No Ambrose Burnside

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?
 
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.
 
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.:D
 
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.:D

Yeah, if Lee goes at Grant or Sherman the same way he went at Meade he can kiss his butt goodbye!
 
Without Burnside, the North Carolina Expedition may not go off at all and if it does, it may not be as successful. That leaves most of the NC ports open longer than they were in OTL, potentially delaying the war. The IX Corps may not be formed, giving lots of room for butterflies.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
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.
 
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? :rolleyes:
 

67th Tigers

Banned
So, according to you not only is Little Mac a good general but Ambrose Burnside is as well? :rolleyes:

I take people on their merits, not the propaganda....

Burnside has his flaws, McClellan has his flaws, Grant was his flaws, Sherman has his flaws etc.

Burnside is usually only remembered for Fredericksburg (an action which Lincoln considered a "victory"), and only for a bastardised version of that. The general that screwed up was the same general who screwed up the Maryland Campaign, Franklin. A subordinate who twice pulled defeat from the jaws of victory.
 
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....:rolleyes:
 
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....:rolleyes:

This is the same guy who seems to think Little Mac was a military genius on par with Napoleon and Alexander the Great. :D
 
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.

The man was a uninspired general, there's no two ways about it, but he never believed himself to be anything great and just endeavored to do his best in whatever task he found himself performing, even if he best turned out not to be good enough.

He could do a passable job as a Corps commander and was a good divisional commander but he couldn't handle anything higher.
 
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.

You do have a good point here. Burnside definitely deserves respect for knowing his own limitations.
 
As a review of the book 67th Tigers put it so well Burnside was a modest man who had much to be modest about.

At the lead up to the Battle of the Crater it can be fairly said that Burnside had done everything you could wish. He saw merit in a junior officer's plan, encouraged and supported the plan when others did not, did what he could to make his unit ready for the attack and convinced Grant of the merit of the plan who organized the Army of the Potomac to take advantage of the operation if the mine should be successful.

Then, as in a poker game, it was time to raise the ante and Burnside failed miserably.

Having been informed he could not use a regiment of colored troops, who had undergone specific training for the operation, he had to choose between his three other regiments. Two were led by officers of courage and distinction, the third was not only of questionable competence, which was sadly not that unusual, but a coward, which was most unusual. Somehow Burnside had no idea of this and he chose to allow the three men to draw cards to see which regiment would lead the attack. The rest is history.
 
Top