MattL
Guest
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2015
- Location
- SF Bay Area
I think one of the best examples, if not the best example, of bias and group think among historians is the dominant portrait of George McClellan as a timid, cowardly, incompetent, and arrogant commander, when in fact McClellan was arguably the best military strategist in the Union army and the most effective general when it came to getting the most results with the smallest number of casualties reasonably possible. There was a reason that Robert E. Lee said that the best general he faced in the war was "McClellan, by all odds."
Most of the standard attacks on McClellan are either erroneous or selective. The charge that McClellan was pro-slavery is obscenely false. The problem is that McClellan was a conservative Democrat, that he opposed total war, that he said some unflattering things about Lincoln in letters never intended to be made public (but he also grew to respect Lincoln as a person), and that he ran against Lincoln in the 1864 presidential election. Therefore, many people think that if you're pro-McClellan you must be anti-Lincoln, which is not true.
Well if we start removing things found in letters from our perceived view of someone I imagine many peoples impressions of Lincoln will have to be heavily modified.