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, ... 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.