McClellan Re-evaluating George McClellan

[67th Tigers]

As we have discussed many times, you're wrong.

Indeed. Our discussions were primarily me pointing out the law as it existed, and asking you to show me a contemporary regulation relating to "relief for cause" or anything similar.

You refuse, and insist that I must prove a negative - something that is logically impossible. If the regulations don't exist, they can't be quoted. Ergo, I keep asking you to show me a regulation. You can't.

Simply stating over and over again "I'm right and you're wrong" is not an argument. You need to show a regulation relating to it. Imagine turning up in a courtroom and arguing for a made-up law that wasn't on the books. You'd be held in contempt and possibly disbarred.

 

[Nathan Towne]

Well, at least they avoided the public relations/inter service mess that resulted when Holland Smith USMC relieved Ralph Smith USA on Saipan in 1944 because the first Smith didn't think the 27th Division was moving fast/aggressively enough. The Buckner Board court of inquiry concluded that Holland Smith had the authority but that the grounds didn't exist.

Yeah. The technical aspects of removal is honestly a topic which I haven't really intimately studied much at all.

 

[JerryD]

Indeed. Our discussions were primarily me pointing out the law as it existed, and asking you to show me a contemporary regulation relating to "relief for cause" or anything similar.

You refuse, and insist that I must prove a negative - something that is logically impossible. If the regulations don't exist, they can't be quoted. Ergo, I keep asking you to show me a regulation. You can't.

Simply stating over and over again "I'm right and you're wrong" is not an argument. You need to show a regulation relating to it. Imagine turning up in a courtroom and arguing for a made-up law that wasn't on the books. You'd be held in contempt and possibly disbarred.

It strikes me you are taking an extremely technical view of this. It seems as a practical matter that if a commanding general has reason to believe that a commander is so bad that cause exists to remove him, that the commanding general would do so, and justify the action later. If cause exists, then the removal will be upheld. If it does not exist, then it will not be. Isnt that the reality, irregardless of what the regulations may say?

 

[67th Tigers]

Yeah. The technical aspects of removal is honestly a topic which I haven't really intimately studied much at all.

Whatever they are, they are irrelevant. They relate to the regulations are they existed in 1944, which had been totally rewritten since 1865. This particular incident doesn't appear to be a "Relief for Cause" though, as charges of disobeying two orders were involved.

"Relief for Cause" is based around Officer Evaluation Reports, and is a way of removing an officer from the Army. The very first OER's came into being in the 1890's, which is many decades after the ACW, and initially had no mechanism for removing inefficient officers. Further, frocked general officers cannot be "relieved for cause." Only colonels and below can,* since generals are appointed by the Senate on the advice of the President, and thus only they are considered competent to make a decision.

The problem is that every purported "relief for cause" of a general Belfoured has advanced was something else.

* For colonels and lieutenant-colonels, this has to go upto the theatre commander, whereas majors and below are dealt with by the first frocked general in their chain-of-command.

 

[67th Tigers]

It strikes me you are taking an extremely technical view of this. It seems as a practical matter that if a commanding general has reason to believe that a commander is so bad that cause exists to remove him, that the commanding general would do so, and justify the action later. If cause exists, then the removal will be upheld. If it does not exist, then it will not be. Isnt that the reality, irregardless of what the regulations may say?

Depends. Corps commanders are appointed directly by the President, and are untouchable outside of arrest. Lesser commanders are only assigned to duty in a department by the President/GinC, and can be moved around within said department by its' commander. A commanding general could reassign them to any role suitable for their rank.

The Hamilton case is different as, on paper, McClellan is the General-in-Chief, and this gives him broader powers than others...

 

[Saphroneth]

It strikes me you are taking an extremely technical view of this. It seems as a practical matter that if a commanding general has reason to believe that a commander is so bad that cause exists to remove him, that the commanding general would do so, and justify the action later. If cause exists, then the removal will be upheld. If it does not exist, then it will not be. Isnt that the reality, irregardless of what the regulations may say?

IMO one of the best illustrations of the way that this simply doesn't apply is McClellan's corps commanders after Williamsburg. McClellan writes to Lincoln for permission to remove these three officers who had all (in his estimation) just demonstrated that they were no good at their jobs.

He asks permission to reorganize the army corps, and for the authority to "relieve from duty with this army" corps or division commanders who turned out to be incompetent.

The reply granted permission to temporarily adjust the organization, but no permission was given to relieve from duty corps or division commanders who turned out to be incompetent. Lincoln asked if the corps commanders disobeyed McClellan's orders.



If the authority you suggest was something that could be assumed, then McClellan would have just done it. Instead it is not something that McClellan can do by himself, which is why he writes to Lincoln for permission.

 

[tony_gunter]

Unless there's something we've never seen from McClellan, it seems he jumped at the opportunity. As I pointed out, the most he stated was that Hamilton was not "fit" for division command. That's pretty vague.

Not only vague but clearly not true. Hamilton led his division well out west, particularly at Iuka. He did miss an opportunity to strike a blow afterward at Corinth by waiting too long to launch an attack into the Confederate flank as it passed. Then he served reasonably well as de-facto corps command along with McPherson and Sherman in the march to Grenada.

Most importantly, he's the mastermind behind the suggestion that eventually became Grierson's Raid.

 

[JerryD]

IMO one of the best illustrations of the way that this simply doesn't apply is McClellan's corps commanders after Williamsburg. McClellan writes to Lincoln for permission to remove these three officers who had all (in his estimation) just demonstrated that they were no good at their jobs.

He asks permission to reorganize the army corps, and for the authority to "relieve from duty with this army" corps or division commanders who turned out to be incompetent.

The reply granted permission to temporarily adjust the organization, but no permission was given to relieve from duty corps or division commanders who turned out to be incompetent. Lincoln asked if the corps commanders disobeyed McClellan's orders.



If the authority you suggest was something that could be assumed, then McClellan would have just done it. Instead it is not something that McClellan can do by himself, which is why he writes to Lincoln for permission.

IMO, you are describing a right to arbitrarily remove officers, which I dont think anyone is saying was permitted without express authority. In the example you cited, Lincoln did not find that sufficient cause existed. By its very nature, "for cause" means you have to prove your point; it is subject to review. Which I think is how the real world worked. If McClellan could have convinced Lincoln these generals were incompetent, then he would have been sustained. But he had to prove cause existed.

 

[JerryD]

Depends. Corps commanders are appointed directly by the President, and are untouchable outside of arrest. Lesser commanders are only assigned to duty in a department by the President/GinC, and can be moved around within said department by its' commander. A commanding general could reassign them to any role suitable for their rank.

The Hamilton case is different as, on paper, McClellan is the General-in-Chief, and this gives him broader powers than others...

Irrespective, if the Commanding General can demonstrate that the Corps Commander is incompetent, then he would be removed. He has to show cause. I realize this may not be how its spelled out in the regs, but its how the real world works. Do you honestly think Lincoln would keep in command an officer who he thinks is incompetent, and who the Commanding General wants to get rid of?

 

[Nathan Towne]

IMO one of the best illustrations of the way that this simply doesn't apply is McClellan's corps commanders after Williamsburg. McClellan writes to Lincoln for permission to remove these three officers who had all (in his estimation) just demonstrated that they were no good at their jobs.

He asks permission to reorganize the army corps, and for the authority to "relieve from duty with this army" corps or division commanders who turned out to be incompetent.

The reply granted permission to temporarily adjust the organization, but no permission was given to relieve from duty corps or division commanders who turned out to be incompetent. Lincoln asked if the corps commanders disobeyed McClellan's orders.



If the authority you suggest was something that could be assumed, then McClellan would have just done it. Instead it is not something that McClellan can do by himself, which is why he writes to Lincoln for permission.

Hey @Saphroneth,

It is always nice to hear from you.

That is something of an interesting case, because the issue there was that McClellan's ask of the Administration was that he either be permitted to suspend the Corps organization of the Army, or be authorized to relieve, in his words, "incompetent commanders." I have always taken him to mean permission/authorization from the government to relieve and replace commanders as he saw fit. Stanton, of course, would respond, authorizing the suspension of the Corps level commands, or of any command reorganization which McClellan may see fit, within the Army, but with Lincoln's letter attached expressing his uneasiness with McClellan doing such. On May 18th, McClellan reorganized the Army, adding what would then become known as Fifth and Sixth Army Corps (assigned to F.J. Porter and W.B. Franklin, respectively).

There are many other examples over the course of the war of an Army commander seeking authorization from the Administration to relieve one commander, or another, or have that commander transferred. Once you are operating at the generalship level of command, the commissions are national ones which had been approved by the Congress and by the President.

 

[Nathan Towne]

Irrespective, if the Commanding General can demonstrate that the Corps Commander is incompetent, then he would be removed. He has to show cause. I realize this may not be how its spelled out in the regs, but its how the real world works. Do you honestly think Lincoln would keep in command an officer who he thinks is incompetent, and who the Commanding General wants to get rid of?

Hey @JerryD,

That was essentially the situation, as McClellan expressed it in his communications with the government in May regarding the commands of Second, Third and Fourth Corps. I am not sure that I would say that a standard of for cause removal had necessarily been met.

I can think of a litany of examples on this front. I recognize that it is in the Confederate Army, but following Chickamauga, Bragg brought both Leo Polk and T.C. Hindman up on charges, rather than discussing their transfer or relief from the commands with the government, for instance. I can think of tonnes of examples on this front.

 

[67th Tigers]

What Halleck explained to Burnside is correct:

Burnside can transfer officers within his command as he sees fit, but he does not have the power to remove officers from his command. He has to ask Halleck to do that. No-one can touch the corps commanders, as they are directly appointed by Lincoln.

The situation with Hamilton is slightly different, because McClellan is also the General-in-Chief at the time, and that *does* give him the authority to send Hamilton back to Washington. This is exceptional, and only the GinC can do this. Not even the GinC can get rid of a corps commander.

 

[Nathan Towne]

What Halleck explained to Burnside is correct:

View attachment 520654

Burnside can transfer officers within his command as he sees fit, but he does not have the power to remove officers from his command. He has to ask Halleck to do that. No-one can touch the corps commanders, as they are directly appointed by Lincoln.

The situation with Hamilton is slightly different, because McClellan is also the General-in-Chief at the time, and that *does* give him the authority to send Hamilton back to Washington. This is exceptional, and only the GinC can do this. Not even the GinC can get rid of a corps commander.

Yeah, my basic understanding on this has always been that if someone holds a commission commensurate to their acting position, that they can only be removed from their position if they are brought up on charges, or if the Administration has authorized the commander of the Army to remove them, or others, at which point they would be reassigned.

I am not really fully apprised on the for cause removal issue beyond that, to be entirely honest. It is something which I would need to study.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Not only vague but clearly not true. Hamilton led his division well out west, particularly at Iuka. He did miss an opportunity to strike a blow afterward at Corinth by waiting too long to launch an attack into the Confederate flank as it passed. Then he served reasonably well as de-facto corps command along with McPherson and Sherman in the march to Grenada.

Most importantly, he's the mastermind behind the suggestion that eventually became Grierson's Raid.

If Rosecrans would have simply ordered Hamilton to attack their flank, I think he would have. Instead Rosecrans sent a convoluted order which actually mixed up "left" with "right." Hamilton refused to do anything until Rosecrans clarified it. It was not the last time Rosecrans would send a dumb order that had negative consequences in a battle.

 

[Nathan Towne]

Lest we forget, Corinth was a great victory, which repulsed a concentrated Confederate attack upon a strategically vital position.

Being that it was proven to an above user in another thread that the Iuka plan was to trap Price at Iuka from the ability to pull back either to the south, to the east via Bear Creek, or due north towards the Tennessee River, which wasn't even known by them until it was demonstrated to them, one would think that they would be careful in passing judgements too quickly from there. These are complex topics, which have to be studied intimately, lest obvious mistakes like that will be made. You show respect to the record and the historical actors involved in judging their actions and often things come out much differently than one may think if not intimately studied.

@tony_gunter

If you haven't studied Hamilton's command in the east, it is very interesting.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Being that it was proven to an above user in another thread that the Iuka plan was to trap Price at Iuka from the ability to pull back either to the south, to the east via Bear Creek, or due north towards the Tennessee River, which wasn't even known by them until it was demonstrated to them, one would think that they would be careful in passing judgements too quickly from there. These are complex topics, which have to be studied intimately, least obvious mistakes like that will be made.

False. You expressed your opinion in the other thread. You certainly didn't prove anything, or demonstrate anything, other than that you have a very distorted understanding of the Battle of Iuka.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Giving a little context to McClellan's relief of Hamilton, here is a letter from Lincoln at the time which accuses McClellan of playing favorites in the Army of the Potomac:

 

[Nathan Towne]

If by "distorted," it is meant derived directly from the contemporary record in which the situation and the plan were laid out clearly and concisely on the point and from the reports, then I would agree, but okay. People can/will read the correspondence for themselves.

This is a well-known criticism. Heintzelman had stated such in his Journal.

 

[Nathan Towne]

@Saphroneth

Did you have any other particular views which you were thinking of expressing regarding the reorganization?

 

[Belfoured]

This is a non-sequitur. Lincoln asked McClellan to restore Hamilton to his former division, and McClellan invited Lincoln to make it an order. The latter declined to do so, and thus there is no need to "defend" an action.



Yes, and I linked to it. What Hamilton wrote, and when, does not match what you claim.

Just duck the issue when you have no good response. McClellan's May 22 response is significant because Lincoln had given McClellan the chance to do what he he hadn't done in his April 30 order - specify the detailed grounds for relieving Hamilton from division command. He chose the broad statement that Hamilton was not "fit" for division command. As I pointed out, he had that authority if in fact there was "cause". We don't know what the specific "cause" was because he never provided any details and because a court of inquiry was neither requested nor convened. The same is true, by the way, of his April 30 message to Franklin informing him that Kearney was being assigned to command the 3rd division of III Corps and that Hamilton was "relieved".

McClellan had two requests sent to Heintzelman on April 29 and April 30 requesting the dates of commission of Birney, Berry, and Grover but no reference to his intentions regarding Hamilton. Meanwhile, on April 29 and 30 he had two messages sent to Hamilton, the first directing the responsibility of the "division officer of the day" for "guarding the trenches" and the second asking "what were the dates of your applications for cavalry in your letter of 26th inst."