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 8:15:14 AM EST, antietam@nep.net writes: I bought mine at a local
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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.