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

Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Any ideas on this book?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.