McClellan After Malvern Hill

Andy Cardinal

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Location
Ohio
"We ought instead of retreating should follow up the enemy and take Richmond. And in full view of all responsible for such declaration, I say to you all, such an order can only be prompted by cowardice or treason." -- Phil Kearney

After Malvern Hill, McClellan ordered his army to continue their withdrawal to Harrison's Landing. Some of his officers believed the army should have followed up the battle with an attack of their own. Should McClellan have ordered an attack, or was continuing the retreat to Harrison's Landing the right decision?
 
I think there are several angles to consider on this excellent question. One is the strategic angle: could an offensive move against Richmond work? I honestly don't know enough about the situation on July 2nd to answer it, but am guessing that the army wasn't feeling too perky. That could have turned around, however, with the right inspiration.

Which leads to another angle, the psychological one: did Mac believe he could be successful in an offensive? Did his generals and men believe it?

Yet another angle was the political one: Stanton and Lincoln saw the Seven Days as a defeat, regardless of the tactical outcomes of individual battles. Right or wrong, they made the decisions and were unlikely to support a planned move to the offensive. Had Mac just gone ahead and attacked the ANV, they probably would've supported his boldness, but it's neither here nor there.

Sorry to ramble...pre-coffee Daylight Savings.
 
It's questionable whether Kearny said that. In fact this is a bugbear of mine, since it verifiable that the person that wrote them down (Rev. J. J. Marks) was neither there, nor was told them in the manner he claimed after it was claimed he'd made it all up. He may have been told it 3rd hand, but certainly no-one actually present a the supposed uttering ever spoke up to either confirm or deny it. I think it's one of those bits of colour that probably isn't true, at least in the form presented. Here's the source.

Kearny wrote his wife on 1st July, but the sentiment above isn't included. It's him complaining that Stanton and McClellan were conspiring to prevent him having a second star (wrongly, McClellan had recommended that all division commanders be promoted).

He wrote again on 5th July, and said sentiment isn't there. Instead it's about how Heintzelman and Hooker were intriging against him.

He writes again on the 10th, but is complaining about them being "boxed up" at Harrisons. The rant about there being a conspiracy to prevent his promotion continues, this time stating that Harney and his Uncle, S. Kearny, conspired to prevent him getting Lt Cols rank in Mexico.

Also on the 10th he writes Parker, and states that McClellan gave up "the strongest position" at Malvern Hill and that the rebels will occupy Washington in 10 days.

In response to the original question, Malvern is a trap. Lee intended to envelop the hill and bag the whole Federal army. The navy couldn't supply the army there. Withdrawing was the right decision.
 
It's questionable whether Kearny said that. In fact this is a bugbear of mine, since it verifiable that the person that wrote them down (Rev. J. J. Marks) was neither there, nor was told them in the manner he claimed after it was claimed he'd made it all up. He may have been told it 3rd hand, but certainly no-one actually present a the supposed uttering ever spoke up to either confirm or deny it. I think it's one of those bits of colour that probably isn't true, at least in the form presented. Here's the source.

Kearny wrote his wife on 1st July, but the sentiment above isn't included. It's him complaining that Stanton and McClellan were conspiring to prevent him having a second star (wrongly, McClellan had recommended that all division commanders be promoted).

He wrote again on 5th July, and said sentiment isn't there. Instead it's about how Heintzelman and Hooker were intriging against him.

He writes again on the 10th, but is complaining about them being "boxed up" at Harrisons. The rant about there being a conspiracy to prevent his promotion continues, this time stating that Harney and his Uncle, S. Kearny, conspired to prevent him getting Lt Cols rank in Mexico.

Also on the 10th he writes Parker, and states that McClellan gave up "the strongest position" at Malvern Hill and that the rebels will occupy Washington in 10 days.

In response to the original question, Malvern is a trap. Lee intended to envelop the hill and bag the whole Federal army. The navy couldn't supply the army there. Withdrawing was the right decision.
As a disclosure, I am far from an expert on the Peninsula Campaign. I have read some general works, such as Sears's books (where his biases against McClellan are clear). I have also read Rafuse's book about McClellan, which I enjoyed very much. So I approach this question with genuine curiosity.

I am aware that the veracity of the Kearny quote is questioned (perhaps from one of your earlier posts, @67th Tigers ) and also that similar comments attributed to Porter are also questioned. But I have to believe, whatever the veracity of those quotes, that there were some within the army who questioned the decision to continue to retreat.
 
Last edited:
As a disclosure, I am far from an expert on the Peninsula Campaign. I have read some general works, such as Sears's books (where his biases against McClellan are clear). I have also read Rafuse's book about McClellan, which I enjoyed very much. So I approach this question with genuine curiosity.

I am aware that the veracity of the Kearny quote is questioned (perhaps from one of your earlier posts, @67th Tigers ) and also that similar comments attributed to Porter are also questioned. But I have to believe, whatever the veracity of those quotes, that there were some within the army who questioned the decision to continue to retreat.

Porter's communique to McClellan was highly qualified. Two years ago I posted this:

This is what Sears wrote:

"However serious the day's results, and in common with Mechanicsville on June 26, General Lee lost the battle but won the larger contest. At 9: 30 that night Fitz John Porter signaled McClellan that "against immense odds, we have driven the enemy beyond the battle field and the firing ended at 8: 30." He went on to say that if he could be resupplied with food and ammunition, "we will hold our own and advance if you wish." Here was General Porter, the soul of military caution, proposing to follow up the Malvern Hill victory with a counteroffensive. The next morning he said to Baldy Smith that he had spent the night "urging McClellan to move forward on Richmond at daylight."

General McClellan, however, had long since made up his mind. His only thought was safe haven at Harrison's Landing. Without even waiting for Porter's verdict on the day's events, in contradiction to all of Porter's later arguments, he issued the order for the army to continue its retreat."

Sears, Stephen W. (2014-11-11). To the Gates of Richmond: The Peninsula Campaign (Kindle Locations 5924-5931). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Kindle Edition.

Note how qualified Porter's supposed arguments are. They are contingent on being resupplied, and the whole point of the flank movement was that the army was out of supply and had to move to a new base (which it has not yet reached, because the Navy have nixed Haxall's for Harrison's).

In fact, Malvern Hill is a seductive trap. If you read Lee's Lieutenants then it's clear Lee's plan was to envelop Malvern and cut it off from Harrison's. When Huger's attacks (which Lee never ordered) occur Lee is with Stuart, Longstreet and AP Hill sending them off on a flank movement to come round and envelop the hill. It's in fact obvious just from looking at a map that Malvern Hill is a bad position.

Had the Army of the Potomac still been on Malvern Hill on 2nd July then likely Lee would have "bagged" it. He'd have Longstreet and AP Hill envelop the hill, cut it off from Harrison's and the men on the hill, without rations, water or bullets, would have to surrender.

</two years ago>

Now, in his most recent Sears writes:

"At 6: 10 p.m. Porter had reported to McClellan, "The enemy has renewed the contest vigorously— but I look for success again." By 9: 30 he declared victory: "After a hard fight for nearly four hours against immense odds, we have driven the enemy beyond the battle field. . . ." If reinforced, if the men were provisioned and their ammunition replenished, "we will hold our own and advance if you wish." His victorious men "can only regret the necessity which will compel a withdrawal." The general commanding, however, had already issued orders for the final leg of the retreat, to Harrison's Landing. Porter's report of a complete victory did not move him to reconsider. He explained to Lincoln: "I have not yielded an inch of ground unnecessarily but have retired to prevent the superior force of the Enemy from cutting me off— and to take a different base of operations." 52

McClellan's lieutenants were dismayed (or worse) by his order to continue the retreat. Darius Couch, who had smothered the assaults on Malvern Hill, recalled his "great surprise" at leaving a victorious field, and his bitterness at abandoning "many gallant men desperately wounded." For staff man William Biddle, "the idea of stealing away in the night from such a position, after such a victory, was simply galling." Israel Richardson observed that "if anything can try the patience and courage of troops," it was fighting all day every day, then falling back every night. Phil Kearny was livid. To fellow officers he declaimed, "I, Philip Kearny, an old soldier, enter my solemn protest against this order to retreat. We ought, instead of retreating, to follow up the enemy and take Richmond. . . . I say to you all, such an order can only be prompted by cowardice or treason!"

In the early hours of July 2 Fitz John Porter and Baldy Smith found time for a conversation as their commands trudged toward Harrison's Landing. Porter described the decisiveness of the victory at Malvern Hill, and said he had spent the night trying to persuade McClellan to change his mind and move against Richmond at daylight. Knowing Porter to be McClellan's closest confidant, and knowing Porter's own native caution, Smith was fully persuaded just how ill judged was McClellan's decision. When he reached Harrison's Landing, he wrote his wife "saying I had arrived safely but that General McClellan was not the man to lead our armies to victory." 53

Sears, Stephen W.. Lincoln's Lieutenants: The High Command of the Army of the Potomac (pp. 271-272). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Kindle Edition.

Again, we have slightly more of the quote (as we don't have the actual signals, which are in the LC McClellan papers and Sears did not extract fully), and it is still very qualified. Porter is stating that if resupplies and reinforcements arrive at Malvern immediately they can hold their position, and perhaps advance, and then states his regret at the necessity of withdrawing.

As to the conversation with Smith, I have Siciliano's thesis on Smith and it's highly revealing. Reading it one can conclude that Smith was in the middle of a serious nervous breakdown caused because he had hyperreactive insomnia. He had been unable to sleep since the Seven Days started and by the 30th June was quite psychotic (taking a cold bath during Glendale to try and stay awake), leading his division away from White Oak Swamp without orders and without telling anyone, and starting to march to Charles City.
 
Now, the problems the Army of the Potomac has are firstly the simple lack of supplies. The men were last issued rations on the 25th or 26th June, and because the army has been on the move "in contact" they haven't been able to issue rations to the troops. Most men ate the last of their rations around the 28th.

This extends to ammunition, and especially artillery ammunition. What they had was pushed forward with the wagon trains.

A lot of the problems were blamed on rather poor QMG, Van Vliet. He simply wasn't up to the task of keeping supplies flowing. The AoP had largely relied on his deputy, Rufus Ingalls. He was a far more effective quartermaster, but he was at the White House Landing depot during Gaines Mill, and went with the boats fleeing the Pamunkey round to the James, where he arrived off Harrison's on the evening of 30th June with the supplies from WHL. The question was where to land them, and the Navy refused to escort them past City Point. Hence Harrison's was chosen as the most upstream position acceptable to the Navy.

The other problem is the state of the men. They'd been fighting (or at least in line of battle) every day and marching every night. When were they supposed to sleep? If lucky they have a snatched hour here and there, but by 1st July the troops had not actually slept properly for 6-7 days. Normally troops start to break down after three days without sleep. McClellan had not intended to move from the Glendale position, and so the movement looks more reasonable. The extra two nights movements were a result of Smith's breakdown.

The rebs of course actually slept at nights, and pursued at dawn. They still suffered heavily.
 
As to the conversation with Smith, I have Siciliano's thesis on Smith and it's highly revealing. Reading it one can conclude that Smith was in the middle of a serious nervous breakdown caused because he had hyperreactive insomnia. He had been unable to sleep since the Seven Days started and by the 30th June was quite psychotic (taking a cold bath during Glendale to try and stay awake), leading his division away from White Oak Swamp without orders and without telling anyone, and starting to march to Charles City.

Sorry, I am unfamiliar with Siciliano's thesis on Smith.
 
One is the strategic angle: could an offensive move against Richmond work? I honestly don't know enough about the situation on July 2nd to answer it, but am guessing that the army wasn't feeling too perky. That could have turned around, however, with the right inspiration.

I believe from what I understand that Lee's army was in better shape physically on July 2 -- even after the heavy losses at Malvern.

In the Army of the Potomac, the 5th Corps had done most of the fighting during the Seven Days, along with assists from the 2nd & 3rd Corps. I'm not aware that the 4th corps had been heavily engaged -- although, not being very knowledgeable about it, I could be completely wrong.
 
Yet another angle was the political one: Stanton and Lincoln saw the Seven Days as a defeat, regardless of the tactical outcomes of individual battles. Right or wrong, they made the decisions and were unlikely to support a planned move to the offensive. Had Mac just gone ahead and attacked the ANV, they probably would've supported his boldness, but it's neither here nor there.

I agree this is a big factor. This was approximately the same time Halleck & Pope were called east & Lincoln's war aims were changing. I'm not sure how much this would have played into McClellan's immediate decision-making, however.
 
I believe from what I understand that Lee's army was in better shape physically on July 2 -- even after the heavy losses at Malvern.

In the Army of the Potomac, the 5th Corps had done most of the fighting during the Seven Days, along with assists from the 2nd & 3rd Corps. I'm not aware that the 4th corps had been heavily engaged -- although, not being very knowledgeable about it, I could be completely wrong.

As to what the brigades did during the Seven Days

2nd Corps
Richardson
-Caldwell: remained in line south of the Chickahominy at Gaines Mill. Not engaged and Savages. Left with Franklin at White Oak Swamp and later sent to the crossroads at Glendale. Sent to reinforce Couch at Malvern Hill.
- Meagher: sent to reinforce at GM. With Caldwell at both Glendale and MH.
- French: sent with Meagher at GM. Left with Franklin at Glendale and made the mad retreat with Smith's division. Exhausted and not engaged at MH.

Sedgwick
Sully: in reserve at Savages. Sent to reinforce WOS at Glendale and recalled. Not engaged at MH.
Burns: heavily engaged at Savages and at Glendale. Not engaged at MH
Dana: as Sully

3rd Corps
Hooker
Grover: made an attack at Oak Grove. Pulled out with 3rd Corps and was engaged at Glendale. Not engaged at MH
Sickles: as Grover except put in at MH.
Carr: as Grover

Kearny
Robinson: engaged at Oak Grove under Hooker's command and remained in the advanced position 26th. Engaged at Glendale but not at MH.
Birney: Birney and Berry constituted the general reserve for the whole southern sector 26th. Engaged at Glendale but not MH.
Berry: not engaged

4th Corps
Couch
Howe: the vanguard of the movement and reached Haxall's. Ordered by McClellan to move to the crossroads at Glendale but not engaged as the rebels didn't break through. Heavily engaged at MH
Abercrombie: as Howe
Palmer: was assigned to defend the trains and not engaged

Peck only had 2 bdes
Naglee: bridge guard during GM. Fell in with Franklin at WOS and made the mad march with Smith. Not engaged at MH.
Wessells: was assigned to defend trains and not engaged.

5th Corps
Martindale: engaged at Beaver Dam Creek, Gaines Mill and MH
Griffin: as Martindale
Butterfield: as Martindale

Sykes: the regulars were engaged at BDC, GM, on MH on the 30th and at MH proper.

McCall (all bdes same): engaged at BDC, GM and at Glendale.

6th Corps
Slocum (all 3 bdes same): engaged at GM and Glendale

Smith
Hancock: engaged at Garnett's Hill (26th), Golding's Farm (27th) and then the insane march.
Brooks: engaged at Golding's Farm, Savages and then the insane march
Davidson: as Hancock

Robinson
Caldwell: 2
Meagher: 3
French: 1

Sedgwick
Sully: 1
Burns: 2
Dana: 1

Hooker
Grover: 2
Sickles: 3
Carr: 2

Kearny
Robinson: 2
Birney: 1
Berry: 0

Couch
Howe: 1
Abercrombie: 1
Palmer: 0

Peck
Naglee: 0
Wessells: 0

Morell
Martindale: engaged at Beaver Dam Creek, Gaines Mill and MH
Griffin: as Martindale
Butterfield: as Martindale

Sykes' div: 4

McCall's div: 3

Slocum's div: 2

Smith
Hancock: 2
Brooks: 2
Davidson: 2
 
It's interesting to look at the strategic situation post-Malvern, because I think the biggest problem is what happened afterwards.


Firstly, the priors:


McClellan had been asking for reinforcement for over a month before the Seven Days.
McClellan was attacked in an exposed flank.
The flank was exposed because he was awaiting reinforcements.
Before the Seven Days, McClellan was advancing and securing positions for his siege guns.
During the Seven Days, McClellan was outnumbered. *
During the Seven Days, McClellan won most of the battles.
During the Seven Days, McClellan withdrew his army from a strategically perilous position.
During the Seven Days, McClellan inflicted serious casualties while also taking serious casualties. *
During and after the Seven Days, Lee was reinforced. *

The marked ones are the ones which we can only know for sure with hindsight and which Washington cannot be expected to know.


Now, for Washington as of 4th July, there are several possible scenarios.


1) McClellan was not outnumbered and he was not in danger, but retreated because he was spooked, and it is possible to successfully attack Richmond via the James.
In that case, he should have been replaced - the army is right there before Richmond, and if his army is large enough to be successful with a competent commander then it should be done straight away.
2) McClellan was outnumbered and in danger, but it is possible to successfully attack Richmond via the James.
In that case, McClellan should be reinforced.
3) McClellan was not outnumbered and he was not in danger, but retreated because he was spooked, and it is not possible to successfully attack Richmond via the James.
This is essentially a logical contradiction. If McClellan's army was not in danger mere miles from Richmond, then it is obviously possible to successfully attack Richmond via the James.
4) McClellan was outnumbered and in danger, and it is not possible to successfully attack Richmond via the James.
This requires there to be some strong positive reason it's not possible to attack Richmond via the James, such as the enemy army being too large. If true, it begs the question as to where the hell all the Rebels came from!



The true case is (2), and McClellan stuck to this scenario. It is consistent with his statements before the Seven Days (that he needed McDowell) and with the results of the battles, and also with the information we have afterwards.


The response by Washington is interesting. During the time McClellan was actually fighting, and shortly afterwards, they promised him tens of thousands of reinforcements - indeed, if one interprets the reinforcement counts promised as "effectives", he's promised a doubling of his own army size. (Though it is likely the numbers were Grand Aggregate, i.e. 1 regiment per 1,000 men promised). McClellan's requests for reinforcements follow a consistent tone - I will need so many (roughly ten thousand men) to risk an advance, and the more you can give me the better the chance of success. This seems valid because the numbers he says he requires would give him slightly less than parity, in reality, and because concentration of force at the decisive moment is so basic a military maxim it barely needs reiterating.

Instead, however, Washington reneged on all these promises. McClellan saw promises of about "50,000 men" dwindle lower and lower until they reached about one division, and when he said (paraphrased) that he would be willing to advance with one division but more troops would be better ** he was ordered to withdraw from the Peninsula.
He didn't see the reinforcements promised, even though they had in fact arrived at Fort Monroe.


** some context: the advance on Corinth had just taken place, in which Halleck had slowly operated against Corinth making use of roughly a 2:1 numerical advantage. McClellan is asking for - if possible - extra troops over and above the one division he has been promised, to achieve a 1:1 numerical parity.



The actions taken by Washington (i.e. Halleck, Stanton etc.) are somewhat baffling, unless they were either fundamentally misled or terrified over the security of Washington.. I see no particular reason why in reality the provision of about two divisions of extra troops could not give McClellan the situation required to take Richmond by the end of the year - a long time estimate, perhaps, but it's a pessimistic one.



If I were McClellan, going through that, I would probably conclude that the Administration was out to ruin me.
 
This reminds me to order the three books on Seven Days that I have been planning to read.

As a novice in this, I'd say McClellan was correct. As a matter of military principle, he was loath to attack without a very high probability of success. That didn't exist in the first week of July 1862.

Lee still had a very large, very powerful army under his command, with ready access to new supplies and even to significant reinforcements. He was an extremely dangerous enemy.
 
As a novice in this, I'd say McClellan was correct. As a matter of military principle, he was loath to attack without a very high probability of success. That didn't exist in the first week of July 1862.
I think that's not quite stating it strongly enough.

McClellan was willing to attack with numerical inferiority (he'd be outnumbered if he got the reinforcements he was willing to advance with, Lee had plenty he could call in himself). He wasn't willing to attack with little to no chance of success, however, and that's the situation which prevailed - as of the middle of July, for example, McClellan had about 55,000 effective infantry (10th July to 10th August) and Lee had pretty much the same number but could also call in Jackson and Ewell at need (13,000 effectives). That would put the odds at about 1:1.25 in favour of the defender, which is a bad situation to advance in! (It risks a quick defeat of McClellan's force and Jackson+Ewell then being detached back to the Valley, or a long stalemate with J&E in the Valley to begin with.)

With Burnside, as McClellan was willing to advance, the odds would be a little better than parity in favour of the defender (about 1:1.05). This still isn't great, but it's workable, and more importantly it means that those extra effectives have to be called in to allow Confederate parity. In that situation Washington is no longer under threat and Pope can advance south safely - if Lee detaches enough troops to fight Pope then McClellan suddenly has a very easy time of it.
 
McClellan's plan to besiege Richmond was thrown off course by Lee's relentless assaults during the Seven Days. Although the AOTP technically prevailed in most of those encounters, McClellan by that time and certainly after Malvern Hill was measuring success solely on the basis of being able to move the army and its base from White House on the Pamunkey River to Harrison Landing on the James River. Once the idea of investing Richmond by siege was no longer in play, the thought that McClellan would consider more aggressive offensive action against Richmond was not realistic.
 
McClellan's plan to besiege Richmond was thrown off course by Lee's relentless assaults during the Seven Days.
Technically it was also thrown off course because McClellan was repeatedly denied promised reinforcements.

Although the AOTP technically prevailed in most of those encounters, McClellan by that time and certainly after Malvern Hill was measuring success solely on the basis of being able to move the army and its base from White House on the Pamunkey River to Harrison Landing on the James River
Surviving a flank attack by a force which in total is superior to your own is success, yes.

Once the idea of investing Richmond by siege was no longer in play, the thought that McClellan would consider more aggressive offensive action against Richmond was not realistic.
But the idea of investing Richmond was always in play, that's what McClellan wanted to do. He did not launch a further assault because he did not have the numbers to do so and because he had been promised reinforcements that would make it much more possible to do so.

Of course, if the problem is McClellan instead of the whole military situation, replace McClellan.


The idea McClellan had as of July 1862 was entirely plausible, and in fact he had several options. He could launch a siege of Petersburg and thus fight a siege battle to open the James up into Richmond, or he could advance back up to the line held halfway through the Seven Days with a now-secure supply base and begin working forward in a battle of posts, or he could simply stay there while Pope advanced and wait for an opportunity. Simply by being there he pinned most of Lee's army!
 
As a more general thing, it seems to me that people who criticize McClellan's actions tend not to really consider what he should have done instead. McClellan was certainly not shy about reporting what he thought should be done, and the case I can think of where a better outcome was within his power (pre-Seven Days, shifting supply to the James and moving entirely south of the Chickahominy) would have meant violating explicit orders, including a Presidential one to operate against the rail lines north of Richmond.
 
McClellan's overall strategy in using combined army-navy movements to land on the Peninsula and secure the adjacent waterways was a good one. The problem was the execution of the plan, which was flawed not least of which was the result of McClellan's excessive caution, and inability to seize the initiative. McClellan was certainly hobbled by Lincoln's decision to withhold McDowell's corps to defend Washington but the AOTP nevertheless still maintained numerical superiority, although McClellan thought otherwise.
 

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