McClellan's autobiography

[JerryD]

Slogging my way through McClellan's memoir, and its rough. He is exceedingly verbose and repetitive, and his paranoia and ego is simply overbearing. He also goes into minutiae like no one I have ever seen. Wondering if anyone here has actually read through the whole bio and if so, if they thought it was worth the effort. About ready to throw in the towel on this one.

 

[Belfoured]

Slogging my way through McClellan's memoir, and its rough. He is exceedingly verbose and repetitive, and his paranoia and ego is simply overbearing. He also goes into minutiae like no one I have ever seen. Wondering if anyone here has actually read through the whole bio and if so, if they thought it was worth the effort. About ready to throw in the towel on this one.

I do not blame you (I assume you're referring to Own Story). I'm really not sure it's worth the effort - I slogged through it as part of a research project. He wrote most of it during the 1882-1883 period. (You'll see an internal reference to that every once in a great while). To me it was about as interesting as reading his official report dated August 4, 1863 - as in "not very". If you're looking for something more interesting - and can put aside the insufferable, constant "victim" mentality - I'd suggest his Civil War letters instead. At least they have a "you are there" feel. (The interesting sidelight is what/how his executor accessed letters after McClellan's death to supplement what he wrote).

 

[trice]

He had been working on a different version, but a house fire destroyed the manuscript and many of his papers.

 

[JerryD]

I do not blame you (I assume you're referring to Own Story). I'm really not sure it's worth the effort - I slogged through it as part of a research project. He wrote most of it during the 1882-1883 period. (You'll see an internal reference to that every once in a great while). To me it was about as interesting as reading his official report dated August 4, 1863 - as in "not very". If you're looking for something more interesting - and can put aside the insufferable, constant "victim" mentality - I'd suggest his Civil War letters instead. At least they have a "you are there" feel. (The interesting sidelight is what/how his executor accessed letters after McClellan's death to supplement what he wrote).

You nailed it with the victim mentality. Yes, its the Own Story put out after he died by his executor. I knew going in it was hodgepodge, but was not prepared for just how bad it would be.

I think I will end up skimming portions, but can't see me reading every page. He is pretty insufferable, though.

 

[Belfoured]

You nailed it with the victim mentality. Yes, its the Own Story put out after he died by his executor. I knew going in it was hodgepodge, but was not prepared for just how bad it would be.

I think I will end up skimming portions, but can't see me reading every page. He is pretty insufferable, though.

I'd say we agree on that. One of the myths is that his executor, Prime, wrote/re-wrote some of the text (sort of like Lew Wallace's wife finished his autobiography). There's no evidence of that. Prime did get involved in supplementing the text with copies of letters that he and McClellan's daughter may have had a hand in.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Slogging my way through McClellan's memoir, and its rough. He is exceedingly verbose and repetitive, and his paranoia and ego is simply overbearing. He also goes into minutiae like no one I have ever seen. Wondering if anyone here has actually read through the whole bio and if so, if they thought it was worth the effort. About ready to throw in the towel on this one.

Combine this with the letters Mac wrote to his wife and is it any wonder why he's largely detested by most modern historians? (Other than a small but dedicated fanbase.)

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Haven't read McClellan's memoir or any biography on him. Remember reading somewhere that McClellan's egotism was notable and that his allegiances and ties were often questioned, in relation to the Northern war effort.

Apparently, however, he was a very good organizer of the Army.

Despite all the personal criticisms of him, though, he was also very popular with his men.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Remember reading somewhere that McClellan's egotism was notable and that his allegiances and ties were often questioned, in relation to the Northern war effort.

McClellan was one of several 'limited war' Democrats (Buell was another) who got sidelined because thei ideas of how the war should be waged were, by the end of 1862, out of step with how the war was going to be fought. Radical Republicans considered them all with suspicion, though I don't think Lincoln doubted the sincerity of their ideas.

Despite all the personal criticisms of him, though, he was also very popular with his men.

A certain amount of popularity is necessary because men often wont fight well for leaders they hate. But I question whether popularity is really a meaningful attribute for anything except winning popularity contests.

McClellan might be likened to a certain president who got reelected with 60% of the vote and won 49 of 50 states, but when people later learned what he said behind closed doors his popularity took a nosedive.

Little Mac did have talents, organization being foremost among them.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

McClellan was one of several 'limited war' Democrats (Buell was another) who got sidelined because thei ideas of how the war should be waged were, by the end of 1862, out of step with how the war was going to be fought. Radical Republicans considered them all with suspicion, though I don't think Lincoln doubted the sincerity of their ideas.



A certain amount of popularity is necessary because men often wont fight well for leaders they hate. But I question whether popularity is really a meaningful attribute for anything except winning popularity contests.

McClellan might be likened to a certain president who got reelected with 60% of the vote and won 49 of 50 states, but when people later learned what he said behind closed doors his popularity took a nosedive.

Little Mac did have talents, organization being foremost among them.

Thanks for the extra information.

On his noted egotism. I was wondering how the supposedly egotistical McClellan could be so widely liked by his subordinates (highly egotistical individuals are often disliked, for a variety of reasons).

 

[Belfoured]

Thanks for the extra information.

On his noted egotism. I was wondering how the supposedly egotistical McClellan could be so widely liked by his subordinates (highly egotistical individuals are often disliked, for a variety of reasons).

During McClellan's tenure the Army of the Potomac's officer corps at the higher levels was dominated by a conservative, West Point-trained group that were largely sympathetic to McClellan's political views. This included some of his personal favorites like Franklin and Porter.

 

[67th Tigers]

Thanks for the extra information.

On his noted egotism. I was wondering how the supposedly egotistical McClellan could be so widely liked by his subordinates (highly egotistical individuals are often disliked, for a variety of reasons).

For the obvious reason that he was highly professional, pushed power down to his subordinates and expected them to use it, and protected them from Washington and the politicians. McClellan never threw anyone under the bus, unlike Pope, Burnside, Hooker, Meade or Grant, but assumed responsibility. Even when he knew his subordinates had performed poorly, and was privately scathing of them (Sumner after Williamsburg, Franklin and Smith after the Seven Days, Burnside after Antietam) he never made a big deal of it.

Egotism simply means taking pride in ones accomplishments. McClellan's accomplishments were actually pretty great. It does not imply self-centredness, and indeed, McClellan was very selfless and effusive with praise for the accomplishments of his subordinates. To McClellan, he wanted competence from his subordinates, and nothing more.

 

[JerryD]

For the obvious reason that he was highly professional, pushed power down to his subordinates and expected them to use it, and protected them from Washington and the politicians. McClellan never threw anyone under the bus, unlike Pope, Burnside, Hooker, Meade or Grant, but assumed responsibility. Even when he knew his subordinates had performed poorly, and was privately scathing of them (Sumner after Williamsburg, Franklin and Smith after the Seven Days, Burnside after Antietam) he never made a big deal of it.

Egotism simply means taking pride in ones accomplishments. McClellan's accomplishments were actually pretty great. It does not imply self-centredness, and indeed, McClellan was very selfless and effusive with praise for the accomplishments of his subordinates. To McClellan, he wanted competence from his subordinates, and nothing more.

My memory is that he did throw Gen. Charles Stone under the bus with respect to Ball's Bluff, when he ordered him not to disclose the orders McClellan gave that led to the debacle, thus severely crippling any defense he could make.

As for his egotism, I can only assume you have not read his memoir. It drips from every page. and ego is much more than taking pride in one's accomplishments, it also means having an inflated opinion of one's accomplishments.

 

[treebie2000]

per Dictionary.com:

"e·go·tism
/ˈēɡəˌtizəm/

noun
noun: egotism

1. the practice of talking and thinking about oneself excessively because of an undue sense of self-importance."
   
   

 

[Belfoured]

For the obvious reason that he was highly professional, pushed power down to his subordinates and expected them to use it, and protected them from Washington and the politicians. McClellan never threw anyone under the bus, unlike Pope, Burnside, Hooker, Meade or Grant, but assumed responsibility. Even when he knew his subordinates had performed poorly, and was privately scathing of them (Sumner after Williamsburg, Franklin and Smith after the Seven Days, Burnside after Antietam) he never made a big deal of it.

Egotism simply means taking pride in ones accomplishments. McClellan's accomplishments were actually pretty great. It does not imply self-centredness, and indeed, McClellan was very selfless and effusive with praise for the accomplishments of his subordinates. To McClellan, he wanted competence from his subordinates, and nothing more.

Even Ellen never wrote anything this glowing about her faultless husband.

According to you, McClellan "protected them from Washington and the politicians" and was only "privately scathing of them (Sumner after Williamsburg ...) [and] he never made a big deal of it."

Let's start with McClellan's May 8, 1862 letter to Stanton about Williamsburg:

"I ask permission to reorganize the Army Corps. The present arrangement is very bad and it has almost resulted in a disastrous defeat. I request full authority to relieve from duty with these army commanders of corps or divisions who prove themselves incompetent."

Who on earth could he have been referring to? Or is the letter to Stanton just "private" and not throwing anybody "under the bus"?

 

[67th Tigers]

per Dictionary.com:

"e·go·tism
/ˈēɡəˌtizəm/

noun
noun: egotism

1. the practice of talking and thinking about oneself excessively because of an undue sense of self-importance."
   

It's an autobiography. What else should he be talking about?

 

[Belfoured]

It's an autobiography. What else should he be talking about?

I think the poster might be referring to the sort of difference that exists between (1) the grievance-filled content of McClellan's introduction to Own Story about the "abuse" and "misrepresentations" heaped on him even though "twice at least, I saved the capital" and (2) the content of Grant's introduction to his Memoirs - "I have entered upon the task with the sincere desire to avoid doing injustice to any one, whether on the National or Confederate side, other than the unavoidable injustice of not making mention often where special mention is due." There's something about George ...

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Let's start with McClellan's May 8, 1862 letter to Stanton about Williamsburg:

"I ask permission to reorganize the Army Corps. The present arrangement is very bad and it has almost resulted in a disastrous defeat. I request full authority to relieve from duty with these army commanders of corps or divisions who prove themselves incompetent."

Who on earth could he have been referring to? Or is the letter to Stanton just "private" and not throwing anybody "under the bus"?

Technically he didn't name names. One might assume he meant Sumner because of Williamsburg but he could have easily meant someone else. The way it's worded implies multiple generals.

If you think some of your subordinates are incompetent what is the way to ask to fire or demote them without throwing them under the bus?

 

[trice]

McClellan never threw anyone under the bus, unlike Pope, Burnside, Hooker, Meade or Grant, but assumed responsibility.

I doubt John Pope would agree.

 

[Belfoured]

Technically he didn't name names. One might assume he meant Sumner because of Williamsburg but he could have easily meant someone else. The way it's worded implies multiple generals.

If you think some of your subordinates are incompetent what is the way to ask to fire or demote them without throwing them under the bus?

"If you think some of your subordinates are incompetent what is the way to ask to fire or demote them without throwing them under the bus"

There isn't. I'm not the one who represented that McClellan never threw Sumner - or anyone else - "under the bus" but kept it all "private". And not naming anybody may work if there are 15,000 possible candidates. He had three corps commanders at the time. One (Sumner) had overall command on the field. The other two - Heintzelman and Keyes - were present. And yeah, their division commanders were present. Let's agree that Stanton was unlikely to be confused about whoever on earth McClellan could have been referring to. Of course, there also were follow-up communications to the administration regarding "the corps structure" if Stanton, et al did have any remaining doubts about who was kissing the bus tires.

This is just Sumner. I can find more but I'm not interested in spending the time right now.

 

[Belfoured]

I doubt John Pope would agree.

Nor some others.