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

Re: [TalkAntietam] Article about Hoods Texans

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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 23 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.