re: Today is the 157th anniversary of one of the worst defeats in U.S. military history

Yea, Jackson wasn’t the man you wanted to try and flank.

quote:

---

Jackson wasn’t the man you wanted to try and flank.

---

It almost worked though. A single Union division made the assault into Jackson's line and threatened to cut his position in two if properly reinforced. Despite having another division in support, Meade was left entirely to his own devices inside Jackson's lines before he was forced to fall back due to overwhelming pressure. Had he been supported by the tens of thousands of reserve troops within shouting distance....who knows?

At the end of the day, the Battle of Fredericksburg was mishandled by incompetent Union leadership at the highest echelons of command. Burnside just might be the worst general in the history of the U.S. Army. Funny thing is, if he were alive today, he might actually agree with that sentiment. No one doubted Burnside's abilities more vigorously than Burnside himself.

quote:

---

Glad America turned it around under Grant/Sherman and won that war...aren't you?

---

Cleveland, Detroit, Newark,Chicago, etc, probably aren’t but I’m glad the South didn’t get stuck with all the obsolete agrarian workers.

Burnside and his sideburns completely failed. It’s amazing how inept the Generals leading the Army of the Potomac were until Grant arrived (though Meade technically was still the head of the Army of the Potomac under Grant who was general-in-Chief of the Union armies).

Fun facts: Ambrose Burnside’s facial hair is where the term “sideburns“ comes from. He was also the first president of the National Rifle Association.

quote:

---

I don’t understand why they even had him with such high command to begin with.

---

He had success in command of smaller units on the North Carolina coast in late-1861/early-1862. In that period of the war, the smallest of victories could make you nationally famous and the next best hope to end the war. He was also a very likable guy. He smiled easily and remembered everyone's name. He was just a shitty field general.

The famed Civil War historian Bruce Catton probably said it best:

quote:

---

Burnside had repeatedly demonstrated that it had been a military tragedy to give him a rank higher than colonel. One reason might have been that, with all his deficiencies, Burnside never had any angles of his own to play; he was a simple, honest, loyal soldier, doing his best even if that best was not very good, never scheming or conniving or backbiting. Also, he was modest; in an army many of whose generals were insufferable prima donnas, Burnside never mistook himself for Napoleon.

---

Outstanding.

Could you sum this up with one sentence and fewer than thirty words?

quote:

---

If Jackson is alive at Gettysburg the battle likely goes very differently.

---

The battle doesn't happen if Jackson is alive.

quote:

---

Jackson was an excellent battlefield commander

---

We'll agree to disagree on that. He was definitely a competent tactician but I wouldn't call him excellent by any stretch of the imagination. His biggest strengths lay in the art of maneuver and manipulation of force. His actual tactical abilities are overrated.