The Generalship of Ambrose E. Burnside

Sam Grant

Private
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Location
displaced Baltimorean
Ambrose E. Burnside, a veteran of the Mexican and Apache wars, makes appearances throughout the Civil War. At First Manassas he was commanded Rhode Island volunteers, while at Antietam he guided the bloody Union passage over the stone bridge that still wears his name. After McClellan he had a brief and controversial career as the commander of the Army of the Potomac, shattering his reputation in the twin debacles of Fredericksburg and the 'Mud March'.

Burnside was removed from command and replaced with his rival, Joseph Hooker, who for all his arrogant confidence was shamed in one of the most spectacular defeats the Union Army ever suffered. Burnside himself spent most of 1863 commanding the Army of the Ohio before being returned to the Army of the Potomac in 1864. His services under Grant at the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and other battles of that year were less than impressive, and culminated in his poor performance at the Petersburg Crater. He subsequently resigned from the Army, but returned to what became a prosperous civilian and political career. He is best known to posterity for his rather ridiculous facial hair, of a style modernly known as 'sideburns' in his honor.

Along with McClellan, Pope, and Hooker, Burnside stands as one of the less-than-impressive Union generals in the Eastern theater who lost his chance to prove himself the man President Lincoln was looking for. Burnside was not an unattractive personality, having neither the offensive manner of Pope, nor the conceit of Hooker. Tall, handsome, intelligent, honest, and friendly, Burnside had few enemies and as much pre-war experience as any of his rivals and enemies.

Why, then, is the story of Burnside's performance in the greatest War of his lifetime, one debacle after another?

As Grant recalled in his memoirs, neither Burnside's fellow officers nor Burnside himself had any confidence in his abilities as the commander of an army. Burnside knew his place and was comfortable in it, and turned down offers to command the Army of the Potomac twice before McClellan's second removal after Antietam, when he only reluctantly assumed the latter's mantle.

At Fredericksburg, the Union defeat - most prominently the mind-numbing slaughter at Marye's Heights - is attributed to Burnside's lack of communication skills. His unwillingness, or inability to rationally communicate his desires to his under-officers resulted in the clumsily-organized offensives on the Confederate positions. In this Burnside can be contrasted with Grant, who displayed great talent in succintly communicating his wishes whenever he gave orders, leaving no doubts as to his intentions for his army's performance in the battle.

Burnside was not lacking in charisma or 'people skills'. Nor was he lacking in courage and devotion to his cause - after the conclusion of the fighting at Fredericksburg, Burnside expressed intentions of leading a second assault in person, from which he was fortunately dissuaded by his staff. But again, we can look to Grant, and Grant's own writings, to see the fatal contrast. Burnside, unlike Grant, and unlike his opponent at Fredericksburg, lacked the moral courage to guide an army to victory.
 
Burnside's North Carolina Expedition was his major contribution to the war effort. I believe this is what caught Lincoln's attention as it was a successful amphibious campaign. To beat the Confederacy amphibious operations were required.
 
Ambrose E. Burnside, a veteran of the Mexican and Apache wars, makes appearances throughout the Civil War. At First Manassas he was commanded Rhode Island volunteers, while at Antietam he guided the bloody Union passage over the stone bridge that still wears his name. After McClellan he had a brief and controversial career as the commander of the Army of the Potomac, shattering his reputation in the twin debacles of Fredericksburg and the 'Mud March'.

Burnside was removed from command and replaced with his rival, Joseph Hooker, who for all his arrogant confidence was shamed in one of the most spectacular defeats the Union Army ever suffered. Burnside himself spent most of 1863 commanding the Army of the Ohio before being returned to the Army of the Potomac in 1864. His services under Grant at the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and other battles of that year were less than impressive, and culminated in his poor performance at the Petersburg Crater. He subsequently resigned from the Army, but returned to what became a prosperous civilian and political career. He is best known to posterity for his rather ridiculous facial hair, of a style modernly known as 'sideburns' in his honor.

Along with McClellan, Pope, and Hooker, Burnside stands as one of the less-than-impressive Union generals in the Eastern theater who lost his chance to prove himself the man President Lincoln was looking for. Burnside was not an unattractive personality, having neither the offensive manner of Pope, nor the conceit of Hooker. Tall, handsome, intelligent, honest, and friendly, Burnside had few enemies and as much pre-war experience as any of his rivals and enemies.

Why, then, is the story of Burnside's performance in the greatest War of his lifetime, one debacle after another?

As Grant recalled in his memoirs, neither Burnside's fellow officers nor Burnside himself had any confidence in his abilities as the commander of an army. Burnside knew his place and was comfortable in it, and turned down offers to command the Army of the Potomac twice before McClellan's second removal after Antietam, when he only reluctantly assumed the latter's mantle.

At Fredericksburg, the Union defeat - most prominently the mind-numbing slaughter at Marye's Heights - is attributed to Burnside's lack of communication skills. His unwillingness, or inability to rationally communicate his desires to his under-officers resulted in the clumsily-organized offensives on the Confederate positions. In this Burnside can be contrasted with Grant, who displayed great talent in succintly communicating his wishes whenever he gave orders, leaving no doubts as to his intentions for his army's performance in the battle.

Burnside was not lacking in charisma or 'people skills'. Nor was he lacking in courage and devotion to his cause - after the conclusion of the fighting at Fredericksburg, Burnside expressed intentions of leading a second assault in person, from which he was fortunately dissuaded by his staff. But again, we can look to Grant, and Grant's own writings, to see the fatal contrast. Burnside, unlike Grant, and unlike his opponent at Fredericksburg, lacked the moral courage to guide an army to victory.

Terrific read on General Burnside, great thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Burnside commanded the IX Corps during 1863 in its late March rail trip from Baltimore to Cincinnati then its march through Kentucky and Tennessee during April and May and back to the Ohio River in June then via rail to the Mississippi River and via steamer to Vicksburg on June 15th and to Jackson in July and then on August 6th started back to Cincinnati arriving on the 14th then marching back through Kentucky and Tennessee during July through March 1864 then back to Cincinnati on April 3 and off to Baltimore and arrived on April 6th then to Annapolis on April 7th, 1864. The IX Corps rejoined the Army of the Potomac in late April of 1864.
 
Back
Top