MovieChat Forums > Gods and Generals (2003) Discussion > The battle of Fredericksburg.

The battle of Fredericksburg.


What do you think went wrong exactly for the U.S. Military? 114,000 United States troops vs. 72,500 rebels, but still, the Federals were defeated. President Lincoln claimed they lost the battle because of an accident, but what error is he talking about?

By the way - The part where the two Ireland brigades start firing on one another, and that one Confederate solider broke down in tears after the Union Irish retreated, while a beautiful Celtic song played I felt was a very intense and beautiful scene.


All and all, the entire chapter of the film was wonderful.

reply

I assume the accident is referring to the late arrival of the pontoon bridges, which prevented the Army of the Potomac from crossing the Rappahannock before Lee's army was dug in at Fredericksburg.

The initial plan of attack was to focus on the Rebel right(?) on Prospect Hill, but due to poor coordination and lack of initiative by "Grand Division" commander Franklin, the attack bogged down after initial success, and eventually the focus of the attack shifted to Marye's Heights (initially intended as a "diversion") with disastrous results.

Simply put, Lee's army was probably too strongly entrenched, with huge advantages in high ground, earthworks, and interior lines, to permit a Federal success. Burnside's strategy of launching attack after attack was begging for disaster, and pretty much doomed to failure. Victory wasn't impossible if Burnside had done a better job of coordinating his assaults, but he didn't and the result was a one-sided defeat.

Sedgwick did capture Marye's Heights during the Chancellorsville Campaign, but keep in mind he was dealing with a much-smaller Confederate force.

"PLEASE DON'T DATE ME! I PROMISE I'LL WORK HARDER!"

reply

This is a well-done representation of half the battle. As Hancock the Superb writes, the initial attack was on the Confederate Right at Prospect Hill; one young Artillery commander with one gun kept the Union at bay for most of the day. When the Union nearly broke through, Jackson moved troops and stopped them.
The weather was so cold men froze to death on picket duty, and contrary to what a number of people have written in posts on this site, the northern lights were visible on one night.
The "accident" as Hancock writes, was totally a political smoothing-over of something which should never have been allowed to take place.

reply

I've never quite understood why the movie did not show some of the battle from Jackson's viewpoint as he is mostly the main character of the film and the novel includes the fight on Jackson's line.

Frank: Just a man.
Harmonica: An ancient race.

reply

Well the book focuses more on the stone wall part if I am not mistaking. You mention the main problem of the movie, not knowing who or where to focus on.

reply

Yes, that part of the novel is covered by the viewpoints of Lee, Chamberlain, and Hancock but there is a pretty decent chunk told from the viewpoint of Jackson trying to hold his part of the line.

I guess they felt they didn't have to depict it as they had shown Jackson at First Manassas which wasn't even included in the novel at all.

Frank: Just a man.
Harmonica: An ancient race.

reply

Upon more research, I now need to type in defense of General Burnside, I don't think the men could have crossed that river without the pontoons. The river was too high. (I was not aware of the river's exact size until today.)

I don't think they had any other option but to wait, and because of bad weather, they didn't get the pontoons for three weeks, which as we covered, gave the rebs time to prepare.

reply

A good book that is sympathetic to Burnside and his plight at Fredericksburg with the pontoons is William Marvel's 'Burnside' from UNC Press. It does succeed in giving interesting views on Burnside and his decision making at Antietam, Fredericksburg, and The Crater.

Frank: Just a man.
Harmonica: An ancient race.

reply

Weren't there fords they could have used to cross further down river?

Either way, Burnside either should have aborted the campaign strategy and picked another place to fight, or else done a better job planning (and certainly managing) the battle.

"If life gives you lemons, choke on 'em and die. You stupid lemon eater."

reply

President Lincoln approved General Burnside's plan. Any opinion why?

reply

In theory, Burnside had a pretty good campaign plan - get between Lee and Richmond, and force him to battle on Burnside's terms. Basically what Grant tried to do during the Overland Campaign. Under a better commander, or at least with better luck/circumstances, it might have worked.

I think Burnside pretty much had to go through with the campaign, if only to save face. First of all, if Burnside had pulled a McClellan, Lincoln would undoubtedly have been furious at him - caution is the reason he relieved Little Mac, after all. Secondly, Burnside was a very stubborn and inflexible person - once he started something, he had a hard time changing his mind or adjusting to conditions on the ground.

That being said, Burnside's failure is understandable, but not necessarily excusable.

"If life gives you lemons, choke on 'em and die. You stupid lemon eater."

reply

I did some more studying. While there were fords, I don't believe that they were near the city. When the United States Military first arrived, the Rappahanock was very low around Fredericksburg and could be easily crossed, but General Burnside was worried that if they crossed at once, they might get trapped if a heavy shower came and cut the army off from it's supply lines to the east. The rains did come, so General Burnside's fears were justified.

reply

I highly recommend 'The Fredericksburg Campaign: Winter War on the Rappahannock' by Francis Augustin O'Reilly as the best modern day book on the campaign. I think it pretty much clears up all of the questions from the battle and campaign.

Frank: Just a man.
Harmonica: An ancient race.

reply

Does anyone know how cold it was at the battle of Fredericksburg?

reply

I believe that the temperature was actually sort of mild for that time of year during the day. I think it dipped colder at night.

A good source on this type of information is the book: 'Civil War Weather in Virginia' by Robert K. Krick.

As one reviewer says about Krick's book on Amazon.com: "Robert Krick observes that based on the readings, it is doubtful that bodies froze overnight at Fredericksburg. This will not cause us to reject the accounts but requires we understand other factors may have contributed to the memory."

Frank: Just a man.
Harmonica: An ancient race.

reply

I have heard that on the morning of December 11, 1862 there was actually a thin layer of ice at the edge of the Rappahannock River.

reply

The rebels line extended down to the U. S. Ford, which is pretty much directly behind Chancellorsville. It was covered by infantry and cannons. Cavalry patrolled the other fords further west (the ones used by Hooker 5 months later.) Cavalry also patrolled on the north bank of the Rappahanock and any move to shift men right would have been reported to Lee, and most likely the First Battle of the Wilderness would have occurred.

Actually the strategy was good; Burnside got a march on the ANV and had the pontoons been there... well, with Burnside as commanding general, who knows what would have happened. By the time the pontoons arrived, it was too late. Lee and the entire ANV were in position, so I agree with you he should have aborted the battle.

reply

[deleted]

Burnside sent those divisions straight across open ground to attack an entrenched position, the same mistake Lee made at Gettysburg.

reply

I enjoy watching the battle of Fredericksburg chapter on the "Gods and Generals" blu-ray every December. I hope for it to become a tradition perhaps.

reply