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.
When I first began looking into the American Civil War I fell under the impression the General George B. McClellan was one of the most useless generals of the war but over time I have changed my mind somewhat as I know he wasn't useless.
He had a talent for training armies and was pretty good at logistics while also being very good at gaining the confidence of his men.
His flaws seem to be in the over-estimation of his opponants numbers and his timidity or hesitance to be offensive or throw the full bulk of his army into an attack...not to mention his ego and poor relation with people in superior positions.
I have wondered recently whether or not McClellan was truely as bad as he is made out to be or was he perhaps promoted either above his level of competence. Perhap he was just not experianced enough to be an Army commander when he gained control of the AotP.
So what was the deal with McClellan? Was he really as bad as he is made out to be or was he just not competant enough to command an Army or was he just promoted too fast too soon?
__________________
"I would rather be a private in Virginia's army than a general in any army that was going to coerce her." - General JEB Stuart CSA
Personally, I believe General George B. McClellan was a gifted Officer. He was sent overseas to learn from the various military at that time. It is when he adapted the "Hungarian" military saddle as to become the "McClellan saddle" which was before the Civil War. He lightened the saddle and added attachments that the American Army at that time needed for their cavalry horses as to help the horse's back as much as the rider's.
When the 'Great Civil War' broke out, there was a lot of confusion and lack of a strong army to begin with. Really both sides had green troops to deal with and the 'officers' were all at one point--fellow officers and gentlemen.
Since those who defected to the Confederate side had much the same tactical training, articles of war training, West Point training and Virginia Military Institute training. On top of that personal knowledge of the other side's 'Generals' and or leaders -- I personally think that anybody who was the head of the military would be overly wary of the foe.
In addition, in the beginning of the Civil War, many of the defecting military men and officers were wearing American/Union style uniforms. I would think there would be great worry and caution in starting a battle, for fear they were attacking the wrong side. That said, I am sure there were many Confederates who put their old uniforms to good use as to spy for the Confederate side.
I also think about the newspapers. They were always hunting for a story and they spun their own truths. They were known to give away the tactical details on both sides.
Furthermore, President Lincoln wasn't 'hands off' totally. He had at first trusted that he would be informed--to which by office as President; he is 'Commander in Chief of all armed forces." This went back to General Washington and the newly formed government, eighty some years prior.
President Lincoln had a political battle to wage as well as military battles to be on top of. It is he who sends troops to battle and Lincoln never dismissed his duties and or made excuses. He had a plan and General McClellan didn't support such. Yet, understanding General McClellan being royally ticked off about the firing on Fort Sumter in North Carolina--revenge is an emotion that is 'rash' Lincoln, having to rein in 'emotional' responses of Generals. I think, General McClellan thought this would be a recreational battle at first but, The Battle of First Manassass/Bull Run immediately demonstrated this wasn't going to be a brief war.
In summary, my personal opinion is that he may have been an able commander however, he wasn't the right commander for this particular time, this particular moment in time in history. He wasn't alligned with Lincoln's desire to bring the Confederates back into the Union as soon and with little bloodshed as possible. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union and McClellan just wanted to kick butt and not be concerned about the collateral affects it would hurt Lincoln's position and or the Union's fragile life.
So what was the deal with McClellan? Was he really as bad as he is made out to be or was he just not competant enough to command an Army or was he just promoted too fast too soon?
McClellan, Nytram, is like the jagged tooth one simply can't resist poking with one's tongue.
I'm mostly with your observation on the man. He was an excellent general lacking one quality a general must have: a will to smash whatever whenever it is required.
His supreme self-confidence convinced him that his goals and plans to reach that goal were far better than that of Lincoln's and anyone else's.
The imagining of overwhelming forces was common -- even Grant overestimated what he was facing (although not as often). But Mac's consistent and wild overestimation strike me as being excuses for a reluctance to pitch in and fight it out. (That wasn't his plan.)
Besides, I've seen precious little evidence that he ever conducted a campaign or battle with military skill. He took a disciplined, well-equipped and trained army, and got pushed all over the Penninsula. He dragged tail and contributed to the losses at 2nd Manassas, and he blew the advantages he had at Sharpsburg.
To make a short story longer, he had most of the qualities of great general, but lacked the critical ones.
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
In summary, my personal opinion is that he may have been an able commander however, he wasn't the right commander for this particular time, this particular moment in time in history. He wasn't alligned with Lincoln's desire to bring the Confederates back into the Union as soon and with little bloodshed as possible. Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union and McClellan just wanted to kick butt and not be concerned about the collateral affects it would hurt Lincoln's position and or the Union's fragile life.
Head for the bomb-proof, M.E., stuff will fly.
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
Gotta weigh in. McClellan, in my opinion, was a good but not a great commander. He lacked that "final ten percent" as Catton calls it, to go fro good to great.
You have to give Little Mac credit for building an army, almost out of nothing. That is not an easy task and I do not think he is given enough credit for that. However, he had major flaws, many of which are detailed in the posts so far - he overestimated the enemy to an inordinate degree, he was too cautious, and he he was egotistical to the point of being obnoxious. McClellan was easy to get along with as long as you always did things his way. But if he did not get his way, you were a bumbling, incompetant fool who could do no right. He simply refused to see any other point of view but his own.
There ar those who defend McClellan, saying that he did not get full support from Lincoln and if only Lincoln had given him Pope's troops, or whatever, he could have won. Bull. Grant won in the West despite constraints placed on his freedom of action. He worked within the system McClellan thought he was the system. I think McClellan and Bernard Montgomery were cut from the same cloth. The only difference is that if given overwhelming support, Monty would finally move.
I almost said that the perfect solution would be for McClellan to build an army and Grant to fight with it, but I don't think that's true. Grant knew how to build a winning team. He was in charge and did not let anone forget it, but he acknowledged the competance and contributions of his subordinates. After Chattanooga, he gave full credit to Thomas and Baldy Smith. When he lost, he generally took the blame. Not McClellan - every victory was his own in spite of the actions of his superiors and subordinates. Every failure was someone else's fault.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
I have often thought that McClellans organisational, training and logistical skills would have made him an ideal Chief of Staff as opposed to commander in the field.
Timewalker, I think thats a fair comparison with Monty. They both moved with caution. In Montys case this probably came from his service during World War One. Monty would only move when he was certain everything was in his favour. They were also both loved by their armies.
When I first began looking into the American Civil War I fell under the impression the General George B. McClellan was one of the most useless generals of the war but over time I have changed my mind somewhat as I know he wasn't useless.
He had a talent for training armies and was pretty good at logistics while also being very good at gaining the confidence of his men.
His flaws seem to be in the over-estimation of his opponants numbers and his timidity or hesitance to be offensive or throw the full bulk of his army into an attack...not to mention his ego and poor relation with people in superior positions.
I have wondered recently whether or not McClellan was truely as bad as he is made out to be or was he perhaps promoted either above his level of competence. Perhap he was just not experianced enough to be an Army commander when he gained control of the AotP.
So what was the deal with McClellan? Was he really as bad as he is made out to be or was he just not competant enough to command an Army or was he just promoted too fast too soon?
My personal feeling has always been that McClellan lacked what is sometimes called "middle of the night courage".
By that, I certainly do not mean physical courage. We can find incidents of McClellan (just like many other Civil War generals) exhibiting great personal bravery on the field of battle. By this I mean the "normal" actions of a commander going about his duty under fire -- actions which may seem phenomenal to those of us who have never been in such situations. Some were glamorous, some mundane, some flashy and some barely visible, but great courage under fire was fairly normal for battlefield leaders in those days.
McClellan had all the knowledge and the mastery of technique. He may have been promoted too early, but other men were and succeeded without his advantages. But I think when McClellan faced the foe he saw too much, worried too much, made too much of his own difficulties and not enough of the enemy's problems. Thus the constant complaints that he was outnumbered, betrayed by those above him, etc. Thus the constant failure to impose his will on the enemy, the one-step-forward, half-a-step back approach to operations. Thus the Seven Days; thus Antietam.
Grant was the opposite. While I have no doubt he faced his own demons in the dark, he always sought to push the enemy, to force him to re-act instead of act. Grant never complained, merely took what he had and tried to accomplish what he could with it. McClellan saw difficulties and hesitated. McClellan saw too much of what the enemy might do, and not enough of what McClellan should do.
IMHO.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Thought of another failing. Well, not really another, but another look at the same one.
McClellan had his own war aims, and they weren't Lincoln's. A little background on Lincoln: Before Sumter, General Scott wrote to Lincoln advising him to abandon both Sumter and Pickens as, in so doing, he would be better able to hold onto the border states. Until that letter, Lincoln relied heavily on Scott's military advice. But the letter meddled in political areas; Scott's star began falling at that point.
McClellan's own war aims were also meddling in political areas. His idea was to not smash Lee's army, but to pressure the Confederacy to return to a negotiating table. It wasn't McClellan's arrogance and self-aggrandizement that got him on the outs with Lincoln, it was his politically motivated goals.
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
In the area of horses -- I have found that great riders do not always make great trainers. Great trainers are not always the best riders but, they understand the horse so well--they get what needs to be done--done and make a good team.
General Grant had both -- he was an excellent rider as well as a trainer.
He was the "Horse Whisperer" of his day. And this reputation was long entrenched as he trained horses as a boy. Got difficult horses--give it to Grant and he return with wonderful horses.
I think Grant took what he learned from horses as well as human traits.
This is why he put the right men for the right tasks. It wasn't that there were bad people--just mis-matched for their personalities, abilities and core instincts.
Grant to me is more of a problem solver. He kept trying things and when something failed, he would try another. Others before him often just 'quit.' I think it is because they were not able to 'problem solve' like General W. S. Hancock and other Generals. Like Gen. T. "Stonewall" Jackson and General Longstreet. They thought things out--problem solve the 'what ifs' and had a back up plan(s).
Today--in modern military in the USA, there are Administrative Generals and then there are Field Generals. They finally get it--some are great paper generals and others are great soldierly generals.
You see this in General George S. Patton (Sr) WWII, General Roosevelt on Normady Beach just armed with his walking cane, as he had arthritis so bad--he got the mixed bag per se of men and did what they had started to do despite being off the mark location wise. General Omar Bradley--the pair made with him and Patton--amazing feats. Patton's yanking his troops from one battle and going into another within 24 hours to relieve Bastone and the troops hanging on by their fingernails. Made history. Just no different from Civil War tactics. Perhaps the stories of which J. S. Mosby telling young George were the right things for that right moment.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
George B. McClellan 
Linear Mode
