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

Re: [TalkAntietam] Article about Hoods Texans

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