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

Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 25 , Aug 19 6:48 PM
    • 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 2 of 25 , Aug 19 7:44 PM
      • 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 3 of 25 , Aug 20 4:54 AM
        • 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 4 of 25 , Aug 20 5:22 PM
          • 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 5 of 25 , Aug 20 6:45 PM
            • 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 6 of 25 , Aug 21 4:47 PM
              • 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 7 of 25 , Aug 21 5:30 PM
                • 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 8 of 25 , Aug 21 7:36 PM
                  • 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 9 of 25 , Aug 21 8:18 PM
                    • 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 10 of 25 , Aug 22 3:29 PM
                      • 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 11 of 25 , Aug 22 5:52 PM
                        • 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 12 of 25 , Aug 22 6:32 PM
                          • 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 13 of 25 , Aug 22 6:35 PM
                            • 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 14 of 25 , Aug 23 2:05 AM
                              • 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 15 of 25 , Aug 23 7:03 PM
                                • 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 16 of 25 , Aug 23 7:21 PM
                                  • 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 17 of 25 , Aug 25 6:58 PM
                                    • 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 18 of 25 , Aug 26 1:59 AM
                                      • 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 19 of 25 , Aug 26 6:30 AM
                                        • 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.