Alternatives: McClellan

There's precious little good defensive ground between Fredericksburg and the North Anna. McClellan has to get closer to his supplies, and the only way to defend his supplies and the army is to withdraw beyond the Rappahannock.

Couldn't he simply move to the side, effectively conducting the post-North-Anna movement from the historical Overland campaign?

Or, failing that, couldn't he fall back to the heights over Fredericksburg and go no further? (Indeed, it looks like the terrain around the Massaponax is fairly rugged.)

ED: Actually, it occurs to me to wonder what kind of defeat on the North Anna you're thinking of. The North Anna is a river and thus offers defensible terrain in both directions.
 
Last edited:
They reported being in contact with Stuart yes, no report on Jackson. On the 7th Sigel declares "A deserter reports that the enemy is throwing up fortifications on the other side of Rappahannock Station. Artillery is brought down there from Culpeper. Longstreet's forces, 25,000 strong, are at Culpeper. Have not ben able to find out the whereabouts of Jackson's forces"

That is the report of one deserter, and that deserter didn't know Jackson's location. You are heavily overconcluding based on selective data. In fact McClellan knew very well the locations, as he wrote in 1863:

"The army was thus massed near Warrenton, ready to act in any required direction, perfectly in hand, and in admirable condition and spirits. I doubt whether during :he whole period that I had the honor to command the Army of the Potomac it was in such excellent condition to fight a great battle. When I gave up the command to General Burnside the best information in our possession indicated that Longstreet was immediately in our front near Culpeper; Jackson, with one, perhaps both, of the Hills, near Chester and Thornton's Gaps, with the mass of their three west of the Blue Ridge.
The reports from General Pleasonton, on the advance, indicated the possibility of separating the two wings of the enemy's forces, and either beating Longstreet separately or forcing him to fall back at least upon Gordonsville, to effect his junction with the rest of the army.
The following is from the report of General Pleasonton:

At this time and from the 7th instant my advance pickets were at Hazel River, within 6 miles of Culpeper, besides having my flank pickets toward Chester and Thornton's Gaps extended to Gaines' Cross-Roads and Newby's Cross-Roads, with numerous patrols in the direction of Woodville, Little Washington, and Sperryville.
The information gained from these parties, and also from deserters, prisoners, contrabands, as well as citizens, established the fact of Longstreet with his command being at Culpeper, while Jackson with D. H. Hill, with their respective commands, were in the Shenandoah Valley, on the western side of the Blue Ridge, covering Chester and Thornton's Gaps, and expecting us to attempt to pass through and attack them.
As late as the 17th of November a contraband just from Strasburg came in my camp and reported that D. H. Hill's corps was 2 miles beyond that place, on the railroad to Mount Jackson. Hill was tearing up the road and destroying the bridges, under the impression that we intended to follow into that valley, and was en route for Staunton. Jackson's corps was between Strasburg and Winchester. Ewell and A. P. Hill were with Jackson. Provisions were scarce, and the rebels were obliged to keep moving to obtain them.​

Had I remained in command, I should have made the attempt to divide the enemy as before suggested, and could he have been brought to a battle within reach of my supplies, I cannot doubt that the result would have been a brilliant victory for our army.
On the 10th of November General Pleasonton was attacked by Longstreet with one division of infantry and Stuart's cavalry, but repulsed the attack. This indicates the relative position of our army and that of the enemy at the time I was relieved from the command."

In other words, they had no clue where Jackson was, then withdrew to cover their flank, and now Jackson is free to use the passes as he pleases, and they still don't know where he is or what he's doing. There's not a blessed thing stopping him from taking the same route he took in August and joining Lee at Gordonsville and having Lee get neatly out of the supposed bag McClellan has placed him in, again.

Nope, for both points.

As per above, Pleasonton is providing correct int about the enemy locations.

Jackson is 101 miles from Gordonsville, and his horses are knackered. When he moved from Winchester it took him 6 days to move to Gordonsville and his column was 3 days long (i.e. the back arrived at Gordonsville 8 days after the front started moving). The movement from Winchester to Fredericksburg was a 12 day march.

So he will do the same as Burnside. We can expect the same result, or if he gets lucky he gets thumped on the North Anna and then retreats across the Rappahannock.

Fredericksburg took some special doing by Burnside.

The bridge train from Berlin was ordered by McClellan to Washington on 6 Nov. Comms going via Washington and the war dept instead of telegraphing on the order placed it on a Potomac barge to leisurely make its way upriver and it wasn't received until 12 Nov. In the disruption of McClellan being removed noone on the staff wondered why they didn't hear from the engineers and reiterate the order.

Burnside wondered on 14 Nov about the trains. They replied they were only just reaching Washington and needed rehorsing. They suggested Burnside wait 6 days until 20 Nov to start his move. Halleck refused to allow this and Burnside told his engineers to float 40 more pontoons down from Washington. These arrived 18 Nov, but no-one had told the other train, which had the horses and extra equipment that this was urgent and they didn't leave until 19 Nov and spared the horses during a major storm and arrived 24 Nov.

Now if the initial screw up in Washington was caught early, such as the staff not being absorbed in the changeover that saves 6 days and the pontoons can be there on the 18 Nov. They'd also miss said storm and save another 3 days to be there on the 15 Nov.

One of Burnside's flaws is that he was too nice to hurry things up. He let things happen in their own time, which people liked because McClellan was often prodding and hurrying for celerity of movement. This is a classic case. McClellan would likely have had the pontoons in place 9 days earlier.

So in sum, argue 6 day delay won't happen with McClellan and staff undistracted, and you then miss said storm. Also Burnside could have put forces over the river to secure the heights. Sumner proposed this but Burnside said no. Hooker proposed taking his 2 corps across US ford and occupying the river drawing supplies from port royal. This was denied. Burnside held his force in place and allowed Lee to occupy the heights.

McClellan OTOH would see this like the eltham landing operation. A well entrenched force can resist a much larger force. He would likely occupy the heights across the river at least, whilst waiting for the pontoons if they had not arrived. Hookers proposal was sound and is similar to what istr McClellans thinking was.

In sum, even without the pontoons McClellan would have got across the Rappahannock unopposed. Worst case is Lee forms behind the north Anna.
 
And I should note that here Lee's strategic dilemma over what to do with Jackson. Jackson can threaten McClellan's flank or he can reunite with Lee's main army, yes, but he can't do both at once.

For the purposes of this analysis I will assume McClellan takes the advice of his cavalry commander and:
- splits his force under Franklin, placing about three divisions each at Barbee's Crossroads and Thornton's Gap
- splits his Warrenton force into two "grand divisions", one moving via Woodville to Culpeper and the other going direct.
I will also assume McClellan does not use a detachment from the "Woodville" GD to block Thornton's Gap, even though it would be sensible.

Jackson has four options once McClellan moves out of the positions marked on the map. (The positions on the map represent a semi-stable pause position, as they held for several days historically.)


1) March south to his historical crossing point (Swift Run Gap), thence to Gordonsville.

This is something which Jackon can do without being impeded by McClellan, but it will take time - it's a march of over a hundred miles for his most northerly division, so it's not going to happen in less than five days even if Jackson manages twenty miles a day.
In this time, McClellan's southerly wing (1st, 2nd, 5th, 9th) can move on Culpeper in great strength and hit Longstreet something like 3:1 - Warrenton to Culpeper via Woodville is a distance of about forty miles, so the force sent to take that route will reach Culpeper before Jackson reaches Warrenton.
This compels the abandonment of Culpeper or a battle there at least, even if McClellan doesn't detect Jackson's movement.

2) March south to the Chester or Thornton's Gaps and come in on McClellan's flank, hitting the "Woodville Force" or similar.

This would take less time. For Jackson's northerly divisions (everyone except DH Hill) to reach Woodville via Chester or Thornton's Gaps is a journey of about fifty miles (Chester) or sixty-five miles (Thornton). This is significantly longer than the trip from the Warrenton area to Woodville, but it's plausible that Jackson would be able to come up the rear of this force before it reached Culpeper so long as he can march something like half again as fast as the Union troops.
However, this is a route which McClellan's cavalry was covering, so Jackson would not be able to come in as a complete surprise - there'd be warning of an hour or two at the very least.
This results in, effectively, a battle where Jackson's force and Longstreet's force are separated only by the Woodville force. McClellan's second 'grand division' (the other half of his body of 60,000 effectives at Warrenton) is closing on Culpeper from the northeast, so if Longstreet strips his lines at Culpeper to contribute to that battle he probably loses Culpeper junction.

Meanwhile, if Jackson's movement through Chester Gap is detected, the divisions at Barbee's Crossroads can come down on his rear in turn. (They're too far away to block it or really to hit his column in the flank as it passes, but the Chester Gap to Woodville leg of the route is almost half the total distance - Jackson can't march out of the gap and clear to Woodville in a single march, which gives time for the Barbee's force to come down on him in turn.)

This is probably the most difficult situation for McClellan as it involves all of Lee's forces concentrating against part of his, though his blocking Thornton's Gap with a few brigades would make it considerably easier. It also depends heavily on Jackson's force being able to march significantly faster than McClellan's divisions can, and I'll look into the marches in more detail shortly.

3) Jackson marches to Manassas Gap and goes for Thoroughfare Gap.

In this case it's simple - he runs straight into Franklin's big three-division rearguard at Thoroughfare Gap and plays no part in the Culpeper section of the campaign, then gets flanked from Barbee's Crossroads.


4) Jackson crosses Manassas Gap, Ashby's Gap or Snickers Gap into Loudoun Valley, then goes for the gap between the Bull Run and Cacotin Mountains to target Manassas.

Plotting this one out is a bit trickier, because DH Hill's fastest route goes within about 5-8 miles of Franklin.
DH Hill to Manassas via Aldie is 55 miles
AP Hill to Manassas via Aldie is 45 miles
Jackson to Manassas via Aldie is 56 miles

Thus to a first approximation it's a 55-mile trip before they reach Manassas.

This has the significant risk to McClellan of cutting his supply line to Warrenton (which would potentially force the abandonment of the Culpeper operation - though depending on the timing it's quite possible it would already have reached Culpeper by the time the news of Jackson's movement arrives), though it is also a massive risk to Jackson. Not only is there the prospect of running into some of Franklin's divisions (having marched or taken the rail line from Thoroughfare Gap straight to Manassas Junction) but when Jackson is at Manassas Junction the Barbee's Crossroads force is about the same distance from the Bull Run mountain gaps as Jackson is, and the Thoroughfare Gap force is closer.
In other words, if the news about Jackson arrives in time to compel the cancellation of the Culpeper movement before it's actually gained Culpeper then the news about Jackson has also arrived in time to risk Jackson being trapped east of the Bull Run mountains...




Now, the marches in case 2.

McClellan's movement is the one which breaks the stalemate, which is his "Woodville Grand Division" moving across the north fork on Day 1. We'll assume it's moving at the same speed as the early Maryland campaign and say 9 miles per march, so the march gets past Amissville and rests halfway to Woodville.
On Day 2, Jackson begins marching all his dispersed forces to concentrate on DH Hill at Chester Gap. DH Hill alone can't fight the Woodville Grand Division - it's about four times stronger than he is - so he has to wait for Jackson to concentrate on him. Assuming Jackson marches at 15 miles a day (25% faster than the speed reached by Longstreet's forces marching from Chester Gap to Culpeper) then on the first day he rests about halfway to Chester Gap.
Meanwhile the Woodville Grand Division reaches Woodville (total movement: 18 miles)
On day 3, Jackson's force concentrates at Chester Gap.
Meanwhile the Woodville Grand Dvision marches to the Hazel river, which is a journey of about seven miles (total movement: 25 miles). At this point either McClellan's other Grand Division has either made contact with Longstreet or been permitted to cross the North Fork unopposed, and either way is closing in on Culpeper (total distance marched from Warrenton: no more than 20 miles).

At this point Longstreet's 27,600 Present are facing attacks from two directions at an angle of over 120 degrees to one another, each by a force of about 45,000 Present. If he does not withdraw on this day then he's fighting a battle tomorrow.

Day 4: McClellan's force reaches Culpeper.
Either Longstreet holds or he retreats. If he holds then he gets hit at about 3:1 odds or worse and gets flattened.
The Woodville Grand Division has enough march distance to get to Culpeper (it's about 10 miles from the Hazel).
Jackson's corps march from Chester Gap down towards Culpeper. At 15 miles a day for the third day in a row they get no more than halfway there.

At this point Jackson probably has to withdraw through Thornton's Gap and march to Gordonsville - the Barbee's Crossroads force can block Chester Gap in just one march and continuing south means fighting McClellan alone.


Thus the problem is evident - McClellan is just so much closer to Culpeper than Jackson is.
 
Another interesting question to consider is at what point when your actions are producing a failing campaign do you change your approach?
Well, we know that (say) approaching Richmond from the south is a valid way of attacking Richmond, because that's how Grant ultimately attacked Richmond after he got there - via Petersburg. The question is whether McClellan's campaign failed for reasons inside McClellan's control or not.

So, was the approach on Richmond from the south fundamentally flawed, or was it something about the way McClellan did it that was within his power to change, or was it something about the way McClellan did it which was not within his power to change?

Incidentally, this is a thread about McClellan's alternatives. Can you name anywhere where McClellan made an erroneous decision, and what he should have done otherwise?

(If that's something that you're unwilling to discuss, then this is not the thread for you - I take it as read that either someone made the best decision in a given situation or they did not...)
 
In the midst of failure to say there are no alternatives is the height of folly.
Okay. Care to name one?

ED: My apologies, that was overly glib. There are always alternatives, the question is whether those alternatives offer a superior outcome.

In any given situation, there is a balance between "more resources would have allowed this to be done" and "better use of existing resources would have allowed this to be done". Since the historically successful campaign against Richmond involved much more in the way of resource committment, it is a reasonable question whether that campaign was a case of overcommitting resources or whether it could not have been achieved with less resources; ditto for the failed campaign against Richmond it is a reasonable question whether that campaign was a case of undercommitting resources or whether it could have been achieved with the existing resources.
 
"The question is whether McClellan's campaign failed for reasons inside McClellan's control or not."
So there is agreement that the Peninsula campaign failed. That's a good starting point.
I have recently undertaken significant reading and study of the campaign and agree it was a failure, achieving few of it's intended objectives.
Much has been written on this site concerning Yorktown and Williamsburg as the root of the failure. While I find McClellan's actions at these locations somewhat questionable I also find that the campaign went forward, on an adjusted time line, following these engagements so will not dwell on them. The root cause of the failure of the campaign IMHO occurred on 20 May when McClellan ordered Third and Fourth Corps across the Chickahominy at the Bottom's Bridge site.
McClellan apparently sensed something was wrong with the move when he wrote his wife something about wondering what Johnson's sinister intent was in allowing the unopposed crossing of the river. Whether Johnson had any specific long term intent or not is questionable, however, McClellan should have considered the effect on the AoP of the move. McClellan violated a long held tenet of command by separating his command by a geographic barrier and Johnson would eventually react. Separating his command into two elements separated by the Chickahominy was a mistake, and it was compounded by what I consider an equal or worse mistake. Following the movement of Third and Fourth Corps to the south side of the river McClellan made no effort to clear the Confederate positions on the heights on the south side of the river across from Fifth Corps. As a result McClellan found himself in command of two separate elements which were not mutually supportive except 2nd Corps access to Bottom's Bridge and the two foot bridges built by Sumner's troops. This arrangement, with the exception of the engagement at Hanover Court House, spelled the end of the positive movement of the AoP. The decision to make this arrangement was McClellan's, while continuing to beg for reinforcement, McClellan accomplished essentially the opposite by diluting his local force strength with this arrangement.
Johnson was fully aware and emboldened by this arrangement and on 31 May attacked less than half of McClellan's force at Seven Pines. Sumner's forethought of building the foot bridges proved important when Second Corps was able to send reinforcements over them before they were washed away by the flooding river. Apparently the attack finally made McClellan realize the problem with troop arrangement and at approximately 7PM on the 31st ordered the engineers to build a bridge to make it possible to reinforce from the two crops on the north side of the river. A frantic McClellan was reported to have said that the bridge must be done by the next morning. A super human effort by the engineers working in the darkness of the night and against the swollen Chickahominy managed to construct not one but two bridges by the close of the next day. however, McClellan, however, failed to recognize or simply forgot that the Confederate forces still held the heights on the other side of the selected bridge sites so the bridges went unused during this battle. McClellan's forces managed to win the battle but were further weakened by it. Conditions on the river worsened so bridge building became even more difficult and the two forces remained only marginally supportive of each other, thankfully the weather and change of command on the Confederate side led to a lull in the action.
 
"The question is whether McClellan's campaign failed for reasons inside McClellan's control or not."
So there is agreement that the Peninsula campaign failed. That's a good starting point.
Well, it didn't take Richmond, so if "take Richmond" is the condition for success then the Peninsular campaign failed - but the campaign which was successful by this measure unquestionably had significantly greater resources!

McClellan apparently sensed something was wrong with the move when he wrote his wife something about wondering what Johnson's sinister intent was in allowing the unopposed crossing of the river. Whether Johnson had any specific long term intent or not is questionable, however, McClellan should have considered the effect on the AoP of the move. McClellan violated a long held tenet of command by separating his command by a geographic barrier and Johnson would eventually react. Separating his command into two elements separated by the Chickahominy was a mistake, and it was compounded by what I consider an equal or worse mistake. Following the movement of Third and Fourth Corps to the south side of the river McClellan made no effort to clear the Confederate positions on the heights on the south side of the river across from Fifth Corps. As a result McClellan found himself in command of two separate elements which were not mutually supportive except 2nd Corps access to Bottom's Bridge and the two foot bridges built by Sumner's troops. This arrangement, with the exception of the engagement at Hanover Court House, spelled the end of the positive movement of the AoP. The decision to make this arrangement was McClellan's, while continuing to beg for reinforcement, McClellan accomplished essentially the opposite by diluting his local force strength with this arrangement.

Okay, that's interesting - you seem to argue that McClellan should not have crossed the Chickahominy? Is that a correct reading of your argument?

(Re the Chickahominy, there are trivially three options for one's army with regard to the Chickahominy - all north of it, some of it on each side, or all south of it. McClellan has to take one of these three options, and they all have problems.)



Johnson was fully aware and emboldened by this arrangement and on 31 May attacked less than half of McClellan's force at Seven Pines. Sumner's forethought of building the foot bridges proved important when Second Corps was able to send reinforcements over them before they were washed away by the flooding river. Apparently the attack finally made McClellan realize the problem with troop arrangement and at approximately 7PM on the 31st ordered the engineers to build a bridge to make it possible to reinforce from the two crops on the north side of the river.


It seems odd to credit Sumner with the "forethought" of building the foot bridges and to describe McClellan as 'finally' realizing the problem with needing to bridge the river on the 31st, when a simple check of the ORs finds that McClellan was certainly planning and constructing multiple bridges no later than 23rd May. (On that date he states that he is hard at work "building four bridges").


As for the point about clearing the heights south of 5th/6th Corps, McClellan actually did order this - it's when New Bridge collapsed under Franklin on the 1st. The bridge was just too badly damaged by the weather.
 
Last edited:
Well, it didn't take Richmond, so if "take Richmond" is the condition for success then the Peninsular campaign failed - but the campaign which was successful by this measure unquestionably had significantly greater resources!

"The question is whether McClellan's campaign failed for reasons inside McClellan's control or not."
The campaign failed as you stated in the above, that part is not worth further discussion.


Okay, that's interesting - you seem to argue that McClellan should not have crossed the Chickahominy? Is that a correct reading of your argument?

(Re the Chickahominy, there are trivially three options for one's army with regard to the Chickahominy - all north of it, some of it on each side, or all south of it. McClellan has to take one of these three options, and they all have problems.)

IMO McClellan should not have crossed the Chickahominy at the time and manner in which he did. One of the options should not have been to separate his forces by the river. Either north or south of the river were better choices. Either would have utilized the Chickahominy as an asset protecting a flank rather than as a detriment splitting the force. His chain of command's interest in the railway north of Richmond might have dictated the north as the choice, which of course would require him to cross the Chickahominy at some point to get to Richmond. The railway on the south side was excellent for a main supply route and rivers on both flanks make the southern choice interesting. I believe keeping his force concentrated would force the Confederates hand to also concentrate in the defense of Richmond and possibly allowed McClellan to initiate his planned siege of the city. Jackson's threat would have been less concerning to the concentrated force of five Corps. The split force was taken advantage of by Johnson (unsuccessfully) and eventually by Lee (succesfully) at the commencement of the Seven Days.


It seems odd to credit Sumner with the "forethought" of building the foot bridges and to describe McClellan as 'finally' realizing the problem with needing to bridge the river on the 31st, when a simple check of the ORs finds that McClellan was certainly planning and constructing multiple bridges no later than 23rd May. (On that date he states that he is hard at work "building four bridges").

I credit Sumner with the forethought because every report and history I have read credits the two bridges to Sumner. I found no order to Sumner from McClellan's HQ to build the bridges. McClellan may have stated that he was hard at work building four bridges on the 23rd but in reality only the rail bridge and another bridge in the bottom Bridge area were actually under construction on the 23rd. Sumner's two bridges were not started. Even if you count these four as the four to which he is referring, they are all in the Second Corps AOR and do not facilitate mutual support by the other two corps without a long march. This remained the case until during/after Seven Pines. He did do reconnaissance, both personally and through his engineers, at other bridge sites but no actual construction was ongoing. Reinforcements cannot cross the river on a planned bridge.

As for the point about clearing the heights south of 5th/6th Corps, McClellan actually did order this - it's when New Bridge collapsed under Franklin on the 1st. The bridge was just too badly damaged by the weather.

McClellan did order the clearing of the heights, but it should have been done before Seven Pines so that the separate wings of his command could be mutually supporting, it did not happen and he did not exercise command oversight to ensure it got done. He clearly recognized the problem when Seven Pines commenced and ordered bridges built to allow the other two Corps access to the battle area. Sadly, by not ensuring the heights were cleared, the bridges could not be used for that purpose, something he should have known before ordering them built. Poor command oversight and judgement at the very least.
 
Last edited:
"Well it didn't take Richmond, so if "take Richmond" is the condition for successes then the Peninsular campaign failed"

Since this was the declared pre-operational objective then the failure is obvious, excuses aside. What someone else did with a different objective is beside the point.
 
Since this was the declared pre-operational objective then the failure is obvious, excuses aside. What someone else did with a different objective is beside the point.
I must admit to being impressed at the ways in which you refuse to compare Grant's campaign which took Richmond with McClellan's campaign to take Richmond.

Do you think that no matter the available troops McClellan would not have taken Richmond?
 
I must admit to being impressed at the ways in which you refuse to compare Grant's campaign which took Richmond with McClellan's campaign to take Richmond.

Do you think that no matter the available troops McClellan would not have taken Richmond?

There is no comparison between the two. Each had different objectives and had to operate with the resources at hand. One succeeded and the other failed.
 
There is no comparison between the two. Each had different objectives and had to operate with the resources at hand. One succeeded and the other failed.
And how many resources did Grant's campaign that took Richmond have on hand compared with the resources McClellan's campaign to take Richmond have on hand?
 
McClellan did order the clearing of the heights, but it did not happen and he did not exercise command oversight to ensure it got done. He clearly recognized the problem when Seven Pines commenced and ordered bridges built to allow the other two Corps access to the battle area. Sadly, by not ensuring the heights were cleared, the bridges could not be used for that purpose, something he should have known before ordering them built. Poor command oversight and judgement at the very least.

Look, this is a really bad way of replying, because I can't quote you directly. I'll do my best to hack it together though....

The campaign failed as you stated in the above, that part is not worth further discussion.
Of course it's worth further discussion, it's directly relevant to whether the campaign should have had greater resources. The more resources one has the better the options available.


IMO McClellan should not have crossed the Chickahominy at the time and manner in which he did. One of the options should not have been to separate his forces by the river. Either north or south of the river were better choices. Either would have utilized the Chickahominy as an asset protecting a flank rather than as a detriment splitting the force. His chain of command's interest in the railway north of Richmond might have dictated the north as the choice, which of course would require him to cross the Chickahominy at some point to get to Richmond. The railway on the south side was excellent for a main supply route and rivers on both flanks make the southern choice interesting. I believe keeping his force concentrated would force the Confederates hand to also concentrate in the defense of Richmond and possibly allowed McClellan to initiate his planned siege of the city. Jackson's threat would have been less concerning to the concentrated force of five Corps. The split force was taken advantage of by Johnson (unsuccessfully) and eventually by Lee (succesfully) at the commencement of the Seven Days.

Okay, I'll get back to that in a moment.



I credit Sumner with the forethought because every report and history I have read credits the two bridges to Sumner. I found no order to Sumner from McClellan's HQ to build the bridges. McClellan may have stated that he was hard at work building four bridges on the 23rd but in reality only the rail bridge and another bridge in the bottom Bridge area were actually under construction on the 23rd. Sumner's two bridges were not started. Even if you count these four as the four to which he is referring, they are all in the Second Corps AOR and do not facilitate mutual support by the other two corps without a long march. This remained the case until during/after Seven Pines. He did do reconnaissance, both personally and through his engineers, at other bridge sites but no actual construction was ongoing. Reinforcements cannot cross the river on a planned bridge.

Woodbury's report to Barnard on the 29th notes that at that time there were:
Two bridges across the Chickahominy at Bottom's Bridge.
Timber framed for a bridge across the Chickahominy at New Bridge.
Two trestle bridges to be thrown at the same spot (actually a mile above and a mile below New Bridge, those being the Upper Trestle and Lower Trestle).

That's additional to Sumner's bridges, which weren't the responsibility of the engineers. If McClellan indeed did not know about those then he'd have planned to bridge the Chickahominy essentially every mile except in Sumner's command area.


McClellan did order the clearing of the heights, but it did not happen and he did not exercise command oversight to ensure it got done. He clearly recognized the problem when Seven Pines commenced and ordered bridges built to allow the other two Corps access to the battle area. Sadly, by not ensuring the heights were cleared, the bridges could not be used for that purpose, something he should have known before ordering them built. Poor command oversight and judgement at the very least.
It didn't happen because the bridges had all been wrecked by the rain, and also because there's six brigades dug in on the heights - the equivalent of a corps. It seems McClellan's concept of operations was to take the heights in rear when he was having the bridges built, but it's not until 26-27 June that he takes the area that would allow those bridges to become available.


Now, I'm going to get back to the point I temporarily passed over. Restating it:


IMO McClellan should not have crossed the Chickahominy at the time and manner in which he did. One of the options should not have been to separate his forces by the river. Either north or south of the river were better choices. Either would have utilized the Chickahominy as an asset protecting a flank rather than as a detriment splitting the force. His chain of command's interest in the railway north of Richmond might have dictated the north as the choice, which of course would require him to cross the Chickahominy at some point to get to Richmond. The railway on the south side was excellent for a main supply route and rivers on both flanks make the southern choice interesting. I believe keeping his force concentrated would force the Confederates hand to also concentrate in the defense of Richmond and possibly allowed McClellan to initiate his planned siege of the city. Jackson's threat would have been less concerning to the concentrated force of five Corps. The split force was taken advantage of by Johnson (unsuccessfully) and eventually by Lee (succesfully) at the commencement of the Seven Days.


McClellan's options regarding the Chickahominy:


- Remain entirely on the northern side of the Chickahominy.
Well, among other things, this means you can't attack Richmond. Richmond is south of the Chickahominy.

- Retain most of the force on the northern side of the Chickahominy, and only occupy a debouche on the southern side.
This is also a situation in which you can't attack Richmond. It offers little risk, but losing the debouche means you're stuck on the north side of the Chickahominy.

- Transfer one's forces entirely south of the Chickahominy but retain the supply base at White House Landing.
This violates a Presidential order to operate against the railroads north of Richmond and also exposes the supply base.

- Transfer one's forces entirely south of the Chickahominy and switch the supply base south to the James.
The best option for proceeding with existing resources, but violates the above mentioned Presidential order and also Stanton's order to retain the supply base at White House Landing.

- Spread oneself across the Chickahominy, with equal forces north and south.
This is a position in which one cannot make an offensive against Richmond with existing forces, but in which one can be dug-in well enough to not be pushed away from Richmond either north or south.

- Spread oneself across the Chickahominy, with more force south than north.
This is a position in which an attack on Richmond can be conducted, and which fulfils both Presidential and SecWar orders. It is risky unless the reinforcements promised to McClellan can arrive.



To go around the headwaters of the Chickahominy means a supply line from the railroad of something like twenty miles, requires splitting one's forces either side of the Chickahominy anyway, and still leaves one's supply line entirely vulnerable to Jackson's corps coming down from the north. While it does mean reaching Richmond without breaking either order by Lincoln or by Stanton, it also means that you need to hold fifteen linear miles of front along the Chickahominy (clear to the Meadow Bridge) and then you also need a force west of the Chickahominy strong enough to fight whatever Johnston or Lee can put against you there. And cover the Tolopatamoy, if you have enough troops left.

It's functionally the same problem, except that an attack on one flank is two days away from reinforcement by your other flank.
 
And how many resources did Grant's campaign that took Richmond have on hand compared with the resources McClellan's campaign to take Richmond have on hand?

It is irrelevant since what Grant had made no impact on Mac's campaign. The two are not related in any way.
 
"The question is whether McClellan's campaign failed for reasons inside McClellan's control or not."
To summarize my answer to the above question:
The root cause to the failure of the campaign was:
1. the splitting of the AoP at the Chickahominy. (McClellan's decision)
2. failure to clear the heights (McClellan did not order it until to late)
Resulting in the Confederate forces be able to engage only a portion the AoP combat force at one time

The alternative that is always sought:
Concentrate the AoP force on the north side or south side of the river. I prefer the south side (although I recognize that higher command authority may have not agreed) with it's direct rail supply line and rivers to help guard both flanks, the majority of the AoP would be concentrated on a relatively narrow front forcing the Confederate forces to concentrate in their front. McClellan's siege may have been the end result and he was well equipped for that eventuality.
 
2. failure to clear the heights (McClellan did not order it until to late)
It may not have been possible anyway, there were six brigades in place on the heights.

1. the splitting of the AoP at the Chickahominy. (McClellan's decision)
Well, he's got to either split it across the Chickahominy, not attack Richmond, or disobey Presidential orders.

Concentrate the AoP force on the north side or south side of the river. I prefer the south side (although I recognize that higher command authority may have not agreed) with it's direct rail supply line and rivers to help guard both flanks, the majority of the AoP would be concentrated on a relatively narrow front forcing the Confederate forces to concentrate in their front.
It's not actually possible to concentrate the whole AotP on the immediate south of the Chickahominy - the rail supply line is vulnerable. You'd need to move south to the James, which is what McClellan was planning.

You can concentrate the whole AotP north of the Chickahominy, but then you can't attack Richmond!

As it happens, McClellan had nearly enough force north of the Chickahominy to fend off any possible attack - he just didn't have the extra 3-4 brigades it would take to block Jackson, and he'd been promised those extra 3-4 brigades about a week before Seven Pines.

Functionally, with the troops McClellan had available, the objectives:

Keep base fixed at White House Landing
Operate against the rail lines north of Richmond
Attack Richmond

are not possible to fulfil simultaneously without some compromise that renders one vulnerable to attack.
 
It is irrelevant since what Grant had made no impact on Mac's campaign. The two are not related in any way.
Okay. Do you think that McClellan would have still failed to take Richmond if he'd had considerably over 170,000 Present?
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top