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

Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine

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