What this means is that, when Lincoln delegates that power to Stanton, it is almost certainly with the understanding that it will be used to remove McClellan at some point.
I don't know how this conclusion has been arrived at, but remove if from your thinking and you're really simplifying the problem.
As I understand it Stanton is out of touch with Lincoln, since Washington is under siege. As such he has acted on his own initiative at this point. CC thinks Stanton [and Lincoln] has the authority to do this, although Saphroneth and 67th Tigers obviously disagree. [At least not without a written statement to that effect from Lincoln which doesn't appear to be in existence].
This bolded part here seems to be the, semi confusing, sticking point to some. As I laid out, it was already established by greater legal minds than mine, that Stanton would not need a written order with Lincoln's signature to dismiss McClellan in the way I have described. The argument, near as I can parse out, seems to be that there needs to be a written order specifically for McClellan's dismissal. There does not.
The point I find unclear, given Stanton's stated hostility towards McClellan, which all three posters seem to have agreed on, is why Stanton has waited until this point? I think this is the basis of Saphroneth's argument. He may have what seems a false belief that McClellan will surrender the army, which seems at least partially based on his personal hostility towards the general but I would have expected him to move earlier.
Steve
Stanton was hostile to McClellan historically. He believed rightly or wrongly, (though McClellan's decision to run for President in 1864 sure validated Stanton's personal opinions in his mind) that McClellan did not mean to win the war in the way the government desired. He saw all of McClellan's self serving excuses, pleading, and attempts to subvert his authority as the generals way of trying to win the war on
his terms, and not those of the government, which in fairness he was probably right that McClellan wanted to win the war on
his terms, and not those of the elected officials. The animosity post-Antietam didn't help.
But here, Stanton would still have to justify the decision for sacking McClellan post-facto, and say what you will, but Stanton is an eminently practical and canny individual who managed to sort out the scandal laden and inefficient War Office of 1861-62 and replace it with a well run and centralized machine which did so much to crush the Southern Confederacy. He used the powers he held to great effect, and certainly moved like lightning when he was able. However, he never threw anyone out unless it was necessary. Sacking McClellan before the Battle of Frederick would have been impossible, and Lincoln only left for Philadelphia after the invasion and the outcome of the battle was known, and by that point the defeated Army of the Potomac was streaming back towards Washington to protect the capital. Sacking McClellan would have been too chaotic in the early days of the siege, and Stanton, much as he might have disliked it, needed the man to keep the city in order. By July however, a cabal of officers dissatisfied with the siege and what they view as previous slights, who had an opportunity to change the whole war around. Stanton, seeing a fully justified opportunity, takes it.
Whether that's a good idea or a bad idea remains to be seen.
ITTL he might. Canuck is very taken with the
arguments of David Moore, and this whole situation might be a setup for "Rosecrans, God of War"(TM).
Tragically for this line of thought, I have not read David Moore. Though that's another one for my wish list now.