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

Re: Question on the IX Corps assault

Expand Messages
  • s_recker
    As someone who is just getting his feet wet with historical writing I may not be the best to give you advice, but I ll take a crack. With the book I am writing
    Message 1 of 59 , Feb 26, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      As someone who is just getting his feet wet with historical writing I may not be the best to give you advice, but I'll take a crack.

      With the book I am writing about early photography at Antietam, I am finding all sorts of minutia that I personally find fascinating, but my readers would be poking their eyes out if I put it all in the main narrative. That said, some of these tiny details just might be very relevant and interesting to a few people who read my book.

      So I find myself constantly referring to the focus statement of my book to decide whether something makes the cut into the main narrative or it gets in the notes. For example, "B.W.T. Phreaner's photograph gallery was at 4 West Washington Street in Hagerstown". I've got another ten pages about how I figured that out, but that part is going in the notes. Then if someone wants to go deeper about B.W.T., they can see my sources.

      I think Tom may have been suggesting that helping with the fine-tuning of your main thesis focus would be the job of your instructor. As someone who is flying by the seat of his pants, I am simply trying to find everything I can about my subject, hoping that a focus will emerge.

      --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, Matt Reardon <mreardon1862@...> wrote:
      >
      > Tom,
      >
      > Thank you for your response.  I do understand exactly what you're saying.  When I write about history, I have this terrible habit of trying to include every bit of information I find.  I was looking for other historians perspectives on what should be included for my topic, that way I could focus it down.
      >
      > Thank you all for your responses!
      >
      > Matt
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      > From: Thomas Clemens <clemenst@...>
      > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Wed, February 24, 2010 11:03:51 AM
      > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Question on the IX Corps assault
      >
      >  
      > Matt,
      > Your advisor is the final authority on this, but my suggestion is to start with a very quick overview of the campaign & the leaders, intentions, goals, political and military situation. Then go a bit more in-depth for the events of Sept. 17 to set the stage for the assault; ie. stalemate on the Union right, stymied in the center, success at the Burnside bridge, and NOW the last hope for complete victory, the Final Assault!
      > Does that make sense to you?
      >
      >
      > Dr. Thomas G. Clemens
      > Professor of History
      > Hagerstown Community College
      >
      >
      >
      > >>> Matt Reardon <mreardon1862@ yahoo.com> 2/24/2010 10:41 AM >>>
      >
      > Hi all,
      >
      > I'm working on a master's project that deals with the "Final Assault" by the IX Corps. From those of you who have written about similar topics, where is a good starting point? Do I start with the weeks leading up to the battle? What type of background information is needed for the reader to understand the "Final Assault"?
      > I ask this because I've already covered so many topics in the paper and I need to tone it down. From a historian's perspective, what's important and what's not?
      >
      > Thanks in advance,
      >
      > Matt Reardon
      >
      > ____________ _________ _________ __
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • troyacool@yahoo.com
      Thanks Larry! Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ... From: eighth_conn_inf Sender: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com Date: Tue,
      Message 59 of 59 , Dec 21, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks Larry!
        Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

        -----Original Message-----
        From: "eighth_conn_inf" <eighth_conn_inf@...>
        Sender: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 12:31:09
        To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
        Reply-To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Burnside's murky command

        From Eicher,"Civil War High Commands" command assignments for this period:

        IX Corps-AOP 20 July 1862 - 3 Aug. 1862; IX Corps Army of VA 3 Aug. 1862 - 3 Sept. 1862; Right Wing AOP 7 Sept. 1862 - 14 Sept. 1862; Left of the Line- AOP 14 Sept. 1862 - 19 Sept. 1862; Defenses of Harpers Ferry-AOP 13 Oct. 1862 - 26 Oct. 1862; AOP 13 Oct. 1862 - 26 Jan. 1863.

        Larry

        --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, Troy Cool <troyacool@...> wrote:
        >
        > This might be a bit much for this format�but HELP:
        > Looking into, and admittedly just scratching this for the first time,�Burnside's Command�role in the AoP during the MD Campaign.� The general narrative has Burnside reverting to Corps command after the First Corps seperated on the field at Antietam.� If that's the case why in the ORs on the 8th of Oct "Brigadier General Orlando B. Willcox, U. S. Army, supersedes Brigadier General Jacob D. Cox in command of the Ninth Army Corps." and on the 13th Burnside is "assigned to command of the Defenses of Harper's Ferry, W. Va."� Does McClellan quietly revert to using Grand Divisions after the battle or does Burnside continue to serve in an ambiguous role until he takes command of Harper's Ferry?� Will continue to investigate but looking for input.
        > �
        > Thanks,
        > Troy
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >





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