McClellan's autobiography

[Cavalier]

In 50+ years of reading about him he has remained an enigma to me.

John

 

[Nathan Stuart]

In letters to his wife, didn't McClellan regularly refer to Lincoln as the 'original gorilla', consider the cabinet as 'geese', and call Seward an 'incompetent little puppy'?

Does this demonstrate arrogance (egotism) or is it just plain tactfulness?

 

[Belfoured]

In letters to his wife, didn't McClellan regularly refer to Lincoln as the 'original gorilla', consider the cabinet as 'geese', and call Seward an 'incompetent little puppy'?

Does this demonstrate arrogance (egotism) or is it just plain tactfulness?

He told Ellen in 1861 that Winfield Scott was ""the great obstacle—he will not comprehend the danger & is either a traitor, or an incompetent. I have to fight my way against him."

 

[jackt62]

If you're looking for something more interesting - and can put aside the insufferable, constant "victim" mentality - I'd suggest his Civil War letters instead.

Yes, I read his letters and would note that his private writings done in "real time" probably offer a more accurate assessment of his thinking and commentary on events, in contrast to memoirs that are written later on with an eye towards history.

 

[Cavalier]

As far as the remarks in the letters to his wife, I know that I have referred to some people both famous and not famous at all, in unflattering, derogatory terms. And my choice of words would make "original gorilla" and "incompetent little puppy" seem pretty light hearted. I just wouldn't expect those remarks, made to my wife or close friends, to be made public.

John

 

[Ole Miss]

Like Mother always said: "If you can't say anything nice..."
Regards
David

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Like Mother always said: "If you can't say anything nice..."
Regards
David

Good point. Sounds like he lacked tact.

Have also heard it said, "Never put anything in writing, if you would not allow the world to read it"

 

[Nathan Stuart]

As far as the remarks in the letters to his wife, I know that I have referred to some people both famous and not famous at all, in unflattering, derogatory terms. And my choice of words would make "original gorilla" and "incompetent little puppy" seem pretty light hearted. I just wouldn't expect those remarks, made to my wife or close friends, to be made public.

John

These labels he puts on others also say something about his own egotism

 

[JPChurch]

I have the original 1886 copyrighted version . It is autographed in a few of the front pages in 1887 with a name I don't know of. It's in remarkably fantastic condition. I've flipped through it and eventually decided to not read it. It was given to me by some friends of mine that used to be devoted night time trash pickers. They used to cruise neighborhoods looking for anything they thought might be worth something. It was in a dilapidated cardboard box with some other old books sitting out on the curbside of a run down home in a podunk suburb close to Philadelphia.

Despite this book's condition, I doubt it's worth very much today, unless there's a collector out there that's a real big Mac fan.

 

[trice]

Good point. Sounds like he lacked tact.

Have also heard it said, "Never put anything in writing, if you would not allow the world to read it"

It was in the early 1990s that a friend said to me that "E-mail is forever". Then people started texting ...

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

He told Ellen in 1861 that Winfield Scott was ""the great obstacle—he will not comprehend the danger & is either a traitor, or an incompetent. I have to fight my way against him."

Here is a great example of McClellan's issues.

Winfield Scott was in his mid-70s when the war broke out. He should have long-since retired. He had only five years left to live, was too fat to ride a horse, and was infamous for his vanity. He was an impediment to the Union war effort.

And yet Scott's Anaconda Plan, despite mockery from the press, was a good strategic outline of how to fight the war.

McClellan is simultaneously mostly correct, but also too dismissive - all while being a jerk about it.

Ironic that McClellan would criticize another general as "incompetent or a traitor" since that same criticism would be levied against Mac.

I just wouldn't expect those remarks, made to my wife or close friends, to be made public

And yet those candid private remarks more accurately reflect your opinions and the "real you" than self-censored, carefully-considered public remarks you make on CWT or to your boss.

 

[Cavalier]

@Nathan Stuart & @Joshism As I said above, I've read about him for many years and I still don't know what to think of him. I'd read his autobiography though, just to see what he has to say.

I have enjoyed reading the remarks on here by his defenders however. There may indeed be more to him than I had believed. I'd like to think there is.

John

 

[Nathan Stuart]

@Nathan Stuart & @Joshism As I said above, I've read about him for many years and I still don't know what to think of him. I'd read his autobiography though, just to see what he has to say.

I have enjoyed reading the remarks on here by his defenders however. There may indeed be more to him than I had believed. I'd like to think there is.

John

Cavalier, I have not read his autobiography or any biographies on him. I've only read about his performances and interactions in some battles.

From my limited knowledge of him, my impressions are that he was highly egotistical, a good organizer, very popular with his men, and lacked tact (especially with his political masters). From what I read, perhaps his greatest shortcoming militarily was that he tended to constantly grossly over-state the strength of the enemy. I think this might have led him to exercise excessive caution and limit follow-up actions, in some situations.

 

[rbasin]

It's ok. Definitely a long read. He's a hard guy to like. It's more enjoyable than Sheridan's. Similar to hood's.

 

[JerryD]

Cavalier, I have not read his autobiography or any biographies on him. I've only read about his performances and interactions in some battles.

From my limited knowledge of him, my impressions are that he was highly egotistical, a good organizer, very popular with his men, and lacked tact (especially with his political masters). From what I read, perhaps his greatest shortcoming militarily was that he tended to constantly grossly over-state the strength of the enemy. I think this might have led him to exercise excessive caution and limit follow-up actions, in some situations.

I had planned on reading Sears bio on him, then his memoirs. Sears has a very low opinion of him and provides lots of examples why. For example, he seemed to have only a passing relationship with the truth. His numbers of enemy combatants was constantly in flux and many times seemed to be pulled out off his....bottom. He also was very disingenuous in terms of how he discussed his own troop levels, in terms of not counting anyone who didnt shoulder a musket, while not applying the same methodology to CSA forces. This is why Lincoln commented that sending troops to him was like trying to shovel flies across a barn yard....not many seem to make it.

 

[trice]

Aside from personality quirks, McClellan suffered from not having enough time doing the hard work, learning by hard knocks, on the way up. From a very young age he was seen as a highly-talented person, praised and promoted (either in rank or position), given opportunities that others had to earn. After the Mexican War he had strong backing from Davis as Secretary of War, getting the plum assignment to observe in the Crimea. (Even in 1862, Davis still saw him as a paragon.)

After he left the Army, he immediately got a great job in civilian life: in 1857 he became became chief engineer and vice president of the Illinois Central Railroad, and then president of the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad in 1860. During this period, he came to think of men like Abraham Lincoln as underlings (Lincoln was a lawyer for the Illinois Central RR) he hired.

McClellan performed well in those days. He really was a talented, intelligent man who made a bold impression on others. He seems to have had no experience with being the man responsible when hard times came, rarely having to struggle and learn the hard way. He was treated to an (almost) unending parade of success and public praise. His high opinion of himself was constantly reinforced.

As a result of this, McClellan had almost no experience with having to actually struggle with hard times and defeat. His positions in the Army had involved an unusual amount of independence and importance for a junior officer. His positions in civilian life came with power and prestige assumed.

I think McClellan would have done better in the Civil War if he had started out with a steady path of hard work and a more junior position. It might be impossible to picture him starting out below a rank of Brigadier, but I think he needed to work his way up the ladder to improve: a brigade first, then a division, a corps spot before an Army command and most of those before he became the commanding general. He still would have had his natural ability, but he might have learned a little humility and developed a better feel for co-operating with others if he had.

 

[Belfoured]

Here is a great example of McClellan's issues.

Winfield Scott was in his mid-70s when the war broke out. He should have long-since retired. He had only five years left to live, was too fat to ride a horse, and was infamous for his vanity. He was an impediment to the Union war effort.

And yet Scott's Anaconda Plan, despite mockery from the press, was a good strategic outline of how to fight the war.

McClellan is simultaneously mostly correct, but also too dismissive - all while being a jerk about it.

Ironic that McClellan would criticize another general as "incompetent or a traitor" since that same criticism would be levied against Mac.



And yet those candid private remarks more accurately reflect your opinions and the "real you" than self-censored, carefully-considered public remarks you make on CWT or to your boss.

Another complication of his "private" letters to Ellen is that her father was McClellan's Chief of Staff. Not quite like Grant sending letters to Julia or Meade to Margaretta. Makes it less likely that everything "stays in Vegas".

 

[Belfoured]

Aside from personality quirks, McClellan suffered from not having enough time doing the hard work, learning by hard knocks, on the way up. From a very young age he was seen as a highly-talented person, praised and promoted (either in rank or position), given opportunities that others had to earn. After the Mexican War he had strong backing from Davis as Secretary of War, getting the plum assignment to observe in the Crimea. (Even in 1862, Davis still saw him as a paragon.)

After he left the Army, he immediately got a great job in civilian life: in 1857 he became became chief engineer and vice president of the Illinois Central Railroad, and then president of the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad in 1860. During this period, he came to think of men like Abraham Lincoln as underlings (Lincoln was a lawyer for the Illinois Central RR) he hired.

McClellan performed well in those days. He really was a talented, intelligent man who made a bold impression on others. He seems to have had no experience with being the man responsible when hard times came, rarely having to struggle and learn the hard way. He was treated to an (almost) unending parade of success and public praise. His high opinion of himself was constantly reinforced.

As a result of this, McClellan had almost no experience with having to actually struggle with hard times and defeat. His positions in the Army had involved an unusual amount of independence and importance for a junior officer. His positions in civilian life came with power and prestige assumed.

I think McClellan would have done better in the Civil War if he had started out with a steady path of hard work and a more junior position. It might be impossible to picture him starting out below a rank of Brigadier, but I think he needed to work his way up the ladder to improve: a brigade first, then a division, a corps spot before an Army command and most of those before he became the commanding general. He still would have had his natural ability, but he might have learned a little humility and developed a better feel for co-operating with others if he had.

It would have been interesting if he had actually taken up his assignment to the new First US Cavalry in March 1855. But before he assumed that position he was appointed to the Delafield Commission and went to Europe. He would have served under a Col. named Edwin V. Sumner at Fort Leavenworth and elsewhere on the frontier.

 

[Cavalier]

@Nathan Stuart I had thought that the praise heaped on him early in the War might have gone to his head.

So many of these guys, even the professionals like McClellen, had so little experience actually commanding troops in battle it surprises me that they did as well as they did. As a comparison, I believe that many of the French Generals under Napoleon spent their entire adult lives making war.

If I am not mistaken there is, or was, a school of thought among some historians that he really did believe the bloated figures he gave as to the strength of the Confederate forces opposing him. I can't say that I admire his abilities as a general though, at least not yet. I think the remarks by @trice on post #36 were very insightful.

John

 

[Nathan Stuart]

@Nathan Stuart I had thought that the praise heaped on him early in the War might have gone to his head.

So many of these guys, even the professionals like McClellen, had so little experience actually commanding troops in battle it surprises me that they did as well as they did. As a comparison, I believe that many of the French Generals under Napoleon spent their entire adult lives making war.

If I am not mistaken there is, or was, a school of thought among some historians that he really did believe the bloated figures he gave as to the strength of the Confederate forces opposing him. I can't say that I admire his abilities as a general though, at least not yet. I think the remarks by @trice on post #36 were very insightful.

John

Not knowing much about McClellan, I suspect his constant extreme exaggerations of enemy strength was a major flaw for him in effective military planning. He strikes me as a 'big picture'/'grand ideas' thinker, rather than as a very capable tactical commander on the ground.

I think this major flaw would severely limit his ability to seize opportunities or prosecute offensive actions.

Without considering any other factors, I don't think McClellan's mode of military thinking would have suited Lincoln's goal of crushing the Confederacy.