Grant and McClellan

HeftyLefty04

Private
Joined
Apr 2, 2019
A simple comparison of the Western and Eastern Theaters in the early years of the war shows consistent Federal domination in the West from the outset and consistent Federal underachievement in the East. While I believe the opinion that George McClellan's paranoia and colossal overestimates of Confederate manpower contributed significantly to early Federal failures is well-established in the military history community, I often wonder how he would have fared in the Western Theater and also how General Grant would have approached the Peninsula and Maryland Campaigns. Would Grant have been able to take Richmond if he had led the Peninsula Campaign? Based on Grant's decisions in the 1864 Overland Campaign, and the reality that the Federals achieved tactical victories in the majority of the Seven Days Battles even as McClellan continued to retreat, I have to believe that Grant would have made survival as a fighting unit very difficult for the ANV. Alas, I also cannot imagine Grant wasting the opportunity to crush Lee, as McClellan would have done at Antietam had he not let that same opportunity slip away.

At the same time, even if Grant had led the Federal Army in the East and destroyed the ANV and captured Richmond in 1862, would the Confederacy have been able to survive if things went their way in the West? If McClellan were in charge of Federal forces in the Western Theater and strategized there in the same way that he did during the Peninsula and Maryland Campaigns, I do not know if Forts Henry and Donelson would have ever passed into Union hands. If they hadn't, the Cumberland and Tennessee Valleys would have remained firmly under Confederate control. Would that have been enough to keep the Rebels afloat even if the ANV had been crushed? We can only speculate.
 
Based on Grant's decisions in the 1864 Overland Campaign, and the reality that the Federals achieved tactical victories in the majority of the Seven Days Battles even as McClellan continued to retreat, I have to believe that Grant would have made survival as a fighting unit very difficult for the ANV.
Er, question.

Are you aware of the actual force balances that McClellan had in 1862 versus the force balances that Grant had in 1864?

Or, to put it another way, can you give me an example of a battle on the Peninsula where:

George McClellan's paranoia and colossal overestimates of Confederate manpower contributed significantly to early Federal failures

where you feel that Grant would have succeeded?


Similarly, when you say:

Alas, I also cannot imagine Grant wasting the opportunity to crush Lee, as McClellan would have done at Antietam had he not let that same opportunity slip away.

can you explain how it was that McClellan let the opportunity to "crush" Lee slip away? Please be as specific as you feel you can be.
 
These are caricature versions of both McClellan and Grant.

McClellan was not really paranoid, and his troop estimates were generally reasonable.

Grant was really lucky, but his actual abilities were perhaps lacking.

Consider taking a direct allegory for the Yorktown operation from Vicksburg:

April '62 (month 1): Sherman advances from Fort Monroe and never gets near the Yorktown-Warwick line. He is decisively repelled at Big Bethel and retreats. Grant lands on the Rappahannock, but is forced to retreat back to Washington they his base is raided by Johnston's cavalry.

May '62 (month 2): McClernand basically does what Burnside historically did at Roanoke Island etc., with the aim of cutting through from Suffolk to the south. After success this is nixed and Grant assembles his whole force at Fort Monroe.

June-August '62 (months 3-5): Grant moves his army onto the Gloucester Peninsula and investigates a series of canals to allow the gunboats to get above Yorktown.

September '62 (month 6): The gunboats run past Yorktown at the end of the month, but can do nothing.

October '62 (month 7): McClernand on the Gloucester Peninsula marches his troops to meet the gunboats, whence they are carried to Eltham's Landing and occupy it. Grant moves the rest of his army to join him. After a week or so they cut across the Peninsula and seal Magruder's rearguard of ca. the historical 5th April garrison in. They advance down to Yorktown and besiege the fort proper, but assaults fail.

November-December (months 8-9): Grant gets heavily reinforced, and in early December Magruder is compelled to surrender Yorktown with 10,000 troops.
 
Last edited:
To consider the West.

Historically speaking McClellan's main issues as a commander often happened when he had been promised something by the Federal government and then had it stripped away - usually to defend Washington. He would make a plan which required the use of an amphibiously trained division and then lose that division; he would be assured of the imminent arrival of reinforcements for his right flank and then never get them, and so on.

But if McClellan was in the West he would be theatre commander. He's too high ranking for anything else, and that means that he would be able to make his plans with the forces on hand and then carry them out without any issues from suddenly not having four divisions of troops he counted on.
 
But if McClellan was in the West he would be theatre commander. He's too high ranking for anything else, and that means that he would be able to make his plans with the forces on hand and then carry them out without any issues from suddenly not having four divisions of troops he counted on.

Indeed, and it's worth remembering that the movement on Forts Henry and Donelson were McClellan's ideas. Halleck objected that he wasn't ready and reluctantly obeyed for the movement on Ft Henry. Grant did not want to move on Ft Donelson, but put it to his division commanders. To his dismay, all three argued for a movement on Donelson, and Grant couldn't look weak in front of them. In front of Donelson, Grant is paranoid, claiming he's heavily outnumbered and wanting to retreat, but again, the division commanders basically ignore him and then suddenly the garrison surrendered...
 
It may also be worth considering what alt-Shiloh looks like if it's McClellan doing it. Cautious old McClellan, goes the caricature, but then the Union forces dig in for the night and Shiloh basically involves either:

1) The Union forces unite without issue and march on Corinth.
2) The Confederates attack dug-in Union troops and suffer badly.

Both of which are better than the historical outcome...
 
Based on Grant's decisions in the 1864 Overland Campaign, and the reality that the Federals achieved tactical victories in the majority of the Seven Days Battles even as McClellan continued to retreat, I have to believe that Grant would have made survival as a fighting unit very difficult for the ANV
So I thought it might be useful to use maps to shape the discussion here, and show why McClellan retreated after each of the Seven Days battles in which that happened.

I will for now ignore Oak Grove, Garnetts Hill and Golding's Farm, as they'll be covered later.


First we have Mechanicsville. In the battle of Mechanicsville the Union troops were dug in a little to the east of Mechanicsville itself, along a creek (Beaver Dam Creek). There were four bridges that the Confederate troops inside Richmond could use to sally, which are numbered 1 to 4 on this diagram.
Mechanicsville.jpg


Bridges 1 and 2 are crossings directly into Union troop positions and are not possible for them, but they're not possible because of where the Union troops are deployed.
Bridge 3, the Mechanicsville Bridge, is covered by Union guns (and can be easily reached by troops in Mechanicsvile) so it's not possible to mount a major movement over it.
Bridge 4, the Meadow Bridge, is too far away from the Union positions to be covered. It's the bridge which is used by the Confederate troops to mount the Battle of Mechanicsville, and they run into Beaver Dam Creek and suffer badly.

But there's also another route, and that's marked here as 5. That turns the entire Union defensive position at Mechanicsville (McClellan couldn't cover Tolopatamoy Creek as well because he didn't have the troops for it) and Jackson takes it. At this point the choice is to retreat or have that entire force turned and cut off, as at this point the Union troops holding the line north of the river are opposite Confederate positions - they need to fall back to Gaines Mill (near the Union-controlled bridges).


The second battle is Gaines Mill. This was a Union tactical defeat, but even had it been a victory McClellan would have needed to react in some way, and here's why:

Gaines Mill.jpg


On the far right of the map is White House Landing, the Union supply base on the Pamunkey river. As you can see troops from Jackson's flanking force are making their way towards it, and even if they don't take White House Landing they can still cut the railway line.
It's possible if the line had held north of the river that an action could have been mounted to regain the supply line, but once the line broke it was impossible - to do so would have meant an assault crossing of the Chickahominy river against a massive Confederate force of sixteen brigades (Longstreet, DH Hill and AP Hill) plus the elements of Jackson's nine-brigade force not going after the supply line itself.

With the supply line gone, McClellan now has to set up a new supply line from the James river instead. He had a discussion with his corps commanders, who all agreed that rather than remaining in place until a new supply line was set up he should move south of the White Oak and stretch his left flank to the James.


Savage's Station happens next, and it's a rearguard action - Sumner is the army rearguard while the rest falls back. To turn around and stop retreating because the rearguard action was "inconclusive" is foolish.


Next up is Glendale, and for this I'm using one of 67th's maps rather than my own:

Glendale%2BUSGS%2BMap.png


This is actually a pretty long battle line. As you can see the Union army has stretched out its flank to reach the James, and specifically to reach the Malvern Hill area to cover the new supply point. There's an argument going on with the Navy about whether the supply ships will be unloading at Haxhall's Landing (McClellan) or Harrisons Landing (further downriver, compromise) or a very long way further downriver at the mouth of the Chickahominy, but the Glendale position is where McClellan has retreated to by the 30th of June and it's the line he intends to hold.

Unfortunately, on the night of the 30th Franklin quit his position without orders. With the line so long and stretched out this left a gap, and the result was a kind of mad scramble for a defensible position at Malvern Hill (which was already the left of the line). Malvern is a great bastion but it's no good as an isolated position, because it has no protected supply unloading point in and of itself.


For why McClellan retreated after Malvern Hill we need one more map, and that's the map showing Lee's plan. Lee did not actually intend to attack head-on at Malvern:


Malvern.jpg

His plan, as can be seen, was to envelop Malvern with the use of Longstreet. Magruder was not intended to attack, and possibly didn't initially intend to himself.


With the Navy refusing to escort transports any further upriver than City Point on the James (where there were batteries), McClellan needs to have contact with Harrisons Landing for his supply base. To hold a line containing both Malvern Hill and Harrisons Landing is basically not doable, the army would be too stretched, and so after the battle ends at dark on the 1st McClellan chooses to retreat overnight to Harrisons Landing.

It's only once back there that he's finally in supply; if McClellan had attacked on the 2nd it would have been with hungry troops, some of whom haven't eaten for days and who have empty cartridge pouches, against troops who've had the night to recover and stiffened by a number of brigades who didn't assault at all on the 1st.



Now, I said I'd get back to Oak Grove, Garnetts Hill and Goldings Farm, and here's why - those are the battles of the Seven Days where McClellan is attacking. They're also first, and they're south of the Chickahominy and launched while he's still in supply.
McClellan's intent with these battles is to take high ground to set up his heavy artillery, and to use that heavy artillery to blast his way through the Richmond defences - neutralize the artillery in the defensive embrasures, then suppress the infantry while his own infantry move up for an assault. This is the only way to actually take Richmond itself without a proper, surround-them-and-starve-them-out siege, and it takes a certain number of troops - which mean that McClellan doesn't have the troops available to hold Tolopatamoy Creek.

You may ask why he's in such a vulnerable position, and the answer is that his supply point at White House Landing on the Pamunkey is one he's been ordered to take up. With the supply point on the Pamunkey it's the only option that allows one to attack Richmond with the available forces, and with the supply base on the Pamunkey the only way to have Richmond under attack without the Seven Days inevitably following whenever Jackson is called down is to give McClellan some extra troops to cover the Tolopatamoy. Not at all coincidentally, McClellan had been promised those reinforcements back in May and had been waiting a month in vain for them.
 
Last edited:
It may also be worth considering what alt-Shiloh looks like if it's McClellan doing it. Cautious old McClellan, goes the caricature, but then the Union forces dig in for the night and Shiloh basically involves either:

1) The Union forces unite without issue and march on Corinth.
2) The Confederates attack dug-in Union troops and suffer badly.

Both of which are better than the historical outcome...

Well, the bests parallel to Shiloh in McClellan's career is Seven Pines.

At Seven Pines, McClellan's army was split across a river, because the enemy could threaten both sides. Like at Shiloh, at Seven Pines the enemy overran the forward line and was stopped by a second (or third at Shiloh), improvised line reinforced by forces that came over the river. The next morning, the reinforced Federals advanced and recaptured everything they lost. The balance of forces was similar:

Seven Pines vs Shiloh.png

(Both sets of rebel figures in "effectives", and both sets of Federal figures as PFD. For SP, the attacking rebels are all divisions but AP Hill's, and the Federal initial force is 3rd and 4th Corps, with 2nd Corps reinforcing. For Shiloh 3rd Div, AOWT and all engaged units of the AOO are reinforcements)
 
To consider the West.

Historically speaking McClellan's main issues as a commander often happened when he had been promised something by the Federal government and then had it stripped away - usually to defend Washington. He would make a plan which required the use of an amphibiously trained division and then lose that division; he would be assured of the imminent arrival of reinforcements for his right flank and then never get them, and so on.

But if McClellan was in the West he would be theatre commander. He's too high ranking for anything else, and that means that he would be able to make his plans with the forces on hand and then carry them out without any issues from suddenly not having four divisions of troops he counted on.

His main issue was that he "forgot" that it wasn't his army, it was Lincoln's. Lincoln was in charge, and if Lincoln wanted Washington secure, Mac's job was to make it so.
 
His main issue was that he "forgot" that it wasn't his army, it was Lincoln's. Lincoln was in charge, and if Lincoln wanted Washington secure, Mac's job was to make it so.
Eh?
McClellan left much more force than was considered necessary to secure Washington, but Lincoln ordered another entire corps out of his army for it anyway after promising McClellan his army would not be interfered with any more.
As of about 10th April (i.e. before McClellan got Franklin returned to him) the amount of force defending Washington totalled (Aggregate Present, 31 March unless noted):

Washington district: 20,795
5th Corps (exc. Blenker) 23,607.
Blenker as 1/3 of 2nd Corps: 9,302
Alexandria district: 1,404
Railroad Brigade 4,993 (April)
Baltimore 6,717 (30 May)

1st Corps 35,943

Total 102,761

While the strength actually with McClellan's army before Franklin's arrival consisted of:

2/3 of 2nd Corps: 18,605
3rd Corps 35842
4th Corps 34798
Regular infantry, cavalry 4142 + 2771
Artillery reserve 2906

Total 99,066

Washington had more troops assigned to defend it than the field army contained.


For the record, the concurrence of the corps commanders was that 40,000 men split between fort garrisons and a field force should be enough to keep Washington safe; the bolded units are what McClellan left voluntarily and total to about 67,000. Washington was totally safe without 1st Corps.
 
His main issue was that he "forgot" that it wasn't his army, it was Lincoln's. Lincoln was in charge, and if Lincoln wanted Washington secure, Mac's job was to make it so.
Of course, this doesn't excuse the time when Lincoln promised McClellan reinforcements in May, or in June, or in July, and they never turned up.

Of course Lincoln is in charge, but this means that the fact that McClellan did not take Richmond in 1862 rests squarely on Lincoln's shoulders. Responsibility goes with authority.
 
His main issue was that he "forgot" that it wasn't his army, it was Lincoln's. Lincoln was in charge, and if Lincoln wanted Washington secure, Mac's job was to make it so.

The counterargument is that if Lincoln was unwilling to have the army go on the offensive, then he should have given the order in a timely manner and taken the responsibility.
 
His main issue was that he "forgot" that it wasn't his army, it was Lincoln's. Lincoln was in charge, and if Lincoln wanted Washington secure, Mac's job was to make it so.

Also, the council-of-war gave what they considered the garrison should be:

McDowell, Heintzelman and Keyes - "That, with the forts on the right bank of the Potomac fully garrisoned, and those on the left bank occupied, a covering force in front of the Virginia line of 25,000 men would suffice."

Sumner - "A total of 40,000 men for the defense of the city would suffice. "

Some critics of McClellan add these two (essentially identical) numbers together. In fact, McClellan exceeded the number set.

As I've said, Lincoln accepted this judgement. McClellan complied with Lincoln's order. Lincoln removed a total of 5 divisions anyway. Four of those divisions (Blenker and 1st Corps) Lincoln used not to defend Washington, but rather to ineffectively try and chase down Jackson. (The fifth was used in the Norfolk project ultimately)
 
Last edited:
I agree completely with the McClellan fans here. There is no reason to think Grant would have been more successful in the Peninsula Campaign than was McClellan. The Confederates had a very large army (and the ability to summon reinforcements from the West if needed) and were absolutely determined to hold Richmond.
 
We also have to consider the opposition. Not sure if it came about deliberately or by chance, but the Army of Northern Virginia seems to have had a disproportionate share of the Confederacy's best troops and commanders, including western units like the Texas Brigade and the Louisiana Tigers.
 
It's actually worth asking (in a serious way) what Grant's answer to the Yorktown problem would have been. He usually took fortified positions by siege, but that wouldn't be possible for Yorktown.
Historically when he approached Vicksburg he launched an assaul the day after he arrived, but he did it without a recce (which means his troops were just attacking wherever, pretty much where their approach marches had brought them in); then after three days he made a second assault along a "wide front".

Transposing this style of assault to the Warwick line isn't all that hard. If we assume that his approach marches look the same as McClellan's (no reason to think otherwise, it's where the roads are) then he mounts his first assault on the 6th. That's basically:

Warwick Line_6th.jpg


4-6 brigades on the Union left, against McLaws with Cobb as reinforcements (totalling about 4500 inf effectives).
And 6 brigades on the Union right, against Ward and Rodes in the Red and White Redoubts with Early in support (totalling about 5700 inf effectives) and Rains in Yorktown (1830 inf effectives).

Given that the attack on the left is against a dam and the attack on the right is against 7,500 infantry effectives dug in, neither of these work.


Then on the 12th once the rain has gone it's a broad-front assault against the full Confederate line.
Warwick Line_12th.jpg



At this point there's nearly 30,000 infantry effectives dug in, and the Warwick line is functionally impregnable except by a very focused assault at the weakest point on the line if it gets lucky*. A broad-front attack like Grant did at Vicksburg simply means the entire enemy force gets involved, and since at Vicksburg single Confederate regiments were repulsing entire divisions at least there is not sufficient force available.


The Warwick line is an extremely difficult thing to deal with. It's worth remembering that McClellan's "slow" approach causes the evacuation of the line in about a month from his first contact, while Grant took a month and a half to starve Vicksburg out.


*the weakest point on the line had not been identified on the 12th, IIRC.
 
Last edited:
Er, question.

Are you aware of the actual force balances that McClellan had in 1862 versus the force balances that Grant had in 1864?

Or, to put it another way, can you give me an example of a battle on the Peninsula where:



where you feel that Grant would have succeeded?


Similarly, when you say:



can you explain how it was that McClellan let the opportunity to "crush" Lee slip away? Please be as specific as you feel you can be.
Do I know the specific ratios of Federal to Confederate troops in 1862 versus 1864? No, I honestly cannot say. However, I don't think it's a cliche to say that McClellan truly saw two Confederates for every one. His painfully slow movement up the Virginia Peninsula and his overcautious approach to the prospect of a significant, head-on clash with the enemy are indicative of this. Federals did outnumber Confederates by a sizeable margin on the Peninsula; thus, McClellan's retreats in the Seven Days Battles can hardly be justified. Is it certain that Richmond would have been taken if he were more aggressive? Of course not. But this is a "What if" thread.

As for Antietam, McClellan did not trap Lee after the battle was over; there is nothing else to say other than he let the ANV slip away. Do you know what was behind the Confederates? The Potomac River. McClellan had the entire Army of Northern Virginia sandwiched between a major body of water and the much larger Army of the Potomac. A significant advantage in manpower combined with superior geographic positioning would have enabled the Federals to destroy Lee. Again, I certainly cannot say that a decisive defeat of the ANV would have ensured a Union victory overall, but I do believe that a more aggressive pursuit of Lee's forces would have changed the course of events in the Eastern Theater significantly in the favor of Federal forces.
 
However, I don't think it's a cliche to say that McClellan truly saw two Confederates for every one.
His counts were usually quite accurate. There's some overestimation during June but it's mostly of forces not at Richmond at the time.

Federals did outnumber Confederates by a sizeable margin on the Peninsula; thus, McClellan's retreats in the Seven Days Battles can hardly be justified.
False. In the Seven Days battles the Confederates had more men than the Union did, and during the month of June the forces were roughly equal. (source: Confederate Tide Rising, Joseph Harsh, which contains a PFD estimate of Confederate forces during the Seven Days.)

As for Antietam, McClellan did not trap Lee after the battle was over; there is nothing else to say other than he let the ANV slip away. Do you know what was behind the Confederates? The Potomac River. McClellan had the entire Army of Northern Virginia sandwiched between a major body of water and the much larger Army of the Potomac. A significant advantage in manpower combined with superior geographic positioning would have enabled the Federals to destroy Lee.
Are you suggesting that McClellan should have attacked on the 18th? His army wasn't resupplied after the 17th and most of his divisions had been wrecked on the 17th, and weren't up to attacking; an attack would have been his relatively sparse troops that hadn't attacked on the 17th, and conducted without artillery support as the artillery had mostly shot itself dry.

As for manpower advantage, there was some Union manpower advantage at Antietam but it's mostly made up of entirely grass-green troops; by the end of the 17th some of McClellan's entire divisions are so badly wrecked they have about 300 men with the colours (that's 3rd division of the first army corps) and are useless until they've reformed.


I do believe that a more aggressive pursuit of Lee's forces would have changed the course of events in the Eastern Theater significantly in the favor of Federal forces.
But McClellan did pursue, it's just that the Confederates stop-punched the pursuit - that's Shepherdstown - and then Halleck nixed his request for the resources to build a bridge over the Potomac at Harpers Ferry to allow a move into the Shenandoah (which shut the campaign down).
 
His painfully slow movement up the Virginia Peninsula and his overcautious approach to the prospect of a significant, head-on clash with the enemy are indicative of this.
Here's the thing, though. As of the point when the Confederates abandoned the Yorktown position, there were 50,000 infantry effectives in the position plus about 3,000 cavalry and about 5,000 artillery; that's 58,000 effectives, and it's not a simple thing to convert effectives to the Union measure of strength (PFD) but PFD could be perhaps 1/4 higher than effectives as a general rule. That means the strength PFD of the Confederate army at the beginning of the move up the Peninsula is circa 70,000 PFD.

The Union force is circa 100,000 PFD.

The Union force during this movement is the larger one, but it's not much larger. In the awful weather McClellan has to be careful during his marches because if he's caught out of position Johnston can punish an isolated corps, and indeed this is exactly Johnston's plan.

During the move up the Peninsula McClellan moves his logistics base a couple of times, and also prevents the Williamsburg line being used for anything more than a delaying action by way of an outflanking move to Eltham's Landing. He reaches Bottom's Bridge on the 17th, twelve days after the Yorktown line is abandoned - which you may say is slow, but consider that there's a large enemy army involved and McClellan has managed to avoid them fighting more than one major delaying action (which is Williamsburg). The roads on the Peninsula are also terrible, especially in a year when there's epic storms right through to June (some of them shut down all unloading at Fort Monroe for several days) and the wagon trains were having trouble moving more than a few miles a day (which obviously means the army is delayed to that kind of speed).

After that most of the remaining time cost is bridging the Chickahominy and more dealing with the awful weather, which takes things up to 31 May and Seven Pines. This is followed by about three and a half weeks of "more awful weather" and waiting for the reinforcements McClellan has been promised - at this point the army in Richmond is circa 90,000 PFD in strength and has the benefit of heavy fortifications if McClellan just charges ahead, it is not possible to attack hastily.

So what should McClellan have done? All moving faster would do would be risking Johnston catching a corps out of position and mauling it, while Johnston is operating on friendly ground and can always move at least as fast as McClellan. Naturally if Johnston makes a mistake McClellan can punish it as well, but it's best not to assume incompetence in your enemy.
 

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