General McClernard

[major bill]

General McClernard was a war Democrat and friend of president Lincoln. He appears to have had more political power and military ability. He served under Grant and was in command at the Battle of Arkansas Post. The surrender of Arkansas Post was the largest surrender of confederate troops west of the Mississippi River until the end of the war. Still Grant did not think much of McClernard and had him relieved at the first opportunity. Lincoln gave McClernrrd a new post later in the war.

My question is was McClenard a poor general that needed to go or did his attempt to get Grant relived do him in?

 

[major bill]

My next question is if McClenard was in command instead of Sherman, what would have happed to the Atlanta Campaign?

 

[novushomus]

General McClernard was a war Democrat and friend of president Lincoln. He appears to have had more political power and military ability. He served under Grant and was in command at the Battle of Arkansas Post. The surrender of Arkansas Post was the largest surrender of confederate troops west of the Mississippi River until the end of the war. Still Grant did not think much of McClernard and had him relieved at the first opportunity. Lincoln gave McClernrrd a new post later in the war.

My question is was McClenard a poor general that needed to go or did his attempt to get Grant relived do him in?

McClernand was a competent combat commander who aside from his initial surprise at Fort Donelson generally performed well in combat, especially at Shiloh. However, it was his political intriguing and ambition off the battlefield that got him into trouble. Being a political general, he already faced a bias from professional West Point soldiers and his habit of criticizing his commanders and gloryhounding cost him his standing in the army. McClernand lobbied for command of Sherman's forces, forming the (new) Army of the Mississippi. McClernand had ambitions for glory and was planning after Arkansas Post to push all the way and capture Little Rock, in Arkansas. With operations against Vicksburg at a critical time, taking some 30,000 men off to a secondary objective was not ideal, so Grant intervened to supersede him. (Little Rock would be taken by Frederick Steele, a Grant favorite, the September after Vicksburg fell with a force of only 12,000 present for duty).

McClernand always resented losing his army and being reduced to the Thirteenth Corps. Grant and McClernand would bicker for most of the Vicksburg Campaign, until Grant finally relieved him for violating orders by publishing a congratulatory order to his corps. Lincoln would restore McClernand to the Thirteenth Corps, but by that time it had been divided and assigned away from the Army of the Tennessee, with a rump under Thomas E.G. Ransom fighting and suffering in the Red River Campaign. McClernand would return to minor field service in Texas before resigning.

 

[novushomus]

My next question is if McClenard was in command instead of Sherman, what would have happed to the Atlanta Campaign?

The only way this happens if Grant allows it, which I don't think would be likely. However, McClernand would be senior to every other officer in the Army of the Tennessee and the Cumberland, so he would have been entitled to the command by seniority.

 

[Andy Cardinal]

The whole story of McClernand is I think an interesting one which I unfortunately don't know very much about. I hope someone can shed some light on it.

What I do know is this. He met with Lincoln and got permission to raise an army and then to command it down the Mississippi to capture Vicksburg. This was apparently outside the regular military channels as Halleck, Grant, & Sherman did not know anything about it. Once Grant found out about it, he complained to Halleck the general in chief, as Grant commanded the department McClernand's army would be operating in. Somehow Halleck got Lincoln to back down and soon McClernand found himself under Grant's command. McClernand thought Grant had undermined him and I don't think he ever forgave Grant, Halleck, or West Pointers in general.

 

[major bill]

For a political general with almost no military experience his performance did not seem particularly bad.

 

[Andy Cardinal]

From what I can understand, he really played an important part in saving Grant from disaster at Shiloh.

 

[NedBaldwin]

From what I can understand, he really played an important part in saving Grant from disaster at Shiloh.

.... generally performed well in combat, especially at Shiloh.

What did he do so well at Shiloh?

 

[novushomus]

What did he do so well at Shiloh?

He was aggressive on April 6, and coordinated well with Sherman on the Union right wing. He and Sherman together launched a counter-assault that forced Beauregard to commit Trabue's brigade (the Army of the Mississippi's last reserve brigade on April 6) and tied up well over 2/3rd of the Confederate army on its' left, which was contrary to what A.S. Johnston wanted, which was to place the weight of his army on the right to drive Grant away from the Tennessee. When forced back from his initial line multiple times, he managed to keep his division's retreat from becoming a rout and kept his division relatively organized and fighting. I'm not aware of any significant tactical blunders either. While his performance may not have been on Lew Wallace's level on April 7, it was competent. Now, I don't think this performance justified McClernand's intrigue and ambition but considering his experience it wasn't bad either.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Just my opinion, but, I think he could have developed into one of the better political generals of the War. But, his resentment towards Grant and Halleck, fed his ambitions for independent command and thus, his disagreements with Grant and Halleck could not be reconciled and since Grant and Halleck were his superiors, if someone had to go, it would have to be McClernand.

I tend to agree with Bruce Catton, that, at least, in the matter of his plans for a Mississippit River Expedition, he was more sinned against than the sinner

 

[Sid J.]

General McClernard was a war Democrat and friend of president Lincoln. He appears to have had more political power and military ability. He served under Grant and was in command at the Battle of Arkansas Post. The surrender of Arkansas Post was the largest surrender of confederate troops west of the Mississippi River until the end of the war. Still Grant did not think much of McClernard and had him relieved at the first opportunity. Lincoln gave McClernrrd a new post later in the war.

My question is was McClenard a poor general that needed to go or did his attempt to get Grant relived do him in?

McClernand never quite understood the "chain of command" concept so important to Military Generals such as Grant and Sherman. McClernand on several occasions skipped over Grant, Halleck and Stanton to report directly to Lincoln.

On his military abilities, he could/should have been a Frank Blair or a Jack Logan. Doubtful that he would have been happy with that.

Kiper has fairly recent bio of McClernand which is OK. If there is a better one let me know. Kiper is clearly not among that school of biographers who worship their subject.

To understand Grant's distaste for McClernand, the best way to go is to read the back and forth between them in Papers of US Grant.

 

[KansasFreestater]

Ed Bearss, who wrote a massive three-volume history of the Vicksburg campaign, apparently thinks McClernand was better than Grant gave him credit for. Ed Bearss ought to know, so I'm eager to learn more about that....

 

[leftyhunter]

General McClernard was a war Democrat and friend of president Lincoln. He appears to have had more political power and military ability. He served under Grant and was in command at the Battle of Arkansas Post. The surrender of Arkansas Post was the largest surrender of confederate troops west of the Mississippi River until the end of the war. Still Grant did not think much of McClernard and had him relieved at the first opportunity. Lincoln gave McClernrrd a new post later in the war.

My question is was McClenard a poor general that needed to go or did his attempt to get Grant relived do him in?

No one has mentioned McClenard's lack of shelter for his troops when they disembarked at Youngs Point near Vicksburg and due to lack of tents were severely impacted by heavy cold rains. McClenard's only prior military experience was as a private in the Black Hawk wars . Of course both sides suffered from a serious lack of formally trained officers from domestic or foreign military academies.
Arguably McClenard was not the worst political general of the Civil War nor the best. Maybe he belongs in mushy middle.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

General McClernard was a war Democrat and friend of president Lincoln. He appears to have had more political power and military ability. He served under Grant and was in command at the Battle of Arkansas Post. The surrender of Arkansas Post was the largest surrender of confederate troops west of the Mississippi River until the end of the war. Still Grant did not think much of McClernard and had him relieved at the first opportunity. Lincoln gave McClernrrd a new post later in the war.

My question is was McClenard a poor general that needed to go or did his attempt to get Grant relived do him in?

Interestingly enough Lincoln didn't bare grudges in that McClenard supported Douglas for president and still allowed him to be a general. Blatantly violating the chain of command is unforgivable in miltary circles.
Leftyhunter