The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865



Message

regularbird -> The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 6:21:49 AM)

The argument was started when mike scholl called little mac an idiot. I challenged his assertion [:)]. I think the thread was a little out of place so if anyone has an opinion of mac let it be known here.



Grifman -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 6:23:25 AM)

Yeah, he was an idiot :)



AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 6:26:19 AM)

Good call.

I was about to add my 2 cents when I noticed my WitP PBEM has just arrived, so I will pitch in tomorrow.

Later!

You may want to paste the gist of the argument for your next post so people who haven't been following the AAR will know what the argument is.




Mike Scholl -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 6:43:19 AM)

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.



regularbird -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 6:58:11 AM)

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.



Grifman -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 7:06:18 AM)

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 [:D]



regularbird -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 7:19:44 AM)


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 [:D]


maybe if stockton's career had ended after his second season he may have been.

Don't get me wrong here I certainly do not think mcclellan was a great battlefied manager but he was far from an idiot. I am an army officer who had the honor of serving over seas in a war zone and believe me there is a lot more to being a great leader than x's and o's. I could probably argue that lee was not a great battlefield manager either. but he was a fantastic leader. lee had other traits that made him a great leader and i think mcclellan had some of the same traits as lee.



regularbird -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 7:38:24 AM)


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.


so mike, you are saying macs plan was to attack in 3 uncoordinated assaults, hmm i will have go back and check. once the lead starts flying things change and he did not have radios. 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. saying he was an idiot because his plan was not carried out effectively would be the same as calling lee an idiot for making pickett's charge which i thought was a huge mistake, much more signifigant than any mistake little mac made.



regularbird -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 7:41:21 AM)

oh mike excelent piont on the pinkerton's i will concede that portion of the argument although it was my understanding that the pinkys were counting guide-ons and not troop strength. which would definately inflate some numbers, that is what the park ranger at antietam is teaching anyway.



Twotribes -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 8:09:25 AM)

McClellan should have stayed in the rear training the troops. He was a superb trainer, organizer and manager of logisitics. He was NO field Commander of an Army though. But he wasnt alone there, the North had a lot of Generals that shouldnt have been in charge of more than a Division or Brigade that were made Army Commanders.

The fact is in the Military people tend to get promoted until they fail at some rank. And of course politics can get you promoted past that.



AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 8:10:26 AM)

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.



Mike Scholl -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 8:20:39 AM)


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.




AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 8:39:49 AM)

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.




WOW! I thought he was aware of the details of the Battle of Sharpsburg! Lee was amazed and pleased that Mac didn't attack the first day, considering Lee's forces were still divided. Mac's "slows" delayed the attack until the second day, allowing the ANV to consolidate, not to mention Mac's abysmal attack plan, if you can call it a plan. And yes, he spent the day peering through a telescope and entertaining the press with his tales of an 'overwhelming force" arrayed against him, and that he dare not commit his reserves. Mac had the advantage of artillery, initiative, and numbers, and squandered the lot.
I am pleased he did however, considering I had two ancestors over there who survived primarily because of Mac's incompetance.

William Cline, Co. H, 17th Ga., Toombs' Brigade, A. P. Hill's "Light Division"
Samuel Bondurant, Co. D, 4th Al., Law's Brigade, Hood's Division

BTW, the flag under my name was flown by Co. D, 4th Al.



regularbird -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 4:21:08 PM)


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.



Not sure how this is relevant, for some reason you believe that i am saying mac was a battlefield genious, and i am not. my assertion is that calling the man an idiot is unfair. i think grant was an excellent leader and the first that realized that the war was about attrittion and he knew he could afford the losses that bobby lee could not. you cant really compare the two because the mindset of how to fight wars was much different in 64 than in 62. would the aop have been better off after 2nd manassas if little mac did not take command? 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.



Twotribes -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 4:38:35 PM)

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.



andysomers -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 5:13:19 PM)

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




AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 5:15:56 PM)

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.



That I agree with...



ezzler -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 5:40:00 PM)

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 !





regularbird -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 5:46:45 PM)

AU I admit my knowledge of every detail of each battle is a little rusty.  I have read it all before and I believe I have a decent understanding of events.  I bet you probably know what each army had for breakfast (and don’t say lead).  I try to look at history by placing myself in the shoes of those that were there.  And I can see that I may have made some of the mistakes that little mac made.
 
Mike, I doubt if I were commander of the AOP that I would have placed myself directly on that field, especially if I had confidence in my Corp commanders which I believe Mac did.  My style is to let my leaders lead after I develop the plan.
 
History is really funny how just a little twist things could have been so much different.  For example we came close to having an argument about whether or not Lee was an “IDIOT.”  Lee mad 3 big mistakes in the Maryland Campaign:  He practice terrible OPSEC, he divided his force in the face of a superior enemy, and he placed his back to a major river in the face of that same superior enemy.  Each of Mac’s 3 assaults came very close to succeeding, for example had Richardson not been mortally wounded he most likely would have gotten between lee and his escape route and destroyed the ANV.  Then we might calling Mac a military genius which as you know would be just as crazy as calling him an IDIOT.
 
We have a lot of knowledge today that makes Mac look really bad, and I admit he made some huge mistakes but as I said before hindsight is 20/20.  I doubt that any other general could have restored the army to fighting strength after 2nd Man better than McClellan.  And where would the Union have been then, in a pickle, I believe.  As a matter of fact if Mac had not done what he did it may have been the battle of DC.
 
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.
 
I really appreciate the vast knowledge you two have of the ACW my only argument is that calling any of these great Americans idiots is pretty ignorant as to what these men sacrificed to serve, even McClellan.



regularbird -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 5:50:06 PM)


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 !





Nicely put ezz.




andysomers -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 5:56:10 PM)

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



regularbird -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 6:16:20 PM)


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


Right on Andy, now we are getting somewhere, I to believe Mac would have served much better in a role of lesser responsibility. His ego might not have gotten in his way. But you must admit he was not the only general with a large ego, he just failed to prevent his from impacting his judgement.



andysomers -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 7:07:14 PM)

Oh yeah - run the list on egotistical/political US generals, and you'll find all the US early war commanders:

Sickles, Pope, Hooker, McClellan, McClernand (US Corps commander in the West), Banks, Halleck, etc.

AS



Mike Scholl -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 7:11:00 PM)


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



ALRIGHT! Someone out there actually "gets it". As a field commnader, the man was worthless. A good leader gets up to the front and sees for himself what is happening, and which subordinate needs a "kick in the pants" to get going, and to look for developing opportunities. Mac seemed to think that once he'd drawn up a plan, BOTH sides would conform to his wishes and his job was to brief the press on his own brilliance. And Lee's ONE mistake in Maryland was letting the order get captured. The rest (dividing his forces all over the countryside) he did because he KNEW McClellan would take forever to actually move forward and he's have plenty of time. Even with the captured order, McClellan STILL gave him the time (barely) to gather his scattered forces. Lee had to be audacious as Hell to have a chance; All McClellan ever had to do was announce "OK..., EVERYBODY pick up a stick..". Lincoln was reduced to pleading with the Army of the Potomac's Commanders, "This time put in ALL your men."



spruce -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 7:19:25 PM)

great succes is always build on the ruins of failures.

nothing goes all by itself, perhaps the only issue the Union high command had was that they lacked vision and common understanding how to win the war. When the war started, everybody in the Union high command was convinced this would be an easy walkover.

In this framework, you have to see the situation. I think the Union generals where eager to put the feather on their hat and were underestimating their opponent - a single big victory would be enough to win the war and be in Richmond, was their adagio. They didn't seem to understand that the confederacy was a hard nut that you could not really "open", you could only "smash" it nothing was left from it.

Also Lincoln was guilty on this problem ... only after some time he reckognized that the war would take the best of men to win ... and that it wouldn't be won all by itself.



AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 7:20:28 PM)

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.
[:D]



regularbird -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 8:03:56 PM)


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.
[:D]



LOL, the panfried cornbread is pretty good. No, I took no offense from the E5 to O5 thing I have heard it before both ways. I just thought it was a kinda the E5 could be doing better thing. Maybe I overshot on that.

I can agree to reach settlement on your post above because he did blunder greatly, but trying to put myself there I or any other general may have made the same mistakes.

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.



RERomine -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 8:30:48 PM)


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


Agreed, but the problem is, no one has ever joined the military saying "I'm going to be the best d**m admistrator this army has ever seen!" McClellan had the ability to hone the AoP to a razor sharp edge, but he just couldn't employ it properly. He didn't even have the opportunity to be a division or corps commander prior to the Army of the Potomac, unless you want to count that little bit of active in West Virginia. McClellan might have learned something about battlefield tactics and manuever if he had those chances. In the end, he was in over his head commanding an army. Not really much different than many other Union generals in that respect. Many lead armies unsuccessfully in the East and West.

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. The all tended to have plus sides (well maybe not Pope), but those pluses didn't include high command. The Union generals at the end of the war had begun as wee little brigade and division commanders. They have the chance to grow into the positions they would later occupy. Think about O. O. Howard. His XI Corps got clobbered at Chancellorsville and again at Gettysburg, but at the end of the war, Sherman considered him to be one of his most reliable commanders.

In the end, I wouldn't classify McClellan as an idiot. He was over his head as an army commander. If he had been able to recognize his own limitations and accepted that his gifts were in administration, he might well have been able to assist and ending the war earlier.



Twotribes -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 9:09:38 PM)

While the Union was clearly beaten at 2nd Bull Run, I would not call it a rout. In fact one of the generals I am writing about ( Brig Gen Z.B. Tower ) was instrumental in preventing that rout. The Union withdrew but did not rout off the field, it was a close thing though



spruce -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/15/2006 10:36:32 PM)

Pope's army didn't rout at second Manassas - they retreated in an orderly way and saved the huge pile of artillery guns - so preventing them being captured by the rebels. During the attack some of Lee's divisions also took a heavy beating.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75