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

Re: Any ideas on this book?

Expand Messages
  • joseph_pierro
    ... Lol, James! What do you want to know about it? --Joseph Pierro
    Message 1 of 17 , Aug 31, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "James W. Durney" <JWD2044@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > The Maryland Campaign of September 1862: Ezra A. Carman's Definitive
      > Study of the Union and Confederate Armies at Antietam (Hardcover)
      > by Joseph Pierro (Editor)
      >
      Lol, James! What do you want to know about it?

      --Joseph Pierro
    • Scott Hann
      Sid Meier s Antietam wargame is bundled with excerps from the Carman manuscript. For the most part, they seem to be reports from the Official Records that
      Message 2 of 17 , Sep 1 7:10 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Sid Meier's Antietam wargame is bundled with excerps from the Carman
        manuscript. For the most part, they seem to be reports from the
        Official Records that were cut and pasted. Joe, how will your work
        differ? Will it be akin to the Batchelder Papers and include
        correspondence between Ezra Carman and Antietam veterans? Thanks,
        Scott



        --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "joseph_pierro"
        <joseph_pierro@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "James W. Durney" <JWD2044@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > The Maryland Campaign of September 1862: Ezra A. Carman's
        Definitive
        > > Study of the Union and Confederate Armies at Antietam (Hardcover)
        > > by Joseph Pierro (Editor)
        > >
        > Lol, James! What do you want to know about it?
        >
        > --Joseph Pierro
        >
      • Joseph Pierro
        Like all good studies of any battle, Carman s narrative draws heavily from the OR. It s not (and Tom Clemens, who knows the Carman manuscript as well as
        Message 3 of 17 , Sep 1 8:26 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Like all good studies of any battle, Carman's narrative draws heavily from the OR. It's not (and Tom Clemens, who knows the Carman manuscript as well as anyone will, I think, back me up on this) simply a cut and paste of the ORs into a chronology the way Bachelder's "history" is. (The Gettysburg "history" truly is nothing more than the ORs re-arranged in chronological order; how Bachelder got away with charging the Federal government $50,000 and then handed them essentially what they ALREADY PUBLISHED is beyond me.)

          Carman, in contrast, wrote a full narrative history of the campaign (the Confederate army doesn't even cross the Potomac until well over the 100th handwritten page), and he drew from other sources--published and otherwise (in addtion to his many interviews conducted during his work for the Antietam Battlefield Board. Not only does it cover the full political and military context, but it addresses all the strategic, operational, and tactical aspects of the entire campaign. It isn't simply about September 17. (The original work was divided into two volumes. The battle of Antietam itself isn't treated until volume two.)

          It also contains some rather detailed and well researched chapters calculating effective strengths and losses, which still stand up as one of the most comprehensive studies of that issue. (He makes a powerful--and damning--case that much of the Army of the Potomac's "present for duty" strength never made it into the fight on September 17--even from those units that were engaged.)

          One of the many problems with the original manuscript, however, is Carman oftentimes didn't give his source (and when he did, he frequently gives only a fragmentary citation--like, "The historian of the regiment writes . . . "--forcing the reader to discover for himself what the specific source is). As editor, one of my tasks was to go back and, to the extent possible, reverse engineer the entire manuscript, locate the actual sources used in every instance, and then provide a complete citation for each (and also double check Carman's transcription against the original quotation--which doesn't always match. Often the errors are simply cosmetic, but in a few instances--which I address in relevant footnotes--the revisions materially alter the MEANING).

          Now there are also two massive collections of Carman's correspondence with veterans (in the Nat'l Archives and the NY Public Library). That correspondence (save for quoted excerpts used in his narrative) doesn't appear in the book I'm editing. (The book is massive enough as it is, 500,000 words; the correspondence alone would probably fill a few volumes.) There's a lot of wonderful material throughout those letters (the previously unpublished after-action report of the 23d New York that appeared in the September issue of Civil War Times comes from the Carman papers in the National Archives), but many of them deal only with where troops were, not what they did. (Remember that Carman's mission was to figure out exactly where to place the markers on the battlefield. His primary concern was spatial, not temporal--and that emphasis comes across in the types of questions he asked.) Many of the "letters" are really nothing more than keys to the maps that
          accompany them. (Carman used to send people a section of the base map and then ask them to fill in where the regiment bivouacked, where it formed line, where it advanced to, etc.). In the NA, the maps by and large are with their letters. At the NYPL, however, some archivist appears to have made the disastrous decision to separate the maps from the letters, effectively rendering many of both useless.


          ----- Original Message ----
          From: Scott Hann <wutheringheights@...>
          To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2007 10:10:21 AM
          Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Any ideas on this book?

          Sid Meier's Antietam wargame is bundled with excerps from the Carman
          manuscript. For the most part, they seem to be reports from the
          Official Records that were cut and pasted. Joe, how will your work
          differ? Will it be akin to the Batchelder Papers and include
          correspondence between Ezra Carman and Antietam veterans? Thanks,
          Scott

          --- In TalkAntietam@ yahoogroups. com, "joseph_pierro"
          <joseph_pierro@ ...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In TalkAntietam@ yahoogroups. com, "James W. Durney" <JWD2044@>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > > The Maryland Campaign of September 1862: Ezra A. Carman's
          Definitive
          > > Study of the Union and Confederate Armies at Antietam (Hardcover)
          > > by Joseph Pierro (Editor)
          > >
          > Lol, James! What do you want to know about it?
          >
          > --Joseph Pierro
          >






          ____________________________________________________________________________________
          Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
          http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • James W. Durney
          ... heavily from the OR. It s not (and Tom Clemens, who knows the Carman manuscript as well as anyone will, I think, back me up on this) simply a cut and
          Message 4 of 17 , Sep 1 9:14 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, Joseph Pierro
            <joseph_pierro@...> wrote:
            >
            > Like all good studies of any battle, Carman's narrative draws
            heavily from the OR. It's not (and Tom Clemens, who knows the Carman
            manuscript as well as anyone will, I think, back me up on this)
            simply a cut and paste of the ORs into a chronology the way
            Bachelder's "history" is. (The Gettysburg "history" truly is nothing
            more than the ORs re-arranged in chronological order; how Bachelder
            got away with charging the Federal government $50,000 and then handed
            them essentially what they ALREADY PUBLISHED is beyond me.)
            >
            > Carman, in contrast, wrote a full narrative history of the campaign
            (the Confederate army doesn't even cross the Potomac until well over
            the 100th handwritten page), and he drew from other sources--
            published and otherwise (in addtion to his many interviews conducted
            during his work for the Antietam Battlefield Board. Not only does it
            cover the full political and military context, but it addresses all
            the strategic, operational, and tactical aspects of the entire
            campaign. It isn't simply about September 17. (The original work
            was divided into two volumes. The battle of Antietam itself isn't
            treated until volume two.)
            >
            > It also contains some rather detailed and well researched chapters
            calculating effective strengths and losses, which still stand up as
            one of the most comprehensive studies of that issue. (He makes a
            powerful--and damning--case that much of the Army of the
            Potomac's "present for duty" strength never made it into the fight on
            September 17--even from those units that were engaged.)
            >
            > One of the many problems with the original manuscript, however, is
            Carman oftentimes didn't give his source (and when he did, he
            frequently gives only a fragmentary citation--like, "The historian of
            the regiment writes . . . "--forcing the reader to discover for
            himself what the specific source is). As editor, one of my tasks was
            to go back and, to the extent possible, reverse engineer the entire
            manuscript, locate the actual sources used in every instance, and
            then provide a complete citation for each (and also double check
            Carman's transcription against the original quotation--which doesn't
            always match. Often the errors are simply cosmetic, but in a few
            instances--which I address in relevant footnotes--the revisions
            materially alter the MEANING).
            >
            > Now there are also two massive collections of Carman's
            correspondence with veterans (in the Nat'l Archives and the NY Public
            Library). That correspondence (save for quoted excerpts used in his
            narrative) doesn't appear in the book I'm editing. (The book is
            massive enough as it is, 500,000 words; the correspondence alone
            would probably fill a few volumes.) There's a lot of wonderful
            material throughout those letters (the previously unpublished after-
            action report of the 23d New York that appeared in the September
            issue of Civil War Times comes from the Carman papers in the National
            Archives), but many of them deal only with where troops were, not
            what they did. (Remember that Carman's mission was to figure out
            exactly where to place the markers on the battlefield. His primary
            concern was spatial, not temporal--and that emphasis comes across in
            the types of questions he asked.) Many of the "letters" are really
            nothing more than keys to the maps that
            > accompany them. (Carman used to send people a section of the base
            map and then ask them to fill in where the regiment bivouacked, where
            it formed line, where it advanced to, etc.). In the NA, the maps by
            and large are with their letters. At the NYPL, however, some
            archivist appears to have made the disastrous decision to separate
            the maps from the letters, effectively rendering many of both
            useless.
            >
            >


            This is what I was looking for, Thank you!

            James
          • Scott Hann
            Joe, thanks for the exhaustive answer to my question. Quite frankly, I am far more familiar with Bachelder s correspondence with Gettysburg veterans than I am
            Message 5 of 17 , Sep 1 10:52 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Joe, thanks for the exhaustive answer to my question. Quite
              frankly, I am far more familiar with Bachelder's correspondence with
              Gettysburg veterans than I am with the government-funded manuscript
              he wrote. I feared that the Carman work would merely rehash sources
              previously published, but apparently this isn't the case. Can you
              estimate the amount of material that is "fresh," that is, material
              that hasn't been published previously in either the O.R.'s or
              regimental histories?

              I enjoyed reading your article in America's Civil War. I too made a
              contribution to the issue; more than a dozen photos from my
              collection were used in the magazine.

              When the publication date nears I'll be sure to ask for an
              autographed copy of your book.

              Best wishes,

              Scott D. Hann


              --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "James W. Durney" <JWD2044@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, Joseph Pierro
              > <joseph_pierro@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Like all good studies of any battle, Carman's narrative draws
              > heavily from the OR. It's not (and Tom Clemens, who knows the
              Carman
              > manuscript as well as anyone will, I think, back me up on this)
              > simply a cut and paste of the ORs into a chronology the way
              > Bachelder's "history" is. (The Gettysburg "history" truly is
              nothing
              > more than the ORs re-arranged in chronological order; how
              Bachelder
              > got away with charging the Federal government $50,000 and then
              handed
              > them essentially what they ALREADY PUBLISHED is beyond me.)
              > >
              > > Carman, in contrast, wrote a full narrative history of the
              campaign
              > (the Confederate army doesn't even cross the Potomac until well
              over
              > the 100th handwritten page), and he drew from other sources--
              > published and otherwise (in addtion to his many interviews
              conducted
              > during his work for the Antietam Battlefield Board. Not only does
              it
              > cover the full political and military context, but it addresses
              all
              > the strategic, operational, and tactical aspects of the entire
              > campaign. It isn't simply about September 17. (The original work
              > was divided into two volumes. The battle of Antietam itself isn't
              > treated until volume two.)
              > >
              > > It also contains some rather detailed and well researched
              chapters
              > calculating effective strengths and losses, which still stand up
              as
              > one of the most comprehensive studies of that issue. (He makes a
              > powerful--and damning--case that much of the Army of the
              > Potomac's "present for duty" strength never made it into the fight
              on
              > September 17--even from those units that were engaged.)
              > >
              > > One of the many problems with the original manuscript, however,
              is
              > Carman oftentimes didn't give his source (and when he did, he
              > frequently gives only a fragmentary citation--like, "The historian
              of
              > the regiment writes . . . "--forcing the reader to discover for
              > himself what the specific source is). As editor, one of my tasks
              was
              > to go back and, to the extent possible, reverse engineer the
              entire
              > manuscript, locate the actual sources used in every instance, and
              > then provide a complete citation for each (and also double check
              > Carman's transcription against the original quotation--which
              doesn't
              > always match. Often the errors are simply cosmetic, but in a few
              > instances--which I address in relevant footnotes--the revisions
              > materially alter the MEANING).
              > >
              > > Now there are also two massive collections of Carman's
              > correspondence with veterans (in the Nat'l Archives and the NY
              Public
              > Library). That correspondence (save for quoted excerpts used in
              his
              > narrative) doesn't appear in the book I'm editing. (The book is
              > massive enough as it is, 500,000 words; the correspondence alone
              > would probably fill a few volumes.) There's a lot of wonderful
              > material throughout those letters (the previously unpublished
              after-
              > action report of the 23d New York that appeared in the September
              > issue of Civil War Times comes from the Carman papers in the
              National
              > Archives), but many of them deal only with where troops were, not
              > what they did. (Remember that Carman's mission was to figure out
              > exactly where to place the markers on the battlefield. His
              primary
              > concern was spatial, not temporal--and that emphasis comes across
              in
              > the types of questions he asked.) Many of the "letters" are
              really
              > nothing more than keys to the maps that
              > > accompany them. (Carman used to send people a section of the
              base
              > map and then ask them to fill in where the regiment bivouacked,
              where
              > it formed line, where it advanced to, etc.). In the NA, the maps
              by
              > and large are with their letters. At the NYPL, however, some
              > archivist appears to have made the disastrous decision to separate
              > the maps from the letters, effectively rendering many of both
              > useless.
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              > This is what I was looking for, Thank you!
              >
              > James
              >
            • Thomas Clemens
              Let me just add that Scott Hartwig, who is writing a multi-volume work on Antietam, but is the Chief Historian at Gettysburg, was asked if Carman was the
              Message 6 of 17 , Sep 1 5:29 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Let me just add that Scott Hartwig, who is writing a multi-volume work on Antietam, but is the Chief Historian at Gettysburg, was asked if Carman was the Bachelder of Antietam? Scott replied, "No, Bachelder is the Carman of Gettysburg." COuldn't have said it better.


                Thomas G. Clemens D.A.
                Professor of History
                Hagerstown Community College


                >>> "James W. Durney" <JWD2044@...> 09/01/07 12:14 PM >>>
                --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, Joseph Pierro
                <
                This is what I was looking for, Thank you!

                James
              • Scott Hann
                Tom, Do you have Scott s contact information? He has mine (through the files at the GNMP), but I don t know how to contact him directly. I want to offer him
                Message 7 of 17 , Sep 1 5:48 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Tom,

                  Do you have Scott's contact information? He has mine (through the
                  files at the GNMP), but I don't know how to contact him directly. I
                  want to offer him the use of the Antietam soldier images in my
                  collection. I'm fast approaching 200.

                  Scott Hann


                  --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Clemens" <clemenst@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > Let me just add that Scott Hartwig, who is writing a multi-volume
                  work on Antietam, but is the Chief Historian at Gettysburg, was
                  asked if Carman was the Bachelder of Antietam? Scott replied, "No,
                  Bachelder is the Carman of Gettysburg." COuldn't have said it
                  better.
                  >
                  >
                  > Thomas G. Clemens D.A.
                  > Professor of History
                  > Hagerstown Community College
                  >
                  >
                  > >>> "James W. Durney" <JWD2044@...> 09/01/07 12:14 PM >>>
                  > --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, Joseph Pierro
                  > <
                  > This is what I was looking for, Thank you!
                  >
                  > James
                  >
                • joseph_pierro
                  scott_hartwig AT nps.gov (I tried to post it the actual email address before, but the software masks the domain. You can use that basic formula (first
                  Message 8 of 17 , Sep 1 10:26 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    scott_hartwig AT nps.gov (I tried to post it the actual email address
                    before, but the software masks the domain.

                    You can use that basic formula (first name_last At nps.gov) to reach
                    anyone at any of the battlefields

                    --jake

                    --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Hann"
                    <wutheringheights@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Tom,
                    >
                    > Do you have Scott's contact information? He has mine (through the
                    > files at the GNMP), but I don't know how to contact him directly.
                    I
                    > want to offer him the use of the Antietam soldier images in my
                    > collection. I'm fast approaching 200.
                    >
                    > Scott Hann
                    >
                    >
                  • joseph_pierro
                    Hmmmm. You know, I ve been rolling your question over and over in my brain all day. It s a hard one to answer quantitatively. First of all, given the massive
                    Message 9 of 17 , Sep 1 10:35 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hmmmm. You know, I've been rolling your question over and over in my
                      brain all day. It's a hard one to answer quantitatively.

                      First of all, given the massive size of Carman's manuscript, one can
                      find evidence to support almost any claim about it. At over 1,400
                      handwritten pages, it would be equally true to say that "It contains
                      a lot of factual material found in other sources" as it would be to
                      say "It contain a lot of factual material found nowhere else." It
                      all depends on which pages you want to hold up to support your
                      position.

                      Then there's the question of accessibility. A good deal of the
                      factual material contained within the manuscript comes from
                      nineteenth century sources that are long out of print, often unknown
                      save to the most dedicated of Antietam scholars, and can only be
                      found in the largest of research libraries. (Double checking some of
                      Carman's quotations required trips to the Library of Congress's rare
                      book division.) Can you find a good deal of his factual material
                      published elsewhere? Yes--but spread across a few hundred books.
                      Just to have it all between the two covers of Carman's book is an
                      achievement.

                      That said, if you mine the footnotes of Sears, Harsh, Murfin, etc.,
                      you will find a number of instances where the Carman manuscript turns
                      out to be the sole source for the episode in question. (From
                      Carman's voluminous personal correspondence, one can compile a
                      partial list of the veterans with whom Carman personally walked the
                      battlefield. When you come to certain portions of the manuscript
                      involving those persons, now and again you come across anecdotes and
                      details that do not appear in any known published source. They're
                      likely the product of Carman's conversations with the survivors--the
                      manuscript providing the only fragments of a written record of those
                      talks.)

                      Leaving that all aside, there's the question of interpretation. Even
                      when discussing facts contained in other sources, Carman brings a
                      fresh perspective to the material. We can all agree on what the
                      facts are and yet COMPLETELY disagree on what they mean. (In this
                      regard, consider the bios of McClellan written by Stephen Sears and
                      Ethan Rafuse. They used the exact same source material, yet the
                      portraits they drew were so divergent it's hard to believe they're
                      talking about the same man.) WHAT Carman has to say about the facts
                      is as valuable as the facts he provides--and the former cannot be
                      found anywhere save in his manuscript.

                      Most importantly, the history of Antietam (as a construct) simply
                      can't be understood without reference to Carman's work (the Atlas,
                      the manuscript, the battlefield). Everything that has been done
                      since with regard to Antietam travels through the prism of Ezra
                      Carman. His findings have been employed by every serious study
                      produced in the 20th century. Antietam NB's interpretive model--
                      heck, its very layout--comes from Carman. Even those who comes to
                      different conclusions can only do so by engaging with Carman's
                      ideas. (He's like Douglas Freeman in regard to the Army of Northern
                      Virginia. Everywhere you look, you have to deal with his influence.
                      In the end you may not agree with him, but you can't avoid
                      him.)

                      My interest in the Carman manuscript was first piqued when I came to
                      the acknowledgements page in Landscape Turned Red to find Stephen
                      Sears refer to it as "the most detailed account of the events of
                      September 17, 1862." Ted Alexander, Carman's 21st century successor
                      at Antietam NB, calls the manuscript "one of the most important Civil
                      War publications to come out in decades." William C. "Jack" Davis
                      says it's "one of the great and largely unknown masterworks of Civil
                      War history," Ed Bearss describes it as "a masterpiece," and James
                      McPherson asserts that nothing written by another participant "rivals
                      in accuracy and thoroughness Ezra Carman's study." I will gladly
                      defer to the judgment of my historiographic betters in this
                      instance. :)

                      In the end, all I can say with certainty is that Carman's manuscript
                      is not only important as an artifact of the history of the history of
                      Antietam (that's not a typo; the repetition is deliberate), but--even
                      100 years after its composition--it makes an important contribution
                      to the historiography of Antietam in its own right.

                      But if I don't stop TALKING about Carman's book and start INDEXING
                      it, you'll never get to see and decide for yourself. :)

                      Happy Labor Day to all!

                      --jake

                      --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Hann"
                      <wutheringheights@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Joe, thanks for the exhaustive answer to my question. Quite
                      > frankly, I am far more familiar with Bachelder's correspondence
                      with
                      > Gettysburg veterans than I am with the government-funded manuscript
                      > he wrote. I feared that the Carman work would merely rehash
                      sources
                      > previously published, but apparently this isn't the case. Can you
                      > estimate the amount of material that is "fresh," that is, material
                      > that hasn't been published previously in either the O.R.'s or
                      > regimental histories?
                      >
                      > I enjoyed reading your article in America's Civil War. I too made
                      a
                      > contribution to the issue; more than a dozen photos from my
                      > collection were used in the magazine.
                      >
                      > When the publication date nears I'll be sure to ask for an
                      > autographed copy of your book.
                      >
                      > Best wishes,
                      >
                      > Scott D. Hann
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • G E Mayers
                      Dear Joseph, There are, as you and Tom Clemens both know, as well as Dr Joseph Harsh, some problems with Carman s strength assessments and units present on
                      Message 10 of 17 , Sep 3 3:59 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Joseph,

                        There are, as you and Tom Clemens both know, as well as Dr Joseph
                        Harsh, some problems with Carman's strength assessments and units
                        present on both sides at Antietam/Sharpsburg. Harsh has mentions
                        of units that had at least some token representation during the
                        battle that Carman left out entirely from the overall OOB for
                        both sides.

                        Yr. Obt. Svt.
                        G E "Gerry" Mayers

                        To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even
                        on one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the
                        Union, a passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from
                        the Almighty God. --Anonymous
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "Joseph Pierro" <joseph_pierro@...>
                        To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 11:26 AM
                        Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Any ideas on this book?


                        > Like all good studies of any battle, Carman's narrative draws
                        > heavily from the OR. It's not (and Tom Clemens, who knows the
                        > Carman manuscript as well as anyone will, I think, back me up
                        > on this) simply a cut and paste of the ORs into a chronology
                        > the way Bachelder's "history" is. (The Gettysburg "history"
                        > truly is nothing more than the ORs re-arranged in chronological
                        > order; how Bachelder got away with charging the Federal
                        > government $50,000 and then handed them essentially what they
                        > ALREADY PUBLISHED is beyond me.)
                        >
                        > Carman, in contrast, wrote a full narrative history of the
                        > campaign (the Confederate army doesn't even cross the Potomac
                        > until well over the 100th handwritten page), and he drew from
                        > other sources--published and otherwise (in addtion to his many
                        > interviews conducted during his work for the Antietam
                        > Battlefield Board. Not only does it cover the full political
                        > and military context, but it addresses all the strategic,
                        > operational, and tactical aspects of the entire campaign. It
                        > isn't simply about September 17. (The original work was
                        > divided into two volumes. The battle of Antietam itself isn't
                        > treated until volume two.)
                        >
                        > It also contains some rather detailed and well researched
                        > chapters calculating effective strengths and losses, which
                        > still stand up as one of the most comprehensive studies of that
                        > issue. (He makes a powerful--and damning--case that much of
                        > the Army of the Potomac's "present for duty" strength never
                        > made it into the fight on September 17--even from those units
                        > that were engaged.)
                        >
                        > One of the many problems with the original manuscript, however,
                        > is Carman oftentimes didn't give his source (and when he did,
                        > he frequently gives only a fragmentary citation--like, "The
                        > historian of the regiment writes . . . "--forcing the reader to
                        > discover for himself what the specific source is). As editor,
                        > one of my tasks was to go back and, to the extent possible,
                        > reverse engineer the entire manuscript, locate the actual
                        > sources used in every instance, and then provide a complete
                        > citation for each (and also double check Carman's transcription
                        > against the original quotation--which doesn't always match.
                        > Often the errors are simply cosmetic, but in a few
                        > instances--which I address in relevant footnotes--the revisions
                        > materially alter the MEANING).
                        >
                        > Now there are also two massive collections of Carman's
                        > correspondence with veterans (in the Nat'l Archives and the NY
                        > Public Library). That correspondence (save for quoted excerpts
                        > used in his narrative) doesn't appear in the book I'm editing.
                        > (The book is massive enough as it is, 500,000 words; the
                        > correspondence alone would probably fill a few volumes.)
                        > There's a lot of wonderful material throughout those letters
                        > (the previously unpublished after-action report of the 23d New
                        > York that appeared in the September issue of Civil War Times
                        > comes from the Carman papers in the National Archives), but
                        > many of them deal only with where troops were, not what they
                        > did. (Remember that Carman's mission was to figure out exactly
                        > where to place the markers on the battlefield. His primary
                        > concern was spatial, not temporal--and that emphasis comes
                        > across in the types of questions he asked.) Many of the
                        > "letters" are really nothing more than keys to the maps that
                        > accompany them. (Carman used to send people a section of the
                        > base map and then ask them to fill in where the regiment
                        > bivouacked, where it formed line, where it advanced to, etc.).
                        > In the NA, the maps by and large are with their letters. At
                        > the NYPL, however, some archivist appears to have made the
                        > disastrous decision to separate the maps from the letters,
                        > effectively rendering many of both useless.
                        >
                        >
                        > ----- Original Message ----
                        > From: Scott Hann <wutheringheights@...>
                        > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2007 10:10:21 AM
                        > Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Any ideas on this book?
                        >
                        > Sid Meier's Antietam wargame is bundled with excerps from the
                        > Carman
                        > manuscript. For the most part, they seem to be reports from the
                        > Official Records that were cut and pasted. Joe, how will your
                        > work
                        > differ? Will it be akin to the Batchelder Papers and include
                        > correspondence between Ezra Carman and Antietam veterans?
                        > Thanks,
                        > Scott
                        >
                        > --- In TalkAntietam@ yahoogroups. com, "joseph_pierro"
                        > <joseph_pierro@ ...> wrote:
                        >>
                        >> --- In TalkAntietam@ yahoogroups. com, "James W. Durney"
                        >> <JWD2044@>
                        >> wrote:
                        >> >
                        >> > The Maryland Campaign of September 1862: Ezra A. Carman's
                        > Definitive
                        >> > Study of the Union and Confederate Armies at Antietam
                        >> > (Hardcover)
                        >> > by Joseph Pierro (Editor)
                        >> >
                        >> Lol, James! What do you want to know about it?
                        >>
                        >> --Joseph Pierro
                        >>
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ____________________________________________________________________________________
                        > Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from
                        > someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
                        > http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                      • Joseph Pierro
                        That is true, to a point. Forming a definitive order of battle for Antietam is in some sense subjective. Particularly when it comes to certain Confederate
                        Message 11 of 17 , Sep 3 8:53 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          That is true, to a point. Forming a definitive order of battle for Antietam is in some sense subjective.

                          Particularly when it comes to certain Confederate units, the numbers in the ranks can drop to such a small fraction of the units typical effective strength that it's a judgment call whether to credit that unit (as a unit) for being on the field.

                          Then too, EVERY attempt to quantify strengths and losses in any CW battle is speculative. No one can produce a precise accounting. Carman, at least, goes into great detail in explaining the methodology he used to compile his figures, which gives subsequent historians comething concrete to work with or challenge.




                          ----- Original Message ----
                          From: G E Mayers <gerry1952@...>
                          To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Monday, September 3, 2007 6:59:50 PM
                          Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Any ideas on this book?

                          Dear Joseph,

                          There are, as you and Tom Clemens both know, as well as Dr Joseph
                          Harsh, some problems with Carman's strength assessments and units
                          present on both sides at Antietam/Sharpsburg . Harsh has mentions
                          of units that had at least some token representation during the
                          battle that Carman left out entirely from the overall OOB for
                          both sides.

                          Yr. Obt. Svt.
                          G E "Gerry" Mayers

                          To Be A Virginian, either by birth, marriage, adoption, or even
                          on one's mother's side, is an introduction to any state in the
                          Union, a passport to any foreign country, and a benediction from
                          the Almighty God. --Anonymous
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Joseph Pierro" <joseph_pierro@ yahoo.com>
                          To: <TalkAntietam@ yahoogroups. com>
                          Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 11:26 AM
                          Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Any ideas on this book?

                          > Like all good studies of any battle, Carman's narrative draws
                          > heavily from the OR. It's not (and Tom Clemens, who knows the
                          > Carman manuscript as well as anyone will, I think, back me up
                          > on this) simply a cut and paste of the ORs into a chronology
                          > the way Bachelder's "history" is. (The Gettysburg "history"
                          > truly is nothing more than the ORs re-arranged in chronological
                          > order; how Bachelder got away with charging the Federal
                          > government $50,000 and then handed them essentially what they
                          > ALREADY PUBLISHED is beyond me.)
                          >
                          > Carman, in contrast, wrote a full narrative history of the
                          > campaign (the Confederate army doesn't even cross the Potomac
                          > until well over the 100th handwritten page), and he drew from
                          > other sources--published and otherwise (in addtion to his many
                          > interviews conducted during his work for the Antietam
                          > Battlefield Board. Not only does it cover the full political
                          > and military context, but it addresses all the strategic,
                          > operational, and tactical aspects of the entire campaign. It
                          > isn't simply about September 17. (The original work was
                          > divided into two volumes. The battle of Antietam itself isn't
                          > treated until volume two.)
                          >
                          > It also contains some rather detailed and well researched
                          > chapters calculating effective strengths and losses, which
                          > still stand up as one of the most comprehensive studies of that
                          > issue. (He makes a powerful--and damning--case that much of
                          > the Army of the Potomac's "present for duty" strength never
                          > made it into the fight on September 17--even from those units
                          > that were engaged.)
                          >
                          > One of the many problems with the original manuscript, however,
                          > is Carman oftentimes didn't give his source (and when he did,
                          > he frequently gives only a fragmentary citation--like, "The
                          > historian of the regiment writes . . . "--forcing the reader to
                          > discover for himself what the specific source is). As editor,
                          > one of my tasks was to go back and, to the extent possible,
                          > reverse engineer the entire manuscript, locate the actual
                          > sources used in every instance, and then provide a complete
                          > citation for each (and also double check Carman's transcription
                          > against the original quotation--which doesn't always match.
                          > Often the errors are simply cosmetic, but in a few
                          > instances--which I address in relevant footnotes--the revisions
                          > materially alter the MEANING).
                          >
                          > Now there are also two massive collections of Carman's
                          > correspondence with veterans (in the Nat'l Archives and the NY
                          > Public Library). That correspondence (save for quoted excerpts
                          > used in his narrative) doesn't appear in the book I'm editing.
                          > (The book is massive enough as it is, 500,000 words; the
                          > correspondence alone would probably fill a few volumes.)
                          > There's a lot of wonderful material throughout those letters
                          > (the previously unpublished after-action report of the 23d New
                          > York that appeared in the September issue of Civil War Times
                          > comes from the Carman papers in the National Archives), but
                          > many of them deal only with where troops were, not what they
                          > did. (Remember that Carman's mission was to figure out exactly
                          > where to place the markers on the battlefield. His primary
                          > concern was spatial, not temporal--and that emphasis comes
                          > across in the types of questions he asked.) Many of the
                          > "letters" are really nothing more than keys to the maps that
                          > accompany them. (Carman used to send people a section of the
                          > base map and then ask them to fill in where the regiment
                          > bivouacked, where it formed line, where it advanced to, etc.).
                          > In the NA, the maps by and large are with their letters. At
                          > the NYPL, however, some archivist appears to have made the
                          > disastrous decision to separate the maps from the letters,
                          > effectively rendering many of both useless.
                          >
                          >
                          > ----- Original Message ----
                          > From: Scott Hann <wutheringheights@ comcast.net>
                          > To: TalkAntietam@ yahoogroups. com
                          > Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2007 10:10:21 AM
                          > Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Any ideas on this book?
                          >
                          > Sid Meier's Antietam wargame is bundled with excerps from the
                          > Carman
                          > manuscript. For the most part, they seem to be reports from the
                          > Official Records that were cut and pasted. Joe, how will your
                          > work
                          > differ? Will it be akin to the Batchelder Papers and include
                          > correspondence between Ezra Carman and Antietam veterans?
                          > Thanks,
                          > Scott
                          >
                          > --- In TalkAntietam@ yahoogroups. com, "joseph_pierro"
                          > <joseph_pierro@ ...> wrote:
                          >>
                          >> --- In TalkAntietam@ yahoogroups. com, "James W. Durney"
                          >> <JWD2044@>
                          >> wrote:
                          >> >
                          >> > The Maryland Campaign of September 1862: Ezra A. Carman's
                          > Definitive
                          >> > Study of the Union and Confederate Armies at Antietam
                          >> > (Hardcover)
                          >> > by Joseph Pierro (Editor)
                          >> >
                          >> Lol, James! What do you want to know about it?
                          >>
                          >> --Joseph Pierro
                          >>
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
                          > Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from
                          > someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
                          > http://answers. yahoo.com/ dir/?link= list&sid= 396545469
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >






                          ____________________________________________________________________________________
                          Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
                          http://sims.yahoo.com/

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Stephen Recker
                          Howdy. I am giving a tour of Kershaw s brigade. I m looking for interesting spots to take these folks. Where did Kershaw s men sleep the night morning of the
                          Message 12 of 17 , Sep 6 7:14 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Howdy. I am giving a tour of Kershaw's brigade. I'm looking for
                            interesting spots to take these folks.

                            Where did Kershaw's men sleep the night morning of the 17th. Stephen
                            Grove's farm?

                            The hill leading up to the 125th PA monument is open today. On Carman's
                            map it looks like a wood lot. How did the Union soldiers see Kemper
                            coming?

                            I've got Kershaw's report and Dickert's book about Kemper's Brigade and
                            of course Carman. Any other essentials? Thanks.

                            Stephen Recker
                          • Thomas Clemens
                            Steve, I am at school and so cannot access sources right now, but my thought on seeing the approach of the Confederates in the wood lot was that the sparely
                            Message 13 of 17 , Sep 6 8:43 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Steve,
                              I am at school and so cannot access sources right now, but my thought on seeing the approach of the Confederates in the wood lot was that the sparely wooded terrain did not greatly obstruct sight lines and visibility. Thus they could see them through the woods on that hill. if nobody has responded by this eveing I can do some more digging. When is your tour?


                              Thomas G. Clemens D.A.
                              Professor of History
                              Hagerstown Community College



                              >>> Stephen Recker <recker@...> 09/06/07 10:14 AM >>>

                              Howdy. I am giving a tour of Kershaw's brigade. I'm looking for
                              interesting spots to take these folks.

                              Where did Kershaw's men sleep the night morning of the 17th. Stephen
                              Grove's farm?

                              The hill leading up to the 125th PA monument is open today. On Carman's
                              map it looks like a wood lot. How did the Union soldiers see Kemper
                              coming?

                              I've got Kershaw's report and Dickert's book about Kemper's Brigade and
                              of course Carman. Any other essentials? Thanks.

                              Stephen Recker





                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Stephen Recker
                              Tom, Many thanks. The tour isn t until Saturday. Cheers, Stephen
                              Message 14 of 17 , Sep 6 10:02 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Tom,

                                Many thanks. The tour isn't until Saturday.

                                Cheers,
                                Stephen

                                On Thursday, September 6, 2007, at 11:43 AM, Thomas Clemens wrote:

                                > Steve,
                                > I am at school and so cannot access sources right now, but my thought
                                > on seeing the approach of the Confederates in the wood lot was that
                                > the sparely wooded terrain did not greatly obstruct sight lines and
                                > visibility. Thus they could see them through the woods on that hill.
                                > if nobody has responded by this eveing I can do some more digging.
                                > When is your tour?
                                >
                              • barringer63
                                ... Stephen ... According to Dickert (night of the 16th) We bivouaced for the night on the roadside, ten miles from Antietam Creek. ... Carman s ... Mac
                                Message 15 of 17 , Sep 6 1:28 PM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Stephen Recker wrote:
                                  >

                                  >
                                  > Where did Kershaw's men sleep the night morning of the 17th.
                                  Stephen
                                  > Grove's farm?

                                  According to Dickert (night of the 16th) "We bivouaced for the
                                  night on the roadside, ten miles from Antietam Creek."
                                  >
                                  > The hill leading up to the 125th PA monument is open today. On
                                  Carman's
                                  > map it looks like a wood lot. How did the Union soldiers see Kemper
                                  > coming?

                                  Mac Wyckoff, in his history of the 3rd S.C. wrote, " The South
                                  Carolinians changed front, 'almost a right about,' so that they faced
                                  east. However, the 3rd South Carolina, for unexplained reasons,
                                  continued northward into the West Woods. Cattle grazed in these
                                  forests so there was not the dense underbrush that existed in
                                  Virginia's woodlands, making it hard to understand why this
                                  separation occurred." Dickert seems to confirm this when he
                                  wrote, "This was the first battle in a fair field in which the new
                                  commanders of the regiments had an opportunity to show heir mettle
                                  and ability, and well did they sustain themselves. Savage Station and
                                  Maryland Heights were so crowded with underbrush and vision so
                                  obscured that they were almost battles in the dark."

                                  Hope this helps,
                                  Teej
                                  >
                                  > I've got Kershaw's report and Dickert's book about Kemper's Brigade
                                  and
                                  > of course Carman. Any other essentials? Thanks.
                                  >
                                  > Stephen Recker
                                  >
                                • Stephen Recker
                                  Teej, Many thanks. This is great stuff. Stephen ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Sep 6 1:56 PM
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Teej,

                                    Many thanks. This is great stuff.

                                    Stephen

                                    > Hope this helps,
                                    > Teej
                                    > >
                                    > > I've got Kershaw's report and Dickert's book about Kemper's Brigade
                                    > and
                                    > > of course Carman. Any other essentials? Thanks.
                                    > >


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.