McClellan McClellan....hmmmm

[Nat Turner]

To all....great responses...if you can think of anything that would make the thread better please let me know

 

[Nat Turner]

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

Anytime!

 

[Nat Turner]

Sorry about the angle of the picture...but reading both right now. Check them out if you can.

 

[rbasin]

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.

Better than Halleck? No.

To be fair to Mac, he did have to deal with Lincoln, Stanton, Congress, etc. in the early stages of the war.

 

[Eagle eye]

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

-------------------------
Yes both were very similar but Hallack understood that Lincoln was the President & Commander in Cheif of the Armed Forces & McClellan never understood that. Hallack would try to carry out the President's orders & may have disagreed with Lincoln at times but once he saw that Lincoln had made a decision Hallack would "get the ball rolling" irregardless how Hallack felt. McClellan would have neve been able to do that. His ego wouldn't allow that.

 

[Jamieva]

He loved the men too much. His comments about his forces that were laying on the battlefield at 2nd Manassas shows that in a letter to his wife.

I was also struck how many times he referenced "i have to save the country" instead of just doing his job of defeating Johnston/Lee. No it was Lincoln's job to save the country, his job was to defeat the enemy militarily.

McClellan's first false step was not realizing that the ANV was his target, not Richmond. I think he fully believed if he could take Richmond before Johnston fell back, that they would just give up. Not likely. Grant got it...Lee is the target not Richmond

 

[67th Tigers]

He loved the men too much. His comments about his forces that were laying on the battlefield at 2nd Manassas shows that in a letter to his wife.

Which letter? Ah, his 5th September on inspecting what remains of his army:

"It makes my heart bleed to see the poor, shattered remnants of my noble Army of the Potomac, poor fellows! and to see how they love me even now. I hear them calling out to me as I ride among them, " George, don't leave us again! " " They sha'n't take you away from us again," etc., etc.

I can hardly restrain myself when I see how fearfully they are reduced in numbers, and realize how many of them lie unburied on the field of battle, where their lives were uselessly sacrificed. It is the most terrible trial I ever experienced. Truly, God is trying me in the fire. ."

The sentiment expressed is sorrow for the "useless sacrifice", and worry for the reduced numbers. Two days later (7th) after he's got the men back in ranks he's much happier.

I was also struck how many times he referenced "i have to save the country" instead of just doing his job of defeating Johnston/Lee. No it was Lincoln's job to save the country, his job was to defeat the enemy militarily.

Saving Washington twice from being overrun I think qualifies. Lincoln's oratory won't stop 100,000 reb soldiers.

McClellan's first false step was not realizing that the ANV was his target, not Richmond. I think he fully believed if he could take Richmond before Johnston fell back, that they would just give up. Not likely. Grant got it...Lee is the target not Richmond

McClellan saw Richmond as a means to an end - a way to destroy the enemy army.

 

[Rebforever]

I believe McClellan was good for the South. I believe he was waiting for some kind of a compromise before too much fighting.

 

[peteanddelmar]

Haha....I just don't really see why he was sooooo timid. He is my least favorite character from the war. Other than Booth

My least favorite runs between Davis and Halleck. I would have wanted to personally fight McClellan and take him down,(LOL) a peg or two. I have met egos like him before and they always make me furious and fighting mad with their arrogance.
Too bad I am not a UFC fighter. I could have made the world a better place by adjusting some egos. ( I did successfully twice in high school) But, in the adult world I was no match for these schemers and they could cut me to pieces with lies and faint praise.
I have contempt for his contempt.

 

[PatW]

Little Mac took a loose assemblage of volunteer units. He worked hard at winnowing out incompetent regimental officers, at seeing that troops were drilled up to standards, at getting the army equipped and trained. He was a wonderful morale booster for the troops. McClellan was also great a boosting morale. He built a splendid army.

But when it came to the prospect of fighting, McClellan came up short. McClellan wanted every buckle shined, every bit of leather cleaned and oiled, every knapsack full before anything moved. As others pointed out, McClellan wanted perfection. Also as others pointed out, McClellan hated risk and wanted a sure thing.

In this McClellan sinned against the gods of war. In war, almost nothing is more valuable than time. McClellan thought he had all the time in the world and probably than some. He was unlike Grant, Lee and Stonewall all of whom were willing to move fast, take big risks and hit hard. When it came down to it, McClellan just was not suited as a combat general.

Given the costs of combat and the human wreckage that comes as a result, I can sympathize with McClellan. When I think of splendid units that were wrecked in a day of hard fighting, I can see how any man might shrink from paying the price of ordering them in. It is certainly not something that I would want to do.

So McClellan was not a great combat general. Most people are not. Combat commanders are rare people indeed. Not being a good fighting general is no disgrace.

 

[67th Tigers]

Also as others pointed out, McClellan hated risk and wanted a sure thing.

McClellan was reading the mood of the country - even minor errors (like Ball's Bluff) were blown out of proportion and severely undermined Northern morale.

It's worth remembering that from November '61 to July '62 McClellan wore 3 stars on his shoulders and was, at least in theory, commanding the whole of the US Army, not just the Army of the Potomac. His concerns until he went to the Peninsula were for the whole continent, and operations such as TW Sherman's SC expedition, Burnside's NC expedition, Butler's New Orleans expedition, Halleck's (Grant's) expedition against Forts Henry and Donelson, Buell's expedition into East Tennessee, Bank's expedition into the Shenandoah etc. were all undertaken at his behest.

After he went on the expedition against Richmond his overall command was suspended (bit not revoked, he remained the 3 star) these expeditions started to fall apart because there was no-one guiding and co-ordinating them any more. On the Peninsula and before Richmond we can find a cataloge of minor errors by many, none of which should have mattered if there was still a guiding hand over the whole US Army. The most obvious being Lincoln deciding to remove the assault boats along with the amphibious assault force for McClellan's planned, and extremely bold, operations on the Peninsula.

In this McClellan sinned against the gods of war. In war, almost nothing is more valuable than time.

There is plenty more valuable than time. Time is meaningless, although tempo has some application (for example striking rapidly at two places preventing the enemy from concentrating against both in detail). McClellan's operations as GinC were a model of the nine principles the US currently holds to. His operations as a mere army commander were also pretty consistent with them, and it's a great shame that Lincoln lost his nerve after the Seven Days and ordered Halleck to make a retreat.

"[T]he worst that could be said of the Peninsula campaign was that thus far it had not been successful. To make it a failure was reserved for the agency of General Halleck." -Emory Upton

 

[mphstteach]

I have always detested McClellan and haven't changed my mind much on the topic, but there is a short feature in the winter edition of the Civil War Monitor from Mark Grimsley that begs us to take another look at little Mac. I will admit, the article did not change my opinion much, but it was still an interesting read.

 

[peteanddelmar]

I have always detested McClellan and haven't changed my mind much on the topic, but there is a short feature in the winter edition of the Civil War Monitor from Mark Grimsley that begs us to take another look at little Mac. I will admit, the article did not change my opinion much, but it was still an interesting read.

Armies need good organizers but not as CinC. He would have never tolerated being the top organizer and let someone fight with his army. But that is the position he should have held.

 

[67th Tigers]

Armies need good organizers but not as CinC. He would have never tolerated being the top organizer and let someone fight with his army. But that is the position he should have held.

What is the commander in chiefs role if not this? As CinC he did the best job of any of the four generals to wear 3 stars (Scott, himself, Halleck and Grant) or worse the period where Stanton tried commanding directly, and subordinate commanders clearly understood their role in the wider continental battlespace and pushed through operations towards the grand design.

Criticism is usually centred on his "second hat" as commander of the Division of the Potomac (later downsized to the Army of the Potomac), precisely because it's so difficult to criticise his combinations elsewhere.

However, as you say he preferred the field to Washington, although he found commanding such a large army frustrating because it left him quite removed from some of the action and having to trust in subordinates who often let him down. Remember he was prettymuch a "special forces" type in modern terms, most happy sneaking behind Mexican lines with a knife and revolver at the behest of his boss, Capt Robert E. Lee.....

 

[cash]

McClellan was an excellent general, and in places he was even brilliant. Many of the criticisms he gets are, in my view, unfair. For example, he gets criticized for the Harrison's Landing letter, but he in fact had received Lincoln's permission to present his political views of how the war should be conducted. He gets criticized for holding Lincoln in contempt, but with only a couple of exceptions he was punctiliously courteous to Lincoln. He was neither a coward nor a traitor. He had a conservative viewpoint and believed that his army was what stood between the nation and disaster. He acted accordingly, believing that if his army was lost the nation was lost. Ultimately he failed, though it wasn't all his fault. In my opinion he should have been more aggressive, but I can understand that viewing his army as standing between the nation and disaster he constrained himself from being what he regarded as too aggressive.

 

[peteanddelmar]

What is the commander in chiefs role if not this? As CinC he did the best job of any of the four generals to wear 3 stars (Scott, himself, Halleck and Grant) or worse the period where Stanton tried commanding directly, and subordinate commanders clearly understood their role in the wider continental battlespace and pushed through operations towards the grand design.

Criticism is usually centred on his "second hat" as commander of the Division of the Potomac (later downsized to the Army of the Potomac), precisely because it's so difficult to criticise his combinations elsewhere.

However, as you say he preferred the field to Washington, although he found commanding such a large army frustrating because it left him quite removed from some of the action and having to trust in subordinates who often let him down. Remember he was prettymuch a "special forces" type in modern terms, most happy sneaking behind Mexican lines with a knife and revolver at the behest of his boss, Capt Robert E. Lee.....

Really? I will have to read more about his early days, I guess. I took for only a dandy without much worth in the field. This is good information....
Maybe the Administration sabatoged him as some have said, and he would have won much quicker if they had only let him go....IDK., need to read up and freshen my memory.
Thanks.

 

[ole]

McClellan was, in many ways, an excellent General. But. In many ways, he failed. His objectives didn't match the objectives of the CnC.

 

[peteanddelmar]

McClellan was an excellent general, and in places he was even brilliant. Many of the criticisms he gets are, in my view, unfair. For example, he gets criticized for the Harrison's Landing letter, but he in fact had received Lincoln's permission to present his political views of how the war should be conducted. He gets criticized for holding Lincoln in contempt, but with only a couple of exceptions he was punctiliously courteous to Lincoln. He was neither a coward nor a traitor. He had a conservative viewpoint and believed that his army was what stood between the nation and disaster. He acted accordingly, believing that if his army was lost the nation was lost. Ultimately he failed, though it wasn't all his fault. In my opinion he should have been more aggressive, but I can understand that viewing his army as standing between the nation and disaster he constrained himself from being what he regarded as too aggressive.

Yeah, I've got to read more about him. I may have only general points made, usually at his expense. And, for decades, anything he did regarding Lincoln, would have been viewed through a microscope lens. If he ever faulted Linconln, than alone would have ended any good press, in a larger sense.

 

[civilken]

I don't know about traitor. But if I was the president and you call me a guerrilla I might just have you shot.

 

[67th Tigers]

I don't know about traitor. But if I was the president and you call me a guerrilla I might just have you shot.

What would justify that? Do we shoot people for making disparaging remarks about the President?