Thank you for clearing that up; it makes sense now.
Perhaps when you write about the signal corps for both sides during
the Maryland Campaign you will include telegraph communications also?
--- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "flagflop" <dwgaddy@...> wrote:
> Sorry to be late responding, but just returned from two weeks away.
> Dr. Freeman was wrong. (How that does pain me to say it!) But he
> the victim of mis-identification stemming from the OR editors. At
> Second Manassas, the signalman serving Lee, by transmitting the
> to Jackson, was the same man who was serving Jackson during the
> investment of Harper's Ferry the following month. After a long time
> trying w/o success to identify "Capt. Bartlett," I went after the
> original of Bartlett's HF report in the National Archives. Mike
> Musick tracked it down, filed with the Second Manass report. Since
> was a report from "the signal person," that person was first ,is-
> identified as "the signal officer." Then he became "Captain." Etc.,
> etc. The name was published and indexed incorrectly compounded by
> incorrect rank. (In contemporary and post-war narratives, the rank
> was also erroneously stated by H.K. Douglas and Imboden.) But (as
> Brian has indicated in the introductory material to Antietam on the
> Web), the individual was a detailed private. (He may, by 1864 have
> been integrated into the "regular" signal corps as a Signal
> but I can't yet confirm that. He was killed that summer.) That's
> story in a nutshell and "off the top."
> Dave Gaddy
> --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "eighth_conn_inf"
> <eighth_conn_inf@> wrote:
> > Dave,
> > I just noticed a passage in Freeman's "R. E. Lee" vol. 2 pg.
> > Lee turned to his signal officer, Captain J. L. Bartlett, who had
> > established his station near headquarters, and had him flag to
> > Jackson...." also found in OR, vol. 12, pt. II, 562-3.
> > You had mentioned Bartlett in your GM article.
> > Larry F.