Absent Commanders

[ole]

What is this obsession with tying a "failure" tag on very nearly everyone? All had their good moments and their bad moments, as every human has. So they have to carry their failure tags through their good moments?

It is one thing to figure that, during the Maryland Campaign, McClellan "could've or should've;" or that during the Penninsula Campaign and the Seven Days, he "could've or should've." It's quite another to tie a failure tag on his entire life.

There was a time I could fix anything ... until they started throwing electronic circuits into everything. Does that make me tote a failure tag?

Please discuss the faults without resorting to the failure tag, or the southern-sin tag, or the immoral tag. After all, Grant failed rather miserably at most everything that didn't involve running a brigade or an army or several armies.

Just a thought.

Ole

 

[K Hale]

Oh, McClellan certainly had talents. He was an excellent organizer; as I mentioned, he's the one who actually formed the AotP and made it believe in itself. And he was a great morale-booster. He is a guy who should have been in some kind of very high-level administrative position (I don't know what you might call it), where he would have become known as one of the war's most smashing success stories. Instead, he was put in field command, where he... was not so good.

Plus he does not help his own case with some of the things he wrote. I am thinking particularly of the "let Pope get out of his scrape" fiasco and the telegram to Stanton (I think?) where he accuses Stanton of having done his best to sacrifice the army on the Peninsula. (Stanton never read this because the telegrapher who received it was so shocked that he deleted that sentence.)

McClellan had some issues. Of course, who doesn't -- but Mac's problem was that he let his issues control him.

 

[Elennsar]

And that those issues were in the areas he was supposed to succeed at.

A field commander is supposed to win battles or at least campaigns. A lawyer is supposed to win cases. A doctor is supposed to make people well. Etc.

Everyone makes mistakes, but there are people who prevail over their faults and there are people whose faults prevail over them.

 

[K Hale]

I think it was you who mentioned the Peter Principle in another thread -- Mac was yet another victim of it, IMO.

 

[captainrlm]

Yet McClellan did have some success West Virginia? Was that simply because of his opponents (I know Lee was there, but getting Wise and, IIRC Floyd, to be competent was mission impossible) or did he get "the big head" when he took over the big job? Some of his writings seem incredibly arrogant, though I'll admit perhaps I've not read enough and am relying on those who use quotes in various books, articles, etc.

I think it was you who mentioned the Peter Principle in another thread -- Mac was yet another victim of it, IMO.

 

[ole]

Most of y'all have children, right? This one is useless and that one is multiple talented and all that judgemental stuff. But the useless one does have a redeemable talent and the multiple talented one has weaknesses.

We tend to measure the CW figures against rigid marks. Try to look at them as your children. This one screws up everything ever tried. This one meets only with success. In your dreams. There is more depth in both

 

[ole]

The Peter Principle seems to dominate more than a few threads. Every person rises to the level of his/her incompetence. (Paraphrased.)

We see that all through the USCW. We're constantly harping on this one or that one made a good division commander but was out of his element as a corps commander.

Being in touch with the action seems to be one of those qualifications with promise. So. How much is too much?

Ole

 

[Leah's Choice]

If you've seen the movie Gettysburg (which is based on the book), it may be in there (I've seen it but can't remember).

If not..well, beats me. Its a good line.

I've never seen the movie Gettysburg, nor did I see Of Gods and Generals. Weren't both books written by the same person? The only civil war novel I've ever read as far as I can remember is Safire's "Freedom," and I found that rather ponderous.

Now, I'm curious. I'll try to find where I read that remark about the general getting on his horse sometime over the weekend.

 

[Elennsar]

Yet McClellan did have some success West Virginia? Was that simply because of his opponents (I know Lee was there, but getting Wise and, IIRC Floyd, to be competent was mission impossible) or did he get "the big head" when he took over the big job? Some of his writings seem incredibly arrogant, though I'll admit perhaps I've not read enough and am relying on those who use quotes in various books, articles, etc.

I think McClellan had the considerable advantage that Wise and Floyd were more likely to fight each other than him.

So I'm not entirely sure. It was definately not a true test.

We tend to measure the CW figures against rigid marks. Try to look at them as your children. This one screws up everything ever tried. This one meets only with success. In your dreams. There is more depth in both

Agreed, but there are commanders whose record is of failure and there are commanders whose record is of success.

Take Bragg. Bragg had some very good points. Points that in an officer without his weaknesses (wouldn't have to be actually good at dealing with people, just not inept, for instance) would make him a competent, reliable man to have in command.

McClellan is much the same. The problem is that their weaknesses were exactly the wrong ones for success.

Grant was not an ace disciplinarian and organizer of troops. But he won battles and campaigns. Which made a difference in the war.

McClellan, not so much. And thus McClellan comes off as a poor general and Grant as great.

 

[K Hale]

And then you have someone like Oliver O. Howard, or, as some call him, "Oh-oh!" Howard. By all accounts a fine human being, an intelligent man, and unquestionably courageous. And yet, an inept and utterly uninspiring leader. I don't know how he kept getting sent up the chain of command to the point where he ended the war leading an army. There must be more to Howard than meets the eye -- anyone know what was up?

 

[Elennsar]

This seems to be one case -at least in terms of his climb after corps - where being a West Pointer was held (by Sherman, incidently) to be more important.

I believe he got a corps after complaining that Sickles got one, so he should get one, and conveniently (?) Sigel's (Eleventh) corps needed a commander after Sigel left.

Still. Brave and intelligent, but not a good general.

 

[Leah's Choice]

This seems to be one case -at least in terms of his climb after corps - where being a West Pointer was held (by Sherman, incidently) to be more important.

I believe he got a corps after complaining that Sickles got one, so he should get one, and conveniently (?) Sigel's (Eleventh) corps needed a commander after Sigel left.

Still. Brave and intelligent, but not a good general.

Are you still talking about Howard? I read something about him this evening, that Sherman gave him McPherson's command after McPherson was killed. General Logan had expected to take McPherson's place and was not very happy about Sherman's selection.

 

[K Hale]

It ought to have been Logan. But Logan was not a West Pointer.

Never bet against the old boy network.

 

[Elennsar]

Still? But yes, on Howard.

The Old Boys Network seems generally to have not been a problem, but this is one of those cases.

 

[K Hale]

LOL, can we not talk about Howard? He was absent in some ways.

His right arm was absent, too.

 

[Elennsar]

You mentioned him.

I guess the question is, who do we hold as an example of the ideal?

I mean, its one thing to say that a general should be "neither too far nor too close", but that's not saying much without an example.

 

[Leah's Choice]

Still? But yes, on Howard.

The Old Boys Network seems generally to have not been a problem, but this is one of those cases.

Yes, still. Meaning, you were talking about McClellan, K mentioned Howard, and I was unsure which one you were referring to.

 

[Elennsar]

Yeah, my bad for not specifiying Howard. "He" is too vague. They're all "he".

 

[ole]

Y'all are missing my point.

There were greater things in play than a general. If Lincoln could get 20,000 soldiers by promoting a nebbish, he was going to do it. We sometimes loose our ideals in the exigencies of necessary.

And, I'll suppose that there are those among us who will reject the morality of it. And I'll submit that, when the bullets start flying, morality is the first to seek shelter, to come back out and lay some cloudy judgement on what just happened.

So we have the moral condemning the smoking gun that just made it possible for the moral to condemn the smoking gun.

Just an observation.

Ole

 

[K Hale]

I thought about the political generals thing, but rejected it as far as Howard is concerned. He was only from Maine. Sickles, McClernand, those guys are a different story. The good thing about it, though, is that once the guy had outlived his usefulness at encouraging recruits, Lincoln dumped him like yesterday's kitty litter. Viz. McClernand. There was only so much Lincoln was willing to put up with in exchange for political clout.

Oh and IMO the general who was the best-connected politically, by FAR, was Sherman. That dude was untouchable, and proved it time and time again.