McClellan McClellan....hmmmm

McClellan....a turncoat or just a coward.....feel free to explain

  • Traitor

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Coward

    Votes: 5 15.6%
  • Neither

    Votes: 27 84.4%

  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .
McClellan was a far piece from being a coward. Best I can say is that he just wasn't fit to be a Commanding General in an all-out war.

He preferred to fight it on his terms rather than the Nation's terms as personified by his government, the head of which was Lincoln.

Ain't gonna say he was an egomaniac, but he certainly let his personal aims get ahead of his government's.

Now let it be said that his organizational skills were second to none; but his heart wasn't into smacking the tar out of the Confederacy.The fire just wasn't there.
 
Honestly, neither of these ring true. He certainly wasn't a traitor; he honestly thought he was doing the best he could for the Union cause. On the other, he wasn't a coward either, at least in terms of combat. I will say, though, that he certainly didn't have that killer instinct that generals, especially Civil War generals like Grant and Lee, needed to have. He spent his time much more concerned with preventing disaster for his troops than creating disaster for the other guy. Don't get me wrong, he did a great job training and drilling the Army of the Potomac. However, his action afterwards, especially the 7 Days and the Peninsula Campaign, reeks of over-caution and timidness.
All of this has been said before, but yeah.
 
Honestly, neither of these ring true. He certainly wasn't a traitor; he honestly thought he was doing the best he could for the Union cause. On the other, he wasn't a coward either, at least in terms of combat. I will say, though, that he certainly didn't have that killer instinct that generals, especially Civil War generals like Grant and Lee, needed to have. He spent his time much more concerned with preventing disaster for his troops than creating disaster for the other guy. Don't get me wrong, he did a great job training and drilling the Army of the Potomac. However, his action afterwards, especially the 7 Days and the Peninsula Campaign, reeks of over-caution and timidness.
All of this has been said before, but yeah.
Well said.
 
Mac had quite a distinguished run in Mexico as an officer- I believe that he was brevetted for bravery at least once- so I think that this puts to rest the coward theory- at least when it comes to physical bravery. There is- as Stephen Sears was quick to point out- an unwillingness to go upon the battlefield during the ACW- Mac preferred to lead from behind- but I believe that was more to due with McClellan's belief in how important he was. If he got injured, then who would command his beloved Army of the Potomac? As for moral courage, I don't know whether to find his reluctance to sacrifice his men commendable or ultimately disastrous- and indeed cowardly- because more men would die in the long-run of a protracted war. Then again, why sacrifice your men to such a superior force that outnumbered you (as McClellan saw it)?

I do not believe he was a traitor at all. During his presidency, he swore that he would uphold the Union. But it was to the Union that he was loyal to. Not to Lincoln or the government elected to govern this Union or the laws or aims they created (such as abolishing slavery as a war aim). And that's where I believe, many of the problems set in.
 
I think he was neither.
He was a perfectionist. Had circumstances ever been entirely to his liking, the perfect setting for a text book charge, he would sure have accomplished great things. But unfortunately that day never came. The fear of doing something less than perfect made him do less than necessary. But not because of lack of courage. Or maybe a lack of courage to make himself arguable or criticizable. We here have a saying "Only he who does not work at all makes no mistakes". Little Mac did not want to make mistakes.

Edit: Nevertheless Lee held him in great esteem! When asked who he thought was the finest Union general, he said "McClellan, by all odds!" He would never have said that about a traitor or a coward!

2nd edit: Too bad there was no "None" option! As I did not vote now I can't see what others voted for. To see it I would have to vote for either option, which would put my curiosity above McClellan's reputation - naw, I can't do that!
 
Last edited:
Do you think he was up to no good....or just a coward at heart?
He thought too much of himself. And he was too rigid.

In my part of the world when a short man drives an oversized, too big of wheeled, need a stepladder pickup....we just say he has "short man syndrome". It's a real thing.

I think Mac may have had a little of this too. (Napoleon Complex in other words)
 
IMO McClellan was a classroom soldier - where he had tremendous merit. Nobody died on maps; there was no risk; the "other" commander could do nothing to defeat McClellan. In the classroom, each student was "all-knowing" - and there was little study of actual warfare anyway - but in each subject one had all the facts presented; no surprises. As a civilian, he ran a railroad - and those are all about fixed lines, schedules, the avoidance of risk and logistics.

McClellan was admirable (dare one say genius?) at organization of an army. He worked hard and he knew what he wanted. In total command of himself and the requirements for success, results were guaranteed as long as he performed certain logical actions. He had confidence and elan - in return, he inspired confidence and loyalty.

Then real war began and he was less prepared for that than many of the officers he graduated far ahead of at West Point. In the Mexican war, McClellan built roads and bridges - in his "observer" role in the Crimean war he and the US Commission didn't even get to see one shot fired in anger (they arrived too late). His career was confined to acting as an Engineer officer, unlike say, Robert E Lee who did rather more than just that.

What happens is that the other side of the "real" McClellan steps to the fore. This is the commanding general who wants to know everything before doing anything - he must have all the facts nailed down. The results must be 100% inevitable, given the correct preparation, study and response, just as in a classroom. But lo! All the facts cannot be known - there is an "other" who moves the pieces independently of McClellan's command and control. He is not allowed to sit quietly and study it all out, banging his brain on books into the night. Here's an Administration that carps and criticizes; that dares to suggest he is not #1 in everything (being #2 at West Point was just someone else's mistake). Hence all the delays.

But his plan (the Peninsula) is a good one. His execution is awful - he's slow, methodical, baffled by not knowing what the other guy is going to do. Fortunately, Johnson isn't a great innovator and to McClellan his victory is beginning to seem inevitable (as it should) because the rebels go back and back - Richmond is within grasp and theory says that is the key to victory. Then Lee. McClellan meets the anti-classroom. And he doesn't know what to do. So it's lines of supply and securing the base and moving to reconsolidate. Then not McClellan.

He gets his second chance and it's a repeat of the first one. Brilliant retooling of an army and round 2 with Lee. And this time, McClellan's back in the classroom for he has a complete copy of Lee's order; he knows all the facts; he knows where his opponent is and what he will do. Now he can launch lightning attacks... in a day or two at most. South Mountain knocked all that out of McClellan, didn't it? It all got murky and dirty.

Soldiers don't die on maps. And I think McClellan had a soft heart for "his" troops, "his" horses, "his" guns, "his" uniforms. He had all this shiny stuff and he didn't like to see it spoiled. At the root of Antietam, IMO, was reluctance to spend all of it - to get all of it a bit messed up. He'd economize, hold back, be ready for anything, have reserves to account for what he could not abide - the unknown.

He was neither coward nor traitor. He was classroom soldier who learned nothing more from actual warfare.
 
Last edited:
I think he was neither.
He was a perfectionist. Had circumstances ever been entirely to his liking, the perfect setting for a text book charge, he would sure have accomplished great things. But unfortunately that day never came. The fear of doing something less than perfect made him less than necessary. But not because of lack of courage. Or maybe a lack of courage to make himself arguable or criticizable. We here have a saying "Only he who does not work at all makes no mistakes". Little Mac did not want to make mistakes.

Edit: Nevertheless Lee held him in great esteem! When asked who he thought was the finest Union general, he said "McClellan, by all odds!" He woulld never have said that about a traitor or a coward!

2nd edit: Too bad there was no "None" option! As I did not vote now I can't see what others voted for. To see it I would have to vote for either option, which would put my curiosity above McClellan's reputation - naw, I can't do that!

Well put! He WAS a great organizer of an Army, but his love of his army was such that he would not commit to combat unless he had overwhelming odds in his favor. As Lee said to Longstreet in the movie 'Gettysburg' - a commanding General has a huge delimma - you must love your army, but you must also be willing to commit it to situations where you know the losses will be huge.

I live in DC , and there is a pretty nice statue of 'Little Mac' right off Dupont circle (pic to follow once I get to my cell phone). Ironicly, there is also a quant little bar nearby called 'McCellan's retreat' - I'll need to pay some respects there as well :smile:
 
Last edited:
Little Mac always tried to do his best for his men.coward no, as his record in Mexico showed.Probaly what hurt him the most was the time he spent as an observer during the crimean war.you realized you needed overwhelming numbers to win, and thanks to the information he received from Alan Pinkerton he always thought he was at a disadvantage thus he was afraid to move.
 
Probaly what hurt him the most was the time he spent as an observer during the crimean war.you realized you needed overwhelming numbers to win

Except he never saw a shot fired in the Crimea. The war was over before he got there.

http://www.acwrt.org.uk/profile_Rid...ge-McClellan-and-the-Delafield-Commission.asp

In spite of their warm bear hug the Russians were no keener than their British and French enemies to give the Commissioners permission to go to the Crimea. In fact no permission was forthcoming from either of the belligerents when, in September 1855, the Commissioners decided to go there anyway, via Vienna and Constantinople. It was a difficult and frustrating journey, leading Mordecai to brand the whole affair a “ridiculous failure”. This view might have been compounded when, after arriving in the Crimea he fell ill. But it did lead him to personal treatment from Florence Nightingale herself, who impressed him.

The real frustration however was that the War was over by now, and the Commissioners heard no shots fired in anger. Even so, the French forbade them from approaching the Russian lines. This was made intolerable to the Commissioners when the French decided to give permission to another group of American officers who had not gone to the trouble of meeting Napoleon III for permission to do so.
 
Honestly, neither of these ring true. He certainly wasn't a traitor; he honestly thought he was doing the best he could for the Union cause. On the other, he wasn't a coward either, at least in terms of combat. I will say, though, that he certainly didn't have that killer instinct that generals, especially Civil War generals like Grant and Lee, needed to have. He spent his time much more concerned with preventing disaster for his troops than creating disaster for the other guy. Don't get me wrong, he did a great job training and drilling the Army of the Potomac. However, his action afterwards, especially the 7 Days and the Peninsula Campaign, reeks of over-caution and timidness.
All of this has been said before, but yeah.
Agreed. I cannot and will not voted on this poll as he was neither and that is not a choice.
 
IMO McClellan was a classroom soldier - where he had tremendous merit. Nobody died on maps; there was no risk; the "other" commander could do nothing to defeat McClellan. In the classroom, each student was "all-knowing" - and there was little study of actual warfare anyway - but in each subject one had all the facts presented; no surprises. As a civilian, he ran a railroad - and those are all about fixed lines, schedules, the avoidance of risk and logistics.

McClellan was admirable (dare one say genius?) at organization of an army. He worked hard and he knew what he wanted. In total command of himself and the requirements for success, results were guaranteed as long as he performed certain logical actions. He had confidence and elan - in return, he inspired confidence and loyalty.

Then real war began and he was less prepared for that than many of the officers he graduated far ahead of at West Point. In the Mexican war, McClellan built roads and bridges - in his "observer" role in the Crimean war he and the US Commission didn't even get to see one shot fired in anger (they arrived too late). His career was confined to acting as an Engineer officer, unlike say, Robert E Lee who did rather more than just that.

What happens is that the other side of the "real" McClellan steps to the fore. This is the commanding general who wants to know everything before doing anything - he must have all the facts nailed down. The results must be 100% inevitable, given the correct preparation, study and response, just as in a classroom. But lo! All the facts cannot be known - there is an "other" who moves the pieces independently of McClellan's command and control. He is not allowed to sit quietly and study it all out, banging his brain on books into the night. Here's an Administration that carps and criticizes; that dares to suggest he is not #1 in everything (being #2 at West Point was just someone else's mistake). Hence all the delays.

But his plan (the Peninsula) is a good one. His execution is awful - he's slow, methodical, baffled by not knowing what the other guy is going to do. Fortunately, Johnson isn't a great innovator and to McClellan his victory is beginning to seem inevitable (as it should) because the rebels go back and back - Richmond is within grasp and theory says that is the key to victory. Then Lee. McClellan meets the anti-classroom. And he doesn't know what to do. So it's lines of supply and securing the base and moving to reconsolidate. Then not McClellan.

He gets his second chance and it's a repeat of the first one. Brilliant retooling of an army and round 2 with Lee. And this time, McClellan's back in the classroom for he has a complete copy of Lee's order; he knows all the facts; he knows where his opponent is and what he will do. Now he can launch lightning attacks... in a day or two at most. South Mountain knocked all that out of McClellan, didn't it? It all got murky and dirty.

Soldiers don't die on maps. And I think McClellan had a soft heart for "his" troops, "his" horses, "his" guns, "his" uniforms. He had all this shiny stuff and he didn't like to see it spoiled. At the root of Antietam, IMO, was reluctance to spend all of it - to get all of it a bit messed up. He'd economize, hold back, be ready for anything, have reserves to account for what he could not abide - the unknown.

He was neither coward nor traitor. He was classroom soldier who learned nothing more from actual warfare.



In other words he would have been awesome at Risk!
 
Honestly, neither of these ring true. He certainly wasn't a traitor; he honestly thought he was doing the best he could for the Union cause. On the other, he wasn't a coward either, at least in terms of combat. I will say, though, that he certainly didn't have that killer instinct that generals, especially Civil War generals like Grant and Lee, needed to have. He spent his time much more concerned with preventing disaster for his troops than creating disaster for the other guy. Don't get me wrong, he did a great job training and drilling the Army of the Potomac. However, his action afterwards, especially the 7 Days and the Peninsula Campaign, reeks of over-caution and timidness.
All of this has been said before, but yeah.


That was when he found out Lee split his forces and did nothing right?
 
He thought too much of himself. And he was too rigid.

In my part of the world when a short man drives an oversized, too big of wheeled, need a stepladder pickup....we just say he has "short man syndrome". It's a real thing.

I think Mac may have had a little of this too. (Napoleon Complex in other words)
He liked Napolean comparisons.
 
I think he was neither.
He was a perfectionist. Had circumstances ever been entirely to his liking, the perfect setting for a text book charge, he would sure have accomplished great things. But unfortunately that day never came. The fear of doing something less than perfect made him do less than necessary. But not because of lack of courage. Or maybe a lack of courage to make himself arguable or criticizable. We here have a saying "Only he who does not work at all makes no mistakes". Little Mac did not want to make mistakes.

Edit: Nevertheless Lee held him in great esteem! When asked who he thought was the finest Union general, he said "McClellan, by all odds!" He would never have said that about a traitor or a coward!

2nd edit: Too bad there was no "None" option! As I did not vote now I can't see what others voted for. To see it I would have to vote for either option, which would put my curiosity above McClellan's reputation - naw, I can't do that!


I added a 3rd option. This is a great site. I don't have an outlet for my civil war energy. This fulfills it. Thanks for the reply
 
Well put! He WAS a great organizer of an Army, but his love of his army was such that he would not commit to combat unless he had overwhelming odds in his favor. As Lee said to Longstreet in the movie 'Gettysburg' - a commanding General has a huge delimma - you must love your army, but you must also be willing to commit it to situations where you know the losses will be huge.

I live in DC , and there is a pretty nice statue of 'Little Mac' right off Dupont circle (pic to follow once I get to my cell phone). Ironicly, there is also a quint little bar nearby called 'McCellan's retreat' - I'll need to pay some respects there as well :smile:
Please send the pic..his men did love him
 
Back
Top