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

1303Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: was burnside at fault for antietam???

Expand Messages
  • david lutton
    Mar 30, 2004
      True, Antietam was a huge Political victory for the north and can I believe
      be argued to be the major turning point of the war.
      However from a military standpoint, I think Mac was found wanting in this
      battle for a variety of reasons. I agree with the assessment made about him
      by a railroad exc. during the campaign of '64. I think it went something
      like this, " Mac built great bridges for our railroad, he was however a
      little hesitant about sending over the first train!" If my memory servce
      me correctly this paraphase came from Long's book on the campaign of 64,
      Jewel of Liberty.

      Glad to see a little life in the group lately!!!

      David Lutton
      Hollidaysburg Pa
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: <tlivesey@...>
      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@...
      >
      > Quoting richard@...:
      >
      > > 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@...>
      > > 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
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ----------------------------------------------------------------
      > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Show all 22 messages in this topic