GDG- RE: Iverson's Attack on Maps
Smith, David
smith_david_g at bah.com
Wed Aug 1 09:14:51 CDT 2007
I believe there is a map of Iverson's attack as well in Gallagher's
First Day at Gettysburg book that you can also examine, if you like.
David G. Smith
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:33:37 -0400
From: "Bob Coffman - Info From Data Corp." <bcoffman at infofromdata.com>
Subject: RE: GDG- 45th NY helps stop Iverson's brigade?
To: "'GDG'" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Message-ID: <014501c7d2d8$2502fc30$3602a8c0 at ad.infofromdata.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> But, does it make any sense? Neither Dilger's guns, nor anybody in
the
45th NY, all of whom were on the eastern side of Oak Ridge, had any line
of
sight or fire to Iverson's brigade as it advanced on the far side of the
ridge. Nobody in the 45th NY was in any position to charge on Iverson's
brigade, much less, its rear, or capture hundreds of prisoners from it.
Jim,
My copy of Gottfried's map book is at home, but I recall seeing maps of
the
Iverson debacle - is there (a) map(s) that shows this clearly? I'm
excited
about this book because it will really help me follow discussions like
this,
as well as having something nearby when I'm reading.
- Bob Coffman
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:11:02 EDT
From: Batrinque at aol.com
Subject: Re: GDG- 45th NY helps stop Iverson's brigade?
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Message-ID: <d3a.f764eae.33df91c6 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
In a message dated 7/30/2007 2:36:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
bcoffman at infofromdata.com writes:
My copy of Gottfried's map book is at home, but I recall seeing maps of
the
Iverson debacle - is there (a) map(s) that shows this clearly? I'm
excited
about this book because it will really help me follow discussions like
this,
as well as having something nearby when I'm reading.
Looking through the relevant maps in Gottfired's book, he shows the 45th
New
York somewhat to the north of Iverson's Brigade (north of the railroad,
in
fact) and not taking any kind of role in repelling Iverson. The same is
true
of the maps in Pfanz's and Martin's books on Day One.
Bruce Trinque
Amston, CT
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new
AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:17:30 -0400
From: "Tom Ryan" <pennmardel at mchsi.com>
Subject: RE: GDG- Butterfield's misstep
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Message-ID: <FEEOKINCPINMNKHDCDCEKELEDEAA.pennmardel at mchsi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
<<BTW, I believe you wrote in an earlier post, that Butterfield should
have been aware of the smaller size of Lee's army based on BMI intel?
In his JCCW testimony, Butterfield made a rather positive statement that
Lee had 91,000 infantry.
It appears that Butterfield's opinion of Lee's strength was in line with
virtually all the GOs in the AoP.>>
Rick,
That is what I was alluding to earlier, the fact that
Butterfield told the
JC that "our information showed us that Lee had 91,000 infantry, 12,000
cavalry, and 275 pieces of artillery, Lee's army had been counted by
several
citizens of Hagerstown from the commencement to the end...our own spies
and
scouts had brought us information; and coming from several sources, the
information was reliable."
Many of these spies and scouts, as well as the citizens, of
course, were
civilians who were notoriously apt to overcount the enemy. Lee had
stopped
using civilian estimates because of their unreliability.
The figures on the artillery and cavalry are pretty accurate,
while the
infantry is high by about 28,000 (B&M give the three ANV corps a total
of
over 63,000 engaged infantry). Note that Butterfield does not mention
the
BMI intelligence staff's figures that tell a different story. It would
appear that Hooker had gained an adherent in Butterfield in his earlier
unsubstantiated claims that Lee had over 100,000 troops in his army,
despite
pretty good evidence to the contrary (at least according to PM General
Marsena Patrick).
Since Butterfield was the conduit for Meade for BMI reports, he
had the
information available if he chose to acknowledge it. Only he knows why
he
preferred to ignore this intelligence data.
Ironically, Butterfield's statement to the JC with regard to
Lee's strength
supported Meade's own claim to the committee that Lee was "about 10,000
to
15,000 men my superior" at Gettysburg. A number of the corps commanders
were of similar mind regarding the enemy's strength.
I am not sure what the thrust of your statement is. Are you
accepting of
Butterfield's figures because they were in line with the other GO's?
Tom
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:32:18 +0000 (GMT)
From: cameron2 at optonline.net
Subject: Re: RE: GDG- Butterfield's misstep
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Message-ID: <e67e833429635.46ae3cc2 at optonline.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
<< It would have been very hypocritical of Meade to fire a wounded
Butterfield for misconduct and then less than two weeks later, pen the
words in his letter to Butterfield. That would say something regarding
his character, and honesty.
For his part, if Butterfield knew that he had been fired for misconduct,
he certainly did not demonstrate it in his testimony before the JCCW.
He even refused to answer some questions that would have been critical
of Meade. >>
What I think the whole thing amounted to was that once Meade took over
from Hooker, it was a given that he would replace Butterfield with his
own man. Any new commanding general would be expected to do as much, as
a matter of course. The impending battle delayed any change, but
Butterfield would have known full well that he was going to be replaced
by someone more congenial to Meade once the smoke cleared. It wasn't a
matter of his having done anything wrong or not. It was simply a fact
of Army life.
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:47:19 -0400
From: "Tom Ryan" <pennmardel at mchsi.com>
Subject: RE: RE: GDG- Butterfield's misstep
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Message-ID: <FEEOKINCPINMNKHDCDCEGELFDEAA.pennmardel at mchsi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
<<What I think the whole thing amounted to was that once Meade took over
from Hooker, it was a given that he would replace Butterfield with his
own
man. Any new commanding general would be expected to do as much, as a
matter of course. The impending battle delayed any change, but
Butterfield
would have known full well that he was going to be replaced by someone
more
congenial to Meade once the smoke cleared. It wasn't a matter of his
having
done anything wrong or not. It was simply a fact of Army life.>>
I think this is right on target. Of course, that is apart from the
question
of Capt. Meade's claim that Butterfield had not followed General Meade's
orders. And whether he did or not, the historical rendering up to this
point has it that Butterfield acted impetuously, and that was a factor
in
his being relieved.
Obviously Rick is attempting to set the record straight.
Tom
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:59:25 -0500
From: "Richard & Sue Ann Schaus" <rrschaus at citlink.net>
Subject: RE: GDG- Butterfield's misstep
To: "'GDG'" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Message-ID: <000301c7d2e4$21b7f970$01fea8c0 at Library>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
-----Original Message-----
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com
[mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] On Behalf Of Tom Ryan
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 2:18 PM
To: GDG
Subject: RE: GDG- Butterfield's misstep
Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
<<I am not sure what the thrust of your statement is. Are you
accepting of
Butterfield's figures because they were in line with the other GO's?
Tom>>
Hi Tom,
What I'm trying to say is why should Butterfield have been so confident
of the BMI numbers when neither Hooker nor Meade were?
The BMI was as new to Butterfield as it was to Hooker and Meade.
If Butterfield goes to Meade and states his belief that Lee's infantry
numbers are less than the AoP's, then he becomes responsible for those
numbers. That was a risk Butterfield was not willing to take. That
would also be contrary to what Hooker must have briefed Meade when Meade
assumed command.
In the end it was up to Meade as the CDR to make the final
determination, and I believe he was getting info from other sources
beside the BMI. He chose to go with the inflated numbers.
As we know, an ANV with more infantry would allow Meade to exercise the
caution he wanted and plan for a defensive battle, especially once Lee
turned from the Susquehanna.
Even as late as the JCCW hearings, Meade himself stuck to the numerical
superiority of the ANV, as did Butterfield and others.
Sometime in 64 I believe he made a rather harsh statement about his
mistrust of the BMI?
VR, Rick
----------------------------------------------------------------
You may unsubscribe by going to
http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg
You can add yourself to the GDG map at:
http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup
View archived posts from May 2004 - present at
http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:34:37 -0400
From: "Tom Ryan" <pennmardel at mchsi.com>
Subject: RE: GDG- Butterfield's misstep
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Message-ID: <FEEOKINCPINMNKHDCDCEGELGDEAA.pennmardel at mchsi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
<<What I'm trying to say is why should Butterfield have been so
confident
of the BMI numbers when neither Hooker nor Meade were?
The BMI was as new to Butterfield as it was to Hooker and Meade.>>
One of the problems regarding the reputations of Hooker, Butterfield and
Meade is that they declined to acknowledge publicly that the BMI figures
even existed. They were hedging their bets in the event of the need to
explain a loss at Gettysburg. That did not happen, but the excuse came
in
handy to explain the lack of action at Williamsport.
<<If Butterfield goes to Meade and states his belief that Lee's infantry
numbers are less than the AoP's, then he becomes responsible for those
numbers. That was a risk Butterfield was not willing to take. That
would also be contrary to what Hooker must have briefed Meade when Meade
assumed command.>>
We do not really know what went on between Meade and Butterfield
regarding
reports from the BMI. We do know they seemed to be relying on the BMI
during the battle. But politics is politics, and they obviously were
aware
of the need for the CYA factor. Hooker may have given Meade inflated
numbers, because Meade told the JC that "When I assumed command of the
army
of the Potomac...I had no information concerning the enemy beyond the
fact
that a large army under General Lee, estimated at about 110,000 men, had
passed through Hagerstown...." Then again this may have figures passed
on
by local observers.
<<In the end it was up to Meade as the CDR to make the final
determination, and I believe he was getting info from other sources
beside the BMI. He chose to go with the inflated numbers.>>
As we know, an ANV with more infantry would allow Meade to exercise the
caution he wanted and plan for a defensive battle, especially once Lee
turned from the Susquehanna.
Even as late as the JCCW hearings, Meade himself stuck to the numerical
superiority of the ANV, as did Butterfield and others.
Sometime in 64 I believe he made a rather harsh statement about his
mistrust of the BMI?>>
Meade was being Meade, cautious and conservative. He was "old army" and
stuck with what he knew best about handling cavalry and gathering
information. He did not accept the concept of a special staff that
would
distill information from a variety of sources and prepare reports for
the
commander. It was a fallacy that would cause problems later, and was
not
rectified until Grant came on board and realized how poorly intelligence
was
being managed in the AoP.
VR, Rick
----------------------------------------------------------------
You may unsubscribe by going to
http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg
You can add yourself to the GDG map at:
http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup
View archived posts from May 2004 - present at
http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/
---------------------------------------------------------
-------
You may unsubscribe by going to
http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg
You can add yourself to the GDG map at:
http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup
View archived posts from May 2004 - present at
http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 19:58:51 -0400
From: zfry at kent.edu
Subject: GDG- Best work on Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble Assault?
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Message-ID: <f8ba392918748.18748f8ba3929 at kent.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I am wondering what secondary work GDG contributors prefer on the PPT
Assault, either a general study or one specifically describing an
outfit's actions.
For a general study, I always prefer Stewart's book. It still seems to
be the most judicious and compelling narrative. For a more specific
study, I believe Kathy Georg Harrison's narrative in "Nothing But Glory"
is superb. Hartwig's article "It Struck Horror To Us All" is also very
informative, I think, despite the fact that he does not place a gap
south of the 69th PA at Brown's Gate (something nearly every other
author since Bachelder has specifically done).
Any thoughts?
My compliments to all,
Zack Fry
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:47:33 EDT
From: Batrinque at aol.com
Subject: Re: GDG- Best work on Pickett-Pettigrew-Trimble Assault?
To: gettysburg at arthes.com
Message-ID: <d50.e641668.33dfe0a5 at aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
In a message dated 7/30/2007 8:04:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
zfry at kent.edu writes:
I am wondering what secondary work GDG contributors prefer on the PPT
Assault, either a general study or one specifically describing an
outfit's actions.
For a general study, I always prefer Stewart's book. It still seems to
be the most judicious and compelling narrative.
Even though Stewart's book cannot benefit from the past few decades' of
microhistories concerned with the PPT Assault, I do think it has not
yet been
equaled as a general study. Hess's book on the Charge somehow doesn't
quite
make it. I like Jeff Wert's book on Day Three, but its scope is
broader than
just the PPT event. And Mike Priest's book is too fragmented to fully
satisfy
me.
Bruce Trinque
Amston, CT
************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new
AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:40:41 -0500
From: "Richard & Sue Ann Schaus" <rrschaus at citlink.net>
Subject: RE: RE: GDG- Butterfield's misstep
To: "'GDG'" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Message-ID: <000001c7d31c$305413f0$01fea8c0 at Library>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
-----Original Message-----
From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com
[mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com] On Behalf Of Tom Ryan
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 2:47 PM
To: GDG
Subject: RE: RE: GDG- Butterfield's misstep
Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
<<What I think the whole thing amounted to was that once Meade took over
from Hooker, it was a given that he would replace Butterfield with his
own
man. Any new commanding general would be expected to do as much, as a
matter of course. The impending battle delayed any change, but
Butterfield
would have known full well that he was going to be replaced by someone
more
congenial to Meade once the smoke cleared. It wasn't a matter of his
having
done anything wrong or not. It was simply a fact of Army life.>>
<<I think this is right on target. Of course, that is apart from the
question
of Capt. Meade's claim that Butterfield had not followed General Meade's
orders. And whether he did or not, the historical rendering up to this
point has it that Butterfield acted impetuously, and that was a factor
in
his being relieved.
Obviously Rick is attempting to set the record straight.
Tom>>
Exactly right, Tom.
Butterfield died in 1902. CPT Meade's "Life and Letters" was published
in 1913, so Butterfield was unable to defend himself against CPT Meade's
accusation.
Butterfield served his country well, was awarded the MOH, and was
wounded at least twice. He had a distinguished postwar career.
Meade confirmed Butterfield's valuable service to him from the time he
took command until his wound caused his departure. I agree that Meade
would probably have replaced Butterfield with an officer he was more
comfortable with. I do wonder why Meade did not make the change when
Butterfield was wounded 3 July, and was obviously not able to function
at 100%?
It is up to us to set the historical record straight when we can, and in
this case it is clear that CPT Meade's version was incorrect.
Jim, your response surprises me. In your post regarding the 45th NY and
Iverson's repulse, you are attempting to do the exactly same thing as I
am, to set the historical record straight.
My effort has nothing to do with the fact that Butterfield was replaced,
just as yours has nothing to do with the fact that Iverson's attack was
repulsed.
VR, Rick Schaus
----------------------------------------------------------------
You may unsubscribe by going to
http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg
You can add yourself to the GDG map at:
http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup
View archived posts from May 2004 - present at
http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:20:38 -0400
From: "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle at hp.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Querried Rocks
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Message-ID: <46AF3726.20702 at hp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
The Mills wrote:
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>
>
> I was wandering around the Devil's Den area over where they are
cutting trees now and found some stones that looked like they had been
quarried and a small pit that looked like it may have been where the
stones were
> cut from. Do you know did they use stone from that area as
foundations for monuments or something? The base of the "castle" on
Little Roundtop looked like it had similar stone with similar marks. It
is the area they just started cutting, kind of southwest across the road
from where the fake sharpshooter photo was taken. If you look at the
map, it would be to the west of where Crawford avenue makes a sharp bend
to go around to the top of Devil's Den.
>
> http://www.nps.gov/gett/planyourvisit/upload/GETTmap1%252Epdf.pdf
>
> Thanks
> Andy
>
Hi Andy -
Adelman & Smith in their very nice booklet entitled "Devil's Den - A
History and Guide" discuss this twice:
On page 74 they state:
"The land around Devil's Den, however, was never part of the GBMA's
holdings, and its preservation is more interesting and complicated.
Houck's Ridge was a popular place for the quarrying of 'Gettysburg
granite.' On one of his visits to Gettysburg, General Samuel W.
Crawford 'noticed a stone-cutter blasting away one of the rocks in
the Valley of Death for building purposes.'"
They then go on to note how Crawford negotiated, and purchased, about 47
acres of land in this area.
On page 123 (as part of their guided tour at stop #19):
"Stop # 19 - The Devil's Den Quarry. ... The name of this stop
refers to the numerous boulders which have been quarried. The rock
was used for the trolley, battlefield monuments, roads, bridges,
steps and flank markers. In fact the stone denoting the site where
General Meade took command of the Army of the Potomac at Frederick,
Maryland was quarried in this area. The large marks from chisels and
the man-made edges are clearly visible on hundreds of rocks on both
sides of the trolley path."
What's not clear (to me anyhow) was if this area was used as a quarry
/prior/ to the battle...
Respectfully submitted,
Alan
PS. Any typos in the above quotes are mine and mine alone... :-)
PPS. My son and I just got back from Gettysburg, and as part of our
"mission" we took this guided tour. It was very well laid out - and the
view along the trolley path below the triangular field area was well
worth it.
Later, as part of a tour outlined in Jorgensen's "The Wheatfield of
Gettysburg - A Walking Tour" we again entered this area looking for the
Timber's foundation. After spending 60+ minutes trying to find it - and
believe you me, we must have stepped over/on/around it at some point
without realizing - we "gave up." In any event, walking over that
terrain certainly adds to one impression of the Confederate troops who
assaulted the Den and Rose's woods area - besides the undulating terrain
and rocky clusters, if the thorns and brambles that are there now were
there then I certainly pity their shins as well...
PPPS. And with the reconstruction of the landscape, these tour guides
need some tweaking - with the tree removal certain guide posts are
removed, and with the addition of fencing, certain areas are "less
accessible." As an example, during the Wheatfield tour, one is expected
to go from the Zook monument along the Wheatfield road, and head
directly to the Winslow Battery Memorial - almost due south.
Unfortunately (fortunately?) there is now a Virginia/worm fence smack
dab in the way - requiring one to walk down to Ayre's Ave and then back
up. Not a big deal, to be sure...
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:54:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: The Mills <kkamills at embarqmail.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Querried Rocks
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Message-ID:
<14891963.56151185890047244.JavaMail.root at md09.embarq.synacor.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Thanks Alan. That helps alot. I appreciate it.
Thanks
Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan D. Brunelle <Alan.Brunelle at hp.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:20:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: GDG- Querried Rocks
Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
The Mills wrote:
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>
>
> I was wandering around the Devil's Den area over where they are
cutting trees now and found some stones that looked like they had been
quarried and a small pit that looked like it may have been where the
stones were
> cut from. Do you know did they use stone from that area as
foundations for monuments or something? The base of the "castle" on
Little Roundtop looked like it had similar stone with similar marks. It
is the area they just started cutting, kind of southwest across the road
from where the fake sharpshooter photo was taken. If you look at the
map, it would be to the west of where Crawford avenue makes a sharp bend
to go around to the top of Devil's Den.
>
> http://www.nps.gov/gett/planyourvisit/upload/GETTmap1%252Epdf.pdf
>
> Thanks
> Andy
>
Hi Andy -
Adelman & Smith in their very nice booklet entitled "Devil's Den - A
History and Guide" discuss this twice:
On page 74 they state:
"The land around Devil's Den, however, was never part of the GBMA's
holdings, and its preservation is more interesting and complicated.
Houck's Ridge was a popular place for the quarrying of 'Gettysburg
granite.' On one of his visits to Gettysburg, General Samuel W.
Crawford 'noticed a stone-cutter blasting away one of the rocks in
the Valley of Death for building purposes.'"
They then go on to note how Crawford negotiated, and purchased, about 47
acres of land in this area.
On page 123 (as part of their guided tour at stop #19):
"Stop # 19 - The Devil's Den Quarry. ... The name of this stop
refers to the numerous boulders which have been quarried. The rock
was used for the trolley, battlefield monuments, roads, bridges,
steps and flank markers. In fact the stone denoting the site where
General Meade took command of the Army of the Potomac at Frederick,
Maryland was quarried in this area. The large marks from chisels and
the man-made edges are clearly visible on hundreds of rocks on both
sides of the trolley path."
What's not clear (to me anyhow) was if this area was used as a quarry
/prior/ to the battle...
Respectfully submitted,
Alan
PS. Any typos in the above quotes are mine and mine alone... :-)
PPS. My son and I just got back from Gettysburg, and as part of our
"mission" we took this guided tour. It was very well laid out - and the
view along the trolley path below the triangular field area was well
worth it.
Later, as part of a tour outlined in Jorgensen's "The Wheatfield of
Gettysburg - A Walking Tour" we again entered this area looking for the
Timber's foundation. After spending 60+ minutes trying to find it - and
believe you me, we must have stepped over/on/around it at some point
without realizing - we "gave up." In any event, walking over that
terrain certainly adds to one impression of the Confederate troops who
assaulted the Den and Rose's woods area - besides the undulating terrain
and rocky clusters, if the thorns and brambles that are there now were
there then I certainly pity their shins as well...
PPPS. And with the reconstruction of the landscape, these tour guides
need some tweaking - with the tree removal certain guide posts are
removed, and with the addition of fencing, certain areas are "less
accessible." As an example, during the Wheatfield tour, one is expected
to go from the Zook monument along the Wheatfield road, and head
directly to the Winslow Battery Memorial - almost due south.
Unfortunately (fortunately?) there is now a Virginia/worm fence smack
dab in the way - requiring one to walk down to Ayre's Ave and then back
up. Not a big deal, to be sure...
----------------------------------------------------------------
You may unsubscribe by going to
http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg
You can add yourself to the GDG map at:
http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup
View archived posts from May 2004 - present at
http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:51:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: The Mills <kkamills at embarqmail.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Querried Rocks
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Message-ID:
<11629210.55071185889875209.JavaMail.root at md09.embarq.synacor.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Alan:
I have been to the Timber foundation. I am not sure the road name, but
as you go around Devil's Den, you come to a 4 way intersection. You can
go straight to the Wheatfield, left towards Rose Woods (right is one
way). If you turn left, you parallel the Triangular Field.
If you follow this road, you pass the old trolley bed and just as the
road turns right and heads up the hill towards the Rose Farm, you would
venture left into what used to be the woods, but is now cleared (I think
there is still woods for about the first 50 - 75 yards).
Go about 200 - 300 yards into the woods / clearing and you will come to
see the remains of a stone fence that the farmers used to use. I would
guess this is the remains of the Timber's stone fence, but I am not sure
of this (I just assume this because it is very close to the foundation).
If you get to the little plateu, you can see the remains of the
foundation. It is very hard to tell, because it is literally at ground
level and only about 10 yards wide and 20 yards long. It is very small.
But just as you crest the plateu after you encounter the stone fence
line is the foundation.
The last time I saw the clearing in this area, the foundation would have
been right at the edge of the tree line. I did not walk out to see the
foundation, but I would assume the clearing did not disturb the
foundation in any way.
I hope this helps
Thanks
Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan D. Brunelle <Alan.Brunelle at hp.com>
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:20:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: GDG- Querried Rocks
PPS. My son and I just got back from Gettysburg, and as part of our
"mission" we took this guided tour. It was very well laid out - and the
view along the trolley path below the triangular field area was well
worth it.
Later, as part of a tour outlined in Jorgensen's "The Wheatfield of
Gettysburg - A Walking Tour" we again entered this area looking for the
Timber's foundation. After spending 60+ minutes trying to find it - and
believe you me, we must have stepped over/on/around it at some point
without realizing - we "gave up." In any event, walking over that
terrain certainly adds to one impression of the Confederate troops who
assaulted the Den and Rose's woods area - besides the undulating terrain
and rocky clusters, if the thorns and brambles that are there now were
there then I certainly pity their shins as well...
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:11:13 -0400
From: "Alan D. Brunelle" <Alan.Brunelle at hp.com>
Subject: Re: GDG- Querried Rocks
To: GDG <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Message-ID: <46AF5111.2090305 at hp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
The Mills wrote:
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>
>
> Alan:
>
> I have been to the Timber foundation. I am not sure the road name,
but as you go around Devil's Den, you come to a 4 way intersection. You
can go straight to the Wheatfield, left towards Rose Woods (right is one
way). If you turn left, you parallel the Triangular Field.
>
> If you follow this road, you pass the old trolley bed and just as the
road turns right and heads up the hill towards the Rose Farm, you would
venture left into what used to be the woods, but is now cleared (I think
there is still woods for about the first 50 - 75 yards).
>
> Go about 200 - 300 yards into the woods / clearing and you will come
to see the remains of a stone fence that the farmers used to use. I
would guess this is the remains of the Timber's stone fence, but I am
not sure of this (I just assume this because it is very close to the
foundation). If you get to the little plateu, you can see the remains
of the foundation. It is very hard to tell, because it is literally at
ground level and only about 10 yards wide and 20 yards long. It is very
small. But just as you crest the plateu after you encounter the stone
fence line is the foundation.
>
> The last time I saw the clearing in this area, the foundation would
have been right at the edge of the tree line. I did not walk out to see
the foundation, but I would assume the clearing did not disturb the
foundation in any way.
>
> I hope this helps
>
> Thanks
> Andy
>
>
Hi Andy -
You're welcome, and thanks to you for more information on the site.
Here's what Jorgensen had for directions:
"To begin your search for the foundation of the Timbers house you
will need to enter into the woods to the left of Cross Avenue
[that's the road you were referring to] just before it bends [onto
Brook Avenue]. With your back to the road, walk into the woods
heading for the elevated ground ahead of you. The foundation is
approximately 150 yards in front of the road (across a stone wall)
and approximately 50 yards below the pasture that is uphill to your
right. At the top of a rise in the terrain, you can see the remains
of the stone foundation."
I have a whole bunch of pictures of this area - 158 to be exact - as I
was trying to chronicle our tour of this area. If I had known the size
of the walls that would have been helpful (thanks for pointing that
out). What wasn't/isn't clear is that if I recall correctly, about 50
yards from the wall bordering the "pasture that is uphill to your right"
the terrain slopes down pretty fast. That was our biggest problem. We
did expand our search throughout the area roughly square with Cross
avenue behind us, the trolley path to the east, the ridge that runs
almost due west from the current tree cutting area, and then the stone
wall bordering the pasture aforementioned.
I'm beginning to think we went wrong from the start: we went almost due
south from Cross Ave, and I'm wondering if we should not have been
heading more in a southwesterly direction (perpendicular to the bend in
the road rather than the road itself)?
Interestingly enough, later we were on a tour being led by an LBG (Ellen
? - I didn't get her last name) and I pinged her on this, and her
response was "You can't find it unless someone shows it to you." :-)
I have the picture in Jorgensens book, and I have those pictures noted
above, and maybe now I can figure out if any of them contains the site.
[Although, as noted above, I'm concerned now that were /never/ even near
the thing - going 150 yards south (or even 200-300 yards, as you note)
as opposed to southwest would have put our initial start of the search
quite aways away from where we should have been. And then we did most of
our searching to the east & south of that position - figuring the
pasture at the top of the hill was not the place to look... :-( ]
Alan
------------------------------
Message: 18
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:24:01 -0600
From: Dennis Lawrence <denlaw at fone.net>
Subject: GDG- already dead in the South
To: gettysburg at gdg.org
Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.2.20070731091952.02ab3b50 at pop3.fone.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Henry Asbury, Esq Springfield,
My dear Sir July 31. 1858.
Yours of the 28th. is received. The points you propose to press upon
Douglas, he will be very hard to get up to. But I think you labor under
a
mistake when you say no one cares how he answers. This implies that it
is
equal with him whether he is injured here or at the South. That is a
mistake. He cares nothing for the South---he knows he is already dead
there. He only leans Southward now to keep the Buchanan party from
growing
in Illinois. You shall have hard work to get him directly to the point
whether a teritorial Legislature has or has not the power to exclude
slavery. But if you succeed in bringing him to it, though he will be
compelled to say it possesses no such power; he will instantly take
ground
that slavery can not actually exist in the teritories, unless the people
desire it, and so give it protective teritorial legislation. If this
offends the South he will let it offend them; as at all events he means
to
hold on to his chances in Illinois. You will soon learn by the papers
that
both the Judge and myself, are to be in Quincy on the 13th. of October,
when & where I expect the pleasure of seeing you.
Yours very truly A. LINCOLN.
Annotation
[1] ALS, ORB. Henry Asbury was an attorney of Quincy, Illinois.
Accompanying the original letter is a signed statement by Asbury dated
July, 1883, stating that, ``The main Question I had urged Mr. Lincoln to
put to Judge Douglas . . . was the Question 2 at Freeport `Can the
people
of a United States territory in any lawful way against the wish of any
citizen of the united States exclude Slavery from its limits prior to
the
formation of a state constitution.' ''
<< Previous section Next section
------------------------------
You may unsubscribe at
http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg
End of Gettysburg Digest, Vol 38, Issue 42
******************************************
More information about the Gettysburg
mailing list