McClellan McClellan's impetuous letters

There is always something unsettling about a leader who never takes responsibility for his failures, and make no mistake
every military leader will experience failure.
The great ones accept the responsibility, learn from the experience, makes the required changes and moves forward.
That was the difference, McClellan blamed others.
He blamed men above him, he blamed those below him.
The parallel between Grant and McClellan is compelling, one started the war at the top, the other at the bottom.
McClellen's star rose fast and settled just as fast. For Grant when the war began he was as low as a man could get, struggling to survive, selling firewood, borrowing money from former army friends to make ends meet, we now how the story ends,.
I think this would make a marvelous book!
 
I see no evidence Mary Ellen Marcy McClellan needed the money. George had been a successful businessman and she was receiving a pension from the State of New Jersey ($100 / month in 1914 - 1915). She was the wife and daughter of generals, her son was a US Congressman and her daughter was married to a French diplomat. Perhaps she had a sense of history about her, or maybe it was a passive form of revenge for not being permitted to marry A. P. Hill. We don't see any of Ellen's letters to George. No telling what she really thought.

William Starr Myers publishes part of some of Ellen's letters to George in his book. She was trying to goad him into usurping the government - I uploaded photos of the pages here: http://civilwartalk.com/threads/has...nosed-with-some-mental-disorder.109292/page-8

Oh, and Ellen was very much taken with George.
 
There is always something unsettling about a leader who never takes responsibility for his failures, and make no mistake
every military leader will experience failure.
The great ones accept the responsibility, learn from the experience, makes the required changes and moves forward.
That was the difference, McClellan blamed others.
He blamed men above him, he blamed those below him.
The parallel between Grant and McClellan is compelling, one started the war at the top, the other at the bottom.
McClellen's star rose fast and settled just as fast. For Grant when the war began he was as low as a man could get, struggling to survive, selling firewood, borrowing money from former army friends to make ends meet, we now how the story ends,.
I think this would make a marvelous book!

Did he?

He certainly faulted his superiors for, as he saw it, their lack of aggression and willingness to concentrate against the enemy.

The only times I can find McClellan directly criticising a subordinate is immediately after Williamsburg, where he's frustrated that Edwin Sumner couldn't handle the action, and after South Mountain/ Antietam, where he's frustrated with Burnside.

That Grant and Sherman both had similar problems with Burnside as McClellan indicates this wasn't really McClellan's problem, and his frustration was justified.
 
Did he?

He certainly faulted his superiors for, as he saw it, their lack of aggression and willingness to concentrate against the enemy.

The only times I can find McClellan directly criticising a subordinate is immediately after Williamsburg, where he's frustrated that Edwin Sumner couldn't handle the action, and after South Mountain/ Antietam, where he's frustrated with Burnside.

That Grant and Sherman both had similar problems with Burnside as McClellan indicates this wasn't really McClellan's problem, and his frustration was justified.

Did he ever take responsibility for any failure?
 
Did he ever take responsibility for any failure?

What failure? Serious question, because his campaigns were generally successful and the most obvious "failure" is entirely due to Washington getting spooked and pulling back the offensive forces against McClellan's stern objections.

You seem to be confusing the indisputable fact that McClellan did not victoriously end the war in 1862 with "failure".
 
Major General George B. McClellan (National Archives)
In all his months as army commander, Major General George Brinton McClellan fought just one battle, Antietam, from start to finish. Antietam, then, must serve as the measure of his generalship. Colonel Ezra Carman, who survived that bloody field and later wrote the most detailed tactical study of the fighting there, had it right when he observed that on September 17, 1862, “more errors were committed by the Union commander than in any other battle of the war.”

http://www.civilwar.org/battlefield...ntietam.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/
 
McClellan was a wooze, no doubt about it! He was the best General the South had. :roflmao:

The Federal Commander Lee proclaimed to be the greatest the Union had? We have three statements by Lee about McClellan:

1. When asked who the most able Federal commander Lee replied "McClellan by all odds!"

2. When Lee's daughter was asked about this she replied; "General McClellan was the only General Father dreaded"

3. When B.H. Wright asked Lee in writing a similar question, Lee replied; "As regards General McClellan, I have always entertained a high opinion of his capacity, and have no reason to think he omitted anything that was in his power"

Of more dubious status is Lee calling McClellan "able" to Walker:

4. “[McClellan] is an able general but a very cautious one. His enemies among his own people think him too much so. His army is in a very demoralized and chaotic condition, and will not be prepared for offensive operations — or he will not think it so — for three or four weeks. Before that time I hope to be on the Susquehanna.”

Longstreet of course said some similar things:

"There was no Union general whom we so much dreaded as much as McClellan. We would always tell when he was in command by the way the Union troops were handled, and the number of our dead and wounded. We received the blows, and we knew who dealt the heaviest ones. We were sorry when we heard he had been restored to command, after we had defeated Pope, and were glad when we was retired.... [McClellan] had, as we thought, no equal."

- James Longstreet to Hugh McCulloch, at the 1874 Republican Convention
 
In fact he did indeed lose one battle - Gaines Mill.
No, McClellan was on the other side of the Chickahominy River. He was doing his best to assist Porter by telegraph while still concerning himself with the overwhelming numbers of rebels dug in in front of his position. Fitz John Porter lost the Gaines Mill battle despite McC's best efforts. :cautious:
This is like saying he lost Savage Station and Glendale -- He wasn't even there!
 
Is there no one that will say a kind word about Little Mac? If he was such a Dweeb why did his men cheer him so vehemently? He trained, fed, clothed and armed the Army of the Potomac. They loved him! I think he loved his army so much he didn't want to risk getting them hurt. Sun Tsu lists this as a fatal flaw. Grant was different. He knew the killing would only stop when the South was beaten.
 
Is there no one that will say a kind word about Little Mac? If he was such a Dweeb why did his men cheer him so vehemently? He trained, fed, clothed and armed the Army of the Potomac. They loved him! I think he loved his army so much he didn't want to risk getting them hurt. Sun Tsu lists this as a fatal flaw. Grant was different. He knew the killing would only stop when the South was beaten.
Hey, McClellan did a good job of moving his army to Antietam.

He took South Mountain at 3 passes.

He sunk like a homesick brick after that!
 
Is there no one that will say a kind word about Little Mac?
I'm always on the lookout for positive views about this man and appreciate when someone educated on the topic speaks up in his defense. Why? When people like to hammer away at a favorite punching bag, my usual reaction is to pull back and consider the possibility that there's another very different side to the story.

I know very little about him other than the basics and really don't have any angle. I do know, however, that views can be quite slanted, and those views can be repeated and shared over and over until they become "truth".

It's possible he deserves the criticism. I like to read arguments from both sides though.
 
I'm always on the lookout for positive views about this man and appreciate when someone educated on the topic speaks up in his defense. Why? When people like to hammer away at a favorite punching bag, my usual reaction is to pull back and consider the possibility that there's another very different side to the story.

I know very little about him other than the basics and really don't have any angle. I do know, however, that views can be quite slanted, and those views can be repeated and shared over and over until they become "truth".

It's possible he deserves the criticism. I like to read arguments from both sides though.
I have Hartwigs book on Antietam and it furnishes everything about McClellan and his performance. That is where I got my learnings from. Not being an author meself, I can use that book to guide me in saying just a few words.
That is a good book if you are interested.
 
Back
Top