Cuba; they would have certainly clashed over slavery. Ironically, the
            > South had a better chance of preserving slavery inside the Union than
            > outside of it. Inside the Union, it could use its influence to protect
            > slavery outside the slave states: legislation to insure the admission
            > more slave states, appointment/election to Federal offices (Postmasters,
            > judges, etc.) of persons supporting or sympathetic to slavery, Supreme
            > Court rulings protecting slavery, fugitive slave laws requiring free
            > states to recognize slavery rights. All this, of course, would have been
            > washed away even if the war ended without the North conquering the
            > South. The northern border would have become a gigantic slave magnet,
            > drawing slaves off far worse then before the war, when, in theory, law
            > enforcement was required to return them. And, if the South decided to
            > attempt to reopen the slave trade, they would have found themselves in
            > conflict with their former European allies. The North certainly would
            > have helped prevent any Southern expansion into Mexico. One can image a
            > situation like that between Rome and Carthage which flared up, then
            > subsided, then flared up again, over and over, until 1 side finally
            > utterly vanquished the other. It was going to end no other way.
            >
            > No, the South did in fact need to inflict serious blows to the North to
            > 'win', which is why Antietam is important to study - it is where the
            > South failed to demonstrate the necessary military superiority. It was
            > the high tide for the South, and they still were turned back. Many
            > historians today dismiss the importance of Antietam, but I agree with
            > you wholeheartedly that the nation definitely reached a crossroads at
            > Antietam.
            >
            > Regards,
            > TR Livesey
            > tlivesey@...
            >
            >
            > darinb20855 wrote:
            >
            > >Hello all,
            > >
            > >I am an artist--a photographer, now living in California. Last year, though, I was
            > >living in the DC suburbs and, March through June, drove to Antietam three or four
            > >times a week, weather permitting to make photographs.
            > >
            > >In the next week or two I'll be putting up on a non-public web site a sample of twenty
            > >or so of those images--the web site is intended primarily for the use of galleries,
            > >museums, and book publishers to look at the work--but I will put the link here too if
            > >there is interest. I hope this post is appropriate for the forum--if not please delete.
            > >
            > >I do have one photo from the series on my weblog. It is the March 6th entry at
            > >
            > >http://www.darinboville.com/wordpress/index.php
            > >
            > >I had a great experience in my visits to Antietam. I hope some of you find a little
            > >pleasure in the image.
            > >
            > >--Darin
            > >
            > >www.darinboville.com
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • tlivesey@westwoodgalleries.com
            Beg to differ. You need to back up a little. The EP didn t change anything. Lincoln issued the EP because he recognized that the country simply could not
            Message 5 of 9 , Mar 14, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Beg to differ. You need to back up a little. The EP didn't change anything.
              Lincoln issued the EP because he recognized that the country simply could not
              survive with the slavery question unresolved. This had been his major
              consistent message since the 1850's. The political situation of the rift of
              slavery drove the EP, not the other way around.

              Suggesting that the war could have ended without conquest if only the North
              agreed to go back to the status quo is no more reasonable to suggest that the
              war could have ended without conquest if the South simply agreed to give up on
              slavery. I agree that you and Mac and anyone that the South would not agree to
              any settlement that did not protect slavery. The North, on the other hand, was
              not going to agree (in the long term, anyway) to any settlement that did
              protect it. The north had the oppurtunity to walk away from that issue for
              several decades (and people like S. Douglas attempted take the North that way),
              but the anti-slavery forces only grew over that time.

              Anyway, even if, as you suggest, the North agreed to go back to the status quo,
              that would not have ended the 'conflict'. At best, the country could have gone
              back to where it was prior to the election of 1860, and the clashes that had
              been brewing over admission of new slave states, slavery in the Capitol,
              slavery in the territories, and the rights of slave holders in the free states
              which had been ongoing since at least the start of the century would continue.
              What on earth makes anyone suppose that open hostilities would not eventually
              break out again?

              I do not dispute that Lincoln may have ended the war if a peace plan could have
              been worked out, even if the reduction of slavery was not part of it (prior to
              the EP). My point is that that would have not ended the conflict. The country
              was not stable 'half slave and half free'. If Lincoln had taken the country
              back to the status quo, the problem would merely have been deferred to some
              later point in time.

              TR Livesey
              tlivesey@...

              Quoting richard@...:

              >
              > Actually, according to many of the time, it would be a week before the war
              > would become one of "total conquest." Men on both sides believed that for as
              > long as the issue remained "Union" there was a possibility of "a return to
              > the Union as it was." i.e., with the vile institution still intact. Status
              > quo antebellum, they would have called it. The Emancipation Proclamation
              > changed that. Lincoln knew it -- McClellan knew it -- Lee knew it. Prior to
              > the EP, the total destruction of the Army of Northern Virginia -- OR the
              > capture of Washington, Baltimore, Harrisburg or Philadelphia, might well have
              > resulted in a negotiated settlement -- or at least so these men believed.
              > These thoughts were contained in one of McClellan's tirades to Mary Ellen.
              > He claimed that the war was now "a war of servile insurrection," and "just
              > too infamous," and that the South would never agree to any settlement that
              > didn't preserve slavery. About this (at least) -- he was correct.
              >
              >


              ----------------------------------------------------------------
              This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
            • richard@rcroker.com
              We agree to disagree. The abolishonists were powerful and vocal and few and far between. Lincoln was concerned that the EP would spark a mutiny in the Union
              Message 6 of 9 , Mar 14, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                We agree to disagree. The abolishonists were powerful and vocal and few and
                far between. Lincoln was concerned that the EP would spark a mutiny in the
                Union army -- that soldiers and officers would throw down their arms and go
                home as a result. Understand that I am not talking about what was true, but
                about what powerful people BELIEVED might be true. JL Chamberlain was a
                rare exception to the rule. My research shows opposition to the EP in the
                Union army to be almost universal. Even in the likes of the Harvard
                Regiment. Until the EP (and even only a matter of weeks before) Lincoln's
                public position was "you can keep your slaves." Ref: First inaugural
                address and the famous letter to Horace Greeley, dated early September,
                1862. Even when he said "a house divided against itself cannot stand" he
                didn't advocate the total and immediate abolishment of the practice.
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: <tlivesey@...>
                To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:44 AM
                Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Burnside Bridge Photo


                >
                > Beg to differ. You need to back up a little. The EP didn't change
                anything.
                > Lincoln issued the EP because he recognized that the country simply could
                not
                > survive with the slavery question unresolved. This had been his major
                > consistent message since the 1850's. The political situation of the rift
                of
                > slavery drove the EP, not the other way around.
                >
                > Suggesting that the war could have ended without conquest if only the
                North
                > agreed to go back to the status quo is no more reasonable to suggest that
                the
                > war could have ended without conquest if the South simply agreed to give
                up on
                > slavery. I agree that you and Mac and anyone that the South would not
                agree to
                > any settlement that did not protect slavery. The North, on the other hand,
                was
                > not going to agree (in the long term, anyway) to any settlement that did
                > protect it. The north had the oppurtunity to walk away from that issue for
                > several decades (and people like S. Douglas attempted take the North that
                way),
                > but the anti-slavery forces only grew over that time.
                >
                > Anyway, even if, as you suggest, the North agreed to go back to the status
                quo,
                > that would not have ended the 'conflict'. At best, the country could have
                gone
                > back to where it was prior to the election of 1860, and the clashes that
                had
                > been brewing over admission of new slave states, slavery in the Capitol,
                > slavery in the territories, and the rights of slave holders in the free
                states
                > which had been ongoing since at least the start of the century would
                continue.
                > What on earth makes anyone suppose that open hostilities would not
                eventually
                > break out again?
                >
                > I do not dispute that Lincoln may have ended the war if a peace plan could
                have
                > been worked out, even if the reduction of slavery was not part of it
                (prior to
                > the EP). My point is that that would have not ended the conflict. The
                country
                > was not stable 'half slave and half free'. If Lincoln had taken the
                country
                > back to the status quo, the problem would merely have been deferred to
                some
                > later point in time.
                >
                > TR Livesey
                > tlivesey@...
                >
                > Quoting richard@...:
                >
                > >
                > > Actually, according to many of the time, it would be a week before the
                war
                > > would become one of "total conquest." Men on both sides believed that
                for as
                > > long as the issue remained "Union" there was a possibility of "a return
                to
                > > the Union as it was." i.e., with the vile institution still intact.
                Status
                > > quo antebellum, they would have called it. The Emancipation
                Proclamation
                > > changed that. Lincoln knew it -- McClellan knew it -- Lee knew it.
                Prior to
                > > the EP, the total destruction of the Army of Northern Virginia -- OR the
                > > capture of Washington, Baltimore, Harrisburg or Philadelphia, might well
                have
                > > resulted in a negotiated settlement -- or at least so these men
                believed.
                > > These thoughts were contained in one of McClellan's tirades to Mary
                Ellen.
                > > He claimed that the war was now "a war of servile insurrection," and
                "just
                > > too infamous," and that the South would never agree to any settlement
                that
                > > didn't preserve slavery. About this (at least) -- he was correct.
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                > ----------------------------------------------------------------
                > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • Jeff Beckner (PWC Magazine)
                Opposition in the army was almost universal? This is news to me, and I think many others. ... From: richard@rcroker.com [mailto:richard@rcroker.com] Sent:
                Message 7 of 9 , Mar 14, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Opposition in the army was "almost universal?" This is news to me, and I
                  think many others.

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: richard@... [mailto:richard@...]
                  Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 10:05 AM
                  To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Burnside Bridge Photo


                  We agree to disagree. The abolishonists were powerful and vocal and few
                  and
                  far between. Lincoln was concerned that the EP would spark a mutiny in
                  the
                  Union army -- that soldiers and officers would throw down their arms and
                  go
                  home as a result. Understand that I am not talking about what was true,
                  but
                  about what powerful people BELIEVED might be true. JL Chamberlain was a
                  rare exception to the rule. My research shows opposition to the EP in
                  the
                  Union army to be almost universal. Even in the likes of the Harvard
                  Regiment. Until the EP (and even only a matter of weeks before)
                  Lincoln's
                  public position was "you can keep your slaves." Ref: First inaugural
                  address and the famous letter to Horace Greeley, dated early September,
                  1862. Even when he said "a house divided against itself cannot stand"
                  he
                  didn't advocate the total and immediate abolishment of the practice.
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: <tlivesey@...>
                  To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:44 AM
                  Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Burnside Bridge Photo







                  [This E-mail was scanned for viruses by AmeriMail]
                • tlivesey@westwoodgalleries.com
                  Clearly, there was a great deal of passion over the slavery issue. I fail to see how the mere issuance of a proclamation would diffuse that passion. The EP
                  Message 8 of 9 , Mar 14, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Clearly, there was a great deal of passion over the slavery issue. I fail to
                    see
                    how the mere issuance of a proclamation would diffuse that passion. The EP
                    itself could not have changed anyone's opinion. I can't think of a single
                    controverial question in which, say, the Supreme Court issued a definitve
                    ruling and the losing side simply gave up and agreed the other side was right
                    after all. The EP was only a statement of the mood which had already taken root
                    in the North, had already made it clash with the South for several decades, had
                    already elected Lincoln, and had already provoked the war.

                    Yes, Lincoln was for gradual abolution of slaves. He was, on the other hand,
                    quite firm in the immediate sessation of the creation of new slave states, and
                    not allowing slaves into the territories. Up to Jan 1 1863 he was willing to
                    leave slavery alone in the existing slave states. This stand alone was enough
                    to provoke war with the North. There simply was no room for compromise. The two
                    sides could not function together. They might cease their hostilities, but each
                    would use this time to prepare for the next outbreak. One of them could not
                    survive.

                    TRL

                    Quoting richard@...:

                    >
                    > We agree to disagree. The abolishonists were powerful and vocal and few and
                    > far between. Lincoln was concerned that the EP would spark a mutiny in the
                    > Union army -- that soldiers and officers would throw down their arms and go
                    > home as a result. Understand that I am not talking about what was true, but
                    > about what powerful people BELIEVED might be true. JL Chamberlain was a
                    > rare exception to the rule. My research shows opposition to the EP in the
                    > Union army to be almost universal. Even in the likes of the Harvard
                    > Regiment. Until the EP (and even only a matter of weeks before) Lincoln's
                    > public position was "you can keep your slaves." Ref: First inaugural
                    > address and the famous letter to Horace Greeley, dated early September,
                    > 1862. Even when he said "a house divided against itself cannot stand" he
                    > didn't advocate the total and immediate abolishment of the practice.
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: <tlivesey@...>
                    > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                    > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:44 AM
                    > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Burnside Bridge Photo
                    >
                    >
                    > >


                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                    This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
                  • richard@rcroker.com
                    TRL -- Actually there s not a great deal of passion...it s just a matter of history and we ve all read different sources and we all have different opinions.
                    Message 9 of 9 , Mar 16, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      TRL --

                      Actually there's not a great deal of passion...it's just a matter of history
                      and we've all read different sources and we all have different opinions.
                      That;s part of the joy of studying history. There are so many things
                      (especailly when it comes to examining the human heart) that we can never
                      know -- we can only guess.

                      As to Lincoln and slavery -- I'll stick by my guns. He was never an
                      "abolishonist" like Chase and Wade and that lot. He was, in fact, by modern
                      standards, a racist. He was a 19th century man, with attitudes that were
                      very progressive for the time, but he was nowhere near the crusader many
                      want him to be. I still admire him above all other US Presidents. What he
                      did -- whatever he did -- his first concern was for the good of the
                      nation -- for the preservation of the Union -- for the future of democracy.
                      The majority rules -- and the minority MUST comply. Otherwise democracy as
                      a grand experiment is doomed. That's the weight he carried and it had
                      little to do with slavery. That's all. It's just history.

                      Richard
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: <tlivesey@...>
                      To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 2:01 PM
                      Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Burnside Bridge Photo


                      >
                      > Clearly, there was a great deal of passion over the slavery issue. I fail
                      to
                      > see
                      > how the mere issuance of a proclamation would diffuse that passion. The EP
                      > itself could not have changed anyone's opinion. I can't think of a single
                      > controverial question in which, say, the Supreme Court issued a definitve
                      > ruling and the losing side simply gave up and agreed the other side was
                      right
                      > after all. The EP was only a statement of the mood which had already taken
                      root
                      > in the North, had already made it clash with the South for several
                      decades, had
                      > already elected Lincoln, and had already provoked the war.
                      >
                      > Yes, Lincoln was for gradual abolution of slaves. He was, on the other
                      hand,
                      > quite firm in the immediate sessation of the creation of new slave states,
                      and
                      > not allowing slaves into the territories. Up to Jan 1 1863 he was willing
                      to
                      > leave slavery alone in the existing slave states. This stand alone was
                      enough
                      > to provoke war with the North. There simply was no room for compromise.
                      The two
                      > sides could not function together. They might cease their hostilities, but
                      each
                      > would use this time to prepare for the next outbreak. One of them could
                      not
                      > survive.
                      >
                      > TRL
                      >
                      > Quoting richard@...:
                      >
                      > >
                      > > We agree to disagree. The abolishonists were powerful and vocal and few
                      and
                      > > far between. Lincoln was concerned that the EP would spark a mutiny in
                      the
                      > > Union army -- that soldiers and officers would throw down their arms and
                      go
                      > > home as a result. Understand that I am not talking about what was true,
                      but
                      > > about what powerful people BELIEVED might be true. JL Chamberlain was a
                      > > rare exception to the rule. My research shows opposition to the EP in
                      the
                      > > Union army to be almost universal. Even in the likes of the Harvard
                      > > Regiment. Until the EP (and even only a matter of weeks before)
                      Lincoln's
                      > > public position was "you can keep your slaves." Ref: First inaugural
                      > > address and the famous letter to Horace Greeley, dated early September,
                      > > 1862. Even when he said "a house divided against itself cannot stand"
                      he
                      > > didn't advocate the total and immediate abolishment of the practice.
                      > > ----- Original Message -----
                      > > From: <tlivesey@...>
                      > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                      > > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:44 AM
                      > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Burnside Bridge Photo
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > >
                      >
                      >
                      > ----------------------------------------------------------------
                      > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.