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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 22 , Mar 31, 2004
      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 2 of 22 , Mar 31, 2004
        --- 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 3 of 22 , Mar 31, 2004
          --- 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 4 of 22 , Mar 31, 2004
            --- 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 5 of 22 , May 3, 2004
              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.