History Channel 10 days: Antietam

[RJSamp]

OK so the boys are marching and dying in Miller's Corn Field.....

Isn't this supposed to be in a CHECKERBOARD planting pattern.....not in rows???

So why are all of the pictures of reenactors, and the expert's commentaries.....depicting combat in corn rows??

RJ Samp (who has hand planted corn in rows, checkerboards, and hills.....and used dead fish and beached lake weed for fertilizer)

[John1862]

Who knows...anyhow I refused to watch the latter half of the documentary, I couldnt keep my eyes open, and no reenactments?

[tenfed1861]

I didn't really like it.Tried to make the Brady photos appear 3-d,and the director tried to make it too artsy.I also hated the fact tah tthey tried to tie Gettysburg in with Sharpsburg.I know it was the bloodiest battle and all,but come on.Not everything in the Civil War revolves around Gettysburg.
Cullen Smith

[dedogtent]

I liked the way they used the old time looking images. It was far better than looking at old fat reenactors in full color. I give the show an 8 out of 10. My opinion of course...

[TJ Bartel]

Corn would have been planted in rows. I seriously doubt they planted that large of a field by hand. They most likely had a pull behind(horse or mule) corn planter.
And even if they did plant it by hand, it would have been planted in rows, I have never seen corn not planted that way.

[ca4penn]

(who has hand planted corn in rows, checkerboards, and hills.....and used dead fish and beached lake weed for fertilizer)

Why?

I was a farmer years past. Why would one plant corn in a checkerboard or a hill. How many acres at one time did you plant?

Mind you that my farming days were with diesel tractors and mechanical drills. I've seen many mid-19th century planting machines. The era of the Civil War was at the start of the industrial revolution. If a field was cleared then why would one go for a less efficient pattern for planting corn?

The non-standard planting patterns only make sense if you are planting corn in an uncleared field. The dead fish and beached lake weed for fertilizer is only possible if the field is by a lake. I've been to that area and don't recall seeing any large lakes.

[TJ Bartel]

Yeah, by 1862 they would NOT have been using dead fish for fertilzer. Most likely manure would have been the fertilizer of choice.
And the mechanizing of farming really got going big as a result of the CW, less men to work the fields.
And, also the harvesting part of farming would be much more difficult if the corn wasn't planted in rows.

[JMByrnes]

Cullen,

I think you are putting too much emphasise on the mentioning of Gettysburg. The director wasn't out to make the documentary about Gettysburg, but rather to show how the objectives of the Confederacy during the battle at Sharpsburg are exactly the same nearly a year later when they make another attempt at a decisive victory in a northern state. They are simply trying to show to you how aspects and trends at Sharpsburg figure into a larger picture.

The objectives and goals of the Confederacy that carry over from Sharpsburg must be fully understood in order to understand the battle of Gettysburg. The war was a very politically influenced war, and in my opinion the documentary gave us a great example of such.

Two Abe Lincolns worth,

[tenfed1861]

True.The Confederacy was basiclly doing the same at G'burg as Antietam.Try to win a battle on northern soil to get British reconition.I understand that is what the director was trying to do,but it just felt to me that he was trying to make Gettysburg the center of the Civil War world.It is a VERY,VERY important battle,not just in American history,but also in world history.But as we all know there is a on going debate as to whether Gettysburg or Vicksburg was more important into winning the war.

That is just me though.We each interpert info in our own ways.I still feel like he was trying to make it too artsy though, .
Cullen Smith
the "Just trying to make since of this world we live in" Mess

[7thMDYankee]

Vicksburg vs. Gettysburg? I'd offer up that each was significant in its own way. The better question we should ask is if the war would have ended any sooner or later had one or the other not happened?

Right now I'm teaching WWII in the Pacific to my students. I put the question to them: Which was more important for the US; island hopping campaign or the Manhatten Project? The point was to get the kids to realize that they acted in tandem. Singularly each might have ended the war alone, but other things would also have had to occur.

I feel the same could be said of the Vicksburg/Gettysburg debate.

Just my two cents worth of thoughts...