McClellan at Antietam

[Nathan Towne]

I thought Welker's analysis was interesting. Specifically, he placed a lot of blame on Hooker for McClellan's plan unraveling on September 17.

I think there is a certain amount of truth in Welker's analysis. I believe it might be overstated a bit, but I would have to really study his arguments more than I have to this point. McClellan would be far from the only general who didn't adapt real well when his initial plan unraveled.

He does, which is very interesting, because I see it almost completely the opposite, much the way in which Hartwig does. I think that Hooker executed the entire movement and attack really pretty brilliantly, frankly.

 

[Hannover]

Gene Thorp has completed an excellent analysis of McClellan particularly in the movement of the Union Army up to the battle of Antietam. He has searched original documents and gives valid reasons for the 100 years of misinformation regarding McClellan's performance in the campaign. I highly recommend the book, particularly to those who still think that McClellan had an attack 'of the slows'.

 

[Belfoured]

View attachment 526182
Gene Thorp has completed an excellent analysis of McClellan particularly in the movement of the Union Army up to the battle of Antietam. He has searched original documents and gives valid reasons for the 100 years of misinformation regarding McClellan's performance in the campaign. I highly recommend the book, particularly to those who still think that McClellan had an attack 'of the slows'.

I think Alex Rossino had a role in putting together that book and analysis.