Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

oh yea by the way. being called an idiot after geting whipped by bobby lee is like calling john stockton a lousy basketball player after being whipped by michael jordan even if you know MJ is going to give you the cross over you still have to stop him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grifman

quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

oh yea by the way. being called an idiot after geting whipped by bobby lee is like calling john stockton a lousy basketball player after being whipped by michael jordan even if you know MJ is going to give you the cross over you still have to stop him.

Lee may have been Michael Jordan, but McClellan was no John Stockton

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Mike your assuming he knew everything that you know now. Yes McClellan had Lee's orders and if he would have just committed his reserve he could have probably carried the day. But you must consider that he just witnessed 3 major attacks repulsed thousands of his troops destroyed and was concerned that if his reserve was wasted then he was beaten. He chose to play it safe. I am no Mac apologist I just think it is hard to call a man an idiot who was well educated, loved by his troops and the only guy to even draw with bobby lee until 63. If you would like to say he made some bad decisions than I could definately buy that. But please remember hindsight is 20/20 and his pinkerton's were duoped by the csa as to there exact numbers and the loss of life was extraordinary.



No.., I'm assuming he knew only what everyone else knew at the time. He didn't need to commit his reserve..., all he needed to do was launch all three of those attacks at the same time, and actually move forward to provide coordination like any competent commander. Pushing Porter's V Corps in as well would have been "icing on the cake" and a virtual guarantee of victory. Lee was "scrambling" all day long shifting forces up and down his line to meet each disjointed Union attack. All McClellan had to do to win the battle and perhaps the war (saving hundreds of thousands of lives) was put the WHOLE Army of the Potomac in at the SAME TIME. No brilliance required at all..., simple compatence would have served.

Pinkerton wasn't "duped" by the Confederates. Check his reports. They started out accurate enough..., and McClellan rejected them. So the Pinkerton's adjusted them upward until their "client" was happy---McClellan was the one who hired them, and they "knew which side their bread was buttered on". If the client is only willing to pay for "bullsh-t", then you give him "bullsh-t". Sorry to dissaggree, guys, but I still maintain he was an idiot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird
so mike, you are saying macs plan was to attack in 3 uncoordinated assaults, hmm i will have go back and check. Please do so..., you will find he planned to have Hooker's I Corps begin the attack on the extreme right at 6 AM, with other Corps joining in later. once the lead starts flying things change and he did not have radios. The man had a horse. Lee was all over the battlefield issuing orders and making adjustments to his position. Mac sat in his HQ and made pronouncements to the press..., not once going forward to actually "command" his Army. an old army attage says "not even the best plans survive first contact." war is managing confusion and i agree little mac failed in the battle but he was no idiot. And Mac totally failed to "manage" his Army or his attacks, even though he KHEW from Lee's captured orders that he had the Army of Northern Virginia at his mercy. He should have stayed a Saddle Designer..., that he was good at. As a Commander in the field, he was an idiot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird
so mike, you are saying macs plan was to attack in 3 uncoordinated assaults, hmm i will have go back and check. Please do so..., you will find he planned to have Hooker's I Corps begin the attack on the extreme right at 6 AM, with other Corps joining in later. once the lead starts flying things change and he did not have radios. The man had a horse. Lee was all over the battlefield issuing orders and making adjustments to his position. Mac sat in his HQ and made pronouncements to the press..., not once going forward to actually "command" his Army. an old army attage says "not even the best plans survive first contact." war is managing confusion and i agree little mac failed in the battle but he was no idiot. And Mac totally failed to "manage" his Army or his attacks, even though he KHEW from Lee's captured orders that he had the Army of Northern Virginia at his mercy. He should have stayed a Saddle Designer..., that he was good at. As a Commander in the field, he was an idiot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger

Lets have an E-5 to O-6 conversation here... (I've always wanted to say that!)
We can argue about Mac's failings until we are butternut in the face, but I would like to hear your comparison of Mac's handling of the AOP compared to Grant's, the defacto commander in '64 and '65. Essentially they both commanded the same army, albeit much differently, why was one so much more successful than the other, from a command aspect? I am only asking this from you because you are a defender of Mac. Personally, I think it is obvious, but would like to hear your view.

quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird
i think what he did to get the army back together and ready for a fight could not have been accompished by any one else at that time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ezz

I think you will find Lincoln desperately tried to get Mac to fight. He visited him at his command post and after waiting was slighted. He wrote him many times urging him to move. He defended him from critics many times.

I believe Lincoln wanted McClellan to be the army commander despite the fact they didn't get on as he was so popular within the army and seemed capable of producing victory.

McClellan was arogant and so scathing of Lincoln. He believed the President was an incompetent oaf surrounded by fools and that only he could save the country. His letters to his wife show his real character very clearly.

To blame Lincoln for not instructing his generals better is wrong.
Davis had more military knowledge and attemted to run the military campaign as well as the political office and was relatively unsuccessful on both.

Little Mac was no idiot , but he was no great commander either. In most contemporary writings he is seen as good for the army , bad for the war. This I believe to be true .

There is something of the Pompey about him, the deep disappointment that his skill and past success is not permanently recognised by a grateful nation and government and that there just may ,  just might be someone better even than he !

quote:

ORIGINAL: andysomers

I think what ezz is saying is on the money.  The fact that he is so scathing of Lincoln and so big on himself is one of the reasons Mac brings on so much criticism.

The fact is though, where Lee succeeded is knowing how his foes would react, thus he was able to get away with big risks as he did (also at Chancellorsville, where he actually attacked).  For the South to win, they had to take these big risks. 

Truth be known, I think Mac would have made a great staff officer, lead quartermaster, recruiter, trainer, any type of support role that is as necessary to waging war as rifles.  We'd be talking about him then in the same light as someone like Herman Haupt.  He gets no press, but he was an absolute genius, and in my mind very vital to US supply and operations.  Mac was simply paranoid, egotistical, and flat out scared to commit.  He didn't have the balls for command that guys like Grant, Sherman, and even Hooker and Burnside has to commit his troops when opportunities arose.

AS

quote:

ORIGINAL: andysomers

Right - let's be exact.  McClellan was not an idiot.  He was a vain, egotistical moron.
He built the AOP from the ruins of 1st Manassas, and his men liked him - that's all I can give him.

Above that, he hung around for months on the Peninsula with at that time the largest Army every assembled on the North American continent outnnumbering J Johnston (perhaps the only CS general as cautious as McClellan) two to one, and begged for reinforcements, refusing to move.  Afterwards, he won every battle in the Seven Days that Lee launched against him, but still retreated after every one all the way back to his base.

McClellan, take two: a starving, poorly-supplied enemy in your territory divides its force in your front (which, oh-by-the-way you conveniently outnumber again 2 to 1).  Voila!  September 13, you find this - SPECIAL ORDER NO. 191!  Exact disposition of your foe.  Move your army between the divided forces, crush each one piecemeal in detail right? NO!  Wait four days and attack his concentrated army entrenched along Antiteam Creek!!!  After the battle, which, after launching three uncorrdinated assaults, you somehow still manage to take the field, do you follow up quickly on their heels?  No!!!!  Wait in place for a month!  Let them slip away, rally, reinforce, and resupply!  Even after this, call your President an ape, etc., and still go on with the bravado assumption that you are still the savior of the Union.

McClellan, as long as an army did not need to fight, was a brilliant general.  To me however, that's like saying a guy is a master mechanic just because he does a great detail/wax job on a car.  Looks wonderful, as long as the car doesn't actually have to go anywhere.

AS

quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

AU, having a little E5 to O6 conversation is great, but until that E5 is in the shoes of that O6 it is E6 is unfair calling him an IDIOT.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AU Tiger

quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

AU, having a little E5 to O6 conversation is great, but until that E5 is in the shoes of that O6 it is E6 is unfair calling him an IDIOT.

From that little blurb it sounds like I called you the "idiot". Perhaps you misspoke, but I have NEVER called any fellow posters an "idiot", at least not in these forums. I may have used such language in some of the more political forums I occasionally visit though. ;-}

Yes, I did call Mac an idiot. The truth be known, he was a successful engineer antebellum, and I know of no SUCCESSFUL idiotic engineers. Rather than being an idiot, I should say some of his actions (or inactions) were idiotic. The sheer audacity of his rather public contempt for his superior, the Commander in Chief, is appalling, especially in the light of his notable lack of success on the battlefield.
Like you, I try not to judge commanders too harshly as I am not in their shoes. I do not see what they see, and as we know, the Fog of War thins remarkably in hindsight. But even so, Mac's actions are simply beyond the Pale.

Pan-fried cornbread and bacon, btw.

quote:

ORIGINAL: andysomers

Truth be known, I think Mac would have made a great staff officer, lead quartermaster, recruiter, trainer, any type of support role that is as necessary to waging war as rifles.  We'd be talking about him then in the same light as someone like Herman Haupt.  He gets no press, but he was an absolute genius, and in my mind very vital to US supply and operations.  Mac was simply paranoid, egotistical, and flat out scared to commit.  He didn't have the balls for command that guys like Grant, Sherman, and even Hooker and Burnside has to commit his troops when opportunities arose.

AS