While the history Channel devolved into shows about "aliens" and "ghost hunters," they could have been making absolutely excellent documentaries based on these lectures.

@Sealdeam

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@jaywinters2483

3 жыл бұрын

History channel has totally gone liberal politics like ESPN

@Jon.A.Scholt

3 ай бұрын

@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.

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.

This is what a history lecture should be: factual but lively and entertaining. John Hoptak is an excellent historian and speaker.

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.

@alanaadams7440

Жыл бұрын

Hallowed ground

I'm going to Gettysburg on July 1- 4. It's a dream come tru!

@CastelDawn

6 жыл бұрын

you have simple dreams

@carywest9256

4 жыл бұрын

Why would you state that you are going to Gettysburg,when this video is about the battle of Sharpsburg.

@kevinpiacente3456

3 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@Sealdeam

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@mobilechief

4 жыл бұрын

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

@colemanspinks2339

4 жыл бұрын

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!!!! 🔥😂💯

@dadbot8480

Жыл бұрын

@@Sealdeam If only Meade hadn't changed Burnside's plan

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

Outstanding lecture ! Great job !!

Excellent presentation!!!!!

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.

@ftffighter

Жыл бұрын

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.

John Hoptak is OUTSTANDING

Burnside was a fighter and he gave it 100% in EVERY battle

@kristaskrastina2863

Жыл бұрын

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.

Nicely done presentation. Seems thoroughly researched. Entertaining as well. I give it a 10. Oh, and my first thought was the mud march!

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.

@vassilizaitzev1

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@jonathansloane702

2 жыл бұрын

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.

@kristaskrastina2863

Жыл бұрын

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.

@mlbrooks4066

9 ай бұрын

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.

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.

@markperrault5678

Жыл бұрын

Traitor we say patriot states rights patriot against the war of Northern aggression

where can i get the powerpoint slides?

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.

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

@zettle2345

6 жыл бұрын

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.

@francisnowak1971

5 жыл бұрын

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.

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.

Watching on the 158th of Antietam. Seemed appropriate.

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.

@vbfg1973

4 жыл бұрын

Search for Road to Appomatox. The end of the siege is covered in depth there.

Burnside defeated Longstreet? DAMN!

People always need a scapegoat. Sometimes things just don't work out.

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.

My middle name is Partly Cloudy.

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

@mrmustang1

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@michaelsommers2356

4 жыл бұрын

@@mrmustang1 It's one thing for an individual to wade across a stream, and quite another for a formation to do it under fire.

@mrmustang1

4 жыл бұрын

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.

@michaelsommers2356

4 жыл бұрын

@@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.

@mrmustang1

4 жыл бұрын

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.

Terrific lecture, but also a lesson in camera placement for this internet age :-(

a "victory" with no fruits

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.

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.

@indy_go_blue6048

4 жыл бұрын

I don't, and I'm surprised he was ever returned to field command after Fredricksburg.

@bikernu

4 жыл бұрын

Like saying Lee should have been removed after Gettysburg. Samething right? smh

@kristaskrastina2863

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@kristaskrastina2863

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin were born on the exact same day.

Am I allowed to detect any where in Gettysburg

@stflaw

7 жыл бұрын

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).

@stflaw

7 жыл бұрын

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.

It's NOT practicle to radically change the organization of your army at the very moment that army is entering a battle....just stupid

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.

@indy_go_blue6048

6 жыл бұрын

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.

@mlbrooks4066

9 ай бұрын

The same could pretty much be said of Stonewall Jackson that day. @@indy_go_blue6048

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

@kristaskrastina2863

Жыл бұрын

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!

? 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.

@davidcalderhead8658

7 жыл бұрын

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?

@johnmassoud930

7 жыл бұрын

David Calderhead According to the lecturer, Burnside was too smart to use artillery

@michaelsommers2356

6 жыл бұрын

+David Calderhead _"How did he not know where Snavely's Ford was?"_ Right! All he had to do was check Google Maps.

@kevin6293

5 жыл бұрын

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.

@kristaskrastina2863

Жыл бұрын

@@johnmassoud930 No. According to the lecturer, Burnside used artillery but it didn't do much to those rifle pits.

Damn, Burns essentially got thrown under the bus by Mac.

@indy_go_blue6048

4 жыл бұрын

Everyone got thrown under the bus by Mac at one time or another. Nothing was ever his fault.

@celston51

3 жыл бұрын

@@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.