Burnside's IX Corps

Dred

First Sergeant
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Location
Tulsa, Oklahoma
I am currently reading about the Wilderness campaign of 1864. The author seems to take it for granted that you know the circumstances before the campaign, and never explains the situation of Burnside and his IX corps. Can anybody tell my why his command was independent and not part of the AoP or any other Army at the time?
 
I have always understood the reason was that technically Burnside outranked Meade. If Burnsides Corps were part of Meades army, then Burnside would be back in command of the AoP.
 
In late March of 1863 the IX Corps was transfered to Kentucky and Tennessee and in early June to Vicksburg and Jackson, Mississippi and then back to Kentucky and Tennessee. By late March 1864 they were headed back East. They travelled by train, foot, and steamer.
I do not know about the rank of the two commanders. I think if the CIC appoints a commander of an army all have to follow orders. Visit my website, www.civilwardiary.net, to read about the IX Corps and at Wikipedia.
 
Thanks for the info, I did not know about all the transfers. I know Burnside still fell under Grant, as did every Federal Unit, but he was not under Meade's command. Maybe he had not been offically transferred back to the AoP yet? or maybe he outranked Meade?
 
From Wikipedia:
"Burnside was ordered to take the IX Corps back to the Eastern Theater, where, in Annapolis, Maryland , he built it up to a strength of over 21,000 effectives. The IX Corps fought in the Overland Campaign of May 1864 as an independent command, reporting initially to Grant; his corps was not assigned to the Army of the Potomac because Burnside outranked its commander, Maj. Gen. George G. Mead, who had been a division commander under Burnside at Fredericksburg. (This cumbersome arrangement was rectified on May 24 just before the Battle of North Anna, when Burnside agreed to waive his precedence of rank and was placed under Meade's direct command.)[14]"
 
(This cumbersome arrangement was rectified on May 24 just before the Battle of North Anna, when Burnside agreed to waive his precedence of rank and was placed under Meade's direct command.)
Which may well indicate that there was no real difficulty except that, in military circles, placing a superior under another's command simply was not done. I take Burnsides' gesture as recognition of the fix and graciously volunteering to remedy it. Of course, I don't know if Grant or Meade suggested it (as in, would you like Western Montana as your new post?).

ole
 
"I was with Grant"--the stranger said;
Said the farmer, "Say no more,
But rest thee here at my cottage porch,
For thy feet are weary and sore."

"I was with Grant"--the stranger said;
Said the farmer, "Nay, no more,-
I prithee sit at my frugal board,
And eat of my humble store.

"How fares my boy,--my soldier boy,
Of the old Ninth Army Corps?
I warrant he bore him gallantly
In the smoke and the battle's roar!"

"I know him not," said the aged man,
"And, as I remarked before,
I was with Grant"--"Nay, nay, I know,"
Said the farmer, "say no more;

"He fell in battle,--I see, alas!
Thou'dst smooth these tidings o'ver,--
Nay, speak the truth, whatever it be,
Though it rend my bosom's core.

"How fell he, --with his face to the foe,
Upholding the flag he bore?
Oh, say not that my boy disgraced
The uniform that he wore!"

"I cannot tell," said the aged man,
"And should have remarked before,
That I was with Grant, --in Illinois--
Some three years before the war."

Then the farmer spake him never a word,
But beat with his fist full sore
That aged man, who had worked for Grant
Some three years before the war.

Francis Bret Harte, "The Aged Stranger"

IX = Ninth
One of my mom's favorite pieces of doggerel. She laughs every time she recites it.
 
Team Player

Freddy said:
(This cumbersome arrangement was rectified on May 24 just before the Battle of North Anna, when Burnside agreed to waive his precedence of rank and was placed under Meade's direct command

One thing about Burnside, he does seem to be a team player.
 
cw1865 said:
One thing about Burnside, he does seem to be a team player.


I dunno, he's kinda slow. Not sure I would want him on my team lol The Rebs probably wouldn't have taken him either tho.. too bad for us hehe
 
At 28 in 1852 Burnside was stationed in Providence, RI and later went into private business there and married a local girl. My great grandfather states this in his diary as he returned home from the war in 1865

[FONT=&quot]June 13th[FONT=&quot].[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Had a fine night’s rest on deck of the steamer. Into Providence at 8 a.m. We were treated to a fine collation, interspersed with music from Morris Brothers minstrels. Came upon General Burnside on the street and cheered him most lustily...[/FONT]
 
I'd take Butler over Burnsides anyday. At least with Butler there's a reasonable chance I wouldn't have to fight.
 
I think Blockaderunner is correct, that Burnside did somehow outrank Meade, and that Grant, mistakenly, gave him the courtesy of his independant command at the start of the Overland Campaign. I think, at some point , before Petersburg, Grant did finally fold Burnside into Meade's command. . After his early coastal experience, with the exception of Knoxville, where all he had to do was sit tight, Burnside seemed to manage to bungle every opportunity affored him.
 
Gary,
I laughed out loud when I read your post.

The 9th Corps including a large number of USCT units. It was almost a USCT corps. Burnside, predictably, threw away many of their lives by screwing up the Battle of the Crater(with help both above and below the chain of command).

Butler was no commander, but to his credit, he didn't think he was either. Burnside on the other hand, was promoted past his competence level when he was made colonel, was a poor corps commander, a poor army commander, then a poor corps commander again.
 
All military confrontations tend to expose the nature of the officer corps. Unfortunately, the exposure tends to come at a tight spot--when the price for discovery is steep.

The officer corps is filled with men and women whose gifted talents do not include a facility for managing troops under battlefield conditions. We can find that out only after some calamitous fact.

Who'd a thunk a couple of mediocre, scruffy Ohio natives -- one who failed miserably at everything he tried, and another whose excitable imagination got him labeled insane -- would have the qualities so lacking in the resumes of the (on paper) superstars?

Just a thought.

ole
 
Leadership

Ole hit it right on the head. Unfortunately the necessary qualities for a leader are extremely hard to define because there is simply no way to truly test an individual's reactions to stress situations until it actually occurs.
 
Ole hit it right on the head. Unfortunately the necessary qualities for a leader are extremely hard to define because there is simply no way to truly test an individual's reactions to stress situations until it actually occurs.
You are overly kind, CW. And yet, we can't really denigrate the contributions of that battlefield fool, McClellan. He had mastered a major and important piece of building a real live army. That he couldn't bring himself, or had no desire, to use it as we can see it from our armchairs, ought not detract from the skill he brought to the ballgame. Every one of the little guys played a part.

We have the advantage of looking back and asking why this or that dumb bustard didn't see what is plainly apparent. (A bustard is some kind of African vulture--I think.) If you can truly put yourself into Lincoln's place, or Scott's, or McClellan's, or Grant's, or Sherman's, or Lee's, or Davis' shoes. You kind of get the idea that the whole thing was more than a bit overwhelming. These were more or less ordinary guys striving to do really important things. We are quite fortunate that more than a few stumbled on the right thing to do. Of such is history made.

Sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't.

Providence?

ole
 
matthew mckeon said:
Gary,
I laughed out loud when I read your post.

The 9th Corps including a large number of USCT units. It was almost a USCT corps. Burnside, predictably, threw away many of their lives by screwing up the Battle of the Crater(with help both above and below the chain of command).

Butler was no commander, but to his credit, he didn't think he was either. Burnside on the other hand, was promoted past his competence level when he was made colonel, was a poor corps commander, a poor army commander, then a poor corps commander again.
Absolutely not! The IX Corps had its beginnings at Second Bull Run then fought at South Mountain, Anteitam, Fredericksburg, Vicksburg, Jackson and Knoxville. USCT joined the IX Corps in April of 1864, one of four divisions in the corps. They were kept behind until June 19, 1864 when USCT joined in the line. In December of 1864 USCT were transfered to the new XV Corps. USCT were never more than 1/4 of the IX Corps and were actively fighting for six months before being transfered.

Let us not blast Burnside to the point of casting the entire IX Corps in the same light of its sometimes commander. The IX Corps regiments, both USCT and white, fought bravely at the battles they were in. Whatever Burnside's faults as a Civil War commander he fought bravely on the western frontier where he was wounded by an Indian arrow and earlier was in the war with Mexico, but saw no action. This June 13, 1865 quote is from History of the Thirty-Fifth Regiment, Massachusetts Volunteers, 1862-1865.

"Disembarking from the steamer, we were escorted by a regiment of militia through the principal streets, which beautified by the throngs of the fairest ladies, and having marched past the home of General Burnside (where our beloved leader sat on the porch to welcome us), halted at a commodious hall..."
 
Lovable Loser

Freddy said:
Let us not blast Burnside to the point of casting the entire IX Corps in the same light of its sometimes commander.

Burnside is so difficult to blast because he's the lovable lover. Its difficult not to like him. He fails, but when he is thrust into command of the Army of the Potomac, he tells Lincoln that he's not ready for it.

Burnside should have been a CEO, I could definitely see him building a USX
 
ole said:
You are overly kind, CW. And yet, we can't really denigrate the contributions of that battlefield fool, McClellan. He had mastered a major and important piece of building a real live army. That he couldn't bring himself, or had no desire, to use it as we can see it from our armchairs, ought not detract from the skill he brought to the ballgame. Every one of the little guys played a part.

We have the advantage of looking back and asking why this or that dumb bustard didn't see what is plainly apparent. (A bustard is some kind of African vulture--I think.) If you can truly put yourself into Lincoln's place, or Scott's, or McClellan's, or Grant's, or Sherman's, or Lee's, or Davis' shoes. You kind of get the idea that the whole thing was more than a bit overwhelming. These were more or less ordinary guys striving to do really important things. We are quite fortunate that more than a few stumbled on the right thing to do. Of such is history made.

Sometimes the magic works. Sometimes it doesn't.

Providence?

ole

Perhaps, to a point, but how can anyone excuse McClellan for that month long "siege" of Yorktown?
 
Back
Top