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

Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine

Expand Messages
  • rotbaron@aol.com
    In a message dated 08/19/2002 7:22:26 AM EST, kamills@innernet.net writes:
    Message 1 of 25 , Aug 19, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 08/19/2002 7:22:26 AM EST, kamills@... writes:
      << Thank you. If you bought it, I know it must be good and worth the money.
      Thanks again. >>

      I just began the article on Sunken Road. I buy anything related to Antietam,
      so don't let my purchasing indicate it's good stuff. I see member Tom Clemens
      has an article "Reader's Guide to Antietam". For $4.99, I don't think you'll
      regret the purchase!

      Tom Shay
    • John Furey
      Tom Is this mag. available other than the bookstore. John
      Message 2 of 25 , Aug 19, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Tom
        Is this mag. available other than the bookstore.
        John

        rotbaron@... wrote:

        > In a message dated 08/19/2002 5:57:03 AM EST, kamills@... writes:
        > << This past weekend, I was in the bookstore, and saw a magazine titled
        > "Antietam." I was wondering if this is a good magazine, or anyone has ever
        > heard of >>
        >
        > Andy,
        >
        > I assume you are refering to the "140th Commemorative Edition", a special
        > edition just published by editors of CWTI, MHQ, & America's Civil War. It
        > features plenty of articles (Cornfield, Sunken Road, Burnside Bridge,
        > Maryland Campaign) by many contributors (Gary Gallagher, Tom Clemens,
        > Stephen Sears, John Hennessy). As an avid student of the battle, I obviously
        > had to buy it! Cost is $4.99 .
        >
        > Tom Shay
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      • rotbaron@aol.com
        In a message dated 08/19/2002 8:15:14 AM EST, antietam@nep.net writes: I bought mine at a local
        Message 3 of 25 , Aug 19, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 08/19/2002 8:15:14 AM EST, antietam@... writes:
          << Tom Is this mag. available other than the bookstore. John >>

          I bought mine at a local Giant foodstore (on magazine rack).

          Tom Shay
        • NJ Rebel
          Tom, Where can the magazine be purchased? Just for the sake of some members of this group having contributed, it alone will be worth the price. Your humble
          Message 4 of 25 , Aug 19, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Tom,

            Where can the magazine be purchased? Just for the sake of some
            members of this group having contributed, it alone will be worth
            the price.

            Your humble servant,
            Gerry Mayers
            Pvt., CS Signals,
            Longstreet's Corps

            A Proud American by Birth, Southern by Choice!

            "I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
            on which he has nobly laid down his life." --General Robert
            Edward Lee

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: <rotbaron@...>
            To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 8:28 AM
            Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine


            > In a message dated 08/19/2002 7:22:26 AM EST,
            kamills@... writes:
            > << Thank you. If you bought it, I know it must be good and
            worth the money.
            > Thanks again. >>
            >
            > I just began the article on Sunken Road. I buy anything related
            to Antietam,
            > so don't let my purchasing indicate it's good stuff. I see
            member Tom Clemens
            > has an article "Reader's Guide to Antietam". For $4.99, I don't
            think you'll
            > regret the purchase!
            >
            > Tom Shay
            >
            >
            > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
            Sponsor ---------------------~-->
            > 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
            > http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/Ey.GAA/GmiolB/TM
            > ---------------------------------------------------------------
            ------~->
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
            >
          • Tom Clemens
            It is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI and America s Civil War. I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased source. Tom Clemens ...
            Message 5 of 25 , Aug 19, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              It is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI and America's Civil
              War. I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased source.
              Tom Clemens

              Andy Mills wrote:

              > Hello Guys
              >
              > This past weekend, I was in the bookstore, and saw a magazine
              > titled "Antietam." I was wondering if this is a good magazine, or
              > anyone has ever heard of it.
              >
              > Thank you
              > Andy
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • rotbaron@aol.com
              In a message dated 08/19/2002 9:38:54 PM EST, clemens@crosslink.net writes:
              Message 6 of 25 , Aug 20, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 08/19/2002 9:38:54 PM EST, clemens@... writes:
                << t is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI and America's Civil
                War. I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased source. >>

                The Burnsides Bridge article by Tom Clemens does a great job at setting the
                record straight regarding IX Corps' limited options for crossing the creek.

                Tom Shay
              • David Lutton
                Tom, I have not seen the pub being discussed here but I have always had a question concerning the effectiveness of Union artillery on this sector of the
                Message 7 of 25 , Aug 20, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Tom,

                  I have not seen the pub being discussed here but I have always had a
                  question concerning the effectiveness of Union artillery on this sector of
                  the battlefield. Perhaps you addressed this in the article?

                  Granted the defensive position of rebel troops at the bridge area extending
                  toward the ford was good, several Union batteries (I cannot recall the
                  actual number ) were concentrating their fire in this relatively small area
                  of this battlefield. Why was Union artillery not more effective? Most of
                  these Union batteries were not subject to counter battery fire.

                  Given the relative strength of the artillery employed by both sides in this
                  sector of the battlefield, can we assume that Union artillery was not fully
                  or effectively employed?

                  David Lutton
                  Hollidaysburg Pa
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
                  To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:44 PM
                  Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine


                  > It is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI and America's
                  Civil
                  > War. I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased source.
                  > Tom Clemens
                  >
                  > Andy Mills wrote:
                  >
                  > > Hello Guys
                  > >
                  > > This past weekend, I was in the bookstore, and saw a magazine
                  > > titled "Antietam." I was wondering if this is a good magazine, or
                  > > anyone has ever heard of it.
                  > >
                  > > Thank you
                  > > Andy
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                  >
                • Tom Clemens
                  David, I do not address it at length, but yes, I agree that the Union artillery was not very effective. There really were few good positions to fire upon the
                  Message 8 of 25 , Aug 20, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    David,
                    I do not address it at length, but yes, I agree that the Union artillery was
                    not very effective. There really were few good positions to fire upon the
                    Confederates above the bridge, and the rebs used the quarry pits and trees for
                    cover, making them hard to dislodge. There was some CS counterbattery fire from
                    above the bridge and from Cemetery Hill too. Some of the Union guns, Benjamin's
                    IIRC, ran out of ammo too.
                    Tom Clemens

                    David Lutton wrote:

                    > Tom,
                    >
                    > I have not seen the pub being discussed here but I have always had a
                    > question concerning the effectiveness of Union artillery on this sector of
                    > the battlefield. Perhaps you addressed this in the article?
                    >
                    > Granted the defensive position of rebel troops at the bridge area extending
                    > toward the ford was good, several Union batteries (I cannot recall the
                    > actual number ) were concentrating their fire in this relatively small area
                    > of this battlefield. Why was Union artillery not more effective? Most of
                    > these Union batteries were not subject to counter battery fire.
                    >
                    > Given the relative strength of the artillery employed by both sides in this
                    > sector of the battlefield, can we assume that Union artillery was not fully
                    > or effectively employed?
                    >
                    > David Lutton
                    > Hollidaysburg Pa
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
                    > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                    > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:44 PM
                    > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
                    >
                    > > It is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI and America's
                    > Civil
                    > > War. I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased source.
                    > > Tom Clemens
                    > >
                    > > Andy Mills wrote:
                    > >
                    > > > Hello Guys
                    > > >
                    > > > This past weekend, I was in the bookstore, and saw a magazine
                    > > > titled "Antietam." I was wondering if this is a good magazine, or
                    > > > anyone has ever heard of it.
                    > > >
                    > > > Thank you
                    > > > Andy
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                    > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                    > >
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • David Lutton
                    Tom, I agree the 9th Corps artillery support was lacking during this part of the fight. Might I further put forth a proposition that Antietam was perhaps
                    Message 9 of 25 , Aug 21, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Tom,

                      I agree the 9th Corps artillery support was lacking during this part of the
                      fight. Might I further put forth a proposition that Antietam was
                      perhaps the only battlefield of the war in the east where Union artillery
                      was outperformed during the war? It seems to me that Rebel artillery was
                      very well positioned and served during the battle. Luck or talent?

                      David Lutton
                      Hollidaysburg Pa
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
                      To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:45 PM
                      Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine


                      > David,
                      > I do not address it at length, but yes, I agree that the Union artillery
                      was
                      > not very effective. There really were few good positions to fire upon the
                      > Confederates above the bridge, and the rebs used the quarry pits and trees
                      for
                      > cover, making them hard to dislodge. There was some CS counterbattery
                      fire from
                      > above the bridge and from Cemetery Hill too. Some of the Union guns,
                      Benjamin's
                      > IIRC, ran out of ammo too.
                      > Tom Clemens
                      >
                      > David Lutton wrote:
                      >
                      > > Tom,
                      > >
                      > > I have not seen the pub being discussed here but I have always had a
                      > > question concerning the effectiveness of Union artillery on this sector
                      of
                      > > the battlefield. Perhaps you addressed this in the article?
                      > >
                      > > Granted the defensive position of rebel troops at the bridge area
                      extending
                      > > toward the ford was good, several Union batteries (I cannot recall the
                      > > actual number ) were concentrating their fire in this relatively small
                      area
                      > > of this battlefield. Why was Union artillery not more effective? Most
                      of
                      > > these Union batteries were not subject to counter battery fire.
                      > >
                      > > Given the relative strength of the artillery employed by both sides in
                      this
                      > > sector of the battlefield, can we assume that Union artillery was not
                      fully
                      > > or effectively employed?
                      > >
                      > > David Lutton
                      > > Hollidaysburg Pa
                      > > ----- Original Message -----
                      > > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
                      > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                      > > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:44 PM
                      > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
                      > >
                      > > > It is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI and America's
                      > > Civil
                      > > > War. I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased source.
                      > > > Tom Clemens
                      > > >
                      > > > Andy Mills wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > > Hello Guys
                      > > > >
                      > > > > This past weekend, I was in the bookstore, and saw a magazine
                      > > > > titled "Antietam." I was wondering if this is a good magazine, or
                      > > > > anyone has ever heard of it.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Thank you
                      > > > > Andy
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >
                    • NJ Rebel
                      David, I think it depends on how you look at the use of both armies artillery. The Union artillery was able to perform some pretty effective counter battery
                      Message 10 of 25 , Aug 21, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        David,

                        I think it depends on how you look at the use of both armies'
                        artillery.

                        The Union artillery was able to perform some pretty effective
                        counter battery fire against Confederate artillery positions from
                        longer distances than the Confederate artillery could answer. By
                        this I mean the massed Union batteries on Elk Ridge on the
                        eastern side of The Antietam.

                        Confederate artillery, due to its shorter range and also problems
                        with non-functioning munitions, actually performed far better in
                        an anti-personnel role.

                        Tom Shay and Tom Clemens, would this be your take on the
                        comparative strengths and weaknesses of the artillery of both
                        sides at the battle?

                        Your humble servant,
                        Gerry Mayers
                        Pvt., CS Signals,
                        Longstreet's Corps

                        A Proud American by Birth, Southern by Choice!

                        "I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
                        on which he has nobly laid down his life." --General Robert
                        Edward Lee

                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "David Lutton" <dunkerch@...>
                        To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 7:47 PM
                        Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine


                        > Tom,
                        >
                        > I agree the 9th Corps artillery support was lacking during this
                        part of the
                        > fight. Might I further put forth a proposition that
                        Antietam was
                        > perhaps the only battlefield of the war in the east where Union
                        artillery
                        > was outperformed during the war? It seems to me that Rebel
                        artillery was
                        > very well positioned and served during the battle. Luck or
                        talent?
                        >
                        > David Lutton
                        > Hollidaysburg Pa
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
                        > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                        > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:45 PM
                        > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
                        >
                        >
                        > > David,
                        > > I do not address it at length, but yes, I agree that the
                        Union artillery
                        > was
                        > > not very effective. There really were few good positions to
                        fire upon the
                        > > Confederates above the bridge, and the rebs used the quarry
                        pits and trees
                        > for
                        > > cover, making them hard to dislodge. There was some CS
                        counterbattery
                        > fire from
                        > > above the bridge and from Cemetery Hill too. Some of the
                        Union guns,
                        > Benjamin's
                        > > IIRC, ran out of ammo too.
                        > > Tom Clemens
                        > >
                        > > David Lutton wrote:
                        > >
                        > > > Tom,
                        > > >
                        > > > I have not seen the pub being discussed here but I have
                        always had a
                        > > > question concerning the effectiveness of Union artillery
                        on this sector
                        > of
                        > > > the battlefield. Perhaps you addressed this in the
                        article?
                        > > >
                        > > > Granted the defensive position of rebel troops at the
                        bridge area
                        > extending
                        > > > toward the ford was good, several Union batteries (I
                        cannot recall the
                        > > > actual number ) were concentrating their fire in this
                        relatively small
                        > area
                        > > > of this battlefield. Why was Union artillery not more
                        effective? Most
                        > of
                        > > > these Union batteries were not subject to counter battery
                        fire.
                        > > >
                        > > > Given the relative strength of the artillery employed by
                        both sides in
                        > this
                        > > > sector of the battlefield, can we assume that Union
                        artillery was not
                        > fully
                        > > > or effectively employed?
                        > > >
                        > > > David Lutton
                        > > > Hollidaysburg Pa
                        > > > ----- Original Message -----
                        > > > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
                        > > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                        > > > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:44 PM
                        > > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
                        > > >
                        > > > > It is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI
                        and America's
                        > > > Civil
                        > > > > War. I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased
                        source.
                        > > > > Tom Clemens
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Andy Mills wrote:
                        > > > >
                        > > > > > Hello Guys
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > This past weekend, I was in the bookstore, and saw a
                        magazine
                        > > > > > titled "Antietam." I was wondering if this is a good
                        magazine, or
                        > > > > > anyone has ever heard of it.
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Thank you
                        > > > > > Andy
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > >
                        > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        > > > >
                        > > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
                        Sponsor ---------------------~-->
                        > 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
                        > http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/mG3HAA/GmiolB/TM
                        > ---------------------------------------------------------------
                        ------~->
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • Bill and Glenna Jo Christen
                        Folks, The subject header reminds me that at some point it would be nice if we could start an Antietam magazine similar to the Gettysburg magazine. Bob
                        Message 11 of 25 , Aug 21, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Folks,

                          The subject header reminds me that at some point it would be nice if we could
                          start an "Antietam" magazine similar to the "Gettysburg" magazine. Bob Younger
                          of Morningside has said that he is too busy to venture into another magazine. I
                          am at least a year away from such a project, but perhaps someone else could get
                          it going.

                          Bill Christen
                        • Tom Clemens
                          David, Interesting question. I do not claim expertise here, but will offer a few thoughts. No question that CS artillery had better organization. They had
                          Message 12 of 25 , Aug 21, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            David,
                            Interesting question. I do not claim expertise here, but will offer a few
                            thoughts. No question that CS artillery had better organization. They had
                            begun the artillery battalion system, had officers with authority and rank to
                            mass guns where needed and use them in numbers. For example Lee on Dunker
                            Church plateau etc. ALso lack of older officers, Walton for example, let
                            younger ones shine, ie. Pelham. Stuart did a lot with CS artillery, and it was
                            good. US were not approaching that level yet. After Hunt only 1 field officer
                            (other than Tyler with HA) and that one, Maj.Arndt, was KIA 9/16.
                            CS on defense, and that makes artillery more effective. Also CS preponderance
                            in smoothbores not as harmful when used in defense.
                            OTOH, Union had more and better guns, four batteries of 20 pdrs who made Col.
                            Lee's life "Artillery Hell" and a lot of others people too. CS had no 20's
                            there. CS still using 45 6-pdrs, US had none. US guns not well used, only 22
                            batteries cross the creek and most of them used north of Sunken Rd. US also had
                            trained cadre of regulars influencing volunteers, CS did not.

                            Summary, North seemed to have advantage, but CS made up deficiences in material
                            and men with circumstances of defense, proper command authority and dash.
                            Advantage - South.
                            Just off the top of my head, hope it helps.
                            Tom Clemens

                            David Lutton wrote:

                            > Tom,
                            >
                            > I agree the 9th Corps artillery support was lacking during this part of the
                            > fight. Might I further put forth a proposition that Antietam was
                            > perhaps the only battlefield of the war in the east where Union artillery
                            > was outperformed during the war? It seems to me that Rebel artillery was
                            > very well positioned and served during the battle. Luck or talent?
                            >
                            > David Lutton
                            > Hollidaysburg Pa
                            > ----- Original Message -----
                            > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
                            > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                            > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:45 PM
                            > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
                            >
                            > > David,
                            > > I do not address it at length, but yes, I agree that the Union artillery
                            > was
                            > > not very effective. There really were few good positions to fire upon the
                            > > Confederates above the bridge, and the rebs used the quarry pits and trees
                            > for
                            > > cover, making them hard to dislodge. There was some CS counterbattery
                            > fire from
                            > > above the bridge and from Cemetery Hill too. Some of the Union guns,
                            > Benjamin's
                            > > IIRC, ran out of ammo too.
                            > > Tom Clemens
                            > >
                            > > David Lutton wrote:
                            > >
                            > > > Tom,
                            > > >
                            > > > I have not seen the pub being discussed here but I have always had a
                            > > > question concerning the effectiveness of Union artillery on this sector
                            > of
                            > > > the battlefield. Perhaps you addressed this in the article?
                            > > >
                            > > > Granted the defensive position of rebel troops at the bridge area
                            > extending
                            > > > toward the ford was good, several Union batteries (I cannot recall the
                            > > > actual number ) were concentrating their fire in this relatively small
                            > area
                            > > > of this battlefield. Why was Union artillery not more effective? Most
                            > of
                            > > > these Union batteries were not subject to counter battery fire.
                            > > >
                            > > > Given the relative strength of the artillery employed by both sides in
                            > this
                            > > > sector of the battlefield, can we assume that Union artillery was not
                            > fully
                            > > > or effectively employed?
                            > > >
                            > > > David Lutton
                            > > > Hollidaysburg Pa
                            > > > ----- Original Message -----
                            > > > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
                            > > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                            > > > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:44 PM
                            > > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
                            > > >
                            > > > > It is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI and America's
                            > > > Civil
                            > > > > War. I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased source.
                            > > > > Tom Clemens
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Andy Mills wrote:
                            > > > >
                            > > > > > Hello Guys
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > This past weekend, I was in the bookstore, and saw a magazine
                            > > > > > titled "Antietam." I was wondering if this is a good magazine, or
                            > > > > > anyone has ever heard of it.
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Thank you
                            > > > > > Andy
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > >
                            > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                            > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                            > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            > > > >
                            > > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                            > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • David Lutton
                            Tom, Exactly. With the rise of Hunt and others in the coming months, Union artillery would dominate this arm of the service for the rest of the war. By Gburg
                            Message 13 of 25 , Aug 22, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Tom,

                              Exactly. With the rise of Hunt and others in the coming months, Union
                              artillery would dominate this arm of the service for the rest of the war. By
                              Gburg it truly was a formidable force. But at Antietam it seems to me that
                              Southern guns were better placed and used at the 'points of contention'
                              throughout the day.

                              David Lutton
                              Hollidaysburg Pa
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
                              To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 11:18 PM
                              Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine


                              > David,
                              > Interesting question. I do not claim expertise here, but will offer a few
                              > thoughts. No question that CS artillery had better organization. They
                              had
                              > begun the artillery battalion system, had officers with authority and rank
                              to
                              > mass guns where needed and use them in numbers. For example Lee on Dunker
                              > Church plateau etc. ALso lack of older officers, Walton for example, let
                              > younger ones shine, ie. Pelham. Stuart did a lot with CS artillery, and
                              it was
                              > good. US were not approaching that level yet. After Hunt only 1 field
                              officer
                              > (other than Tyler with HA) and that one, Maj.Arndt, was KIA 9/16.
                              > CS on defense, and that makes artillery more effective. Also CS
                              preponderance
                              > in smoothbores not as harmful when used in defense.
                              > OTOH, Union had more and better guns, four batteries of 20 pdrs who made
                              Col.
                              > Lee's life "Artillery Hell" and a lot of others people too. CS had no
                              20's
                              > there. CS still using 45 6-pdrs, US had none. US guns not well used,
                              only 22
                              > batteries cross the creek and most of them used north of Sunken Rd. US
                              also had
                              > trained cadre of regulars influencing volunteers, CS did not.
                              >
                              > Summary, North seemed to have advantage, but CS made up deficiences in
                              material
                              > and men with circumstances of defense, proper command authority and dash.
                              > Advantage - South.
                              > Just off the top of my head, hope it helps.
                              > Tom Clemens
                              >
                              > David Lutton wrote:
                              >
                              > > Tom,
                              > >
                              > > I agree the 9th Corps artillery support was lacking during this part of
                              the
                              > > fight. Might I further put forth a proposition that Antietam was
                              > > perhaps the only battlefield of the war in the east where Union
                              artillery
                              > > was outperformed during the war? It seems to me that Rebel artillery
                              was
                              > > very well positioned and served during the battle. Luck or talent?
                              > >
                              > > David Lutton
                              > > Hollidaysburg Pa
                              > > ----- Original Message -----
                              > > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
                              > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                              > > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:45 PM
                              > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
                              > >
                              > > > David,
                              > > > I do not address it at length, but yes, I agree that the Union
                              artillery
                              > > was
                              > > > not very effective. There really were few good positions to fire upon
                              the
                              > > > Confederates above the bridge, and the rebs used the quarry pits and
                              trees
                              > > for
                              > > > cover, making them hard to dislodge. There was some CS counterbattery
                              > > fire from
                              > > > above the bridge and from Cemetery Hill too. Some of the Union guns,
                              > > Benjamin's
                              > > > IIRC, ran out of ammo too.
                              > > > Tom Clemens
                              > > >
                              > > > David Lutton wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > > Tom,
                              > > > >
                              > > > > I have not seen the pub being discussed here but I have always had a
                              > > > > question concerning the effectiveness of Union artillery on this
                              sector
                              > > of
                              > > > > the battlefield. Perhaps you addressed this in the article?
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Granted the defensive position of rebel troops at the bridge area
                              > > extending
                              > > > > toward the ford was good, several Union batteries (I cannot recall
                              the
                              > > > > actual number ) were concentrating their fire in this relatively
                              small
                              > > area
                              > > > > of this battlefield. Why was Union artillery not more effective?
                              Most
                              > > of
                              > > > > these Union batteries were not subject to counter battery fire.
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Given the relative strength of the artillery employed by both sides
                              in
                              > > this
                              > > > > sector of the battlefield, can we assume that Union artillery was
                              not
                              > > fully
                              > > > > or effectively employed?
                              > > > >
                              > > > > David Lutton
                              > > > > Hollidaysburg Pa
                              > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                              > > > > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
                              > > > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                              > > > > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:44 PM
                              > > > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
                              > > > >
                              > > > > > It is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI and
                              America's
                              > > > > Civil
                              > > > > > War. I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased source.
                              > > > > > Tom Clemens
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > Andy Mills wrote:
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > > Hello Guys
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > This past weekend, I was in the bookstore, and saw a magazine
                              > > > > > > titled "Antietam." I was wondering if this is a good magazine,
                              or
                              > > > > > > anyone has ever heard of it.
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > Thank you
                              > > > > > > Andy
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > >
                              > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                              > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                              > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              > > > > >
                              > > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > >
                              > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                              > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              >
                              >
                            • james2044
                              IMHO, Antietam is the start of the AOP putting together an effective command group and the docturn to use it s weapons. Gettysburg is the graduation battle.
                              Message 14 of 25 , Aug 22, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                IMHO, Antietam is the start of the AOP putting together an effective
                                command group and the docturn to use it's weapons. Gettysburg is the
                                graduation battle.

                                The CSA never seemed to grow but stayed with what had worked thru the
                                summer of '62. With Perryville and the Emancepation Proclamation the
                                war is lost.
                              • NJ Rebel
                                James, Perryville did not really accomplish much but it _did_ keep Kentucky out of the Confederate camp permanently. However, the EP is what truly changed the
                                Message 15 of 25 , Aug 22, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  James,

                                  Perryville did not really accomplish much but it _did_ keep
                                  Kentucky out of the Confederate camp permanently. However, the EP
                                  is what truly changed the entire strategic course of the war.

                                  The summer and early fall of 1862 was the true high water mark of
                                  the Confederate States of America.

                                  Gettysburg was merely the high water mark as far as
                                  offensive-defensive operations of the Army of Northern Virginia
                                  was to be concerned. To be fair to the CSA and ANV, at that point
                                  the war could still have gone in favor of the South in terms of a
                                  negotiated settlement. A victory for Lee and the ANV at
                                  Gettysburg on clearly Yankee soil following the disaster at
                                  Chancellorsville atop the disaster at Fredericksburg would have
                                  sent the Lincoln administration reeling, IMHO, and might even
                                  have brought the British Empire in to the fray as making it
                                  clearly known to the US Government that a negotiated settlement
                                  of peace in favor of the Confederate States was now in order.

                                  Your humble servant,
                                  Gerry Mayers
                                  Pvt., CS Signals,
                                  Longstreet's Corps

                                  A Proud American by Birth, Southern by Choice!

                                  "I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
                                  on which he has nobly laid down his life." --General Robert
                                  Edward Lee

                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "james2044" <james2044@...>
                                  To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 8:52 PM
                                  Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Antietam Magazine


                                  > IMHO, Antietam is the start of the AOP putting together an
                                  effective
                                  > command group and the docturn to use it's weapons. Gettysburg
                                  is the
                                  > graduation battle.
                                  >
                                  > The CSA never seemed to grow but stayed with what had worked
                                  thru the
                                  > summer of '62. With Perryville and the Emancepation
                                  Proclamation the
                                  > war is lost.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
                                  Sponsor ---------------------~-->
                                  > 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
                                  > http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/mG3HAA/GmiolB/TM
                                  > ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                  ------~->
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                • Tom Clemens
                                  Yes, I agree. ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Aug 22, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Yes, I agree.

                                    David Lutton wrote:

                                    > Tom,
                                    >
                                    > Exactly. With the rise of Hunt and others in the coming months, Union
                                    > artillery would dominate this arm of the service for the rest of the war. By
                                    > Gburg it truly was a formidable force. But at Antietam it seems to me that
                                    > Southern guns were better placed and used at the 'points of contention'
                                    > throughout the day.
                                    >
                                    > David Lutton
                                    > Hollidaysburg Pa
                                    > ----- Original Message -----
                                    > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
                                    > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                                    > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 11:18 PM
                                    > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
                                    >
                                    > > David,
                                    > > Interesting question. I do not claim expertise here, but will offer a few
                                    > > thoughts. No question that CS artillery had better organization. They
                                    > had
                                    > > begun the artillery battalion system, had officers with authority and rank
                                    > to
                                    > > mass guns where needed and use them in numbers. For example Lee on Dunker
                                    > > Church plateau etc. ALso lack of older officers, Walton for example, let
                                    > > younger ones shine, ie. Pelham. Stuart did a lot with CS artillery, and
                                    > it was
                                    > > good. US were not approaching that level yet. After Hunt only 1 field
                                    > officer
                                    > > (other than Tyler with HA) and that one, Maj.Arndt, was KIA 9/16.
                                    > > CS on defense, and that makes artillery more effective. Also CS
                                    > preponderance
                                    > > in smoothbores not as harmful when used in defense.
                                    > > OTOH, Union had more and better guns, four batteries of 20 pdrs who made
                                    > Col.
                                    > > Lee's life "Artillery Hell" and a lot of others people too. CS had no
                                    > 20's
                                    > > there. CS still using 45 6-pdrs, US had none. US guns not well used,
                                    > only 22
                                    > > batteries cross the creek and most of them used north of Sunken Rd. US
                                    > also had
                                    > > trained cadre of regulars influencing volunteers, CS did not.
                                    > >
                                    > > Summary, North seemed to have advantage, but CS made up deficiences in
                                    > material
                                    > > and men with circumstances of defense, proper command authority and dash.
                                    > > Advantage - South.
                                    > > Just off the top of my head, hope it helps.
                                    > > Tom Clemens
                                    > >
                                    > > David Lutton wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > > Tom,
                                    > > >
                                    > > > I agree the 9th Corps artillery support was lacking during this part of
                                    > the
                                    > > > fight. Might I further put forth a proposition that Antietam was
                                    > > > perhaps the only battlefield of the war in the east where Union
                                    > artillery
                                    > > > was outperformed during the war? It seems to me that Rebel artillery
                                    > was
                                    > > > very well positioned and served during the battle. Luck or talent?
                                    > > >
                                    > > > David Lutton
                                    > > > Hollidaysburg Pa
                                    > > > ----- Original Message -----
                                    > > > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
                                    > > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                                    > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:45 PM
                                    > > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
                                    > > >
                                    > > > > David,
                                    > > > > I do not address it at length, but yes, I agree that the Union
                                    > artillery
                                    > > > was
                                    > > > > not very effective. There really were few good positions to fire upon
                                    > the
                                    > > > > Confederates above the bridge, and the rebs used the quarry pits and
                                    > trees
                                    > > > for
                                    > > > > cover, making them hard to dislodge. There was some CS counterbattery
                                    > > > fire from
                                    > > > > above the bridge and from Cemetery Hill too. Some of the Union guns,
                                    > > > Benjamin's
                                    > > > > IIRC, ran out of ammo too.
                                    > > > > Tom Clemens
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > David Lutton wrote:
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > > Tom,
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > I have not seen the pub being discussed here but I have always had a
                                    > > > > > question concerning the effectiveness of Union artillery on this
                                    > sector
                                    > > > of
                                    > > > > > the battlefield. Perhaps you addressed this in the article?
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > Granted the defensive position of rebel troops at the bridge area
                                    > > > extending
                                    > > > > > toward the ford was good, several Union batteries (I cannot recall
                                    > the
                                    > > > > > actual number ) were concentrating their fire in this relatively
                                    > small
                                    > > > area
                                    > > > > > of this battlefield. Why was Union artillery not more effective?
                                    > Most
                                    > > > of
                                    > > > > > these Union batteries were not subject to counter battery fire.
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > Given the relative strength of the artillery employed by both sides
                                    > in
                                    > > > this
                                    > > > > > sector of the battlefield, can we assume that Union artillery was
                                    > not
                                    > > > fully
                                    > > > > > or effectively employed?
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > David Lutton
                                    > > > > > Hollidaysburg Pa
                                    > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                                    > > > > > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
                                    > > > > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                                    > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:44 PM
                                    > > > > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > It is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI and
                                    > America's
                                    > > > > > Civil
                                    > > > > > > War. I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased source.
                                    > > > > > > Tom Clemens
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > Andy Mills wrote:
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > Hello Guys
                                    > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > This past weekend, I was in the bookstore, and saw a magazine
                                    > > > > > > > titled "Antietam." I was wondering if this is a good magazine,
                                    > or
                                    > > > > > > > anyone has ever heard of it.
                                    > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > Thank you
                                    > > > > > > > Andy
                                    > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                    > > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                    > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > > >
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > >
                                    > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                    > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                    > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                    > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • james2044
                                    Gary, Keeping Kentucky in the Union was IMHO much . Perryville, is just over looked as an important battle, as is most all of the Heartland . We see the
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Aug 23, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Gary,

                                      Keeping Kentucky in the Union was IMHO "much". Perryville, is just
                                      over looked as an important battle, as is most all of
                                      the "Heartland". We see the East and Grant but little else.

                                      I don't know that a British goverment, comming in for the CSA, would
                                      had lasted after the EP. Britian had taken the lead in stopping the
                                      slave trade and that would have been a major change.

                                      James
                                    • TR Livesey
                                      Isn t Lincoln supposed to have said, I hope God is on my side --- but I must have Kentucky ? I don t know what the deal is, but there seems to be some kind of
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Aug 23, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Isn't Lincoln supposed to have said, "I hope God is on my side --- but
                                        I must have Kentucky"?

                                        I don't know what the deal is, but there seems to be some kind of
                                        conspiracy to ignore Perryville. My own theory is that both sides
                                        screwed up so incredibly badly, there is a long standing desire
                                        to pretend it didn't happen.

                                        The leadership screwed up, that is. The foot solders fought well--
                                        given the circumstances--particually the Confederates. If you
                                        thought McClellan had problems, at least he never missed a battle
                                        sipping tea at his headquarters.

                                        I finally got out to Perryville this summer. As luck would have it,
                                        there was a pretty solid rain pouring when I got there, but I wasn't
                                        going to let that bother me. So, I left my wife in the visitor's center,
                                        and set out to do the battlefield 'double quick'. Now, I'm in pretty good
                                        shape, wasn't encumbered by equipment, so I didn't think it would
                                        be too difficult. Wrong! The first few stops of the tour route are
                                        laid out basically by the route of the Confederate attack. Let me
                                        say, after a short while I was huffing and puffing. What you have
                                        is a series of ridges, from which the Confederates drove the Union
                                        troops off the first, then off the next, etc. Quite an amazing
                                        feat of physical endurance.

                                        This is a great battlefield, in pristine condition. The major landmarks
                                        of the battle are basically these hills and ridges (called 'knobs'),
                                        and, unlike woodlots and cornfields, have not been removed, so
                                        the battlefield can be explored today in almost the same condition
                                        it was in at the time. Highly recommended.

                                        Regards,
                                        TR Livesey
                                        tlivesey@...

                                        james2044 wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Gary,
                                        >
                                        > Keeping Kentucky in the Union was IMHO "much". Perryville, is just
                                        > over looked as an important battle, as is most all of
                                        > the "Heartland". We see the East and Grant but little else.
                                        >
                                        > I don't know that a British goverment, comming in for the CSA, would
                                        > had lasted after the EP. Britian had taken the lead in stopping the
                                        > slave trade and that would have been a major change.
                                        >
                                        > James
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                      • rotbaron@aol.com
                                        For those interested in the current Antietam Commemorative Issue that I mentioned, here are some of the articles: To Antietam Creek - D. Scott Hartwig Lost
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Aug 23, 2002
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          For those interested in the current "Antietam Commemorative Issue" that I
                                          mentioned, here are some of the articles:

                                          To Antietam Creek - D. Scott Hartwig
                                          Lost and Found: SO No. 191 - Stephen Sears
                                          War on South Mountain - Mark Grimsley
                                          Carnage in a Cornfield - Robert Cheeks
                                          'Dear Union:' A Federal Artilleryman at Antietam - John Hennessy
                                          Readers' Guide To Antietam - Thomas Clemens
                                          Horrors of Bloody Lane - B. Keith Toney
                                          Whay Did Burnside Cross the Bridge - Thomas Clemens
                                          They Never Had a Chance (16th Conn Inf) - Lesley Gordon
                                          Defeat or Victory? (South perspectives on Antietam) - Gary Gallagher
                                          An Interview with John Howard (Superintendent of battlefield)
                                          Preservation (SHAF's great efforts) - Robert Hodge

                                          Tom Clemens' article notes that readers can anticipate (in future) Scott
                                          Hartwig's multivolume study of the Maryland Campaign.

                                          If you are desperate to find a copy, my local store has several on shelf. For
                                          cost (4.99 + .30 tax) plus US postage, I get you a copy and send it off ASAP.

                                          Tom Shay
                                          rotbaron@...


                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • NJ Rebel
                                          James; I believe your post was to me; my nickname can be seen below. As to Perryville, yes, it was equally an important battle in the Western theater at almost
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Aug 25, 2002
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            James;

                                            I believe your post was to me; my nickname can be seen below.

                                            As to Perryville, yes, it was equally an important battle in the
                                            Western theater at almost the same time as Confederate forces
                                            were attempting to carve out a Confederate Southwest (Arizona,
                                            New Mexico and Southern California areas).

                                            1862 between August and October was the true High Tide of the
                                            Confederacy!

                                            As to the British Government, etc. had Lee won at Antietam,
                                            Lincoln would have been unable to issue the EP and the British
                                            Government might have been able to use its not inconsiderable
                                            influence to arrange a negotiated peace. (Which is what the
                                            Confederacy really wanted after all!)

                                            Your humble servant,
                                            Gerry Mayers
                                            Pvt., CS Signals,
                                            Longstreet's Corps

                                            A Proud American by Birth, Southern by Choice!

                                            "I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
                                            on which he has nobly laid down his life." --General Robert
                                            Edward Lee

                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            From: "james2044" <james2044@...>
                                            To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                                            Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 5:05 AM
                                            Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Antietam Magazine


                                            > Gary,
                                            >
                                            > Keeping Kentucky in the Union was IMHO "much". Perryville, is
                                            just
                                            > over looked as an important battle, as is most all of
                                            > the "Heartland". We see the East and Grant but little else.
                                            >
                                            > I don't know that a British goverment, comming in for the CSA,
                                            would
                                            > had lasted after the EP. Britian had taken the lead in
                                            stopping the
                                            > slave trade and that would have been a major change.
                                            >
                                            > James
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
                                            Sponsor ---------------------~-->
                                            > 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
                                            > http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/mG3HAA/GmiolB/TM
                                            > ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                            ------~->
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                          • james2044
                                            Gerry, I agree if Lee had won , when he didn t and the EP was issued the British Goverment could/would not work for the CSA. James
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Aug 26, 2002
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Gerry,
                                              I agree if "Lee had won", when he didn't and the EP was issued the
                                              British Goverment could/would not work for the CSA.

                                              James
                                            • Jeff Beckner (PWC Magazine)
                                              If you thought McClellan had problems, at least he never missed a battle sipping tea at his headquarters. Ahem....
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Aug 26, 2002
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                If you
                                                thought McClellan had problems, at least he never missed a battle
                                                sipping tea at his headquarters.


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