McClellan McClellan vs. Scott

[JerryD]

Reading Allan Rafuse's book, McClellan's War, and wanted to highlight Mac's efforts to oust Winfield Scott from office and secure his position for himself. From past readings I had known that Mac had often been rude to Scott, but I was not aware of just how despicable he was in his ruthless, and quite insubordinate, efforts.

What struck me as particularly pernicious was the fact that Scott had been Mac's mentor. Scott had been a patient of Mac's father and had known him since he was a child, and took a fatherly interest in promoting his career. In his rise through the ranks Mac held Scott in the highest esteem, and was rewarded with plum assignments that kept Mac away from frontier duty and allowed him to travel the world.

And yet, when Mac saw the chance, he turned on Scott almost as soon as he arrived in DC after First Bull Run. He insisted in communicating with the President and Cabinet members directly, bypassing the chain of command despite repeated complaints by Scott. When Scott asked for information at to troop strengths Mac ignored the requests. Mac was also lobbying for Scott's removal, telling Congressmen and Cabinet members that he would act more decisively, except that Scott was in his way. Scott complained to Lincoln that normally he would have an officer acting this way arrested, but he did not want to give comfort to the rebels by showing such divisions within the upper ranks of the US military.

It really is quite startling that Mac would turn so viciously on his former mentor and treat someone who had been so good to him with such contempt. I think this is just further evidence that while Mac was a decent general and administrator, perhaps even a good one, but he was a seriously flawed and damaged human being.

 

[Library Lady]

On some days, I'm amazed that gents on both sides could manage to take enough time off from scheming, plotting, conniving and backstabbing their own to actually go after the other side. I also wonder how long the war would have been if everybody had been a team player on their respective sides. Oh, and when my high school history teacher told me I should check out the Civil War if I was interested in military history primarily because of the people because there were some really "unusual" people involved, I had absolutely no idea. I really didn't!

 

[52ndFandS]

Reading Allan Rafuse's book, McClellan's War, and wanted to highlight Mac's efforts to oust Winfield Scott from office and secure his position for himself. From past readings I had known that Mac had often been rude to Scott, but I was not aware of just how despicable he was in his ruthless, and quite insubordinate, efforts.

What struck me as particularly pernicious was the fact that Scott had been Mac's mentor. Scott had been a patient of Mac's father and had known him since he was a child, and took a fatherly interest in promoting his career. In his rise through the ranks Mac held Scott in the highest esteem, and was rewarded with plum assignments that kept Mac away from frontier duty and allowed him to travel the world.

And yet, when Mac saw the chance, he turned on Scott almost as soon as he arrived in DC after First Bull Run. He insisted in communicating with the President and Cabinet members directly, bypassing the chain of command despite repeated complaints by Scott. When Scott asked for information at to troop strengths Mac ignored the requests. Mac was also lobbying for Scott's removal, telling Congressmen and Cabinet members that he would act more decisively, except that Scott was in his way. Scott complained to Lincoln that normally he would have an officer acting this way arrested, but he did not want to give comfort to the rebels by showing such divisions within the upper ranks of the US military.

It really is quite startling that Mac would turn so viciously on his former mentor and treat someone who had been so good to him with such contempt. I think this is just further evidence that while Mac was a decent general and administrator, perhaps even a good one, but he was a seriously flawed and damaged human being.

I'm not sure of the quote, which may be apocryphal, but from what I gather when Scott finally left he mentioned various reasons and included that Mac was right about his inability to mount a horse. But he said he had no respect for Mac. At all. That was pretty intense.

On some days, I'm amazed that gents on both sides could manage to take enough time off from scheming, plotting, conniving and backstabbing their own to actually go after the other side. I also wonder how long the war would have been if everybody had been a team player on their respective sides. Oh, and when my high school history teacher told me I should check out the Civil War if I was interested in military history primarily because of the people because there were some really "unusual" people involved, I had absolutely no idea. I really didn't!

When I first started reading about the war it was all tactics. Now I see it as personalities governing the tactics.

 

[JerryD]

I'm not sure of the quote, which may be apocryphal, but from what I gather when Scott finally left he mentioned various reasons and included that Mac was right about his inability to mount a horse. But he said he had no respect for Mac. At all. That was pretty intense.


When I first started reading about the war it was all tactics. Now I see it as personalities governing the tactics.

What was chilling to me is that after a meeting in which Mac had stabbed Scott in the back, Scott told Mac than when Mac came to DC he had Scott's friendship and respect. He still had his respect.

Then that night Mac recounted this to his wife in a letter, and bragged about how he stared Scott down as Scott said it and that he expects to have Scott's job in a few days. He seemed quite proud of how he had stabbed his mentor in the back and seems not to care that he turned a long time friend against him.

 

[52ndFandS]

What was chilling to me is that after a meeting in which Mac had stabbed Scott in the back, Scott told Mac than when Mac came to DC he had Scott's friendship and respect. He still had his respect.

Then that night Mac recounted this to his wife in a letter, and bragged about how he stared Scott down as Scott said it and that he expects to have Scott's job in a few days. He seemed quite proud of how he had stabbed his mentor in the back and seems not to care that he turned a long time friend against him.

You're right. It was respect and friendship.

And I can't help but agree about Mac's attitudes. It's very easy to talk about his wanting a host of an army, his inability to move, and when he did, as Longstreet described him, "Timid, vacilating & totally lacking in vigor."

Ambition is becoming for anyone. When the ambition turns into what Mac had going, and I can't analyze it as I'm not trained to, it becomes dangerous. His "We didn't lose, we merely failed to win" comment after Sharpsburg shows a very callous attitude. Perhaps that sort of thinking, that sort of battle, was why he wanted such a large army?

Lincoln had the patience of Job from what I can tell. If you called me 'the original gorilla' publically I'd not be pleased if in a position where respect was needed.

If said privately however you'd get a pretty good laugh.

 

[W Charles Young]

One has to remember that these men were human. They came with all the weaknesses that have always plagued mankind. Mac was ambitious as was Scott. The same could be said of people like Joe Johnston or Beauregard. It turned out that ambitious people who could control their ambitions while still working to get ahead, rose to the top. I feel Lee, Jackson, Grant, and Sherman among others meet that criteria. Just MHO.

 

[JerryD]

You're right. It was respect and friendship.

And I can't help but agree about Mac's attitudes. It's very easy to talk about his wanting a host of an army, his inability to move, and when he did, as Longstreet described him, "Timid, vacilating & totally lacking in vigor."

Ambition is becoming for anyone. When the ambition turns into what Mac had going, and I can't analyze it as I'm not trained to, it becomes dangerous. His "We didn't lose, we merely failed to win" comment after Sharpsburg shows a very callous attitude. Perhaps that sort of thinking, that sort of battle, was why he wanted such a large army?

Lincoln had the patience of Job from what I can tell. If you called me 'the original gorilla' publically I'd not be pleased if in a position where respect was needed.

If said privately however you'd get a pretty good laugh.

Mac was basically raised to believe he was better than most people. He had a very patrician attitude, and looked down his nose at the, in his opinion, vulgar Lincoln. He felt he was Lincoln's intellectual and social superior, and apparently was not shy about letting people know that.

 

[52ndFandS]

One has to remember that these men were human. They came with all the weaknesses that have always plagued mankind. Mac was ambitious as was Scott. The same could be said of people like Joe Johnston or Beauregard. It turned out that ambitious people who could control their ambitions while still working to get ahead, rose to the top. I feel Lee, Jackson, Grant, and Sherman among others meet that criteria. Just MHO.

Your HO absolutely correct. You make a very good point..Maybe it's too easy to pick favorites with so many years and so much history out there.

I find Jackson's ability to shut off emotion to be be kind of frightening. (Perhaps because I have that trait too. Oh boy, that made me sound crazy)

 

[JerryD]

One has to remember that these men were human. They came with all the weaknesses that have always plagued mankind. Mac was ambitious as was Scott. The same could be said of people like Joe Johnston or Beauregard. It turned out that ambitious people who could control their ambitions while still working to get ahead, rose to the top. I feel Lee, Jackson, Grant, and Sherman among others meet that criteria. Just MHO.

I generally agree, but there are degrees of ruthlessness. It would be horrible if Mac treated any superior officer this way. To do it to your mentor, though, and someone who was instrumental to advancing your career, just strikes me as way beyond the pale. Its almost pathological, if you ask me.

 

[52ndFandS]

I generally agree, but there are degrees of ruthlessness. It would be horrible if Mac treated any superior officer this way. To do it to your mentor, though, and someone who was instrumental to advancing your career, just strikes me as way beyond the pale. Its almost pathological, if you ask me.

I didn't want to be the one to say pathological, but yes, it does seem to be an apt explanation. Its a slippery slope unless you're just armchairing it.

I'd say it's pretty easy to look a generals like Bragg, Hood, Sherman, Grant, Sheridan and even Lee as people slightly out of sync with the norm.

Doesn't matter how wacky you may be but how effective you are. That's my measure. And Mac was at the very best average in the field.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Reading Allan Rafuse's book, McClellan's War, and wanted to highlight Mac's efforts to oust Winfield Scott from office and secure his position for himself. From past readings I had known that Mac had often been rude to Scott, but I was not aware of just how despicable he was in his ruthless, and quite insubordinate, efforts.

What struck me as particularly pernicious was the fact that Scott had been Mac's mentor. Scott had been a patient of Mac's father and had known him since he was a child, and took a fatherly interest in promoting his career. In his rise through the ranks Mac held Scott in the highest esteem, and was rewarded with plum assignments that kept Mac away from frontier duty and allowed him to travel the world.

And yet, when Mac saw the chance, he turned on Scott almost as soon as he arrived in DC after First Bull Run. He insisted in communicating with the President and Cabinet members directly, bypassing the chain of command despite repeated complaints by Scott. When Scott asked for information at to troop strengths Mac ignored the requests. Mac was also lobbying for Scott's removal, telling Congressmen and Cabinet members that he would act more decisively, except that Scott was in his way. Scott complained to Lincoln that normally he would have an officer acting this way arrested, but he did not want to give comfort to the rebels by showing such divisions within the upper ranks of the US military.

It really is quite startling that Mac would turn so viciously on his former mentor and treat someone who had been so good to him with such contempt. I think this is just further evidence that while Mac was a decent general and administrator, perhaps even a good one, but he was a seriously flawed and damaged human being.

Interesting indeed, JerryD.

 

[Nathan Towne]

***Ethan Rafuse (rather than "Allan"), but no worries.

Good book though. One which I like a lot.

 

[121st PA Vols]

They didn't call him Little Mac for nothings. And, any and all his accomplishments pale in comparison to Scott's genius in blockading Southern seaports, coming to be known as the Anaconda Plan, and his foresight recognizing the Mississippi River Valley was central to winning the war. Central.
He has still not received his rightful place in history for such profound impact on winning that war.

 

[W Charles Young]

They didn't call him Little Mac for nothings. And, any and all his accomplishments pale in comparison to Scott's genius in blockading Southern seaports, coming to be known as the Anaconda Plan, and his foresight recognizing the Mississippi River Valley was central to winning the war. Central.
He has still not received his rightful place in history for such profound impact on winning that war.

When Scott launched his campaign from Veracruz heading for Mexico City, the Duke of Wellington said, "Scott is lost!" When Scott captured Mexico City, Wellington called him, "the greatest living soldier." Quite the compliment given that Wellington was alive and had a very good resume.

 

[JeffBrooks]

I generally agree, but there are degrees of ruthlessness. It would be horrible if Mac treated any superior officer this way. To do it to your mentor, though, and someone who was instrumental to advancing your career, just strikes me as way beyond the pale. Its almost pathological, if you ask me.

Almost? I'd say it was pathological. McClellan was a raging narcissist.

 

[PatW]

It was a pattern with Little Mac. He had a history of open contempt for his superiors: Scott, Lincoln, and Stanton. And he was clueless. Lincoln took a gamble in putting Mac in charge after the debacle of 2nd Bull Run. Lincoln did this over the objections of most of the cabinet and political figures. Mac had to know this but he did not change.

 

[JerryD]

It was a pattern with Little Mac. He had a history of open contempt for his superiors: Scott, Lincoln, and Stanton. And he was clueless. Lincoln took a gamble in putting Mac in charge after the debacle of 2nd Bull Run. Lincoln did this over the objections of most of the cabinet and political figures. Mac had to know this but he did not change.

As I am reading the book I'm starting to wonder if McClellan suffered from some kind of mental disorder such as bipolar disorder or manic depression. His moods seem to swing from one extreme to another quite quickly. And when he turns negative it seems the viciousness of his language is really startling. Someone is not merely wrong...he is a vile traitor or some equally extreme label. And he swings from optimism of success to gloomily predicting disaster within hours. He just does not seem to conduct himself like a mentally healthy person would. Perhaps its just narcissism, which he obviously suffered from. But it seems like something more.

 

[Nathan Towne]

As I am reading the book I'm starting to wonder if McClellan suffered from some kind of mental disorder such as bipolar disorder or manic depression. His moods seem to swing from one extreme to another quite quickly. And when he turns negative it seems the viciousness of his language is really startling. Someone is not merely wrong...he is a vile traitor or some equally extreme label. And he swings from optimism of success to gloomily predicting disaster within hours. He just does not seem to conduct himself like a mentally healthy person would. Perhaps its just narcissism, which he obviously suffered from. But it seems like something more.

You see this a fair amount, for sure. It is clear as the Army pushes up the Peninsula, for instance. I have long noted this. You can certainly see the stress of the situation beginning to really get to him. How much it impacted his decision making is a different matter which I can't speak on, but just in terms of it being present, you can clearly see it. He was rightly seeing the Confederate Army in front of him rapidly grow, which it was (although not to the sizes which he believed) and operations becoming more and more challenging, in combination with a government and President whom he seemed to hope the best from, but feared the worst and difficulty in getting through to them.

Rafuse's book is a very good book. I wish that he would go back and expand on it as it is the best of the modern biographies on McClellan, in my view.

 

[JerryD]

You see this a fair amount, for sure. It is clear as the Army pushes up the Peninsula, for instance. I have long noted this. You can certainly see the stress of the situation beginning to really get to him. How much it impacted is decision making is a different matter, but just in terms of it being present, you can clear.y see it. He was rightly seeing the Confederate Army in front of him rapidly grow (although not to the sizes which he believed) and operations becoming more and more challenging, in combination with a government and President whom he seemed to hope the best from, but feared the worst and difficulty in getting through to them.

Rafuse's book is a very good book. I wish that he would go back and expand on it as it is the best of the modern biographies on McClellan, in my view.

I suspect that you are right, that he could not handle the stress he perceived he was under.

 

[Nathan Towne]

I suspect that you are right, that he could not handle the stress he perceived he was under.

Think of it like this. What can the United States bring to bear that the Confederacy simply cannot match?

First, they can't match the productive/industrial capacity of the United States, so you are going to massively utilize your artillery, of every grade, in order to make it so that they simply cannot permanently defend positions.

Second, for the same reason, they can't match you in engineering. Far more people are in railroads, construction, e.t.c. in the loyal States and the United States industrial capacity is far greater, far greater, so let's take advantage of it and use it against the Confederacy.

Third, yet again for the same reason, they can't compete in naval power, so let's continue to implement the blockade and then work up and down the rivers which cut into the Confederacy like knives and use them as supply lines and for the movement of men and material, when possible, which they then can't get at, and seize and deny them to the enemy in order to break up the Confederacy into smaller isolated segments and branch out from there. The engineering assets will then be brought to bear on the rail lines and that to bring them up to capacity in order to supply inland operations.

Fourth, bring the enormous advantage in manpower to bear against them.

In addition, this would all be coupled with a conciliatory policy regarding the southern civilian population, as well, but just focusing on the major military tenets, those were, at the simplest level, the basic fundamental principles/tenets of the overarching strategic campaign (the starting point) which was to be implemented going into '62. Over the first six months of the year, the United States Armies and Navies tore up the Confederacy pretty severely implementing that overarching plan.

However, that was slowing as the months went on, in part due to great and bold Confederate strategic decisions, in part due to issues with covering the supply lines into the interior (on land), e.t.c., but also, in McClellan's view, due to the government horribly and increasingly mismanaging that fourth tenet, the bringing to bear of and how it was to be brought to bear of the manpower of the United States utilized (and not without justification, even if McClellan made important mistakes himself, as well).

R.E. Lee obviously saw what was going on from a mile away. Here is his famous correspondence with Davis regarding the Army of the Potomac on June 5th outside of Richmond.