Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Much thoughty stuff in that, 5fish. But, was Lincoln arrogant? Was Lee arrogant? Was Grant arrogant?
Seems to me that arrogance is a detriment to greatness. But we can see where those who are sometimes rise to the level of their opinion of themselves.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Arrogance is an overbearing, unreasonable and inordinate self-esteem, evidenced by a superior manner toward those assumed to be ones inferiors. Fits little Mac to a T.
Actually I think if McClellan actually knew what was in front of him, he would've won the war.....he just constantly thinks he's outnumbered, problem is: people are telling him he's outnumbered....I still can't quite fathom McClellan's decision to back away from Richmond during the Peninsular Campaign; to me it would be akin to Eisenhower evacuating France due to the Battle of the Bulge....
T. S. C. Lowe had his observation balloon aloft quite frequently while The Army of the Potomac waited across the river from Richmond, and saw clearly that the city was being defended by an inadaquate force. Lowe conveyed this information to McClellan and urged him to attack immediately. The general chose to ignore Lowe's advice and believe his Pinkerton spies who kept telling him the city was well defended. McClellan decided to wait for the arrival of additional troops, a delay which led, as we know, to a disasterous outcome. Had the general followed Lowe's recommendation the war probably would have ended then and there. You can read more about this in my book, The Balloonist, The Story of T. S. C. Lowe, Inventor, Scientist, Magician, and Father of the U. S. Airforce, Frederic C. Beil, Publisher, Savannah, 2007, available at most libraries or from Amazon.com.
Stephen Poleskie
Much thoughty stuff in that, 5fish. But, was Lincoln arrogant? Was Lee arrogant? Was Grant arrogant?
Seems to me that arrogance is a detriment to greatness. But we can see where those who are sometimes rise to the level of their opinion of themselves.
ole
Ole, I've been thoughty and maybe successful people are not so much as arrogant but have overblown EGOS. With these overblown EGOS, successful people can come across as arrogant and sometimes these big EGOS can lead to arrogance..
I am only being thoughty
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
Ole, I've been thoughty and maybe successful people are not so much as arrogant but have overblown EGOS. With these overblown EGOS, successful people can come across as arrogant and sometimes these big EGOS can lead to arrogance..
Pretty much the way I see it 5fish. You said it better.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I will have to agree with most of what has been said thus far. Unfortunately, I was taking care of quite a bit of business and had to forego my posting for a few weeks, and I wasn't here when this post took flight.
McClellan was the Halleck of the East, on a much grander scale, with a bit more organizational prowess. Halleck was haughty and arrogant, but he didn't seem to have great political ambitions from what I have seen. Little Mac was haughty, arrogant and had political ambitions. I think if he hadn't had those ambitions, he would have become the chief of staff and been kept in Washington like Halleck was, even if he didn't like it. Not sure if he would have taken it though. I lean towards the not side, but who knows.
McClellan was a superb organizer and he had the loyalty of his troops. The men absolutely adored him. This is a key factor in the success of an army commander. You hear multiple times of rumors being started that he was going to be reinstated and the men went beserk with joy, even though the rumors were unfounded. He looked out for his men, and this is good, except when you look out for them and don't use them as they are to be used, which is as a fighting force to be employed to crush the enemy. McClellan failed at this. He didn't want his men to die. And while no army commander wants men to die, he realizes that men will, because it is war, and that is the nature of war. Grant didn't want men to die needlessly, and his regret shows when an attack is made needlessly and men die for no gain. But he employed his men as a fighting force, and they did a superb job of it. I think that McClellan's biggest failure is his lack of courage to send men to their deaths. He lacked the moral courage to do it.
To make a long post shorter: McClellan is a superb organizer and inspiring leader, but a horrible combat commander and ineffective in the field, incapable of pushing his advantage.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
Must say that I find most of what I've read and particularly J Man's thread up here^ very similar to my own opinion.
With regards to arrogance, certainly one cannot and should not accuse McClellan as being the only individual throughout the course of the Civil War as being guilty of this trait.
However, it was the combination of arrogance with over-cautiousness that caused so much criticism to be directed at McClellan, and his being deceived by Magruder's 11,000 at Fort Monroe is strong evidence for the problems that this caused in costing the Union valuable opportunities to strike at the South
However, it's also funny to consider that McClellan was perhaps the most altruistic general- he wanted to avoid unnecessary death- and in some ways it's a shame to consider the man who wished to save as many lives of his own men as possible as a terrible general.
And also to reiterate the point that several other people have made wih regards to his brillian administrative and organizational skills. The fact that he managed to build up the Army of the Potomac to 121,000 for the Peninsula Campaign is no mean feat and furthermore the ability to organize such an army is quite impressive.
So overall, he is underrated in many respects, however in comparison to other generals of the war you can see why he is not regarded so favourably.
BTW, this is my first post on these forums so sorry if I've said anything out of place, or got anything wrong.
BTW, this is my first post on these forums so sorry if I've said anything out of place, or got anything wrong.
TalktoFrank: You didnt, but even if you did you wouldn't be the first and won't be the last.
Please introduce yourself in the forum, "New Recruits Meet and Greet." Always good to welcome new members.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Second, I wish to say there is a difference between being arrogant and being confident. From observations of others--it is hard to see the difference when distant from the person; e.g. those in the rank and files and not Staff Officers and or other Officers, Generals, etc.
Just as there is a difference in being dominant verses being domineering--each is a strength position however, dominant to me is positive and does not use negatives, threats or lies; where domineering is being a control freak, negative and threatening.
I think in the movie Gettysburg; in the scene where General Lee and General Longstreet ride together. Lee talks about the 'great trap' of being a good commander. In summary; Lee is telling Longstreet; to whom has great love for his men (which I am finding through reading the Official Reports of the Rebellion); the great trap Lee pointed out was "To be a good soldier, you must love the Army. To be a good commander,
you must be willing to kill the very thing you love most, you and I are willing to die. Yes, we will toast to missing comrades and the occasional empty chair...but, we are never prepared to loose all of us. That is the great trap General --you must commit all your soldiers.
I think this is what General McClellan needed to hear.
I think President Harry S. Truman realized this, having seen death personally as a private in the infantry during WWI; he saw that the two huge bombs for Japan would --in the end save more lives of American soldiers.
I like to think that all 'commanders' have learned that lesson.
Just some thoughts.
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
