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

Re: [TalkAntietam] thanks

Expand Messages
  • allnoles@aol.com
    In a message dated Tue, 1 May 2001 12:31:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Ray Ortensie writes:
    Message 1 of 8 , May 1 10:26 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated Tue, 1 May 2001 12:31:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Ray Ortensie" <photoray@...> writes:

      << thanks to the moles whom I thought I was confiding in. I was venting and it
      got to the wrong person. Just a warning to those others before they begin
      to vent. People are never who you think they are.


      PLEASE stop talking about the other group. Shouldn't any venting be done on private email so that this group can avoid those kinds of problems?

      Thanks and regards,
      Jim Morgan
    • Brian Downey
      ... It s a done deal. For Jim and others: don t worry, this subj is dead. While I m posting, may I impose on the collective brain for help with a question I
      Message 2 of 8 , May 1 5:09 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        > PLEASE stop talking about the other group...<snip>

        It's a done deal. For Jim and others: don't worry, this subj is
        dead.

        While I'm posting, may I impose on the collective brain for help with
        a question I received? A web visitor wrote:

        <begin>

        I am looking to see if the 2nd Maryland Infantry was engaged at
        Antietam.
        My ancestor's family was in this unit. I would like to know if
        the handed down stories are true. He and his brother supposedly laid
        down under a fallen tree with their fallen comrades and played dead
        until the confederates had passed by. This story has been handed down
        for many years and generations. Maybe the past is best left
        unchanged, but being a reenactor, I would like to know the closest
        thing to the truth. Thank you for anything that you can give me...

        <end>

        Anybody know about the 2nd MD (US) specifically, or whether this kind
        of thing was likely? Sounds a little fanciful to me, but then that
        day must have been a nightmare for lots of men.

        Thanks,

        Brian
      • Tom Clemens
        Brian, Yes, the 2nd Maryland Union played a prominent part in the assault on Burnside Bridge. They were part of Nagle s brigade and charged up the
        Message 3 of 8 , May 1 7:38 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Brian,
          Yes, the 2nd Maryland Union played a prominent part in the assault on
          Burnside Bridge. They were part of Nagle's brigade and charged up the
          Rohrersville Road towards the bridge under the command of Col. Jacob Duryea.
          They were repulsed with signifigant losses.
          Cannot attest to teh story your ancestor passed on, but they indeed were
          there.


          Brian Downey wrote:

          > > PLEASE stop talking about the other group...<snip>
          >
          > It's a done deal. For Jim and others: don't worry, this subj is
          > dead.
          >
          > While I'm posting, may I impose on the collective brain for help with
          > a question I received? A web visitor wrote:
          >
          > <begin>
          >
          > I am looking to see if the 2nd Maryland Infantry was engaged at
          > Antietam.
          > My ancestor's family was in this unit. I would like to know if
          > the handed down stories are true. He and his brother supposedly laid
          > down under a fallen tree with their fallen comrades and played dead
          > until the confederates had passed by. This story has been handed down
          > for many years and generations. Maybe the past is best left
          > unchanged, but being a reenactor, I would like to know the closest
          > thing to the truth. Thank you for anything that you can give me...
          >
          > <end>
          >
          > Anybody know about the 2nd MD (US) specifically, or whether this kind
          > of thing was likely? Sounds a little fanciful to me, but then that
          > day must have been a nightmare for lots of men.
          >
          > Thanks,
          >
          > Brian
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • Mark Smith
          ... Thanks! ... Brian, In _ The Maryland Campaign of 1862 and Its Aftermath _ B. Keith Toney writes the 150 men of 2nd Md Inf with their commander Col.
          Message 4 of 8 , May 1 8:45 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Brian Downey wrote:
            >
            > > PLEASE stop talking about the other group...<snip>
            >
            > It's a done deal. For Jim and others: don't worry, this subj is
            > dead.

            Thanks!

            <Snip>
            >
            > Anybody know about the 2nd MD (US) specifically, or whether this kind
            > of thing was likely? Sounds a little fanciful to me, but then that
            > day must have been a nightmare for lots of men.
            >

            Brian,

            In _ The Maryland Campaign of 1862 and Its Aftermath _ B. Keith Toney
            writes the 150 men of 2nd Md Inf with their commander Col. Jacob Duryea
            and 150 men of the 6th New Hampshire were given the unenviable task of
            carrying the Rohrbach Bridge. Between the galling fire from the
            Georgians on the heights across from the bridge, the lack of support,
            and confusion all along the line of attack, the Marylanders lost 1/3 of
            their force to KIA or WIA. "The head of the column made it to within 250
            feet of the bridge before the men broke and began scrambling for
            whatever cover they could find. Eventually the regiment reformed on the
            plowed hill near the spot where it had begun its charge. it remained
            there trading long range shots with the Confederates, until its men ran
            out of ammunition." So, IMO, I would say it was quite possible your
            inquirer's story has some validity. Hope this helps.

            Regards,
            Teej
          • Brian Downey
            Tom and Teej said about the 2ndMD: ...the 2nd Maryland Union played a prominent part in the assault on Burnside Bridge. They were part of Nagle s brigade and
            Message 5 of 8 , May 2 7:30 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Tom and Teej said about the 2ndMD:

              ...the 2nd Maryland Union played a prominent part in the assault on
              Burnside Bridge. They were part of Nagle's brigade and charged up
              the Rohrersville Road towards the bridge under the command of Col.
              Jacob Duryea. They were repulsed with signifigant losses..."

              and

              "... Eventually the regiment reformed on the plowed hill near the spot
              where it had begun its charge. it remained there trading long range
              shots with the Confederates, until its men ran out of ammunition."
              So, IMO, I would say it was quite possible your inquirer's story has
              some validity...

              Thanks for the quick answers. This helps a lot. Actually, I'd
              venture that the following part of the original question is now LESS
              likely to be true ...

              "He and his brother supposedly laid down under a fallen tree with
              their fallen comrades and played dead until the confederates had
              passed by"

              What Confederates would these have been? If the 2nd MD was repulsed
              short of the bridge, and reformed near where they started, then none
              of the men of that Regt could have been overrun by Confederates. The
              enemy were all across the creek. That is, unless some of those
              Georgians counterattacked across the bridge :)

              Brian
            • Mark Smith
              Brian Downey wrote: ... Oops! Missed that part. Brian, you re absolutely right. The Georgians continued to fire away even after the 2nd Maryland
              Message 6 of 8 , May 2 11:50 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Brian Downey wrote:

                <Snip>
                >
                > What Confederates would these have been? If the 2nd MD was repulsed
                > short of the bridge, and reformed near where they started, then none
                > of the men of that Regt could have been overrun by Confederates. The
                > enemy were all across the creek. That is, unless some of those
                > Georgians counterattacked across the bridge :)
                >

                Oops! Missed that part. Brian, you're absolutely right. The Georgians
                continued to fire away even after the 2nd Maryland withdrew and didn't
                stop until they were ordered to withdraw due to dwindling ammunition.
                Interesting to note that quite a few of the men who held those heights
                for so long were loathed to give it up even after it was obvious they
                could hold no longer. Lt. Col. William R. Holmes, 2nd Ga, rushed to the
                creek's edge waving his sword and shouting at the Federals until he was
                killed, his body "riddled" with bullets. 17 members of Co. H, 20th Ga.,
                were captured and barely escaped being executed on the spot by the
                intervention of Lt. Col. Thomas Bell, 28th Ohio, Bell himself was killed
                minutes later by a fragment of an exploding shell as he watered his
                horse from the creek.

                Teej
              • TR Livesey
                ... The fact that their right was being turned didn t help much either ;) Regards, TR Livesey westwood@enteract.com
                Message 7 of 8 , May 2 8:04 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Mark Smith wrote:

                  > Oops! Missed that part. Brian, you're absolutely right. The Georgians
                  > continued to fire away even after the 2nd Maryland withdrew and didn't
                  > stop until they were ordered to withdraw due to dwindling ammunition.

                  The fact that their right was being turned didn't help much either ;)

                  Regards,
                  TR Livesey
                  westwood@...
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.