McClellan George McClellan thread.

[wausaubob]

The discussion of George McClellan's role in the Civil War has been interesting, but it deserves a more straight forward thread.
The problem with the history of George McClellan is that it is based on the theory that Abraham Lincoln was a military leader and therefore McClellan has to be a fall guy for the lack of military progress during 1862.
As a commander, McClellan was opposed by Winfield Scott and Henry Halleck.
Scott's blockade and Mississippi plan was a good plan, but it was never going to be sufficient to win the war.
Halleck was a good scholar, with expertise in international law, and good administrator. However Halleck had no tactical, operational or strategic ability.
In addition McClellan was a natural conservative Democrat in line with Stephen A. Douglas. Douglas was a skilled politician but he never would have been part of a Lincoln cabinet. Command of the Army of the Potomac was only slightly less important than a cabinet position, so it was going to difficult for McClellan to continue in that command unless he changed his political views.
McClellan made military mistakes, but they all did.
Halleck was slow and cautious, but he did not get punished for it because the country blamed Grant not Halleck and Buell for Shiloh.
Buell had a sit down lunch during a battle and he too was eventually fired.
The differences that mattered are those pointed out well after the war by Ulysses S. Grant in a carefully crafted statement. McClellan was very young and got himself involved in policy issues that were fundamental to the war.
The additional problem has been noted by other commentators is that McClellan was in Virginia, and the Confederates were going to adjust their command structure there until they got it right, and they were going to spend men and resources there without restraint.

 

[wausaubob]

George McClellan was vindicated. The Confederate forces could not withstand a siege, could not maintain a siege, and a well organized campaign which threatened a siege forced the Confederates into offensive actions in both Georgia and the Shenandoah Valley.
The United States forces besieged Vicksburg and won.
Confederates attempted to besiege the United States army at Chattanooga, but the United States broke the siege.
Sherman threatened to besiege Atlanta, and that forced General Hood to take the offensive, and the results were predictable.
Grant slowly imposed a siege on Petersburg and Richmond. Early tried to take the offensive in the Shenandoah Valley, but his isolated force proved to be very vulnerable to assault as soon as September 22, 1864.
The logistical advantages of the United States, and the preponderance of artillery possessed by the United States gave the US a huge advantage in siege warfare.

 

[General Butterfield]

Honestly by how often I see McClellan's name come up on this site he probably could use his own forum. Anyway I have been reading about Warren lately and a few quotes from his personal papers on McClellan struck me as interesting. Warren wrote the below statements in the aftermath of Fredericksburg and gives a sense of what soldiers in the AoP were thinking at the time.

"We must have McClellan back with unlimited and unfettered powers. His name is a tower of strength to everyone here and the repose of winter is absolutely necessary to discipline and reorganization and rest. My heart sickens when I think of the way our affairs seem to be going."

"McClellan I fear will not be vindicated till a ruined country calls him again to the field to find the bones of his old soldiers strewing the ground."

 

[connecticut yankee]

Bottom line: The trouble with George was he had an awful case of the "slows" as Lincoln rightly claimed. Contrast this with
Mr Grant who it can be said was "steady to completion". Which general would you choose?

 

[General Butterfield]

Bottom line: The trouble with George was he had an awful case of the "slows" as Lincoln rightly claimed. Contrast this with
Mr Grant who it can be said was "steady to completion". Which general would you choose?

People do tend to match up McClellan vs Grant but I don't see this as a very valid comparison. When Grant took command in 64 he had a wealth of experience and two years worth of case studies to look at. Had Grant been thrust into command in 62 he might have floundered like everyone else. I think a better comparison would be McClellan vs McDowell- Pope-Burnside-Hooker. In that case McClellan in my opinion is the obvious choice.

 

[jackt62]

McClellan was actually a very fine strategist, particularly at pioneering the use of amphibious landings which made best use of the northern advantage in naval power. So the Peninsula campaign (and earlier amphibious offensives along the Carolina coasts) was good strategy. Unfortunately, McClellan was perhaps not the appropriate commander to execute the strategy in the field, which led to the failure of the Peninsula campaign. McClellan's other main problem was that he was a conservative Democrat and egotist who unwisely challenged Lincoln's authority as the civilian commander in chief.

 

[wausaubob]

Grant was essentially the same as McClellan in terms of strategy.
Grant did not carry McClellan's political baggage for him.
Grant was friends with John Pope before the war and after the war. Grant had the advantage of Pope's mistakes.
We don't know if Grant and McClellan were friends, but they were never public enemies.
McClellan criticized the casualties in Grant's Overland Campaign, but Grant had a rebuttal available for that.
The main difference, from what I observe, is that Grant decided Virginia was not going to the decisive theater and what was required was to hold the Confederate army in Richmond were the Confederacy would have trouble feeding that army, and drive a very expensive campaign straight down the center of the Confederacy.
Grant wanted the war to end and did not care that much how it ended. Only in March, for personal reasons, did he want the Army of the Potomac to settle the issue, to shut his critics.

 

[wausaubob]

McClellan's main support was from Salmon Chase. Chase was losing ground steadily in the cabinet. Both Rosecrans and William Sherman were popular in Ohio, so McClellan became less dangerous as a political opponent in the Midwest.
Meade and Sheridan could counter balance McClellan in the east.