GDG- Shead's Woods and the "Harvest of Death" photograph

Charles T. Joyce CTJoyce at spearwilderman.com
Fri Jan 6 07:21:42 CST 2012


John,
Thanks for giving us some of the concerns. To my very unsophisticated eye, though, the trees seem to be there. That's in part why I posted the detail from the Bachelder Map. Likewise the tree line.
Would love to get a list of all the concerns. Why won't someone publish it in a comment to Hartwigs blog post?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 6, 2012, at 8:12 AM, "John Rudy" <john.m.rudy at gmail.com> wrote:

> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> Jim,
> 
> Bill does have many very specific problems with the theory, in a highly
> detailed bulleted list.  He's outlined them to me for the better part of a
> riveting hour and a half several different times, and many points are quite
> convincing.  The details are loose in my mind, but I do remember three of
> his main concerns:  1) in the background of the photo, the slope of Oak
> Ridge at the Chambersburg Pike is off by a considerable amount, 2) the
> woods behind the widow Thompson's home do not match what Bill thinks were
> their 1863 footprint and 3) if the photo is of the first day's field, there
> should be four trees in a straight line in the middle ground of the photo
> near the Chambersburg Pike which appear on many early maps (most notably
> Bachelder's isometric).  These four trees are distinctly missing from the
> Harvest of Death, and Bill is quite convincing in his argument that
> Bachelder's other arrangements of foliage are relatively accurate.
> 
> It's worth talking to Bill, though.  His expertise on the photographic
> history of the field far outweighs mine, and his powers of persuasion are
> quite considerable.
> 
> -John
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 7:20 PM, <cameron2 at optimum.net> wrote:
> 
>> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>> A few months ago Wayne Wachsmuth and I got together on the field to
>> compare both the Spangler's farm location on the southern end of the field
>> with Scott Hartwig's proposed location on the first day's field.
>> 
>> We hit the Spangler farm area first.  Unfortunately, at the same time as
>> such a  heavy rainstorm that that it was more like the Western Front than
>> Gettysburg.  We honestly couldn't make out too much under those conditions,
>> so I'd rate that part of the effort as inconclusive.  Although, it did
>> impart a good understanding of how thw wounded could have drowned in the
>> heavy rains after the battle.
>> 
>> Fortunately, the rain had let up by the time we got up to the first day's
>> field.  I do have to say that in my purely layman's opinion, Scott's
>> analysis seems to have a lot to recommend it, particularly in the view up
>> across the Chambersburg Pike toward Sheads Woods.  There have been some
>> changes ove time, to be sure, but a lot of it seems to fall into place.
>> 
>> OTOH, I'm told that Bill Frassanito has a list of several (a dozen of so,
>> IIRC) specific points where Scott's analysis doesn't fit.  Which seems to
>> agree with what he's said in the past that no matter how close any of the
>> candidate locations looks, including the Spangler farm site, some specific
>> detail or details end up ruling all of them out.  Now, that may well be,
>> but I'd sure like to know the specifics of Frassanito's objections to
>> Scott's theory.  Because if it isn't plausable - which it at least looks to
>> be to me - I'd like to know exactly why it isn't.
>> 
>> Jim Cameron
>> 
> ----------------http://www.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg_arthes.com -to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives



More information about the Gettysburg mailing list