McClellan Re-evaluating George McClellan

[Nathan Towne]

Ah, I know what Dan is referring to, since it has come up before, and it's a bit mangled.

On the 17th, Hamilton reported that he believed Wynn's Mill was abandoned, and he could occupy the enemy position with one brigade. Heintzelman sent this report up to GHQ, who sent and engineer officer to conduct a recce. Lt Wagner was sent, but one of the "withdrawn" guns fired and killed him. Hamilton was simply wrong.

Yeah, I more meant regarding evidence that this was behind McClellan looking at relieving Hamilton. How sources are used is obviously extremely important.

 

[Belfoured]

"Relief for cause" is a mid-20th century invention that did not exist in 1862, as we have discussed many times.

Per Heintzelman's diary, McKeever had told Heintzelman that Hamilton's captious behaviour would force him to arrest Hamilton. Whilst Heintzelman was ill, McKeever forwarded Hamilton's letters to Heintzelman on to McClellan's HQ. This prompted McClellan to have him removed.

As we have discussed many times, you're wrong. That's why - when in another thread I raised Humphreys' relief of Hays from division command on April 6, 1865 - you came up with the absurd theory that Humphreys had Hays arrested for violating Article 46 of the Articles of War. Article 46 provides "Any sentinel who shall be found sleeping upon his post, or shall leave it before he shall be regularly relieved, shall suffer death, or such other punishment as shall be inflicted by the sentence of a court martial." Had Humphreys brought charges against Hays on that basis or even alluded to Article 46 he would have been laughed out of the service. Had anyone tried arresting Hamilton for "captious behavior", the same result. That's why McClellan never specified any charges and acted within his authority to relieve for cause. Whether cause existed is far from clear in the exchange.

 

[Belfoured]

So other than the AAJ letter, there's no evidence of what might have happened?

What we have is Hamilton's April 13 letter to the AAJ McKeever responding to one apparently received from McKeever earlier that day. There was a disagreement over how promptly Hamilton had reported an incident involving his division that occurred late on April 12 to III Corps. Hamilton's response is at OR XI Part 1 at 362. There's a reason nobody was "arrested" and no charges were ever mentioned by McClellan in his order or in his response to Lincoln, let alone brought. As noted, he had the authority to relieve - the question is whether it was warranted in this case.

 

[Nathan Towne]

What we have is Hamilton's April 13 letter to the AAJ McKeever responding to one apparently received from McKeever earlier that day. There was a disagreement over how promptly Hamilton had reported an incident involving his division that occurred late on April 12 to III Corps. Hamilton's response is at OR XI Part 1 at 362. There's a reason nobody was "arrested" and no charges were ever mentioned by McClellan in his order or in his response to Lincoln, let alone brought. As noted, he had the authority to relieve - the question is whether it was warranted in this case.

Alright, please allow me to take a step back for one second here. Let me ask you a quick question. Do you believe that as an Army commander one had the carte blanche authority to relieve whomever they so chose to from their Army if they deemed to have a sufficient reason for doing so? This was something of a delicate issue in a whole bunch of cases which come immediately to mind.

 

[52ndFandS]

This thread has made me reevaluate Mac. But like second guessing a math peoplblem you know is right I still have come to the same conclusion.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Ah, I know what Dan is referring to, since it has come up before, and it's a bit mangled.

On the 17th, Hamilton reported that he believed Wynn's Mill was abandoned, and he could occupy the enemy position with one brigade. Heintzelman sent this report up to GHQ, who sent and engineer officer to conduct a recce. Lt Wagner was sent, but one of the "withdrawn" guns fired and killed him. Hamilton was simply wrong.

No, that's incorrect but it's been discussed before.

 

[DanSBHawk]

What we have is Hamilton's April 13 letter to the AAJ McKeever responding to one apparently received from McKeever earlier that day. There was a disagreement over how promptly Hamilton had reported an incident involving his division that occurred late on April 12 to III Corps. Hamilton's response is at OR XI Part 1 at 362. There's a reason nobody was "arrested" and no charges were ever mentioned by McClellan in his order or in his response to Lincoln, let alone brought. As noted, he had the authority to relieve - the question is whether it was warranted in this case.

I read Hamilton's response. It just seems very innocuous. Hard to believe McClellan would make an issue out of that.

 

[Belfoured]

Alright, please allow me to take a step back for one second here. Let me ask you a quick question. Do you believe that as an Army commander one had the carte blanche authority to relieve whomever they so chose to from their Army? This was something of a delicate issue in a whole bunch of cases which come immediately to mind.

It is reserved for "cause", meaning something more than simply arbitrary but something less than an offense which must be addressed as laid out in the Articles of War. Now let me ask you a question - if a CO determines that the actions/omissions of a subordinate are impeding the operations of his force on campaign/in a battle, do you think he has no authority to replace the subordinate unless he can squeeze it into the Articles of War?

 

[JerryD]

Was the term "captious behavior" the actual term used? I have to admit, that's a new one on me, but it appears to mean:

"(adjective) Marked by a disposition to find and point out trivial faults."

That does not strike me as an offense you could be arrested for. Although, to be honest, I guess some officers were arrested during the war for less. Still does not make it valid, though.

 

[Nathan Towne]

It is reserved for "cause", meaning something more than simply arbitrary but something less than an offense which must be addressed as laid out in the Articles of War. Now let me ask you a question - if a CO determines that the actions/omissions of a subordinate are impeding the operations of his force on campaign/in a battle, do you think he has no authority to replace the subordinate unless he can squeeze it into the Articles of War?

Yes, that is all right. The issue is that the President could come to a different determination regarding the validity of that cause. See, for instance, Burnside's predicament. There are many such examples like that.

 

[Nathan Towne]

What we have is Hamilton's April 13 letter to the AAJ McKeever responding to one apparently received from McKeever earlier that day. There was a disagreement over how promptly Hamilton had reported an incident involving his division that occurred late on April 12 to III Corps. Hamilton's response is at OR XI Part 1 at 362. There's a reason nobody was "arrested" and no charges were ever mentioned by McClellan in his order or in his response to Lincoln, let alone brought. As noted, he had the authority to relieve - the question is whether it was warranted in this case.

I read Hamilton's response. It just seems very innocuous. Hard to believe McClellan would make an issue out of that.

That is true, but McClellan did not offer an explanation himself which I am aware of. If you know of one, I would stand to be corrected on that.

 

[Belfoured]

Was the term "captious behavior" the actual term used? I have to admit, that's a new one on me, but it appears to mean:

"(adjective) Marked by a disposition to find and point out trivial faults."

That does not strike me as an offense you could be arrested for. Although, to be honest, I guess some officers were arrested during the war for less. Still does not make it valid, though.

I agree that it doesn't fit the grounds for charges and an arrest. The issue is whether what happened was "cause" for Hamilton's relief. McClellan had that authority if "cause" existed. Hamilton's recourse to challenge it if he wanted to was to request a court of inquiry which could "examine into the nature of any transaction, accusation, or imputation against any officer or soldier". McClellan technically did not have to order one of requested. As we know, Hamilton transferred west.

 

[JerryD]

I agree that it doesn't fit the grounds for charges and an arrest. The issue is whether what happened was "cause" for Hamilton's relief. McClellan had that authority if "cause" existed. Hamilton's recourse to challenge it if he wanted to was to request a court of inquiry which could "examine into the nature of any transaction, accusation, or imputation against any officer or soldier". McClellan technically did not have to order one of requested. As we know, Hamilton transferred west.

I have nothing to add to this discussion, as I have no knowledge of the facts behind it. Just struck me as an odd reason to arrest someone.

 

[Belfoured]

That is true, but McClellan did not offer an explanation himself which I am aware of. If you know of one, I would stand to be corrected on that.

McClellan's response to Lincoln on May 22 was that Hamilton was "not fit to command a division" without any specifics.

 

[Belfoured]

I have nothing to add to this discussion, as I have no knowledge of the facts behind it. Just struck me as an odd reason to arrest someone.

Which is why it didn't happen.

 

[Belfoured]

Yes, that is all right. The issue is that the President could come to a different determination regarding the validity of that cause. See, for instance, Burnside's predicament. There are many such examples like that.

Well, at least they avoided the public relations/inter service mess that resulted when Holland Smith USMC relieved Ralph Smith USA on Saipan in 1944 because the first Smith didn't think the 27th Division was moving fast/aggressively enough. The Buckner Board court of inquiry concluded that Holland Smith had the authority but that the grounds didn't exist.

 

[Nathan Towne]

McClellan's response to Lincoln on May 22 was that Hamilton was "not fit to command a division" without any specifics.

Yeah, that was my understanding and was the only official correspondence on it from McClellan which I was aware of.

 

[Belfoured]

I read Hamilton's response. It just seems very innocuous. Hard to believe McClellan would make an issue out of that.

Unless there's something we've never seen from McClellan, it seems he jumped at the opportunity. As I pointed out, the most he stated was that Hamilton was not "fit" for division command. That's pretty vague.

 

[Belfoured]

Yeah, that was my understanding and was the only official correspondence on it from McClellan which I was aware of.

He had the opportunity to spell it out convincingly after Lincoln pointed out to him the political stir it had caused in Washington. If Hamilton had disobeyed orders, as was suggested earlier, that was "low hanging fruit" to defend the action after it was challenged. McClellan didn't take the opportunity.

 

[67th Tigers]

He had the opportunity to spell it out convincingly after Lincoln pointed out to him the political stir it had caused in Washington. If Hamilton had disobeyed orders, as was suggested earlier, that was "low hanging fruit" to defend the action after it was challenged. McClellan didn't take the opportunity.

This is a non-sequitur. Lincoln asked McClellan to restore Hamilton to his former division, and McClellan invited Lincoln to make it an order. The latter declined to do so, and thus there is no need to "defend" an action.

I read Hamilton's response. It just seems very innocuous. Hard to believe McClellan would make an issue out of that.

Yes, and I linked to it. What Hamilton wrote, and when, does not match what you claim.