"A Simple Hop, Skip, and Jump?" Burnside and His Bridge at Antietam: A Reexamination (Lecture)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 พ.ค. 2017
- Major General Ambrose E. Burnside ranks among the most maligned generals of the American Civil War and much of the criticism leveled against him stems from his actions during the September 17th, 1862, Battle of Antietam, and especially his efforts at storming the Burnside Bridge. But is this popular criticism of Burnside fair? Join John Hoptak for a new look at the role and actions of Ambrose Burnside and the soldiers of his 9th Corps during the war's Bloodiest Day.
While the history Channel devolved into shows about "aliens" and "ghost hunters," they could have been making absolutely excellent documentaries based on these lectures.
Ah those times when they were producing or showing their own excellent documentaries about the Civil War are long gone but at least most that solid work is still available in this medium, and those series were rich in detail, they even highlighted relative minor battles like Mine Creek which is something important given that even today is hard to find good material about more important battles like Pea Ridge and Stones River.
History channel has totally gone liberal politics like ESPN
@jaywinters2483
Crazy conspiracy theories are in the Republican wheelhouse. I imagine Republican leadership like Marjorie Trailer Green would love garbage TV about aliens making the pyramids.
@@jaywinters2483sorry but it’s not politics driving what history channel changed to. It was just money.
I used to live where Ft. Sanders stood in Knoxville TN, so I was well aware of Burnside's involvement there and the great trick played on Longstreet's men, when the Union soldiers put wood planks to cover the trench between the Confederates and Ft. Sanders and let themselves be seen, then pulled the planks when they retreated into the fort and the Confederates got caught in the trenches.
I also used to volunteer at both Antietam and Gettysburg, when John Hoptak was at each one. John knows his stuff and knows it well and presents it well.
I would live in the Gettysburg Military Park if I could. Nothing fascinates me more than that period of time, and especially the battle. Being a native of PA, it is one of my favorite places. I've been there once, and I must return someday and walk the field.
Hallowed ground
@@alanaadams7440there used to be many modern structures and houses, and immediately after the battle a rail line was put through and the tourists first hit the “hallowed ground”. Gettysburg got Disneyfied long before Disney World.
This is what a history lecture should be: factual but lively and entertaining. John Hoptak is an excellent historian and speaker.
I'm going to Gettysburg on July 1- 4. It's a dream come tru!
you have simple dreams
Why would you state that you are going to Gettysburg,when this video is about the battle of Sharpsburg.
@@carywest9256 well the lecture is being done at Gettysburg
Another good one from John Hoptak.
I’m a direct descendant of Burnside from my mothers side of the family. It’s awesome to learn more about him.
Your ancestor was done dirty after that debacle at The Crater, most of the commanders were wearing clown shoes that day it seems, the rank and file paid the price with their lives, some guilty parties escaped that affair untouched and some like Burnside took an undeserved part of the blame.
Being a southerner I agree that he was given a bad rap, one to assume so much with hindsight is easy not standing in his boots
Im sure. Always someone claiming descent 😅. And my Great Great Grandfather was the one who shot John Sedgwick. And his cousin, shot John Reynolds. Dont teach that to the kids in their liberal "history" classes!!!! 🔥😂💯
@@Sealdeam If only Meade hadn't changed Burnside's plan
The main point to be made here is that Burnside's attack was intended by McClellan to occur almost in tandem with Hooker's and Sumner's - a three punch combination, as it were. Instead, Burnside's failure to get his attack going allowed Lee to siphon off men and use them to reinforce his center. McClellan sent numerous couriers to Burnside instructing him to get his attack going. Moreover, at one point in the action, Burnside had two divisions in a tangle on the bridge, as one moved to cross and the second moved to return and rearm, one looking for an imaginary ford, and one in reserve - this just at the moment when the first division had routed the entire confederate force facing them. When you have just routed the only units opposing you on the battlefield and you fail to take advantage of it - well, that's got to be at least one way to conclude the commander failed. If Burnside had attacked as scheduled, the entire confederate line would have been overwhelmed and if he'd gone on the attack with three of his divisions even a couple hours late, he would have threatened Lee with envelopment and destruction. In other words, Lee followed the events unfolding with Burnside and decided he could risk stripping away the men opposing Burnside because he had nothing to fear from that general.
Really? That's not what I got from this presentation at all. His corps was the only corps to cross the creek under fire, and the terrain made it difficult to get troops across the bridge and into position once it was secure. The presenter talked about how it took similar time for Hooker and Sumner's corps to cross the upper bridge.
Hooker and Sumner did not attack in tandem. Sumner was not even across the Antietam when Hooker launched his attack. Mansfield was supposed to support Hooker's attack but his attack was sequential to and not coordinate with Hooker's attack. McClellan launched piecemeal attacks that allowed Lee to meet each new threat. Burnside was the only Union general who accomplished his part of the plan that day and had his assault on Sharpsburg been properly supported by McClellan, Lee's lines might have been broken. Blaming Burnside for the deficiencies of McClellan's battle plan is just silliness.
Oh, seriously?! Then the Army of the Potomac was a complete disorganized mess:
1. Hooker attacked at 5-30 AM. Where was Sumner? Why Mansfield led the next attack if it should've been Sumner?
2. Burnside was attacking through a narrow bridge, capture of which required flanking. McClellan, as an engineer, knew that. Why did Burnside get an order to attack at 10 AM if he needed to strike in unison with Hooker?! In fact, Burnside would've got orders first, because he had to send the flanking force before the attempt to cross the bridge.
3. Okay, Rodman at last found a ford and flanked the bridge, and Burnside's Corps at last could cross the river. Now what? If McClellan planned that Burnside's attack "would have threatened Lee with envelopment and destruction" - why weren't there any reinforcements? A single Corps was way too exposed while climbing uphill to Sharpsburg, let alone flanking the entire Army of Northern Virginia. A charge of lower numbered force could overwhelm the attackersit - and that's just what we've seen by A.P. Hill's Light Division. But with Porter or Franklin there Hill would've been trapped and defeated.
It looks too weird to be true. So I'd say McClellan didn't have a general plan and tried to do a series of small attacks instead. The reality looked very much like that.
The weather on that day is something else to bear in mind, along with the terrain. It was foggy that morning - Hooker's men could only see the white Dunker church when the sun came up. As for terrain, that upper area is full of depressions where entire regiments would just disappear and between the fog and the terrain, the regiments following would lose them. We did an experiment with the Boy Scouts once near the West Woods - sent some of the boys out running while some stayed behind and whoop! The kids running just disappeared. Down and gone into one of the depressions. Looking out over the field you couldn't even tell the depression was there and it was a sunny morning.
I'm from Ill and I was always taught that it was land of Lincoln. That Lincoln was a great President and is to be revered and worshiped
Excellent presentation!!!!!
Outstanding lecture ! Great job !!
Terrific lecture !
Great lecture, very enjoyable. Personally, I wouldn't have used the Papyrus font, but that doesn't really detract from the lecture. Very nicely put together. Check out some of the ranger's battlewalks as well - his are quite good.
I actually kind of like it, it has an "Older" Style to it and I am sure he was looking for the best font out of all of the choices when it came to period correct styles.
Burnside was a fighter and he gave it 100% in EVERY battle
Yes. That's why he had two succesful campaigns and Longstreet as a loser :)
Burnside's problem was that many times his effort wasn't enough. No battle plan and botched recon in Antietam, delayed pontoons at Fredericksburg, replaced divisions at the Crater... I'd blame Burnside himself only for Fredericksburg. He should've known better than crossing there at those circumstances.
John Hoptak is OUTSTANDING
where can i get the powerpoint slides?
Of late I've been studying Rosecran's 1863 summer campaign my first thought was of Burnside's Knoxville campaign and his arrest of the traitorous copperhead Valandigham.
Traitor we say patriot states rights patriot against the war of Northern aggression
Burnside gets a bad rap he doesn't completely deserve. As a history major in collage I did a lot of research on him and he got slandered a lot by McClellan and he accepted that and didn't try to defend himself. and at fredericksburg he had a good plan that was badly botched. Same thing goes for the crater. I'm not saying he's Jackson or anything but he wasn't incompetent by any means
Sneaklone, are you talking about Pickett's Charge, or Burnside?? Or maybe you like the Zombies involved in the Battle of the Somme? Walking calmly across no man's land, toward the enemy line.
chobie inc productions in cjj
The first thought....Burnside's BRILLIANT strategy at Fredericksburg...and a valid reason that one might wish that he could be forgotten.
Good morning, is there a video of a lecture
On
five forks battle and the following attack on Petersburg that broke through? I can t find one and seems bizarre since it is perhaps the true final moment of the Army of northern VA.
Search for Road to Appomatox. The end of the siege is covered in depth there.
Nicely done presentation. Seems thoroughly researched. Entertaining as well. I give it a 10. Oh, and my first thought was the mud march!
Burnside’s Bridge. One of the saddest displays of command for the Union Army. A Teenager’s Guide to the Civil War: A History Book for Teens gives an overview history of the Civil War specifically for teenagers.
Watch this lecture again. I don’t have the book you mention but it I guarantee you it doesn’t have the care and sense that Ranger Hoptak takes here, and Hoptak knows this subject up and down. He worked at Antietam for years. Think about whoever wrote that book and where the info came from.
Watching on the 158th of Antietam. Seemed appropriate.
I think the criticism Burnside faces at Antietam is solely due to AP Hill's arrival saving the Confederate Army if Burnside had gotten across sooner Hill could not have attacked at the key moment in the battle. I think the only fault I find in Burnside's attack was that he did not make it a priority to locate Snavely Ford before given the order to attack, to that end I think the loss of Jesse Reno was key, I think his leadership on that day could have them across a little bit faster(not two hours but maybe 30-45 minutes). I would also argue that this same situation occurred two years later a few miles east of Sharpsburg at Monocacy where Jubal Early's men were stalled for nearly a day by an inferior force guarding a bridge and a ford.
Burnside had been given bad info from McC engineers about where Snavely’s Ford was so Rodman had to go looking for it and his men had to bushwhack through undergrowth to do it. And 8000 men and equipment across a one lane bridge in half an hour? No way.
Burnside defeated Longstreet? DAMN!
People always need a scapegoat. Sometimes things just don't work out.
A beautiful defense for the Confederates, one has to remember solders carrying equipment under fire from such a position would be almost impossible to wade, go see it and you will see , ask yourself if you would do it
I was just there today, the depth at the deepest part was no more than two feet deep. We haven’t had rain in a month so perhaps that plays a major role in whether they could or not. I can tell you they could have easily done it if the water tables were close to they were today.
@@mrmustang1 It's one thing for an individual to wade across a stream, and quite another for a formation to do it under fire.
Michael Sommers It was less than knee deep, no wading needed. If they could funnel them down the bridge under fire they could have certainly done it through the creek under formation.
@@mrmustang1 1) It was deeper at the time of the battle due to the rain; 2) Walking through knee-deep water _is_ wading; 3) Did you notice the banks?; 4) If the members of the JCS say it was not possible, I'll take their word for it.
Michael Sommers If Henry Kyd Douglas said they could have done it I take his word for it. We can agree to disagree because knee deep water isn’t wading to me.
In an alternate universe somewhere Lee is victorious. if for no other reason that Lee was a gentleman which can't be said of Grant.
Then I guess in some other universe human beings are still enslaved and their children sold away from them, because Lee was a gentleman.
Terrific lecture, but also a lesson in camera placement for this internet age :-(
General Burnside was a good supply officer and a horrible practitioner. When it come to where the metal needs the meat he was not the man to be in charge. Any soldier who wasn't blind Could see that crossing that goddamn bridge was nothing but murder or suicide depending on what side of the bridge you were on. Burnside should have been cashiered out for this.
My middle name is Partly Cloudy.
a "victory" with no fruits
Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were born on the exact same day.
I always felt that Burnside got a unfair bad reputation as a general during the civil war despite what historians thought about him. Others dropped the ball as well.
I don't, and I'm surprised he was ever returned to field command after Fredricksburg.
Like saying Lee should have been removed after Gettysburg. Samething right? smh
@@indy_go_blue6048 What campaign did he have after Fredericksburg? The Knoxville one, in which Burnside secured Eastern Tennessee for the Union and let Longstreet acheve absolutely nothing. Not many Generals could say they defeated Longstreet, you know :)
So Burnside was decent - but not above Army of the Ohio level. Leave Army of the Potomac for Meade - he was better with such big numbers.
@@bikernu If they considered to remove Lee, then he could be replaced. Gettysburg looked like one big disaster with Lee making blunder after blunder. A horrendous battle for such a great tactician.
But no one even thought of replacing Lee. He was way too good before. And... who'd replace Lee? Johnston? Beauregard? Longstreet? I don't think it'd change much - Grant would've choked any of them (or all together) like he did with Lee.
Am I allowed to detect any where in Gettysburg
I assume you mean with a metal detector to recover artifacts? Not on public land. You can do so on private land (with permission, of course).
You're welcome. I hope you have a great time. I visited Gettysburg in 2008, and it is a day I'll never forget. I hope to be able to spend more time there someday.
You are not allowed to take anything from the Park Service property. If you want to detect, you have to get a private landowner to let you onto their property, where you'd probably have more luck anyway. The battle was fought more widely than on Park Service property, and the effect of armies on the countryside was way broader than that, because those armies left stuff behind wherever they went.
Mr. Hoptak seems to be the only person in history who denigrates A. P. Hill - sounds like Mr. Hoptak has a man crush on Burnside and his whiskers.
So you haven't read Stephen Sears' *Gettysburg*? He said he couldn't judge Hill's performance those 3 days because no one knew where the hell he was.
The same could pretty much be said of Stonewall Jackson that day. @@indy_go_blue6048
You don't know Hoptak. He is a careful historian, which I don't think you are.
@@indy_go_blue6048 They knew where he was - down at Harper's Ferry, getting the occupation of that site squared away. Your post references the Battle of Gettysburg. This video is about Antietam.
It's NOT practicle to radically change the organization of your army at the very moment that army is entering a battle....just stupid
So it looks like the frontal assaults (the usual idiocy of the civil war) were Serious mistakes and that the MAIN push should have been to get across the ford to the south
and it would have been a Great idea to SCOUT for that ford using cavalry (because speed was paramount) but McClellan didn't give Burnside cavalry "eyes".. CAVALRY rather than just sending a division of slow moving infantry off blindly to knock around the wilderness.....
and it looks like mcclellen didn't even screen the extreme left flank of his army!
then Lied about when he gave Burnside orders and what Burnside's roll was to be in the attack using Burnside as a scapegoat....!!
what a cluster fuck
It looks like the cavalry scouted nothing at all - and that's why Antietam was so bloody. The Union army was blind.
1. Hooker attacks, thinking he's flanking Longstreet's line... and then SURPRISE! No one expects the Stuart's artillery at the actual flank! The result: Hooker's and later Mansfield's forces were decimated. I'd like to see a flanking attack on Stuart's batteries by Union cavalry - that'd be very nice.
2. Burnside recieves a late order to attack, sends a flanking party - SURPRISE, wrong ford! Let's wait several hours, making the attack even more useless that it was at tne beginning.
3. The battle is inconclusive, McClellan, as a smart commander, considers sending a reserve to break the enemy's defence... SURPRISE, he doesn't know where to send it because he knows nothing about the enemy!
Damn, Burns essentially got thrown under the bus by Mac.
Everyone got thrown under the bus by Mac at one time or another. Nothing was ever his fault.
@@indy_go_blue6048 One of the reasons Lincoln comes to realize "Little Mac" is not the man to lead the Army of the Potomac for the rest of the war.
? 7
Seriously? Burnside wasn't political? Burnside didn't do any reconnaissance, charged the bridge in piecemeal, the list goes on and on. Nice propaganda, but totally inaccurate.
One must wonder if the speaker would defend Burnside at Fredericksburg.
Yeah, he gives Burnside a lot of slack. How did he not know where Snavely's Ford was? Why was the first attack only a single regiment and how do they not know where the bridge is? Why is there no artillery firing on those rifle pits?
David Calderhead According to the lecturer, Burnside was too smart to use artillery
+David Calderhead _"How did he not know where Snavely's Ford was?"_
Right! All he had to do was check Google Maps.
Burnside shouldn’t have even been on that side of the field. He should have been commanding the wing on the northern end of the field.
@@johnmassoud930 No. According to the lecturer, Burnside used artillery but it didn't do much to those rifle pits.