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

Re: [TalkAntietam] Article about Hoods Texans

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