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

RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

Expand Messages
  • G E Mayers
    Taken at the Flood is a book. Priest s books are good but have flaws in them.... ... From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]On
    Message 1 of 13 , May 31, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Taken at the Flood is a book. Priest's books are good but have flaws in them....

      -----Original Message-----
      From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of certainreasons
      Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41 AM
      To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up



      Hello All, Thanks for the helpful replies! Some scatter shot responses - I have some familiarity with the Maryland Campaign, having read several accounts of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak book on South Mountain. What do you folks think of his defense of McClellan? Is it controversial among buffs? The standard accounts always put the blame for not destroying Lee's Army on McC.The Priest book focusing on soldiers memoirs at Antietam is a favorite. Just received the Rafuse battlefield guide, have not looked at it yet. Not familiar with "Taken At the Flood" - is it a book? Has anyone used the Civil War Trails map to visit the historical markers? I was considering the AT for exploring South Mt., 45 min each way is no problem, a few hours to reach Crampton's Gap perhaps...is the South Mt. Inn in the same structure or the same site as the oft-mentioned Mountain House? If I hire a guide, how far in advance do I need to arrange it? What are the going rates? Am planning to visit next Thursday & Friday and as a general approach plan to stay close to a chronological order if feasible. Again, thanks for the help, Chris






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Thomas G. Clemens
      McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and demoralized force, in three days had it ready to take the field. From Sept. 6 to Sept. 19 he marched that army 70
      Message 2 of 13 , Jun 1 10:24 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and demoralized force, in three days had it ready to take the field. From Sept. 6 to Sept. 19 he marched that army 70 miles, fought two battles where he drove Lee's army from the field, forcing him to retreat night from one of them. Why would he need defending????? Name me another commander who did that.
        Tom Clemens

        ________________________________
        From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]On Behalf Of certainreasons
        Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41 AM
        To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

        Hello All, Thanks for the helpful replies! Some scatter shot responses - I have some familiarity with the Maryland Campaign, having read several accounts of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak book on South Mountain. What do you folks think of his defense of McClellan? Is it controversial among buffs? The standard accounts always put the blame for not destroying Lee's Army on McC.The Priest book focusing on soldiers memoirs at Antietam is a favorite. Just received the Rafuse battlefield guide, have not looked at it yet. Not familiar with "Taken At the Flood" - is it a book? Has anyone used the Civil War Trails map to visit the historical markers? I was considering the AT for exploring South Mt., 45 min each way is no problem, a few hours to reach Crampton's Gap perhaps...is the South Mt. Inn in the same structure or the same site as the oft-mentioned Mountain House? If I hire a guide, how far in advance do I need to arrange it? What are the going rates? Am plan ning to visit next Thursday & Friday and as a general approach plan to stay close to a chronological order if feasible. Again, thanks for the help, Chris

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • MikeL49NYVI@aol.com
        Just for the sake of an interesting discussion: True, McCellan did revitalize the army, however, the 2nd and the 6th Corps had not been beaten at 2nd Bull
        Message 3 of 13 , Jun 2 6:23 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Just for the sake of an interesting discussion:

          True, McCellan did revitalize the army, however, the 2nd and the 6th
          Corps had not been beaten at 2nd Bull Run. In fact Mac's slowness in sending
          them to Pope (in defiance of orders) could have been taken as
          insubordination or even traitorous.
          So, it was not the entire army that was beaten down.
          He was given the opportunity of a lifetime when Lee's orders were
          discovered. Yet he moved at his own pace and allowed Harpers Ferry to be
          taken, and for Lee to concentrate at Sharpsburg. 70 miles in 13 days comes out
          to about 5-1/2 miles a day. They could not have been mistaken for Jackson's
          "Foot Cavalry" at that rate.

          Once he got to Sharpsburg, he wasted an entire day, sitting there, and
          then telegraphed his punch by having the 1st and 12 corps move into
          position the night before the battle. Lee and Stonewall knew exactly where to
          concentrate their brigades.

          He allowed Burnside to have a childish tantrum, which made for a very
          awkward chain of command, and a delay in getting orders acted upon.

          He never left the Pry House yard to see what was actually going on
          during the battle, and had the entire 5th corps and most of the 6th sit there,
          and do nothing when the fight hung in the balance.

          And to be frank, he really didn't "drive" Lee off the battlefield.
          The Confederates sat there the next day, almost daring Mac to attack again.
          They then left that night, when they were good and ready to leave.

          From my humble perspective and that of many contemporaries, historians
          and authors I'd say these are issues that invite the need for a defense.

          Mike Lavis





          In a message dated 6/1/2012 1:27:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
          tgclemens@... writes:

          McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and demoralized force, in three days
          had it ready to take the field. From Sept. 6 to Sept. 19 he marched that
          army 70 miles, fought two battles where he drove Lee's army from the field,
          forcing him to retreat night from one of them. Why would he need
          defending????? Name me another commander who did that.
          Tom Clemens

          ________________________________
          From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
          [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
          On Behalf Of certainreasons
          Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41 AM
          To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
          Subject: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

          Hello All, Thanks for the helpful replies! Some scatter shot responses - I
          have some familiarity with the Maryland Campaign, having read several
          accounts of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak book on South Mountain.
          What do you folks think of his defense of McClellan? Is it controversial
          among buffs? The standard accounts always put the blame for not destroying
          Lee's Army on McC.The Priest book focusing on soldiers memoirs at Antietam is a
          favorite. Just received the Rafuse battlefield guide, have not looked at
          it yet. Not familiar with "Taken At the Flood" - is it a book? Has anyone
          used the Civil War Trails map to visit the historical markers? I was
          considering the AT for exploring South Mt., 45 min each way is no problem, a few
          hours to reach Crampton's Gap perhaps...is the South Mt. Inn in the same
          structure or the same site as the oft-mentioned Mountain House? If I hire a
          guide, how far in advance do I need to arrange it? What are the going rates?
          Am plan ning to v
          isit next Thursday & Friday and as a general approach plan to stay close
          to a chronological order if feasible. Again, thanks for the help, Chris

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



          ------------------------------------


          Yahoo! Groups Links






          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Thomas G. Clemens
          ________________________________ From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of MikeL49NYVI@aol.com [MikeL49NYVI@aol.com] Sent:
          Message 4 of 13 , Jun 2 12:22 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            ________________________________
            From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of MikeL49NYVI@... [MikeL49NYVI@...]
            Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:23 AM
            To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up



            See my comments below, I don't mind an interesting discussion, but it would be nice to do some research first.



            Just for the sake of an interesting discussion:

            True, McCellan did revitalize the army, however, the 2nd and the 6th
            Corps had not been beaten at 2nd Bull Run. In fact Mac's slowness in sending
            them to Pope (in defiance of orders) could have been taken as
            insubordination or even traitorous.



            Or extreme sanity in the face of panic. Sending the 6th Corps into without artillery or trains into an unknown situation was ludicrous and he said so.

            So, it was not the entire army that was beaten down.



            No, but those not beaten were demoralized at being withdrawn from 20 miles of Richmond in defiance of any logical strategy.

            He was given the opportunity of a lifetime when Lee's orders were
            discovered. Yet he moved at his own pace and allowed Harpers Ferry to be
            taken, and for Lee to concentrate at Sharpsburg. 70 miles in 13 days comes out
            to about 5-1/2 miles a day. They could not have been mistaken for Jackson's
            "Foot Cavalry" at that rate.



            Too little space to furnish all arguments, but when 191 was found his army was already in motion, no CS infantry closer than 12 miles at best, no evidence of the size of Lee's army, CS cavalry blocking Hagan's Gap until 2 p.m., and by the time 191 was verified as accurate, it was dark. He moved quickly the next day and drove Lee's forces from two gaps in the afternoon, one after dark, and making Lee's army retreat after dark.

            Once he got to Sharpsburg, he wasted an entire day, sitting there, and
            then telegraphed his punch by having the 1st and 12 corps move into
            position the night before the battle. Lee and Stonewall knew exactly where to
            concentrate their brigades.



            He didn't sit the whole day, and the facts are indisputable. He reconnoitered, placed artillery, formulated a plan and ordered Hooker across the creek by 1:00, even though he could not see across the creek until 9:00.


            He allowed Burnside to have a childish tantrum, which made for a very
            awkward chain of command, and a delay in getting orders acted upon.



            See OR 19, pt. 2, for his orders to Burnside. Firm, direct and to the point. And no, Burnside had no tantrum, but was reluctant.

            He never left the Pry House yard to see what was actually going on
            during the battle, and had the entire 5th corps and most of the 6th sit there,
            and do nothing when the fight hung in the balance.



            Again this is easliy and demonstrably disproven. For instance, he rode across the creek in early afternoon to East Woods, not returning until after 4. Have you really read anything on the battle? Sykes' division crossed Middle bridge and was engaged, suffered 109 casualties, while two of Morrell's brigades were sent to, and then recalled from, East Woods. Sixth Corps was sent to same place, lost 439 casualties, and was under bombardment on the 17th and 18th.

            And to be frank, he really didn't "drive" Lee off the battlefield.
            The Confederates sat there the next day, almost daring Mac to attack again.
            They then left that night, when they were good and ready to leave.



            Any casual study of the ANV will show they were shattered, and if they didn't leave until were good and ready to leave it begs the question, Why did they leave?


            From my humble perspective and that of many contemporaries, historians
            and authors I'd say these are issues that invite the need for a defense.



            If any professional historian wrote the inaccuracies you cite above they need to be drummed out of the profession. Read Joseph Harsh, Taken at the Flood, Ethan Rafuse, McClellan's War and either edition of Ezra Carman's manuscript of the campaign.

            Mike Lavis





            In a message dated 6/1/2012 1:27:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
            tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu> writes:

            McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and demoralized force, in three days
            had it ready to take the field. From Sept. 6 to Sept. 19 he marched that
            army 70 miles, fought two battles where he drove Lee's army from the field,
            forcing him to retreat night from one of them. Why would he need
            defending????? Name me another commander who did that.
            Tom Clemens

            ________________________________
            From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
            [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
            On Behalf Of certainreasons
            Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41 AM
            To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
            Subject: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

            Hello All, Thanks for the helpful replies! Some scatter shot responses - I
            have some familiarity with the Maryland Campaign, having read several
            accounts of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak book on South Mountain.
            What do you folks think of his defense of McClellan? Is it controversial
            among buffs? The standard accounts always put the blame for not destroying
            Lee's Army on McC.The Priest book focusing on soldiers memoirs at Antietam is a
            favorite. Just received the Rafuse battlefield guide, have not looked at
            it yet. Not familiar with "Taken At the Flood" - is it a book? Has anyone
            used the Civil War Trails map to visit the historical markers? I was
            considering the AT for exploring South Mt., 45 min each way is no problem, a few
            hours to reach Crampton's Gap perhaps...is the South Mt. Inn in the same
            structure or the same site as the oft-mentioned Mountain House? If I hire a
            guide, how far in advance do I need to arrange it? What are the going rates?
            Am plan ning to v
            isit next Thursday & Friday and as a general approach plan to stay close
            to a chronological order if feasible. Again, thanks for the help, Chris

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

            ------------------------------------

            Yahoo! Groups Links

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • G E Mayers
            Good refutes Tom! Mike, I know Tom Clemens personally, and he is one of the few persons I would unhesitatingly say is a True Expert on the campaign and
            Message 5 of 13 , Jun 2 12:38 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Good refutes Tom!

              Mike, I know Tom Clemens personally, and he is one of the few persons I would unhesitatingly say is a "True Expert" on the campaign and battle.

              Taken at the Flood by Harsh is a very good read and well worth the study; the companion book Sounding the Shallows is also good as it is Dr Harsh's research notes for TATF.

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

              "True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances which govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new order of things." -- Robert E. Lee





              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
              > [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
              > Thomas G. Clemens
              > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 3:22 PM
              > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
              >
              >
              >
              > ________________________________
              > From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
              > [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of
              > MikeL49NYVI@... [MikeL49NYVI@...]
              > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:23 AM
              > To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
              >
              >
              >
              > See my comments below, I don't mind an interesting
              > discussion, but it would be nice to do some research first.
              >
              >
              >
              > Just for the sake of an interesting discussion:
              >
              > True, McClellan did revitalize the army, however, the
              > 2nd and the 6th
              > Corps had not been beaten at 2nd Bull Run. In fact
              > Mac's slowness in sending
              > them to Pope (in defiance of orders) could have been taken as
              > insubordination or even traitorous.
              >
              >
              >
              > Or extreme sanity in the face of panic. Sending the
              > 6th Corps into without artillery or trains into an
              > unknown situation was ludicrous and he said so.
              >
              > So, it was not the entire army that was beaten down.
              >
              >
              >
              > No, but those not beaten were demoralized at being
              > withdrawn from 20 miles of Richmond in defiance of any
              > logical strategy.
              >
              > He was given the opportunity of a lifetime when Lee's
              > orders were
              > discovered. Yet he moved at his own pace and allowed
              > Harpers Ferry to be
              > taken, and for Lee to concentrate at Sharpsburg. 70
              > miles in 13 days comes out
              > to about 5-1/2 miles a day. They could not have been
              > mistaken for Jackson's
              > "Foot Cavalry" at that rate.
              >
              >
              >
              > Too little space to furnish all arguments, but when
              > 191 was found his army was already in motion, no CS
              > infantry closer than 12 miles at best, no evidence of
              > the size of Lee's army, CS cavalry blocking Hagan's
              > Gap until 2 p.m., and by the time 191 was verified as
              > accurate, it was dark. He moved quickly the next day
              > and drove Lee's forces from two gaps in the afternoon,
              > one after dark, and making Lee's army retreat after dark.
              >
              > Once he got to Sharpsburg, he wasted an entire day,
              > sitting there, and
              > then telegraphed his punch by having the 1st and 12
              > corps move into
              > position the night before the battle. Lee and
              > Stonewall knew exactly where to
              > concentrate their brigades.
              >
              >
              >
              > He didn't sit the whole day, and the facts are
              > indisputable. He reconnoitered, placed artillery,
              > formulated a plan and ordered Hooker across the creek
              > by 1:00, even though he could not see across the creek
              > until 9:00.
              >
              >
              > He allowed Burnside to have a childish tantrum, which
              > made for a very
              > awkward chain of command, and a delay in getting
              > orders acted upon.
              >
              >
              >
              > See OR 19, pt. 2, for his orders to Burnside. Firm,
              > direct and to the point. And no, Burnside had no
              > tantrum, but was reluctant.
              >
              > He never left the Pry House yard to see what was
              > actually going on
              > during the battle, and had the entire 5th corps and
              > most of the 6th sit there,
              > and do nothing when the fight hung in the balance.
              >
              >
              >
              > Again this is easily and demonstrably disproved. For
              > instance, he rode across the creek in early afternoon
              > to East Woods, not returning until after 4. Have you
              > really read anything on the battle? Sykes' division
              > crossed Middle bridge and was engaged, suffered 109
              > casualties, while two of Morrell's brigades were sent
              > to, and then recalled from, East Woods. Sixth Corps
              > was sent to same place, lost 439 casualties, and was
              > under bombardment on the 17th and 18th.
              >
              > And to be frank, he really didn't "drive" Lee off the
              > battlefield.
              > The Confederates sat there the next day, almost daring
              > Mac to attack again.
              > They then left that night, when they were good and
              > ready to leave.
              >
              >
              >
              > Any casual study of the ANV will show they were
              > shattered, and if they didn't leave until were good
              > and ready to leave it begs the question, Why did they leave?
              >
              >
              > From my humble perspective and that of many
              > contemporaries, historians
              > and authors I'd say these are issues that invite the
              > need for a defense.
              >
              >
              >
              > If any professional historian wrote the inaccuracies
              > you cite above they need to be drummed out of the
              > profession. Read Joseph Harsh, Taken at the Flood,
              > Ethan Rafuse, McClellan's War and either edition of
              > Ezra Carman's manuscript of the campaign.
              >
              > Mike Lavis
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > In a message dated 6/1/2012 1:27:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
              > tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstow
              > ncc.edu> writes:
              >
              > McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and demoralized
              > force, in three days
              > had it ready to take the field. From Sept. 6 to Sept.
              > 19 he marched that
              > army 70 miles, fought two battles where he drove Lee's
              > army from the field,
              > forcing him to retreat night from one of them. Why
              > would he need
              > defending????? Name me another commander who did that.
              > Tom Clemens
              >
              > ________________________________
              > From:
              > TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
              > ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
              > [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntieta
              > m%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
              > On Behalf Of certainreasons
              > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41 AM
              > To:
              > TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
              > ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
              > Subject: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
              >
              > Hello All, Thanks for the helpful replies! Some
              > scatter shot responses - I
              > have some familiarity with the Maryland Campaign,
              > having read several
              > accounts of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak
              > book on South Mountain.
              > What do you folks think of his defense of McClellan?
              > Is it controversial
              > among buffs? The standard accounts always put the
              > blame for not destroying
              > Lee's Army on McC.The Priest book focusing on soldiers
              > memoirs at Antietam is a
              > favorite. Just received the Rafuse battlefield guide,
              > have not looked at
              > it yet. Not familiar with "Taken At the Flood" - is it
              > a book? Has anyone
              > used the Civil War Trails map to visit the historical
              > markers? I was
              > considering the AT for exploring South Mt., 45 min
              > each way is no problem, a few
              > hours to reach Crampton's Gap perhaps...is the South
              > Mt. Inn in the same
              > structure or the same site as the oft-mentioned
              > Mountain House? If I hire a
              > guide, how far in advance do I need to arrange it?
              > What are the going rates?
              > Am plan ning to v
              > isit next Thursday & Friday and as a general approach
              > plan to stay close
              > to a chronological order if feasible. Again, thanks
              > for the help, Chris
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
            • MikeL49NYVI@aol.com
              Yes, Gerry I knew exactly who His Holiness was before I wrote that. I also knew that I was opening myself up to what I hoped was a decent come back by someone
              Message 6 of 13 , Jun 2 6:27 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Yes, Gerry I knew exactly who His Holiness was before I wrote that. I also
                knew that I was opening myself up to what I hoped was a decent come back by
                someone who knows more about the subject than I do.

                I generalized some of my comments in order to be brief, and figuring that
                since everyone here knows a lot about the subject I didn't need to
                elaborate, or quote chapter and verse on everything. Much of what I said has been
                discussed since the end of the battle itself.

                However what I did not expect was a series of insults and the attitude
                that seems to say
                "How dare you question ME? I am far superior to you and everyone else,
                therefore I can pass judgement upon lowly insignificant peons and say
                whatever I wish about them. And then have all my adoring public congratulate me on
                my great intellect."

                I was once told by a Pastor that you can tell the maturity of a man by how
                he treats others. I have found that to be true, 100% of the time.

                Anything else I might say, or any response to the points raised would
                most likely degenerate into more of the same tone as Tom's and I do not think
                this forum would be the better for it.

                I think it best that I be removed from this mailing list. I can't respect
                anyone who treats people in this manner, no matter who they may be.

                Very Sincerely
                Mike Lavis

                In a message dated 6/2/2012 3:38:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                gerry1952@... writes:




                Good refutes Tom!

                Mike, I know Tom Clemens personally, and he is one of the few persons I
                would unhesitatingly say is a "True Expert" on the campaign and battle.

                Taken at the Flood by Harsh is a very good read and well worth the study;
                the companion book Sounding the Shallows is also good as it is Dr Harsh's
                research notes for TATF.

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

                "True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
                period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels
                them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances which
                govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new order
                of things." -- Robert E. Lee

                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_
                (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
                > [mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_
                (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com) ]On Behalf Of
                > Thomas G. Clemens
                > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 3:22 PM
                > To: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
                > Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
                >
                >
                >
                > ________________________________
                > From: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_
                (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
                > [_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com) ]
                on behalf of
                > _MikeL49NYVI@..._ (mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...)
                [_MikeL49NYVI@..._ (mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...) ]
                > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:23 AM
                > To: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
                > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
                >
                >
                >
                > See my comments below, I don't mind an interesting
                > discussion, but it would be nice to do some research first.
                >
                >
                >
                > Just for the sake of an interesting discussion:
                >
                > True, McClellan did revitalize the army, however, the
                > 2nd and the 6th
                > Corps had not been beaten at 2nd Bull Run. In fact
                > Mac's slowness in sending
                > them to Pope (in defiance of orders) could have been taken as
                > insubordination or even traitorous.
                >
                >
                >
                > Or extreme sanity in the face of panic. Sending the
                > 6th Corps into without artillery or trains into an
                > unknown situation was ludicrous and he said so.
                >
                > So, it was not the entire army that was beaten down.
                >
                >
                >
                > No, but those not beaten were demoralized at being
                > withdrawn from 20 miles of Richmond in defiance of any
                > logical strategy.
                >
                > He was given the opportunity of a lifetime when Lee's
                > orders were
                > discovered. Yet he moved at his own pace and allowed
                > Harpers Ferry to be
                > taken, and for Lee to concentrate at Sharpsburg. 70
                > miles in 13 days comes out
                > to about 5-1/2 miles a day. They could not have been
                > mistaken for Jackson's
                > "Foot Cavalry" at that rate.
                >
                >
                >
                > Too little space to furnish all arguments, but when
                > 191 was found his army was already in motion, no CS
                > infantry closer than 12 miles at best, no evidence of
                > the size of Lee's army, CS cavalry blocking Hagan's
                > Gap until 2 p.m., and by the time 191 was verified as
                > accurate, it was dark. He moved quickly the next day
                > and drove Lee's forces from two gaps in the afternoon,
                > one after dark, and making Lee's army retreat after dark.
                >
                > Once he got to Sharpsburg, he wasted an entire day,
                > sitting there, and
                > then telegraphed his punch by having the 1st and 12
                > corps move into
                > position the night before the battle. Lee and
                > Stonewall knew exactly where to
                > concentrate their brigades.
                >
                >
                >
                > He didn't sit the whole day, and the facts are
                > indisputable. He reconnoitered, placed artillery,
                > formulated a plan and ordered Hooker across the creek
                > by 1:00, even though he could not see across the creek
                > until 9:00.
                >
                >
                > He allowed Burnside to have a childish tantrum, which
                > made for a very
                > awkward chain of command, and a delay in getting
                > orders acted upon.
                >
                >
                >
                > See OR 19, pt. 2, for his orders to Burnside. Firm,
                > direct and to the point. And no, Burnside had no
                > tantrum, but was reluctant.
                >
                > He never left the Pry House yard to see what was
                > actually going on
                > during the battle, and had the entire 5th corps and
                > most of the 6th sit there,
                > and do nothing when the fight hung in the balance.
                >
                >
                >
                > Again this is easily and demonstrably disproved. For
                > instance, he rode across the creek in early afternoon
                > to East Woods, not returning until after 4. Have you
                > really read anything on the battle? Sykes' division
                > crossed Middle bridge and was engaged, suffered 109
                > casualties, while two of Morrell's brigades were sent
                > to, and then recalled from, East Woods. Sixth Corps
                > was sent to same place, lost 439 casualties, and was
                > under bombardment on the 17th and 18th.
                >
                > And to be frank, he really didn't "drive" Lee off the
                > battlefield.
                > The Confederates sat there the next day, almost daring
                > Mac to attack again.
                > They then left that night, when they were good and
                > ready to leave.
                >
                >
                >
                > Any casual study of the ANV will show they were
                > shattered, and if they didn't leave until were good
                > and ready to leave it begs the question, Why did they leave?
                >
                >
                > From my humble perspective and that of many
                > contemporaries, historians
                > and authors I'd say these are issues that invite the
                > need for a defense.
                >
                >
                >
                > If any professional historian wrote the inaccuracies
                > you cite above they need to be drummed out of the
                > profession. Read Joseph Harsh, Taken at the Flood,
                > Ethan Rafuse, McClellan's War and either edition of
                > Ezra Carman's manuscript of the campaign.
                >
                > Mike Lavis
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > In a message dated 6/1/2012 1:27:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                > _tgclemens@..._ (mailto:tgclemens@...)
                <mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstow
                > ncc.edu> writes:
                >
                > McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and demoralized
                > force, in three days
                > had it ready to take the field. From Sept. 6 to Sept.
                > 19 he marched that
                > army 70 miles, fought two battles where he drove Lee's
                > army from the field,
                > forcing him to retreat night from one of them. Why
                > would he need
                > defending????? Name me another commander who did that.
                > Tom Clemens
                >
                > ________________________________
                > From:
                > _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
                <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
                > ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                > [mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_
                (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com) <mailto:TalkAntieta
                > m%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
                > On Behalf Of certainreasons
                > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41 AM
                > To:
                > _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
                <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
                > ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                > Subject: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
                >
                > Hello All, Thanks for the helpful replies! Some
                > scatter shot responses - I
                > have some familiarity with the Maryland Campaign,
                > having read several
                > accounts of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak
                > book on South Mountain.
                > What do you folks think of his defense of McClellan?
                > Is it controversial
                > among buffs? The standard accounts always put the
                > blame for not destroying
                > Lee's Army on McC.The Priest book focusing on soldiers
                > memoirs at Antietam is a
                > favorite. Just received the Rafuse battlefield guide,
                > have not looked at
                > it yet. Not familiar with "Taken At the Flood" - is it
                > a book? Has anyone
                > used the Civil War Trails map to visit the historical
                > markers? I was
                > considering the AT for exploring South Mt., 45 min
                > each way is no problem, a few
                > hours to reach Crampton's Gap perhaps...is the South
                > Mt. Inn in the same
                > structure or the same site as the oft-mentioned
                > Mountain House? If I hire a
                > guide, how far in advance do I need to arrange it?
                > What are the going rates?
                > Am plan ning to v
                > isit next Thursday & Friday and as a general approach
                > plan to stay close
                > to a chronological order if feasible. Again, thanks
                > for the help, Chris
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                > ------------------------------------
                >
                >
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >






                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • G E Mayers
                Dear Mike; I myself nor anyone else, intended to insult you on this or any other board. However, perhaps you should have stated you were making general
                Message 7 of 13 , Jun 2 7:40 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Mike;

                  I myself nor anyone else, intended to insult you on this or any other board. However, perhaps you should have stated you were making "general" comments?

                  If you can indicate what you have already read on the Campaign and battle and then offer specific areas for discussion (friendly, agree to disagree, etc.), I think we can all benefit....

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

                  "True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances which govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new order of things." -- Robert E. Lee



                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of MikeL49NYVI@...
                  Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:27 PM
                  To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up



                  Yes, Gerry I knew exactly who His Holiness was before I wrote that. I also
                  knew that I was opening myself up to what I hoped was a decent come back by
                  someone who knows more about the subject than I do.

                  I generalized some of my comments in order to be brief, and figuring that
                  since everyone here knows a lot about the subject I didn't need to
                  elaborate, or quote chapter and verse on everything. Much of what I said has been
                  discussed since the end of the battle itself.

                  However what I did not expect was a series of insults and the attitude
                  that seems to say
                  "How dare you question ME? I am far superior to you and everyone else,
                  therefore I can pass judgement upon lowly insignificant peons and say
                  whatever I wish about them. And then have all my adoring public congratulate me on
                  my great intellect."

                  I was once told by a Pastor that you can tell the maturity of a man by how
                  he treats others. I have found that to be true, 100% of the time.

                  Anything else I might say, or any response to the points raised would
                  most likely degenerate into more of the same tone as Tom's and I do not think
                  this forum would be the better for it.

                  I think it best that I be removed from this mailing list. I can't respect
                  anyone who treats people in this manner, no matter who they may be.

                  Very Sincerely
                  Mike Lavis

                  In a message dated 6/2/2012 3:38:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                  gerry1952@... writes:




                  Good refutes Tom!

                  Mike, I know Tom Clemens personally, and he is one of the few persons I
                  would unhesitatingly say is a "True Expert" on the campaign and battle.

                  Taken at the Flood by Harsh is a very good read and well worth the study;
                  the companion book Sounding the Shallows is also good as it is Dr Harsh's
                  research notes for TATF.

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

                  "True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
                  period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels
                  them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances which
                  govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new order
                  of things." -- Robert E. Lee

                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_
                  (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
                  > [mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_
                  (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com) ]On Behalf Of
                  > Thomas G. Clemens
                  > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 3:22 PM
                  > To: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
                  > Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > From: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_
                  (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
                  > [_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com) ]
                  on behalf of
                  > _MikeL49NYVI@..._ (mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...)
                  [_MikeL49NYVI@..._ (mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...) ]
                  > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:23 AM
                  > To: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
                  > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > See my comments below, I don't mind an interesting
                  > discussion, but it would be nice to do some research first.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Just for the sake of an interesting discussion:
                  >
                  > True, McClellan did revitalize the army, however, the
                  > 2nd and the 6th
                  > Corps had not been beaten at 2nd Bull Run. In fact
                  > Mac's slowness in sending
                  > them to Pope (in defiance of orders) could have been taken as
                  > insubordination or even traitorous.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Or extreme sanity in the face of panic. Sending the
                  > 6th Corps into without artillery or trains into an
                  > unknown situation was ludicrous and he said so.
                  >
                  > So, it was not the entire army that was beaten down.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > No, but those not beaten were demoralized at being
                  > withdrawn from 20 miles of Richmond in defiance of any
                  > logical strategy.
                  >
                  > He was given the opportunity of a lifetime when Lee's
                  > orders were
                  > discovered. Yet he moved at his own pace and allowed
                  > Harpers Ferry to be
                  > taken, and for Lee to concentrate at Sharpsburg. 70
                  > miles in 13 days comes out
                  > to about 5-1/2 miles a day. They could not have been
                  > mistaken for Jackson's
                  > "Foot Cavalry" at that rate.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Too little space to furnish all arguments, but when
                  > 191 was found his army was already in motion, no CS
                  > infantry closer than 12 miles at best, no evidence of
                  > the size of Lee's army, CS cavalry blocking Hagan's
                  > Gap until 2 p.m., and by the time 191 was verified as
                  > accurate, it was dark. He moved quickly the next day
                  > and drove Lee's forces from two gaps in the afternoon,
                  > one after dark, and making Lee's army retreat after dark.
                  >
                  > Once he got to Sharpsburg, he wasted an entire day,
                  > sitting there, and
                  > then telegraphed his punch by having the 1st and 12
                  > corps move into
                  > position the night before the battle. Lee and
                  > Stonewall knew exactly where to
                  > concentrate their brigades.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > He didn't sit the whole day, and the facts are
                  > indisputable. He reconnoitered, placed artillery,
                  > formulated a plan and ordered Hooker across the creek
                  > by 1:00, even though he could not see across the creek
                  > until 9:00.
                  >
                  >
                  > He allowed Burnside to have a childish tantrum, which
                  > made for a very
                  > awkward chain of command, and a delay in getting
                  > orders acted upon.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > See OR 19, pt. 2, for his orders to Burnside. Firm,
                  > direct and to the point. And no, Burnside had no
                  > tantrum, but was reluctant.
                  >
                  > He never left the Pry House yard to see what was
                  > actually going on
                  > during the battle, and had the entire 5th corps and
                  > most of the 6th sit there,
                  > and do nothing when the fight hung in the balance.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Again this is easily and demonstrably disproved. For
                  > instance, he rode across the creek in early afternoon
                  > to East Woods, not returning until after 4. Have you
                  > really read anything on the battle? Sykes' division
                  > crossed Middle bridge and was engaged, suffered 109
                  > casualties, while two of Morrell's brigades were sent
                  > to, and then recalled from, East Woods. Sixth Corps
                  > was sent to same place, lost 439 casualties, and was
                  > under bombardment on the 17th and 18th.
                  >
                  > And to be frank, he really didn't "drive" Lee off the
                  > battlefield.
                  > The Confederates sat there the next day, almost daring
                  > Mac to attack again.
                  > They then left that night, when they were good and
                  > ready to leave.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Any casual study of the ANV will show they were
                  > shattered, and if they didn't leave until were good
                  > and ready to leave it begs the question, Why did they leave?
                  >
                  >
                  > From my humble perspective and that of many
                  > contemporaries, historians
                  > and authors I'd say these are issues that invite the
                  > need for a defense.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > If any professional historian wrote the inaccuracies
                  > you cite above they need to be drummed out of the
                  > profession. Read Joseph Harsh, Taken at the Flood,
                  > Ethan Rafuse, McClellan's War and either edition of
                  > Ezra Carman's manuscript of the campaign.
                  >
                  > Mike Lavis
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > In a message dated 6/1/2012 1:27:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                  > _tgclemens@..._ (mailto:tgclemens@...)
                  <mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstow
                  > ncc.edu> writes:
                  >
                  > McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and demoralized
                  > force, in three days
                  > had it ready to take the field. From Sept. 6 to Sept.
                  > 19 he marched that
                  > army 70 miles, fought two battles where he drove Lee's
                  > army from the field,
                  > forcing him to retreat night from one of them. Why
                  > would he need
                  > defending????? Name me another commander who did that.
                  > Tom Clemens
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > From:
                  > _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
                  <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
                  > ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                  > [mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_
                  (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com) <mailto:TalkAntieta
                  > m%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
                  > On Behalf Of certainreasons
                  > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41 AM
                  > To:
                  > _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com)
                  <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
                  > ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                  > Subject: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
                  >
                  > Hello All, Thanks for the helpful replies! Some
                  > scatter shot responses - I
                  > have some familiarity with the Maryland Campaign,
                  > having read several
                  > accounts of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak
                  > book on South Mountain.
                  > What do you folks think of his defense of McClellan?
                  > Is it controversial
                  > among buffs? The standard accounts always put the
                  > blame for not destroying
                  > Lee's Army on McC.The Priest book focusing on soldiers
                  > memoirs at Antietam is a
                  > favorite. Just received the Rafuse battlefield guide,
                  > have not looked at
                  > it yet. Not familiar with "Taken At the Flood" - is it
                  > a book? Has anyone
                  > used the Civil War Trails map to visit the historical
                  > markers? I was
                  > considering the AT for exploring South Mt., 45 min
                  > each way is no problem, a few
                  > hours to reach Crampton's Gap perhaps...is the South
                  > Mt. Inn in the same
                  > structure or the same site as the oft-mentioned
                  > Mountain House? If I hire a
                  > guide, how far in advance do I need to arrange it?
                  > What are the going rates?
                  > Am plan ning to v
                  > isit next Thursday & Friday and as a general approach
                  > plan to stay close
                  > to a chronological order if feasible. Again, thanks
                  > for the help, Chris
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------------------------------------
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Thomas G. Clemens
                  Mike, I di not intend to insult you. If you d brought up your points as questions or for discussion instead of arrogantly and directly challenging my
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jun 2 8:03 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Mike,
                    I di not intend to insult you. If you'd brought up your points as questions or for discussion instead of arrogantly and directly challenging my statement I would have responded differently. As far as I am concerned, you started it. I responded inkind. If you intended otherwise it sure didn't show. But I did enjoy being called His Holiness, never heard that before.
                    Tom Clemens
                    ________________________________
                    From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of G E Mayers [gerry1952@...]
                    Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 10:40 PM
                    To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up



                    Dear Mike;

                    I myself nor anyone else, intended to insult you on this or any other board. However, perhaps you should have stated you were making "general" comments?

                    If you can indicate what you have already read on the Campaign and battle and then offer specific areas for discussion (friendly, agree to disagree, etc.), I think we can all benefit....

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

                    "True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances which govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new order of things." -- Robert E. Lee

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]On Behalf Of MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>
                    Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:27 PM
                    To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                    Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

                    Yes, Gerry I knew exactly who His Holiness was before I wrote that. I also
                    knew that I was opening myself up to what I hoped was a decent come back by
                    someone who knows more about the subject than I do.

                    I generalized some of my comments in order to be brief, and figuring that
                    since everyone here knows a lot about the subject I didn't need to
                    elaborate, or quote chapter and verse on everything. Much of what I said has been
                    discussed since the end of the battle itself.

                    However what I did not expect was a series of insults and the attitude
                    that seems to say
                    "How dare you question ME? I am far superior to you and everyone else,
                    therefore I can pass judgement upon lowly insignificant peons and say
                    whatever I wish about them. And then have all my adoring public congratulate me on
                    my great intellect."

                    I was once told by a Pastor that you can tell the maturity of a man by how
                    he treats others. I have found that to be true, 100% of the time.

                    Anything else I might say, or any response to the points raised would
                    most likely degenerate into more of the same tone as Tom's and I do not think
                    this forum would be the better for it.

                    I think it best that I be removed from this mailing list. I can't respect
                    anyone who treats people in this manner, no matter who they may be.

                    Very Sincerely
                    Mike Lavis

                    In a message dated 6/2/2012 3:38:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                    gerry1952@...<mailto:gerry1952%40verizon.net> writes:

                    Good refutes Tom!

                    Mike, I know Tom Clemens personally, and he is one of the few persons I
                    would unhesitatingly say is a "True Expert" on the campaign and battle.

                    Taken at the Flood by Harsh is a very good read and well worth the study;
                    the companion book Sounding the Shallows is also good as it is Dr Harsh's
                    research notes for TATF.

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

                    "True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
                    period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels
                    them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances which
                    govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new order
                    of things." -- Robert E. Lee

                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                    (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                    > [mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                    (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>) ]On Behalf Of
                    > Thomas G. Clemens
                    > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 3:22 PM
                    > To: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                    > Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ________________________________
                    > From: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                    (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                    > [_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>) ]
                    on behalf of
                    > _MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>_ (mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>)
                    [_MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>_ (mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>) ]
                    > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:23 AM
                    > To: _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                    > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > See my comments below, I don't mind an interesting
                    > discussion, but it would be nice to do some research first.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Just for the sake of an interesting discussion:
                    >
                    > True, McClellan did revitalize the army, however, the
                    > 2nd and the 6th
                    > Corps had not been beaten at 2nd Bull Run. In fact
                    > Mac's slowness in sending
                    > them to Pope (in defiance of orders) could have been taken as
                    > insubordination or even traitorous.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Or extreme sanity in the face of panic. Sending the
                    > 6th Corps into without artillery or trains into an
                    > unknown situation was ludicrous and he said so.
                    >
                    > So, it was not the entire army that was beaten down.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > No, but those not beaten were demoralized at being
                    > withdrawn from 20 miles of Richmond in defiance of any
                    > logical strategy.
                    >
                    > He was given the opportunity of a lifetime when Lee's
                    > orders were
                    > discovered. Yet he moved at his own pace and allowed
                    > Harpers Ferry to be
                    > taken, and for Lee to concentrate at Sharpsburg. 70
                    > miles in 13 days comes out
                    > to about 5-1/2 miles a day. They could not have been
                    > mistaken for Jackson's
                    > "Foot Cavalry" at that rate.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Too little space to furnish all arguments, but when
                    > 191 was found his army was already in motion, no CS
                    > infantry closer than 12 miles at best, no evidence of
                    > the size of Lee's army, CS cavalry blocking Hagan's
                    > Gap until 2 p.m., and by the time 191 was verified as
                    > accurate, it was dark. He moved quickly the next day
                    > and drove Lee's forces from two gaps in the afternoon,
                    > one after dark, and making Lee's army retreat after dark.
                    >
                    > Once he got to Sharpsburg, he wasted an entire day,
                    > sitting there, and
                    > then telegraphed his punch by having the 1st and 12
                    > corps move into
                    > position the night before the battle. Lee and
                    > Stonewall knew exactly where to
                    > concentrate their brigades.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > He didn't sit the whole day, and the facts are
                    > indisputable. He reconnoitered, placed artillery,
                    > formulated a plan and ordered Hooker across the creek
                    > by 1:00, even though he could not see across the creek
                    > until 9:00.
                    >
                    >
                    > He allowed Burnside to have a childish tantrum, which
                    > made for a very
                    > awkward chain of command, and a delay in getting
                    > orders acted upon.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > See OR 19, pt. 2, for his orders to Burnside. Firm,
                    > direct and to the point. And no, Burnside had no
                    > tantrum, but was reluctant.
                    >
                    > He never left the Pry House yard to see what was
                    > actually going on
                    > during the battle, and had the entire 5th corps and
                    > most of the 6th sit there,
                    > and do nothing when the fight hung in the balance.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Again this is easily and demonstrably disproved. For
                    > instance, he rode across the creek in early afternoon
                    > to East Woods, not returning until after 4. Have you
                    > really read anything on the battle? Sykes' division
                    > crossed Middle bridge and was engaged, suffered 109
                    > casualties, while two of Morrell's brigades were sent
                    > to, and then recalled from, East Woods. Sixth Corps
                    > was sent to same place, lost 439 casualties, and was
                    > under bombardment on the 17th and 18th.
                    >
                    > And to be frank, he really didn't "drive" Lee off the
                    > battlefield.
                    > The Confederates sat there the next day, almost daring
                    > Mac to attack again.
                    > They then left that night, when they were good and
                    > ready to leave.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Any casual study of the ANV will show they were
                    > shattered, and if they didn't leave until were good
                    > and ready to leave it begs the question, Why did they leave?
                    >
                    >
                    > From my humble perspective and that of many
                    > contemporaries, historians
                    > and authors I'd say these are issues that invite the
                    > need for a defense.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > If any professional historian wrote the inaccuracies
                    > you cite above they need to be drummed out of the
                    > profession. Read Joseph Harsh, Taken at the Flood,
                    > Ethan Rafuse, McClellan's War and either edition of
                    > Ezra Carman's manuscript of the campaign.
                    >
                    > Mike Lavis
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > In a message dated 6/1/2012 1:27:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                    > _tgclemens@...<mailto:_tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu>_ (mailto:tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu>)
                    <mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstow
                    > ncc.edu> writes:
                    >
                    > McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and demoralized
                    > force, in three days
                    > had it ready to take the field. From Sept. 6 to Sept.
                    > 19 he marched that
                    > army 70 miles, fought two battles where he drove Lee's
                    > army from the field,
                    > forcing him to retreat night from one of them. Why
                    > would he need
                    > defending????? Name me another commander who did that.
                    > Tom Clemens
                    >
                    > ________________________________
                    > From:
                    > _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                    <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
                    > ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                    > [mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                    (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>) <mailto:TalkAntieta
                    > m%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
                    > On Behalf Of certainreasons
                    > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41 AM
                    > To:
                    > _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_ (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                    <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
                    > ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                    > Subject: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
                    >
                    > Hello All, Thanks for the helpful replies! Some
                    > scatter shot responses - I
                    > have some familiarity with the Maryland Campaign,
                    > having read several
                    > accounts of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak
                    > book on South Mountain.
                    > What do you folks think of his defense of McClellan?
                    > Is it controversial
                    > among buffs? The standard accounts always put the
                    > blame for not destroying
                    > Lee's Army on McC.The Priest book focusing on soldiers
                    > memoirs at Antietam is a
                    > favorite. Just received the Rafuse battlefield guide,
                    > have not looked at
                    > it yet. Not familiar with "Taken At the Flood" - is it
                    > a book? Has anyone
                    > used the Civil War Trails map to visit the historical
                    > markers? I was
                    > considering the AT for exploring South Mt., 45 min
                    > each way is no problem, a few
                    > hours to reach Crampton's Gap perhaps...is the South
                    > Mt. Inn in the same
                    > structure or the same site as the oft-mentioned
                    > Mountain House? If I hire a
                    > guide, how far in advance do I need to arrange it?
                    > What are the going rates?
                    > Am plan ning to v
                    > isit next Thursday & Friday and as a general approach
                    > plan to stay close
                    > to a chronological order if feasible. Again, thanks
                    > for the help, Chris
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >

                    [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]
                  • MikeL49NYVI@aol.com
                    Tom, Gerry: I had no intention of being arrogant, or challenging, that is always the problem with e-mails and forums. I fully acknowledged that most of you
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jun 2 8:25 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Tom, Gerry:

                      I had no intention of being arrogant, or challenging, that is always
                      the problem with e-mails and forums. I fully acknowledged that most of you
                      know more about the entire campaign than I do. And I never think I am the
                      last word on any subject. That is why I began with saying I was looking for a
                      decent discussion.
                      Also, I was on my way to a memorial service for my Great Aunt, and
                      noticed I was running very late. (My 83 year old mom can get feisty) and while
                      I felt some of my wording, especially the last sentence was "weak" I didn't
                      want to redo the entire thing all over again. So I hoped that it would
                      read OK.


                      I guess it didn't......
                      For that I do apologize

                      Interestingly enough I am about to leave for Sharpsburg, to look over the
                      reenactment site, and spend a bit of time on the battlefield. I have to do
                      it in one day, - work issues

                      I have been called many things, some printable, some not. "Commander of the
                      Galaxy"
                      and "Empire Builder" are my personal favorites.

                      Mike Lavis




                      In a message dated 6/2/2012 11:07:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                      tgclemens@... writes:

                      Mike,
                      I di not intend to insult you. If you'd brought up your points as
                      questions or for discussion instead of arrogantly and directly challenging my
                      statement I would have responded differently. As far as I am concerned, you
                      started it. I responded inkind. If you intended otherwise it sure didn't
                      show. But I did enjoy being called His Holiness, never heard that before.
                      Tom Clemens
                      ________________________________
                      From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on
                      behalf of G E Mayers [gerry1952@...]
                      Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 10:40 PM
                      To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up



                      Dear Mike;

                      I myself nor anyone else, intended to insult you on this or any other
                      board. However, perhaps you should have stated you were making "general"
                      comments?

                      If you can indicate what you have already read on the Campaign and battle
                      and then offer specific areas for discussion (friendly, agree to disagree,
                      etc.), I think we can all benefit....

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

                      "True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
                      period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels
                      them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances which
                      govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new order
                      of things." -- Robert E. Lee

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                      [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
                      On Behalf Of MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>
                      Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:27 PM
                      To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                      Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

                      Yes, Gerry I knew exactly who His Holiness was before I wrote that. I also
                      knew that I was opening myself up to what I hoped was a decent come back by
                      someone who knows more about the subject than I do.

                      I generalized some of my comments in order to be brief, and figuring that
                      since everyone here knows a lot about the subject I didn't need to
                      elaborate, or quote chapter and verse on everything. Much of what I said
                      has been
                      discussed since the end of the battle itself.

                      However what I did not expect was a series of insults and the attitude
                      that seems to say
                      "How dare you question ME? I am far superior to you and everyone else,
                      therefore I can pass judgement upon lowly insignificant peons and say
                      whatever I wish about them. And then have all my adoring public
                      congratulate me on
                      my great intellect."

                      I was once told by a Pastor that you can tell the maturity of a man by how
                      he treats others. I have found that to be true, 100% of the time.

                      Anything else I might say, or any response to the points raised would
                      most likely degenerate into more of the same tone as Tom's and I do not
                      think
                      this forum would be the better for it.

                      I think it best that I be removed from this mailing list. I can't respect
                      anyone who treats people in this manner, no matter who they may be.

                      Very Sincerely
                      Mike Lavis

                      In a message dated 6/2/2012 3:38:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                      gerry1952@...<mailto:gerry1952%40verizon.net> writes:

                      Good refutes Tom!

                      Mike, I know Tom Clemens personally, and he is one of the few persons I
                      would unhesitatingly say is a "True Expert" on the campaign and battle.

                      Taken at the Flood by Harsh is a very good read and well worth the study;
                      the companion book Sounding the Shallows is also good as it is Dr Harsh's
                      research notes for TATF.

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

                      "True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
                      period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels
                      them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances
                      which
                      govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new
                      order
                      of things." -- Robert E. Lee

                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From:
                      _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                      (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                      >
                      [mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                      (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                      ]On Behalf Of
                      > Thomas G. Clemens
                      > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 3:22 PM
                      > To:
                      _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                      (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                      > Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ________________________________
                      > From:
                      _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                      (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                      > [_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                      (mailto:TalkAntietam@ya
                      hoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>) ]
                      on behalf of
                      > _MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>_
                      (mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>)
                      [_MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>_
                      (mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>) ]
                      > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:23 AM
                      > To:
                      _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                      (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                      > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > See my comments below, I don't mind an interesting
                      > discussion, but it would be nice to do some research first.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Just for the sake of an interesting discussion:
                      >
                      > True, McClellan did revitalize the army, however, the
                      > 2nd and the 6th
                      > Corps had not been beaten at 2nd Bull Run. In fact
                      > Mac's slowness in sending
                      > them to Pope (in defiance of orders) could have been taken as
                      > insubordination or even traitorous.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Or extreme sanity in the face of panic. Sending the
                      > 6th Corps into without artillery or trains into an
                      > unknown situation was ludicrous and he said so.
                      >
                      > So, it was not the entire army that was beaten down.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > No, but those not beaten were demoralized at being
                      > withdrawn from 20 miles of Richmond in defiance of any
                      > logical strategy.
                      >
                      > He was given the opportunity of a lifetime when Lee's
                      > orders were
                      > discovered. Yet he moved at his own pace and allowed
                      > Harpers Ferry to be
                      > taken, and for Lee to concentrate at Sharpsburg. 70
                      > miles in 13 days comes out
                      > to about 5-1/2 miles a day. They could not have been
                      > mistaken for Jackson's
                      > "Foot Cavalry" at that rate.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Too little space to furnish all arguments, but when
                      > 191 was found his army was already in motion, no CS
                      > infantry closer than 12 miles at best, no evidence of
                      > the size of Lee's army, CS cavalry blocking Hagan's
                      > Gap until 2 p.m., and by the time 191 was verified as
                      > accurate, it was dark. He moved quickly the next day
                      > and drove Lee's forces from two gaps in the afternoon,
                      > one after dark, and making Lee's army retreat after dark.
                      >
                      > Once he got to Sharpsburg, he wasted an entire day,
                      > sitting there, and
                      > then telegraphed his punch by having the 1st and 12
                      > corps move into
                      > position the night before the battle. Lee and
                      > Stonewall knew exactly where to
                      > concentrate their brigades.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > He didn't sit the whole day, and the facts are
                      > indisputable. He reconnoitered, placed artillery,
                      > formulated a plan and ordered Hooker across the creek
                      > by 1:00, even though he could not see across the creek
                      > until 9:00.
                      >
                      >
                      > He allowed Burnside to have a childish tantrum, which
                      > made for a very
                      > awkward chain of command, and a delay in getting
                      > orders acted upon.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > See OR 19, pt. 2, for his orders to Burnside. Firm,
                      > direct and to the point. And no, Burnside had no
                      > tantrum, but was reluctant.
                      >
                      > He never left the Pry House yard to see what was
                      > actually going on
                      > during the battle, and had the entire 5th corps and
                      > most of the 6th sit there,
                      > and do nothing when the fight hung in the balance.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Again this is easily and demonstrably disproved. For
                      > instance, he rode across the creek in early afternoon
                      > to East Woods, not returning until after 4. Have you
                      > really read anything on the battle? Sykes' division
                      > crossed Middle bridge and was engaged, suffered 109
                      > casualties, while two of Morrell's brigades were sent
                      > to, and then recalled from, East Woods. Sixth Corps
                      > was sent to same place, lost 439 casualties, and was
                      > under bombardment on the 17th and 18th.
                      >
                      > And to be frank, he really didn't "drive" Lee off the
                      > battlefield.
                      > The Confederates sat there the next day, almost daring
                      > Mac to attack again.
                      > They then left that night, when they were good and
                      > ready to leave.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Any casual study of the ANV will show they were
                      > shattered, and if they didn't leave until were good
                      > and ready to leave it begs the question, Why did they leave?
                      >
                      >
                      > From my humble perspective and that of many
                      > contemporaries, historians
                      > and authors I'd say these are issues that invite the
                      > need for a defense.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > If any professional historian wrote the inaccuracies
                      > you cite above they need to be drummed out of the
                      > profession. Read Joseph Harsh, Taken at the Flood,
                      > Ethan Rafuse, McClellan's War and either edition of
                      > Ezra Carman's manuscript of the campaign.
                      >
                      > Mike Lavis
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > In a message dated 6/1/2012 1:27:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                      > _tgclemens@...<mailto:_tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu>_
                      (mailto:tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu>)
                      <mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstow
                      > ncc.edu> writes:
                      >
                      > McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and demoralized
                      > force, in three days
                      > had it ready to take the field. From Sept. 6 to Sept.
                      > 19 he marched that
                      > army 70 miles, fought two battles where he drove Lee's
                      > army from the field,
                      > forcing him to retreat night from one of them. Why
                      > would he need
                      > defending????? Name me another commander who did that.
                      > Tom Clemens
                      >
                      > ________________________________
                      > From:
                      > _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                      (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                      <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
                      > ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                      >
                      [mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                      (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                      <mailto:TalkAntieta
                      > m%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
                      > On Behalf Of certainreasons
                      > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41 AM
                      > To:
                      > _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                      (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                      <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
                      > ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                      > Subject: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
                      >
                      > Hello All, Thanks for the helpful replies! Some
                      > scatter shot responses - I
                      > have some familiarity with the Maryland Campaign,
                      > having read several
                      > accounts of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak
                      > book on South Mountain.
                      > What do you folks think of his defense of McClellan?
                      > Is it controversial
                      > among buffs? The standard accounts always put the
                      > blame for not destroying
                      > Lee's Army on McC.The Priest book focusing on soldiers
                      > memoirs at Antietam is a
                      > favorite. Just received the Rafuse battlefield guide,
                      > have not looked at
                      > it yet. Not familiar with "Taken At the Flood" - is it
                      > a book? Has anyone
                      > used the Civil War Trails map to visit the historical
                      > markers? I was
                      > considering the AT for exploring South Mt., 45 min
                      > each way is no problem, a few
                      > hours to reach Crampton's Gap perhaps...is the South
                      > Mt. Inn in the same
                      > structure or the same site as the oft-mentioned
                      > Mountain House? If I hire a
                      > guide, how far in advance do I need to arrange it?
                      > What are the going rates?
                      > Am plan ning to v
                      > isit next Thursday & Friday and as a general approach
                      > plan to stay close
                      > to a chronological order if feasible. Again, thanks
                      > for the help, Chris
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------------------
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >

                      [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]



                      ------------------------------------


                      Yahoo! Groups Links






                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Thomas G. Clemens
                      Agreed Mike, email is a difficult way to communicate. And I note by your address that you have an interest in the 49th NY, one of the 6th Corps regiment
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jun 2 8:39 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Agreed Mike, email is a difficult way to communicate. And I note by your address that you have an interest in the 49th NY, one of the 6th Corps regiment engaged on the 17th. In the Battlefield Board Papers are 5 or 6 letters from veterans of the 49th, interested in copies? Mostly from someone named Alberger.
                        Tom Clemens
                        ________________________________
                        From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of MikeL49NYVI@... [MikeL49NYVI@...]
                        Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 11:25 PM
                        To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up



                        Tom, Gerry:

                        I had no intention of being arrogant, or challenging, that is always
                        the problem with e-mails and forums. I fully acknowledged that most of you
                        know more about the entire campaign than I do. And I never think I am the
                        last word on any subject. That is why I began with saying I was looking for a
                        decent discussion.
                        Also, I was on my way to a memorial service for my Great Aunt, and
                        noticed I was running very late. (My 83 year old mom can get feisty) and while
                        I felt some of my wording, especially the last sentence was "weak" I didn't
                        want to redo the entire thing all over again. So I hoped that it would
                        read OK.


                        I guess it didn't......
                        For that I do apologize

                        Interestingly enough I am about to leave for Sharpsburg, to look over the
                        reenactment site, and spend a bit of time on the battlefield. I have to do
                        it in one day, - work issues

                        I have been called many things, some printable, some not. "Commander of the
                        Galaxy"
                        and "Empire Builder" are my personal favorites.

                        Mike Lavis




                        In a message dated 6/2/2012 11:07:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                        tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu> writes:

                        Mike,
                        I di not intend to insult you. If you'd brought up your points as
                        questions or for discussion instead of arrogantly and directly challenging my
                        statement I would have responded differently. As far as I am concerned, you
                        started it. I responded inkind. If you intended otherwise it sure didn't
                        show. But I did enjoy being called His Holiness, never heard that before.
                        Tom Clemens
                        ________________________________
                        From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com> [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>] on
                        behalf of G E Mayers [gerry1952@...<mailto:gerry1952%40verizon.net>]
                        Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 10:40 PM
                        To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                        Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

                        Dear Mike;

                        I myself nor anyone else, intended to insult you on this or any other
                        board. However, perhaps you should have stated you were making "general"
                        comments?

                        If you can indicate what you have already read on the Campaign and battle
                        and then offer specific areas for discussion (friendly, agree to disagree,
                        etc.), I think we can all benefit....

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

                        "True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
                        period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels
                        them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances which
                        govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new order
                        of things." -- Robert E. Lee

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                        [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
                        On Behalf Of MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>
                        Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:27 PM
                        To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                        Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

                        Yes, Gerry I knew exactly who His Holiness was before I wrote that. I also
                        knew that I was opening myself up to what I hoped was a decent come back by
                        someone who knows more about the subject than I do.

                        I generalized some of my comments in order to be brief, and figuring that
                        since everyone here knows a lot about the subject I didn't need to
                        elaborate, or quote chapter and verse on everything. Much of what I said
                        has been
                        discussed since the end of the battle itself.

                        However what I did not expect was a series of insults and the attitude
                        that seems to say
                        "How dare you question ME? I am far superior to you and everyone else,
                        therefore I can pass judgement upon lowly insignificant peons and say
                        whatever I wish about them. And then have all my adoring public
                        congratulate me on
                        my great intellect."

                        I was once told by a Pastor that you can tell the maturity of a man by how
                        he treats others. I have found that to be true, 100% of the time.

                        Anything else I might say, or any response to the points raised would
                        most likely degenerate into more of the same tone as Tom's and I do not
                        think
                        this forum would be the better for it.

                        I think it best that I be removed from this mailing list. I can't respect
                        anyone who treats people in this manner, no matter who they may be.

                        Very Sincerely
                        Mike Lavis

                        In a message dated 6/2/2012 3:38:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                        gerry1952@...<mailto:gerry1952%40verizon.net><mailto:gerry1952%40verizon.net> writes:

                        Good refutes Tom!

                        Mike, I know Tom Clemens personally, and he is one of the few persons I
                        would unhesitatingly say is a "True Expert" on the campaign and battle.

                        Taken at the Flood by Harsh is a very good read and well worth the study;
                        the companion book Sounding the Shallows is also good as it is Dr Harsh's
                        research notes for TATF.

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

                        "True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
                        period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels
                        them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances
                        which
                        govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new
                        order
                        of things." -- Robert E. Lee

                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From:
                        _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                        (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                        >
                        [mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                        (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                        ]On Behalf Of
                        > Thomas G. Clemens
                        > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 3:22 PM
                        > To:
                        _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                        (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                        > Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        > From:
                        _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                        (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                        > [_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                        (mailto:TalkAntietam@ya
                        hoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>) ]
                        on behalf of
                        > _MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>_
                        (mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>)
                        [_MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>_
                        (mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>) ]
                        > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:23 AM
                        > To:
                        _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                        (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                        > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > See my comments below, I don't mind an interesting
                        > discussion, but it would be nice to do some research first.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Just for the sake of an interesting discussion:
                        >
                        > True, McClellan did revitalize the army, however, the
                        > 2nd and the 6th
                        > Corps had not been beaten at 2nd Bull Run. In fact
                        > Mac's slowness in sending
                        > them to Pope (in defiance of orders) could have been taken as
                        > insubordination or even traitorous.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Or extreme sanity in the face of panic. Sending the
                        > 6th Corps into without artillery or trains into an
                        > unknown situation was ludicrous and he said so.
                        >
                        > So, it was not the entire army that was beaten down.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > No, but those not beaten were demoralized at being
                        > withdrawn from 20 miles of Richmond in defiance of any
                        > logical strategy.
                        >
                        > He was given the opportunity of a lifetime when Lee's
                        > orders were
                        > discovered. Yet he moved at his own pace and allowed
                        > Harpers Ferry to be
                        > taken, and for Lee to concentrate at Sharpsburg. 70
                        > miles in 13 days comes out
                        > to about 5-1/2 miles a day. They could not have been
                        > mistaken for Jackson's
                        > "Foot Cavalry" at that rate.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Too little space to furnish all arguments, but when
                        > 191 was found his army was already in motion, no CS
                        > infantry closer than 12 miles at best, no evidence of
                        > the size of Lee's army, CS cavalry blocking Hagan's
                        > Gap until 2 p.m., and by the time 191 was verified as
                        > accurate, it was dark. He moved quickly the next day
                        > and drove Lee's forces from two gaps in the afternoon,
                        > one after dark, and making Lee's army retreat after dark.
                        >
                        > Once he got to Sharpsburg, he wasted an entire day,
                        > sitting there, and
                        > then telegraphed his punch by having the 1st and 12
                        > corps move into
                        > position the night before the battle. Lee and
                        > Stonewall knew exactly where to
                        > concentrate their brigades.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > He didn't sit the whole day, and the facts are
                        > indisputable. He reconnoitered, placed artillery,
                        > formulated a plan and ordered Hooker across the creek
                        > by 1:00, even though he could not see across the creek
                        > until 9:00.
                        >
                        >
                        > He allowed Burnside to have a childish tantrum, which
                        > made for a very
                        > awkward chain of command, and a delay in getting
                        > orders acted upon.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > See OR 19, pt. 2, for his orders to Burnside. Firm,
                        > direct and to the point. And no, Burnside had no
                        > tantrum, but was reluctant.
                        >
                        > He never left the Pry House yard to see what was
                        > actually going on
                        > during the battle, and had the entire 5th corps and
                        > most of the 6th sit there,
                        > and do nothing when the fight hung in the balance.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Again this is easily and demonstrably disproved. For
                        > instance, he rode across the creek in early afternoon
                        > to East Woods, not returning until after 4. Have you
                        > really read anything on the battle? Sykes' division
                        > crossed Middle bridge and was engaged, suffered 109
                        > casualties, while two of Morrell's brigades were sent
                        > to, and then recalled from, East Woods. Sixth Corps
                        > was sent to same place, lost 439 casualties, and was
                        > under bombardment on the 17th and 18th.
                        >
                        > And to be frank, he really didn't "drive" Lee off the
                        > battlefield.
                        > The Confederates sat there the next day, almost daring
                        > Mac to attack again.
                        > They then left that night, when they were good and
                        > ready to leave.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Any casual study of the ANV will show they were
                        > shattered, and if they didn't leave until were good
                        > and ready to leave it begs the question, Why did they leave?
                        >
                        >
                        > From my humble perspective and that of many
                        > contemporaries, historians
                        > and authors I'd say these are issues that invite the
                        > need for a defense.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > If any professional historian wrote the inaccuracies
                        > you cite above they need to be drummed out of the
                        > profession. Read Joseph Harsh, Taken at the Flood,
                        > Ethan Rafuse, McClellan's War and either edition of
                        > Ezra Carman's manuscript of the campaign.
                        >
                        > Mike Lavis
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > In a message dated 6/1/2012 1:27:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                        > _tgclemens@...<mailto:_tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu><mailto:_tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu>_
                        (mailto:tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu><mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu>)
                        <mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstow
                        > ncc.edu> writes:
                        >
                        > McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and demoralized
                        > force, in three days
                        > had it ready to take the field. From Sept. 6 to Sept.
                        > 19 he marched that
                        > army 70 miles, fought two battles where he drove Lee's
                        > army from the field,
                        > forcing him to retreat night from one of them. Why
                        > would he need
                        > defending????? Name me another commander who did that.
                        > Tom Clemens
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        > From:
                        > _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                        (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                        <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
                        > ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                        >
                        [mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                        (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                        <mailto:TalkAntieta
                        > m%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
                        > On Behalf Of certainreasons
                        > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41 AM
                        > To:
                        > _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                        (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                        <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
                        > ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                        > Subject: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
                        >
                        > Hello All, Thanks for the helpful replies! Some
                        > scatter shot responses - I
                        > have some familiarity with the Maryland Campaign,
                        > having read several
                        > accounts of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak
                        > book on South Mountain.
                        > What do you folks think of his defense of McClellan?
                        > Is it controversial
                        > among buffs? The standard accounts always put the
                        > blame for not destroying
                        > Lee's Army on McC.The Priest book focusing on soldiers
                        > memoirs at Antietam is a
                        > favorite. Just received the Rafuse battlefield guide,
                        > have not looked at
                        > it yet. Not familiar with "Taken At the Flood" - is it
                        > a book? Has anyone
                        > used the Civil War Trails map to visit the historical
                        > markers? I was
                        > considering the AT for exploring South Mt., 45 min
                        > each way is no problem, a few
                        > hours to reach Crampton's Gap perhaps...is the South
                        > Mt. Inn in the same
                        > structure or the same site as the oft-mentioned
                        > Mountain House? If I hire a
                        > guide, how far in advance do I need to arrange it?
                        > What are the going rates?
                        > Am plan ning to v
                        > isit next Thursday & Friday and as a general approach
                        > plan to stay close
                        > to a chronological order if feasible. Again, thanks
                        > for the help, Chris
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------
                        >
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >

                        [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]

                        ------------------------------------

                        Yahoo! Groups Links

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • MikeL49NYVI@aol.com
                        Thank you Tom: I would love some copies, and will gladly pay for any cost incurred. Alberger was the major of the 49th, and the Mayor of Buffalo s brother. He
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jun 2 8:46 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Thank you Tom:
                          I would love some copies, and will gladly pay for any cost incurred.
                          Alberger was the major of the 49th, and the Mayor of Buffalo's brother. He
                          was wounded in the face by a shell fragment during the battle, and
                          disabled.

                          We have a difficult time finding letters and artifacts from the 49th. We
                          suspect that they were in a GAR hall in Buffalo, and were supposed to end up
                          at the Historical Society. They never got there.

                          Mike L



                          In a message dated 6/2/2012 11:40:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                          tgclemens@... writes:

                          Agreed Mike, email is a difficult way to communicate. And I note by your
                          address that you have an interest in the 49th NY, one of the 6th Corps
                          regiment engaged on the 17th. In the Battlefield Board Papers are 5 or 6
                          letters from veterans of the 49th, interested in copies? Mostly from someone
                          named Alberger.
                          Tom Clemens
                          ________________________________
                          From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on
                          behalf of MikeL49NYVI@... [MikeL49NYVI@...]
                          Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 11:25 PM
                          To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up



                          Tom, Gerry:

                          I had no intention of being arrogant, or challenging, that is always
                          the problem with e-mails and forums. I fully acknowledged that most of you
                          know more about the entire campaign than I do. And I never think I am the
                          last word on any subject. That is why I began with saying I was looking
                          for a
                          decent discussion.
                          Also, I was on my way to a memorial service for my Great Aunt, and
                          noticed I was running very late. (My 83 year old mom can get feisty) and
                          while
                          I felt some of my wording, especially the last sentence was "weak" I didn't
                          want to redo the entire thing all over again. So I hoped that it would
                          read OK.


                          I guess it didn't......
                          For that I do apologize

                          Interestingly enough I am about to leave for Sharpsburg, to look over the
                          reenactment site, and spend a bit of time on the battlefield. I have to do
                          it in one day, - work issues

                          I have been called many things, some printable, some not. "Commander of the
                          Galaxy"
                          and "Empire Builder" are my personal favorites.

                          Mike Lavis




                          In a message dated 6/2/2012 11:07:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                          tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu> writes:

                          Mike,
                          I di not intend to insult you. If you'd brought up your points as
                          questions or for discussion instead of arrogantly and directly challenging
                          my
                          statement I would have responded differently. As far as I am concerned, you
                          started it. I responded inkind. If you intended otherwise it sure didn't
                          show. But I did enjoy being called His Holiness, never heard that before.
                          Tom Clemens
                          ________________________________
                          From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                          [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>] on
                          behalf of G E Mayers
                          [gerry1952@...<mailto:gerry1952%40verizon.net>]
                          Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 10:40 PM
                          To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                          Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

                          Dear Mike;

                          I myself nor anyone else, intended to insult you on this or any other
                          board. However, perhaps you should have stated you were making "general"
                          comments?

                          If you can indicate what you have already read on the Campaign and battle
                          and then offer specific areas for discussion (friendly, agree to disagree,
                          etc.), I think we can all benefit....

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

                          "True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
                          period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels
                          them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances
                          which
                          govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new
                          order
                          of things." -- Robert E. Lee

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From:
                          TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                          [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
                          mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
                          On Behalf Of
                          MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>
                          Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:27 PM
                          To:
                          TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                          Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

                          Yes, Gerry I knew exactly who His Holiness was before I wrote that. I also
                          knew that I was opening myself up to what I hoped was a decent come back by
                          someone who knows more about the subject than I do.

                          I generalized some of my comments in order to be brief, and figuring that
                          since everyone here knows a lot about the subject I didn't need to
                          elaborate, or quote chapter and verse on everything. Much of what I said
                          has been
                          discussed since the end of the battle itself.

                          However what I did not expect was a series of insults and the attitude
                          that seems to say
                          "How dare you question ME? I am far superior to you and everyone else,
                          therefore I can pass judgement upon lowly insignificant peons and say
                          whatever I wish about them. And then have all my adoring public
                          congratulate me on
                          my great intellect."

                          I was once told by a Pastor that you can tell the maturity of a man by how
                          he treats others. I have found that to be true, 100% of the time.

                          Anything else I might say, or any response to the points raised would
                          most likely degenerate into more of the same tone as Tom's and I do not
                          think
                          this forum would be the better for it.

                          I think it best that I be removed from this mailing list. I can't respect
                          anyone who treats people in this manner, no matter who they may be.

                          Very Sincerely
                          Mike Lavis

                          In a message dated 6/2/2012 3:38:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                          gerry1952@...<mailto:gerry1
                          952%40verizon.net><mailto:gerry1952%40verizon.net> writes:

                          Good refutes Tom!

                          Mike, I know Tom Clemens personally, and he is one of the few persons I
                          would unhesitatingly say is a "True Expert" on the campaign and battle.

                          Taken at the Flood by Harsh is a very good read and well worth the study;
                          the companion book Sounding the Shallows is also good as it is Dr Harsh's
                          research notes for TATF.

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

                          "True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
                          period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels
                          them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances
                          which
                          govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new
                          order
                          of things." -- Robert E. Lee

                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From:
                          _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto
                          :_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                          (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
                          mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                          >
                          [mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com
                          ><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                          (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
                          mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                          ]On Behalf Of
                          > Thomas G. Clemens
                          > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 3:22 PM
                          > To:
                          _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto
                          :_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                          (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
                          mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                          > Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ________________________________
                          > From:
                          _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto
                          :_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                          (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
                          mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                          >
                          [_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                          (mailto:TalkAntietam@ya
                          hoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>) ]
                          on behalf of
                          >
                          _MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>_
                          (mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI
                          %40aol.com>)
                          [_MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40a
                          ol.com>_
                          (mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI
                          %40aol.com>) ]
                          > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:23 AM
                          > To:
                          _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto
                          :_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                          (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
                          mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                          > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > See my comments below, I don't mind an interesting
                          > discussion, but it would be nice to do some research first.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Just for the sake of an interesting discussion:
                          >
                          > True, McClellan did revitalize the army, however, the
                          > 2nd and the 6th
                          > Corps had not been beaten at 2nd Bull Run. In fact
                          > Mac's slowness in sending
                          > them to Pope (in defiance of orders) could have been taken as
                          > insubordination or even traitorous.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Or extreme sanity in the face of panic. Sending the
                          > 6th Corps into without artillery or trains into an
                          > unknown situation was ludicrous and he said so.
                          >
                          > So, it was not the entire army that was beaten down.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > No, but those not beaten were demoralized at being
                          > withdrawn from 20 miles of Richmond in defiance of any
                          > logical strategy.
                          >
                          > He was given the opportunity of a lifetime when Lee's
                          > orders were
                          > discovered. Yet he moved at his own pace and allowed
                          > Harpers Ferry to be
                          > taken, and for Lee to concentrate at Sharpsburg. 70
                          > miles in 13 days comes out
                          > to about 5-1/2 miles a day. They could not have been
                          > mistaken for Jackson's
                          > "Foot Cavalry" at that rate.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Too little space to furnish all arguments, but when
                          > 191 was found his army was already in motion, no CS
                          > infantry closer than 12 miles at best, no evidence of
                          > the size of Lee's army, CS cavalry blocking Hagan's
                          > Gap until 2 p.m., and by the time 191 was verified as
                          > accurate, it was dark. He moved quickly the next day
                          > and drove Lee's forces from two gaps in the afternoon,
                          > one after dark, and making Lee's army retreat after dark.
                          >
                          > Once he got to Sharpsburg, he wasted an entire day,
                          > sitting there, and
                          > then telegraphed his punch by having the 1st and 12
                          > corps move into
                          > position the night before the battle. Lee and
                          > Stonewall knew exactly where to
                          > concentrate their brigades.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > He didn't sit the whole day, and the facts are
                          > indisputable. He reconnoitered, placed artillery,
                          > formulated a plan and ordered Hooker across the creek
                          > by 1:00, even though he could not see across the creek
                          > until 9:00.
                          >
                          >
                          > He allowed Burnside to have a childish tantrum, which
                          > made for a very
                          > awkward chain of command, and a delay in getting
                          > orders acted upon.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > See OR 19, pt. 2, for his orders to Burnside. Firm,
                          > direct and to the point. And no, Burnside had no
                          > tantrum, but was reluctant.
                          >
                          > He never left the Pry House yard to see what was
                          > actually going on
                          > during the battle, and had the entire 5th corps and
                          > most of the 6th sit there,
                          > and do nothing when the fight hung in the balance.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Again this is easily and demonstrably disproved. For
                          > instance, he rode across the creek in early afternoon
                          > to East Woods, not returning until after 4. Have you
                          > really read anything on the battle? Sykes' division
                          > crossed Middle bridge and was engaged, suffered 109
                          > casualties, while two of Morrell's brigades were sent
                          > to, and then recalled from, East Woods. Sixth Corps
                          > was sent to same place, lost 439 casualties, and was
                          > under bombardment on the 17th and 18th.
                          >
                          > And to be frank, he really didn't "drive" Lee off the
                          > battlefield.
                          > The Confederates sat there the next day, almost daring
                          > Mac to attack again.
                          > They then left that night, when they were good and
                          > ready to leave.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Any casual study of the ANV will show they were
                          > shattered, and if they didn't leave until were good
                          > and ready to leave it begs the question, Why did they leave?
                          >
                          >
                          > From my humble perspective and that of many
                          > contemporaries, historians
                          > and authors I'd say these are issues that invite the
                          > need for a defense.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > If any professional historian wrote the inaccuracies
                          > you cite above they need to be drummed out of the
                          > profession. Read Joseph Harsh, Taken at the Flood,
                          > Ethan Rafuse, McClellan's War and either edition of
                          > Ezra Carman's manuscript of the campaign.
                          >
                          > Mike Lavis
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > In a message dated 6/1/2012 1:27:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                          >
                          _tgclemens@...<mailto:_tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu><mailto:_tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu>_
                          (mailto:tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu><mail
                          to:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu>)
                          <mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstow
                          > ncc.edu> writes:
                          >
                          > McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and demoralized
                          > force, in three days
                          > had it ready to take the field. From Sept. 6 to Sept.
                          > 19 he marched that
                          > army 70 miles, fought two battles where he drove Lee's
                          > army from the field,
                          > forcing him to retreat night from one of them. Why
                          > would he need
                          > defending????? Name me another commander who did that.
                          > Tom Clemens
                          >
                          > ________________________________
                          > From:
                          >
                          _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                          (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
                          mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                          <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
                          > ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                          >
                          [mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com
                          ><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                          (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
                          mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                          <mailto:TalkAntieta
                          > m%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
                          > On Behalf Of certainreasons
                          > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41 AM
                          > To:
                          >
                          _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                          (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
                          mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                          <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
                          > ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                          > Subject: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
                          >
                          > Hello All, Thanks for the helpful replies! Some
                          > scatter shot responses - I
                          > have some familiarity with the Maryland Campaign,
                          > having read several
                          > accounts of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak
                          > book on South Mountain.
                          > What do you folks think of his defense of McClellan?
                          > Is it controversial
                          > among buffs? The standard accounts always put the
                          > blame for not destroying
                          > Lee's Army on McC.The Priest book focusing on soldiers
                          > memoirs at Antietam is a
                          > favorite. Just received the Rafuse battlefield guide,
                          > have not looked at
                          > it yet. Not familiar with "Taken At the Flood" - is it
                          > a book? Has anyone
                          > used the Civil War Trails map to visit the historical
                          > markers? I was
                          > considering the AT for exploring South Mt., 45 min
                          > each way is no problem, a few
                          > hours to reach Crampton's Gap perhaps...is the South
                          > Mt. Inn in the same
                          > structure or the same site as the oft-mentioned
                          > Mountain House? If I hire a
                          > guide, how far in advance do I need to arrange it?
                          > What are the going rates?
                          > Am plan ning to v
                          > isit next Thursday & Friday and as a general approach
                          > plan to stay close
                          > to a chronological order if feasible. Again, thanks
                          > for the help, Chris
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------
                          >
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >

                          [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]

                          ------------------------------------

                          Yahoo! Groups Links

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                          ------------------------------------


                          Yahoo! Groups Links






                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Thomas G. Clemens
                          That happens way too often, sorry. Contact me off-line with your address and I ll send them along. Don t worry about cost, it ll make up for my snapping at
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jun 3 12:34 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            That happens way too often, sorry. Contact me off-line with your address and I'll send them along. Don't worry about cost, it'll make up for my snapping at you. :-)
                            Tom Clemens
                            ________________________________
                            From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of MikeL49NYVI@... [MikeL49NYVI@...]
                            Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 11:46 PM
                            To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up



                            Thank you Tom:
                            I would love some copies, and will gladly pay for any cost incurred.
                            Alberger was the major of the 49th, and the Mayor of Buffalo's brother. He
                            was wounded in the face by a shell fragment during the battle, and
                            disabled.

                            We have a difficult time finding letters and artifacts from the 49th. We
                            suspect that they were in a GAR hall in Buffalo, and were supposed to end up
                            at the Historical Society. They never got there.

                            Mike L



                            In a message dated 6/2/2012 11:40:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                            tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu> writes:

                            Agreed Mike, email is a difficult way to communicate. And I note by your
                            address that you have an interest in the 49th NY, one of the 6th Corps
                            regiment engaged on the 17th. In the Battlefield Board Papers are 5 or 6
                            letters from veterans of the 49th, interested in copies? Mostly from someone
                            named Alberger.
                            Tom Clemens
                            ________________________________
                            From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com> [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>] on
                            behalf of MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com> [MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>]
                            Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 11:25 PM
                            To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                            Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

                            Tom, Gerry:

                            I had no intention of being arrogant, or challenging, that is always
                            the problem with e-mails and forums. I fully acknowledged that most of you
                            know more about the entire campaign than I do. And I never think I am the
                            last word on any subject. That is why I began with saying I was looking
                            for a
                            decent discussion.
                            Also, I was on my way to a memorial service for my Great Aunt, and
                            noticed I was running very late. (My 83 year old mom can get feisty) and
                            while
                            I felt some of my wording, especially the last sentence was "weak" I didn't
                            want to redo the entire thing all over again. So I hoped that it would
                            read OK.

                            I guess it didn't......
                            For that I do apologize

                            Interestingly enough I am about to leave for Sharpsburg, to look over the
                            reenactment site, and spend a bit of time on the battlefield. I have to do
                            it in one day, - work issues

                            I have been called many things, some printable, some not. "Commander of the
                            Galaxy"
                            and "Empire Builder" are my personal favorites.

                            Mike Lavis

                            In a message dated 6/2/2012 11:07:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                            tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu><mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu> writes:

                            Mike,
                            I di not intend to insult you. If you'd brought up your points as
                            questions or for discussion instead of arrogantly and directly challenging
                            my
                            statement I would have responded differently. As far as I am concerned, you
                            started it. I responded inkind. If you intended otherwise it sure didn't
                            show. But I did enjoy being called His Holiness, never heard that before.
                            Tom Clemens
                            ________________________________
                            From: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                            [TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>] on
                            behalf of G E Mayers
                            [gerry1952@...<mailto:gerry1952%40verizon.net><mailto:gerry1952%40verizon.net>]
                            Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 10:40 PM
                            To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                            Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

                            Dear Mike;

                            I myself nor anyone else, intended to insult you on this or any other
                            board. However, perhaps you should have stated you were making "general"
                            comments?

                            If you can indicate what you have already read on the Campaign and battle
                            and then offer specific areas for discussion (friendly, agree to disagree,
                            etc.), I think we can all benefit....

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

                            "True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
                            period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels
                            them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances
                            which
                            govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new
                            order
                            of things." -- Robert E. Lee

                            -----Original Message-----
                            From:
                            TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                            [mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
                            mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
                            On Behalf Of
                            MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>
                            Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:27 PM
                            To:
                            TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                            Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

                            Yes, Gerry I knew exactly who His Holiness was before I wrote that. I also
                            knew that I was opening myself up to what I hoped was a decent come back by
                            someone who knows more about the subject than I do.

                            I generalized some of my comments in order to be brief, and figuring that
                            since everyone here knows a lot about the subject I didn't need to
                            elaborate, or quote chapter and verse on everything. Much of what I said
                            has been
                            discussed since the end of the battle itself.

                            However what I did not expect was a series of insults and the attitude
                            that seems to say
                            "How dare you question ME? I am far superior to you and everyone else,
                            therefore I can pass judgement upon lowly insignificant peons and say
                            whatever I wish about them. And then have all my adoring public
                            congratulate me on
                            my great intellect."

                            I was once told by a Pastor that you can tell the maturity of a man by how
                            he treats others. I have found that to be true, 100% of the time.

                            Anything else I might say, or any response to the points raised would
                            most likely degenerate into more of the same tone as Tom's and I do not
                            think
                            this forum would be the better for it.

                            I think it best that I be removed from this mailing list. I can't respect
                            anyone who treats people in this manner, no matter who they may be.

                            Very Sincerely
                            Mike Lavis

                            In a message dated 6/2/2012 3:38:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                            gerry1952@...<mailto:gerry1952%40verizon.net><mailto:gerry1
                            952%40verizon.net><mailto:gerry1952%40verizon.net> writes:

                            Good refutes Tom!

                            Mike, I know Tom Clemens personally, and he is one of the few persons I
                            would unhesitatingly say is a "True Expert" on the campaign and battle.

                            Taken at the Flood by Harsh is a very good read and well worth the study;
                            the companion book Sounding the Shallows is also good as it is Dr Harsh's
                            research notes for TATF.

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

                            "True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one
                            period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels
                            them--the desire to do right--is precisely the same. The circumstances
                            which
                            govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new
                            order
                            of things." -- Robert E. Lee

                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From:
                            _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto
                            :_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                            (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
                            mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                            >
                            [mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com
                            ><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                            (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
                            mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                            ]On Behalf Of
                            > Thomas G. Clemens
                            > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 3:22 PM
                            > To:
                            _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto
                            :_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                            (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
                            mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                            > Subject: RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ________________________________
                            > From:
                            _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto
                            :_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                            (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
                            mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                            >
                            [_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                            (mailto:TalkAntietam@ya
                            hoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>) ]
                            on behalf of
                            >
                            _MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com>_
                            (mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI
                            %40aol.com>)
                            [_MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:_MikeL49NYVI%40a
                            ol.com>_
                            (mailto:MikeL49NYVI@...<mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI%40aol.com><mailto:MikeL49NYVI
                            %40aol.com>) ]
                            > Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2012 9:23 AM
                            > To:
                            _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto
                            :_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                            (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
                            mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                            > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > See my comments below, I don't mind an interesting
                            > discussion, but it would be nice to do some research first.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Just for the sake of an interesting discussion:
                            >
                            > True, McClellan did revitalize the army, however, the
                            > 2nd and the 6th
                            > Corps had not been beaten at 2nd Bull Run. In fact
                            > Mac's slowness in sending
                            > them to Pope (in defiance of orders) could have been taken as
                            > insubordination or even traitorous.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Or extreme sanity in the face of panic. Sending the
                            > 6th Corps into without artillery or trains into an
                            > unknown situation was ludicrous and he said so.
                            >
                            > So, it was not the entire army that was beaten down.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > No, but those not beaten were demoralized at being
                            > withdrawn from 20 miles of Richmond in defiance of any
                            > logical strategy.
                            >
                            > He was given the opportunity of a lifetime when Lee's
                            > orders were
                            > discovered. Yet he moved at his own pace and allowed
                            > Harpers Ferry to be
                            > taken, and for Lee to concentrate at Sharpsburg. 70
                            > miles in 13 days comes out
                            > to about 5-1/2 miles a day. They could not have been
                            > mistaken for Jackson's
                            > "Foot Cavalry" at that rate.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Too little space to furnish all arguments, but when
                            > 191 was found his army was already in motion, no CS
                            > infantry closer than 12 miles at best, no evidence of
                            > the size of Lee's army, CS cavalry blocking Hagan's
                            > Gap until 2 p.m., and by the time 191 was verified as
                            > accurate, it was dark. He moved quickly the next day
                            > and drove Lee's forces from two gaps in the afternoon,
                            > one after dark, and making Lee's army retreat after dark.
                            >
                            > Once he got to Sharpsburg, he wasted an entire day,
                            > sitting there, and
                            > then telegraphed his punch by having the 1st and 12
                            > corps move into
                            > position the night before the battle. Lee and
                            > Stonewall knew exactly where to
                            > concentrate their brigades.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > He didn't sit the whole day, and the facts are
                            > indisputable. He reconnoitered, placed artillery,
                            > formulated a plan and ordered Hooker across the creek
                            > by 1:00, even though he could not see across the creek
                            > until 9:00.
                            >
                            >
                            > He allowed Burnside to have a childish tantrum, which
                            > made for a very
                            > awkward chain of command, and a delay in getting
                            > orders acted upon.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > See OR 19, pt. 2, for his orders to Burnside. Firm,
                            > direct and to the point. And no, Burnside had no
                            > tantrum, but was reluctant.
                            >
                            > He never left the Pry House yard to see what was
                            > actually going on
                            > during the battle, and had the entire 5th corps and
                            > most of the 6th sit there,
                            > and do nothing when the fight hung in the balance.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Again this is easily and demonstrably disproved. For
                            > instance, he rode across the creek in early afternoon
                            > to East Woods, not returning until after 4. Have you
                            > really read anything on the battle? Sykes' division
                            > crossed Middle bridge and was engaged, suffered 109
                            > casualties, while two of Morrell's brigades were sent
                            > to, and then recalled from, East Woods. Sixth Corps
                            > was sent to same place, lost 439 casualties, and was
                            > under bombardment on the 17th and 18th.
                            >
                            > And to be frank, he really didn't "drive" Lee off the
                            > battlefield.
                            > The Confederates sat there the next day, almost daring
                            > Mac to attack again.
                            > They then left that night, when they were good and
                            > ready to leave.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Any casual study of the ANV will show they were
                            > shattered, and if they didn't leave until were good
                            > and ready to leave it begs the question, Why did they leave?
                            >
                            >
                            > From my humble perspective and that of many
                            > contemporaries, historians
                            > and authors I'd say these are issues that invite the
                            > need for a defense.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > If any professional historian wrote the inaccuracies
                            > you cite above they need to be drummed out of the
                            > profession. Read Joseph Harsh, Taken at the Flood,
                            > Ethan Rafuse, McClellan's War and either edition of
                            > Ezra Carman's manuscript of the campaign.
                            >
                            > Mike Lavis
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > In a message dated 6/1/2012 1:27:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                            >
                            _tgclemens@...<mailto:_tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu><mailto:_tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu><mailto:_tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu>_
                            (mailto:tgclemens@...<mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu><mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu><mail
                            to:tgclemens%40hagerstowncc.edu>)
                            <mailto:tgclemens%40hagerstow
                            > ncc.edu> writes:
                            >
                            > McClellan took a a beaten, dispirited and demoralized
                            > force, in three days
                            > had it ready to take the field. From Sept. 6 to Sept.
                            > 19 he marched that
                            > army 70 miles, fought two battles where he drove Lee's
                            > army from the field,
                            > forcing him to retreat night from one of them. Why
                            > would he need
                            > defending????? Name me another commander who did that.
                            > Tom Clemens
                            >
                            > ________________________________
                            > From:
                            >
                            _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                            (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
                            mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                            <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
                            > ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                            >
                            [mailto:_TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com
                            ><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                            (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
                            mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                            <mailto:TalkAntieta
                            > m%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>]
                            > On Behalf Of certainreasons
                            > Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 12:41 AM
                            > To:
                            >
                            _TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:_TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>_
                            (mailto:TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com<mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com><
                            mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>)
                            <mailto:TalkAntietam%40yaho
                            > ogroups.com><mailto:TalkAntietam%40yahoogroups.com>
                            > Subject: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up
                            >
                            > Hello All, Thanks for the helpful replies! Some
                            > scatter shot responses - I
                            > have some familiarity with the Maryland Campaign,
                            > having read several
                            > accounts of varying detail, most recently the Hoptak
                            > book on South Mountain.
                            > What do you folks think of his defense of McClellan?
                            > Is it controversial
                            > among buffs? The standard accounts always put the
                            > blame for not destroying
                            > Lee's Army on McC.The Priest book focusing on soldiers
                            > memoirs at Antietam is a
                            > favorite. Just received the Rafuse battlefield guide,
                            > have not looked at
                            > it yet. Not familiar with "Taken At the Flood" - is it
                            > a book? Has anyone
                            > used the Civil War Trails map to visit the historical
                            > markers? I was
                            > considering the AT for exploring South Mt., 45 min
                            > each way is no problem, a few
                            > hours to reach Crampton's Gap perhaps...is the South
                            > Mt. Inn in the same
                            > structure or the same site as the oft-mentioned
                            > Mountain House? If I hire a
                            > guide, how far in advance do I need to arrange it?
                            > What are the going rates?
                            > Am plan ning to v
                            > isit next Thursday & Friday and as a general approach
                            > plan to stay close
                            > to a chronological order if feasible. Again, thanks
                            > for the help, Chris
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            > ------------------------------------
                            >
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ------------------------------------
                            >
                            >
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >

                            [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]

                            ------------------------------------

                            Yahoo! Groups Links

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                            ------------------------------------

                            Yahoo! Groups Links

                            [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.