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

Was Crook's attack truly misdrected?

Expand Messages
  • RoteBaron
    It is generally considered that Crook’s attack against the bridge was badly misdirected and ended up reaching the creek a couple hundred yards upstream,
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 18, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      It is generally considered that Crook’s attack against the bridge was badly misdirected and ended up reaching the creek a couple hundred yards upstream, instead of attacking it directly as planned.
       
      However, I listened to a talk by Dennis Frye in which he proposed that Crook went exactly where he wanted to; as he was protecting the right flank of Burnside’s attack.
       
      Any thoughts on this being likely?
       
      Tom Shay – Cressona, PA
       
       
       
       
       
    • G E Mayers
      It might be possible if it was meant to coordinate with another attack aimed directly at the Bridge.... but coordination and timing were tough since the
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 18, 2014
      • 0 Attachment
        It might be possible if it was meant to coordinate with another attack aimed directly at the Bridge.... but coordination and timing were tough since the approach to the Bridge was problematic as long as the Georgians occupied the higher ground near the Bridge itself.



        Yr. Obt. Svt.
        G E "Gerry" Mayers
        http://milfordalive.com/gerard-e-mayers/
        https://www.amazon.com/author/gerardemayers
        http://nonebutheroes.blogspot.com/

        "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

        On 04/18/14, RoteBaron wrote:




























        It is generally considered that Crook’s attack against the
        bridge was badly misdirected and ended up reaching the creek a couple hundred
        yards upstream, instead of attacking it directly as planned.



        However, I listened to a talk by Dennis Frye in which he
        proposed that Crook went exactly where he wanted to; as he was protecting the
        right flank of Burnside’s attack.



        Any thoughts on this being likely?



        Tom Shay – Cressona, PA
      • Tom Clemens
        If I was Crook writing the report, that s what I d say too. Nice theory, and I cannot say it is wrong, but nobody in the chain of command says that. Burnside &
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 18, 2014
        • 0 Attachment
          If I was Crook writing the report, that's what I'd say too.
           Nice theory, and I cannot say it is wrong, but nobody in the chain of command says that.  Burnside & Cox wrote that Crook was to storm the bridge, along with Sturgis. Crook says when he got "in position" Sturgis was not there yet so he improvised, but he was 500 yards north of the bridge, and earlier had acknowledged he didn't know exactly where it was when he started off.  
           
          Tom Clemens
          Keedysville, MD
          antietam@...
           
          On 04/18/14, RoteBaron<RoteBaron@...> wrote:
           
           

          It is generally considered that Crook’s attack against the bridge was badly misdirected and ended up reaching the creek a couple hundred yards upstream, instead of attacking it directly as planned.
           
          However, I listened to a talk by Dennis Frye in which he proposed that Crook went exactly where he wanted to; as he was protecting the right flank of Burnside’s attack.
           
          Any thoughts on this being likely?
           
          Tom Shay – Cressona, PA
           
           
           
           
           
        • G E Mayers
          Tom; What does Carman say about that?? Yr. Obt. Svt. G E Gerry Mayers http://milfordalive.com/gerard-e-mayers/ https://www.amazon.com/author/gerardemayers
          Message 4 of 5 , Apr 18, 2014
          • 0 Attachment
            Tom;

            What does Carman say about that??


            Yr. Obt. Svt.
            G E "Gerry" Mayers
            http://milfordalive.com/gerard-e-mayers/
            https://www.amazon.com/author/gerardemayers
            http://nonebutheroes.blogspot.com/

            "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

            On 04/18/14, Tom Clemens wrote:



























            If I was Crook writing the report, that's what I'd say too.
            Nice theory, and I cannot say it is wrong, but nobody in the chain of command says that. Burnside & Cox wrote that Crook was to storm the bridge, along with Sturgis. Crook says when he got "in position" Sturgis was not there yet so he improvised, but he was 500 yards north of the bridge, and earlier had acknowledged he didn't know exactly where it was when he started off.



            Tom Clemens
            Keedysville, MD
            antietam@...

            On 04/18/14, RoteBaron<RoteBaron@...> wrote:







            It is generally considered that Crook’s attack against the bridge was badly misdirected and ended up reaching the creek a couple hundred yards upstream, instead of attacking it directly as planned.

            However, I listened to a talk by Dennis Frye in which he proposed that Crook went exactly where he wanted to; as he was protecting the right flank of Burnside’s attack.

            Any thoughts on this being likely?

            Tom Shay – Cressona, PA
          • antietam
            Buy the book and find out. :-) Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S®4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: G E Mayers
            Message 5 of 5 , Apr 18, 2014
            • 0 Attachment
              Buy the book and find out. :-)


              Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S®4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


              -------- Original message --------
              From: G E Mayers
              Date:04/18/2014 6:00 PM (GMT-05:00)
              To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: Re: [TalkAntietam] Was Crook's attack truly misdrected?

               

              Tom;

              What does Carman say about that??


              Yr. Obt. Svt.
              G E "Gerry" Mayers
              http://milfordalive.com/gerard-e-mayers/
              https://www.amazon.com/author/gerardemayers
              http://nonebutheroes.blogspot.com/

              "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

              On 04/18/14, Tom Clemens wrote:

              If I was Crook writing the report, that's what I'd say too.
              Nice theory, and I cannot say it is wrong, but nobody in the chain of command says that. Burnside & Cox wrote that Crook was to storm the bridge, along with Sturgis. Crook says when he got "in position" Sturgis was not there yet so he improvised, but he was 500 yards north of the bridge, and earlier had acknowledged he didn't know exactly where it was when he started off.

              Tom Clemens
              Keedysville, MD
              antietam@...

              On 04/18/14, RoteBaron<RoteBaron@...> wrote:






              It is generally considered that Crook’s attack against the bridge was badly misdirected and ended up reaching the creek a couple hundred yards upstream, instead of attacking it directly as planned.

              However, I listened to a talk by Dennis Frye in which he proposed that Crook went exactly where he wanted to; as he was protecting the right flank of Burnside’s attack.

              Any thoughts on this being likely?

              Tom Shay – Cressona, PA













            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.