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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 By the time Mac got the order, it was already out of date; the operation should have wrapped up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 1 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      Mac got the order, it was already out of date; the operation should have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      out of date plan?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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.