McClellan McClellan would excel...today!

[leftyhunter]

I will stick with Gen. Thomas because he didn't loose battles and he was the "Rock of Chickumunga". Gen. Thomas also was per his biographer ( Benson Bobrick "Master of War" the life of Gen Geo Thomas pup by Simon and Schuster ) more willing to use USCT troops in combat then Grant and Sherman.is about what really happened and

On the other hand history is about what actually happened and unfortunately McCellan was the wrong man in the wrong position. Intrestingly enough the idea for the Penninsula campaign was advocated in a NY Times editorial shortly after the CW started I can't find the quote ust yet.
Leftyhunter

 

[Robtweb1]

I agree with the original post. I'm reading Eisenhower's book on the European campaign right now. He had a small army of people handling nothing but logistics and supply as well as analysts figuring out down to the gnat's butt every detail of the D-Day invasion. He started planning two years in advance. McClellan would indeed do well in today's military environment.

 

[Freddy]

I could care less about Little Mac being the darling of the 21st century military. He was able to create and train a fine Army of the Potomac. However, when he took that army up the James Peninsula he was not able to complete his objective. Grant would have crushed Lee on the Peninsula and at Antietam. Grant got things done while little Mac made excuses.

 

[Dugger]

I could care less about Little Mac being the darling of the 21st century military. He was able to create and train a fine Army of the Potomac. However, when he took that army up the James Peninsula he was not able to complete his objective. Grant would have crushed Lee on the Peninsula and at Antietam. Grant got things done while little Mac made excuses.

I have often wondered how Grant would have done in command of the Penninsula Campaign. I know one thing, he would not have freaked and folded his cards when Lee attacked him as did Mac. He would have stood his ground and fought it out. He would have seen Lee's attack as an opportunity to really get after him. That I am sure of....absolutly. Be a good topic for a thread. Maybe has been done already. No doubt.

Sure Mac had his positives (a few) but his El Foldo on the Penninsula ranks right up there with the most cowardly thing any American commander ever did that I can think of. His officers were incensed at his behavior. Lincoln should have sh#t canned him as soon as he learned he had pulled all the way back to Malvern Hill.....where by the way....Lee made a big error in attacking that position. The slaughter dealt out by Yankee artillery and rifle fire from that position presented Mac with a golden opportunity for a counter attack and he had the James River right there and the Navy to keep him supplied. He did no such thing of course.

 

[cash]

I will stick with Gen. Thomas because he didn't loose battles

I prefer tight battles also. When they're loose, there's no telling what's going to happen with them.

and he was the "Rock of Chickumunga".

Cowabunga, dude!

[Just having some fun. ]

Gen. Thomas also was per his biographer ( Benson Bobrick "Master of War" the life of Gen Geo Thomas pup by Simon and Schuster ) more willing to use USCT troops in combat then Grant and Sherman.is about what really happened and

Bobrick's book is hagiography. Brian Steel Wills has a new biography of Thomas out that sounds like it may be more balanced. Chris Einolf's is supposed to be pretty balanced.

On the other hand history is about what actually happened and unfortunately McCellan was the wrong man in the wrong position. Intrestingly enough the idea for the Penninsula campaign was advocated in a NY Times editorial shortly after the CW started I can't find the quote ust yet.
Leftyhunter

Who would have been the right man January - June of 1862?

 

[cash]

I could care less about Little Mac being the darling of the 21st century military. He was able to create and train a fine Army of the Potomac. However, when he took that army up the James Peninsula he was not able to complete his objective. Grant would have crushed Lee on the Peninsula and at Antietam. Grant got things done while little Mac made excuses.

Grant of 1864 would have. But what about Grant of 1862? Grant in 1862 was just surviving. He was still learning lessons, still developing as a commander. Would Grant in 1862 have been able to do what Mac did to put the Army of the Potomac together?

 

[Dugger]

Grant of 1864 would have. But what about Grant of 1862? Grant in 1862 was just surviving. He was still learning lessons, still developing as a commander. Would Grant in 1862 have been able to do what Mac did to put the Army of the Potomac together?

I find nothing in his record to indicate why he could not have had he choosen that route to Richmond and had he have been in charge in 1862. Grant had as bout much experience as Mac up to that point. Fought in the Mexican War and was a keen observer of the U.S. leadership in that war. Also Grant had a much keener mind that did Mac. His record as a commander and the victories he orchestrated during the war bear that out IMO. Mac was smart but he was not particularly wise...big difference.

 

[ole]

Grant of 1864 would have. But what about Grant of 1862? Grant in 1862 was just surviving. He was still learning lessons, still developing as a commander. Would Grant in 1862 have been able to do what Mac did to put the Army of the Potomac together?

He put together a fairly decent force for taking the forts and surviving Shiloh. As you said, he was still learning lessons McClellan seems to have ignored.

 

[cash]

I find nothing in his record to indicate why he could not have had he choosen that route to Richmond and had he have been in charge in 1862. Grant had as bout much experience as Mac up to that point. Fought in the Mexican War and was a keen observer of the U.S. leadership in that war. Also Grant had a much keener mind that did Mac. His record as a commander and the victories he orchestrated during the war bear that out IMO. Mac was smart but he was not particularly wise...big difference.

McClellan was one of the most experienced officers in the Union Army after Winfield Scott. Second in his class at West Point (as was Lee), member of Winfield Scott's staff in Mexico, took command of two batteries in Mexico after their commanders had been wounded, breveted to Captain in that war, translated a French manual on bayonet tactics, in charge of the Company of Engineers at West Point after the Mexican War, member of Dennis Hart Mahan's Napoleon Club, engineer, commissary, quartermaster, and second-in-command of the successful expedition to find the sources of the Red River, led a survey of the rivers and harbors on the Texas coast, led a survey in Washington Territory for possible routes of a transcontinental railroad (where he came into contact with Ulysses S. Grant, who was detailed to support the effort), led a secret survey of the Dominican Republic for an anchorage and coaling station for the U.S. Navy, investigated all the U.S. railroads at the personal request of the Secretary of War (Jefferson Davis) to collect data on construction methods and costs, member of a military commission sent to Europe to observe the Crimean War, permanent promotion to captain in the 1st Cavalry, wrote the Army's manual for cavalry in the field, designed the McClellan saddle which was used by the U.S. Army for the rest of the time there was a horse cavalry in the U.S. Army, Chief Engineer of the Illinois Central, promoted to Vice President, named President of the Ohio and Mississippi Railroad and saved that railroad from going out of business, and led a highly successful campaign in western Virginia, making it possible for that area to eventually become a separate state in the Union.

Grant's record didn't come close to that. In 1861, Grant had been surprised by a counterattack at Belmont and forced to retreat. He would be surprised by a counterattack at Fort Donelson, and he would be surprised by a confederate attack at Shiloh. Grant eventually became the best general in the war, but in 1862 he still had a great deal to learn. There's nothing in the record to indicate Grant would have even thought of the Peninsula route in order to be in that position.

 

[cash]

He put together a fairly decent force for taking the forts and surviving Shiloh. As you said, he was still learning lessons McClellan seems to have ignored.

Grant took over an army that hadn't been defeated the way the AotP had been defeated. There's a big difference.

 

[Dugger]

cash that is a great post but it still don't mean Mac could whup and crush his enemy when it came to nut-cuttin time...Grant could and did. Performance of both in the field in that war is on the record. Mac had experience in the Mexican War but Grant did also. Grant saw more direct combat in that War than did Mac. Mac observed the Crimean War...Grant did not. I guess what counts most is what is inside a man experience or not. Mac lacked whatever Grant had. That is obvious in my view. Another thing, Mac was the consumate blame shifter. Grant did not engage in that. Have you ever read Mac's letters to his wife? Made me shudder the first time I did. Disgusting. Craven.

 

[cash]

cash that is a great post but it still don't mean Mac could whup and crush his enemy when it came to nut-cuttin time...Grant could and did. Performance of both in the field in that war is on the record. Mac had experience in the Mexican War but Grant did also. Grant saw more direct combat in that War than did Mac. Mac observed the Crimean War...Grant did not. I guess what counts most is what is inside a man experience or not. Mac lacked whatever Grant had. That is obvious in my view. Another thing, Mac was the consumate blame shifter. Grant did not engage in that. Have you ever read Mac's letters to his wife? Made me shudder the first time I did. Disgusting. Craven.

Thanks, Doug. My point is that we're assuming Grant in 1862 would have been immediately successful against Lee, who in 1862 was already a master of defense. Grant of 1864 would certainly have done that, had he been in that position. Grant of 1862? That's a great deal more problematic. I've read several of Mac's letters. He poured his heart out to his wife, and we can actually see what he's thinking in those letters, we can see when he's furious at someone and we can see when he thinks someone is his friend.

 

[matthew mckeon]

The prewar resume didn't always cut it in the new challenges of mass warfare. Albert Sidney Johnson was impressive as all get out--yet he didn't actually do so well.

I think a larger point is the early leadership of the war--any war--are the ones who get creamed, reamed and drycleaned.
The guys who drift in in the 2nd quarter, having time to learn(if they can), turn out to be the war winning leadership.

 

[ole]

Grant took over an army that hadn't been defeated the way the AotP had been defeated. There's a big difference.

Mmmmm. Seems that Grant created an army. "Took over" doesn't compute.

 

[leftyhunter]

Hi Cash,
Tough question who would of been "Stan the Man" in 1862. I would have to go with Gen. Curtis because in 1862 he won Pea Ridge and was outnumbered to boot. On the other hand he had more and better artillery plus they were better trained.. Then we get into the old debate in any battle was the winning general that good or the looser was just that bad.
Also has noted above by the Brig Gen it's not all that easy to take a new raw army and raw officer corp and turn them into pros .

Leftyhunter

 

[ole]

At about the same time that McClellan was probing the defenses of Richmond, Grant was kicking butt along the Tennessee.

Could he have done the same thing with the AotP? Maybe. Maybe not. With western troops, he was in his element.

It remains that his accomplishments came to the attention of Lincoln who called him east to manage the demise of the AoNV. Which he did.

 

[leftyhunter]

Hi Cash,
Tough question who would of been "Stan the Man with the plan" in 1862. I would have to go with old Gen. Curtis because he got it done in 1862 at Pea Ridge and was outnumbered to boot. Keeping in mind Curtis had more and better artillery and his artillery troops were better trained. Then we have that old argument after every battle; was the winning general that good or was the looser that bad? Has mentioned above taking a raw army and officer corp and turning them to pros overnight ain't easy.

Leftyhunter

 

[ole]

I'm not privy to what Grant's army thought of him. It remains that those under his command almost universally fought very well. Was that Grant, or his army?

 

[ole]

Grant took over an army that hadn't been defeated the way the AotP had been defeated. There's a big difference.

Yes, there is. But Grant, from the get go, was go after them. He brought that quality with him in '64.

He was something else from the beginning of his career. One might say unusual. In another time, or another place, he might have been a fluke. But at that time, and at that place, something clicked.

Who'da thunk that a failure at almost everything would have led the Union armies to ultimate victories?

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

" Grant's whole character was a mystery to even himself- a combination of strengths and weakness not paralleled by any of whom I have read in Ancient or Modern History. " General Sherman, post war.