Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1302Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: was burnside at fault for antietam???

Expand Messages
  • T.R. Livesey
    Mar 29, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      About the only thing _more_ that the Federals could have accomplished would
      have been the destruction of the Confederate army...and that was an unlikely
      prospect, regardless of anything McClellan or Burnside might have done.

      The Potomac was still quite some distance behind the heights
      along the Harper's Ferry Road; Federal troops still had quite a task
      ahead of them
      in trapping Lee against the river, even if they had secured the region
      around the
      bridge. Burnside's troops never came close to even reaching the high ground
      in front of them. Even if Hill hadn't shown up, Lee still had plenty of
      good
      ground to consolidate and regroup over.

      T.R. Livesey
      tlivesey@...


      Brian Downey wrote:

      >For the sake of discussion, I think it's fair to consider the original
      >poster's question in this way (assumption mine):
      >
      >If we assume that _more_ could have been done by the Federals, that a
      >more decisive result could have been had, then fault is certainly open
      >to debate.
      >
      >I think it's simplistic to suggest Burnside was tardy at the Lower
      >Bridge early on 17 September, and that's why the battle went as it
      >did. I can see that McClellan later tried to pin blame there, but
      >unfairly.
      >
      >I think it's also an overstatement to say that McClelan was too slow
      >to react to his receipt of Lee's Orders, and that was the primary
      >problem. (See a sidebar piece about that, btw, for some interesting
      >facts, over on AotW at http://aotw.org/exhibit.php?exhibit_id=358)
      >
      >There were a myriad of things large and small. We can certainly
      >discuss them indivdually (if everyone isn't asleep first!). My opinion
      >is that they were all fundamentally a problem of McClellan's lack of
      >Command and Control. He did not exercise overall command and he was
      >not in control of either his troops or the situation. His enemy had
      >something to do with this too, of course, but the General Commanding
      >had choices he did not make, opportunities he did not exploit. Some
      >of these seem quite obvious to us now, and would surely have created
      >quite a different outcome. Hindsight is so perfect.
      >
      >This is a large part of the fascination of the Battle for me - and the
      >cause of the frustration and sadness I feel when I think about the
      >huge sacrifice on both sides, and what 'might have been'.
      >
      >Brian
      >
      >
      >--- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, <richard@r...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >>ooooooooohhhhhhhh -- TR -- GOOD POINT! I've never been a big fan a
      >>fault-finding myself, especailly if little or nothing can be learned
      >>
      >>
      >from
      >
      >
      >>it.
      >>
      >>----- Original Message -----
      >>From: <tlivesey@w...>
      >>To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
      >>Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 10:02 AM
      >>Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: was burnside at fault for
      >>
      >>
      >antietam???
      >
      >
      >>
      >>
      >>>Hmmm...seems to me that before one tries to assign 'fault', one
      >>>must identify failure. Antietam was a huge victory for the North,
      >>>and a serious blow to the South. Where is the failure in that?
      >>>
      >>>Regards,
      >>> T.R. Livesey
      >>> tlivesey@w...
      >>>
      >>>Quoting richard@r...:
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>>Alright -- let's put a stop to this. McClallan was at fault at
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>Antietam.
      >>
      >>
      >>>>For failure to respond quickly to 191 and for failure to follow
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >up
      >
      >
      >>>>Richardson's breech at the Bloody Lane.
      >>>>
      >>>>Period.
      >>>>
      >>>>----- Original Message -----
      >>>>From: "justin_heinzen10" <justin_heinzen10@h...>
      >>>>To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
      >>>>Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:37 AM
      >>>>Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: was burnside at fault for
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >antietam???
      >
      >
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>>mcclellan wrote: "..but i think his [burnside] weak mind was
      >>>>>turned;that he was confused in action; and that subsequently
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >he
      >
      >
      >>>>>really did not know what had occured."
      >>>>>mcclellans bias against burnside was also evident after he was
      >>>>>removed from commander of army of potomac when he stated he
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >gave the
      >
      >
      >>>>>order for burnside to attack at 8 am instead of 10 am which
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >he had
      >
      >
      >>>>>previously stated. rodmans presense and walkers march to the
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >middle
      >
      >
      >>>>>of lee's line makes this a bit of a stretch but it is clear
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >that he
      >
      >
      >>>>>is trying to shift some of the blame.
      >>>>>a few political cartoons or army sketches from that time also
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >convey
      >
      >
      >>>>>burnside as the "bungling blunder" for his actions at
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >antietam.
      >
      >
      >>>>>it also seems more and more today that mcclellans faulty
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >battle plan
      >
      >
      >>>>>and misuse of his troops are overlooked and more blame is but
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >on
      >
      >
      >>>>>burnside. well, you know my views...does that clear my
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >question up?
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 22 messages in this topic