Civil War History - The Eastern TheaterDiscuss any and all battles, movements, and events occuring in the Eastern Theater here! This includes any actions in tha area east of the Appalachian Mountains in the vicinity of the river capitals of Richmond and Washington D.C.
I can see Burnside's quandary. His army in Fredericksburg and on the heights, but no certain way to supply it. As Dred mentioned, he seemed to be stuck with that thought and unable to abandon it.
Hooker's move was mostly brilliant (maybe he should have kept some cavalry?). Will we ever really know whether he was stoned, stunned, or otherwise lost it?
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Once the first indication that the pontoons would not arrive on time came on, he should have adapted his plan right then. Attack somewehre that does not need the bridges. US Ford and the other one.. Rickets I think... so you just make a march for it and see if Lee follows or not. And you fight Chancelorsville a few months early. But like you said, Burnside didn't even have faith in himself, so you really can't fault him for not having the imagination Hooker had.
It looks like no one in Washington much liked Burnsides plans of Nov 9th. Halleck didn't, argued with him on the 12th-13th, refused permission and went back to Washington to talk to Lincoln about it. If you look in post #2 above you'll see this paragraph:
=====
General Burnside did not fully concur in the President's views, but finally consented to so modify his plan as to cross his army by the fords of the Upper Rappahannock, and then move down and seize the heights south of Fredericksburg, while a small force was to be sent north of the river to enable General Haupt to reopen the railroad and to rebuild the bridges, the materials for which were nearly ready in Alexandria. I, however, refused to' give any official approval of this deviation from the President's instructions until his assent was obtained. On my return to Washington, on the 13th, I submitted to him this proposed change in the plan of campaign, and on its receiving his assent, rather than approval, I telegraphed, on the 14th, authority to General Burnside to adopt it. I here refer, not to General Burnside's written plan to go to Falmouth, but to that of crossing the Rappahannock above its junction with the Rapidan.
=====
Burnside presents the view that it was his plan of the 9th, unmodified, which was approved. Halleck says that plan was not approved, only the modification to it for crossing at Falmouth. I can't say I have a high opinion of either, and suspect both might be engaged in CYA activity here. All I can really say is that the country and the soldiers of the Army of the Potomac were to suffer for the floundering about that happened between them.
If Burnside does cross up near Falmouth -- his Army is in position to do it on the 17th (see post #3 above) -- then he will either get through the Wilderness to Fredericksburg without Lee seriously attacking him, or we really will see some version of the Battle of Chancellorsville, with Lee/Jackson/Longstreet coming down from the west and northwest upon him instead of from the direction of Fredericksburg. Personally, the thought of Burnside fighting the ANV in the Wilderness would fill me with dread, but even if the AoP gets to Fredericksburg unmolested they will have to pause and wait for the pontoons to be emplaced so that they can be supplied.
Hooker, of course, is an "almost". He had talent and skill, experience and imagination -- but seems to have been regarded as a backstabber by some, an arrogant blowhard by others, and as a man who would fall short at the wrong moment even by his old roommate, Stoneman. Stoneman said he was the sort of poker player who won all the small hands and folded on the big one -- and he said it before Chancellorsville.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
I can see Burnside's quandary. His army in Fredericksburg and on the heights, but no certain way to supply it. As Dred mentioned, he seemed to be stuck with that thought and unable to abandon it.
Great description of Burnside. Once he had an idea in mind, he didn't seem able to change it. For example, the creek at Burnside's Bridge at Antietam was easily fordable at several nearby places, but Burnside kept trying to rush across the bridge. Easy to criticize from the armchair, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
Hooker's move was mostly brilliant (maybe he should have kept some cavalry?). Will we ever really know whether he was stoned, stunned, or otherwise lost it?
He did keep some cavalry, but it wasn't used very well or very aggressively.
One of the keys to understanding all this is the communications situation. Up until the moment he mounted his horse and rode across the river to Chancellorsville, Hooker had an amazing communications network keeping him informed, connected by telegraph to his HQ, reports from the balloon on Lee's movements, etc. When he plunges into the river he leaves it all behind and is engulfed in darkness in more ways than one. To his front, the Wilderness blinds him to enemy movements and Stuart's men control all the roads and paths. Even worse, the Union communication system suffers catastrophic failure behind him: the telegraph decoding apparatus fails, messages are not being forwarded or -- worse -- arrive out of sequence and without a timestamp. Sometimes it takes a message 12 hours to get from the telegraph terminal on the north side of the ford to Hooker's HQ at Chancellorsville (roughly a 30 minute ride for a determined courier on a fast horse). From almost dreamlike knowledge of what was going on, Hooker suddenly fell into a pit of chaos and darkness as far as his knowledge of the battle went.
Not too surprising, then, that Hooker suddenly goes from being bold and aggressive to hesitant and cautious.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Saw one of these evices at Fredericksburg in Chatham Mansion. I always wondered why, if you have a hard connection from point A to point B, would you encrypt the messages?
Saw one of these evices at Fredericksburg in Chatham Mansion. I always wondered why, if you have a hard connection from point A to point B, would you encrypt the messages?
They were archaic by todays standards. The line was exposed and was very easy for a confederate to literally attach a wire to it and listen in on it.
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
Stoneman said he was the sort of poker player who won all the small hands and folded on the big one -- and he said it before Chancellorsville.
Regards,
Tim
I think this is a bit unfair tho. There is clear evidence Joe was not in his right mind after that shell hit nearby. IF it hadn't taken so long for them to figure that out they might have had a better chance at turning the day aruond. As it was they had an hour maybe more without a competent commander. Don't be too hard on Joe, afterall he did steal a 72 hour march from Lee, which was way more then even he had planned.
As far as Burnside goes tho, I understand what you mean, I think. Even if he had wanted to change the plan the higher powers would not have let him at that point. But in that case, why fight at all when you are so sure the plan is set up for failure? What's the worst that happnes? So he gets relieved, he did anyways, except now a few thousand more soldiers are alive to write home to dearest mummy on christmas day.
__________________ "In mortal combat, a man may and will become so infuriated by the din and dangers of a bloody fight that his heart will turn to stone and his every de sire [be] for blood."
John Hadley, 7th Indiana after the battle at Port Republic
I think this is a bit unfair tho. There is clear evidence Joe was not in his right mind after that shell hit nearby. IF it hadn't taken so long for them to figure that out they might have had a better chance at turning the day aruond. As it was they had an hour maybe more without a competent commander. Don't be too hard on Joe, afterall he did steal a 72 hour march from Lee, which was way more then even he had planned.
Lots of good things to say about Hooker; he just was the wrong man for the top AoP command against a man like Lee.
However, his behavior changes well before the shell hit. Meade tossed a fit when he got the order pulling him back into the Wilderness, which is many hours before that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dred
As far as Burnside goes tho, I understand what you mean, I think. Even if he had wanted to change the plan the higher powers would not have let him at that point. But in that case, why fight at all when you are so sure the plan is set up for failure? What's the worst that happnes? So he gets relieved, he did anyways, except now a few thousand more soldiers are alive to write home to dearest mummy on christmas day.
Well, the man fixated on what his plan was, and didn't seem very flexible. Braxton Bragg was similar. Against a team like Lee-Jackson-Longstreet-Stuart, this type of inflexible commander usually gets clobbered.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
