Burnside Bridge; What Happened?

[Drew]

I didn't want to blow up a nice recent thread about Henry Kid Douglas' work, I Road With Stonewall, but it contains a judgement about Antietam Creek and the ability the Union Army had to ford it in 1862. Some complained Douglas' assertion wasn't true.

So, I looked up the only Union version of the story I've got handy, Gene Schmiel's Citizen-General; Jacob Dolson Cox and the Civil War Era. Cox worked for Burnside and was in command of the effort to take the bridge over Antietam Creek.

The work acknowledges the creek was fordable in several places near the bridge, though the banks were "slippery." I have for my own part failed to enter a creek, anywhere, without "slippery" banks, be that is as it may be.

One of the things his biographer shows, is that General Cox recorded, "...I do not hesitate to affirm that the Confederate position was virtually impregnable to direct attack over the bridge." I think he was probably right.

The question is, what the Heck happened here? How did such a mess present itself and why are we still scratching our heads, 150 years hence?

 

[67th Tigers]

Can I recommend this article by Moe d'Aoust: http://www.historynet.com/burnside-bridge

 

[gary]

Poor reconnaissance. It wasn't that deep and lest we forget, there was a ford further down the river that was crossed later on. Burnside became fixated on the bridge and didn't explore other options.

I think it must be Feng Shui and something to do with Burnside and water. Look at Fredericksburg and the effort of the pontineers to bridge it.

 

[TFSmith121]

Poor reconnaissance. It wasn't that deep and lest we forget, there was a ford further down the river that was crossed later on. Burnside became fixated on the bridge and didn't explore other options. I think it must be Feng Shui and something to do with Burnside and water. Look at Fredericksburg and the effort of the pontineers to bridge it.

Burnside was not a particularly distinguished combat commander at the army level; but neither was McClellan. His leadership of the Army of the Potomac was about as far removed from creating a "band of brothers" sense of comradeship and mutual understanding among his senior subordinates as is imaginable; his utter inability to train a replacement is obvious. Cohesion in any unit or formation is difficult to achieve and sustain; those officers who can do so, especially at the army level, are worth their weight in gold.

Ultimately, GBM was the field commander; any failures of his subordinates reflected upon what he had helped create over the preceding year. It took the efforts of Burnside and really Hooker to get the Army of the Potomac to the point it could fight and win a real victory against Lee, and it took Meade to lead it to that victory, and then it took Grant to sustain it.

Burnside, to be fair, had no illusions about his level of capability; he was a solid division commander and, in comparison to many of his peers, capable as an independent corps or similarly-sized detachment commander: he beat Longstreet at Knoxville, after all. McClellan had plenty of illusions about himself. The failures at Antietam, on the US side, ultimately were his, which is why he was relieved and spent the rest of his life blaming others for his failures.

The interesting point of comparison between Burnside and McClellan is what each achieved during the war, but after his respective relief as commanding general of the Army of the Potomac; Burnside served wherever he was sent and defeated James Longstreet at Knoxville. McClellan ran for office in wartime on a peace platform and was defeated by Abraham Lincoln.

Best,

 

[Drew]

Poor reconnaissance. It wasn't that deep and lest we forget, there was a ford further down the river that was crossed later on. Burnside became fixated on the bridge and didn't explore other options.

I think it must be Feng Shui and something to do with Burnside and water. Look at Fredericksburg and the effort of the pontineers to bridge it.

General Cox's biographer provides evidence that Burnside was threatened with removal from command, if he didn't take the bridge. Little Mac didn't understand, or care, what was at stake.

 

[Arioch]

I have not been to Antietam for awhile....I've been a few times, but not recently.

One of the things that always stood out to me was in the visitor center, there is a display with, I believe, the commentator's uniform....donated in posterity for the visitor center / museum.

Next to the display is a sign / quotation form this particular soldier (I forget who it was...and what rank...an officer I believe) who was a pre-war resident of the Sharpsburg area....and was quite familiar with the Antietam creek...

The soldier stated that the creek was quite fordable....only ever a few feet deep at it's deepest point...certainly fordable by cavalry....infantry may have to hold their weapons and equipment over their heads at the deepest spots...but, other than that....it was do-able....and thus, he never understood why Burnsides insisted on trying to storm over the bridge...

That told me everything when I first read it....it was the first question that came to my mind, and was promptly answered when I got to the exhibit.

 

[E_just_E]

The interesting point of comparison between Burnside and McClellan is what each achieved during the war, but after his respective relief as commanding general of the Army of the Potomac; Burnside served wherever he was sent and defeated James Longstreet at Knoxville. McClellan ran for office in wartime on a peace platform and was defeated by Abraham Lincoln.

FWIW, After he was fired as the AoP commander, Burnside went to Ohio and put the First Amendment to rest, and then was relieved from that duty of his....

 

[Drew]

FWIW, After he was fired as the AoP commander, Burnside went to Ohio and put the First Amendment to rest, and then was relieved from that duty of his....

True, but this doesn't explain what happened at Antietam Creek. General Cox isn't completely clear, except that both he and Burnside were confused by their orders. They didn't initially understand what, if any, leeway they had.

 

[E_just_E]

True, but this doesn't explain what happened at Antietam Creek. General Cox isn't completely clear, except that both he and Burnside were confused by their orders. They didn't initially understand what, if any, leeway they had.

True. Was just commending on Burnside's career

Columns attacking a line. That's what happened at that particular part of that battle, I think...

 

[TFSmith121]

FWIW, After he was fired as the AoP commander, Burnside went to Ohio and put the First Amendment to rest, and then was relieved from that duty of his....

The Constitution is not a suicide pact; after all:

Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wiley agitator who induces him to desert?

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

True, but this doesn't explain what happened at Antietam Creek. General Cox isn't completely clear, except that both he and Burnside were confused by their orders. They didn't initially understand what, if any, leeway they had.

And poorly written or communicated orders are the fault of the superior, not the subordinate.

Best,

 

[Drew]

And poorly written or communicated orders are the fault of the superior, not the subordinate.

Best,

So, the debacle wasn't Burnside's fault, or General Cox's? It was all on Little Mac?

That might work, but we'll need to see and understand the orders here. We haven't heard from and maybe @ErnieMac can help us out here.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Burnside became fixated on the bridge and didn't explore other options.

Burnside was not fixated on the bridge. Mac's orders were for him to carry the bridge. Mac had tasked his engineers with identifying crossing points. They had informed Burnside that he had two choices -- the bridge and a ford about 1/2 mile below it. Cox divided the command into three parts -- three brigades to go against the bridge; three to use the ford to turn the bridge; and two in reserve. Once the order to go was given, it was discovered that the engineers had mis-located the ford -- it was further down the creek then they said. So time was lost locating the actual ford. Meanwhile Mac got anxious and ordered Burnside to force the bridge. So he tried attacking directly. Eventually the turning force found the ford, crossed and the defending force withdrew.

 

[TFSmith121]

So, the debacle wasn't Burnside's fault, or General Cox's? It was all on Little Mac?

That might work, but we'll need to see and understand the orders here. We haven't heard from and maybe @ErnieMac can help us out here.

What Ned said.

Beyond that, if I'm the commander and you're the subordinate, and you misunderstand or misinterpret my orders, that's not your fault. It's mine: command responsibility is just that.

Best,

 

[NedBaldwin]

There are several articles out there about people trying to ford the creek to see if it was doable.

Historian William Marvel wrote one in which he tried various spots. He found crossing at the ford downstream of the bridge that was used during the battle to be quite easy. Then he tried a spot further up -- "The banks there, vertical and slick with mud, stood 4 feet or more out of the water. I let myself down into chest-deep water and started across, but less than one-third of the way across my feet became tangled in the branches of a submerged tree, and I turned back." So then he tried closer to the bridge -- "I found most of the creek bed only 3 feet deep, but in the main channel I suddenly dropped in, to my chin." So then he tried next to the bridge -- "water came only to my waist, but stones made the bottom precarious footing. Twice I stumbled enough to fall into the water".

It had rained the night before the battle so the creek was probably high.

 

[Drew]

There are several articles out there about people trying to ford the creek to see if it was doable.

Historian William Marvel wrote one in which he tried various spots. He found crossing at the ford downstream of the bridge that was used during the battle to be quite easy. Then he tried a spot further up -- "The banks there, vertical and slick with mud, stood 4 feet or more out of the water. I let myself down into chest-deep water and started across, but less than one-third of the way across my feet became tangled in the branches of a submerged tree, and I turned back." So then he tried closer to the bridge -- "I found most of the creek bed only 3 feet deep, but in the main channel I suddenly dropped in, to my chin." So then he tried next to the bridge -- "water came only to my waist, but stones made the bottom precarious footing. Twice I stumbled enough to fall into the water".

It had rained the night before the battle so the creek was probably high.

The actual battle was fought in September, 1862, so I don't know how deep the creek may have been, rain or no. I don't know at what time of the year or under what condition Bill Marvel tried the creek, but it was certainly about 150 years after the fact. It really tells us nothing.

Kyd Douglas was there, in 1862 and knew the place. But, he can't know what he was talking about, if it doesn't suit the Narrative. General Jacob Cox pretty well confirms Douglas, but again, this is inconvenient.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Kyd Douglas was there, in 1862 and knew the place.

Did he know the place? Is there evidence of this?

General Jacob Cox pretty well confirms Douglas...

Here is from an article Cox wrote "The information obtained from the neighborhood was that no fords of the Antietam were passable at that time, except one about half-way between the two upper bridges and another less than half a mile below Burnside's Bridge. We, however, found during the engagement another ford a short distance above Burnside's Bridge. The inquiry and reconnaissance for the fords was made by engineer officers of the general staff, and our orders were based on their reports." Does this confirm Douglas? Doesnt seem that way to me.

 

[Drew]

Did he know the place? Is there evidence of this?

Yes, insofar as his parents' house and his childhood home is still preserved on the bank of the Potomac River, a mile and a half from the Antietam National Battlefield Park, we may be pretty confident he knew the place.

I'm going to have to dig on what General Cox actually wrote about this whole mess. You guys from California continue to barge into the Forums, good and fresh, when those of us in the Eastern Theatre are falling asleep. All is fair in love and war, we suppose.

I'll bump the Cox papers in the morning. Cheers.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Yes, insofar as his parents' house and his childhood home is still preserved on the bank of the Potomac River, a mile and a half from the Antietam National Battlefield Park, we may be pretty confident he knew the place.

So people who have actually tried to wade the creek dont know what they are talking about but someone who lived a couple miles away as a kid is authoritative.... and you accuse others of trying to fit a narrative

 

[Carronade]

Burnside was not a particularly distinguished combat commander at the army level; but neither was McClellan. His leadership of the Army of the Potomac was about as far removed from creating a "band of brothers" sense of comradeship and mutual understanding among his senior subordinates as is imaginable; his utter inability to train a replacement is obvious. Cohesion in any unit or formation is difficult to achieve and sustain; those officers who can do so, especially at the army level, are worth their weight in gold.

Ultimately, GBM was the field commander; any failures of his subordinates reflected upon what he had helped create over the preceding year. It took the efforts of Burnside and really Hooker to get the Army of the Potomac to the point it could fight and win a real victory against Lee, and it took Meade to lead it to that victory, and then it took Grant to sustain it.

Burnside, to be fair, had no illusions about his level of capability; he was a solid division commander and, in comparison to many of his peers, capable as an independent corps or similarly-sized detachment commander: he beat Longstreet at Knoxville, after all. McClellan had plenty of illusions about himself. The failures at Antietam, on the US side, ultimately were his, which is why he was relieved and spent the rest of his life blaming others for his failures.

The interesting point of comparison between Burnside and McClellan is what each achieved during the war, but after his respective relief as commanding general of the Army of the Potomac; Burnside served wherever he was sent and defeated James Longstreet at Knoxville. McClellan ran for office in wartime on a peace platform and was defeated by Abraham Lincoln.

Best,

Excellent observations; I hope you don't mind my highlighting a couple that I find particularly significant.