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

Re: [TalkAntietam] Article about Hoods Texans

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