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

Re: Any ideas on this book?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 17 , Sep 1, 2007
    • 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 2 of 17 , Sep 1, 2007
      • 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 3 of 17 , Sep 1, 2007
        • 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 4 of 17 , Sep 1, 2007
          • 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 5 of 17 , Sep 1, 2007
            • 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 6 of 17 , Sep 1, 2007
              • 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 7 of 17 , Sep 3, 2007
                • 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 8 of 17 , Sep 3, 2007
                  • 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 9 of 17 , Sep 6, 2007
                    • 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 10 of 17 , Sep 6, 2007
                      • 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 11 of 17 , Sep 6, 2007
                        • 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 12 of 17 , Sep 6, 2007
                          • 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 13 of 17 , Sep 6, 2007
                            • 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.