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

Re: [TalkAntietam] re Sorrel's wounding at Antietam and "Battery Longstreet"

Expand Messages
  • Dean Essig
    Gerry, Battery Longstreet happened after the Sunken Road was taken, and well after Cooke s Charge. Assuming, Moxley say Cooke (27 NC) before the charge, then
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 9, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Gerry,

      Battery Longstreet happened after the Sunken Road was taken, and well
      after Cooke's Charge.

      Assuming, Moxley say Cooke (27 NC) before the charge, then that
      occurred before the battery business.

      Dean

      On Jan 9, 2009, at 10:57 AM, G E Mayers wrote:

      > Gang,
      >
      > Was Moxley Sorrel's wounding at Sharpsburg, when he went to speak
      > to the commander of the 27th ARK (IIRC) on Longstreet's behalf,
      > "before" or "after" the Battery Longstreet incident?
      >
      > BTW Priest seems to indicate in his Antietam book that Longstreet
      > and some of the staff also supported Cooke's attack against the
      > right flank of the Federal assault on the Sunken Road later in
      > the action, and then the famed "Battery Longstreet" incident
      > occurred afterwards? I do not have Priest's book handy here but
      > if someone needs the page reference, I could probably find it.
      >
      > Thanks!
      >
      > 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
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
    • G E Mayers
      Dean, Thanks! I knew Battery Longstreet was after the Federals cracked through the Sunken Road, but was trying to figure out the Cooke counter attack timing.
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 9, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Dean,

        Thanks! I knew Battery Longstreet was after the Federals cracked
        through the Sunken Road, but was trying to figure out the Cooke
        counter attack timing.

        If you have Priest's Antietam book, if you look on page 198,
        which sparked my question. Also, I think there is a most glaring
        error there as well re General Lee. From everything I have read,
        Lee could barely ride Traveller, let alone gallop with him....

        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: "Dean Essig" <d.essig@...>
        To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
        Cc: "CWDG" <cwdg@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 12:10 PM
        Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] re Sorrel's wounding at Antietam and
        "Battery Longstreet"


        > Gerry,
        >
        > Battery Longstreet happened after the Sunken Road was taken,
        > and well
        > after Cooke's Charge.
        >
        > Assuming, Moxley say Cooke (27 NC) before the charge, then that
        > occurred before the battery business.
        >
        > Dean
        >
        > On Jan 9, 2009, at 10:57 AM, G E Mayers wrote:
        >
        >> Gang,
        >>
        >> Was Moxley Sorrel's wounding at Sharpsburg, when he went to
        >> speak
        >> to the commander of the 27th ARK (IIRC) on Longstreet's
        >> behalf,
        >> "before" or "after" the Battery Longstreet incident?
        >>
        >> BTW Priest seems to indicate in his Antietam book that
        >> Longstreet
        >> and some of the staff also supported Cooke's attack against
        >> the
        >> right flank of the Federal assault on the Sunken Road later in
        >> the action, and then the famed "Battery Longstreet" incident
        >> occurred afterwards? I do not have Priest's book handy here
        >> but
        >> if someone needs the page reference, I could probably find it.
        >>
        >> Thanks!
        >>
        >> 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
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> ------------------------------------
        >>
        >>
        >> Yahoo! Groups Links
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >
        >
      • Dean Essig
        Gerry, ... FWIW, the charge shows up on the 12 noon Carmen-Cope map (supported on it s right flank by what s left of Cobb s Bde, I did not know that). ...
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 9, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Gerry,

          On Jan 9, 2009, at 11:20 AM, G E Mayers wrote:

          > Thanks! I knew Battery Longstreet was after the Federals cracked
          > through the Sunken Road, but was trying to figure out the Cooke
          > counter attack timing.

          FWIW, the charge shows up on the 12 noon Carmen-Cope map (supported
          on it's right flank by what's left of Cobb's Bde, I did not know that).

          >
          >
          > If you have Priest's Antietam book, if you look on page 198,
          > which sparked my question. Also, I think there is a most glaring
          > error there as well re General Lee. From everything I have read,
          > Lee could barely ride Traveller, let alone gallop with him....

          Interesting... what's the source for the "galloped up in spite of his
          hands" comment?

          Dean



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • G E Mayers
          Dean, The galloped up comment...hmm... I wonder where he got that? I do know that the morning of September 16 was possibly the earliest Lee could return to
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 9, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Dean,

            The galloped up comment...hmm... I wonder where he got that? I do
            know that the morning of September 16 was possibly the earliest
            Lee could return to Traveller's back. He is seen as being on
            horse on the morning of September 17th but being led by an
            orderly. Joe Harsh pretty convincingly lays out, IMHO, Lee's
            continued lack of mobility even with being able to somewhat ride
            his horse. Based on what Harsh writes and as a result of his
            research, I highly doubt Lee was in any shape to do any galloping
            of any kind.

            So could this be another glaring error by Priest?

            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: "Dean Essig" <d.essig@...>
            To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 12:27 PM
            Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] re Sorrel's wounding at Antietam and
            "Battery Longstreet"


            > Gerry,
            >
            > On Jan 9, 2009, at 11:20 AM, G E Mayers wrote:
            >
            >> Thanks! I knew Battery Longstreet was after the Federals
            >> cracked
            >> through the Sunken Road, but was trying to figure out the
            >> Cooke
            >> counter attack timing.
            >
            > FWIW, the charge shows up on the 12 noon Carmen-Cope map
            > (supported
            > on it's right flank by what's left of Cobb's Bde, I did not
            > know that).
            >
            >>
            >>
            >> If you have Priest's Antietam book, if you look on page 198,
            >> which sparked my question. Also, I think there is a most
            >> glaring
            >> error there as well re General Lee. From everything I have
            >> read,
            >> Lee could barely ride Traveller, let alone gallop with him....
            >
            > Interesting... what's the source for the "galloped up in spite
            > of his
            > hands" comment?
            >
            > Dean
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
          • Dean Essig
            ... While that might be the case, it could also be an exaggeration written by the historical observer instead. I m not big on Priest s books, but I wouldn t be
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 9, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              On Jan 9, 2009, at 11:30 AM, G E Mayers wrote:

              > So could this be another glaring error by Priest?

              While that might be the case, it could also be an exaggeration
              written by the historical observer instead.

              I'm not big on Priest's books, but I wouldn't be too quick to drop
              this at his feet.



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • DPowell334@AOL.COM
              I d like to see the original cite - IMO Priest will use anecdotes if they sound good without checking to see how they make sense with the larger picture. will
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 9, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                I'd like to see the original cite - IMO Priest will use anecdotes if they
                sound good without checking to see how they make sense with the larger picture.

                will have to check when I get home...

                Dave Powell


                In a message dated 1/9/2009 11:30:55 A.M. Central Standard Time,
                gerry1952@... writes:

                Dean,

                The galloped up comment...hmm... I wonder where he got that? I do
                know that the morning of September 16 was possibly the earliest
                Lee could return to Traveller's back. He is seen as being on
                horse on the morning of September 17th but being led by an
                orderly. Joe Harsh pretty convincingly lays out, IMHO, Lee's
                continued lack of mobility even with being able to somewhat ride
                his horse. Based on what Harsh writes and as a result of his
                research, I highly doubt Lee was in any shape to do any galloping
                of any kind.

                So could this be another glaring error by Priest?

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


                **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
                headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • DPowell334@AOL.COM
                When I write, I like to take note of such inconsistencies, either in a footnote or in the text itself. I might still use the quote, but with a caveat. It also
                Message 7 of 13 , Jan 9, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  When I write, I like to take note of such inconsistencies, either in a
                  footnote or in the text itself. I might still use the quote, but with a caveat.

                  It also gives you the chance to check on the historical accuracy of the
                  original observer - could he see what he said he saw?

                  That's the historian's job, to sort out the wheat from the chaff. I know I
                  can string together dozens of quotes from other battles that directly
                  contradict each other - but that would make for a very confusing narrative.

                  Dave Powell


                  In a message dated 1/9/2009 11:33:33 A.M. Central Standard Time,
                  d.essig@... writes:

                  While that might be the case, it could also be an exaggeration
                  written by the historical observer instead.

                  I'm not big on Priest's books, but I wouldn't be too quick to drop
                  this at his feet.


                  **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making
                  headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • G E Mayers
                  Dear Dave; What you cite about Priest is pretty much how I see it too. I have, in the past, noticed where his cited footnote source does not square with the
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jan 9, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Dave;

                    What you cite about Priest is pretty much how I see it too. I
                    have, in the past, noticed where his cited footnote source does
                    not square with the text itself. To me that is sloppy authorship
                    and research.

                    That is not to say that perhaps Lee might have ridden up to Cooke
                    and made the comment, but I highly suspect Lee would have
                    galloped up! First of all, for that early in his tenure as
                    commanding general of the ANVa, I do not think that was his
                    style. For Longstreet, I could see it but not, IMHO, 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: <DPowell334@...>
                    To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 12:33 PM
                    Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] re Sorrel's wounding at Antietam and
                    "Battery Longstreet"


                    > I'd like to see the original cite - IMO Priest will use
                    > anecdotes if they
                    > sound good without checking to see how they make sense with the
                    > larger picture.
                    >
                    > will have to check when I get home...
                    >
                    > Dave Powell
                    >
                    >
                    > In a message dated 1/9/2009 11:30:55 A.M. Central Standard
                    > Time,
                    > gerry1952@... writes:
                    >
                    > Dean,
                    >
                    > The galloped up comment...hmm... I wonder where he got that? I
                    > do
                    > know that the morning of September 16 was possibly the earliest
                    > Lee could return to Traveller's back. He is seen as being on
                    > horse on the morning of September 17th but being led by an
                    > orderly. Joe Harsh pretty convincingly lays out, IMHO, Lee's
                    > continued lack of mobility even with being able to somewhat
                    > ride
                    > his horse. Based on what Harsh writes and as a result of his
                    > research, I highly doubt Lee was in any shape to do any
                    > galloping
                    > of any kind.
                    >
                    > So could this be another glaring error by Priest?
                    >
                    > Yr. Obt. Svt.
                    > G E "Gerry" Mayers
                    >
                    >
                    > **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what
                    > is making
                    > headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                  • G E Mayers
                    Confusing narrative... That could be a valid comment on most of what Priest writes...... Yr. Obt. Svt. G E Gerry Mayers To Be A Virginian, either by birth,
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jan 9, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Confusing narrative... That could be a valid comment on most of
                      what Priest writes......

                      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: <DPowell334@...>
                      To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 12:37 PM
                      Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] re Sorrel's wounding at Antietam and
                      "Battery Longstreet"


                      > When I write, I like to take note of such inconsistencies,
                      > either in a
                      > footnote or in the text itself. I might still use the quote,
                      > but with a caveat.
                      >
                      > It also gives you the chance to check on the historical
                      > accuracy of the
                      > original observer - could he see what he said he saw?
                      >
                      > That's the historian's job, to sort out the wheat from the
                      > chaff. I know I
                      > can string together dozens of quotes from other battles that
                      > directly
                      > contradict each other - but that would make for a very
                      > confusing narrative.
                      >
                      > Dave Powell
                      >
                      >
                      > In a message dated 1/9/2009 11:33:33 A.M. Central Standard
                      > Time,
                      > d.essig@... writes:
                      >
                      > While that might be the case, it could also be an exaggeration
                      > written by the historical observer instead.
                      >
                      > I'm not big on Priest's books, but I wouldn't be too quick to
                      > drop
                      > this at his feet.
                      >
                      >
                      > **************New year...new news. Be the first to know what
                      > is making
                      > headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                    • barringer63
                      Gerry Mayers wrote: Based on what Harsh writes and as a result of his ... FWIW, on October 2, 1862, Lee wrote a letter to Markie Williams in which he referred
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jan 9, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Gerry Mayers wrote:
                        Based on what Harsh writes and as a result of his
                        > research, I highly doubt Lee was in any shape to do any galloping
                        > of any kind.
                        >
                        FWIW, on October 2, 1862, Lee wrote a letter to Markie Williams in
                        which he referred to his "accident." He told her that he still had to
                        use a secretary to write his correspondence but otherwise was in good
                        health.

                        Regards,
                        Teej
                      • G E Mayers
                        Dear Teej, That letter is a good three weeks after Sharpsburg, at which time, I would expect his wrists to have improved by then. IIRC it took him almost two
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jan 9, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Teej,

                          That letter is a good three weeks after Sharpsburg, at which
                          time, I would expect his wrists to have improved by then. IIRC it
                          took him almost two months before he could resume total use of
                          his hands without pain... that is from the time of the injury on
                          31 August.

                          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: "barringer63" <teej@...>
                          To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 1:24 PM
                          Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: re Sorrel's wounding at Antietam and
                          "Battery Longstreet"


                          Gerry Mayers wrote:
                          Based on what Harsh writes and as a result of his
                          > research, I highly doubt Lee was in any shape to do any
                          > galloping
                          > of any kind.
                          >
                          FWIW, on October 2, 1862, Lee wrote a letter to Markie Williams
                          in
                          which he referred to his "accident." He told her that he still
                          had to
                          use a secretary to write his correspondence but otherwise was in
                          good
                          health.

                          Regards,
                          Teej
                        • Thomas Clemens
                          The source of Priest s citation about Lee galloping up, apparently, is a letter from Bart Johnson writing on March 17, 1895 t oteh editor of Confederate
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jan 9, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            The source of Priest's citation about Lee galloping up, apparently, is a letter from Bart Johnson writing on March 17, 1895 t oteh editor of Confederate Veteran. he says it is in the Lilley collection at the Washington County Library. I'll check it the nexttime I am there, but memory sources 32 years after the event set off my crap detector.




                            Thomas G. Clemens D.A.
                            Professor of History
                            Hagerstown Community College
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.