I stand corrected re Mansfield time of death. When I think back, I was aware of this fact but somehow missed it when writting the article (the fact remains, the circumstances described in Sumner’s order still conform best to 9:10 a.m. than does the communication to Burnside.) As for the article itself, I highly encourage all to read the online version which is both an extended and fully annotated version (there is a considerable amount of additional information in those annotations that go far in supporting my theories.) By the way, this was the first and likely the last time in its history that Civil War Times has published a fully annotated piece and it was strictly thanks to Chris Lewis (then editor of the magazine) that this was made possible.

Brian,

I am always open to constructive critism or exchange of ideas and would welcome hearing from you via email insofar as those points on which you disagree. You can contact me at moedaoust@sympatico.ca.

I am pleased that the article has spurred some interest. In truth, that was the intent. I did not, for one minute think that the article would succeed in changing history but did hope it would spark controversy. Perhaps, someday, one of you or some historian who also happened to read the article will come upon Wilson’s diary and recognizing it’s importance, will find that entry wherein Wilson states that the inital order was indeed delivered at 8 a.m. I know it is out there somewhere. If and when that day comes then my mission will truly have been accomplished.

Quite right about Mansfield. The extent of Hooker’s wound probably needs another look, though it’s clear to me that Hooker thought it debilitating, at least. ‘Course that could all be Smalley talking(!).

I saw some other statements in the D’Aoust article to disagree with, also, but I think I buy the basic premises about the orders concerning and the timing of the attack(s) on the Bridge.

As far as I know, the article is in CWT already and on newsstands. I linked to the online version, not being a subscriber (gasp).

As usual, excellent research re Wilson! Unfortunately, Mr. Moe D’Aoust’s research isn’t quite as thorough as yours. For example, he says that “In truth, it is the order to Sumner that most accurately describes the situation on the Federal right at 9:10. By then, XII Corps commander Joseph Mansfield was dead and I Corps commander Joseph Hooker had been carried from the field with a debilitating wound.”

As we know, Mansfield was mortally wounded, not dead on the field; he died on 9/18. And there is some debate about how serious Hooker’s wound was. Moe’s article which may appear in CWTI according to Rotov (is CWTI now doing footnotes?) should engender some comments from those who don’t believe that Burnside did such a bad job such as Dennis Frye, etc.

Larry Freiheit