McClellan "McClellan Letters"

[Library Lady]

Being a fan of alternative history, I'm kind of liking this as a plot for a novel. At some point early in the war didn't McClellan say something to the effect that if he were to have some small success he could become dictator? And didn't Lincoln say that if McClellan would get it in gear and do something, he'd be willing to run that risk? Well, here you go . . .

 

[nc native]

Being a fan of alternative history, I'm kind of liking this as a plot for a novel. At some point early in the war didn't McClellan say something to the effect that if he were to have some small success he could become dictator? And didn't Lincoln say that if McClellan would get it in gear and do something, he'd be willing to run that risk? Well, here you go . . .

I believe that the quote attributed to Lincoln running the risk of appointing a dictator to command the Army of the Potomac comes from a letter to General Hooker when he was made commander in January 1863. This would make a good plot for an alternative history novel. McClellan disposes Lincoln in a military coup and becomes the leader of the United States. Realizing that his new government is on shaky ground from within he negotiates a peace with the South that recognizes the independence of the Confederate states much like what happened when Lenin took power in Russia after the czar was disposed and ended the war with Germany.

 

[Northern Light]

While McClennan might have been waging his own private war with Lincoln and Stanton, I cannot believe that he would ever commit treason, which would have potentially put his handsome and vain neck in a noose!

 

[JerryD]

Just highlighting that the 1904 Independent article posted by Red Rover above specifically says that McClellan was proposing to "restore the Union". Not sure this would constitute "treason", since that was kind of his job.

Without seeing the actual letter its hard to imagine what Mac was actually proposing, but apparently it was convoluted enough that Lee wanted someone else to read it and tell him what he thought Mac was suggesting. So it does not appear to be as straightforward as marching on Washington to dictate peace terms to Lincoln.

 

[Northern Light]

Just highlighting that the 1904 Independent article posted by Red Rover above specifically says that McClellan was proposing to "restore the Union". Not sure this would constitute "treason", since that was kind of his job.

Without seeing the actual letter its hard to imagine what Mac was actually proposing, but apparently it was convoluted enough that Lee wanted someone else to read it and tell him what he thought Mac was suggesting. So it does not appear to be as straightforward as marching on Washington to dictate peace terms to Lincoln.

"Restoring the Union" against the specific policies of the government would constitute treason, especially if you are taking the national army with you.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." according to the Constitution.
I realize that this is open to interpretation, but it seems to me that the suggestion of a peace with the enemy without Federal government sanction might be construed as treason.

 

[JerryD]

"Restoring the Union" against the specific policies of the government would constitute treason, especially if you are taking the national army with you.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." according to the Constitution.
I realize that this is open to interpretation, but it seems to me that the suggestion of a peace with the enemy without Federal government sanction might be construed as treason.

Again, without reading the letter, you are making an awfully huge leap about Mac's intentions. But if his goal was to restore the Union, then arguably he was doing his job. I dont see any implication that Mac was going impose this peace over the objections of Lincoln, other than marching the armies to DC. But its a huge leap to assume this necessarily would mean imposing a peace over Lincoln's objections.

And think what you will about McClellan, but I don't think there is any hint in any of his actions that he would take such a drastic step. Sure, he talked a big game in his letters to his wife. But looking at his actual actions, I think it does a great disservice to him to just assume that he was planning to commit treason.

 

[Northern Light]

Again, without reading the letter, you are making an awfully huge leap about Mac's intentions. But if his goal was to restore the Union, then arguably he was doing his job. I dont see any implication that Mac was going impose this peace over the objections of Lincoln, other than marching the armies to DC. But its a huge leap to assume this necessarily would mean imposing a peace over Lincoln's objections.

And think what you will about McClellan, but I don't think there is any hint in any of his actions that he would take such a drastic step. Sure, he talked a big game in his letters to his wife. But looking at his actual actions, I think it does a great disservice to him to just assume that he was planning to commit treason.

I thought that was what I said before. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

 

[Jantzen64]

I think we have to be very cautious about such rumors and innuendo. I am not a Little Mac fan, but that is a big leap. And yet, you can see how such rumors get started. The Harrison's Landing Letter confirms that he was NOT a supporter of any policy that led to emancipation, even as a war measure. And the John Key affair, while not tied directly to McClellan, involved the brother of his Judge Advocate General, and Key did not deny saying those things about the "game." And let's not forget that Lincoln cashiered McClellan around this time (though he never indicated it was because of this reason). While I remain skeptical of the alleged sending the letter across the lines, there is enough in the historical record to make one want to investigate more . . . .

 

[Virginia Dave]

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

What Civil War survey course did you take?

 

[67th Tigers]

I think we have to be very cautious about such rumors and innuendo. I am not a Little Mac fan, but that is a big leap. And yet, you can see how such rumors get started. The Harrison's Landing Letter confirms that he was NOT a supporter of any policy that led to emancipation, even as a war measure.

By suggesting the Federal government work manumission by purchase in the northern states to show the southern states they'll be paid for their lost investment?

 

[JerryD]

By suggesting the Federal government work manumission by purchase in the northern states to show the southern states they'll be paid for their lost investment?

That's a bit of a leap. His letter only called for limited use of compensation. He did suggest it could be done in a whole state, but clearly the implication was NOT that he would use forced compensation for the entire CSA.

 

[67th Tigers]

That's a bit of a leap. His letter only called for limited use of compensation. He did suggest it could be done in a whole state, but clearly the implication was NOT that he would use forced compensation for the entire CSA.

The logic was that many rebels were afraid of losing their investment, but if the Federal government would buy out the slaves, they objections would reduced and the backing for the rebellion decreased.

 

[goffmc]

What Civil War survey course did you take?

I'm working on my second degree (first degree is a music degree). It's an online program at King University in Bristol, TN. The classes are just six weeks long, this one was just called "Civil War." Very short and sweet but left me w/ an interest in the topic.

 

[wausaubob]

Longstreet's statement is ambiguous. He provided no details.

 

[Jantzen64]

By suggesting the Federal government work manumission by purchase in the northern states to show the southern states they'll be paid for their lost investment?

You're missing the point. Emancipation does not equal compensated manumission. More importantly, the cautious, conservative approach raised by Little Mac as a possible strategy (note he doesn't actually advocate for it) was intended - by your own admission - to persuade the rebels, effectively delegating the power of decision to them. It is exactly that type of passivity and conservative-ness that makes rumors about his supposed letter to Lee more believable.

 

[67th Tigers]

I'm pretty sure the slaves are still freed...

 

[Jim in Wisconsin]

An officer in the U.S. army is expected to obey orders and fight our country's enemies. Politics and policies are not their job.
A different "Mac" got in trouble for that in Korea.

 

[Saphroneth]

An officer in the U.S. army is expected to obey orders and fight our country's enemies. Politics and policies are not their job.
A different "Mac" got in trouble for that in Korea.

At the time, and this is often missed, there wasn't really a coherent policy for how to deal with slaves. There were forwards and backwards steps taking place. Similarly there wasn't really a coherent policy on how to deal with the inhabitants of the seceding states - were they enemy combatants, or were they legally speaking citizens of the US? Or both? How was such a thing to be handled? There was no coherent answer.

McClellan had earlier sought (and got) permission to share his views on military affairs, and the subjects he touches on in the letter do indeed touch on military affairs; he's arguing for there to be a policy.

Remember, as of the Harrisons Landing letter McClellan is the ranking officer of the US Army. If he is not allowed to suggest to the President his private opinions on policies that are related to the military sphere of affairs, nobody is - and I don't think that's really fair.



MacArthur, for his part, publicly criticized the Administration - something that McClellan didn't do. The Harrisons Landing letter was handed to Lincoln in person, and privately - in keeping with Lincoln's wishes for secrecy.

 

[Nathan Towne]

At the time, and this is often missed, there wasn't really a coherent policy for how to deal with slaves. There were forwards and backwards steps taking place. Similarly there wasn't really a coherent policy on how to deal with the inhabitants of the seceding states - were they enemy combatants, or were they legally speaking citizens of the US? Or both? How was such a thing to be handled? There was no coherent answer.

McClellan had earlier sought (and got) permission to share his views on military affairs, and the subjects he touches on in the letter do indeed touch on military affairs; he's arguing for there to be a policy.

Remember, as of the Harrisons Landing letter McClellan is the ranking officer of the US Army. If he is not allowed to suggest to the President his private opinions on policies that are related to the military sphere of affairs, nobody is - and I don't think that's really fair.



MacArthur, for his part, publicly criticized the Administration - something that McClellan didn't do. The Harrisons Landing letter was handed to Lincoln in person, and privately - in keeping with Lincoln's wishes for secrecy.

I hold the same view as @Saphroneth does regarding the legitimacy of McClellan offering his views as to war policy with the Administration in the Harrison's Landing letter. He had to implement war policy and he was wholly within his rights to provide his views/perspective on it.

Whether you agree with its contents is another matter, of course.

 

[wausaubob]

At the time, and this is often missed, there wasn't really a coherent policy for how to deal with slaves. There were forwards and backwards steps taking place. Similarly there wasn't really a coherent policy on how to deal with the inhabitants of the seceding states - were they enemy combatants, or were they legally speaking citizens of the US? Or both? How was such a thing to be handled? There was no coherent answer.

McClellan had earlier sought (and got) permission to share his views on military affairs, and the subjects he touches on in the letter do indeed touch on military affairs; he's arguing for there to be a policy.

Remember, as of the Harrisons Landing letter McClellan is the ranking officer of the US Army. If he is not allowed to suggest to the President his private opinions on policies that are related to the military sphere of affairs, nobody is - and I don't think that's really fair.



MacArthur, for his part, publicly criticized the Administration - something that McClellan didn't do. The Harrisons Landing letter was handed to Lincoln in person, and privately - in keeping with Lincoln's wishes for secrecy.

That seems mostly accurate. President Lincoln achieved his purpose. He recognized that it was not possible for Generals Buell and McClellan to fight the for expanded policy goals that Lincoln was about to announce. The escalation that many people anticipated if the war lasted for any considerable period was going to happen.