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

Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 25 , Aug 21 8:18 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      David,
      Interesting question. I do not claim expertise here, but will offer a few
      thoughts. No question that CS artillery had better organization. They had
      begun the artillery battalion system, had officers with authority and rank to
      mass guns where needed and use them in numbers. For example Lee on Dunker
      Church plateau etc. ALso lack of older officers, Walton for example, let
      younger ones shine, ie. Pelham. Stuart did a lot with CS artillery, and it was
      good. US were not approaching that level yet. After Hunt only 1 field officer
      (other than Tyler with HA) and that one, Maj.Arndt, was KIA 9/16.
      CS on defense, and that makes artillery more effective. Also CS preponderance
      in smoothbores not as harmful when used in defense.
      OTOH, Union had more and better guns, four batteries of 20 pdrs who made Col.
      Lee's life "Artillery Hell" and a lot of others people too. CS had no 20's
      there. CS still using 45 6-pdrs, US had none. US guns not well used, only 22
      batteries cross the creek and most of them used north of Sunken Rd. US also had
      trained cadre of regulars influencing volunteers, CS did not.

      Summary, North seemed to have advantage, but CS made up deficiences in material
      and men with circumstances of defense, proper command authority and dash.
      Advantage - South.
      Just off the top of my head, hope it helps.
      Tom Clemens

      David Lutton wrote:

      > Tom,
      >
      > I agree the 9th Corps artillery support was lacking during this part of the
      > fight. Might I further put forth a proposition that Antietam was
      > perhaps the only battlefield of the war in the east where Union artillery
      > was outperformed during the war? It seems to me that Rebel artillery was
      > very well positioned and served during the battle. Luck or talent?
      >
      > David Lutton
      > Hollidaysburg Pa
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
      > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:45 PM
      > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
      >
      > > David,
      > > I do not address it at length, but yes, I agree that the Union artillery
      > was
      > > not very effective. There really were few good positions to fire upon the
      > > Confederates above the bridge, and the rebs used the quarry pits and trees
      > for
      > > cover, making them hard to dislodge. There was some CS counterbattery
      > fire from
      > > above the bridge and from Cemetery Hill too. Some of the Union guns,
      > Benjamin's
      > > IIRC, ran out of ammo too.
      > > Tom Clemens
      > >
      > > David Lutton wrote:
      > >
      > > > Tom,
      > > >
      > > > I have not seen the pub being discussed here but I have always had a
      > > > question concerning the effectiveness of Union artillery on this sector
      > of
      > > > the battlefield. Perhaps you addressed this in the article?
      > > >
      > > > Granted the defensive position of rebel troops at the bridge area
      > extending
      > > > toward the ford was good, several Union batteries (I cannot recall the
      > > > actual number ) were concentrating their fire in this relatively small
      > area
      > > > of this battlefield. Why was Union artillery not more effective? Most
      > of
      > > > these Union batteries were not subject to counter battery fire.
      > > >
      > > > Given the relative strength of the artillery employed by both sides in
      > this
      > > > sector of the battlefield, can we assume that Union artillery was not
      > fully
      > > > or effectively employed?
      > > >
      > > > David Lutton
      > > > Hollidaysburg Pa
      > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
      > > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
      > > > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:44 PM
      > > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
      > > >
      > > > > It is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI and America's
      > > > Civil
      > > > > War. I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased source.
      > > > > Tom Clemens
      > > > >
      > > > > Andy Mills wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > > Hello Guys
      > > > > >
      > > > > > This past weekend, I was in the bookstore, and saw a magazine
      > > > > > titled "Antietam." I was wondering if this is a good magazine, or
      > > > > > anyone has ever heard of it.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Thank you
      > > > > > Andy
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David Lutton
      Tom, Exactly. With the rise of Hunt and others in the coming months, Union artillery would dominate this arm of the service for the rest of the war. By Gburg
      Message 2 of 25 , Aug 22 3:29 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Tom,

        Exactly. With the rise of Hunt and others in the coming months, Union
        artillery would dominate this arm of the service for the rest of the war. By
        Gburg it truly was a formidable force. But at Antietam it seems to me that
        Southern guns were better placed and used at the 'points of contention'
        throughout the day.

        David Lutton
        Hollidaysburg Pa
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
        To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 11:18 PM
        Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine


        > David,
        > Interesting question. I do not claim expertise here, but will offer a few
        > thoughts. No question that CS artillery had better organization. They
        had
        > begun the artillery battalion system, had officers with authority and rank
        to
        > mass guns where needed and use them in numbers. For example Lee on Dunker
        > Church plateau etc. ALso lack of older officers, Walton for example, let
        > younger ones shine, ie. Pelham. Stuart did a lot with CS artillery, and
        it was
        > good. US were not approaching that level yet. After Hunt only 1 field
        officer
        > (other than Tyler with HA) and that one, Maj.Arndt, was KIA 9/16.
        > CS on defense, and that makes artillery more effective. Also CS
        preponderance
        > in smoothbores not as harmful when used in defense.
        > OTOH, Union had more and better guns, four batteries of 20 pdrs who made
        Col.
        > Lee's life "Artillery Hell" and a lot of others people too. CS had no
        20's
        > there. CS still using 45 6-pdrs, US had none. US guns not well used,
        only 22
        > batteries cross the creek and most of them used north of Sunken Rd. US
        also had
        > trained cadre of regulars influencing volunteers, CS did not.
        >
        > Summary, North seemed to have advantage, but CS made up deficiences in
        material
        > and men with circumstances of defense, proper command authority and dash.
        > Advantage - South.
        > Just off the top of my head, hope it helps.
        > Tom Clemens
        >
        > David Lutton wrote:
        >
        > > Tom,
        > >
        > > I agree the 9th Corps artillery support was lacking during this part of
        the
        > > fight. Might I further put forth a proposition that Antietam was
        > > perhaps the only battlefield of the war in the east where Union
        artillery
        > > was outperformed during the war? It seems to me that Rebel artillery
        was
        > > very well positioned and served during the battle. Luck or talent?
        > >
        > > David Lutton
        > > Hollidaysburg Pa
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
        > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
        > > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:45 PM
        > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
        > >
        > > > David,
        > > > I do not address it at length, but yes, I agree that the Union
        artillery
        > > was
        > > > not very effective. There really were few good positions to fire upon
        the
        > > > Confederates above the bridge, and the rebs used the quarry pits and
        trees
        > > for
        > > > cover, making them hard to dislodge. There was some CS counterbattery
        > > fire from
        > > > above the bridge and from Cemetery Hill too. Some of the Union guns,
        > > Benjamin's
        > > > IIRC, ran out of ammo too.
        > > > Tom Clemens
        > > >
        > > > David Lutton wrote:
        > > >
        > > > > Tom,
        > > > >
        > > > > I have not seen the pub being discussed here but I have always had a
        > > > > question concerning the effectiveness of Union artillery on this
        sector
        > > of
        > > > > the battlefield. Perhaps you addressed this in the article?
        > > > >
        > > > > Granted the defensive position of rebel troops at the bridge area
        > > extending
        > > > > toward the ford was good, several Union batteries (I cannot recall
        the
        > > > > actual number ) were concentrating their fire in this relatively
        small
        > > area
        > > > > of this battlefield. Why was Union artillery not more effective?
        Most
        > > of
        > > > > these Union batteries were not subject to counter battery fire.
        > > > >
        > > > > Given the relative strength of the artillery employed by both sides
        in
        > > this
        > > > > sector of the battlefield, can we assume that Union artillery was
        not
        > > fully
        > > > > or effectively employed?
        > > > >
        > > > > David Lutton
        > > > > Hollidaysburg Pa
        > > > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > > > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
        > > > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
        > > > > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:44 PM
        > > > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
        > > > >
        > > > > > It is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI and
        America's
        > > > > Civil
        > > > > > War. I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased source.
        > > > > > Tom Clemens
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Andy Mills wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > > Hello Guys
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > This past weekend, I was in the bookstore, and saw a magazine
        > > > > > > titled "Antietam." I was wondering if this is a good magazine,
        or
        > > > > > > anyone has ever heard of it.
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Thank you
        > > > > > > Andy
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > >
        > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
      • james2044
        IMHO, Antietam is the start of the AOP putting together an effective command group and the docturn to use it s weapons. Gettysburg is the graduation battle.
        Message 3 of 25 , Aug 22 5:52 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          IMHO, Antietam is the start of the AOP putting together an effective
          command group and the docturn to use it's weapons. Gettysburg is the
          graduation battle.

          The CSA never seemed to grow but stayed with what had worked thru the
          summer of '62. With Perryville and the Emancepation Proclamation the
          war is lost.
        • NJ Rebel
          James, Perryville did not really accomplish much but it _did_ keep Kentucky out of the Confederate camp permanently. However, the EP is what truly changed the
          Message 4 of 25 , Aug 22 6:32 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            James,

            Perryville did not really accomplish much but it _did_ keep
            Kentucky out of the Confederate camp permanently. However, the EP
            is what truly changed the entire strategic course of the war.

            The summer and early fall of 1862 was the true high water mark of
            the Confederate States of America.

            Gettysburg was merely the high water mark as far as
            offensive-defensive operations of the Army of Northern Virginia
            was to be concerned. To be fair to the CSA and ANV, at that point
            the war could still have gone in favor of the South in terms of a
            negotiated settlement. A victory for Lee and the ANV at
            Gettysburg on clearly Yankee soil following the disaster at
            Chancellorsville atop the disaster at Fredericksburg would have
            sent the Lincoln administration reeling, IMHO, and might even
            have brought the British Empire in to the fray as making it
            clearly known to the US Government that a negotiated settlement
            of peace in favor of the Confederate States was now in order.

            Your humble servant,
            Gerry Mayers
            Pvt., CS Signals,
            Longstreet's Corps

            A Proud American by Birth, Southern by Choice!

            "I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
            on which he has nobly laid down his life." --General Robert
            Edward Lee

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "james2044" <james2044@...>
            To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 8:52 PM
            Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Antietam Magazine


            > IMHO, Antietam is the start of the AOP putting together an
            effective
            > command group and the docturn to use it's weapons. Gettysburg
            is the
            > graduation battle.
            >
            > The CSA never seemed to grow but stayed with what had worked
            thru the
            > summer of '62. With Perryville and the Emancepation
            Proclamation the
            > war is lost.
            >
            >
            > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
            Sponsor ---------------------~-->
            > 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
            > http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/mG3HAA/GmiolB/TM
            > ---------------------------------------------------------------
            ------~->
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
            >
          • Tom Clemens
            Yes, I agree. ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Message 5 of 25 , Aug 22 6:35 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Yes, I agree.

              David Lutton wrote:

              > Tom,
              >
              > Exactly. With the rise of Hunt and others in the coming months, Union
              > artillery would dominate this arm of the service for the rest of the war. By
              > Gburg it truly was a formidable force. But at Antietam it seems to me that
              > Southern guns were better placed and used at the 'points of contention'
              > throughout the day.
              >
              > David Lutton
              > Hollidaysburg Pa
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
              > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 11:18 PM
              > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
              >
              > > David,
              > > Interesting question. I do not claim expertise here, but will offer a few
              > > thoughts. No question that CS artillery had better organization. They
              > had
              > > begun the artillery battalion system, had officers with authority and rank
              > to
              > > mass guns where needed and use them in numbers. For example Lee on Dunker
              > > Church plateau etc. ALso lack of older officers, Walton for example, let
              > > younger ones shine, ie. Pelham. Stuart did a lot with CS artillery, and
              > it was
              > > good. US were not approaching that level yet. After Hunt only 1 field
              > officer
              > > (other than Tyler with HA) and that one, Maj.Arndt, was KIA 9/16.
              > > CS on defense, and that makes artillery more effective. Also CS
              > preponderance
              > > in smoothbores not as harmful when used in defense.
              > > OTOH, Union had more and better guns, four batteries of 20 pdrs who made
              > Col.
              > > Lee's life "Artillery Hell" and a lot of others people too. CS had no
              > 20's
              > > there. CS still using 45 6-pdrs, US had none. US guns not well used,
              > only 22
              > > batteries cross the creek and most of them used north of Sunken Rd. US
              > also had
              > > trained cadre of regulars influencing volunteers, CS did not.
              > >
              > > Summary, North seemed to have advantage, but CS made up deficiences in
              > material
              > > and men with circumstances of defense, proper command authority and dash.
              > > Advantage - South.
              > > Just off the top of my head, hope it helps.
              > > Tom Clemens
              > >
              > > David Lutton wrote:
              > >
              > > > Tom,
              > > >
              > > > I agree the 9th Corps artillery support was lacking during this part of
              > the
              > > > fight. Might I further put forth a proposition that Antietam was
              > > > perhaps the only battlefield of the war in the east where Union
              > artillery
              > > > was outperformed during the war? It seems to me that Rebel artillery
              > was
              > > > very well positioned and served during the battle. Luck or talent?
              > > >
              > > > David Lutton
              > > > Hollidaysburg Pa
              > > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
              > > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
              > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 9:45 PM
              > > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
              > > >
              > > > > David,
              > > > > I do not address it at length, but yes, I agree that the Union
              > artillery
              > > > was
              > > > > not very effective. There really were few good positions to fire upon
              > the
              > > > > Confederates above the bridge, and the rebs used the quarry pits and
              > trees
              > > > for
              > > > > cover, making them hard to dislodge. There was some CS counterbattery
              > > > fire from
              > > > > above the bridge and from Cemetery Hill too. Some of the Union guns,
              > > > Benjamin's
              > > > > IIRC, ran out of ammo too.
              > > > > Tom Clemens
              > > > >
              > > > > David Lutton wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > > Tom,
              > > > > >
              > > > > > I have not seen the pub being discussed here but I have always had a
              > > > > > question concerning the effectiveness of Union artillery on this
              > sector
              > > > of
              > > > > > the battlefield. Perhaps you addressed this in the article?
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Granted the defensive position of rebel troops at the bridge area
              > > > extending
              > > > > > toward the ford was good, several Union batteries (I cannot recall
              > the
              > > > > > actual number ) were concentrating their fire in this relatively
              > small
              > > > area
              > > > > > of this battlefield. Why was Union artillery not more effective?
              > Most
              > > > of
              > > > > > these Union batteries were not subject to counter battery fire.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Given the relative strength of the artillery employed by both sides
              > in
              > > > this
              > > > > > sector of the battlefield, can we assume that Union artillery was
              > not
              > > > fully
              > > > > > or effectively employed?
              > > > > >
              > > > > > David Lutton
              > > > > > Hollidaysburg Pa
              > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > > > > From: Tom Clemens <clemens@...>
              > > > > > To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
              > > > > > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:44 PM
              > > > > > Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Antietam Magazine
              > > > > >
              > > > > > > It is a special issue from Primedia, publishers of CWTI and
              > America's
              > > > > > Civil
              > > > > > > War. I thought it was good, but am not an unbiased source.
              > > > > > > Tom Clemens
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Andy Mills wrote:
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > Hello Guys
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > This past weekend, I was in the bookstore, and saw a magazine
              > > > > > > > titled "Antietam." I was wondering if this is a good magazine,
              > or
              > > > > > > > anyone has ever heard of it.
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > Thank you
              > > > > > > > Andy
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > >
              > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              > > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              > > > > > >
              > > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              > >
              > >
              > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • james2044
              Gary, Keeping Kentucky in the Union was IMHO much . Perryville, is just over looked as an important battle, as is most all of the Heartland . We see the
              Message 6 of 25 , Aug 23 2:05 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Gary,

                Keeping Kentucky in the Union was IMHO "much". Perryville, is just
                over looked as an important battle, as is most all of
                the "Heartland". We see the East and Grant but little else.

                I don't know that a British goverment, comming in for the CSA, would
                had lasted after the EP. Britian had taken the lead in stopping the
                slave trade and that would have been a major change.

                James
              • TR Livesey
                Isn t Lincoln supposed to have said, I hope God is on my side --- but I must have Kentucky ? I don t know what the deal is, but there seems to be some kind of
                Message 7 of 25 , Aug 23 7:03 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Isn't Lincoln supposed to have said, "I hope God is on my side --- but
                  I must have Kentucky"?

                  I don't know what the deal is, but there seems to be some kind of
                  conspiracy to ignore Perryville. My own theory is that both sides
                  screwed up so incredibly badly, there is a long standing desire
                  to pretend it didn't happen.

                  The leadership screwed up, that is. The foot solders fought well--
                  given the circumstances--particually the Confederates. If you
                  thought McClellan had problems, at least he never missed a battle
                  sipping tea at his headquarters.

                  I finally got out to Perryville this summer. As luck would have it,
                  there was a pretty solid rain pouring when I got there, but I wasn't
                  going to let that bother me. So, I left my wife in the visitor's center,
                  and set out to do the battlefield 'double quick'. Now, I'm in pretty good
                  shape, wasn't encumbered by equipment, so I didn't think it would
                  be too difficult. Wrong! The first few stops of the tour route are
                  laid out basically by the route of the Confederate attack. Let me
                  say, after a short while I was huffing and puffing. What you have
                  is a series of ridges, from which the Confederates drove the Union
                  troops off the first, then off the next, etc. Quite an amazing
                  feat of physical endurance.

                  This is a great battlefield, in pristine condition. The major landmarks
                  of the battle are basically these hills and ridges (called 'knobs'),
                  and, unlike woodlots and cornfields, have not been removed, so
                  the battlefield can be explored today in almost the same condition
                  it was in at the time. Highly recommended.

                  Regards,
                  TR Livesey
                  tlivesey@...

                  james2044 wrote:
                  >
                  > Gary,
                  >
                  > Keeping Kentucky in the Union was IMHO "much". Perryville, is just
                  > over looked as an important battle, as is most all of
                  > the "Heartland". We see the East and Grant but little else.
                  >
                  > I don't know that a British goverment, comming in for the CSA, would
                  > had lasted after the EP. Britian had taken the lead in stopping the
                  > slave trade and that would have been a major change.
                  >
                  > James
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                • rotbaron@aol.com
                  For those interested in the current Antietam Commemorative Issue that I mentioned, here are some of the articles: To Antietam Creek - D. Scott Hartwig Lost
                  Message 8 of 25 , Aug 23 7:21 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    For those interested in the current "Antietam Commemorative Issue" that I
                    mentioned, here are some of the articles:

                    To Antietam Creek - D. Scott Hartwig
                    Lost and Found: SO No. 191 - Stephen Sears
                    War on South Mountain - Mark Grimsley
                    Carnage in a Cornfield - Robert Cheeks
                    'Dear Union:' A Federal Artilleryman at Antietam - John Hennessy
                    Readers' Guide To Antietam - Thomas Clemens
                    Horrors of Bloody Lane - B. Keith Toney
                    Whay Did Burnside Cross the Bridge - Thomas Clemens
                    They Never Had a Chance (16th Conn Inf) - Lesley Gordon
                    Defeat or Victory? (South perspectives on Antietam) - Gary Gallagher
                    An Interview with John Howard (Superintendent of battlefield)
                    Preservation (SHAF's great efforts) - Robert Hodge

                    Tom Clemens' article notes that readers can anticipate (in future) Scott
                    Hartwig's multivolume study of the Maryland Campaign.

                    If you are desperate to find a copy, my local store has several on shelf. For
                    cost (4.99 + .30 tax) plus US postage, I get you a copy and send it off ASAP.

                    Tom Shay
                    rotbaron@...


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • NJ Rebel
                    James; I believe your post was to me; my nickname can be seen below. As to Perryville, yes, it was equally an important battle in the Western theater at almost
                    Message 9 of 25 , Aug 25 6:58 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      James;

                      I believe your post was to me; my nickname can be seen below.

                      As to Perryville, yes, it was equally an important battle in the
                      Western theater at almost the same time as Confederate forces
                      were attempting to carve out a Confederate Southwest (Arizona,
                      New Mexico and Southern California areas).

                      1862 between August and October was the true High Tide of the
                      Confederacy!

                      As to the British Government, etc. had Lee won at Antietam,
                      Lincoln would have been unable to issue the EP and the British
                      Government might have been able to use its not inconsiderable
                      influence to arrange a negotiated peace. (Which is what the
                      Confederacy really wanted after all!)

                      Your humble servant,
                      Gerry Mayers
                      Pvt., CS Signals,
                      Longstreet's Corps

                      A Proud American by Birth, Southern by Choice!

                      "I know of no fitter resting-place for a soldier than the field
                      on which he has nobly laid down his life." --General Robert
                      Edward Lee

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "james2044" <james2044@...>
                      To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 5:05 AM
                      Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: Antietam Magazine


                      > Gary,
                      >
                      > Keeping Kentucky in the Union was IMHO "much". Perryville, is
                      just
                      > over looked as an important battle, as is most all of
                      > the "Heartland". We see the East and Grant but little else.
                      >
                      > I don't know that a British goverment, comming in for the CSA,
                      would
                      > had lasted after the EP. Britian had taken the lead in
                      stopping the
                      > slave trade and that would have been a major change.
                      >
                      > James
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
                      Sponsor ---------------------~-->
                      > 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
                      > http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/mG3HAA/GmiolB/TM
                      > ---------------------------------------------------------------
                      ------~->
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • james2044
                      Gerry, I agree if Lee had won , when he didn t and the EP was issued the British Goverment could/would not work for the CSA. James
                      Message 10 of 25 , Aug 26 1:59 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Gerry,
                        I agree if "Lee had won", when he didn't and the EP was issued the
                        British Goverment could/would not work for the CSA.

                        James
                      • Jeff Beckner (PWC Magazine)
                        If you thought McClellan had problems, at least he never missed a battle sipping tea at his headquarters. Ahem....
                        Message 11 of 25 , Aug 26 6:30 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          If you
                          thought McClellan had problems, at least he never missed a battle
                          sipping tea at his headquarters.


                          Ahem....
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.