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

Re: [TalkAntietam] Article about Hoods Texans

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