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

Antietam Tour: Burnside's Attack

Expand Messages
  • rotbaron@aol.com
    Report on Antietam Tour #5 : Burnside s Attack During lunch at the festival, I picked up a free copy of a booklet entitled A Walking Tour of Sharpsburg . Has
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 19, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Report on Antietam Tour #5 : Burnside's Attack

      During lunch at the festival, I picked up a free copy of a booklet entitled
      "A Walking Tour of Sharpsburg". Has some great content to take along on a
      stroll thru town.

      We met at Burnside's Bridge for the final tour of the day. Ranger Mike
      Weinstein began with a discussion of the friction between Mac and Burnside.
      We crossed to east side of creek and then south to Connecticut monument
      (sorry! regimental number currently escapes me: 14th? 11th?). We discussed
      efforts by them and Rodman's men (to south) to ford the creek.

      Questions were asked about why the Union batteries were ineffective in
      driving off the Georgians.

      Next we crossed over creek, ascended the heights, and headed onto the
      privately-owned land (within park boundary) to the west. I've been over this
      ground several times and read the accounts, yet this part of the battle is
      still quite confusing. The terrain is vast, exceptionally undulating, and now
      is becoming heavily overgrown. Mike provided several maps that certainly
      helped.

      There are many monuments in that area that are very rarely visited and hidden
      behind high growth. Mike noted much of the post-battle growth is now
      including full-fledge trees that totally remove sightlines.

      One thing that would assist in discussion of this area is having unique names
      for the various terrain features. IIRC, the Antietam Game calls several
      ridges by names of local farms, etc. It sure helps!

      Mike and the group headed down into next valley (north of the 40-acre
      Cornfield) and up to the park road on next ridgeline. By then the injury to
      my knee (from my morning fall) was really hurting and I had to struggle back
      to my car (sigh!).
    • Teej Smith
      ... ... Whoa Tom, you can t just casually mention something like that and not tell us what the general consensus was. I think I ve asked this question
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 19, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        rotbaron@... wrote:
        >
        > Report on Antietam Tour #5 : Burnside's Attack
        >
        <Snip>
        >
        > Questions were asked about why the Union batteries were ineffective in
        > driving off the Georgians.

        Whoa Tom, you can't just casually mention something like that and not
        tell us what the general consensus was. I think I've asked this question
        of every guide I've ever toured the field with, not to mention on
        various groups, and have gotten different answers every time. So 'fess
        up why weren't the Union batteries effective against the Georgians?

        Regards,
        Teej
        >
        >
      • rotbaron@aol.com
        In a message dated 09/19/2001 5:15:32 PM EST, teej@pinehurst.net writes:
        Message 3 of 12 , Sep 20, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 09/19/2001 5:15:32 PM EST, teej@... writes:
          << Whoa Tom, you can't just casually mention something like that and not tell
          us what the general consensus was. >>

          Mike (our guide) had no explanation and looked forward to researching this
          question further.
          Perhaps we have other members who can provide some insight as to Union guns'
          ineffectiveness in driving off the Georgians?

          Tom Shay
        • Bill & Glenna Jo Christen
          I would guess that line of sight and an effective range would be two key issues. Before the assault the Ninth Corps was situated in an area that had several
          Message 4 of 12 , Sep 20, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            I would guess that line of sight and an effective range would be two key issues.
            Before the assault the Ninth Corps was situated in an area that had several hills
            between it and the high ground on the west side of the bridge. Unlike modern
            warfare effective use of artillery in 1862 required direct line of sight in this
            particular situation. Positions with direct line of sight were subject to
            Confederate long range artillery fire from positions near Sharpsburg and small
            arms fire. Long range solid shot would hardly be effective at scattering a line
            of men that was spread out already. Before proceeding further I would need a map
            (hint to TR) to make sure of my thesis. Remembering the terrain and the timetable
            of action I believe that either there were no effective positions or those
            positions were not tenable without heavy loss to the gun crews.

            Bill Christen
          • TR Livesey
            Bill & all, This is an interesting question. First, let me digress back to our discussion about concealment. I have always considered woods to be concealing.
            Message 5 of 12 , Sep 20, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Bill & all,

              This is an interesting question.

              First, let me digress back to our discussion about
              concealment. I have always considered woods to be
              concealing. If we accept this, then I would say
              immediately that no Union artillery would have
              line of sight (los) with the Confederate Georgians,
              since the Confederates were completely within woods,
              and thereby concealed. Of course, Union artillery
              would not need direct visual contact with Confederate
              soldiers to know where they were located. Therefore,
              let me say that the discussion following assumes that
              the woods in which the Georgians were located did
              not offer concealment.

              To begin, we need to establish the locations of
              Union batteries. I consulted Plate 9 of the
              Carman-Cope maps, the relevant portion reproduced
              here:

              http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/talkantietam/ca000011.gif

              Plate 9 depicts something like 10:30 am. There
              is also Plate 10, which depicts 12:15. The
              artillery positions are basically the same
              between these maps, except that Taft has
              moved down from the Middle Bridge, and
              Simmonds has been brought up.

              I have tried to locate these artillery positions
              on a modern map. The placement is not exact;
              I only eyeballed the approximate positions,
              but I think it is close enough for this
              discussion:

              http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/talkantietam/base.gif

              The Confederate position is marked in red,
              and the Union artillery positions are in
              blue. Contour lines are at 10 feet intervals.
              For placement, I have attempted to combine
              the artillery positions for plates 9 & 10.

              Because contour lines are hard to interpret,
              I have redrawn the map with elevation color
              coded; as always, yellow is the lowest elevation,
              then green, blue, and red being the highest:

              http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/talkantietam/elev.gif

              As can be seen, the Union artillery positions
              dominate the Confederate position.

              To get more analytical results, I considered the
              los between these Unions positions and the Confederate
              position:

              http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/talkantietam/los.gif

              In this image, each point in the Union positions
              is evaluated to determine the percentage of
              points in the Confederate position that have direct
              los with it. The point is then color coded,
              yellow being lowest (basically 0% of
              the Confederate position visible), through
              greens, blues, and reds, for which the
              visibility is highest (100% of the Confederate
              position visible).

              As can be seen, a considerate amount of Union
              artillery has excellent los: nearly all of
              McMullen, Roemer, and Muhlenberg's, and some
              of Cook's and Benjamin's have los at 100%

              On the map above I drew a red line to indicate
              the direction of 1 possible profile. Below,
              I have drawn this profile:

              http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/talkantietam/profile.gif

              As can be seen, there is clear line of sight
              between the Union and Confederate positions,
              at least alone this profile.

              Overall, I conclude that - considering only
              geographic considerations - the Union artillery
              positions had excellent los with the Confederate
              Georgians.

              Why the Lower Bridge defenders were not pounded
              by Union artillery cannot be explained strictly
              by the orientation of hills and terrain features.

              Perhaps the woods in which the Georgians were located
              did offer concealment. Or perhaps there were other factors -
              such as battle smoke, which limited visibility. After
              many guns had been discharged, one would think that a
              considerable layer of smoke could fill the creek bed,
              and create a literal 'fog of war', which could have
              limited the effectiveness of Union artillery. This
              is just speculation on my part.

              It would be nice to do a field trip and visit the
              actual Union artillery positions to see what you
              can see from there. The area is private property,
              so I have never been up there. On the other hand,
              IIRC, the area is pretty much overgrown, so even
              if you could get up there, you probably would
              not be able to see the same view that was
              present in 1862.

              TR Livesey
              westwood@...

              Bill & Glenna Jo Christen wrote:
              >
              > I would guess that line of sight and an effective range would be two key issues.
              > Before the assault the Ninth Corps was situated in an area that had several hills
              > between it and the high ground on the west side of the bridge. Unlike modern
              > warfare effective use of artillery in 1862 required direct line of sight in this
              > particular situation. Positions with direct line of sight were subject to
              > Confederate long range artillery fire from positions near Sharpsburg and small
              > arms fire. Long range solid shot would hardly be effective at scattering a line
              > of men that was spread out already. Before proceeding further I would need a map
              > (hint to TR) to make sure of my thesis. Remembering the terrain and the timetable
              > of action I believe that either there were no effective positions or those
              > positions were not tenable without heavy loss to the gun crews.
              >
              > Bill Christen
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            • Bill & Glenna Jo Christen
              ... TR Thanks for this work. This is an excellent start to this study. It looks like there was more artillery than I imaged with LOS to the CS positions. I
              Message 6 of 12 , Sep 22, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                TR Livesey wrote:

                > In this image, each point in the Union positions is evaluated to determine the
                > percentage of points in the Confederate position that have direct los with it....As
                > can be seen, a considerate amount of Union artillery has excellent los: nearly all of
                >
                > McMullen, Roemer, and Muhlenberg's, and some of Cook's and Benjamin's have los at
                > 100%

                TR

                Thanks for this work. This is an excellent start to this study. It looks like there was
                more artillery than I imaged with LOS to the CS positions.

                I think the next step it to figure out the location of the batteries from sunrise until
                the bridge was taken around 1 PM. One would suspect that all these batteries were in
                position by sunrise, but that might not be the case. Another step will be to check the
                ORs and other accounts for time relationships to when any batteries were active.

                > On the map above I drew a red line to indicate the direction of 1 possible
                > profile...As can be seen, there is clear line of sight between the Union and
                > Confederate positions, at least alone this profile.
                >
                > Why the Lower Bridge defenders were not pounded by Union artillery cannot be
                > explained strictly by the orientation of hills and terrain features.

                I agree. As this (the lower bridge action) was a "demonstration" per original orders to
                Burnside, perhaps not all batteries were ordered into action. Anticipation of driving
                the CS forces from the bridge without delay and the subsequent movement of batteries to
                positions overlooking Sharpsburg might have caused the batteries to remain limbered.

                > ...Or perhaps there were other factors...

                Firing downward at CS units at the base of the bridge along the creek would be hamper
                by the ability to angle the guns in an effective manner. Also smoke and later the
                presence of US forces along the east bank of the creek would prohibit effect fire.

                > It would be nice to do a field trip and visit the actual Union artillery positions to
                > see what you can see from there.

                I am planning to be at the Harpers Ferry 1860 Election Day event on 13 October
                (Saturday) and would consider a small "scout" in the area early on Friday or Sunday
                mornings. I am also planning to be in the area just on the Gettysburg Remembrance Day
                weekend in November. Let me know if anyone can join me. We need the Pflum boys to help
                us with Ninth Corps artillery details.

                Ninth Corps Artillery...

                Eighth MA (Cook's)
                "...morning east of Antietam Creek...battery fired for an hour or two on two rebel
                batteries on the hills to the right and left of the village of Sharpsburg."

                The left section (two or four guns?) of was detached on went into action AFTER crossing
                the bridge.

                Second US, Btty E (Benjamin's or Carlisle's)
                "morning...opened fire early on a battery which was shelling ...Rodman's
                division...several times during the day we engaged a battery of eight guns to the right
                [north] of Sharpsburg...also fired on batteries left [south of the town] [no tome is
                specified for these actions].

                PA Light, Btty D (Durell's)
                "...morning...the enemy opened a heavy artillery fire, from which their projectiles
                fell thick in our [Sturgis' Brigade] camp, and I [Sturgis] sent Captain Rawole forward
                with Captain Durell's battery, which took position on an eminence and to the left of
                Captain Weed's battery [?], already engaged. Some of the enemy's batteries were soon
                silenced...it became necessary to send Captain Clark's battery up, which soon got into
                position on the left of...Durell's. I now received orders from...Burnside to move still
                farther to the left and front, and cross the Antietam Bridge. The batteries
                were...withdrawn and placed in new positions, so as to aid in clearing the wood on the
                opposite bank...One section was placed on the right of Benjamin's battery, in the rear
                of the cornfield, through which the division moved toward the bridge. Another section
                was placed on the right of the road, about 400 yards from the bridge, but did not open.
                Captain Clark's battery was ordered to a position on the right of the woods, near the
                slope occupied by the division the previous night, and one section held in reserve."

                Fourth US, Btty E (Clark's)
                "...Clark, of Battery E, Fourth Artillery, who did excellent service, and received four
                wounds during the day."
                also see above

                Fifth US, Btty A (Mulenberg's)
                OH Light, First Btty (McMullin's)
                McMullin's battery was in the thick of the action at Fox's Gap on the 14th. I do not
                know what shape it was in on the 17th.

                KY Light (Simmond's Btty)
                Third US, Btty L & M (Edward's)

                At 10 AM Colonel Christ was "...ordered to support some batteries covering our advance
                near the stone bridge."

                What battery was assigned to the Ninth New York?

                > The area is private property, so I have never been up there.

                We could at least get a sighting back toward the US positions while arrangements can be
                made for a spring walk.

                Thanks again TR

                Bill
              • rotbaron@aol.com
                My sincere thanks to Todd for some great maps. I surely will use them (and any others) in my ongoing study of the action during Burnside s assault. They
                Message 7 of 12 , Sep 22, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  My sincere thanks to Todd for some great maps. I surely will use them (and any others) in my ongoing study of the action during Burnside's assault. They greatly help in my gaining an understanding of this portion of the battle. I'll pass them along to the Rangers.

                  You should (seriously!) consider putting together a book featuring your topographical anyalsis of the battle.

                  Tom Shay - Cressona, PA
                • Tom Clemens
                  Bill, McMullin s has a monumnet on the ridge where the Ninth Corps guns were located. It is right along the Burnside Bridge road, the real road, not the NPS
                  Message 8 of 12 , Sep 22, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Bill,
                    McMullin's has a monumnet on the ridge where the Ninth Corps guns were located. It is
                    right along the Burnside Bridge road, the real road, not the NPS road. I'd be happy to
                    show you if I am available.


                    Bill & Glenna Jo Christen wrote:

                    > TR Livesey wrote:
                    >
                    > > In this image, each point in the Union positions is evaluated to determine the
                    > > percentage of points in the Confederate position that have direct los with it....As
                    > > can be seen, a considerate amount of Union artillery has excellent los: nearly all of
                    > >
                    > > McMullen, Roemer, and Muhlenberg's, and some of Cook's and Benjamin's have los at
                    > > 100%
                    >
                    > TR
                    >
                    > Thanks for this work. This is an excellent start to this study. It looks like there was
                    > more artillery than I imaged with LOS to the CS positions.
                    >
                    > I think the next step it to figure out the location of the batteries from sunrise until
                    > the bridge was taken around 1 PM. One would suspect that all these batteries were in
                    > position by sunrise, but that might not be the case. Another step will be to check the
                    > ORs and other accounts for time relationships to when any batteries were active.
                    >
                    > > On the map above I drew a red line to indicate the direction of 1 possible
                    > > profile...As can be seen, there is clear line of sight between the Union and
                    > > Confederate positions, at least alone this profile.
                    > >
                    > > Why the Lower Bridge defenders were not pounded by Union artillery cannot be
                    > > explained strictly by the orientation of hills and terrain features.
                    >
                    > I agree. As this (the lower bridge action) was a "demonstration" per original orders to
                    > Burnside, perhaps not all batteries were ordered into action. Anticipation of driving
                    > the CS forces from the bridge without delay and the subsequent movement of batteries to
                    > positions overlooking Sharpsburg might have caused the batteries to remain limbered.
                    >
                    > > ...Or perhaps there were other factors...
                    >
                    > Firing downward at CS units at the base of the bridge along the creek would be hamper
                    > by the ability to angle the guns in an effective manner. Also smoke and later the
                    > presence of US forces along the east bank of the creek would prohibit effect fire.
                    >
                    > > It would be nice to do a field trip and visit the actual Union artillery positions to
                    > > see what you can see from there.
                    >
                    > I am planning to be at the Harpers Ferry 1860 Election Day event on 13 October
                    > (Saturday) and would consider a small "scout" in the area early on Friday or Sunday
                    > mornings. I am also planning to be in the area just on the Gettysburg Remembrance Day
                    > weekend in November. Let me know if anyone can join me. We need the Pflum boys to help
                    > us with Ninth Corps artillery details.
                    >
                    > Ninth Corps Artillery...
                    >
                    > Eighth MA (Cook's)
                    > "...morning east of Antietam Creek...battery fired for an hour or two on two rebel
                    > batteries on the hills to the right and left of the village of Sharpsburg."
                    >
                    > The left section (two or four guns?) of was detached on went into action AFTER crossing
                    > the bridge.
                    >
                    > Second US, Btty E (Benjamin's or Carlisle's)
                    > "morning...opened fire early on a battery which was shelling ...Rodman's
                    > division...several times during the day we engaged a battery of eight guns to the right
                    > [north] of Sharpsburg...also fired on batteries left [south of the town] [no tome is
                    > specified for these actions].
                    >
                    > PA Light, Btty D (Durell's)
                    > "...morning...the enemy opened a heavy artillery fire, from which their projectiles
                    > fell thick in our [Sturgis' Brigade] camp, and I [Sturgis] sent Captain Rawole forward
                    > with Captain Durell's battery, which took position on an eminence and to the left of
                    > Captain Weed's battery [?], already engaged. Some of the enemy's batteries were soon
                    > silenced...it became necessary to send Captain Clark's battery up, which soon got into
                    > position on the left of...Durell's. I now received orders from...Burnside to move still
                    > farther to the left and front, and cross the Antietam Bridge. The batteries
                    > were...withdrawn and placed in new positions, so as to aid in clearing the wood on the
                    > opposite bank...One section was placed on the right of Benjamin's battery, in the rear
                    > of the cornfield, through which the division moved toward the bridge. Another section
                    > was placed on the right of the road, about 400 yards from the bridge, but did not open.
                    > Captain Clark's battery was ordered to a position on the right of the woods, near the
                    > slope occupied by the division the previous night, and one section held in reserve."
                    >
                    > Fourth US, Btty E (Clark's)
                    > "...Clark, of Battery E, Fourth Artillery, who did excellent service, and received four
                    > wounds during the day."
                    > also see above
                    >
                    > Fifth US, Btty A (Mulenberg's)
                    > OH Light, First Btty (McMullin's)
                    > McMullin's battery was in the thick of the action at Fox's Gap on the 14th. I do not
                    > know what shape it was in on the 17th.
                    >
                    > KY Light (Simmond's Btty)
                    > Third US, Btty L & M (Edward's)
                    >
                    > At 10 AM Colonel Christ was "...ordered to support some batteries covering our advance
                    > near the stone bridge."
                    >
                    > What battery was assigned to the Ninth New York?
                    >
                    > > The area is private property, so I have never been up there.
                    >
                    > We could at least get a sighting back toward the US positions while arrangements can be
                    > made for a spring walk.
                    >
                    > Thanks again TR
                    >
                    > Bill
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  • NJ Rebel
                    Tom; I would second that assessment. Todd really has performed a valuable service and I think a book similar to the format used by Frassanito would be a most
                    Message 9 of 12 , Sep 23, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Tom;

                      I would second that assessment. Todd really has performed a
                      valuable service and I think a book similar to the format used by
                      Frassanito would be a most welcome addition to an understanding
                      of the battle.

                      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: <rotbaron@...>
                      To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 12:17 AM
                      Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Tour: Burnside's Attack


                      > My sincere thanks to Todd for some great maps. I surely will
                      use them (and any others) in my ongoing study of the action
                      during Burnside's assault. They greatly help in my gaining an
                      understanding of this portion of the battle. I'll pass them along
                      to the Rangers.
                      >
                      > You should (seriously!) consider putting together a book
                      featuring your topographical anyalsis of the battle.
                      >
                      > Tom Shay - Cressona, PA
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                      Service.
                      >
                      >
                    • TR Livesey
                      Tom S and Jerry, I m glad you find this kind of analysis interesting; I do, but there doesn t seem to be anyone else doing it. I have attempted from time to
                      Message 10 of 12 , Sep 26, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Tom S and Jerry,

                        I'm glad you find this kind of analysis interesting;
                        I do, but there doesn't seem to be anyone else doing
                        it.

                        I have attempted from time to time to bring together
                        some collection of analyses of the battlefield.
                        I am currently collecting them under

                        http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/topo_study

                        They are currently incomplete, unproofread, and
                        draft; a great deal of material there now is
                        a description of the methods used, which might
                        be somewhat tedious. I hope to be filling it
                        out over time. I will probably add this issue
                        of Union artillery at the Lower Bridge LOS to
                        the collection; it was a pretty interesting
                        question.

                        If anyone else has some burning questions that
                        a look at the topography might help, feel free
                        to make suggestions.

                        TR Livesey
                        westwood@...

                        NJ Rebel wrote:
                        >
                        > Tom;
                        >
                        > I would second that assessment. Todd really has performed a
                        > valuable service and I think a book similar to the format used by
                        > Frassanito would be a most welcome addition to an understanding
                        > of the battle.
                        >
                        > 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: <rotbaron@...>
                        > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                        > Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 12:17 AM
                        > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Tour: Burnside's Attack
                        >
                        > > My sincere thanks to Todd for some great maps. I surely will
                        > use them (and any others) in my ongoing study of the action
                        > during Burnside's assault. They greatly help in my gaining an
                        > understanding of this portion of the battle. I'll pass them along
                        > to the Rangers.
                        > >
                        > > You should (seriously!) consider putting together a book
                        > featuring your topographical anyalsis of the battle.
                        > >
                        > > Tom Shay - Cressona, PA
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                        > Service.
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      • TR Livesey
                        Tom, Can you actually get up to where the guns were? By my reconing, the guns were up hill a good 80/100 feet over the current road bed. I am assuming the spot
                        Message 11 of 12 , Sep 26, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Tom,

                          Can you actually get up to where the guns were? By my reconing, the
                          guns were up hill a good 80/100 feet over the current road bed.

                          I am assuming the spot of the monument you are referring to is
                          near where the modern road (in white) exits the bottom of this
                          image:

                          http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/talkantietam/base.gif

                          TR Livesey
                          westwood@...

                          Tom Clemens wrote:
                          >
                          > Bill,
                          > McMullin's has a monumnet on the ridge where the Ninth Corps guns were located. It is
                          > right along the Burnside Bridge road, the real road, not the NPS road. I'd be happy to
                          > show you if I am available.
                          >
                        • Tom Clemens
                          TR, With permission, yes. The monument is located at the crest of the hill adjacent to the road, and yes the guns were well uphill from there. As usual, your
                          Message 12 of 12 , Sep 26, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            TR,
                            With permission, yes. The monument is located at the crest of the hill adjacent to the road,
                            and yes the guns were well uphill from there. As usual, your maps are excellent.


                            TR Livesey wrote:

                            > Tom,
                            >
                            > Can you actually get up to where the guns were? By my reconing, the
                            > guns were up hill a good 80/100 feet over the current road bed.
                            >
                            > I am assuming the spot of the monument you are referring to is
                            > near where the modern road (in white) exits the bottom of this
                            > image:
                            >
                            > http://www.enteract.com/~westwood/talkantietam/base.gif
                            >
                            > TR Livesey
                            > westwood@...
                            >
                            > Tom Clemens wrote:
                            > >
                            > > Bill,
                            > > McMullin's has a monumnet on the ridge where the Ninth Corps guns were located. It is
                            > > right along the Burnside Bridge road, the real road, not the NPS road. I'd be happy to
                            > > show you if I am available.
                            > >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.