McClellan Has any Civil War General divided opinion more than McClellan?

I mean, historically? How about F.J. Porter? Talk about dividing opinion. That court martial divided opinion about as much as could be the case.
 
Last edited:
Ben Butler is usually at the top of my list followed closely by dandy Dan Sickles. I have no respect for McClellan's fighting prowess but he knew how to build and train an army the loved him.
 
In all honesty I've never understood the idea that McClellan was bad at fighting battles. I can see how one would consider his performance unspectacular (opinion varies on any commander), but when it's argued that he's actively bad I simply don't see how that holds up given the starting conditions of the battles he actually fought and how they come out. It's like he's judged by standards that are higher than appropriate for the Civil War, or otherwise that he doesn't meet the standard because almost nobody at army command level does meet that standard.


Antietam, for example, is up there as one of the most intense single days of fighting of the war (the most intense, if one counts by casualties) and the criticism made of McClellan there is that (1) he should have kept attacking (i.e. he should have attacked with the one remaining corps-scale assault he had the fresh troops to launch), and (2) he should have been able to destroy Lee's army rather than merely mauling it.

And it's very hard to find anyone who did anything comparable, certainly not and meet with success.
 
Back
Top