McClellan "McClellan Letters"

[goffmc]

I recently read that McClellan sent a letter to Robert E. Lee about joining forces and going together to ask Lincoln for a truce, more or less.
I had never heard this before.
Do y'all know anything about these "McClellan," letters, if so, were they real?
How many of them were there, and did Lincoln ever find out?
McClellan better have counted his lucky stars that he had that Rizz and somehow got away with even the rumors of this kind of stuff...

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

I recently read that McClellan sent a letter to Robert E. Lee about joining forces and going together to ask Lincoln for a truce, more or less.
I had never heard this before.
Do y'all know anything about these "McClellan," letters, if so, were they real?
How many of them were there, and did Lincoln ever find out?
McClellan better have counted his lucky stars that he had that Rizz and somehow got away with even the rumors of this kind of stuff...

Never heard that - doesn't mean it didn't happen for there is a lot that I do not know.

 

[rpkennedy]

That's WAY too aggressive for McClellan to have actually done something. He complained in letters to his wife and friends but to actually send something to Robert E. Lee (whom McClellan did not respect as a commander) is a step too far, even for him.

Ryan

 

[goffmc]

It's weird, it was in the really recent Guelzo biography (of Lee). I have not been able to find info about it anywhere else...

 

[Northern Light]

It's weird, it was in the really recent Guelzo biography (of Lee). I have not been able to find info about it anywhere else...

Does it have a footnote?

 

[goffmc]

Does it have a footnote?

Naturally, no...
This is what he says:
"...McClellan has used the truce [at Antietam] to communicate by messenger with Lee, 'proposing an interview between Lee and himself for the purpose...of arranging to end the Civil War by uniting their forces to march upon Washington and compel peace.' It is hard to believe that Lee, so shy of political action, would ever have entertained a proposition (although Longstreet would later say that 'he was perfectly familiar with the McClellan letter incident')."

 

[goffmc]

That's WAY too aggressive for McClellan to have actually done something. He complained in letters to his wife and friends but to actually send something to Robert E. Lee (whom McClellan did not respect as a commander) is a step too far, even for him.

Ryan

McClellan...do an action...? Seems sus to me

 

[goffmc]

Never heard that - doesn't mean it didn't happen for there is a lot that I do not know.

Same!! Big newbie here. Just finished a Civil War survey course a few months ago, so still very much in my learning stage.

 

[Northern Light]

Naturally, no...
This is what he says:

No footnote, no credence. Very sloppy!!!

 

[goffmc]

No footnote, no credence. Very sloppy!!!

I am inclined to agree...especially with such an audacious claim. Not too crazy about this biography but I'm 2/3 of the way through, and I'm not a quitter

 

[Lubliner]

If General Lee did read a letter sent with that plan by McClellan, he would have either scoffed or believed it to be a trap.
Lubliner.

 

[Northern Light]

I am inclined to agree...especially with such an audacious claim. Not too crazy about this biography but I'm 2/3 of the way through, and I'm not a quitter

Uhmm... I didn' care for his Gettysburg book either, but I struggled through!

 

[JerryD]

Uhmm... I didn' care for his Gettysburg book either, but I struggled through!

Not a big Guelzo myself.

 

[RyanQ1864]

Here's a newspaper from 1904, with the same language Guelzo used. It's a claim from an editor, who supposedly had a letter from a different editor in Baltimore, who had supposedly had a number of conversations with James Longstreet, who supposedly claimed to have seen the letter from McClellan to Lee. In other words, Guelzo cited a rumor from 1904, in turn based on three degrees of separation of "He said he said." I'm not holding my breath that the letter was real. . .

 

[RedRover]

Mr. Guelzo's work on General Lee provides on p. 260-261 regarding the lack of action between the armies on Sept. 18, 1862... appears inclined to believe General McClellan was attempting to use the opportunity for some kind of Coup-de-etat:

The tale, for that's what it is. Was produced in various editorials of the early 1900s, like "The Independent" magazine in 1904, base on a second hand story:

The story was reproduced in papers across the country after it appeared in January, 1904. But the statement of Bishop Keiley is merely that General Cobb had presumed/speculated that Gen. McClellan communicated with Lee to combine against Washington. The general view being that perhaps some "conclusion to the war" was intended (a surrender). Lee, who did not consider his army beaten or surrounded, was not inclined to negotiate...

The newspaper editors added their own presumption that the recollection of General Cobb's reputed speculation was an evidence of McClellan's dishonorable and treasonous purpose in inquiring for communication with Lee during the daylong lull in the fighting of Sept. 18:

Given the claims were clumsily attributed to Bishop Keiley, and Gen. Longstreet, in the papers, even those who did not believe the story were careful to discountenance it in the most courteous manner possible...

Times Dispatch, Richmond, 1-19-1904.


Another popular anti-McClellan rumor, somewhat similar to the above, was that Lee sought for a truce to tend the wounded and bury the dead on the 18th, which McClellan was skunked into accepting... and thus Lee's army escaped across the Potomac...

This tale was often repeated. From Rossiter Johnson's "Fight for the Republic" 1917:

General Hancock stated, however, that there was no truce between the armies on the day after the fighting at Antietam, except among pickets, individually or by units; as various men and units collected wounded, etc.

Relative to the claim, however, of McClellan's seeking a truce/union with Lee's army to overthrow Lincoln, etc., about thirty years before it appeared in Bishop Keiley's recollections of conversation with Longstreet, Senator A.O. Bacon of Georgia in 1872 explained what he understood from General Howell Cobb regarding the purported note from McClellan to Lee during the lull in the action of Sept. 18... viz. that it was merely an informal inquiry for the horse of the late Gen. Phil Kearney killed in action a short time before... But that General Cobb himself wanted to employ the note as an opportunity to communicate with McClellan to seek a truce, which General Lee declined to do. Senator Bacon also claims to have conversed post-war with Judge Thomas M. Key, late of McClellan's staff, who claims McClellan too was approached by some of his officers seeking some cessation or truce in front if possible, which Key says McClellan also refused.

Morning Oregonian, Portland, 4-3-1872.



So anyways, was it General McClellan's intent to "end the war then and there" at Antietam?

Yes. He launched a frontal attack with the intent of crushing Lee's army if possible on the 17th of September.

McClellan himself states that he did not attack Lee on the 18th of September, given his exhausted army after the fourteen hour bloodletting of the 17th, to rest, reorganize, and prepare to renew the general action on the 19th with more certain success...

....

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Haven't read anything about this before. That of course doesn't mean that it didn't occur though.

To begin, as others above say, thought it would be uncharacteristic of McClellan to proactively make such a suggestion to an enemy commander.

Believe RedRover above nails it, by showing the entire context in which the original contentious quote appears in Allen Guezlo's work. The part to focus on is the statement that precedes the quote. That is;

...'In the years after the war, a more ominous rumor bubbled up from the bloody froth at Antietam - '...

When the original quote is read in context, the author is not making a bold unverified assertion, but he's referring to a rumor that sprung up.

The key word is 'rumor.'

It appears that this 'rumor' was a fanciful tale taken up by some enterprising and imaginative newspaper types many years after the war, who decided to publish it in 1904 because it would make good copy.

The published story is based on hearsay and rumor, with no substantive evidence.

Would relegate the claim of any such letter by McClellan to the 'Highly Doubtful' category.

 

[Jim in Wisconsin]

I might be willing to believe that Mac would write a letter to Lee suggesting a meeting, but not the part about joining forces. Even Mac couldn't have been that stupid. He would have been hung if caught.

 

[goffmc]

Mr. Guelzo's work on General Lee provides on p. 260-261 regarding the lack of action between the armies on Sept. 18, 1862... appears inclined to believe General McClellan was attempting to use the opportunity for some kind of Coup-de-etat:

View attachment 517834
View attachment 517835

The tale, for that's what it is. Was produced in various editorials of the early 1900s, like "The Independent" magazine in 1904, base on a second hand story:

View attachment 517836
View attachment 517837

The story was reproduced in papers across the country after it appeared in January, 1904. But the statement of Bishop Keiley is merely that General Cobb had presumed/speculated that Gen. McClellan communicated with Lee to combine against Washington. The general view being that perhaps some "conclusion to the war" was intended (a surrender). Lee, who did not consider his army beaten or surrounded, was not inclined to negotiate...


View attachment 517840

The newspaper editors added their own presumption that the recollection of General Cobb's reputed speculation was an evidence of McClellan's dishonorable and treasonous purpose in inquiring for communication with Lee during the daylong lull in the fighting of Sept. 18:

View attachment 517841


Given the claims were clumsily attributed to Bishop Keiley, and Gen. Longstreet, in the papers, even those who did not believe the story were careful to discountenance it in the most courteous manner possible...

View attachment 517839
Times Dispatch, Richmond, 1-19-1904.


Another popular anti-McClellan rumor, somewhat similar to the above, was that Lee sought for a truce to tend the wounded and bury the dead on the 18th, which McClellan was skunked into accepting... and thus Lee's army escaped across the Potomac...

View attachment 517842

This tale was often repeated. From Rossiter Johnson's "Fight for the Republic" 1917:

View attachment 517847

General Hancock stated, however, that there was no truce between the armies on the day after the fighting at Antietam, except among pickets, individually or by units; as various men and units collected wounded, etc.

View attachment 517850

Relative to the claim, however, of McClellan's seeking a truce/union with Lee's army to overthrow Lincoln, etc., about thirty years before it appeared in Bishop Keiley's recollections of conversation with Longstreet, Senator A.O. Bacon of Georgia in 1872 explained what he understood from General Howell Cobb regarding the purported note from McClellan to Lee during the lull in the action of Sept. 18... viz. that it was merely an informal inquiry for the horse of the late Gen. Phil Kearney killed in action a short time before... But that General Cobb himself wanted to employ the note as an opportunity to communicate with McClellan to seek a truce, which General Lee declined to do. Senator Bacon also claims to have conversed post-war with Judge Thomas M. Key, late of McClellan's staff, who claims McClellan too was approached by some of his officers seeking some cessation or truce in front if possible, which Key says McClellan also refused.

View attachment 517853
Morning Oregonian, Portland, 4-3-1872.



So anyways, was it General McClellan's intent to "end the war then and there" at Antietam?

Yes. He launched a frontal attack with the intent of crushing Lee's army if possible on the 17th of September.

McClellan himself states that he did not attack Lee on the 18th of September, given his exhausted army after the fourteen hour bloodletting of the 17th, to rest, reorganize, and prepare to renew the general action on the 19th with more certain success...

View attachment 517832
....
View attachment 517833

This is great, thank you!

 

[goffmc]

Haven't read anything about this before. That of course doesn't mean that it didn't occur though.

To begin, as others above say, thought it would be uncharacteristic of McClellan to proactively make such a suggestion to an enemy commander.

Believe RedRover above nails it, by showing the entire context in which the original contentious quote appears in Allen Guezlo's work. The part to focus on is the statement that precedes the quote. That is;

...'In the years after the war, a more ominous rumor bubbled up from the bloody froth at Antietam - '...

When the original quote is read in context, the author is not making a bold unverified assertion, but he's referring to a rumor that sprung up.

The key word is 'rumor.'

It appears that this 'rumor' was a fanciful tale taken up by some enterprising and imaginative newspaper types many years after the war, who decided to publish it in 1904 because it would make good copy.

The published story is based on hearsay and rumor, with no substantive evidence.

Would relegate the claim of any such letter by McClellan to the 'Highly Doubtful' category.

Thank you, I completely glazed over the context in my mind, and that is important.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Thank you, I completely glazed over the context in my mind, and that is important.

You're welcome.