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

Re: Question on the Bridges over the Antietam

Expand Messages
  • eighth_conn_inf
    Gerry, Info on the internet shows that on May 28, 1889, a storm formed over Nebraska and Kansas, moving east. When the storm struck the Johnstown-South Fork
    Message 1 of 59 , Oct 4, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Gerry,

      Info on the internet shows that on May 28, 1889, a storm formed over Nebraska and Kansas, moving east. When the storm struck the Johnstown-South Fork area two days later it was the worst downpour that had ever been recorded in that part of the country. The U.S. Army Signal Corps estimated that 6 to 10 inches (150 to 250 mm) of rain fell in 24 hours over the entire region.

      Looks like the entire area had heavy rain which affected Antietam Creek, too, seriously damaging the bridge supports. From page 84 "Antietam and Its Bridges published in 1910: "It was interesting to hear two old residents of the county speaking of the Orndorff bridge, and of the present iron one. They remembered the Middle Bridge well, and said that the foundations were not well laid. The piers began to sink, and gradually from having been a bridge with a good rise in the middle, it became quite level. Then came the famous forty days of rain, always spoken of in Maryland as "the Johnstown flood," as if the waters of that far-away Pennsylvania town came down bodily to swell the streams of the Hagerstown valley. All the creeks were swollen beyond their usual size, the Antietam rose, and the pressure on the weakened piers became so great that the bridge was condemned and torn down, to make way for this utilitarian and unsightly structure." The 1921 storm which flattened the Dunkard Church may have also damaged the steel bridge but I haven't verified that. Someday I will have to get to the WM library.

      Google link for Antietam and Its Bridges:
      http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA84&dq=the+antietam+and+its+bridges&ei=YhuqTO6ODoGC8gai7cjRDA&ct=result&id=M8YLAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q=flood&f=false

      Larry




      --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "G E Mayers" <gerry1952@...> wrote:
      >
      > Having relatives who were directly involved in the 1889 Johnstown Flood, I was surprised to hear the Middle Bridge on The Antietam was taken out by such flooding. How did that occur?
      >
      > 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: "eighth_conn_inf" <eighth_conn_inf@...>
      > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 10:43 AM
      > Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Question on the Bridges over the Antietam
      >
      >
      > > 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
    • 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.