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

Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: The Orbats at Antietam

Expand Messages
  • G E Mayers
    Dear Tom C, Am in agreement here with you. Nothing I have read or seen indicates remotely that D H Hill was nothing more than a divisional commander. I too
    Message 1 of 68 , Feb 6, 2009
      Dear Tom C,

      Am in agreement here with you. Nothing I have read or seen
      indicates remotely that D H Hill was nothing more than a
      divisional commander.

      I too would like to see quoted documents from the ORs or other
      sources to back up what Bryn is supposing or suggesting.

      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: "Thomas Clemens" <clemenst@...>
      To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 2:46 PM
      Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: The Orbats at Antietam


      Bryn,
      As someone who worked very closely with Joe Harsh, (read the
      acknowledgements), I am very familiar with his ideas about D.H.
      Hill's status during the campaign. There is no doubt that as
      senior officer he commanded the column coming up from Richmond.
      As Joe used to phrase it, he saw Lee as "auditioning" Hill for a
      wing command during the campaign and evidently found him wanting
      because he did not act upon in October when he asked Congress for
      the 2 wings. He never assigned anyone else to report to Hill for
      anything other than perhaps a minor tactical assignment, and in
      fact Hill operated under Jackson in the early days of the
      campaign. How can he do that and be a wing commander, either de
      jure or de facto? Joe never calls Hill a wing commander during
      the battle and idea of Hill "in command" of the center is
      unprovable. Longstreet is there too, remember the Richardson's
      battery story? So how is Hill in command with Longstreet right
      there? In fact Hill HQ was at the Piper house asd while it is
      not as solid, there is suggestion Longstreet's HQ was there too.
      Or at least Longstreet was there for a time.

      As for Burnside becoming a "wing commander" again on the 15 by
      placing Sykes, that again is a supposition. McClellan never
      ordered it, and Sykes' corps commander was near by, oobviating
      the necessity of subordinating him to anyone else.

      If you want to "prove" these points start citing some documents,
      orders from the ORs, something solid. Supposition and conjecture
      are not proof.


      Thomas G. Clemens D.A.
      Professor of History
      Hagerstown Community College


      >>> "Bryn Monnery" <littlegreenmen.geo@...> 02/06/09 4:22
      >>> AM >>>
      The 3 wings are a known, and have been since Joseph Harsh
      published
      "Confederate Tide Rising" about a decade ago. The 3rd wing was
      Magruder's old Army of the Peninsula.

      McLaws was admonished on the 17th by Lee for accepting an order
      from
      Jackson, using his status as 2nd Major General, Lee making it
      clear
      that Jackson did not have the authority to command McLaws unless
      Lee
      said so (although perhaps there is an air of Lee's frustration at
      McLaws and Jackson in this). It is in this environment that DH
      Hill
      issues orders directly to McLaws' brigadiers.

      Such actions were only legal and binding if DH Hill was in the
      chain
      of command between Lee and McLaws. Simply being a more senior Maj
      Gen
      doesn't cut it.
    • DPowell334@AOL.COM
      Jackson has some real problems as a tactical commander, and he keeps making the same mistakes, which suggests that he wasn t very introspective about
      Message 68 of 68 , Feb 12, 2009
        Jackson has some real problems as a tactical commander, and he keeps making
        the same mistakes, which suggests that he wasn't very introspective about
        developing those skills. None of his battles really display a flair for tactics,
        even Chancellorsville, where his choices of divisions in line instead of
        column greatly complicated his own attack.

        That said, he was quite effective at what we today would call the
        operational art.

        Dave Powell




        In a message dated 2/11/2009 3:21:43 P.M. Central Standard Time,
        gerry1952@... writes:

        Gary Echelbarger is also a great source on the Valley Campaign of
        1862. Mildly said, Jackson got very lucky in the Valley in 1862..
        the only Federal commander to beat him, and do so pretty soundly,
        was James Shields. (Even there, actual field commander was Nathan
        Kimball.) That said, Jackson had, after Shields, mediocre Federal
        commanders to contend with....

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


        **************Nothing says I love you like flowers! Find a florist near you
        now. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000001)


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.