tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693055636846442705.post1403261399199630709..comments2024-02-21T08:35:35.568-05:00Comments on Spotsylvania Civil War Blog: Jackson's Line At First Manassas - A Radical Re-examination John Cummingshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15664001896165763192noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693055636846442705.post-13474477482285900852018-12-09T05:11:38.632-05:002018-12-09T05:11:38.632-05:00Mr. Hennessy,
Thank you for responding, and it wa...Mr. Hennessy,<br /><br />Thank you for responding, and it was you (in part) that I allude to with this remark from my third paragraph in, "Historians noted for their expertise of this battle readily admit that they are not certain of the placement of the woodlines during the battle, and published maps since July 1861 have been vague at best." And by "understood" my point being what has evolved into the popular culture's understanding of how this battle played out. And that is "popular culture" absorbed by the some 900,000 annual visitors the MNBP enjoys. I am delighted you verify the discussion has been active among park historians, and others, as I would have assumed, and know, based on the brief discussions we have had on the subject over the past seven or so years. I also have seen Mr. Burgess fully credit the Harris map and its merits, as for example he states on page 16 of "The Sentinel", Summer 2011 issue, it is "regarded as one of the most accurate maps of the battlefield".<br />So, no, I have not considered myself "busting a cartel", but simply discussing something that, once I did my own examination of the ground with an overlay, found to be quite an awakening. <br />Whether the discussion has existed within inner circles or not, is not my purpose. Not having the benefit of these discussions I went about it myself, and I have come to have a better understanding of the ground, an area of the field that I have never explored to such length, primarily for the fact of the well worn path that takes visitors along the line of cannons and interpretive signage painting the picture of Jackson standing "like a stone wall" along that line. <br />As for "inevitable surveying errors", yes there are those. The strength though in the Harris map is in its anchoring of structures and distances. It is far from a "sketch" map. His less than perfect delineation of streams is excusable (to me) because that precision had less importance in the long term than do the structures (Henry, Robinson, and Stone House), and lines of sight around clusters of trees.<br />Yes, there is a "mountain" of documentary evidence out there to place upon the Harris map, indeed there is, and properly weighed, what small portion of that mountain I have seen, the Harris map is very deserving of merit.<br />Again, thank you for responding, I was waiting with bated breath for your comment, now and in the future. <br />John Cummingshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15664001896165763192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693055636846442705.post-285137572008640132018-12-08T21:27:24.590-05:002018-12-08T21:27:24.590-05:00The only major argument I would make here is to re...The only major argument I would make here is to refute your assertion that the landscape as it exists on Henry Hill reflects the “understood field” for most historians, NPS and otherwise. First, the NPS has done little to achieve any specific landscape treatment on Henry Hill, beyond maintaining what evolved between the 1930s and 1970s. Second, there is and as always has been (since I have been around) profound questions in my and others’ minds as to the accurate presentation of the 1861 landscape. Everyone I know, including myself, knows and has known that the present patterns of forest and field do not represent the historic patterns. It is not a revelation that the left of Jackson’s line did not follow the present tree line, and that the tree line was farther east than it is today. <br /><br />There is no universally “understood field.” While your arguments are interesting and worth considering, you are not busting apart an intellectual and historiographical cartel in presenting it. Welcome to the conversation. <br /><br />Of all the available historic maps, the Harris map has been used more than any other by the park and others. It’s excellent. <br /><br />You might be right, John, But bear in mind too that there is a mountain of documentary evidence that helps illuminate and clarify this and the other historic maps out there. And finally, having used Harris extensively, and having overlaid it upon modern aerials, it has inevitable surveying errors that are difficult to reconcile. <br /><br />Jim Burgess has done more work on locating Jackson’s line and artillery than anyone. He and I have debated these issues for decades. I will be curious what he thinks, if he chooses to respond. <br /><br />Having said all this, I appreciate the thought and work put into this. I look forward to pondering all this.....<br /><br />John Hennessy<br /><br />John Hennessynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4693055636846442705.post-45569393819470703512018-12-07T15:27:00.919-05:002018-12-07T15:27:00.919-05:00Very interesting John. This definitely deserves m...Very interesting John. This definitely deserves more study. I've always felt that the current location of the guns made them exceptionally exposed to return fire. Do you know if any archeological surveys have been done on this area of the field?Bill Lawsonnoreply@blogger.com