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

Re: [TalkAntietam] fault for antietam???

Expand Messages
  • rchurch@qis.net
    Greetings Justin and all, The idea of fault is an interesting one. It depends in large degree on how broad a brush you use to paint it. It seems to me that
    Message 1 of 22 , Mar 29, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Greetings Justin and all,

      The idea of fault is an interesting one. It depends in large degree on how
      broad a brush you use to paint it. It seems to me that in the very broadest
      context of the word, the "fault" for Antietam would be with one person Robt. E.
      Lee. If a considerably finer brush is used, Burnside could rightly be
      criticized for his conduct at the bridge and immediately following the
      crossing. But to expand that "fault" and try to pin the blame for Mac's not
      obtaining an even more decisive victory on him, I don't think is justified.

      Ron Church
      Manchester MD
    • justin_heinzen10
      to play a devils advocate...what about the men he did not use to reinforce burnside especially porters corps???
      Message 2 of 22 , Mar 29, 2004
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        to play a devils advocate...what about the men he did not use to
        reinforce burnside especially porters corps???
      • Ollie
        ... From: justin_heinzen10 To: TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:37 AM Subject: [TalkAntietam] Re: was burnside at fault for
        Message 3 of 22 , Mar 29, 2004
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: 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?


          Read the following. then make up your own mind!

          As the Army of the Potomac was advancing towards Antietam, Burnside commanded the Right Wing consisting of the First and Ninth Corps. He had performed admirably at South Mountain. However, when the orders for deployment were handed out he was placed in a quandary. The First Corps was moved to the extreme northern part of the field and the Ninth, now commanded by Cox, was placed at the extreme southern part. Which should he be with? And how could he control the Corps he was separated from? McClellan gave the answer to the first when he instructed Burnside to create a diversion at the South Bridge. But, this in itself was almost as confusing. Who would be in command of the IX Corps? Cox had only assumed command, replacing Reno who was killed on the mountain. Burnside requested Cavalry to scout for Snavely's Ford, reported to be somewhere south of the bridge. Mac informed Burnside that his engineers had already scouted the creek and found the ford. Unfortunately what they found was not Snavely's Ford but a bend in the creek that looked like it was fordable. In actuality the creek was deep at this point. Too deep for Infantry and Cannon to cross. So Ambrose was forced to look for Snavely's with Infantry. Meanwhile he would attempt to take the bridge. Since he was not ordered to mount a concerted attack on Lee's right flank, he reasoned that steady pressure on the bridge would be enough to create the expected diversion.

          Opposing Burnside were 600 Georgians commanded by Politician-General Toombs and Gen. Benning. On paper the 9,000 man Ninth Corps should have been able to brush aside this puny defense. In reality Toombs outnumbered Burnside by about 60 to 1. Now before someone thinks I have forgotten how to add, look at the situation. Toombs is situated on what amounts to a 50 to 75 feet hill overlooking the bridge, actually more of a cliff than a hill facing the bridge. While not sheer it was steep enough to make climbing it a difficult task. At most Burnside's attacking force could only create a column of about 10 men across to attack the bridge. The 600 men on the hill need only worry about the 10 men in the front rank, thus the odds were 60-1 favoring the Confederates. Burnside did try crossing the creek about midway between the Middle and South bridges using Crook's Brigade. They managed to get to the middle of the creek before Confederate Artillery opened up and forced them back. Isaac Rodman's Division was sent down the creek to find Snavely's

          About the time the Union attacks on the Sunken Road were winding down, McClellan decided that he no longer needed a diversion at South Bridge but now needed a breakthrough to carry the day. Thus he sent word to Burnside to carry the bridge at all costs. Now Ambrose started attacking the bridge in earnest while hoping that Rodman would find the ford. McClellan sent several messengers urging him to cross the creek. Burnside repeatedly replied that he was doing his best. Finally he ordered the brigade of Edward Ferrero to storm the bridge. Ferrero's brigade consisted of two regiments, the 51st New York and 51st Pennsylvania. Legend says that before they attacked Ferrero addressed them and told them to take the bridge. Someone called out "If we take the bridge will you give us our whiskey?" Ferrero answered, "Yes you will have your whiskey". He had withdrawn their whiskey ration as punishment. So in order to get their whiskey back they successfully stormed the bridge. While this is a nice human-interest legend in truth Benning's Brigade was nearly out of ammunition as were other elements of Toombs' Division. And Rodman was across the creek and beginning to pressure the Confederate right. Ferrero's Brigade attacked with the New Yorkers on the Left and the Pennsylvanians on the right. Straight down the hill facing the bridge, across 3oo yards of open field towards the bridge and across it. The Pennsylvanians emptied their rifles as soon as they were over the bridge, but he New Yorkers kept moving up the steep hill. Benning's me had no choice but to retreat under covering fire from confederate artillery on what is now Cemetery Hill.

          Here victory was Burnside's for the taking! Nothing of any consequence stood between him and Sharpsburg but a few scattered Infantry regiments and the Artillery. Here fate seemed to again come to Lee's assistance. The lead elements of Burnside's attack were out of ammunition. They would have to be pulled back and replaced with fresh troops. Rather than leave them in position and filter the fresh troops into position Burnside decided to do things "by the book". A direct result of his treatment by McClellan. He pulled back the lead elements and sent fresh troops at the same time. The bridge became a 2-way street with the obvious bottleneck. Finally around 4 o'clock he was ready to attack.

          When Jackson left Harper's Ferry he assigned A.P. Hill to issue paroles to the captured Yankees, gather as many supplies as he could then come to Sharpsburg as soon as possible. All day Hill's men were marching north in a forced march that defies description. About the time that Burnside was taking the bridge his good friend Hill was crossing the Potomac at Boteler's Ford. Burnside's delay had given Hill the time to repeat Cedar Mountain.

          Initially Burnside's attacks on Lee's right flank were successful. Jones' men were being steadily pushed back. Soon Burnside would turn the Confederate right and cut off any escape rout for what remained of Lee's army. When all seemed darkest for Lee a new group of men were seen advancing through a cornfield on the Union Left. Lee could not raise his field glasses to see who they were so he asked his aide to look to see what flags they were flying. The reply was "They are flying the United States Flag" then "No they are flying the Flag of Virginia." Lee seemed to relax and said "It's Hill from Harper's Ferry". Indeed it was Hill! The farthermost Union troops were the 8th Connecticut, 4th Rhode Island and 16th Connecticut. The 8th managed to advance far enough to take one of the guns of Capt. D. G. McIntosh, but was forced back loosing 173 of their 350 men. Next came the 16th and 4th. The 16th was a totally fresh unit. They were only mustered in a scant 4 weeks earlier. They had never learned to drill. Comprised of students from a High School, they were virtually wiped out that afternoon. The 4th Rhode Island was also forced back. Burnside's left flank was crumbling. His right had some help from the Fifth Corps but he was not able to advance farther.

          Burnside fell back to the heights above the bridge that will forever hold his name. Hill did not pursue. The fighting began to die down.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • T.R. Livesey
          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
          Message 4 of 22 , Mar 29, 2004
          View Source
          • 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]
          • david lutton
            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
            Message 5 of 22 , Mar 30, 2004
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              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
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • T.R. Livesey
              I fully agree that the Federal army could have accomplished more, that a more decisive victory might have been won...this is true of just about any battle.
              Message 6 of 22 , Mar 30, 2004
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                I fully agree that the Federal army could have accomplished more, that a
                more decisive victory might have been won...this is true of just about
                any battle. The question is: what is a reasonable expectation?
                If Antietam was a huge political victory for the north, what reasonable
                additional outcome eluded Mac/Burnside?

                TR Livesey
                tlivesey@...

                david lutton wrote:

                >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
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • richard@rcroker.com
                I think that at the moment Mc was handed 191, it was a reasonable expectation that he might destroy the ANV in detail. Longstreet then Jackson. Or at least
                Message 7 of 22 , Mar 30, 2004
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  I think that at the moment Mc was handed 191, it was a "reasonable
                  expectation" that he might destroy the ANV in detail. Longstreet then
                  Jackson. Or at least Longstreet (depending on how Jack responded). 120,000
                  men to 40,000 men = "reasonable expectation." But remember this...Many
                  argue that it wasn't McClellan's plan to destroy the ANV -- it was his plan
                  (according to some and believed by Lincoln) to fight the entire war to a
                  draw and force a political resolution (leaving slavery intact -- at least
                  for the moment). I don't necessarily adhere to this accusation, but
                  "actions speak louder..." My personal belief is that Mc feared defeat more
                  than he wanted victory. That's all. That's enough to give any man "the
                  slows."

                  Richard Croker
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "T.R. Livesey" <tlivesey@...>
                  To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:33 PM
                  Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: was burnside at fault for antietam???


                  > I fully agree that the Federal army could have accomplished more, that a
                  > more decisive victory might have been won...this is true of just about
                  > any battle. The question is: what is a reasonable expectation?
                  > If Antietam was a huge political victory for the north, what reasonable
                  > additional outcome eluded Mac/Burnside?
                  >
                  > TR Livesey
                  > tlivesey@...
                  >
                  > david lutton wrote:
                  >
                  > >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
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                • T.R. Livesey
                  And exactly how would SO191 allow Mac to destroy the ANV? By the time Mac got the order, it was already out of date; the operation should have wrapped up
                  Message 8 of 22 , Mar 30, 2004
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    And exactly how would SO191 allow Mac to 'destroy' the ANV? By the time
                    Mac got the order, it was already out of date; the operation should have
                    wrapped
                    up around the 12th. Mac had reason to believe that Harper's Ferry had
                    not fallen,
                    so obviously reality had deviated from the plan. So what good was knowing an
                    out of date plan? As it was, the plan did not place Jackson in HF, nor
                    Hill on
                    South Mountain.

                    Anyway, it is not reasonable that the AoP could have taken out Longstreet
                    and Jackson. Unless they both sat still (not something the ANV had a
                    reputation for), Mac would have had to divide his own force to go after
                    both of them. The only wing of Lee's army that was in real danger was
                    McLaws, who was quite isolated an somewhat trapped on Maryland Heights;
                    all the other wings had mountains and/or rivers to screen their movements.

                    If any 'blame' were to be assigned, I'd say Franklin's Corps missed the 1
                    really big opportunity in forcing Crampton's Gap, trapping McLaws and
                    breaking up Lee's whole campaign. This would not, however, had
                    led to the 'destruction' of the ANV.

                    There is no evidence that Lincoln believed that Mac had anterior designs.
                    Lincoln certainly believed in the need to squelch any appearance that
                    such designs would be tolerated, hence the prosecution of Major John Key.
                    Later in the war, Lincoln even jested about the possibility of a General
                    taking matters in his own hands in his letter appointing Hooker to
                    AoP command; this was not something Lincoln expressed great
                    concern over.

                    As for the belief Mac feared defeat more than wanting victory, I agree
                    in general but it depends on how you define victory and defeat. The
                    Union could afford a battle in which Lee was sent scurrying back
                    south but not destroyed; it could not afford another 2nd Manassas.
                    Lee needed the big victory, so taking the big gamble made sense;
                    the South could not win a conservatively fought war. Mac had no
                    such needs. If the South could be ground down on each battle,
                    northern victory would eventually take root. Given the shock
                    of 2nd Manassas and the invasion by Lee's army, a cautious
                    approach was warranted. If Mac's overall objective was to
                    eject Lee and seriously wound him, while suffering no catastrophe
                    of his own, then he was 'victorious'.

                    General comment about one ACW army destroying another: it wasn't
                    going to happen. ACW armies were too blunt and awkward instruments
                    to inflict a 'kill' on the enemy. Numerous opportunities presented
                    themselves:
                    Mac's retreat across Lee's front at the Seven days, Chancellorsville,
                    Chickamauga, etc. Not until close to the end of the war, when
                    Confederate resources were seriously worn down, did any army
                    really annihilate another. There was always an river to escape across, a
                    bold
                    last stand, limited daylight, bad weather and other factors that held
                    off destruction. It was just not reasonable for 1 army to beat and
                    surround or entrap the other in such a way to prevent escape.

                    Regards,
                    TR Livesey
                    tlivesey@...


                    richard@... wrote:

                    >I think that at the moment Mc was handed 191, it was a "reasonable
                    >expectation" that he might destroy the ANV in detail. Longstreet then
                    >Jackson. Or at least Longstreet (depending on how Jack responded). 120,000
                    >men to 40,000 men = "reasonable expectation." But remember this...Many
                    >argue that it wasn't McClellan's plan to destroy the ANV -- it was his plan
                    >(according to some and believed by Lincoln) to fight the entire war to a
                    >draw and force a political resolution (leaving slavery intact -- at least
                    >for the moment). I don't necessarily adhere to this accusation, but
                    >"actions speak louder..." My personal belief is that Mc feared defeat more
                    >than he wanted victory. That's all. That's enough to give any man "the
                    >slows."
                    >
                    >Richard Croker
                    >----- Original Message -----
                    >From: "T.R. Livesey" <tlivesey@...>
                    >To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                    >Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:33 PM
                    >Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: was burnside at fault for antietam???
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >>I fully agree that the Federal army could have accomplished more, that a
                    >>more decisive victory might have been won...this is true of just about
                    >>any battle. The question is: what is a reasonable expectation?
                    >>If Antietam was a huge political victory for the north, what reasonable
                    >>additional outcome eluded Mac/Burnside?
                    >>
                    >>TR Livesey
                    >>tlivesey@...
                    >>
                    >>david lutton wrote:
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>>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
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • richard@rcroker.com
                    Good comments TR! It s good to see someone refrain from the McClellan bashing that we all find so fun and easy. I just got an e-mail from someone who has
                    Message 9 of 22 , Mar 31, 2004
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Good comments TR! It's good to see someone refrain from the McClellan
                      bashing that we all find so fun and easy. I just got an e-mail from someone
                      who has just read "To Make Men Free" and who says I was "too kind" to Little
                      Mac. I disagree, but nobody goes to work PLANNING to do a bad job -- even
                      McClellan. Nobody considers HIMSELF incompetant -- even McClellan (with the
                      possible exception of Burnside who knew full well he was incompetant).
                      Nonetheless -- if we feel we must BLAME someone for the results (or lack of
                      results) at Antietam, we can't stray too far from the Young Napoleon. I
                      took just a few arguments out of the bag, and it's still half full.
                      Can we talk about something else now?
                      VERY respectfully,
                      Richard Croker
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "T.R. Livesey" <tlivesey@...>
                      To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 1:29 AM
                      Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: was burnside at fault for antietam???


                      > And exactly how would SO191 allow Mac to 'destroy' the ANV? By the time
                      > Mac got the order, it was already out of date; the operation should have
                      > wrapped
                      > up around the 12th. Mac had reason to believe that Harper's Ferry had
                      > not fallen,
                      > so obviously reality had deviated from the plan. So what good was knowing
                      an
                      > out of date plan? As it was, the plan did not place Jackson in HF, nor
                      > Hill on
                      > South Mountain.
                      >
                      > Anyway, it is not reasonable that the AoP could have taken out Longstreet
                      > and Jackson. Unless they both sat still (not something the ANV had a
                      > reputation for), Mac would have had to divide his own force to go after
                      > both of them. The only wing of Lee's army that was in real danger was
                      > McLaws, who was quite isolated an somewhat trapped on Maryland Heights;
                      > all the other wings had mountains and/or rivers to screen their movements.
                      >
                      > If any 'blame' were to be assigned, I'd say Franklin's Corps missed the 1
                      > really big opportunity in forcing Crampton's Gap, trapping McLaws and
                      > breaking up Lee's whole campaign. This would not, however, had
                      > led to the 'destruction' of the ANV.
                      >
                      > There is no evidence that Lincoln believed that Mac had anterior designs.
                      > Lincoln certainly believed in the need to squelch any appearance that
                      > such designs would be tolerated, hence the prosecution of Major John Key.
                      > Later in the war, Lincoln even jested about the possibility of a General
                      > taking matters in his own hands in his letter appointing Hooker to
                      > AoP command; this was not something Lincoln expressed great
                      > concern over.
                      >
                      > As for the belief Mac feared defeat more than wanting victory, I agree
                      > in general but it depends on how you define victory and defeat. The
                      > Union could afford a battle in which Lee was sent scurrying back
                      > south but not destroyed; it could not afford another 2nd Manassas.
                      > Lee needed the big victory, so taking the big gamble made sense;
                      > the South could not win a conservatively fought war. Mac had no
                      > such needs. If the South could be ground down on each battle,
                      > northern victory would eventually take root. Given the shock
                      > of 2nd Manassas and the invasion by Lee's army, a cautious
                      > approach was warranted. If Mac's overall objective was to
                      > eject Lee and seriously wound him, while suffering no catastrophe
                      > of his own, then he was 'victorious'.
                      >
                      > General comment about one ACW army destroying another: it wasn't
                      > going to happen. ACW armies were too blunt and awkward instruments
                      > to inflict a 'kill' on the enemy. Numerous opportunities presented
                      > themselves:
                      > Mac's retreat across Lee's front at the Seven days, Chancellorsville,
                      > Chickamauga, etc. Not until close to the end of the war, when
                      > Confederate resources were seriously worn down, did any army
                      > really annihilate another. There was always an river to escape across, a
                      > bold
                      > last stand, limited daylight, bad weather and other factors that held
                      > off destruction. It was just not reasonable for 1 army to beat and
                      > surround or entrap the other in such a way to prevent escape.
                      >
                      > Regards,
                      > TR Livesey
                      > tlivesey@...
                      >
                      >
                      > richard@... wrote:
                      >
                      > >I think that at the moment Mc was handed 191, it was a "reasonable
                      > >expectation" that he might destroy the ANV in detail. Longstreet then
                      > >Jackson. Or at least Longstreet (depending on how Jack responded).
                      120,000
                      > >men to 40,000 men = "reasonable expectation." But remember this...Many
                      > >argue that it wasn't McClellan's plan to destroy the ANV -- it was his
                      plan
                      > >(according to some and believed by Lincoln) to fight the entire war to a
                      > >draw and force a political resolution (leaving slavery intact -- at least
                      > >for the moment). I don't necessarily adhere to this accusation, but
                      > >"actions speak louder..." My personal belief is that Mc feared defeat
                      more
                      > >than he wanted victory. That's all. That's enough to give any man "the
                      > >slows."
                      > >
                      > >Richard Croker
                      > >----- Original Message -----
                      > >From: "T.R. Livesey" <tlivesey@...>
                      > >To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                      > >Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:33 PM
                      > >Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: was burnside at fault for antietam???
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >>I fully agree that the Federal army could have accomplished more, that a
                      > >>more decisive victory might have been won...this is true of just about
                      > >>any battle. The question is: what is a reasonable expectation?
                      > >>If Antietam was a huge political victory for the north, what reasonable
                      > >>additional outcome eluded Mac/Burnside?
                      > >>
                      > >>TR Livesey
                      > >>tlivesey@...
                      > >>
                      > >>david lutton wrote:
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>>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
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>>
                      > >>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >>
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • david lutton
                      The political windfall made from this perceived victory by some very astute politicians including Lincoln was simply putting on the best face on its
                      Message 10 of 22 , Mar 31, 2004
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        The political "windfall " made from this perceived victory by some very
                        astute politicians including Lincoln was simply putting on the best face on
                        its results. I don't think many at the time considered it a great victory.

                        Mac's primary concern should have been the defeat of the rebel army in the
                        field. I simply feel that with the advantages given him during the
                        campaign, a more decisive military outcome could have been reasonably
                        expected..

                        I believe that Mac's military background, if he choose the army as a career,
                        pointed to a career as a most competent staff officer. He simply was not a
                        great field commander. I recall a "staff ride" given by Dr. Jay Luvaas
                        several years ago at Antietam at which time he stated that Mac seemed to
                        lack the "killer" instinct that could send men to their deaths. A quality
                        that men like Jackson, Lee and Sherman seemed to possess in abundance.
                        Perhaps he cared too much,... a luxury a field commander cannot afford.

                        David Lutton
                        Hollidaysburg Pa
                        . Message -----


                        From: "T.R. Livesey" <tlivesey@...>
                        To: <TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:33 PM
                        Subject: Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: was burnside at fault for antietam???


                        > I fully agree that the Federal army could have accomplished more, that a
                        > more decisive victory might have been won...this is true of just about
                        > any battle. The question is: what is a reasonable expectation?
                        > If Antietam was a huge political victory for the north, what reasonable
                        > additional outcome eluded Mac/Burnside?
                        >
                        > TR Livesey
                        > tlivesey@...
                        >
                        > david lutton wrote:
                        >
                        > >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
                        > >>
                        > >>
                        > >>
                        > >>
                        > >>
                        > >>
                        > >>
                        > >>
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • james2044
                        ... I believe ... IMO, the victories at Antietam & Perryville were the turning point of the war. Never again was the CSA able to mount two invisions and
                        Message 11 of 22 , Mar 31, 2004
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "david lutton" <dunkerch@c...>
                          wrote:
                          > 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.

                          IMO, the victories at Antietam & Perryville were the "turning point"
                          of the war. Never again was the CSA able to mount two invisions and
                          England never came closer to intervention.

                          Jmaes2044
                        • james2044
                          ... Joseph L. Harsh does an excellent job of covering this idea in Taken at the Flood . Pick up a copy, what he says just might cause you to rethink some of
                          Message 12 of 22 , Mar 31, 2004
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, <richard@r...> wrote:
                            > I think that at the moment Mc was handed 191, it was a "reasonable
                            > expectation" that he might destroy the ANV in detail.

                            Joseph L. Harsh does an excellent job of covering this idea
                            in "Taken at the Flood". Pick up a copy, what he says just might
                            cause you to rethink some of this.

                            James2044
                          • james2044
                            ... very ... best face on ... victory. ... army in the ... reasonably ... First all battles are political events and victory or defeat is often perceived .
                            Message 13 of 22 , Mar 31, 2004
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "david lutton" <dunkerch@c...>
                              wrote:
                              > The political "windfall " made from this perceived victory by some
                              very
                              > astute politicians including Lincoln was simply putting on the
                              best face on
                              > its results. I don't think many at the time considered it a great
                              victory.
                              >
                              > Mac's primary concern should have been the defeat of the rebel
                              army in the
                              > field. I simply feel that with the advantages given him during the
                              > campaign, a more decisive military outcome could have been
                              reasonably
                              > expected..
                              >

                              First all battles are political events and victory or defeat is
                              often "perceived".
                              Second, the AoNV was unable to continue the invasion of Maryland and
                              forced back into Virginia. This was not Lee's plan so I think we
                              can say that the was defeated. In which case Mac did complete
                              his "primary concern" and defeate the AoNV.
                              "More decisive military outcome", as has been pointed out, just
                              wasn't a reasonable expectation, not after the Seven Days or after
                              Gettysburg. Many people, then and now, had very high expectations
                              of the result of a battle and never seemed to get them full filled.

                              James2044
                            • justin_heinzen10
                              good points everyone and thanks for the input. i was looking for information on a broader level that contrasts getting sucked in by some schools of writing.
                              Message 14 of 22 , May 3, 2004
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                good points everyone and thanks for the input. i was looking for
                                information on a broader level that contrasts getting sucked in by
                                some schools of writing.
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.