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 9:38:54 PM EST, clemens@crosslink.net writes:
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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.