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

Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Article about Hoods Texans

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 of 27 , Apr 28 7:24 PM
                                              • 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.