Campfire and battlefield : $b an illustrated history of the campaigns and conflicts of the great Civil WarRidpath, John Clark
History
Campfire and battlefield : $b an illustrated history of the campaigns and conflicts of the great Civil War
Ridpath, John Clark
United States -- History -- Civil War, 1861-1865 -- Campaigns; United States -- History -- Civil War, 1861-1865 -- Pictorial works
One of General McClellan's severest critics, Gen. John G. Barnard, in
an elaborate review of the campaign, wrote: "It was a blunder
unparalleled to expose Porter's corps to fight a battle by itself on
the 27th against overwhelming forces of the enemy. With perfect ease
that corps might have been brought over on the night of the 26th, and,
if nothing more brilliant could have been thought of, the movement to
the James might have been in full tide of execution on the 27th. A
more propitious moment could not have been chosen, for, besides
Jackson's own forces, A. P. Hill's and Longstreet's corps were on the
left bank of the Chickahominy on the night of the 26th. Such a
movement need not have been discovered to the enemy till far enough
advanced to insure success. At any rate, he could have done no better
in preventing it than he actually did afterward.... He has spent weeks
in building bridges which establish a close connection between the
wings of his army, and then fights a great battle with a smaller
fraction of his army than when he had a single available bridge, and
that remote. He, with great labor, constructs 'defensive works' in
order that he 'may bring the greatest possible numbers into action,'
and again exhibits his ability to utilize his means by keeping
sixty-five thousand men idle behind them, while thirty-five thousand,
unaided by 'defensive works' of any kind, fight the bulk of his
adversary's forces, and are, of course, overwhelmed by 'superior
numbers.' We believe there were few commanding officers of the Army of
the Potomac who did not expect to be led offensively against the enemy
on the 26th or 27th. Had such a movement been made, it is not
improbable that, if energetically led, we should have gone into
Richmond. Jackson and A. P. Hill could not have got back in time to
succor Magruder's command, if measures of most obvious propriety had
been taken to prevent them. We might have beaten or driven Magruder's
twenty-five thousand men and entered Richmond, and then, reinforced by
the great moral acquisition of strength this success would have given,
have fought Lee and reëstablished our communications. At any rate,
something of this kind was worth trying.... Our army is now
concentrated on the James; but we have another day's fighting before
us, and this day we may expect the concentrated attack of Lee's whole
army. We know not at what hour it will come--possibly late, for it
requires time to find out our new position and to bring together the
attacking columns--yet we know not when it will come. Where, this day,
is the commanding general? Off, with Captain Rodgers, to select 'the
final positions of the army and its depots.' He does not tell us that
it was on a gunboat, and that this day not even 'signals' would keep
him in communication with his army, for his journey was ten or fifteen
miles down the river; and he was thus absent till late in the
afternoon. This is the first time we ever had reason to believe that
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account