Burnside tells Lincoln "Mr. President, I'm flattered, but I'm not your man."

Kentucky Derby Cavalier.

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
Ambrose Burnside Is offered command of Army of the Potomac after Antietam, but instead of taking the job he tells Lincoln "Mr. President, I'm flattered, but I'm not your man." "I'm not fit to lead an army, I'm a Corps commander, that is what I am." What happens next? Hello Joe Hooker? Skip Fredrickburg and jump straight into Chancellorsville?

Burn.jpg
 
Last edited:
Burnside knew he was unfit for such high command, and did express his lack of confidence in himself to Lincoln. But in trying to prove himself and show Lincoln that he had the willingness to pursue the Rebel army, unlike McClellan, he ended up writing his name into history at the Battle of Fredericksburg by slaughtering his troops. That's why he is considered one of the most inept generals of the war.
 
Burnside knew he was unfit for such high command, and did express his lack of confidence in himself to Lincoln. But in trying to prove himself and show Lincoln that he had the willingness to pursue the Rebel army, unlike McClellan, he ended up writing his name into history at the Battle of Fredericksburg by slaughtering his troops. That's why he is considered one of the most inept generals of the war.
I guess a good question to ask would be what would Burnsides legacy be if he was never in charge of the AOTP? Honestly Burnside wasn't that bad of a Corps leader.
 
Burnside knew he was unfit for such high command, and did express his lack of confidence in himself to Lincoln. But in trying to prove himself and show Lincoln that he had the willingness to pursue the Rebel army, unlike McClellan, he ended up writing his name into history at the Battle of Fredericksburg by slaughtering his troops. That's why he is considered one of the most inept generals of the war.
I guess a good question to ask would be what would Burnsides legacy be if he was never in charge of the AOTP? Honestly Burnside wasn't that bad of a Corps leader.
 
I guess a good question to ask would be what would Burnsides legacy be if he was never in charge of the AOTP? Honestly Burnside wasn't that bad of a Corps leader.
I have to disagree... Burnside was in charge of the 9th Corp during the Petersburg campaign, which fought the Battle of the Crater. That was an absolute disaster and a very sad affair. Burnside was later put on permanent leave and never recalled to active duty.
 
Ambrose Burnside Is offered command of Army of the Potomac after Antietam, but instead of taking the job he tells Lincoln "Mr. President, I'm flattered, but I'm not your man." "I'm not fit to lead an army, I'm a Corps commander, that is what I am." What happens next? Hello Joe Hooker? Skip Fredrickburg and jump straight into Chancellorsville?

View attachment 350895
How long after Antietam are we talking, here? Is McClellan's relief taking place on schedule?

Going by seniority, the next choice is Sumner (who actually ranks Burnside but was removed from the AotP before the Loudoun Valley campaign), then FJ Porter, then Franklin, and only then Hooker.
 
Last edited:
How long after Antietam are we talking, here? Is McClellan's relief taking place on schedule?

Going by seniority, the next choice is Sumner (who actually ranks Burnside but was removed from the AotP before the Loudoun Valley campaign), then FJ Porter, then Franklin, and only then Hooker.
Exactly on schedule, but Burnside turns Lincoln down.
 
I have to disagree... Burnside was in charge of the 9th Corp during the Petersburg campaign, which fought the Battle of the Crater. That was an absolute disaster and a very sad affair. Burnside was later put on permanent leave and never recalled to active duty.
I do recall Sherman trying the same thing at Vicksburg and failing, If Burnside succeeds at the Crater, it would go down as one of the better redemption stories of the conflict, but it failed, so he's perceived as one of the worst Generals ever.

Believe me, by no means am I saying that Burnside was a world-beater, but I think he had some good qualities. I like how he handled the Knoxville and Carolina Campaigns.
 
Burnside knew he was unfit for such high command, and did express his lack of confidence in himself to Lincoln. But in trying to prove himself and show Lincoln that he had the willingness to pursue the Rebel army, unlike McClellan, he ended up writing his name into history at the Battle of Fredericksburg by slaughtering his troops. That's why he is considered one of the most inept generals of the war.

Yes all true but Burnside did defeat the great General Longstreet.
Leftyhunter
 
Exactly on schedule, but Burnside turns Lincoln down.
In that case then going by seniority rules the next general is FJ Porter. This might have interesting political implications because FJ Porter was made the scapegoat for Second Bull Run and relieved of command not long after McClellan's own relief, but if it goes:

McClellan - relieved
Burnside - turns the job down
FJ Porter - next most senior, would get the job, but then gets relieved of command

Then - combined with Buell being removed - it starts to look an awful lot like a purge of Democrats.

Franklin would be next up, by seniority, and then it's Hooker after him.
 
In that case then going by seniority rules the next general is FJ Porter. This might have interesting political implications because FJ Porter was made the scapegoat for Second Bull Run and relieved of command not long after McClellan's own relief, but if it goes:

McClellan - relieved
Burnside - turns the job down
FJ Porter - next most senior, would get the job, but then gets relieved of command

Then - combined with Buell being removed - it starts to look an awful lot like a purge of Democrats.

Franklin would be next up, by seniority, and then it's Hooker after him.
That would create an interesting dynamic, I wonder how it's perceived in Washington, maybe it grows a rift between the Pres and his Military?
 
I'd never be so bold as to apoolgize for Fredricksburg or the Crater. During Fredricksburg, Burn should've been up at the front to see what was happening, instead, he was pretty far away from the fighting.
Being a frontline general isn't necessarily a plus, so long as you can communicate. The real mistake was a few days earlier though, see next post.


That would create an interesting dynamic, I wonder how it's perceived in Washington, maybe it grows a rift between the Pres and his Military?
One sort of developed anyway, as far as I can tell, though it never amounted to anything.
 
There are three things that really harm the viability of the Fredericksburg campaign, because when McClellan was relieved the army was actually in a really good position - the Loudoun Valley campaign saw little fighting but a lot of fast moving and McClellan stole more than one march on Lee.

The first thing is the pause of more than a week between McClellan's relief and the armies starting to move again. This gave time for Jackson to get his situation in hand and be ready to get moving again, and in this case with the need to communicate with Washington to pick who was in command the same dynamic would result.

The second thing is the move east rather than south. Lee's army was divided at the time and could not effectively defend the line of the Rapidan, and if Burnside (or whoever) crossed the Rapidan and then angled east for Fredericksburg (while 11th Corps covered the supply lines until Burnside detached from them, before shifting to Fredericksburg) then worst-case is that the Union army marches to and establishes water supply at Port Royal. Union army in supply over the Rappahanock.

The third thing is the actions once Burnside reached the north bank of the Rappahanock, and that's that he didn't push a corps across the river to hold a debouche. There are viable fords and he got there days before any significant number of Confederate troops did, indeed Lee originally marched for Hanover Junction because he thought he couldn't possibly stop Burnside getting across the Rappahanock in force. The pontoon delay didn't help, but even if the pontoon delay happened as per historical a corps or two over the Rappahanock to hold a debouche would have prevented the historical slaughter.


So if whoever it is who replaces Burnside either goes south of the Rapidan first before turning for Fredericksburg, or pushes straight for Gordonsville (a key rail junction), or even moves to Falmouth and then pushes some troops over the river to hold the debouche, then the campaign goes better than historical.
It happens that one of McClellan's campaign patterns is to do exactly that latter thing, but that doesn't necessarily mean that FJ Porter would do it; Sumner did want to do it, but he performed better as a subordinate than when he was in command (at least on the Peninsula).
 
I do recall Sherman trying the same thing at Vicksburg and failing, If Burnside succeeds at the Crater, it would go down as one of the better redemption stories of the conflict, but it failed, so he's perceived as one of the worst Generals ever.

Believe me, by no means am I saying that Burnside was a world-beater, but I think he had some good qualities. I like how he handled the Knoxville and Carolina Campaigns.
I agree with you. If the Crater would have been a victory, history would have probably hailed him a hero... but it failed...
 
I'm not a defender of Burnside but I wonder whether or not he was placed in a situation by Lincoln and Halleck.
They did have form with it. I suspect Lincoln in particular had unrealistic standards for what a general should be able to do, or rather that he thought this "being a general" thing was very easy without realizing that in war, while everything is "simple", even the simplest things are complicated.
 
I'm not a defender of Burnside but I wonder whether or not he was placed in a situation by Lincoln and Halleck in which he could not succeed at Fredricksburg. To begin with, Lincoln forced Burnside to attempt an offensive going into winter weather and without allowing sufficient time for the new army commander to size up his new command. Second, Burnside's plan of movement was only reluctantly endorsed by the administration, which preferred a route along the Orange and Alexandria RR. Thirdly, in consequence, Halleck and his engineering staff bungled the expeditious supply of pontoons to the AOTP.
Again, I do not assert that Burnside himself was not responsible for much of the faulty execution that resulted in the Fredricksburg fiasco. But was he solely responsible?
 
Back
Top