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

Re: Article about Hoods Texans

Expand Messages
  • Mark A. Pflum
    ... Howdy Gerry! Excellent article, Sir! I do, however, have two comments that border on nit-pickin . ;-) First off, you say: Union general George B.
    Message 1 of 27 , Aug 22, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In TalkAntietam@y..., "NJ Rebel" <gerry1952@e...> wrote:
      > Group:
      >
      > This is going to be a long post, but I think the message should
      > be able to handle it.
      >
      > Comments are welcomed, as this group has been very very sleepy
      > lately!
      >
      > Your humble servant,
      > Gerry Mayers
      > Co. B, "Tom Green Rifles",
      > Fourth Regiment, Texas Volunteer Infantry


      Howdy Gerry!

      Excellent article, Sir! I do, however, have two comments that border
      on nit-pickin'. ;-)

      First off, you say:

      "Union general George B. McClellan (commanding the Federal force
      comprised of units from the Army of the Potomac, the former Army of
      Virginia which Lee defeated at 2nd Manassas, the Ninth Army Corps
      under Ambrose Burnside from North Carolina and the Kanawha Division
      from the western portion of Virginia)"

      The Ninth Army Corps was formed just before 2nd Bull Run and saw its
      first action under that name in that fight. They were, I believe,
      part of the Army Of Virginia that you mentioned earlier in the quote.

      Secondly, and this one hits even closer to my home (literally):

      "<Snip> named for a brother of Daniel Boone of Kentucky fame during
      the Revolutionary War period <snip>"

      I know you are simply saying Dan'l was of Kentucky fame, but it may
      give the missinformed the impression that he was actually FROM
      Kentucky. We all know, of course, he was born and raised near
      Reading, Pennsylvania and his folks were friends of the ancestors of
      a guy named Abraham Lincoln. ;-)

      Elsewise a very informative piece of work, my greyback friend!

      Mark A. Pflum
      Just fighting for two entities that I care deeply about! :-)
    • TR Livesey
      Gerry, Good question. I have provided links to two images. Image 1 (http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/hl1.gif) shows the elevation in the region of interest. I
      Message 2 of 27 , Aug 22, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Gerry,

        Good question.

        I have provided links to two images.

        Image 1 (http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/hl1.gif) shows
        the elevation in the region of interest. I have also
        drawn the approximate location of Union troops (7 WI/19 IND)
        and Confederate troops (18 GA,H.L.,4 TX) as according to
        plate 4 of the Antietam Battlefield Atlas.

        Image 2 (http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/hl2.gif) shows
        an analytical estimation of what each point from the Union
        position can see of the Confederate position. Each point in
        the Union position is color coded as to what percentage of
        the Confederate position is visible (red - highest visibility,
        blue, green, yellow worst). This chart summarizes the numbers:

        |---------------------------------------------------------|
        | Category Information | % |
        | #|description | cover|
        |---------------------------------------------------------|
        | 0|no data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 3.82|
        | 1| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 27.42|
        | 2| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2.01|
        | 3| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.36|
        | 4| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 0.61|
        | 5| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.57|
        | 6| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 0.70|
        | 7| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.35|
        | 8| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.31|
        | 9| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.59|
        |10| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 0.52|
        |11| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.41|
        |12| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.31|
        |13| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.17|
        |14| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.69|
        |15| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2.48|
        |16| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.64|
        |17| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2.34|
        |18| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2.58|
        |19| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.41|
        |20| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 3.28|
        |21| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2.34|
        |22| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2.81|
        |23| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.64|
        |24| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 0.70|
        |25| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2.06|
        |26| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2.11|
        |27| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2.58|
        |28| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.17|
        |29| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.64|
        |30| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.59|
        |31| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.17|
        |32| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.87|
        |33| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.31|
        |34| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 3.51|
        |35| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.99|
        |36| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2.29|
        |37| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.36|
        |38| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.07|
        |39| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.12|
        |40| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.80|
        |41| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 0.47|
        |42| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 0.23|
        |43| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 0.23|
        |45| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.13|
        |48| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 0.23|
        |---------------------------------------------------------|
        |TOTAL |100.00|
        +---------------------------------------------------------+

        What this chart says is that 3.82% of the Union position can
        see nothing of the Confederate position. 27.42% of the Union
        position can see greater than 0% but no more than 1% of the
        Confederate position. 2.01% of the Union position can see
        more than 1% but no more than 2% of the Confederate
        position, etc. Note that the best spot on the Union position
        can see about 48% of the Confederate position, which is really
        quite good. In all, almost 60% of the Union troops can see 10%
        or more of the Confederate position.

        In all, I think it is safe to conclude that Union troops at
        'the ledge' can fire into Confederate troops east of the
        turnpike.

        Hope that helps.

        Regards,
        Todd Livesey
        westwood@...

        NJ Rebel wrote:
        >
        > David,
        >
        > That is a good question indeed. However, the information I have
        > read speaks of a slight plateau along with the left wing of the
        > Texas Brigade had anchored itself. Perhaps this was how the
        > Federal troops near the Turnpike on the western side were able to
        > fire into the Hampton Legion and the Eighteenth Georgia. Also,
        > remember the two units began to take battery fire from Campbell's
        > battery. Perhaps member Todd Livesy can assist with the
        > typographical features of the area and explain whether such
        > Federal action was possible or not;
        >
        > Hope this helps!
        >
        > Your humble servant,
        > Gerry Mayers
        > Co. B, "Tom Green Rifles",
        > Fourth Regiment, Texas Volunteer Infantry
        >
        > "I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
        > on which he has nobly laid down his life." --General Robert
        > Edward Lee
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "David Lutton" <dunkerch@...>
        > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 7:41 PM
        > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Article about Hoods Texans
        >
        > Gerry,
        >
        > I have one question concerning the account of Hood's troops at
        > Antietam. In
        > it Hampton's Legion and the 18th Georgia began to take fire on
        > their left
        > flank causing them to change front to the west along the pike
        > fence. But
        > the nearest Union troops (that I am aware of) were situated along
        > the"ledge"
        > area. If you go to the ledge area today and look east you
        > cannot see
        > anything beyond the turnpike fence. I am not aware of any
        > physical changes
        > to the landscape in that area since the war so how could fire
        > from it be so
        > severe as to cause a change in front of a moving line???
        >
        > David Lutton
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • NJ Rebel
        Mark; Thank you for the two additional sidebar comments. I just want to tell you that I had no intention of disparaging old Daniel, but wanted to not write a
        Message 3 of 27 , Aug 23, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Mark;

          Thank you for the two additional sidebar comments. I just want to
          tell you that I had no intention of disparaging old Daniel, but
          wanted to not write a complete subparagraph of about where Daniel
          was really from....your comment handled that quite nicely!

          Hope to be able to see you again soon.
          "Or when I breast the cannon's blaze and bemoan my comrades
          dead..."

          Let's see if you can pick up which song that line belongs to!!!
          :=)

          Your humble servant,
          Gerry Mayers
          Co. B, "Tom Green Rifles",
          Fourth Regiment, Texas Volunteer Infantry

          "I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
          on which he has nobly laid down his life." --General Robert
          Edward Lee


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Mark A. Pflum" <ringgold_redleg@...>
          To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 12:45 AM
          Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Article about Hoods Texans


          > --- In TalkAntietam@y..., "NJ Rebel" <gerry1952@e...> wrote:
          > > Group:
          > >
          > > This is going to be a long post, but I think the message
          should
          > > be able to handle it.
          > >
          > > Comments are welcomed, as this group has been very very
          sleepy
          > > lately!
          > >
          > > Your humble servant,
          > > Gerry Mayers
          > > Co. B, "Tom Green Rifles",
          > > Fourth Regiment, Texas Volunteer Infantry
          >
          >
          > Howdy Gerry!
          >
          > Excellent article, Sir! I do, however, have two comments that
          border
          > on nit-pickin'. ;-)
          >
          > First off, you say:
          >
          > "Union general George B. McClellan (commanding the Federal
          force
          > comprised of units from the Army of the Potomac, the former
          Army of
          > Virginia which Lee defeated at 2nd Manassas, the Ninth Army
          Corps
          > under Ambrose Burnside from North Carolina and the Kanawha
          Division
          > from the western portion of Virginia)"
          >
          > The Ninth Army Corps was formed just before 2nd Bull Run and
          saw its
          > first action under that name in that fight. They were, I
          believe,
          > part of the Army Of Virginia that you mentioned earlier in the
          quote.
          >
          > Secondly, and this one hits even closer to my home (literally):
          >
          > "<Snip> named for a brother of Daniel Boone of Kentucky fame
          during
          > the Revolutionary War period <snip>"
          >
          > I know you are simply saying Dan'l was of Kentucky fame, but it
          may
          > give the missinformed the impression that he was actually FROM
          > Kentucky. We all know, of course, he was born and raised near
          > Reading, Pennsylvania and his folks were friends of the
          ancestors of
          > a guy named Abraham Lincoln. ;-)
          >
          > Elsewise a very informative piece of work, my greyback friend!
          >
          > Mark A. Pflum
          > Just fighting for two entities that I care deeply about! :-)
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
          > ADVERTISEMENT
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
          Service.
          >
          >
        • David Lutton
          Todd, Thanks for the information concerning the ledge area of the field. I do have one question though. On both of your terrain maps I believe you are
          Message 4 of 27 , Aug 25, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Todd,

            Thanks for the information concerning the ledge area of the field. I do
            have one question though. On both of your terrain maps I believe you are
            showing the Texas Brigade position as it ultimately became, that is on the
            eastern side of the turnpike fence facing west returning fire from the ledge
            and Battery B.

            But their original movement was of course north with their left flank
            anchored on the turnpike fence. Could Patrick's and Gibbon's men see
            anything east of the turnpike fence? Or am I mistaked and your calculation
            is based on what they could see of the movement of the Texas Brigade as it
            moved in a northerly direction?

            The reason I even asked the question was that I had walked most of the ledge
            area and I really could not see anything past the post and rail fence as I
            looked east. I was under the impression that some of Starke's troops moving
            on the west side of the turnpike fence accompanying the Texans on their
            northward advance were the troops that Patrick and Gibbon's troops
            targeted. But I cannot recall where I got that information.

            I'll have to trek that area again sometime during the Anniversary Days next
            month. Thanks again, Todd.

            David Lutton
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: TR Livesey <westwood@...>
            To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 1:09 AM
            Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Article about Hoods Texans


            > Gerry,
            >
            > Good question.
            >
            > I have provided links to two images.
            >
            > Image 1 (http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/hl1.gif) shows
            > the elevation in the region of interest. I have also
            > drawn the approximate location of Union troops (7 WI/19 IND)
            > and Confederate troops (18 GA,H.L.,4 TX) as according to
            > plate 4 of the Antietam Battlefield Atlas.
            >
            > Image 2 (http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/hl2.gif) shows
            > an analytical estimation of what each point from the Union
            > position can see of the Confederate position. Each point in
            > the Union position is color coded as to what percentage of
            > the Confederate position is visible (red - highest visibility,
            > blue, green, yellow worst). This chart summarizes the numbers:
            >
            > |---------------------------------------------------------|
            > | Category Information | % |
            > | #|description | cover|
            > |---------------------------------------------------------|
            > | 0|no data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 3.82|
            > | 1| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 27.42|
            > | 2| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2.01|
            > | 3| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.36|
            > | 4| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 0.61|
            > | 5| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.57|
            > | 6| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 0.70|
            > | 7| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.35|
            > | 8| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.31|
            > | 9| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.59|
            > |10| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 0.52|
            > |11| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.41|
            > |12| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.31|
            > |13| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.17|
            > |14| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.69|
            > |15| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2.48|
            > |16| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.64|
            > |17| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2.34|
            > |18| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2.58|
            > |19| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.41|
            > |20| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 3.28|
            > |21| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2.34|
            > |22| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2.81|
            > |23| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.64|
            > |24| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 0.70|
            > |25| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2.06|
            > |26| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2.11|
            > |27| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2.58|
            > |28| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.17|
            > |29| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.64|
            > |30| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.59|
            > |31| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.17|
            > |32| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.87|
            > |33| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.31|
            > |34| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 3.51|
            > |35| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.99|
            > |36| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 2.29|
            > |37| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.36|
            > |38| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.07|
            > |39| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.12|
            > |40| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.80|
            > |41| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 0.47|
            > |42| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 0.23|
            > |43| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 0.23|
            > |45| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 1.13|
            > |48| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 0.23|
            > |---------------------------------------------------------|
            > |TOTAL |100.00|
            > +---------------------------------------------------------+
            >
            > What this chart says is that 3.82% of the Union position can
            > see nothing of the Confederate position. 27.42% of the Union
            > position can see greater than 0% but no more than 1% of the
            > Confederate position. 2.01% of the Union position can see
            > more than 1% but no more than 2% of the Confederate
            > position, etc. Note that the best spot on the Union position
            > can see about 48% of the Confederate position, which is really
            > quite good. In all, almost 60% of the Union troops can see 10%
            > or more of the Confederate position.
            >
            > In all, I think it is safe to conclude that Union troops at
            > 'the ledge' can fire into Confederate troops east of the
            > turnpike.
            >
            > Hope that helps.
            >
            > Regards,
            > Todd Livesey
            > westwood@...
            >
            > NJ Rebel wrote:
            > >
            > > David,
            > >
            > > That is a good question indeed. However, the information I have
            > > read speaks of a slight plateau along with the left wing of the
            > > Texas Brigade had anchored itself. Perhaps this was how the
            > > Federal troops near the Turnpike on the western side were able to
            > > fire into the Hampton Legion and the Eighteenth Georgia. Also,
            > > remember the two units began to take battery fire from Campbell's
            > > battery. Perhaps member Todd Livesy can assist with the
            > > typographical features of the area and explain whether such
            > > Federal action was possible or not;
            > >
            > > Hope this helps!
            > >
            > > Your humble servant,
            > > Gerry Mayers
            > > Co. B, "Tom Green Rifles",
            > > Fourth Regiment, Texas Volunteer Infantry
            > >
            > > "I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
            > > on which he has nobly laid down his life." --General Robert
            > > Edward Lee
            > >
            > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > From: "David Lutton" <dunkerch@...>
            > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
            > > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 7:41 PM
            > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Article about Hoods Texans
            > >
            > > Gerry,
            > >
            > > I have one question concerning the account of Hood's troops at
            > > Antietam. In
            > > it Hampton's Legion and the 18th Georgia began to take fire on
            > > their left
            > > flank causing them to change front to the west along the pike
            > > fence. But
            > > the nearest Union troops (that I am aware of) were situated along
            > > the"ledge"
            > > area. If you go to the ledge area today and look east you
            > > cannot see
            > > anything beyond the turnpike fence. I am not aware of any
            > > physical changes
            > > to the landscape in that area since the war so how could fire
            > > from it be so
            > > severe as to cause a change in front of a moving line???
            > >
            > > David Lutton
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
          • rotbaron@aol.com
            Message 5 of 27 , Aug 25, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              <<The reason I even asked the question was that I had walked most of the ledge area and I really could not see anything past the post and rail fence as I looked east. >>

              David,
              While walking the ledge with a Ranger, I too felt that it certainly didn't seem to offer much of a "killing zone" for the Union infantry. But I stated, to his amusement, (joking of course) that those Texans were noted for being rather tall.

              Tom Shay
            • David Lutton
              Tom, Them fellas weren t that tall! Again the events that occurred after the movement to the fence are understandable. But what caused its necessity? David
              Message 6 of 27 , Aug 26, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Tom,

                Them fellas weren't that tall!
                Again the events that occurred after the movement to the fence are
                understandable. But what caused its necessity?

                David Lutton
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: <rotbaron@...>
                To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 12:16 AM
                Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Article about Hoods Texans


                > <<The reason I even asked the question was that I had walked most of the
                ledge area and I really could not see anything past the post and rail fence
                as I looked east. >>
                >
                > David,
                > While walking the ledge with a Ranger, I too felt that it certainly didn't
                seem to offer much of a "killing zone" for the Union infantry. But I stated,
                to his amusement, (joking of course) that those Texans were noted for being
                rather tall.
                >
                > Tom Shay
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
              • TR Livesey
                David, Yes, I am showing Hoods troops after they had turned to meet union troops on their left. As for what could be seen, there are a variety of ways to try
                Message 7 of 27 , Aug 26, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  David,

                  Yes, I am showing Hoods troops after they had turned to meet union
                  troops
                  on their left.

                  As for what could be seen, there are a variety of ways to try to
                  visualize that.

                  I have created a 3rd map

                  http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/hl4.gif

                  which shows the region of interest with a blue zone of Union troops and
                  a red zone of potential Confederate troops. A (grossly exaggerated)
                  profile
                  map is inset on the lower left. I have shown a yellow line in the main
                  image to indicate the alignment of the profile. I have assumed that
                  both the Union and Confederate troops have an 'eye level' of 5 feet
                  above the ground. In the profile, you can see the discontinuity
                  of the red and blue zones - this is the 5 foot vantage point.

                  If you place a straight edge on the profile, you should be able to see
                  that you can touch the blue zone and the red zone without cutting
                  through any intervening ground - that demonstrates a line of sight
                  between the two zones along this line. Furthermore, if you hold
                  the straight edge at the peak of the blue zone, and at the level
                  of the clover where the clover meets the red zone, you can see the
                  line cuts fairly deeply into the red zone, certainly to about the
                  peak of the high ground south of the cornfield, demonstrating that
                  you should be able to see somewhat into the red zone from the
                  blue zone (along this line).

                  Of course, a field expedition should be used to back these predictions
                  up, but the evidence suggests that troops in these positions should
                  be able to see one another.

                  TRL
                  -------------------------------------------------
                  David Lutton wrote:
                  Todd,

                  Thanks for the information concerning the ledge area of the field. I do
                  have one question though. On both of your terrain maps I believe you
                  are
                  showing the Texas Brigade position as it ultimately became, that is on
                  the
                  eastern side of the turnpike fence facing west returning fire from the
                  ledge
                  and Battery B.

                  But their original movement was of course north with their left flank
                  anchored on the turnpike fence. Could Patrick's and Gibbon's men see
                  anything east of the turnpike fence? Or am I mistaked and your
                  calculation
                  is based on what they could see of the movement of the Texas Brigade as
                  it
                  moved in a northerly direction?

                  The reason I even asked the question was that I had walked most of the
                  ledge
                  area and I really could not see anything past the post and rail fence as
                  I
                  looked east. I was under the impression that some of Starke's troops
                  moving
                  on the west side of the turnpike fence accompanying the Texans on their
                  northward advance were the troops that Patrick and Gibbon's troops
                  targeted. But I cannot recall where I got that information.

                  I'll have to trek that area again sometime during the Anniversary Days
                  next
                  month. Thanks again, Todd.

                  David Lutton
                • David Lutton
                  Todd, Again many thanks for your analysis and expertise. I am always willing to make a field study in Sharpsburg, even when there really isn t anything to
                  Message 8 of 27 , Aug 26, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Todd,

                    Again many thanks for your analysis and expertise. I am always willing to
                    make a field study in Sharpsburg, even when there really isn't anything to
                    study! Just another good excuse to make that 2 hour drive down Route 70!!
                    Your map 3 does intrigue me though. When viewing the ground from the ledge,
                    I was always looking directly east. Perhaps a view to the southeast would
                    be instructive. I will let you know of the results.

                    David Lutton

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: TR Livesey <westwood@...>
                    To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 6:54 PM
                    Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Article about Hoods Texans


                    > David,
                    >
                    > Yes, I am showing Hoods troops after they had turned to meet union
                    > troops
                    > on their left.
                    >
                    > As for what could be seen, there are a variety of ways to try to
                    > visualize that.
                    >
                    > I have created a 3rd map
                    >
                    > http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/hl4.gif
                    >
                    > which shows the region of interest with a blue zone of Union troops and
                    > a red zone of potential Confederate troops. A (grossly exaggerated)
                    > profile
                    > map is inset on the lower left. I have shown a yellow line in the main
                    > image to indicate the alignment of the profile. I have assumed that
                    > both the Union and Confederate troops have an 'eye level' of 5 feet
                    > above the ground. In the profile, you can see the discontinuity
                    > of the red and blue zones - this is the 5 foot vantage point.
                    >
                    > If you place a straight edge on the profile, you should be able to see
                    > that you can touch the blue zone and the red zone without cutting
                    > through any intervening ground - that demonstrates a line of sight
                    > between the two zones along this line. Furthermore, if you hold
                    > the straight edge at the peak of the blue zone, and at the level
                    > of the clover where the clover meets the red zone, you can see the
                    > line cuts fairly deeply into the red zone, certainly to about the
                    > peak of the high ground south of the cornfield, demonstrating that
                    > you should be able to see somewhat into the red zone from the
                    > blue zone (along this line).
                    >
                    > Of course, a field expedition should be used to back these predictions
                    > up, but the evidence suggests that troops in these positions should
                    > be able to see one another.
                    >
                    > TRL
                    > -------------------------------------------------
                    > David Lutton wrote:
                    > Todd,
                    >
                    > Thanks for the information concerning the ledge area of the field. I do
                    > have one question though. On both of your terrain maps I believe you
                    > are
                    > showing the Texas Brigade position as it ultimately became, that is on
                    > the
                    > eastern side of the turnpike fence facing west returning fire from the
                    > ledge
                    > and Battery B.
                    >
                    > But their original movement was of course north with their left flank
                    > anchored on the turnpike fence. Could Patrick's and Gibbon's men see
                    > anything east of the turnpike fence? Or am I mistaked and your
                    > calculation
                    > is based on what they could see of the movement of the Texas Brigade as
                    > it
                    > moved in a northerly direction?
                    >
                    > The reason I even asked the question was that I had walked most of the
                    > ledge
                    > area and I really could not see anything past the post and rail fence as
                    > I
                    > looked east. I was under the impression that some of Starke's troops
                    > moving
                    > on the west side of the turnpike fence accompanying the Texans on their
                    > northward advance were the troops that Patrick and Gibbon's troops
                    > targeted. But I cannot recall where I got that information.
                    >
                    > I'll have to trek that area again sometime during the Anniversary Days
                    > next
                    > month. Thanks again, Todd.
                    >
                    > David Lutton
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    >
                    >
                  • TR Livesey
                    David, If you look directly east, you get into a different situation: corn. The question arises about how concealing corn will be. The corn was certainly
                    Message 9 of 27 , Aug 26, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      David,

                      If you look directly east, you get into a different situation: corn.
                      The question arises about how concealing corn will be. The corn was
                      certainly taller than troops, so it is possible for it to conceal
                      troops within it. If you look at a modern cornfield, it is very
                      concealing, largely because the stalks are planted so densely.
                      Corn planting patterns were different in 1862, not nearly as
                      dense, with rows being wide enough for a horse to move between.
                      This would imply that the corn will have different degrees of
                      concealment, depending on what angle you are looking at it -
                      if you are looking straight down a row, you may be able to see
                      into the corn field, but if you look obliquely you would be
                      able to see less. For simplicity, I usually assume corn is
                      concealing.

                      I have provided anther map, showing an eastern profile. I assume
                      corn is 8' tall.

                      http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/hl5.gif

                      If corn is concealing, then you should not be able to see Confederate
                      troops in it, otherwise, Confederate troops should be visible.
                      One must also consider how trampled down the corn would be at
                      this time.

                      When you did your investigation last time, did you have someone
                      standing in the Confederate area to judge if they could be seen?
                      If not, then perhaps that is why it would appear that there would
                      not be line of sight.

                      TRL

                      David Lutton wrote:
                      >
                      > Todd,
                      >
                      > Again many thanks for your analysis and expertise. I am always willing to
                      > make a field study in Sharpsburg, even when there really isn't anything to
                      > study! Just another good excuse to make that 2 hour drive down Route 70!!
                      > Your map 3 does intrigue me though. When viewing the ground from the ledge,
                      > I was always looking directly east. Perhaps a view to the southeast would
                      > be instructive. I will let you know of the results.
                      >
                      > David Lutton
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: TR Livesey <westwood@...>
                      > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                      > Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 6:54 PM
                      > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Article about Hoods Texans
                      >
                      > > David,
                      > >
                      > > Yes, I am showing Hoods troops after they had turned to meet union
                      > > troops
                      > > on their left.
                      > >
                      > > As for what could be seen, there are a variety of ways to try to
                      > > visualize that.
                      > >
                      > > I have created a 3rd map
                      > >
                      > > http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/hl4.gif
                      > >
                      > > which shows the region of interest with a blue zone of Union troops and
                      > > a red zone of potential Confederate troops. A (grossly exaggerated)
                      > > profile
                      > > map is inset on the lower left. I have shown a yellow line in the main
                      > > image to indicate the alignment of the profile. I have assumed that
                      > > both the Union and Confederate troops have an 'eye level' of 5 feet
                      > > above the ground. In the profile, you can see the discontinuity
                      > > of the red and blue zones - this is the 5 foot vantage point.
                      > >
                      > > If you place a straight edge on the profile, you should be able to see
                      > > that you can touch the blue zone and the red zone without cutting
                      > > through any intervening ground - that demonstrates a line of sight
                      > > between the two zones along this line. Furthermore, if you hold
                      > > the straight edge at the peak of the blue zone, and at the level
                      > > of the clover where the clover meets the red zone, you can see the
                      > > line cuts fairly deeply into the red zone, certainly to about the
                      > > peak of the high ground south of the cornfield, demonstrating that
                      > > you should be able to see somewhat into the red zone from the
                      > > blue zone (along this line).
                      > >
                      > > Of course, a field expedition should be used to back these predictions
                      > > up, but the evidence suggests that troops in these positions should
                      > > be able to see one another.
                      > >
                      > > TRL
                      > > -------------------------------------------------
                      > > David Lutton wrote:
                      > > Todd,
                      > >
                      > > Thanks for the information concerning the ledge area of the field. I do
                      > > have one question though. On both of your terrain maps I believe you
                      > > are
                      > > showing the Texas Brigade position as it ultimately became, that is on
                      > > the
                      > > eastern side of the turnpike fence facing west returning fire from the
                      > > ledge
                      > > and Battery B.
                      > >
                      > > But their original movement was of course north with their left flank
                      > > anchored on the turnpike fence. Could Patrick's and Gibbon's men see
                      > > anything east of the turnpike fence? Or am I mistaked and your
                      > > calculation
                      > > is based on what they could see of the movement of the Texas Brigade as
                      > > it
                      > > moved in a northerly direction?
                      > >
                      > > The reason I even asked the question was that I had walked most of the
                      > > ledge
                      > > area and I really could not see anything past the post and rail fence as
                      > > I
                      > > looked east. I was under the impression that some of Starke's troops
                      > > moving
                      > > on the west side of the turnpike fence accompanying the Texans on their
                      > > northward advance were the troops that Patrick and Gibbon's troops
                      > > targeted. But I cannot recall where I got that information.
                      > >
                      > > I'll have to trek that area again sometime during the Anniversary Days
                      > > next
                      > > month. Thanks again, Todd.
                      > >
                      > > David Lutton
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    • David Lutton
                      Todd, Actually, I walked the ledge area south of the cornfield. I understood that the order to protect the left flank was given about 200 yards south of the
                      Message 10 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Todd,

                        Actually, I walked the ledge area south of the cornfield. I understood that
                        the order to protect the left flank was given about 200 yards south of the
                        cornfield. Hence the destructive fire must have hit Hood's troops in the
                        area south of present day Starke Ave. The 4th Texas being the first
                        regiment to change front to the pike fence. I agree as you move north along
                        the ledge from Starke Ave. you can see further into the area east of the
                        pike.

                        Also I will take you advise and commandeer someone to walk the area of the
                        advance of Hood's men while I observe from the Ledge!

                        Do I need a life or what?!!!!

                        David Lutton l
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: TR Livesey <westwood@...>
                        To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 11:14 PM
                        Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Article about Hoods Texans


                        > David,
                        >
                        > If you look directly east, you get into a different situation: corn.
                        > The question arises about how concealing corn will be. The corn was
                        > certainly taller than troops, so it is possible for it to conceal
                        > troops within it. If you look at a modern cornfield, it is very
                        > concealing, largely because the stalks are planted so densely.
                        > Corn planting patterns were different in 1862, not nearly as
                        > dense, with rows being wide enough for a horse to move between.
                        > This would imply that the corn will have different degrees of
                        > concealment, depending on what angle you are looking at it -
                        > if you are looking straight down a row, you may be able to see
                        > into the corn field, but if you look obliquely you would be
                        > able to see less. For simplicity, I usually assume corn is
                        > concealing.
                        >
                        > I have provided anther map, showing an eastern profile. I assume
                        > corn is 8' tall.
                        >
                        > http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/hl5.gif
                        >
                        > If corn is concealing, then you should not be able to see Confederate
                        > troops in it, otherwise, Confederate troops should be visible.
                        > One must also consider how trampled down the corn would be at
                        > this time.
                        >
                        > When you did your investigation last time, did you have someone
                        > standing in the Confederate area to judge if they could be seen?
                        > If not, then perhaps that is why it would appear that there would
                        > not be line of sight.
                        >
                        > TRL
                        >
                        > David Lutton wrote:
                        > >
                        > > Todd,
                        > >
                        > > Again many thanks for your analysis and expertise. I am always willing
                        to
                        > > make a field study in Sharpsburg, even when there really isn't anything
                        to
                        > > study! Just another good excuse to make that 2 hour drive down Route
                        70!!
                        > > Your map 3 does intrigue me though. When viewing the ground from the
                        ledge,
                        > > I was always looking directly east. Perhaps a view to the southeast
                        would
                        > > be instructive. I will let you know of the results.
                        > >
                        > > David Lutton
                        > >
                        > > ----- Original Message -----
                        > > From: TR Livesey <westwood@...>
                        > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                        > > Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 6:54 PM
                        > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Article about Hoods Texans
                        > >
                        > > > David,
                        > > >
                        > > > Yes, I am showing Hoods troops after they had turned to meet union
                        > > > troops
                        > > > on their left.
                        > > >
                        > > > As for what could be seen, there are a variety of ways to try to
                        > > > visualize that.
                        > > >
                        > > > I have created a 3rd map
                        > > >
                        > > > http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/hl4.gif
                        > > >
                        > > > which shows the region of interest with a blue zone of Union troops
                        and
                        > > > a red zone of potential Confederate troops. A (grossly exaggerated)
                        > > > profile
                        > > > map is inset on the lower left. I have shown a yellow line in the main
                        > > > image to indicate the alignment of the profile. I have assumed that
                        > > > both the Union and Confederate troops have an 'eye level' of 5 feet
                        > > > above the ground. In the profile, you can see the discontinuity
                        > > > of the red and blue zones - this is the 5 foot vantage point.
                        > > >
                        > > > If you place a straight edge on the profile, you should be able to see
                        > > > that you can touch the blue zone and the red zone without cutting
                        > > > through any intervening ground - that demonstrates a line of sight
                        > > > between the two zones along this line. Furthermore, if you hold
                        > > > the straight edge at the peak of the blue zone, and at the level
                        > > > of the clover where the clover meets the red zone, you can see the
                        > > > line cuts fairly deeply into the red zone, certainly to about the
                        > > > peak of the high ground south of the cornfield, demonstrating that
                        > > > you should be able to see somewhat into the red zone from the
                        > > > blue zone (along this line).
                        > > >
                        > > > Of course, a field expedition should be used to back these predictions
                        > > > up, but the evidence suggests that troops in these positions should
                        > > > be able to see one another.
                        > > >
                        > > > TRL
                        > > > -------------------------------------------------
                        > > > David Lutton wrote:
                        > > > Todd,
                        > > >
                        > > > Thanks for the information concerning the ledge area of the field. I
                        do
                        > > > have one question though. On both of your terrain maps I believe you
                        > > > are
                        > > > showing the Texas Brigade position as it ultimately became, that is on
                        > > > the
                        > > > eastern side of the turnpike fence facing west returning fire from the
                        > > > ledge
                        > > > and Battery B.
                        > > >
                        > > > But their original movement was of course north with their left flank
                        > > > anchored on the turnpike fence. Could Patrick's and Gibbon's men see
                        > > > anything east of the turnpike fence? Or am I mistaked and your
                        > > > calculation
                        > > > is based on what they could see of the movement of the Texas Brigade
                        as
                        > > > it
                        > > > moved in a northerly direction?
                        > > >
                        > > > The reason I even asked the question was that I had walked most of the
                        > > > ledge
                        > > > area and I really could not see anything past the post and rail fence
                        as
                        > > > I
                        > > > looked east. I was under the impression that some of Starke's troops
                        > > > moving
                        > > > on the west side of the turnpike fence accompanying the Texans on
                        their
                        > > > northward advance were the troops that Patrick and Gibbon's troops
                        > > > targeted. But I cannot recall where I got that information.
                        > > >
                        > > > I'll have to trek that area again sometime during the Anniversary Days
                        > > > next
                        > > > month. Thanks again, Todd.
                        > > >
                        > > > David Lutton
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >
                      • oliverg25@hotmail.com
                        ... Not So! Once the corn is planted a horse never goes into the field. Plowing and planting is usually done with a team of horses, not one. after planting
                        Message 11 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In TalkAntietam@y..., TR Livesey <westwood@e...> wrote:
                          > David,
                          >
                          > > Corn planting patterns were different in 1862, not nearly as
                          > dense, with rows being wide enough for a horse to move between.
                          > This would imply that the corn will have different degrees of
                          > concealment,

                          Not So!
                          Once the corn is planted a horse never goes into the field. Plowing
                          and planting is usually done with a team of horses, not one. after
                          planting there is no need for a horse to go back into the field. Also
                          a horse does not damage the top soil as much as a tractor wheel

                          Amish farmers in PA still use horses and mules and their rows are
                          tighter than those of farmers using tractors. Their fields are so
                          tight you can not look down a row.

                          This might come through twice when Hotmail gets its act together.

                          O.G.
                        • TR Livesey
                          O.G., I am going to immediately admit that I am not an expert in this field (heh-heh). My statements were based on questions I have put to general historians,
                          Message 12 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            O.G.,

                            I am going to immediately admit that I am not an expert
                            in this field (heh-heh). My statements were based
                            on questions I have put to general historians, none of
                            whom claimed to be agricultural experts.

                            I would not, however, base any conclusions on practices
                            of modern, albeit primitive, farmers. Just because they
                            don't use tractors does not mean that they do it the
                            same way as was done 100 years ago.

                            When you look at a modern cornfield, it is so dense
                            that it provides excellent concealment.

                            Although I'm not certain how a 19th century cornfield
                            would look, but, as I stated, I assume that it also
                            provides a certain degree of concealment as well.

                            Do you have any source particular to 19th century
                            corn farming? I would very much like to hear an
                            authoritative source on the subject.

                            Thanks for your comment -

                            TRL
                            oliverg25@... wrote:
                            >
                            > --- In TalkAntietam@y..., TR Livesey <westwood@e...> wrote:
                            > > David,
                            > >
                            > > > Corn planting patterns were different in 1862, not nearly as
                            > > dense, with rows being wide enough for a horse to move between.
                            > > This would imply that the corn will have different degrees of
                            > > concealment,
                            >
                            > Not So!
                            > Once the corn is planted a horse never goes into the field. Plowing
                            > and planting is usually done with a team of horses, not one. after
                            > planting there is no need for a horse to go back into the field. Also
                            > a horse does not damage the top soil as much as a tractor wheel
                            >
                            > Amish farmers in PA still use horses and mules and their rows are
                            > tighter than those of farmers using tractors. Their fields are so
                            > tight you can not look down a row.
                            >
                            > This might come through twice when Hotmail gets its act together.
                            >
                            > O.G.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          • NJ Rebel
                            Todd; If you ask Tom Shay about the videos from one of the Antietam anniversary ranger tours, there is a tape he has in which Keith Snyder talks about how
                            Message 13 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Todd;

                              If you ask Tom Shay about the videos from one of the Antietam
                              anniversary ranger tours, there is a tape he has in which Keith
                              Snyder talks about how cornfields were planted in the mid-19th
                              Century.

                              Hope this helps.

                              Your humble servant,
                              Gerry Mayers
                              Co. B, "Tom Green Rifles",
                              Fourth Regiment, Texas Volunteer Infantry

                              "I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
                              on which he has nobly laid down his life." --General Robert
                              Edward Lee


                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "TR Livesey" <westwood@...>
                              To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 8:49 PM
                              Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Article about Hoods Texans


                              > O.G.,
                              >
                              > I am going to immediately admit that I am not an expert
                              > in this field (heh-heh). My statements were based
                              > on questions I have put to general historians, none of
                              > whom claimed to be agricultural experts.
                              >
                              > I would not, however, base any conclusions on practices
                              > of modern, albeit primitive, farmers. Just because they
                              > don't use tractors does not mean that they do it the
                              > same way as was done 100 years ago.
                              >
                              > When you look at a modern cornfield, it is so dense
                              > that it provides excellent concealment.
                              >
                              > Although I'm not certain how a 19th century cornfield
                              > would look, but, as I stated, I assume that it also
                              > provides a certain degree of concealment as well.
                              >
                              > Do you have any source particular to 19th century
                              > corn farming? I would very much like to hear an
                              > authoritative source on the subject.
                              >
                              > Thanks for your comment -
                              >
                              > TRL
                              > oliverg25@... wrote:
                              > >
                              > > --- In TalkAntietam@y..., TR Livesey <westwood@e...> wrote:
                              > > > David,
                              > > >
                              > > > > Corn planting patterns were different in 1862, not nearly
                              as
                              > > > dense, with rows being wide enough for a horse to move
                              between.
                              > > > This would imply that the corn will have different degrees
                              of
                              > > > concealment,
                              > >
                              > > Not So!
                              > > Once the corn is planted a horse never goes into the field.
                              Plowing
                              > > and planting is usually done with a team of horses, not one.
                              after
                              > > planting there is no need for a horse to go back into the
                              field. Also
                              > > a horse does not damage the top soil as much as a tractor
                              wheel
                              > >
                              > > Amish farmers in PA still use horses and mules and their rows
                              are
                              > > tighter than those of farmers using tractors. Their fields
                              are so
                              > > tight you can not look down a row.
                              > >
                              > > This might come through twice when Hotmail gets its act
                              together.
                              > >
                              > > O.G.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              >
                              > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                              > ADVERTISEMENT
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                              Service.
                              >
                              >
                            • David Lutton
                              GO In your opinion then the corn would have been more tense than today? But we must remember that before Hood s troops stepped off roughly a hour after the
                              Message 14 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                GO
                                In your opinion then the corn would have been more tense than today? But
                                we must remember that before Hood's troops stepped off roughly a hour after
                                the battle started what would this area look like to Hood's troops?. What
                                would be the effect of 1 hour of combat be to this relatively small area?
                                Hooker's often quoted remark comes to mind.

                                If the original command to protect the flank came south of the cornfield,
                                what was happening to Hood's troops started south of the cornfield? What do
                                you think?

                                David Litton
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: <oliverg25@...>
                                To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 8:18 PM
                                Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Article about Hoods Texans


                                > --- In TalkAntietam@y..., TR Livesey <westwood@e...> wrote:
                                > > David,
                                > >
                                > > > Corn planting patterns were different in 1862, not nearly as
                                > > dense, with rows being wide enough for a horse to move between.
                                > > This would imply that the corn will have different degrees of
                                > > concealment,
                                >
                                > Not So!
                                > Once the corn is planted a horse never goes into the field. Plowing
                                > and planting is usually done with a team of horses, not one. after
                                > planting there is no need for a horse to go back into the field. Also
                                > a horse does not damage the top soil as much as a tractor wheel
                                >
                                > Amish farmers in PA still use horses and mules and their rows are
                                > tighter than those of farmers using tractors. Their fields are so
                                > tight you can not look down a row.
                                >
                                > This might come through twice when Hotmail gets its act together.
                                >
                                > O.G.
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                >
                                >
                              • NJ Rebel
                                David, If you have read Mike Priest s book on the battle, IIRC, the area of The Cornfield has already been trampled down due to the attacks and counter attacks
                                Message 15 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  David,

                                  If you have read Mike Priest's book on the battle, IIRC, the area
                                  of The Cornfield has already been trampled down due to the
                                  attacks and counter attacks back and forth through "the corn".
                                  There probably would have been some areas in which more of the
                                  corn would have been standing than others. The famous painting
                                  about the charge of the First Texas in The Cornfield done by
                                  Troiani comes to mind. Perhaps that might give you an idea, as
                                  Don Troiani is very meticulous about the details in his
                                  paintings.

                                  Your humble servant,
                                  Gerry Mayers
                                  Co. B, "Tom Green Rifles",
                                  Fourth Regiment, Texas Volunteer Infantry

                                  "I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
                                  on which he has nobly laid down his life." --General Robert
                                  Edward Lee


                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "David Lutton" <dunkerch@...>
                                  To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 9:00 PM
                                  Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Article about Hoods Texans


                                  > GO
                                  > In your opinion then the corn would have been more tense than
                                  today? But
                                  > we must remember that before Hood's troops stepped off roughly
                                  a hour after
                                  > the battle started what would this area look like to Hood's
                                  troops?. What
                                  > would be the effect of 1 hour of combat be to this relatively
                                  small area?
                                  > Hooker's often quoted remark comes to mind.
                                  >
                                  > If the original command to protect the flank came south of the
                                  cornfield,
                                  > what was happening to Hood's troops started south of the
                                  cornfield? What do
                                  > you think?
                                  >
                                  > David Litton
                                  > ----- Original Message -----
                                  > From: <oliverg25@...>
                                  > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                                  > Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 8:18 PM
                                  > Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Article about Hoods Texans
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > > --- In TalkAntietam@y..., TR Livesey <westwood@e...> wrote:
                                  > > > David,
                                  > > >
                                  > > > > Corn planting patterns were different in 1862, not nearly
                                  as
                                  > > > dense, with rows being wide enough for a horse to move
                                  between.
                                  > > > This would imply that the corn will have different degrees
                                  of
                                  > > > concealment,
                                  > >
                                  > > Not So!
                                  > > Once the corn is planted a horse never goes into the field.
                                  Plowing
                                  > > and planting is usually done with a team of horses, not one.
                                  after
                                  > > planting there is no need for a horse to go back into the
                                  field. Also
                                  > > a horse does not damage the top soil as much as a tractor
                                  wheel
                                  > >
                                  > > Amish farmers in PA still use horses and mules and their rows
                                  are
                                  > > tighter than those of farmers using tractors. Their fields
                                  are so
                                  > > tight you can not look down a row.
                                  > >
                                  > > This might come through twice when Hotmail gets its act
                                  together.
                                  > >
                                  > > O.G.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                  > ADVERTISEMENT
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                                  Service.
                                  >
                                  >
                                • NJ Rebel
                                  ... saw its ... believe, ... quote. ... Mark, did not the Ninth Army Corps comprise the bulk of the Federal expeditionary force that attacked and captured New
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Mark Plfum wrote earlier:
                                    > The Ninth Army Corps was formed just before 2nd Bull Run and
                                    saw its
                                    > first action under that name in that fight. They were, I
                                    believe,
                                    > part of the Army Of Virginia that you mentioned earlier in the
                                    quote.
                                    >

                                    Mark, did not the Ninth Army Corps comprise the bulk of the
                                    Federal expeditionary force that attacked and captured New Burn
                                    in North Carolina after landing near Cape Hatteras? I seem to
                                    recall reading somewhere that this was pretty much the case, as
                                    old Burnside was the commander of that amphibious expedition.

                                    > I know you are simply saying Dan'l was of Kentucky fame, but it
                                    may
                                    > give the missinformed the impression that he was actually FROM
                                    > Kentucky. We all know, of course, he was born and raised near
                                    > Reading, Pennsylvania and his folks were friends of the
                                    ancestors of
                                    > a guy named Abraham Lincoln. ;-)
                                    >
                                    Your comment about Dan'l Boone is well taken. BTW, what was the
                                    name of Dan'l's brother?

                                    Your humble servant,
                                    Gerry Mayers
                                    Co. B, "Tom Green Rifles",
                                    Fourth Regiment, Texas Volunteer Infantry

                                    "I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
                                    on which he has nobly laid down his life." --General Robert
                                    Edward Lee
                                  • oliverg25@hotmail.com
                                    ... Neither am I. I live in Harrisburg. Not too many farms in this city. ... The tractor has evolved over the years. The last time I looked horses were still
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In TalkAntietam@y..., TR Livesey <westwood@e...> wrote:
                                      > O.G.,
                                      >
                                      > I am going to immediately admit that I am not an expert
                                      > in this field (heh-heh). My statements were based
                                      > on questions I have put to general historians, none of
                                      > whom claimed to be agricultural experts.
                                      >

                                      Neither am I. I live in Harrisburg. Not too many farms in this city.

                                      > I would not, however, base any conclusions on practices
                                      > of modern, albeit primitive, farmers. Just because they
                                      > don't use tractors does not mean that they do it the
                                      > same way as was done 100 years ago.
                                      >

                                      The tractor has evolved over the years. The last time I looked horses
                                      were still the smae as the original model. I don't know any Amish
                                      farmers personlly but I fail to see where they could possible be any
                                      different in their farming practices than those of the 19th Century.
                                      Considering they are using the same equipment.

                                      >
                                      > Do you have any source particular to 19th century
                                      > corn farming? I would very much like to hear an
                                      > authoritative source on the subject.

                                      You want me to reincarnate a 19th Century farmer or go knocking on
                                      doors in South-Central PA?

                                      One thing you seem to have forgotten is that Hooker ordered the
                                      cornfield to be raked with canister before any assult began. I don't
                                      think there was much cover left by the time th texans got there

                                      Ollie
                                    • David Lutton
                                      Ollie, Exactly my point. At this point of the battle the cornfield would have been defestated. Hence the corn would have been a non factor. David Lutton ...
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Ollie,

                                        Exactly my point. At this point of the battle the cornfield would have been
                                        defestated. Hence the corn would have been a non factor.

                                        David Lutton
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: <oliverg25@...>
                                        To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                                        Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 9:16 PM
                                        Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Article about Hoods Texans


                                        > --- In TalkAntietam@y..., TR Livesey <westwood@e...> wrote:
                                        > > O.G.,
                                        > >
                                        > > I am going to immediately admit that I am not an expert
                                        > > in this field (heh-heh). My statements were based
                                        > > on questions I have put to general historians, none of
                                        > > whom claimed to be agricultural experts.
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        > Neither am I. I live in Harrisburg. Not too many farms in this city.
                                        >
                                        > > I would not, however, base any conclusions on practices
                                        > > of modern, albeit primitive, farmers. Just because they
                                        > > don't use tractors does not mean that they do it the
                                        > > same way as was done 100 years ago.
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        > The tractor has evolved over the years. The last time I looked horses
                                        > were still the smae as the original model. I don't know any Amish
                                        > farmers personlly but I fail to see where they could possible be any
                                        > different in their farming practices than those of the 19th Century.
                                        > Considering they are using the same equipment.
                                        >
                                        > >
                                        > > Do you have any source particular to 19th century
                                        > > corn farming? I would very much like to hear an
                                        > > authoritative source on the subject.
                                        >
                                        > You want me to reincarnate a 19th Century farmer or go knocking on
                                        > doors in South-Central PA?
                                        >
                                        > One thing you seem to have forgotten is that Hooker ordered the
                                        > cornfield to be raked with canister before any assult began. I don't
                                        > think there was much cover left by the time th texans got there
                                        >
                                        > Ollie
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                        >
                                        >
                                      • oliverg25@hotmail.com
                                        ... have been ... David; Precisely! I think someone else also said the cornfield had been trampled before Hood got there. So the corn, or what remained,
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In TalkAntietam@y..., "David Lutton" <dunkerch@c...> wrote:
                                          > Ollie,
                                          >
                                          > Exactly my point. At this point of the battle the cornfield would
                                          have been
                                          > defestated. Hence the corn would have been a non factor.
                                          >
                                          > David Lutton

                                          David;

                                          Precisely!

                                          I think someone else also said the cornfield had been trampled before
                                          Hood got there. So the corn, or what remained, provided very little
                                          cover.

                                          Ollie
                                        • TR Livesey
                                          Ollie, oliverg25@hotmail.com wrote: ... Hooker s account is unreliable. He makes it sound like he mowed down a whole regiment waiting hidden in
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Ollie,

                                            oliverg25@... wrote:
                                            <general snip>
                                            >
                                            > One thing you seem to have forgotten is that Hooker ordered the
                                            > cornfield to be raked with canister before any assult began. I don't
                                            > think there was much cover left by the time th texans got there
                                            >
                                            > Ollie

                                            Hooker's account is unreliable. He makes it sound like he mowed down
                                            a whole regiment waiting hidden in the cornfield. In fact, when
                                            the I corps moved out, there were no significant Confederates in
                                            the corn, they were in line south of it.

                                            Furthermore, I doubt that Hooker could have possibly irradicated an
                                            entire 30 acre cornfield, no matter how much canister he used.
                                            Anyway, we are interested here in the southern end of it.

                                            TRL
                                          • Oliver Gamble
                                            ... From: TR Livesey To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 11:14 PM Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Article about Hoods Texans David, Corn
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                               
                                              ----- Original Message -----
                                              Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 11:14 PM
                                              Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Article about Hoods Texans

                                              David,

                                              Corn planting patterns were different in 1862, not nearly as
                                              dense, with rows being wide enough for a horse to move between.
                                               
                                              Not So!
                                              Once the corn is planted a horse never goes into the field. Plowing and planting is usually done with a team of horses, not one.
                                               
                                              Amish farmers in PA still use horses and mules and their rows are tighter than those of farmers using tractors.
                                               
                                               O.G.
                                            • Tom Clemens
                                              In the 19th Century, they used hills of corn, and check-row pattern allowed a lot of traffic in the cornfields. Think of it and a checkerboard where every
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                In the 19th Century, they used hills of corn, and check-row pattern allowed a
                                                lot of traffic in the cornfields. Think of it and a checkerboard where every
                                                corner is a hill of corn. It was usually hand planted, not with horses and
                                                machine planters. Bill Christen knows much about it than I do, ask him.


                                                oliverg25@... wrote:

                                                > --- In TalkAntietam@y..., TR Livesey <westwood@e...> wrote:
                                                > > David,
                                                > >
                                                > > > Corn planting patterns were different in 1862, not nearly as
                                                > > dense, with rows being wide enough for a horse to move between.
                                                > > This would imply that the corn will have different degrees of
                                                > > concealment,
                                                >
                                                > Not So!
                                                > Once the corn is planted a horse never goes into the field. Plowing
                                                > and planting is usually done with a team of horses, not one. after
                                                > planting there is no need for a horse to go back into the field. Also
                                                > a horse does not damage the top soil as much as a tractor wheel
                                                >
                                                > Amish farmers in PA still use horses and mules and their rows are
                                                > tighter than those of farmers using tractors. Their fields are so
                                                > tight you can not look down a row.
                                                >
                                                > This might come through twice when Hotmail gets its act together.
                                                >
                                                > O.G.
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                              • Tom Clemens
                                                Squire Boone.
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Squire Boone.

                                                  NJ Rebel wrote:

                                                  > Your comment about Dan'l Boone is well taken. BTW, what was the
                                                  > name of Dan'l's brother?
                                                  >
                                                  > Your humble servant,
                                                  > Gerry Mayers
                                                  > Co. B, "Tom Green Rifles",
                                                  > Fourth Regiment, Texas Volunteer Infantry
                                                  >
                                                  > "I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
                                                  > on which he has nobly laid down his life." --General Robert
                                                  > Edward Lee
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                                • NJ Rebel
                                                  Group; If you have a Preview option on your email program, I recommend you use it. It will allow you to see what attachments are attached before you open the
                                                  Message 24 of 27 , Apr 28, 2002
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Group;

                                                    If you have a Preview option on your email program, I recommend
                                                    you use it. It will allow you to see what attachments are
                                                    attached before you open the email! If you see anything ending
                                                    with .pif or .bat as an attachment or .exe, DELETE it
                                                    immediately! (Many viruses come with either of the three
                                                    extensions.)

                                                    Also, run Trend Micro Antivirus web based scanning, Norton Anti
                                                    Virus or any similar program to locate any virus infections you
                                                    might have and then clean.

                                                    The KLEZ-G variant worm virus has been running amuck in this
                                                    group, and already caused one member to have his account delisted
                                                    by the moderator.

                                                    Your humble servant,
                                                    Gerry Mayers
                                                    Co. B, "Tom Green Rifles",
                                                    Fourth Regiment, Texas Volunteer Infantry

                                                    A Proud American by Birth, Southern by Choice!

                                                    "I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
                                                    on which he has nobly laid down his life." --General Robert
                                                    Edward Lee


                                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                                    From: <oliverg25@...>
                                                    To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                                                    Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 8:18 PM
                                                    Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Article about Hoods Texans


                                                    > --- In TalkAntietam@y..., TR Livesey <westwood@e...> wrote:
                                                    > > David,
                                                    > >
                                                    > > > Corn planting patterns were different in 1862, not nearly
                                                    as
                                                    > > dense, with rows being wide enough for a horse to move
                                                    between.
                                                    > > This would imply that the corn will have different degrees of
                                                    > > concealment,
                                                    >
                                                    > Not So!
                                                    > Once the corn is planted a horse never goes into the field.
                                                    Plowing
                                                    > and planting is usually done with a team of horses, not one.
                                                    after
                                                    > planting there is no need for a horse to go back into the
                                                    field. Also
                                                    > a horse does not damage the top soil as much as a tractor wheel
                                                    >
                                                    > Amish farmers in PA still use horses and mules and their rows
                                                    are
                                                    > tighter than those of farmers using tractors. Their fields are
                                                    so
                                                    > tight you can not look down a row.
                                                    >
                                                    > This might come through twice when Hotmail gets its act
                                                    together.
                                                    >
                                                    > O.G.
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                                    > ADVERTISEMENT
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                                                    Service.
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.