After Antietam

[Hoplite]

I was watching History C-Span and they had Allen Guelzo.
He made a statement that one of the most dangerous periods of the Civil War was after Antietam up until McClellan's dismissal.
This because of McClellan's opposition to Emancipation, his ignoring of Lincoln and the undercurrent of army dissatisfaction and the potential for a coup.

 

[GwilymT]

While I agree that a more aggressive posture on the part of the United States after repelling the insurrectionist invaders may have borne fruit I'm not convinced that McClellan had the ready forces on hand to press the rebels.

I've seen no documentation that McClellan's supposed opposition to the EC had anything to do with his prosecution of the war. I'd be happy to be disabused of this notion.

 

[JerryD]

I was watching History C-Span and they had Allen Guelzo.
He made a statement that one of the most dangerous periods of the Civil War was after Antietam up until McClellan's dismissal.
This because of McClellan's opposition to Emancipation, his ignoring of Lincoln and the undercurrent of army dissatisfaction and the potential for a coup.

Guelzo is a popular historian and I dont take much of what he says seriously. He likes to tell a good tale, no matter the actual facts.

Edit: I mean popular as opposed to academic. His audience is a more general public, so as a result he is less accurate and tends to try to be more sensational.

 

[jackt62]

I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. Despite McClellan's conservative views about slavery and fighting the rebellion by targeting armed soldiers, rather than civilians and infrastructure, McClellan was a strong proponent of the Union and its political institutions. When confronted with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, McClellan sought to repudiate any talk of a coup or opposition to the decree that did not employ legal means. At the end of the day, for all of McClellan's bluster, he was a creature of the professional American Army and his antecedents in the old Whig Party. Which is why he ultimately (though reluctantly) accepted the will of Lincoln in relieving him of his command, and his decision to enter the legitimate political arena in 1864.

 

[GilbertFarney]

I was watching History C-Span and they had Allen Guelzo.
He made a statement that one of the most dangerous periods of the Civil War was after Antietam up until McClellan's dismissal.
This because of McClellan's opposition to Emancipation, his ignoring of Lincoln and the undercurrent of army dissatisfaction and the potential for a coup.

A Whiff of Treason? John Hay, George B. McClellan, and the Incident with Major John J. Key - Emerging Civil War

ECW welcomes guest author Alexander B. Rossino A scandalous incident occurred in Washington, D.C. soon after the end of the 1862 Maryland Campaign. In late September, Maj. John J. Key, an officer attached to the staff of general-in-chief Henry Halleck, and the brother of Maj. Gen. George B...

emergingcivilwar.com

 

[Bruce Vail]

I am a little unsure about what Guelzo meant precisely, but I don't think the Republic was ever in danger from a military coup led by McClellan. Some of McClellan's critics in Lincoln's cabinet were a bit paranoid.

 

[Dead Parrott]

On this site McClellan gets more than his share of the 'every blame/every excuse' dichotomy, but I believe he would not lead or cooperate with an actual coup.

 

[Jantzen64]

I confess I can be a sucker for a good conspiracy theory, BUT the familial connection between John Key and Thomas Key (of McClellan's staff), coupled with the tone and content of the Harrison's Landing letter and legitimate questions about the results at Antietam - do create a fair amount of smoke. Lincoln is reported as wanting to "make an example" of John Key - Lincoln was too smart a politician to think he wasn't trying to send a message to a broader audience, whomever that broader audience was.