## Re: [TalkAntietam] Article about Hoods Texans

Expand Messages
• 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 1 of 27 , Aug 22, 2001
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
> 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!
>
> 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/
• 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 2 of 27 , Aug 23, 2001
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

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

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!
> >
> > 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! :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
• 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 3 of 27 , Aug 25, 2001
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!
> >
> > 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/
>
>
• Message 4 of 27 , Aug 25, 2001
<<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
• 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 5 of 27 , Aug 26, 2001
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/
>
>
• 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 6 of 27 , Aug 26, 2001
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
• 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 7 of 27 , Aug 26, 2001
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/
>
>
• 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 8 of 27 , Aug 26, 2001
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/
• 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 9 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
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/
>
>
• ... 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 10 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
--- 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.
• 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 11 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
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.

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/
• 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 12 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
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.

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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
• 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 13 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
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/
>
>
• 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 14 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
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.

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/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
• ... 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 15 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
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?

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
• ... 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 16 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
--- 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
• 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 17 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
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/
>
>
• ... 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 18 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
--- 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
• 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 19 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
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
• ... 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 20 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001

----- 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.
• 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 21 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
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/
• Squire Boone.
Message 22 of 27 , Aug 27, 2001
Squire Boone.

NJ Rebel wrote:

> Your comment about Dan'l Boone is well taken. BTW, what was the
> name of Dan'l's brother?
>
> 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/
• 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 23 of 27 , Apr 28, 2002
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.

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.
>
>