anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004 From: Dallas Status: offline
|
His replacements had to go for the gusto, primarily because Lincoln could not afford anymore McClellan-like delays. Fredericksburg (Burnside) and Chancelorsville (sp?) (Hooker) were excellent plans that were waylaid by a pontoon bridge and a set of cojones, respectively. All of the Union plans in the eastern theater were designed, one way or another, to cut Lee off from his base. Antietam is probably the exception to the rule about "driving into" the enemy. He had a 3-1 advantage in the morning, maybe 2-1 in the afternoon. I think he could have won by "driving into" the enemy at any point, instead of what he did. I guess we can argue about what "tactical control" means. If you mean that the commanding general moved x brigade here or y division there. I agree, that didn't generally happen. If you mean they didn't formulate battle plans like McClellan's prior to Antietam, I don't. In any event McClellan wasn't normally on the battlefield to exercise control. During Seven Days he never visited the front and only communicated to Keyes and Porter to refuse their requests for reinforcements. He was absent at Malvern Hill. At Antietem he was 3 miles behind the front, sat in a house all day and never bothered to witness the action. The only control he ever exercised during a battle was to refuse to continue in the afternoon after his intitial 'piece-meal attack from the right' plan at Antietam was defeated. I assume he thought he'd have won by then, so no more plans were needed. Any expert defense (Seven Days?, don't know any other battle he was on the defensive). as by his corp commanders, not him. They may have been fond of him, but they still voted overwhelmingly for Lincoln even after they had gotten the ****e kicked out them in the wilderness.
< Message edited by anarchyintheuk -- 1/27/2005 9:41:26 PM >
|