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

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

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