Antietam: A Perspective

[Moe Daoust]

In light of what happened on September 15 and 16 and McClellan's message on September 16 to Burnside, the latter's delay on September 17 was the highly plausible basis for McClellan sending Key with the relief order at noon. We have a conundrum. Either McClellan gave Burnside an order to take the bridge, carry the heights and move on Lee's right flank in the AM or he did not. Marvel's biography takes Burnside's version, buys the 10 AM timing, criticizes McClellan's orders, and concludes that McClellan cooked up a blame game after the battle. If he's correct, the failure on the Union left belongs to McClellan. On the other hand, if McClellan gave the requisite order, Burnside took an inordinate amount of time to comply (repeating what McClellan had accused him of doing on the 15th and the 16th), the blame lies primarily on Burnside and McClellan's failure was in not relieving him as his superior officer after having given him ample warning on September 16. What we know is that the Union attack on the left was a stew of fumbling around looking for fords, figuring out how to take the bridge, etc and while hours elapsed a golden opportunity to emerge on Lee's vulnerable right flank at a critical point was squandered. While one can point to Hooker's and Sumner's actions as having a detrimental effect on McClellan's apparent plan, what happened on the left was worse. That's the reason A.P. Hill became a dramatic hero.

"Either McClellan gave Burnside an order to take the bridge, carry the heights and move on Lee's right flank in the AM or he did not." I'm amazed you are even bringing this up. Of course McClellan ordered Burnside to take the bridge that AM. This has never been in contention and I'm not aware of any historian who has ever said otherwise. I've read Marvel's book and walked away from it with the impression he idolizes Burnside and that his objectivity has been blinded by that idolatry. I'll have to check but it seems to me that Marvel sent a letter in to CWT regarding my "Unraveling the Myths of Burnside Bridge" article and that I tore him apart in my response. I'll check and get back to you on this.

 

[Belfoured]

"Either McClellan gave Burnside an order to take the bridge, carry the heights and move on Lee's right flank in the AM or he did not." I'm amazed you are even bringing this up. Of course McClellan ordered Burnside to take the bridge that AM. This has never been in contention and I'm not aware of any historian who has ever said otherwise. I've read Marvel's book and walked away from it with the impression he idolizes Burnside and that his objectivity has been blinded by that idolatry. I'll have to check but it seems to me that Marvel sent a letter in to CWT regarding my "Unraveling the Myths of Burnside Bridge" article and that I tore him apart in my response. I'll check and get back to you on this.

For the record, I don't disagree. I think that Marvel clearly was biased (most, but not all, biographers fall into that trap). My point is simply that anybody who wants to have it "both ways" is just ducking the problem. Let us know which issue of CWT has the response.

 

[John Hartwell]

Someone please tell me where I can read these articles 9 and 10.

The Articles of War may be found as an appendix, starting on page 485, of Revised United States army regulations of 1861. With an appendix containing the changes and laws affecting army regulations and Articles of War to June 25, 1863.

 

[Moe Daoust]

I now remember what happened. Marvel did not respond directly to my "Unravelling the Myths of Burnside Bridge" article. It seems that the editors of America's Civil War (I think it was Dana Shoaf at the time) found out about it and ran one by Marvel entitled "Sculpting a Scapegoat" at the very same time. I'll post both on a separate post and let the group decide which of us makes the better case.

 

[67th Tigers]

For Moe et al., let us consider the legal status of the Corps commanders. I'll do this chronologically.

Firstly, the original five corps were created by Presidential fiat. There was no legal basis for the existence of corps, and hence no way for them to claim for staff etc., who had to be seconded from the infantry divisions. I believe in most cases the promoted corps commander took his divisional staff up as the corps staff. Lincoln's War Order No. 2 names their commanders.

In late April Hamilton is relieved by McClellan at Heintzelman's request. They would have been within their rights to arrest him, but they spare him (and Lincoln) the embarrassment. Lincoln asks McClellan if he could reinstate Hamilton, and McClellan replies only if Lincoln orders it. Hamilton will go west and eventually be fired by Grant.

Soon after, Williamsburg is fought. Given the poor performance of Sumner, Heintzelman and Keyes McClellan sends the following which deserves to be quoted in full:

"I respectfully ask permission to reorganize the army corps. I am not willing to be held responsible for the present arrangement, experience having proved it to be very bad, and it having very nearly resulted in a most disastrous defeat. I wish either to return to the organization by division or else be authorized to relieve incompetent commanders of the army corps. Had I been one-half hour later on the field on the 5th we would have been routed and would have lost everything. Notwithstanding my positive orders I was informed of nothing that had occurred, and I went to the field of battle myself upon unofficial information that my presence was needed to avoid defeat. I found there the utmost confusion and incompetency, the utmost discouragement on the part of the men. At least a thousand lives were really sacrificed by the organization into corps.

I have too much regard for the lives of my comrades and too deep an interest in the success of our cause to hesitate for a moment. I learn that you are equally in earnest, and I therefore again request full and complete authority to relieve from duty with this army commanders of corps or divisions who prove themselves incompetent."

It is important to note that McClellan is requesting authority to relieve Sumner etc. This immediately demonstrates that he does not have said authority. This should be obvious; Lincoln has ordered them to be Corps Commanders, and no general can countermand the order of POTUS (or SECWAR wielding the power of POTUS).

The reply was in two parts, a telegram and a handwritten letter. The telegram read:

"The President is unwilling to have the Army corps organization broken up; but also unwilling that the commanding General shall be trammelled, and embarrassed, in actual skirmishing collision with the enemy, and on the eve of an expected great battle; you therefore may temporarily suspend that organization, in the Army now under your immediate command, and adopt any you see fit until further orders. He also writes you privately."

and the letter:

"I have just assisted the Secretary of War in framing the part of a despatch to you, relating to Army Corps, which despatch of course will have reached you long before this will. I wish to say a few words to you privately on this subject. I ordered the Army Corps organization not only on the unanimous opinion of the twelve Generals whom you had selected and assigned as Generals of Division, but also on the unanimous opinion of every military man I could get an opinion from, and every modern military book, yourself only expected. Of course, I did not, on my own judgment, pretend to understand the subject. I now think it indispensable for you to know how your struggle against it is received in quarters which we cannot entirely disregard. It is looked upon as merely an effort to pamper one or two pets, and to persecute and degrade their supposed rivals. I have had no word from Sumner, Heintzelman, or Keyes. The commanders of these Corps are of course the three highest officers with you, but I am constantly told that you consult and communicate with nobody but General Fitz John Porter, and perhaps General Franklin. I do not say these complaints are true or just; but at all events it is proper you should know of their existence. Do the Commanders of Corps disobey your orders in any thing?

When you relieved General Hamilton of his command the other day, you thereby lost the confidence of at least one of your best friends in the Senate. And here let me say, not as applicable to you personally, that Senators and Representatives speak of me in their places as they please, without question; and that officers of the army must cease addressing insulting letters to them for taking no greater liberty with them.

But, to return, are you strong enough-are you strong enough, even with my help-to set your foot upon the necks of Sumner, Heintzelman, and Keyes all at once? This is a practical and very serious question for you.

The success of your army and the cause of the country are the same; and of course I only desire the good of the cause.

Yours truly. A. LINCOLN."

What is clear from this is that McClellan's request to be allowed to relieve the three corps commanders is denied. Lincoln and Stanton however allow him to temporarily modify the structure. Hence McClellan creates 5th and 6th Provisional Corps. Provisional as Lincoln has not authorised them, McClellan has.

Just to be clear moving forward; Lincoln and Stanton have confirmed that McClellan is not allowed to relieve a Presidentally appointed Corps Commander. Incompetence is not considered an adequate reason.

On 2nd July 1862 the House passes Resolution 51, which authorises the President to form Army Corps, and allows for Army Corps to have staff assigned. It is signed into law on 17th July. On the 19th McClellan asks that the President ratify Porter's 5th and Franklin's 6th Corps. He does this and also orders the forces at Ft Monroe under Dix to constitute 7th Corps, those at Baltimore under Wool to constitute 8th Corps, and those under Burnside to constitute 9th Corps.

Going into the Maryland Campaign, four of the corps commanders are Presidential appointees (Sumner, Porter, Franklin and Burnside). As was confirmed on 9th May, McClellan does not have the power to relieve them. Doing so would be a violation of Lincoln's orders making them Corps Commanders.

So, McClellan can't just relieve Burnside like he did Hamilton. He has to arrest him. This is extremely serious, as disobeying orders is a capital offense. In theory Burnside could hang. If he doesn't hang then if found guilty he'll be drummed out the service and barred from serving the government in any capacity (i.e. what happened to Porter). With such a serious crime, the evidential standards are high. McClellan has to deliver a written, peremptory, lawful order and Burnside then has to refuse to obey the order. At 1000 the only written orders we know of are for Burnside to "open your attack".

Hence the only way to remove Burnside is to issue a written, peremptory, lawful order, and then arrest him if he refuses to obey it. It seems this is what Key carried (it is certainly true of 29th June). However, by this time Burnside is over the bridge, and hence the order is superfluous.

 

[Moe Daoust]

The Articles of War may be found as an appendix, starting on page 485, of Revised United States army regulations of 1861. With an appendix containing the changes and laws affecting army regulations and Articles of War to June 25, 1863.

Thanks so much John!

 

[Moe Daoust]

For Moe et al., let us consider the legal status of the Corps commanders. I'll do this chronologically.

Firstly, the original five corps were created by Presidential fiat. There was no legal basis for the existence of corps, and hence no way for them to claim for staff etc., who had to be seconded from the infantry divisions. I believe in most cases the promoted corps commander took his divisional staff up as the corps staff. Lincoln's War Order No. 2 names their commanders.

In late April Hamilton is relieved by McClellan at Heintzelman's request. They would have been within their rights to arrest him, but they spare him (and Lincoln) the embarrassment. Lincoln asks McClellan if he could reinstate Hamilton, and McClellan replies only if Lincoln orders it. Hamilton will go west and eventually be fired by Grant.

Soon after, Williamsburg is fought. Given the poor performance of Sumner, Heintzelman and Keyes McClellan sends the following which deserves to be quoted in full:

"I respectfully ask permission to reorganize the army corps. I am not willing to be held responsible for the present arrangement, experience having proved it to be very bad, and it having very nearly resulted in a most disastrous defeat. I wish either to return to the organization by division or else be authorized to relieve incompetent commanders of the army corps. Had I been one-half hour later on the field on the 5th we would have been routed and would have lost everything. Notwithstanding my positive orders I was informed of nothing that had occurred, and I went to the field of battle myself upon unofficial information that my presence was needed to avoid defeat. I found there the utmost confusion and incompetency, the utmost discouragement on the part of the men. At least a thousand lives were really sacrificed by the organization into corps.

I have too much regard for the lives of my comrades and too deep an interest in the success of our cause to hesitate for a moment. I learn that you are equally in earnest, and I therefore again request full and complete authority to relieve from duty with this army commanders of corps or divisions who prove themselves incompetent."

It is important to note that McClellan is requesting authority to relieve Sumner etc. This immediately demonstrates that he does not have said authority. This should be obvious; Lincoln has ordered them to be Corps Commanders, and no general can countermand the order of POTUS (or SECWAR wielding the power of POTUS).

The reply was in two parts, a telegram and a handwritten letter. The telegram read:

"The President is unwilling to have the Army corps organization broken up; but also unwilling that the commanding General shall be trammelled, and embarrassed, in actual skirmishing collision with the enemy, and on the eve of an expected great battle; you therefore may temporarily suspend that organization, in the Army now under your immediate command, and adopt any you see fit until further orders. He also writes you privately."

and the letter:

"I have just assisted the Secretary of War in framing the part of a despatch to you, relating to Army Corps, which despatch of course will have reached you long before this will. I wish to say a few words to you privately on this subject. I ordered the Army Corps organization not only on the unanimous opinion of the twelve Generals whom you had selected and assigned as Generals of Division, but also on the unanimous opinion of every military man I could get an opinion from, and every modern military book, yourself only expected. Of course, I did not, on my own judgment, pretend to understand the subject. I now think it indispensable for you to know how your struggle against it is received in quarters which we cannot entirely disregard. It is looked upon as merely an effort to pamper one or two pets, and to persecute and degrade their supposed rivals. I have had no word from Sumner, Heintzelman, or Keyes. The commanders of these Corps are of course the three highest officers with you, but I am constantly told that you consult and communicate with nobody but General Fitz John Porter, and perhaps General Franklin. I do not say these complaints are true or just; but at all events it is proper you should know of their existence. Do the Commanders of Corps disobey your orders in any thing?

When you relieved General Hamilton of his command the other day, you thereby lost the confidence of at least one of your best friends in the Senate. And here let me say, not as applicable to you personally, that Senators and Representatives speak of me in their places as they please, without question; and that officers of the army must cease addressing insulting letters to them for taking no greater liberty with them.

But, to return, are you strong enough-are you strong enough, even with my help-to set your foot upon the necks of Sumner, Heintzelman, and Keyes all at once? This is a practical and very serious question for you.

The success of your army and the cause of the country are the same; and of course I only desire the good of the cause.

Yours truly. A. LINCOLN."

What is clear from this is that McClellan's request to be allowed to relieve the three corps commanders is denied. Lincoln and Stanton however allow him to temporarily modify the structure. Hence McClellan creates 5th and 6th Provisional Corps. Provisional as Lincoln has not authorised them, McClellan has.

Just to be clear moving forward; Lincoln and Stanton have confirmed that McClellan is not allowed to relieve a Presidentally appointed Corps Commander. Incompetence is not considered an adequate reason.

On 2nd July 1862 the House passes Resolution 51, which authorises the President to form Army Corps, and allows for Army Corps to have staff assigned. It is signed into law on 17th July. On the 19th McClellan asks that the President ratify Porter's 5th and Franklin's 6th Corps. He does this and also orders the forces at Ft Monroe under Dix to constitute 7th Corps, those at Baltimore under Wool to constitute 8th Corps, and those under Burnside to constitute 9th Corps.

Going into the Maryland Campaign, four of the corps commanders are Presidential appointees (Sumner, Porter, Franklin and Burnside). As was confirmed on 9th May, McClellan does not have the power to relieve them. Doing so would be a violation of Lincoln's orders making them Corps Commanders.

So, McClellan can't just relieve Burnside like he did Hamilton. He has to arrest him. This is extremely serious, as disobeying orders is a capital offense. In theory Burnside could hang. If he doesn't hang then if found guilty he'll be drummed out the service and barred from serving the government in any capacity (i.e. what happened to Porter). With such a serious crime, the evidential standards are high. McClellan has to deliver a written, peremptory, lawful order and Burnside then has to refuse to obey the order. At 1000 the only written orders we know of are for Burnside to "open your attack".

Hence the only way to remove Burnside is to issue a written, peremptory, lawful order, and then arrest him if he refuses to obey it. It seems this is what Key carried (it is certainly true of 29th June). However, by this time Burnside is over the bridge, and hence the order is superfluous.

Thank you once again for a very informative post 67th. I've copied your text and included it in my research notes.

 

[Belfoured]

For Moe et al., let us consider the legal status of the Corps commanders. I'll do this chronologically.

Firstly, the original five corps were created by Presidential fiat. There was no legal basis for the existence of corps, and hence no way for them to claim for staff etc., who had to be seconded from the infantry divisions. I believe in most cases the promoted corps commander took his divisional staff up as the corps staff. Lincoln's War Order No. 2 names their commanders.

In late April Hamilton is relieved by McClellan at Heintzelman's request. They would have been within their rights to arrest him, but they spare him (and Lincoln) the embarrassment. Lincoln asks McClellan if he could reinstate Hamilton, and McClellan replies only if Lincoln orders it. Hamilton will go west and eventually be fired by Grant.

Soon after, Williamsburg is fought. Given the poor performance of Sumner, Heintzelman and Keyes McClellan sends the following which deserves to be quoted in full:

"I respectfully ask permission to reorganize the army corps. I am not willing to be held responsible for the present arrangement, experience having proved it to be very bad, and it having very nearly resulted in a most disastrous defeat. I wish either to return to the organization by division or else be authorized to relieve incompetent commanders of the army corps. Had I been one-half hour later on the field on the 5th we would have been routed and would have lost everything. Notwithstanding my positive orders I was informed of nothing that had occurred, and I went to the field of battle myself upon unofficial information that my presence was needed to avoid defeat. I found there the utmost confusion and incompetency, the utmost discouragement on the part of the men. At least a thousand lives were really sacrificed by the organization into corps.

I have too much regard for the lives of my comrades and too deep an interest in the success of our cause to hesitate for a moment. I learn that you are equally in earnest, and I therefore again request full and complete authority to relieve from duty with this army commanders of corps or divisions who prove themselves incompetent."

It is important to note that McClellan is requesting authority to relieve Sumner etc. This immediately demonstrates that he does not have said authority. This should be obvious; Lincoln has ordered them to be Corps Commanders, and no general can countermand the order of POTUS (or SECWAR wielding the power of POTUS).

The reply was in two parts, a telegram and a handwritten letter. The telegram read:

"The President is unwilling to have the Army corps organization broken up; but also unwilling that the commanding General shall be trammelled, and embarrassed, in actual skirmishing collision with the enemy, and on the eve of an expected great battle; you therefore may temporarily suspend that organization, in the Army now under your immediate command, and adopt any you see fit until further orders. He also writes you privately."

and the letter:

"I have just assisted the Secretary of War in framing the part of a despatch to you, relating to Army Corps, which despatch of course will have reached you long before this will. I wish to say a few words to you privately on this subject. I ordered the Army Corps organization not only on the unanimous opinion of the twelve Generals whom you had selected and assigned as Generals of Division, but also on the unanimous opinion of every military man I could get an opinion from, and every modern military book, yourself only expected. Of course, I did not, on my own judgment, pretend to understand the subject. I now think it indispensable for you to know how your struggle against it is received in quarters which we cannot entirely disregard. It is looked upon as merely an effort to pamper one or two pets, and to persecute and degrade their supposed rivals. I have had no word from Sumner, Heintzelman, or Keyes. The commanders of these Corps are of course the three highest officers with you, but I am constantly told that you consult and communicate with nobody but General Fitz John Porter, and perhaps General Franklin. I do not say these complaints are true or just; but at all events it is proper you should know of their existence. Do the Commanders of Corps disobey your orders in any thing?

When you relieved General Hamilton of his command the other day, you thereby lost the confidence of at least one of your best friends in the Senate. And here let me say, not as applicable to you personally, that Senators and Representatives speak of me in their places as they please, without question; and that officers of the army must cease addressing insulting letters to them for taking no greater liberty with them.

But, to return, are you strong enough-are you strong enough, even with my help-to set your foot upon the necks of Sumner, Heintzelman, and Keyes all at once? This is a practical and very serious question for you.

The success of your army and the cause of the country are the same; and of course I only desire the good of the cause.

Yours truly. A. LINCOLN."

What is clear from this is that McClellan's request to be allowed to relieve the three corps commanders is denied. Lincoln and Stanton however allow him to temporarily modify the structure. Hence McClellan creates 5th and 6th Provisional Corps. Provisional as Lincoln has not authorised them, McClellan has.

Just to be clear moving forward; Lincoln and Stanton have confirmed that McClellan is not allowed to relieve a Presidentally appointed Corps Commander. Incompetence is not considered an adequate reason.

On 2nd July 1862 the House passes Resolution 51, which authorises the President to form Army Corps, and allows for Army Corps to have staff assigned. It is signed into law on 17th July. On the 19th McClellan asks that the President ratify Porter's 5th and Franklin's 6th Corps. He does this and also orders the forces at Ft Monroe under Dix to constitute 7th Corps, those at Baltimore under Wool to constitute 8th Corps, and those under Burnside to constitute 9th Corps.

Going into the Maryland Campaign, four of the corps commanders are Presidential appointees (Sumner, Porter, Franklin and Burnside). As was confirmed on 9th May, McClellan does not have the power to relieve them. Doing so would be a violation of Lincoln's orders making them Corps Commanders.

So, McClellan can't just relieve Burnside like he did Hamilton. He has to arrest him. This is extremely serious, as disobeying orders is a capital offense. In theory Burnside could hang. If he doesn't hang then if found guilty he'll be drummed out the service and barred from serving the government in any capacity (i.e. what happened to Porter). With such a serious crime, the evidential standards are high. McClellan has to deliver a written, peremptory, lawful order and Burnside then has to refuse to obey the order. At 1000 the only written orders we know of are for Burnside to "open your attack".

Hence the only way to remove Burnside is to issue a written, peremptory, lawful order, and then arrest him if he refuses to obey it. It seems this is what Key carried (it is certainly true of 29th June). However, by this time Burnside is over the bridge, and hence the order is superfluous.

You continue to erroneously conflate (1) removal from an appointment with (2) relief/arrest on the field for disobeying a lawful order. Your citation refers to the former. It is not controlled by Article 10 and a superior officer's inherent authority to enforce Article 10. Once appointed, Burnside was McClellan's subordinate; he was required to obey McClellan's orders; and he could be relieved on the field by McClellan for not obeying them. Show me something - anything - that states the contrary. You can't, because the proposition would be facially absurd. And yes, arrest could proceed to a court martial and yes, if proven at the court martial death. Although, as I'm sure you know, arrests were made for disobedience and did not move to court martial - Jackson and A.P. Hill, for example - and even after conviction death was not inevitable - or maybe it was the ghost of Fitz John Porter who pursued vindication for 20 years. Key was sent to relieve Burnside because he wasn't following the order already given.

You can debate the content of the order all you want or whether Burnside was in fact complying but that's fundamentally different from the scope of McClellan's authority under the Articles. He may not have chosen Burnside as his subordinate and he may not have been able to say "I don't want him". But only in some bizarre planet would the idiocy prevail that McClellan could not enforce his orders to his subordinate if they were not obeyed. The source of Burnside's appointment was irrelevant to that issue. That's why McClellan sent Key with the order relieving him - so far as McClellan knew, Burnside was not following orders already given him. By the way, in his September 29, 1862 letter to Ellen regarding Burnside, McClellan doesn't seem to feel overly hamstrung by the source of appointment.

 

[Moe Daoust]

You continue to erroneously conflate (1) removal from an appointment with (2) relief/arrest on the field for disobeying a lawful order. Your citation refers to the former. It is not controlled by Article 10 and a superior officer's inherent authority to enforce Article 10. Once appointed, Burnside was McClellan's subordinate; he was required to obey McClellan's orders; and he could be relieved on the field by McClellan for not obeying them. Show me something - anything - that states the contrary. You can't, because the proposition would be facially absurd. And yes, arrest could proceed to a court martial and yes, if proven at the court martial death. Although, as I'm sure you know, arrests were made for disobedience and did not move to court martial - Jackson and A.P. Hill, for example - and even after conviction death was not inevitable - or maybe it was the ghost of Fitz John Porter who pursued vindication for 20 years. Key was sent to relieve Burnside because he wasn't following the order already given.

You can debate the content of the order all you want or whether Burnside was in fact complying but that's fundamentally different from the scope of McClellan's authority under the Articles. He may not have chosen Burnside as his subordinate and he may not have been able to say "I don't want him". But only in some bizarre planet would the idiocy prevail that McClellan could not enforce his orders to his subordinate if they were not obeyed. The source of Burnside's appointment was irrelevant to that issue. That's why McClellan sent Key with the order relieving him - so far as McClellan knew, Burnside was not following orders already given him. By the way, in his September 29, 1862 letter to Ellen regarding Burnside, McClellan doesn't seem to feel overly hamstrung by the source of appointment.

Great, now I'm going to have to put both of your takes on this matter through an acid test. Do you want to chime in @Saphroneth and confuse me even more? LOL! Thanks for the info Belfoured.

 

[67th Tigers]

You continue to erroneously conflate (1) removal from an appointment with (2) relief/arrest on the field for disobeying a lawful order.

No, I haven't.

The only mechanism available for McClellan to remove Burnside from command of 9th Corps is to arrest him. In order to arrest him he needs to have committed an arrestable offense. McClellan can't simply relieve Burnside from duty.

For all the sound and fury, Burnside hadn't committed an arrestable offense in the time period in question.

It occurs to me that you might not understand what can be ordered. You can only order an action, you can't order an outcome. This should be fairly obvious. McClellan could order a charge on the bridge, and that would be a lawful order, but he could not order the charge to be successful, and if he made such an order it would not be reasonable and hence not lawful.

The fact of the matter is there is less than an hour between McClellan issuing the order to attack the bridge, and Burnside's forces attacking the bridge. Whether it was done well or not is completely immaterial, the order was obeyed.

Lincoln was clear on 9th May, incompetence alone is insufficient reason to relieve a Corps commander.

Now there is a mechanism for McClellan to arrest Burnside, and we've already mentioned it. McClellan has to issue a lawful, peremptory order in writing, and Burnside has to refuse to obey it. Certainly on 29th June this is exactly what happened - Col. Key (The Judge-Advocate General) arrived with such an order directing Sumner to withdraw his forces immediately. In his pocket was the warrant placing Sumner under arrest if Sumner refused. Sumner did not refuse.

This would have been what happened at Antietam; McClellan finally wrote the arrest order around 1500 (I have confused Key's two visits), after Burnside had gained the bridge, but after 2 hours of no forward movement. Burnside obeyed and advanced. At around 1530 Col Sackett who had been riding Burnside was satisfied and returned to see McClellan. By 1600 AP Hill was counterattacking Burnside and Sackett was en route back to him.

At no point did Burnside actually disobey an order. Hence he was not arrested. There was no other mechanism to remove him.

By the way, in his September 29, 1862 letter to Ellen regarding Burnside, McClellan doesn't seem to feel overly hamstrung by the source of appointment.

Are you conflating McClellan considering giving Burnside a bad report with McClellan considering arresting Burnside for a capital offense?

 

[Moe Daoust]

No, I haven't.

The only mechanism available for McClellan to remove Burnside from command of 9th Corps is to arrest him. In order to arrest him he needs to have committed an arrestable offense. McClellan can't simply relieve Burnside from duty.

For all the sound and fury, Burnside hadn't committed an arrestable offense in the time period in question.

It occurs to me that you might not understand what can be ordered. You can only order an action, you can't order an outcome. This should be fairly obvious. McClellan could order a charge on the bridge, and that would be a lawful order, but he could not order the charge to be successful, and if he made such an order it would not be reasonable and hence not lawful.

The fact of the matter is there is less than an hour between McClellan issuing the order to attack the bridge, and Burnside's forces attacking the bridge. Whether it was done well or not is completely immaterial, the order was obeyed.

Lincoln was clear on 9th May, incompetence alone is insufficient reason to relieve a Corps commander.

Now there is a mechanism for McClellan to arrest Burnside, and we've already mentioned it. McClellan has to issue a lawful, peremptory order in writing, and Burnside has to refuse to obey it. Certainly on 29th June this is exactly what happened - Col. Key (The Judge-Advocate General) arrived with such an order directing Sumner to withdraw his forces immediately. In his pocket was the warrant placing Sumner under arrest if Sumner refused. Sumner did not refuse.

This would have been what happened at Antietam; McClellan finally wrote the arrest order around 1500 (I have confused Key's two visits), after Burnside had gained the bridge, but after 2 hours of no forward movement. Burnside obeyed and advanced. At around 1530 Col Sackett who had been riding Burnside was satisfied and returned to see McClellan. By 1600 AP Hill was counterattacking Burnside and Sackett was en route back to him.

At no point did Burnside actually disobey an order. Hence he was not arrested. There was no other mechanism to remove him.



Are you conflating McClellan considering giving Burnside a bad report with McClellan considering arresting Burnside for a capital offense?

" At no point did Burnside actually disobey an order. Hence he was not arrested. There was no other mechanism to remove him." I will disagree with you here 67th. On the basis McClellan did issue an 8 a.m. order, Burnside disobeyed it by virtue of his ignoring it.

 

[67th Tigers]

" At no point did Burnside actually disobey an order. Hence he was not arrested. There was no other mechanism to remove him." I will disagree with you here 67th. On the basis McClellan did issue an 8 a.m. order, Burnside disobeyed it by virtue of his ignoring it.

Yet Kingsbury's 11th Connecticut did assault the bridge at 0900, Crook's Brigade were under orders to assault it (but they got lost). He clearly executed the order. He maybe didn't execute the order well, but that's not an arrestable offense.

Lt Col Stedman's report (11th Ct) reveals Burnside's plan; the 11th Ct (and one assumes Crook's Bde) were to assault and hold the bridge from the front after a bombardment, whilst Rodman turned the position. This was actually a reasonable plan, but the execution was horrific. The bombardment only silenced one of the three batteries bearing on the bridge. Crook got lost, and Rodman got to the ford ("Farm Ford") and then couldn't cross (probably as there were Georgians on the heights above it, it was crossed by a brigade after they'd gone).

Burnside obeyed the attack order, it was simply done badly. Hence there's no grounds for an arrest.

 

[Belfoured]

No, I haven't.

The only mechanism available for McClellan to remove Burnside from command of 9th Corps is to arrest him. In order to arrest him he needs to have committed an arrestable offense. McClellan can't simply relieve Burnside from duty.

For all the sound and fury, Burnside hadn't committed an arrestable offense in the time period in question.

It occurs to me that you might not understand what can be ordered. You can only order an action, you can't order an outcome. This should be fairly obvious. McClellan could order a charge on the bridge, and that would be a lawful order, but he could not order the charge to be successful, and if he made such an order it would not be reasonable and hence not lawful.

The fact of the matter is there is less than an hour between McClellan issuing the order to attack the bridge, and Burnside's forces attacking the bridge. Whether it was done well or not is completely immaterial, the order was obeyed.

Lincoln was clear on 9th May, incompetence alone is insufficient reason to relieve a Corps commander.

Now there is a mechanism for McClellan to arrest Burnside, and we've already mentioned it. McClellan has to issue a lawful, peremptory order in writing, and Burnside has to refuse to obey it. Certainly on 29th June this is exactly what happened - Col. Key (The Judge-Advocate General) arrived with such an order directing Sumner to withdraw his forces immediately. In his pocket was the warrant placing Sumner under arrest if Sumner refused. Sumner did not refuse.

This would have been what happened at Antietam; McClellan finally wrote the arrest order around 1500 (I have confused Key's two visits), after Burnside had gained the bridge, but after 2 hours of no forward movement. Burnside obeyed and advanced. At around 1530 Col Sackett who had been riding Burnside was satisfied and returned to see McClellan. By 1600 AP Hill was counterattacking Burnside and Sackett was en route back to him.

At no point did Burnside actually disobey an order. Hence he was not arrested. There was no other mechanism to remove him.



Are you conflating McClellan considering giving Burnside a bad report with McClellan considering arresting Burnside for a capital offense?

You apparently just don't understand that there are three distinct issues: (1) Did Burnside's appointment to corps command insulate him as McClellan's subordinate from arrest/relief for disobeying an order; (2) is relieving/arresting him under Article 10 the same as "removing" him from his appointment because McClellan doesn't want him in that position; and (3) what was McClellan's order and did Burnside comply with it. The answer to both (1) and (2) is "no". If you want to debate (3), that's fine but it has nothing to do with (1) or (2). And McClellan dispatched Key with the relief order c. 12 PM (a fact you first raised in this thread) because he had concluded that Burnside was not complying with an order already issued and received. He didn't have staff officers traipsing all over the field with contingent relief orders in the event that a subordinate would not comply with a new "peremptory" order. Common sense is your friend.

 

[Belfoured]

Yet Kingsbury's 11th Connecticut did assault the bridge at 0900, Crook's Brigade were under orders to assault it (but they got lost). He clearly executed the order. He maybe didn't execute the order well, but that's not an arrestable offense.

Lt Col Stedman's report (11th Ct) reveals Burnside's plan; the 11th Ct (and one assumes Crook's Bde) were to assault and hold the bridge from the front after a bombardment, whilst Rodman turned the position. This was actually a reasonable plan, but the execution was horrific. The bombardment only silenced one of the three batteries bearing on the bridge. Crook got lost, and Rodman got to the ford ("Farm Ford") and then couldn't cross (probably as there were Georgians on the heights above it, it was crossed by a brigade after they'd gone).

Burnside obeyed the attack order, it was simply done badly. Hence there's no grounds for an arrest.

That's word smithing at its finest - especially given that McClellan had already put Burnside on notice the day before. We haven't even touched a field commander's inherent authority to make changes on the field where his combat orders are being carried out incompetently - again, a doctrine that has nothing to do with who should hold the position as a matter of preference. Do you honestly think that McClellan couldn't have stepped in himself after seeing Burnside blunder all over the east bank and supersede Burnside without first getting on the cell phone to Lincoln?

 

[67th Tigers]

Common sense is your friend.

This is military law, not common sense.

In plain language; McClellan could not remove Burnside except by arresting him. To arrest Burnside, Burnside needs to have disobeyed an order (as Lincoln made clear on 9th May). Burnside did not disobey an order. Hence Burnside could not have been removed.

I understand that because you want to blame McClellan for not removing Burnside, you are trying to invent a putative charge of disobeying orders by conflating incompetence and disobedience. Unfortunately, these are legally distinct, and conflating them simply obfuscates matters.

 

[Belfoured]

This is military law, not common sense.

In plain language; McClellan could not remove Burnside except by arresting him. To arrest Burnside, Burnside needs to have disobeyed an order (as Lincoln made clear on 9th May). Burnside did not disobey an order. Hence Burnside could not have been removed.

I understand that because you want to blame McClellan for not removing Burnside, you are trying to invent a putative charge of disobeying orders by conflating incompetence and disobedience. Unfortunately, these are legally distinct, and conflating them simply obfuscates matters.

Keep confusing the issues. You made an erroneous assertion that McClellan could not "relieve" Burnside under Article 10 for disobeying an order because he had been appointed by Lincoln and McClellan could not "remove" him. That is categorically wrong. I'll try for the fourth or fifth time - whether Burnside in fact disobeyed an order is a completely different issue. McClellan had the authority to relieve if needed and knew it - if, as you raised first, he sent Key with the order. This is becoming similar to that discussion about those "dry" roads around Seven Pines on May 31, 1862 last October. Fun, but really time to move on.

By the way, having handled some UCMJ matters myself, bet the ranch that "common sense" applies to interpreting "military law"

 

[Moe Daoust]

Yet Kingsbury's 11th Connecticut did assault the bridge at 0900, Crook's Brigade were under orders to assault it (but they got lost). He clearly executed the order. He maybe didn't execute the order well, but that's not an arrestable offense.

Lt Col Stedman's report (11th Ct) reveals Burnside's plan; the 11th Ct (and one assumes Crook's Bde) were to assault and hold the bridge from the front after a bombardment, whilst Rodman turned the position. This was actually a reasonable plan, but the execution was horrific. The bombardment only silenced one of the three batteries bearing on the bridge. Crook got lost, and Rodman got to the ford ("Farm Ford") and then couldn't cross (probably as there were Georgians on the heights above it, it was crossed by a brigade after they'd gone).

Burnside obeyed the attack order, it was simply done badly. Hence there's no grounds for an arrest.

Everything you describe transpired subsequent to the order that was delivered to Burnside as he and Cox were standing together on a knoll north-east of the bridge. In his report, Cox writes, "About 9 o'clock [italics added] the order was received to cross the stream. My point is that nothing transpired pursuant to an 8 a.m. order, as set out in McClellan's official report and which Burnside clearly ignored. On that basis, McClellan could/should have relieved Burnside sometime between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. Rather than doing so, he sends one or two more riders out to find out what Burnside's problem is and it is the one who rides up at 9 a.m., while Cox and Burnside are standing together on that knoll who finally get's Burnside to commence his attack. In other words, McClellan had lost his opportunity to relieve Burnside during that 8 to 9 a.m. window. Whether McClellan had the authority to relieve Burnside is what remains to be seen in my view. My jury is still out.

 

[67th Tigers]

Keep confusing the issues.

No I am not. I am deliberately avoiding conflating different issues.

Fact 1 - McClellan cannot relieve Burnside.

This is basic stuff, a general can't countermand an order given by the President. Burnside commands 9th Corps by order of the President, and no general can countermand said order. McClellan even asked permission to be able to relieve Corps commanders on the 8th May and got told no.

Fact 2 - Relieving =/= Arresting

If Burnside has committed an arrestable offense then he can be arrested. This is not the same thing as relieving him.

Arresting a general officer is a very serious issue. Burnside would then have the right to a general court-martial (although c.f. Stone for how to abuse the process). The President is required to call the general court-martial into being, and it is required to be made up of officers senior to Burnside, at least in part.

Fact 3 - Grounds are needed to make an arrest

In order to arrest Burnside for disobedience of orders, first he has to disobey an order. The order to Burnside was for him to "begin his attack", and Burnside indeed began his attack. Kingsbury charged at 0900-ish etc. That Kingsbury was repulsed and Rodman failed to cross at "Farm ford" is immaterial. Simply:

trying and failing =/= refusing to try

Burnside promptly attacked (and yes, within the hour of receipt of an order is prompt). He just attacked badly. This is not disobedience of orders. As he attacked, no charges can be made. As no charges can be made he can't be arrested.

Fact 4 - Key and the order

As I've just said, I checked the source of this and I had the wrong visit by Key. McClellan sent Key twice, at around 1200 and around 1500 and it was the second time he carried a warrant for Burnside's arrest if he didn't advance from the bridgehead immediately. Burnside advanced from the bridgehead immediately. Hence the warrant was not actioned because Burnside obeyed the order.

 

[Moe Daoust]

Yet Kingsbury's 11th Connecticut did assault the bridge at 0900, Crook's Brigade were under orders to assault it (but they got lost). He clearly executed the order. He maybe didn't execute the order well, but that's not an arrestable offense.

Lt Col Stedman's report (11th Ct) reveals Burnside's plan; the 11th Ct (and one assumes Crook's Bde) were to assault and hold the bridge from the front after a bombardment, whilst Rodman turned the position. This was actually a reasonable plan, but the execution was horrific. The bombardment only silenced one of the three batteries bearing on the bridge. Crook got lost, and Rodman got to the ford ("Farm Ford") and then couldn't cross (probably as there were Georgians on the heights above it, it was crossed by a brigade after they'd gone).

Burnside obeyed the attack order, it was simply done badly. Hence there's no grounds for an arrest.

I hope you undersan

I've just realized that anyone looking for my Antietam: A Perspective article may have been having a hard time unless they knew how to navigate on my Blogspot site. For that reason, I'm now posting the wixsite version. Just click the following URL and it will take you right to it. May apologies if this caused any confusion. You can read it here: https://quasimodo.wixsite.com/mcclellanandhistory/single-post/2018/06/24/Antietam-A-Perspective

I'm quite surprised that no one has come down on me over the section of the article that deals with Lincoln's degree of responsibility for the Union's failure to annihilate Lee's army at Antietam. https://quasimodo.wixsite.com/mcclellanandhistory/single-post/2018/06/24/Antietam-A-Perspective

 

[Belfoured]

No I am not. I am deliberately avoiding conflating different issues.

Fact 1 - McClellan cannot relieve Burnside.

This is basic stuff, a general can't countermand an order given by the President. Burnside commands 9th Corps by order of the President, and no general can countermand said order. McClellan even asked permission to be able to relieve Corps commanders on the 8th May and got told no.

Fact 2 - Relieving =/= Arresting

If Burnside has committed an arrestable offense then he can be arrested. This is not the same thing as relieving him.

Arresting a general officer is a very serious issue. Burnside would then have the right to a general court-martial (although c.f. Stone for how to abuse the process). The President is required to call the general court-martial into being, and it is required to be made up of officers senior to Burnside, at least in part.

Fact 3 - Grounds are needed to make an arrest

In order to arrest Burnside for disobedience of orders, first he has to disobey an order. The order to Burnside was for him to "begin his attack", and Burnside indeed began his attack. Kingsbury charged at 0900-ish etc. That Kingsbury was repulsed and Rodman failed to cross at "Farm ford" is immaterial. Simply:

trying and failing =/= refusing to try

Burnside promptly attacked (and yes, within the hour of receipt of an order is prompt). He just attacked badly. This is not disobedience of orders. As he attacked, no charges can be made. As no charges can be made he can't be arrested.

Fact 4 - Key and the order

As I've just said, I checked the source of this and I had the wrong visit by Key. McClellan sent Key twice, at around 1200 and around 1500 and it was the second time he carried a warrant for Burnside's arrest if he didn't advance from the bridgehead immediately. Burnside advanced from the bridgehead immediately. Hence the warrant was not actioned because Burnside obeyed the order.

You really do not understand that relieving an officer on the field for disobeying an order is covered by the Articles of War; that Burnside as McClellan's subordinate was subject to that and could be relieved for disobedience; and that literally nothing about his appointment prevented that - nothing. Instead of your opinion, show us something - anything - that stated that Burnside, Sumner, Franklin - could not be relieved under Article 9. While you're at it, show us something saying that McClellan couldn't take over the IX Corps himself and relieve Burnside. You haven't done it yet, so I'm not expecting anything at this point. Under your theory Burnside could have marched the IX Corps off the field towards Frederick and McClellan could have done nothing about. And as I indicated, I haven't even gotten to another point - McClellan's inherent authority to relieve Burnside - or any other subordinate - on the field for failing to implement his orders in a timely fashion. It existed at the time and it still exists. Sometimes the law is not an a**, to paraphrase Dickens.

"Grounds are needed for an arrest" - you did get that part right. It's an entirely separate issue from whether IF there were grounds McClellan could arrest. For some reason you have a white-knuckled grip on the word "relieve". If Burnside were "arrested" he would by definition be "relieved". Any other conclusion is meaningless and arbitrary word-parsing. If you want to debate whether in fact there was disobedience, have at it.