McClellan McClellan....hmmmm

[Nat Turner]

Agreed. I cannot and will not voted on this poll as he was neither and that is not a choice.

I added none of the above.

 

[MajGenl.Meade]

That was when he found out Lee split his forces and did nothing right?

I believe you are thinking of prior to South Mountain/Antietam when Lee's "lost" order handed McClellan the war on a plate. He didn't do "nothing". He correctly attacked through South Mountain in the hope of keeping Lee divided. He delayed too long in making that attack.

On the Peninsula, he was aware that Lee's first attack north of the Chickahominy meant that the rebel force was divided. Unfortunately, he thought that meant approximately 20 million rebels to the north and another 20 million to the south.... so he pulled back. And back. And back.

 

[dlofting]

Neither.

In my opinion McClellan was a builder. He created this beautiful "thing" called the Army of the Potomac and was loath to see it diminished in any way. In other words he was reluctant to use it in battle.

 

[JerseyBart]

I added none of the above.

Thank you.

 

[jackt62]

Let's put to rest (as has been noted in these posts) the falsehoods that McClellan was either a coward or a traitor. The false allegation about cowardice was probably driven by newspaper accounts of his presence on the gunship Galena during the battle of Malvern in the Seven Days, and which continued to haunt him during his presidential run in 1864. The false allegation of treason originated with rumors circulated by his political enemies among the radical republicans in the winter of 1861-1862.

That being said, McClellan's strength as a commander was in planning and administration, not necessarily in field operations. He was beloved by his troops, and is considered to be the "father" of the Army of the Potomac in the sense that he took a group of disparate civilian volunteers and trained them into becoming a strong military force. I would contend that his ability to plan major strategic operations was highly effective. McClellan devised a brilliant plan for outflanking Joe Johnston's army in northern Virginia by using the waterways to transport the AOTP to the Virginia penninsula. Unfortunately, as we all know, the execution of the plan was flawed once the AOTP was in the peninsula and for that, McClellan must accept much responsibility.

 

[FarawayFriend]

I added a 3rd option. This is a great site. I don't have an outlet for my civil war energy. This fulfills it. Thanks for the reply

Thank you for adding "none". Right now there are 4 votes for coward and 6 for neither. Interesting.
And like you I have noone else to talk about the Civil War in my real life. But 11000 co-addicts on CWT, LOL

 

[kevikens]

Excellent administrator (would have done a better job than Halleck as a proto chief of staff), hesitant and diffident, cautious and introspective, star crossed and snake bit unlucky (like Burnside, he was pitted against Lee and Jackson, instead of Bragg and Pemberton) sparing and caring of his men. In a different role he would have been an able tool in the toolbox to save the Union, but not as the field commander of the AOP.

 

[Boopsie]

He couldn't betray what his heart wasn't into...he was a thru and thru politician who just didn't get it: his heart was not into that war, but his eyes were affixed to another prize. My understanding includes he was a great prepper of green soldiers. I do not believe he was a coward unless you want to consider his leadership, but again, leaders are just not cut from the same cloth as tenacious generals in the field. Who knows what he was thinking about, but it wasn't victory at any cost. Who can say? Good poll topic.

 

[rbasin]

Neither. Just shouldn't have been put into the positions he was in, although he could have been an able General-in-Chief, if that was all he did.

 

[ole]

I think he was neither.
He was a perfectionist. Had circumstances ever been entirely to his liking, the perfect setting for a text book charge, he would sure have accomplished great things. But unfortunately that day never came. The fear of doing something less than perfect made him do less than necessary. But not because of lack of courage. Or maybe a lack of courage to make himself arguable or criticizable. We here have a saying "Only he who does not work at all makes no mistakes". Little Mac did not want to make mistakes.

Edit: Nevertheless Lee held him in great esteem! When asked who he thought was the finest Union general, he said "McClellan, by all odds!" He would never have said that about a traitor or a coward!

2nd edit: Too bad there was no "None" option! As I did not vote now I can't see what others voted for. To see it I would have to vote for either option, which would put my curiosity above McClellan's reputation - naw, I can't do that!

Have never seen an analysis done better, Andrea.

 

[Henry Whitworth]

I think most here are too easy on him. I think his actions did come close to traitorous. I'm not talking about the two dimensional, tactical portrayal of him in which he was just "slow." He was contemptuous of his Commander in Chief, not just personally but in regard to the goals of the administration. He disregarded orders and used his position as head of the army in machinations against the government. His expectation that he be made commander in chief shows he was contemptuous of the Constitution as well. He was too popular and powerful to follow orders to the point where the President had to weigh the risk of coup in taking action against him.

Whether one likes the word "cowardly" or not, McClellan was calculatingly "risk averse" in protecting his own position. While this made him less effective in his military campaigns, it may have also been what prevented a disaster in his underhanded political campaign. I think that in a sense, the poll here could have been answered as "both of the above."

 

[MajGenl.Meade]

He skated on very thin ice when he purposely delayed troop returns from the Peninsula required (and ordered) to be sent expeditiously to strengthen Pope's army as it prepared to face Lee. Interestingly, I've wondered if his being a Democrat actually helped him avoid what should have been at the very least a court of inquiry, if not court martial for that. Lincoln was keen on keeping Democrats on board, certainly up until 1863 anyway.

I think if I'd been Lincoln, McClellan would have been in the stripey hole.

 

[ole]

The poll itself is useful. I didn't vote, but the thread it spawned has come up with some awesome responses.

 

[jackt62]

Several posts have noted McClellan's actions concerning Pope's army and his contempt for the Commander-in-Chief. It can probably be stated that had McClellan lived during the 20th Century, he would have been promptly relieved for insubordinate behavior by whoever the President (commander-in-chief) would have been. Best example is the firing of General MacArthur by President Truman during the Korean War, when MacArthur went too far in challenging the President and forcefully expressing his political convictions about fighting the Chinese/Koreans. (At least he wasn't a Russian; instead of being relieved by Stalin, he would have been lined up in front of a firing squad.)

 

[hanna260]

The poll itself is useful. I didn't vote, but the thread it spawned has come up with some awesome responses.

CWT at its best. This thread has me thinking hard. Thanks, guys!

 

[Al Murray]

I voted "neither"

 

[damYankee]

He was the right man in the wrong job. No coward and no traitor.

 

[Nat Turner]

Neither. Just shouldn't have been put into the positions he was in, although he could have been an able General-in-Chief, if that was all he did.

Should have been in charge of training the troops and sending them out into the field

 

[Nat Turner]

I think most here are too easy on him. I think his actions did come close to traitorous. I'm not talking about the two dimensional, tactical portrayal of him in which he was just "slow." He was contemptuous of his Commander in Chief, not just personally but in regard to the goals of the administration. He disregarded orders and used his position as head of the army in machinations against the government. His expectation that he be made commander in chief shows he was contemptuous of the Constitution as well. He was too popular and powerful to follow orders to the point where the President had to weigh the risk of coup in taking action against him.

Whether one likes the word "cowardly" or not, McClellan was calculatingly "risk averse" in protecting his own position. While this made him less effective in his military campaigns, it may have also been what prevented a disaster in his underhanded political campaign. I think that in a sense, the poll here could have been answered as "both of the above."

Great points...didn't he refer to Lincoln as the big ape or baboon? He is definitely my least favorite war general. Tecumseh is a fave....btw....reading a great book on w.t.s as we speak. McClellan reminds of an English professor I had. Would wear a scarf and a fedora to class thought he was way above the rest of the staff and kind of condescended to the students and staff alike reminded me of McClellan. Very uppity

 

[Nat Turner]

Excellent administrator (would have done a better job than Halleck as a proto chief of staff), hesitant and diffident, cautious and introspective, star crossed and snake bit unlucky (like Burnside, he was pitted against Lee and Jackson, instead of Bragg and Pemberton) sparing and caring of his men. In a different role he would have been an able tool in the toolbox to save the Union, but not as the field commander of the AOP.

Halleck and McClellan very similar imo....good point