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

Re: Question on the Bridges over the Antietam

Expand Messages
  • eighth_conn_inf
    Of course the Johnstown Flood was in 1889 and the 1824 bridge was damaged and replaced by a steel bridge which was replaced in the late 1930 s I think by the
    Message 1 of 59 , Oct 4, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Of course the Johnstown Flood was in 1889 and the 1824 bridge was damaged and replaced by a steel bridge which was replaced in the late 1930's I think by the current bridge. I guess the original wooden bridge was built by the Orndorffs to help folks get to his mills, etc.

      --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "eighth_conn_inf" <eighth_conn_inf@...> wrote:
      >
      > Tom and Ron,
      >
      > Looks like we can hope that one of Dr. Snell's student interns can do a paper on the "The Middle Crossing of Antietam Creek" to include the buildings around that crossing as well as detailing the four or so bridges which were there (one wooden, the 1820's/CW one, the steel one after the 1889 flood and the current one built after the Johnstown Flood--I think this is the sequence?). And there was the ford there before that.
      >
      > As I recall, the toll house west of Cumberland was fairly substantial?
      >
      > Larry
      >
      > --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "dickeyr46" <dickeyr46@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Larry,
      > >
      > > Reference the same "Farmsteads" booklet, p.111 quotes, "Orndorff hired a miller to assist with the operation, and constructed a stone house on the opposite side of the creek for use of the miller and his family." That stone house built for the miller is probably the one in the Garner photo. What was its use in 1862? I guess when my mind conjures up an image of a "toll booth," it's something less substantial than a nice stone house and more like the log structure seen to the north of the Pike.
      > >
      > > Ron Dickey
      > >
      > > --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas G. Clemens" <tgclemens@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Not much, a local painting showing a bar and calling it a toll gate house.
      > > > ________________________________________
      > > > From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of eighth_conn_inf [eighth_conn_inf@]
      > > > Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 8:38 PM
      > > > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Question on the Bridges over the Antietam
      > > >
      > > > Tom,
      > > >
      > > > The new "Antietam Farmsteads" book (pg. 114) describes the small stone house which is now gone on the east side of the creek and south side of the pike as the toll house ("thought to be a toll house." That is also how Frassanito (pg. 85) described it ("may have been").
      > > >
      > > > Do you have info showing that the wooden house was the toll house vice the stone house?
      > > >
      > > > Larry
      > > >
      > > > --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>, "Thomas G. Clemens" <tgclemens@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > The Gardner photo shows the frame house on the east side of the creek which was in deed a tollgate house. It has been extensively remodeled recently, and sadly because SHAF had the second contract on it, and would have donated it to the NPS to restore. The center section is original to the time of the battle. The toll was for the use of the road in general and not specifically for the bridge. The next toll was in Sharpsburg, which is why the Sunken Road was used by locals wishing to avoid tolls whilst traversing to the mill and back with their crops.
      > > > >
      >
    • 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
      • 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.