I took a loser away from the South now I am doing it for the North. What if Burnside were to die before the ACW? How would this have helped the Union?
My awesome sideburns will no longer exist.
Fighting Joe Hooker at Fredericksburg?Would he so unwise as to follow in Burnside's footsteps?
Meade at Chancellorsville? Would he ever even be fooled enough to be caught in such a trap? I could see Lee trying it.
Grant at Gettysburg? Bye-bye, Lee.![]()
They just wouldn't be called sideburns.![]()
Wasn't he an okay (maybe even good) divisional commander, just lousy at higher actions? The wikipedia article on him seems to support that, quoting a historian who says that he would have made a fine colonel, he just wasn't suited for higher command. It would be enough to keep him out of the flag ranks, IMHO.
Actually he was a pretty decent general. His major failing was he continually deferred to Washington, meaning he ended up doing some stupid things not of his choosing. (This was of course why Burnside was selected, he was a "yes man").
Afterwards he totally outgeneralled Longstreet in the west, and performed extremely well as a Corps commander in the East. Unfortunately he had a habit of refusing Grant orders when they were unworkable (and often they were plain stupid), and he gets blamed for Grant's interference with the attack at the Crater.
So, according to you not only is Little Mac a good general but Ambrose Burnside is as well?![]()
I remember Burnside for his string of incompetence as IXth corps commander during the overland campaign.
You (67th) say he simply disagreed with Grant. I say he was slow in the Wilderness, taking two days to even get his men onto the battlefield and them only contributing when someone else commanded them. Then he was impossibly slow at Spotsylvania, and despite multiple orders to the contrary, refused to attack the IIIrd corps (at the time under Early) before he could entrench. This of course allowed much of that corps to reinforce the break at the Bloody Angle and saved the AoNV from disaster.
From there on he committed few egregious errors, but was reliably slow (if that makes sense) and unwilling to attack. I can see an arguement that Warren simply disagreed with Grant. When put on the same scale, Burnside worked against Grant practically every time he ordered an attack.
See Gordon C. Rhea's full published works on the Overland Campaign for reference.
And don't even get me started on the Crater....![]()
So, according to you not only is Little Mac a good general but Ambrose Burnside is as well?![]()
I have a begrudging respect for Burnside because he had a redeeming quality many lacked - he knew his limitations. He never sought a position higher than he couldn't - at the very extent of his capabilities - handle and when ever he found himself in a position higher than he could handle - usually thrust upon him by Lincoln who greatly respected him - he attempted to do the job to the best of his limited abilities.
This is the same guy who seems to think Little Mac was a military genius on par with Napoleon and Alexander the Great.![]()