The "snub"

PvtClewell

Corporal
Joined
May 20, 2008
CC, you raised my curiosity about this (for the past few days now) in the "What was McClellan's Problem with Lincoln" thread when you wrote:

Same is true for the ‘source’ of the infamous Lincoln snub story too (went straight upstairs to bed, etc., etc.,). Doesn't mean this didn't happen, but it does bring into question the ability of the source (there's only one source for this story and it's uncorroborated by everyone else present) to accurately relate this story. I can't help but think that some of this stuff is fairly sloppy research (although some of it might be innocent mistakes, oversights, etc.). To that end, not suggesting that there’s a conspiracy or anything like that – it’s just the condition of some of these sources really should be carefully considered. Not all source material is of the same quality. You gotta ask yourself at the end of the day, if it was anybody else but McClellan...would people tolerate this kind slippery handling of source material? (That's just a rhetorical question...doesn't need to be answered...just pondering.)
So, CC, I'm a little confused and maybe I'm not quite grasping what you are apparently suggesting — that historians, in some cases, are basically sloppy either in their research or in their interpretation of their research?

If that's the case, then where do you draw the line separating the historians we can trust from those we can't?

Is current Civil War scholarship suggesting (I don't know) the snub might not have happened?

One of my favorite authors is Stephen Sears, and in his 1988 biography of McClellan 'George B. McClellan: The Young Napolean', (which I consider still to be the definitive biography of McClellan) he relates the snub story. The passage is heavily footnoted, citing among other items McClellan's Own Story (p. 152); the SamuelP. Heintzelman diary, Nov. 11, 1861, Library of Congress; John Hay's Diaries and Letters (Nov. 13, 1861, pp 34-35), and William Howard Russell's My Diary (Oct. 9, 1861). Russell, a correspondent for the London Times, apparently saw a previous snub of Lincoln by McClellan a month earlier at Mac's HQ. This particular incident seems to corroborate the nature of the more famous second one, and goes directly to illustrate Mac's character and arrogance.

To me, the sources (there are several others in the footnote) appear to be valid. Why should I doubt them? And should I doubt all sources? All historians? And if so, then who or what should I believe? Why even have history if the best we can do is doubt its very veracity?

Not fussing. Just curious as to what you think.

Go Phillies, by the way.
 
Hi PvtClewell -

Just wanted to let you know I saw your post. It's not convenient right now for me to respond more to my liking...so give me a day or so and I'll get back to you and I'll explain what I meant.


(Go Phillies!!)







CC
 
PvtClewell –

I toyed with a couple ways to answer your question and have settled, now, on a simpler format…at least to start the conversation (if we end up having one). Also - ended up having to do two posts - egads! - sorry! :frown:

So, here goes:

(1) “So, CC, I'm a little confused and maybe I'm not quite grasping what you are apparently suggesting — that historians, in some cases, are basically sloppy either in their research or in their interpretation of their research?” [PvtClewell/#1]

Short answer: Yes – with the emphasis on ‘some’.

Long answer – with some explanation:

What I’m going to do with this question is refer back to the original context:

I'm sure the issue isn't quite as simple as "McClellan had 100,000 men Lee had ~93,000 and McClellan thought he was outnumbered two to one.", but the arguments against that leave me wondering why supporting McClellan is so appealing.” [Elennsar/#35 (Pamc’s Mac Thread)]

Because a lot of the things he's accused of seem to have no backing in the primary record. Not that McClellan was perfect, but if we try and approach with a blank slate he comes out very favourably.” [67th Tigers/#106 (Pamc’s Mac Thread]

Because a lot of the things he's accused of seem to have no backing in the primary record.” [67thTigers/#106]

That’s the single biggest problem (so far) I’ve discovered in my recent exploration of ‘All Things McClellan’ (if you will). Most particularly, the so-called ‘letters’. A letter is usually considered a primary source (which has a certain amount of weight and prestige…compared to other source materials). Having discovered something about these so-called letters, I can’t see any other rearrangement of source material that would not, in fact, relegate what would normally be a primary source to a secondary source – which is basically a ‘some guy told me’ source (not always inaccurate...but comes with doubt – and that’s the point). What it does or doesn’t do to McClellan’s reputation is one thing…” [CChartreux/#111 (Pamc’s Mac Thread]


These passages above are my understanding of this particular piece of the much larger discussion on McClellan in Pamc153PA’s thread and it’s mainly 67th Tigers comment (‘because a lot of things he’s accused of seem to have no backing in the primary record’) towards which my post #111 was addressed. I go on to provide an example of the ‘letters’ that McClellan wrote his wife. I think the word ‘letter’ has a clear and distinct meaning (a reasonable, common-vernacular understanding is to assume that when the phrase ‘in a letter McClellan wrote his wife…’ that the document actually is a letter). It’s my personal belief, as expressed above, that the condition of these ‘letters’ should cause them to not be understood as a primary source. Since these ‘letters’ are actually extracts, copies, and notes of what once were original letters; in that condition, they are actually closer to a secondary source (not the primary record).

While Sears himself explains in his chapter entitled ‘Epilogue: A Memoir for History’ (George B. McClellan; The Young Napoleon (1988)), the exact nature of the ‘McClellan letters to his wife,’ the phrasing ‘in a letter McClellan wrote his wife’ is nearly ubiquitous throughout McClellan literature (and, indeed, probably Civil War literature at large). The real point here is that it leaves the reader with the impression that there really is a letter in which McClellan said this or that. In my opinion (just mine – not saying people have to agree), to allow that impression to exist is to deprive readers of information whereby they can decide for themselves the appropriate confidence level to weigh the source.

My own view on this is not that writers have deliberately left it out (on purpose); but, rather, over time, the phrase ‘in McClellan’s letter to his wife’ came into common usage to the extent that we really think McClellan said this or that (as a fact)…when about the best we can really do is arrive somewhere short of 100% - which, in my view, puts it into the category of probability he said it (however high/medium/low that probability might be).

Now…for me…I’ll confess this may very well have just been ignorance on my part; perhaps I should have already known the condition of these ‘letters’. I didn’t until just recently. But when I think about how many times I’ve encountered the phrase, it never occurred to me that they weren’t really letters. Nevertheless, I think the common adoption of the phrase (without explanation; except Sears), has served to perpetuate what might be a common understanding (or, maybe a not so common understanding) that there really are actual letters McClellan wrote his wife. While I can (and do) take responsibility for my own ignorance in it; I do think it’s a tad sloppy of writers (in general) to not be more clear about it.


(2) “If that's the case, then where do you draw the line separating the historians we can trust from those we can't?” [PvtClewell/#1]

This has been a real eye-opening learning experience for me (and probably a good one). The sort of ‘duh’ aspect here is basically ‘be careful what you read’. I already knew this before; I think I just got exposed to another aspect of that. So, for me, it’s a matter of holding opinions lightly (both mine and those of the authors I read); questioning the context of the source (not just whether it’s true or false); and maybe more actively seeing if there’s another side of the story. I have a feeling it’s not going to end up being a ‘who can we trust and who can’t we’ – I think it will ultimately be more along the lines of recognizing relative strengths and weaknesses in various authors. Probably an obvious sort of thing…but there it is.


(3) “Is current Civil War scholarship suggesting (I don't know) the snub might not have happened?” [PvtClewell/#1]

No. As I mentioned in your quoted passage of my post:

Same is true for the ‘source’ of the infamous Lincoln snub story too (went straight upstairs to bed, etc., etc.,). Doesn't mean this didn't happen, but it does bring into question the ability of the source (there's only one source for this story and it's uncorroborated by everyone else present) to accurately relate this story.” [CChartreux/#111 (Pamc’s Mac Thread)]

Sears doesn’t use the particular source I’m going to provide you below…and it may have been that it wasn’t available at the time he wrote his book (1988), or he was simply unaware of it. He cites Hay’s diary from the time period, and even acknowledges that Hay admitted to bias towards McClellan:

It is claimed, too, that John Hay’s account is suspect in view of the bias against GBM he later admitted to when writing his Lincoln biography. Hay’s diary, however, reveals no evidence of such bias at this time.” [Stephen Sears; George B McClellan; The Young Napoleon; 1988; footnote ‘10’; Chapter 9, ‘The Battle for Richmond’.]

But, it’s not that diary (Hay’s) that’s possibly problematic. It’s this:

"The most conspicuous victim of their condemnation was George B. McClellan, whom Hay eviscerated in his chapters on the Army of the Potomac. To Nicolay, Hay confided, "I have toiled and labored through ten chapters over him (McC). I think I have left the impression of his mutinous imbecility, and I have done it in a perfectly courteous manner.... It is of the utmost moment that we should seem fair to him, while we are destroying him."13 In discussing the failure of McClellan to come to Pope's assistance at Second Bull Run, Hay declared: "McClellan['s] ... conduct from beginning to end can only be condemned."14 At the close of those chapters Hay bluntly concluded that "the candid historian of the future will have no sentiment but wonder when he comes to tell the story of his long mismanagement of a great, brave, and devoted army, backed by a Government which strained every nerve to support him, and by a people whose fiery zeal would have made him the idol of the nation if he had given them the successes which their sacrifices deserved, and which were a dozen times within his grasp."15 (This judgment, it should be noted, resembles that of McClellan's most recent biographer, Stephen W. Sears, who contended that his subject was "inarguably the worst" general to lead the Army of the Potomac.)"16[Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association; Nicolay and Hay: Court Historians; Michael Burlingame; Vol. 19, No.1; Winter 1998]


http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/19.1/burlingame.html#FOOT16

13. Hay to Nicolay, Cleveland, Aug. 10, 1885, HPBU.
14. John G. Nicolay and John Hay, Abraham Lincoln: A History, 10 vols. (New York: Century, 1890), 6:24.
15. Ibid., 6:193.
16. Stephen W. Sears, George B. McClellan: The Young Napoleon (New York: Tick-nor and Fields, 1988), xii.

[Note: I’ve removed the hyperlinks to the footnotes and just provided them here.]


My problem with the ‘snub story’ (this particular one) is not whether it happened or not – but how it’s used. Do we – today – really understand what happened? Sears admits that Lincoln was not offended by the behavior (Lincoln went back to McClellan’s house the very next evening, I think). Rowland explains that neither Seward or Lincoln mentioned it, only Hay (which makes Hay the only source for the story with no known corroboration of Lincoln or Seward). Again, it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. For me, it’s a question of how the story is related (especially since Lincoln himself didn’t seem to care).

I think, more importantly, that if the above quoted material from the Lincoln Association is true (that would be another question I would have), it pretty much shows that Hay set out to deliberately malign McClellan. Deliberately maligning someone doesn’t make the story true or false, but it does, IMHO, bring about a pause in considering how accurate Hay related the story and, for me, we’re back to a level of confidence.


[continued]
 
[continued from above]….


(4) “To me, the sources (there are several others in the footnote) appear to be valid. Why should I doubt them? And should I doubt all sources? All historians? And if so, then who or what should I believe? Why even have history if the best we can do is doubt its very veracity?[PvtClewell/#1]

I think I’ve answered most of this above (#2), but I’m going to post the full quote and footnote you’re referring to here:

His famous snub of the president was a direct consequence of this attitude. On November 13 Lincoln, Seward, and John Hay paid an evening call on the general-in-chief and were told that he was attending an officer’s wedding. They has been waiting in his parlor an hour when McClellan returned, passed by the parlor door, and went upstairs, ignoring his orderly’s announcement that the president and secretary of state were waiting to see him. After half an hour the orderly was sent upstairs to remind the general of his visitors; he returned to say that McClellan had gone to bed. Hay termed it “unparalleled insolence” and “a portent of evil to come.” (It was not an isolated incident. A month or so earlier, William Howard Russell of the Times of London noted in his diary a scene at headquarters when the president was sent away by the announcement that General McClellan had gone to bed and would see no one.) Lincoln took no apparent offense, and indeed he returned the next evening for a discussion of future operations but the contempt inherent in the snub could hardly have escaped him.10

10. McClellan’s Own Story, p. 152; GBM to his wife, c. Oct 11, [Oct. 31] Nov 17, 1861, Papers (C-7:63/D-10:72; Samuel P. Heintzelman diary, Nov. 11, 1861, LC; Hay, Nov. 13, 1861, Diaries and Letters, pp. 34-35; Russell, Oct 9, 1861, My Diary, p. 205; Virginia Fox diary, Nov. 14, 1861; Blair Family Papers, LC. It has been suggested, regarding his snub of Lincoln, that GBM was the worse for drink after the wedding he attended, yet nothing on record indicates he ever drank to excess; in any event, a simple message to the president that he was “indisposed” would have covered such a situation. It is claimed, too, that John Hay’s account is suspect in view of the bias against GBM he later admitted to when writing his Lincoln biography. Hay’s diary, however, reveals no evidence of such bias at this time. For these assertions see: J. G. Randall, Lincoln the President (New York: Dodd, Mead, 1967, II, pp. 68, 72.” [Stephen Sears; George B McClellan; The Young Napoleon; 1988; footnote ‘10’; Chapter 9, ‘The Battle for Richmond’.]


It’s my understanding after reviewing this that Sears is not citing the incident itself (he partly is). The additional sources, however, I’m not clear why he’s including them unless he’s also citing ‘it was not an isolated incident’… or ‘the contempt inherent in the snub could have hardly escaped him’.

I wasn’t able to locate a McClellan letter that referred to the ‘snub’ (but Sears cites McClellan’s letter (to his wife) October 11th, 31st, and November 17th). I might be completely misunderstanding the cite, but the incident took place on November 13th (so I’m not sure how letters from October 11th and 31st relate to it). The use of Heintzelman, Virginia Fox, and the Blair papers…I’m not sure how they relate to the incident (they weren’t there). In the Russell cite, I assume he’s referring to Russell’s diary entry of a previous incident in which McClellan would not see the president.

To this end, I would propose that the cite itself does not contain ‘several others in the footnote’ specifically related to the ‘snub’ story. I would surmise that they are provided to account for other incidents of McClellan’s behavior – but not this one (except the Hay source; who was the only one present out of all the other names included in the cite). So, for me, I wouldn’t read the footnote as authenticating the story itself, but rather providing one source for the ‘snub’ story and the rest for the ‘not isolated incidents’. So, I wouldn’t doubt them, but I’d attempt to be clear on what, exactly, those other cites are used for. Off the top of my head, I don’t know; so, I can’t really speak to them.


Okay. Well, this is probably a much bigger answer than you bargained for (I apologize for the length). Just wanted to try and explain where I’m coming from with this. I think in McClellan’s case – because he is a controversial figure – it’s really important to get some sense of the source material and what condition it’s in. That’s probably true of all of it (not just McClellan); but, a figure like McClellan probably requires extra care. It’s not my intent to impugn historians, writers, etc., it’s more a realization on my part that source material is a funny thing.

Hope that helps. Thanks for taking the time to read all this muckety-muck.





CC
 
Deliberately maligning someone doesn’t make the story true or false, but it does, IMHO, bring about a pause in considering how accurate Hay related the story and, for me, we’re back to a level of confidence

Exactly CC. When an author exhibits such a partisan bias that it borders on the pathological I raise a red flag.
 
Thanks for your response CC.

Clearly, it's easy to overthink this stuff.

And while it's true that sometimes things aren't what they might appear to be, there are those times, I think, when they are exactly what they appear to be.

To my satisfaction, there is enough historical evidence passed down through the years — and without denial — to illustrate that McClellan is exactly what history (and historians) have painted him to be: arrogant, condescending, elitist and unimaginative on the battlefield.
 
PvtClewell -


"To my satisfaction,..." [PvtClewell/#6]

'To your satisfaction' is really all that matters in terms of how you (personally) form your own opinion about McClellan (which I completely respect).

For me, however, being desirous of wanting to understand and consider the foundation of source material on McClellan does not constitute 'overthinking'.

Like you, I want to be 'satisfied' with what I'm being told (whether it's by writers that simply want to make a buck or writers that really are interested in what you can and cannot prove about McClellan).

You're quite right in intuiting that I do have a tendency to 'overthink' and I fully acknowledge and accept that (been told that before!). That being said, however, does not mean that the byproduct of 'overthinking' is not without merit or worth consideration.

I guess - more to the point - it's easy to sit and think McClellan is simply a jerk...end of story. It's not so easy to contend that...'yeah, he might have been a jerk, but there were other factors in that whole analyses that don't simply lay the blame at McClellan's feet for everything that went wrong' (e.g., in '62).

For me, personally, the 'whole story' of McClellan is just simply more complex than we've been led to believe. For that reason, yes - I'd like to know exactly the nature of the source material behind McClellan (and I don't think that's 'overthinking' - I think that's just curiosity). I'm not sure that in 2009 (with the sound-byte mentality that we're likely to have today whether we want to or not) that we all couldn't benefit from a more comprehensive understanding of McClellan...even if we, ultimately, disagree with him.

To that end, examining the nature of the actual 'source material' that's used to draw for us (the reader) a composite of McClellan (or any other controversial figure), demands a more inquisitive position that really wants to know what's behind this 'McClellan thing'.

Simply suggesting that McClellan is arrogant or an elitist (while, perhaps, being true) doesn't spell out for us the whole story.

I think there's more than just that. Hence, I wonder about the foundational source material used to provide for us (the readers and amateur historians of the Civil War) this picture of McClellan that's been passed down to us.

I'm not convinced that we've gotten the complete and accurate picture. Laying all the blame at McClellan's feet seems too simple to me...I think there's more there. If that constitutes 'overthinking' then I guess it does...but I'd rather 'overthink' than follow the party-line because of its sheer convenience (e.g. because all the other historians said so). Given the complexity of figuring out a war aim to begin with, I think figuring out McClellan leverages into that.

Bottom line: fitting McClellan into this whole panoramic vision of 'what's going on' and then simply blaming it on McClellan because he might be arrogant or an elitist just doesn't work for me. I think there's a more complicated story behind that. I totally 'get' your point about sometimes things really are the way they look; really I do! (it's an Occam's Razor sort of approach); I just think that 'pin the tail on the donkey McClellan' has become a tiresome sort of game and I'm not so sure that we actually know where to pin that tail (but McClellan becomes a convenient place).

It's to this end that I question the source material that we (the reader) have been presented with and exposed to.

Metaphorically, we've been told why the banks failed - but then, beyond that, we really want to know why the banks really failed. Blaming the economic melt-down on one particular thing seems satisfying (because it simplifies things)...but, in the end, we know the answer is actually much more complicated than just blaming one thing. Same with McClellan.






CC
 
Back
Top