Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

You are right about his contempt for his superiors, I think Rosecrans had that same contempt for little Mac when he was under his command. General MacCarthur showed the same kind of contempt for Truman during the Korean war but that, I presume, is a whole other thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: andysomers

And not all generals rose through the war as brigade/division/Corps commanders.

Two prime examples - Grant and Lee - both essentially had independent field commands from the start (Grant was colonel of the 21st Illinois for like one month).

AS

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

The failure is shared between Lincoln and MacClellan. Lincoln failed to use his available assets appropriately, when it became clear certain Generals were no good at leading Armies he did not talk to them and get them in the proper positions. The General failed in that his ego would not have allowed him to assume a Command that he felt was inferior.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Ignoring again what was said. MacClellan was no field commander of an Army, as was borne out by his abysmal failures acting as such. He was however a superb Administrator, trainer, recruiter and moral Builder, and a very fine logisitician.

Be so kind as to provide a letter or letters where Lincoln offered or ask macClellan to take command of training and Administration of the Army while allowing a better Field Commander to operate in the field.

I must assume it never crossed Lincolns mind to ask MacClellan to fill such a position, unless you can provide some evidence otherwise. I must also assume, from reading of the Ego and Vanity and self grandure that MacClellan viewed his abilities in, that even if offered such a job, he would have refused.

In future do me the favor of actually reading what I wrote, not what you think I meant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Look at the first five Union commanders in the East and compare them to McClellan:

1. McDowell - Routed in 1st Bull Run (or 1st Manassas, if you prefer).
2. McClellan - Defeated in Peninsula Campaign, including Seven Days, but retreat was orderly. Fought to a draw at Antietam (or Sharpsburg).
3. Pope - Routed in 2nd Bull Run (or 2nd Manassas).
4. Burnside - Defeated at Fredricksburg.
5. Hooker - Defeated at Chancellorsville.

Of these five, McClellan could arguably be said to have been the best.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Mac Dowell was just out of his league through the accident of time. No American Commander had ever commanded what he was expected to command and everyone thought it would be a cake walk.
He failed to ensure proper training and failed to exersize proper command and control. Those could have been due to his inexperience in such a position. MacDowell was no genius, but his plan at Bull Run was sound and imaginative. To his credit, he fought with the "On to Richmond" crowd as long as he could because he knew his army wasn't ready. Lincoln had to chide him forward saying "I know your forces are green..., but they are green also.", Lincoln not realizing that it takes more training to attack than to defend.
The South had the same problems but they had a few lucky breaks and it would seem more competent commanders at Bull Run. True. The had the benefit of being on the defensive, and at a few critical junctures had the good fortune to have the "right man" turn up on the spot at the right time


Pope didnt listen to his intelligence. he was informed Longstreet had arrived and chose to ignore him. That might have been ok IF he had informed his left wing commanders to stand fast in case Longstreet moved. His army was rolled up because the center seemed to faulter ( it didnt really) and the Commander on the left reinforced with the bulk of his force leaving just 2 Brigades to face Longstreet.
I am not sure I would have fired him for that, I suspect your right about politics on him. Pope HAD to be fired. His pompous, bombastic, pronouncements and endless talk of how they did it in the West had his troops as well as his officers regarding him as a buffoon. Had he delivered a competant performance they would have accepted the B.S.---but when Lee and Jackson ran rings around him and Longstreet suprised him in spite of the warnings he recieved, he had to go. No one in his Army of Virginia or the Army of the Potomac would follow him to a "free lunch" after Second Manassas

Burnside had a great plan. When it fell apart due to poor logistics he didnt have the common sense to change or abandon the plan. He was a good lower level commander, he was just out of his league.
To his credit, he told Lincoln he didn't feel up to commanding the Army. To the Union's sorrow, he took it anyway just to keep it from his hated rival Hooker.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jjjanos
This is somewhat like trying to decide which of your sisters you are going to take to the prom.

I'm not certain there is an objective way to decide which is worst... I acn give mitigating factors for some and small things that would have resnatched victory from the jaws of defeat....

1. 1st Bull Run - a command guilty of an overly complex plan. Didn't want to fight the battle and tried to do something his troops weren't capable of. Bobby Lee did the same thing in his W.Va campaign.
2. McClellan - OK, I can find nothing to mitigate his incompetence. Sorry, but only one thing was beaten in the 7 days campaign and that was Mac.
3. Pope - poorly handled his command and was a victim of political in-fighting between Mac supporters and mac detractors. Had Jackson's command broke, 2nd Bull Run would be viewed like Sheridan's almost lost battle in the Valley.
4. Burnside - stupid, stupid, stupid... then again Grant drove the Rebs off the mountain in-front of Chattanoga. I really cannot defend this, but if it had worked....
5. Hooker - one could claim that Hooker's plan was similar to how Longstreet wanted to wage the war... offensive movements with defensive battles. Hooker was out of it after he got his bell rung and his subsequent command errors should be evaluated in light of that.

Also, in evaluating Grant, remember that he was granted latitude that the early war commanders never had. Under Grant, they had to send troops up from the AoP after Monocacy... under everyone else, the troops would never have left.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RERomine
Just trying to point out the idiot stamp on McClellan was harsh. Facts are, Grant wasn't any better tactically than any of of the others when you look at his results against Lee, but he had a much better grasp of the strategic. Grant knew what it took to win the war. It helped that he had stockpiled credibility before he came East.

quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Not to get Mike and AU stirred up again but I still do not buy he was "horrible in command," or an "idiot" as many of you are saying.  There are many more elements to command than just the "x's and o's.  I would say he failed tactically on more than one ocassion, but I would also say that in every other facet of command he was competent.  He organized well, stood up to his superiors to get the things he needed (ok, thought he needed), maintained a high level of espirit de corp, and was able to get his army to do what he wanted, even if what he wanted was flawed.  I think Mac was a hands off commander and let his subordinates lead on the field, as Mr. Scholl will argue, at Antietam Mac needed to be there on the field, and he is right.  But this style of leadership has worked for others in the past.  I prefer a leader who will create a flexible plan and then allow me (the subordinate) to execute and I believe that is what Mac tried to do.  When he needed to make a big decision he usually made the wrong one. All the info he had aside, at Antietam he was the only thing between Lee and DC and I think he was scared to be the man that let Lee get by him or through him and take the capitol. ]"Little Mac" loved all the "trappings" of command. and everyone telling him he was "the savior of the Nation" when he came to Washington. But he was a "moral coward"---scared sh-tless that he might get beat and and be exposed as a "fraud" and lose all the "pomp and circumstance" he loved. Look at his Campaign on the Penninsula---he wanted to substitute engineering and siege craft (at which he didn't feel the South could compete) for fighting (at which he might lose). And no matter how many men he had, he wanted "more"..., regardless of what might be left open to the Rebs by doing so. When Lee attacked, he responded by "changing his base" (which turned out to be a clever euphamism for running away to the James and the protection of the Navy while claiming to have performed a "masterfull stratagem"). And having arrived there, with numbers still exceeding those of the Rebels, he sat down in the mud and blaimed everyone but himself for his problems.

I know Mac had a copy of Lee's orders but I think I know what he may have been thinking....hmm why would Lee split his army and place himself, outnumbered with his back to the Potomac?"  Maybe he is baiting me, maybe these order are a trick, maybe he has more men, where did that division that smashed into Burnside come from?  Why would Lee take such an unnessecary gamble?  He would not put the whole ANV in such a bad spot.  What do I not know?......Hesitate....hesitate..doh!!! were the hell did Bobby go?  Oh well I won a big victory, break out the beer and call the Prez I'm the man. Another wonderful example of his "mora cowardess". Once he had Lee's "Special Order 191", he announced to all and sundry that he was going to "whip Bobbie Lee". Then he remembered that this would involve actually "fighting" Robert E. Lee, and proceeded to procrastinate his way into Western Maryland. Then when he finally found him anyway, he sat down for an entire day to screw up his courage to fight (and hope frantically that Lee would "run away" so "Mac" could tell everyone what a great "bloodless victory" he had "won". Then, on the 18th, after managing to pull a "bloody shambles" from "the Jaws of Victory", he again sat down in the mud and prayed for Lee to "go away". Having achieved the greatest one day slaughter in the history of North America..., and having nothing to show for it, all he could do was hope Lee would go home and "Mac" could declare a "win" and sit down in the mud to tell everyone how great he was and why they should elect him "God". The fact that the Rebs were still "out there" and the war no closer to being over meant nothing to McClellan as long as he could play the role of "Saviour of the Nation" in his own eyes.

Some have said Mac did not pursue and If I remember correctly he did, rather hotly i think.  But he got smashed at Shepardstown and once again got cold feet. Actually, his pursuit was all in his mind

ONCE AGAIN I AM NOT SAYING THIS GUY WAS A BRILLIANT GENERAL, HE HAD ISSUES, BUT HE WAS NO IDIOT AND HE WAS NOT WORTHLESS. And I will continue to say that as the General in Command of the Army of the Potomac (HIS JOB DESCRIPTION), he was a total buffoon, a charlatan, a whining, complaining, exasperating, "do-nothing", a total disaster, and a worthless IDIOT.

quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Not to get Mike and AU stirred up again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Not to get Mike and AU stirred up again but I still do not buy he was "horrible in command," or an "idiot" as many of you are saying. There are many more elements to command than just the "x's and o's. I would say he failed tactically on more than one ocassion, but I would also say that in every other facet of command he was competent. He organized well, stood up to his superiors to get the things he needed (ok, thought he needed), maintained a high level of espirit de corp, and was able to get his army to do what he wanted, even if what he wanted was flawed. I think Mac was a hands off commander and let his subordinates lead on the field, as Mr. Scholl will argue, at Antietam Mac needed to be there on the field, and he is right. But this style of leadership has worked for others in the past. I prefer a leader who will create a flexible plan and then allow me (the subordinate) to execute and I believe that is what Mac tried to do. When he needed to make a big decision he usually made the wrong one. All the info he had aside, at Antietam he was the only thing between Lee and DC and I think he was scared to be the man that let Lee get by him or through him and take the capitol. ]"Little Mac" loved all the "trappings" of command. and everyone telling him he was "the savior of the Nation" when he came to Washington. But he was a "moral coward"---scared sh-tless that he might get beat and and be exposed as a "fraud" and lose all the "pomp and circumstance" he loved. Look at his Campaign on the Penninsula---he wanted to substitute engineering and siege craft (at which he didn't feel the South could compete) for fighting (at which he might lose). And no matter how many men he had, he wanted "more"..., regardless of what might be left open to the Rebs by doing so. When Lee attacked, he responded by "changing his base" (which turned out to be a clever euphamism for running away to the James and the protection of the Navy while claiming to have performed a "masterfull stratagem"). And having arrived there, with numbers still exceeding those of the Rebels, he sat down in the mud and blaimed everyone but himself for his problems.

I know Mac had a copy of Lee's orders but I think I know what he may have been thinking....hmm why would Lee split his army and place himself, outnumbered with his back to the Potomac?" Maybe he is baiting me, maybe these order are a trick, maybe he has more men, where did that division that smashed into Burnside come from? Why would Lee take such an unnessecary gamble? He would not put the whole ANV in such a bad spot. What do I not know?......Hesitate....hesitate..doh!!! were the hell did Bobby go? Oh well I won a big victory, break out the beer and call the Prez I'm the man. Another wonderful example of his "mora cowardess". Once he had Lee's "Special Order 191", he announced to all and sundry that he was going to "whip Bobbie Lee". Then he remembered that this would involve actually "fighting" Robert E. Lee, and proceeded to procrastinate his way into Western Maryland. Then when he finally found him anyway, he sat down for an entire day to screw up his courage to fight (and hope frantically that Lee would "run away" so "Mac" could tell everyone what a great "bloodless victory" he had "won". Then, on the 18th, after managing to pull a "bloody shambles" from "the Jaws of Victory", he again sat down in the mud and prayed for Lee to "go away". Having achieved the greatest one day slaughter in the history of North America..., and having nothing to show for it, all he could do was hope Lee would go home and "Mac" could declare a "win" and sit down in the mud to tell everyone how great he was and why they should elect him "God". The fact that the Rebs were still "out there" and the war no closer to being over meant nothing to McClellan as long as he could play the role of "Saviour of the Nation" in his own eyes.

Some have said Mac did not pursue and If I remember correctly he did, rather hotly i think. But he got smashed at Shepardstown and once again got cold feet. Actually, his pursuit was all in his mind

ONCE AGAIN I AM NOT SAYING THIS GUY WAS A BRILLIANT GENERAL, HE HAD ISSUES, BUT HE WAS NO IDIOT AND HE WAS NOT WORTHLESS. And I will continue to say that as the General in Command of the Army of the Potomac (HIS JOB DESCRIPTION), he was a total buffoon, a charlatan, a whining, complaining, exasperating, "do-nothing", a total disaster, and a worthless IDIOT.

quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Ok, Mike I accept your position and you have good reasons for your position, I still think it is easy to degrade a man after 150+ years of information.  Just asking because I cant remember, With the exception of Rosecrans, who was not at Antietam were any of his generals pissed at him after the battle?  Did any of them say he should have acted differently?  Remeber they all knew what he knew, maybe more because they were in the thick of it.

Just curious, what are your thoughts on MacCarthur, I think he was as bad as MecClellan in some of the areas you address.  In hindsight he made many blunders in his defense of Phillipines, and I am not sure that retaking the Phillipines was necessary other that fulfilling his ego.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Ok, Mike I accept your position and you have good reasons for your position, I still think it is easy to degrade a man after 150+ years of information. Just asking because I cant remember, With the exception of Rosecrans, who was not at Antietam were any of his generals pissed at him after the battle? Did any of them say he should have acted differently? Remeber they all knew what he knew, maybe more because they were in the thick of it.

Just curious, what are your thoughts on MacCarthur, I think he was as bad as MecClellan in some of the areas you address. In hindsight he made many blunders in his defense of Phillipines, and I am not sure that retaking the Phillipines was necessary other that fulfilling his ego.

MacArthur is another subject you don't want to get me started on... The man did some good things..., eventually. But so might Short and Kimmel had they been given a year of total screw-ups to learn their trade. He got the Congressional Medal of Honor for creating an unholy mess in the Philippines with a totally unrealistic strategic deployment, then managing to salvage some credit by following the plan he had dismissed as "defeatist" earlier. His Papua New Guinea opparation was a classic misuse of assets coupled with totally ignoring the advice from the men on the ground. Even when he finally started getting his head out of his ass in 1943, he was still politicing for the seizure of Rabaul when everyone else had already come to believe that "hopping" the large Japanese garrisons was the way to go. He was a great success as "Emperor of Japan", Inchon was a masterpiece, and his "leapfrogging up the back of New Guinea" in 1944 was well done---but in my book his "star" is dull and tarnished by the number of bone-headed stunts he pulled in 1941-43. He is better than McClellan only in that he eventually seemed to be able to learn from his mistakes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Ok, Mike I accept your position and you have good reasons for your position, I still think it is easy to degrade a man after 150+ years of information.  Just asking because I cant remember, With the exception of Rosecrans, who was not at Antietam were any of his generals pissed at him after the battle?  Did any of them say he should have acted differently?  Remeber they all knew what he knew, maybe more because they were in the thick of it.

Just curious, what are your thoughts on MacCarthur, I think he was as bad as MecClellan in some of the areas you address.  In hindsight he made many blunders in his defense of Phillipines, and I am not sure that retaking the Phillipines was necessary other that fulfilling his ego.

MacArthur is another subject you don't want to get me started on... The man did some good things..., eventually. But so might Short and Kimmel had they been given a year of total screw-ups to learn their trade. He got the Congressional Medal of Honor for creating an unholy mess in the Philippines with a totally unrealistic strategic deployment, then managing to salvage some credit by following the plan he had dismissed as "defeatist" earlier. His Papua New Guinea opparation was a classic misuse of assets coupled with totally ignoring the advice from the men on the ground. Even when he finally started getting his head out of his ass in 1943, he was still politicing for the seizure of Rabaul when everyone else had already come to believe that "hopping" the large Japanese garrisons was the way to go. He was a great success as "Emperor of Japan", Inchon was a masterpiece, and his "leapfrogging up the back of New Guinea" in 1944 was well done---but in my book his "star" is dull and tarnished by the number of bone-headed stunts he pulled in 1941-43. He is better than McClellan only in that he eventually seemed to be able to learn from his mistakes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: regularbird

Mike, how about the pissed generals question.  Did any of them criticize or disagree with MacClellan before or directly after the battle?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

Ignoring again what was said. MacClellan was no field commander of an Army, as was borne out by his abysmal failures acting as such. He was however a superb Administrator, trainer, recruiter and moral Builder, and a very fine logisitician.

quote:

Be so kind as to provide a letter or letters where Lincoln offered or ask macClellan to take command of training and Administration of the Army while allowing a better Field Commander to operate in the field.

quote:

In future do me the favor of actually reading what I wrote, not what you think I meant.

quote:

Lincoln failed to use his available assets appropriately, when it became clear certain Generals were no good at leading Armies he did not talk to them and get them in the proper positions.