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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 22 , 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]
    • 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 2 of 22 , Mar 30, 2004
      • 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 3 of 22 , Mar 30, 2004
        • 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 4 of 22 , Mar 30, 2004
          • 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 5 of 22 , Mar 30, 2004
            • 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 6 of 22 , Mar 31, 2004
              • 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 7 of 22 , Mar 31, 2004
                • 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 8 of 22 , Mar 31, 2004
                  • 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 9 of 22 , Mar 31, 2004
                    • 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 10 of 22 , Mar 31, 2004
                      • 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 11 of 22 , May 3, 2004
                        • 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.