Just watched another vaguely educational History Channel piece from their (US) Civil War series. This one was on the Battle of Fredericksburg.
For those unfamiliar, a thumbnail synopsis of Fredericksburg: Union General Ambrose Burnsides tragically sent his right wing against heavily fortified Confederate positions at Marye’s Heights and was repeatedly repulsed, taking the most lopsided casualties of any major Civil War battle. But his left wing had actually temporarily broken into Jackson’s lines on Prospect Hill to the south…a success that went unreinforced, leading to retreat and failure on that wing. The doomed Union charges on the right, however, went on all afternoon; 15 times in all, the boys in blue marched up that hill and were slaughtered.
In the TV program, a historian/author named Frank A. O’Reilly (appearing in distinguished company near the bottom of this page I just Googled) made a claim that, if I understood what he was saying, astonished me. He said that after the Prospect Hill attack failed on the (Union’s) left, Burnsides had NO CHOICE but to continue attacking Marye’s Heights. Though the attacks were fruitless, losing many men and nearly destroying Union morale, Burnsides had to mask his weakness and keep up an appearance of strength (I presume he meant, “in order to deter Confederate counterattack.”)
Seeing as how Fredericksburg was the worst battle the Union fought (and that’s saying something), and how the Prospect Heights attack failed specifically because the extensive reserves available were not used (and this would have been available to deal with any theoretical counterattack), and how the entire rest of the war was probably better for the Union soldiers than that afternoon on Marye’s Heights, I don’t see how this can be true.
The decision to attack Marye’s Heights has universally been considered Burnsides’ second worst decision, second only to the decision to continue attacking there while being slaughtered. As the attack continued, Lee was grimly delighted: it was here that he made his famous comment, “It is well that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it.” The moment the attack stopped, the Union army breathed a sigh of relief, and eventually began the process of recovering. And Lee didn’t attack them then, despite the fact that AFTER the charges the Union army was much weaker than if it had not attacked at all (although I’ll grant that darkness eventually did fall, but there was no counterattack the next day, either).
So maybe I misheard or misunderstood this historian? Obviously he’s sufficiently regarded to get quoted for TV, and I’m just an aficionado of history. But I ran the DVR back a few times and it looks like that’s what he said – that Burnsides had NO CHOICE but to essentially suicide his army to keep up appearances.
That can’t possibly be a sensible interpretation of the events, can it?