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

Re: Lee and McClellan

Expand Messages
  • William H Keene
    ... appointed to ... Yeah I goofed on that date. ... res=9C0DE5D71F3AE43BBC4A53DFBF ... in ... Including all the troops . The article also referes to the
    Message 1 of 53 , Sep 18, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "Harry Smeltzer" <hjs21@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > I know this is only one paper, but it was a pretty widely read one:
      >
      > On August 30, the NY Times reported the McClellan had been
      appointed to
      > command of the Army of Virginia ...

      Yeah I goofed on that date.


      > On the 2nd, the Times reported that McClellan had no command of any
      > importance:
      >
      > http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?
      res=9C0DE5D71F3AE43BBC4A53DFBF
      > 668389679FDE
      >
      > On the 4th of Sept., it was reported that McClellan had been placed
      in
      > command of the defenses of Washington:

      Including "all the troops". The article also referes to
      the 'reappointment' of McCellan. To me this would indicate he was in
      chagre of the troops that faced Lee. There is a second article from
      the 4th which argues that even though McClellan was in ommand of the
      troops, Halleck was really directing things -- would this have
      mattered to Lee?

      You seem to have skipped over the one on the 5th which stated the
      McCelland has assumed command over the consolidated army, noting that
      includes forces of his own, Pope and Burnside.



      > On the 6th, McClellan's GO No. 1 state again that he is in command
      of the
      > fortifications:

      And "all the troops".

      > Also on the 6th, this article explains that Mac is ONLY in charge
      of the
      > defenses, and definitely WILL NOT be taking an army into the field:

      Interesting one.

      > On the 12th is the first report from "General McClellan's Army" ...

      There is one on the 9th titled 'Important War News' with the sub
      head 'Gen. McClellan in the field in person'.
    • eighth_conn_inf
      Looking at Brown pp. 241 and 325 LT Miner occupied SL on 9/3 and sent his last message on 9/5. See also OR s vol. 19/1 p. 117 et seq, and 19/2 p. 184/186. If
      Message 53 of 53 , Sep 19, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Looking at Brown pp. 241 and 325 LT Miner occupied SL on 9/3 and sent
        his last message on 9/5. See also OR's vol. 19/1 p. 117 et seq, and
        19/2 p. 184/186. If anyone finds anything more re messages to/from
        Miner, pls let me know.

        Larry F.


        --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "G E Mayers" <gerry1952@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > They might have either successfully gotten a message off about
        > shutting down or, since IIRC according to Willard Brown's book,
        > they were told to keep reporting as long as possible, were caught
        > before they could shut down?
        >
        > 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: "eighth_conn_inf" <eighth_conn_inf@...>
        > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 5:27 PM
        > Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Lee and McClellan -- The Baltimore
        > Sun
        >
        >
        > Now there is a twist. What if just after the Rebs took Sugarloaf,
        > a
        > Union station closer to DC signaled to Sugarloaf station re
        > McClellan. But I think that the SL Station told everyone that
        > they
        > were shutting down since the Rebs were close.
        >
        > Larry F.
        >
        > --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "G E Mayers" <gerry1952@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > This begs another question... how "leaky" was the Federal
        > > communications system? IIRC, the Confederates captured Sugar
        > > Loaf
        > > Mountain, where there was a Federal signal station, not too
        > > long
        > > upon their entrance into Maryland. If there were any messages
        > > to
        > > the Signal Station implying Mac was "back in the saddle", would
        > > not those messages have made their way to Lee?
        > >
        > > 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: "Harry Smeltzer" <hjs21@>
        > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
        > > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 2:10 PM
        > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Lee and McClellan -- The
        > > Baltimore Sun
        > >
        > >
        > > >I don't know, Teej. It seems to me any of these stories would
        > > >be originating in DC. So, we would have telegraphs from DC to
        > > >Baltimore, or DC to New York. I don't think Stuart had any of
        > > >his cavalrymen along the lines between those places.
        > > >
        > > > Ahh, coeds.
        > > >
        > > > Harry
        > > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > > From: Teej
        > > > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
        > > > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 11:38 AM
        > > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Lee and McClellan -- The
        > > > Baltimore Sun
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Harry wrote:
        > > >
        > > > Also, how exactly do we think Lee got his hands on these
        > > > papers?
        > > > They were IIRC all printed in the cities of their origin -
        > > > how
        > > > did they get
        > > > to and through the Confederate pickets and vedettes?
        > > >
        > > > One thought to consider. How did the newspapers get their
        > > > stories from their journalists? Telegraph. While I know it's
        > > > a
        > > > stretch, isn't it possible that if Lee had access to any of
        > > > these news items he got them from the wires via his
        > > > fun-loving
        > > > cavalry chieftan?
        > > >
        > > > BTW, Harry, the next time I take you to UNC it will be in
        > > > the
        > > > dead of winter and all those pretty coeds you admired so much
        > > > last time will be wearing OVERCOATS! There, I feel sooooooo
        > > > much better.
        > > >
        > > > Teej
        > > >
        > > > Harry
        > > >
        > > > -----Original Message-----
        > > > From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
        > > > [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] On
        > > > Behalf Of William H Keene
        > > > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 10:08 AM
        > > > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
        > > > Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Lee and McClellan -- The
        > > > Baltimore
        > > > Sun
        > > >
        > > > I've been looking at the Baltimore Sun articles from the
        > > > time
        > > > in
        > > > question. Through the Boston Public Library online I can
        > > > access a
        > > > database called 'America's Historical Newspapers.' One has
        > > > to
        > > > have a a
        > > > BPL card tp get in the way I did, but I wonder if others can
        > > > access the
        > > > same thing through their own libraries.
        > > >
        > > > On the 4th the Sun reported that McCellan had "assumed
        > > > command
        > > > of the
        > > > entire federal forces in and around Washington."
        > > >
        > > > On the 8th the Sun reported that "McClellan will take the
        > > > field
        > > > immediately."
        > > >
        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > >
        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.