If not McClellan, then who?

[JerryD]

In another thread I expressed my opinion that Mac got promoted too quickly and he was way too immature for the position he was given in July 1861. But that raises the question, if not McClellan, then who should have been given command of the US forces in the east? Would love to hear who else might have been an option, and how we think they might have done. And please, keep it realistic. There was no chance Lincoln was going to pluck Grant or even Sherman out of no where at this point. Its an interesting exercise.

My idea of the possible contenders, but please add to this list if you wish:

1. Keep McDowell. To be honest, I always thought McDowell got the hook a little too quick. He had a good plan at FBR and just succumbed to fresh reinforcements and the greenness of his troops. Given the disaster that occurred its not hard to see why Lincoln looked elsewhere, but McDowell might have been the best choice.

2. Samuel Heintzelman. Led a division in FBR and performed capably until relieved for being too old.

3. Erasmus Keyes. Another experienced Mexican War veteran who fought at FBR.

4. David Hunter. Another division commander at FBR. Lincoln knew him and would later appoint him to replace Fremont.

4. John C. Fremont. Missed FBR but was given overall commend of the Western Department after FBR, so Lincoln clearly thought highly of him. Connected politically.

5. Philip Kearney. Probably a reach, but given his resume he would not have been a bad choice.

6. William Rosecrans. If Lincoln really wanted who won the battles in West Virginia, he should have reached down and selected Rosecrans. In retrospect, he likely would have been the best choice at this time, but again, probably a reach.

7. Daniel Tyler and Robert Patterson. I list them just to eliminate them. Too old and quickly sidelined or dismissed.

Anyone think of anyone else? Doing this exercise, you can kind of see how McClellan was given the opportunity. Although I still say giving him overall command of all US forces was probably a great disservice to him. Let him actually do something first before taking that step.

 

[Saruman]

In another thread I expressed my opinion that Mac got promoted too quickly and he was way too immature for the position he was given in July 1861. But that raises the question, if not McClellan, then who should have been given command of the US forces in the east? Would love to hear who else might have been an option, and how we think they might have done. And please, keep it realistic. There was no chance Lincoln was going to pluck Grant or even Sherman out of no where at this point. Its an interesting exercise.

My idea of the possible contenders, but please add to this list if you wish:

1. Keep McDowell. To be honest, I always thought McDowell got the hook a little too quick. He had a good plan at FBR and just succumbed to fresh reinforcements and the greenness of his troops. Given the disaster that occurred its not hard to see why Lincoln looked elsewhere, but McDowell might have been the best choice.

2. Samuel Heintzelman. Led a division in FBR and performed capably until relieved for being too old.

3. Erasmus Keyes. Another experienced Mexican War veteran who fought at FBR.

4. David Hunter. Another division commander at FBR. Lincoln knew him and would later appoint him to replace Fremont.

4. John C. Fremont. Missed FBR but was given overall commend of the Western Department after FBR, so Lincoln clearly thought highly of him. Connected politically.

5. Philip Kearney. Probably a reach, but given his resume he would not have been a bad choice.

6. William Rosecrans. If Lincoln really wanted who won the battles in West Virginia, he should have reached down and selected Rosecrans. In retrospect, he likely would have been the best choice at this time, but again, probably a reach.

7. Daniel Tyler and Robert Patterson. I list them just to eliminate them. Too old and quickly sidelined or dismissed.

Anyone think of anyone else? Doing this exercise, you can kind of see how McClellan was given the opportunity. Although I still say giving him overall command of all US forces was probably a great disservice to him. Let him actually do something first before taking that step.

Don't Carlos Buell? Although he would have been as cautious and hesitant as McClellan.

 

[JerryD]

Don't Carlos Buell? Although he would have been as cautious and hesitant as McClellan.

I didn't list him only because my memory is that he was out in California at the time. Wasn't it McClellan who brought him east?

 

[dlofting]

Are you looking for suggestions to command the AOP or for the General in Chief position?

 

[JerryD]

Are you looking for suggestions to command the AOP or for the General in Chief position?

Command for what would become the AOP.

 

[JerryD]

Just wondering if Halleck was a potential candidate in July 1861. I know Scott preferred Halleck to replace him as Commanding General of the Army in November, 61, but not sure of where he was and what he had done by July.

 

[gary]

Just wondering if Halleck was a potential candidate in July 1861. I know Scott preferred Halleck to replace him as Commanding General of the Army in November, 61, but not sure of where he was and what he had done by July.

Halleck commanded Dept of the Missouri but didn't command an army in the field. His subordinates like Grant won battles but was always restrained by Halleck. Per se Halleck led a huge army (Grant, Buell) on Corinth but his advance was so painfully slow that Beauregard skedaddled.

As a field commander, I think Jackson would have sent Halleck packing.

Halleck was good as chief of staff for Grant but no field commander and no good as General-in-Chief. Chattanooga could have been captured much earlier.

 

[wausaubob]

Just wondering if Halleck was a potential candidate in July 1861. I know Scott preferred Halleck to replace him as Commanding General of the Army in November, 61, but not sure of where he was and what he had done by July.

When the task of the commander of the eastern army was to put on a good show, there was no alternative to George McClellan. But the eventual alternative was always Henry Halleck. Halleck was the superior administrator. Henry Halleck was the much better judge of command talent. And though it may have been discouraging to Grant, Halleck had to teach Grant some important lessons about army politics and full range of responsibilities of the commanding general in the field.

 

[JerryD]

When the task of the commander of the eastern army was to put on a good show, there was no alternative to George McClellan. But the eventual alternative was always Henry Halleck. Halleck was the superior administrator. Henry Halleck was the much better judge of command talent. And though it may have been discouraging to Grant, Halleck had to teach Grant some important lessons about army politics and full range of responsibilities of the commanding general in the field.

Going through this exercise is very useful, in that I think you are right, McClellan was probably the best available choice.

 

[wausaubob]

Youthful, handsome, highly intelligent, with some European experience and seemingly successful in the strategically important counties of western Virginia, he was a perfect fit. But then it turned out his success in western Virginia was partly the result of Rosecrans' assistance and help from loyal local people.
The east coast regular officers, and George McClellan did not dominate the command structure. It was the California club, people like McPherson and Sheridan that Halleck promoted. Halleck was slow to admit Grant to the team, but he did change his mind when he had no other alternative.

 

[Belfoured]

Going through this exercise is very useful, in that I think you are right, McClellan was probably the best available choice.

In the NHL that might be labeled a weak draft year.

 

[Stone in the wall]

In another thread I expressed my opinion that Mac got promoted too quickly and he was way too immature for the position he was given in July 1861. But that raises the question, if not McClellan, then who should have been given command of the US forces in the east? Would love to hear who else might have been an option, and how we think they might have done. And please, keep it realistic. There was no chance Lincoln was going to pluck Grant or even Sherman out of no where at this point. Its an interesting exercise.

My idea of the possible contenders, but please add to this list if you wish:

1. Keep McDowell. To be honest, I always thought McDowell got the hook a little too quick. He had a good plan at FBR and just succumbed to fresh reinforcements and the greenness of his troops. Given the disaster that occurred its not hard to see why Lincoln looked elsewhere, but McDowell might have been the best choice.

2. Samuel Heintzelman. Led a division in FBR and performed capably until relieved for being too old.

3. Erasmus Keyes. Another experienced Mexican War veteran who fought at FBR.

4. David Hunter. Another division commander at FBR. Lincoln knew him and would later appoint him to replace Fremont.

4. John C. Fremont. Missed FBR but was given overall commend of the Western Department after FBR, so Lincoln clearly thought highly of him.

In another thread I expressed my opinion that Mac got promoted too quickly and he was way too immature for the position he was given in July 1861. But that raises the question, if not McClellan, then who should have been given command of the US forces in the east? Would love to hear who else might have been an option, and how we think they might have done. And please, keep it realistic. There was no chance Lincoln was going to pluck Grant or even Sherman out of no where at this point. Its an interesting exercise.

My idea of the possible contenders, but please add to this list if you wish:

1. Keep McDowell. To be honest, I always thought McDowell got the hook a little too quick. He had a good plan at FBR and just succumbed to fresh reinforcements and the greenness of his troops. Given the disaster that occurred its not hard to see why Lincoln looked elsewhere, but McDowell might have been the best choice.

2. Samuel Heintzelman. Led a division in FBR and performed capably until relieved for being too old.

3. Erasmus Keyes. Another experienced Mexican War veteran who fought at FBR.

4. David Hunter. Another division commander at FBR. Lincoln knew him and would later appoint him to replace Fremont.

4. John C. Fremont. Missed FBR but was given overall commend of the Western Department after FBR, so Lincoln clearly thought highly of him. Connected politically.

5. Philip Kearney. Probably a reach, but given his resume he would not have been a bad choice.

6. William Rosecrans. If Lincoln really wanted who won the battles in West Virginia, he should have reached down and selected Rosecrans. In retrospect, he likely would have been the best choice at this time, but again, probably a reach.

7. Daniel Tyler and Robert Patterson. I list them just to eliminate them. Too old and quickly sidelined or dismissed.

Anyone think of anyone else? Doing this exercise, you can kind of see how McClellan was given the opportunity. Although I still say giving him overall command of all US forces was probably a great disservice to him. Let him actually do something first before taking that step.

"If not McCellan" ...and choosing from your list, I'd go with Kearney. West Point, Mex War vet, aggressive, and a fighter with out fear.
The army had plenty of supply problems and McDowell would have be an excellent choice to straighten those out.

7. Daniel Tyler and Robert Patterson. I list them just to eliminate them. Too old and quickly sidelined or dismissed.

Anyone think of anyone else? Doing this exercise, you can kind of see how McClellan was given the opportunity. Although I still say giving him overall command of all US forces was probably a great disservice to him. Let him actually do something first before taking that step

 

[JerryD]

"If not McCellan" ...and choosing from your list, I'd go with Kearney. West Point, Mex War vet, aggressive, and a fighter with out fear.
The army had plenty of supply problems and McDowell would have be an excellent choice to straighten those out.

He is one of those under utilized guys that you wonder how they would have done in command. The knock on him has been his personal aggressiveness. But I think he was smart enough to know commanders should not be in the front lines.

 

[Cavalier]

My nominee would be Israel B. Richardson. Its my impression that Scott thought highly of him in Mexico and if I was old Abe that would impress me. I think he was both aggressive and dependable.

John

 

[Belfoured]

He is one of those under utilized guys that you wonder how they would have done in command. The knock on him has been his personal aggressiveness. But I think he was smart enough to know commanders should not be in the front lines.

Could be but I'm not quite sold on the last point - elan was a big part of Phil's skill set.

 

[Belfoured]

My nominee would be Israel B. Richardson. Its my impression that Scott thought highly of him in Mexico and if I was old Abe that would impress me. I think he was both aggressive and dependable.

John

There is some evidence that after Antietam, and when it was thought he would recover from his wound, Lincoln saw him as a possible replacement for McClellan. He showed himself a capable division commander and he had the right political connections in Michigan with Chandler and the GOP.

 

[JerryD]

My nominee would be Israel B. Richardson. Its my impression that Scott thought highly of him in Mexico and if I was old Abe that would impress me. I think he was both aggressive and dependable.

John

Yep, good choice.

 

[Stone in the wall]

Could be but I'm not quite sold on the last point - elan was a big part of Phil's skill set.

So true.

(Correction on my earlier post. Kearny actually wasn't West Point, it was a French military school.)

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I think the biggest mistake with McClellan in 1861 was he needed to be General in Chief OR army commander; never both.

I don't think Fremont was ever an option. I think his political connections got him command in Missouri more than his military experience. His antebellum behavior exposed him as a loose cannon.

I think McDowell was superseded primarily for PR and morale reasons, but his recent biography exposes him as probably ill-suited for army command.

I suggest McClellan as General-in-Chief, Joseph Mansfield as army commander, and McDowell as Mansfield's chief-of-staff.

 

[dlofting]

I think the selection of Rosecrans makes the most sense. Yes it would have required that Washington dig a bit deeper and get by the McClellan presentation of himself.

Rosecrans was at least as good as McClellan with logistics and organization and maybe better as a planner. He was also not loathe to initiate a battle although he did have some difficulties in fighting one.

Overall he was at least as good a choice as McClellan and probably a bit better.