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

Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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.