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

RE: [TalkAntietam] A/SM visit follow up

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 13 , Jun 2, 2012
    • 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 2 of 13 , Jun 2, 2012
      • 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 3 of 13 , Jun 2, 2012
        • 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 4 of 13 , Jun 2, 2012
          • 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 5 of 13 , Jun 2, 2012
            • 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 6 of 13 , Jun 2, 2012
              • 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 7 of 13 , Jun 2, 2012
                • 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 8 of 13 , Jun 3, 2012
                  • 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.