RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread

RE: 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

RERomine -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/16/2006 12:31:39 AM)
Okay, not routed, but there have been armies that have lost battles before and been in better shape at the end. It was a clear defeat, none the less. The point was during the first few years of the war in the east, McClellan was most successful. I know he should have done more with the opportunities he had, but he did quite well considering he was "outnumbered two to one" [:)] As stated, he was in over his head, but he didn't make any errors that were fatal. It could be said he created the nucleus of the army that would ultimately would win the war.

andysomers -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/16/2006 12:39:39 AM)
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

AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/16/2006 2:01:02 AM)
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. May I suggest the new thread be entitled "Little Mac and Big Mac". Common Avian, The E-5 to O-6 comment was typed with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, as I think you now see. In other threads mithin the Matrix unbrella I have seen often innocuous, and sometimes humorous, comments totally misread by another party as an attack on them. That is a weakness in communicating strictly by the written word I suppose. Anyway, I have waited several years to use that line, having been on the recieving end of its reciprocal more often thatn not. Thinking back I am amazed I recieved the Never Got Caught Award at my four year point. Anyway, I was paroled from the Navy several years ago after having served five years, ten months, four days, and three hours..... [sm=terms.gif]

RERomine -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/16/2006 2:09:44 AM)
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 True, but Grant's first field action was at Belmont, where his force, although independent, was roughly the size of a division (3,114 engaged). By the time he moved out against Ft. Henry, his force was roughly the size of a corps (15,000). The fact his commands were independent doesn't take away from the fact he learn his trade starting with smaller sized units. Lee also learned with smaller units. Don't forget he commanded the 2nd US Cavalry regiment before the war. It's not likely, however that they all took the field at the same time, but were more than likely scattered all over Texas. At Cheat Mountain, the force he commanded was about 4,500, about the size of a Confederate division. Lee also had the advantage of two superb corps commanders and wisdom to listen to them.

Oldguard -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/16/2006 2:43:04 AM)
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. I'm starting to wonder about you, Twotribes. Shall we do a detailed review of the correspondence between Lincoln and McClellan to see just how often Lincoln DID communication to Mac what he wanted? Shall we go down the list of Generals he tried in Mac's stead, all of whom were found severely wanting? Your assertion that the President didn't talk to them or "get them in the proper position" flies in the face of just about every credible historian I've ever read. McClellan was considered one of the best generals of his day. He won 2 brevets in Mexico (1st Lt. and Capt) for his engineering work, but the truth of warfare is that good peacetime officers often turn out to be seriously lacking in the aggressiveness and instinct that a good battlefield commander needs. Nobody can be certain who the good commanders are until the bullets actually start flying. While there's no question that Mac wasn't the man to win the war for the Union, it would also be unfair to call him an idiot. How many of you have a saddle named after you? :)

Twotribes -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/16/2006 5:17:36 AM)
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.

Mike Scholl -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/16/2006 9:28:27 AM)
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. Just what I've meen saying all along. As a General, McClellan was an IDIOT. Decent "Drill Sergant" and "Supply Clerk" and "Saddler"--- but his JOB was Commander of the Army, and at that he SUCKED!

jjjanos -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/20/2006 10:16:01 PM)
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. 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.

Twotribes -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/21/2006 12:56:21 AM)
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. The South had the same problems but they had a few lucky breaks and it would seem more competent commanders at Bull Run. 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. 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.

Mike Scholl -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/21/2006 1:56:20 AM)
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.

RERomine -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/21/2006 2:06:44 AM)
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. 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.

Riva Ridge -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/21/2006 6:32:59 AM)
As I think it was already said before, McClellan was an outstanding administrator, logistician, and trainer. In other words, he was the consumnate staff officer. Part of the skill-sets of a successful battle commander are decisiveness coupled with a strong imagination, an ability to rapidly see all the possibilities in both space and time then choose which one you want to execute and firmly move towards it. That was Mac's problem in that he did not have that ability. Additionally, he WAS vain and egotistical and given towards intrigue and that was a shame because Mac was actually the sort of officer you would have wanted to have as your Chief of Staff ability-wise. If he could have been coupled with a better combat Commander, his reputation would have been great but obviously his character would not allow him to play second fiddle to anyone. A good example of how this might had worked would have been what existed between Grant and Meade. Meade retained Command of the AoP throughout the war but in essense he really played the part of Grant's Deputy..a role which by all acccounts he performed very well in. His meticulousness and abilities complemented Grant's more earthy approach to Combat Command and thus were a net gain.

RERomine -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/21/2006 3:49:03 PM)
I believe McClellan could have been an excellent staff officer if he could have been satistfied with that roll. Some of his other qualities might have made it unlikely he would have accepted himself in that roll. It's interesting you mentioned that Meade was still in command of the AoP. A lot of people with casual knowledge of the Civil War probably don't know that, but for that matter, most people probably don't know the names of any generals other than Grant and Lee. Before anyone has a cow, I figure people who are here reading this has much more than just a casual knowledge of the Civil War to begin with. [:)]

jjjanos -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/21/2006 4:15:23 PM)
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. Not sure I would agree it is harsh. Will say that, given what McClellan thought was true about the size of the commands he faced, his subsequent withdrawals and cautiousness is justifiable. Was his belief that he was consistently outnumbered two+-to-one based on his incompetence, his ego (wanting to win a batlle over a superior foe) or a combination of both? Agree, Grant pretty much didn't win any battles in the east until the last days of the siege, but he won campaigns. McClellan came to command with creditability from his "great" victory in WVa, but he then proceeded to squander it by being....well...McClellan. McClellan would have been a great staff officer - he was terrible in command. Then again, it's doubtful that Grant would have been able to do what he did with the AoP if it had not been for McClellan turning the mob into an army- something a great staff officer does.

regularbird -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/21/2006 4:53:40 PM)
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. 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. 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. 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.

Mike Scholl -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/21/2006 6:16:30 PM)
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.

regularbird -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/21/2006 6:45:44 PM)
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.

AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/21/2006 8:24:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: regularbird Not to get Mike and AU stirred up again Don't worry about me! Watching this, and the "Constitutional Law 101 Thread" is more fun than wearing sunglasses at a nude beach.

AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/21/2006 8:28:47 PM)
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. A small point. Mac's charge into Western Maryland was uncharacterically aggressive, catching Lee & Co. off-guard. Only after he battled across South Mountain did his "slows" return.

Mike Scholl -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/21/2006 8:42:25 PM)
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.

AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/21/2006 8:52:44 PM)
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. I knew it was only a matter of time. The Little Mac vs. Big Mac debate has begun! For the record, you are right on target Mike.

regularbird -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/21/2006 8:57:18 PM)
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. I agree, just wanted to make sure you were consistent with your comparison.

regularbird -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/21/2006 8:59:14 PM)
Mike, how about the pissed generals question. Did any of them criticize or disagree with MacClellan before or directly after the battle?

Mike Scholl -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/21/2006 9:11:47 PM)
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? In "Mac's" case, most of them were his cronies so there wasn't a great deal of debate. But you have things like Porter screaming for support at Mechanicsville and Gaines Mill and recieving none, or Burnside having a case of the "sulks" at Sharpsburg because he had been a brevet Wing Commander over his Corps and Hooker's, and Mac moved Hooker to the other end of the line. One of the reasons for Burnside's very slow performance there was that he insisted on still regarding himself as a Wing Commander even though he only had his own Corps to command, which left an "extra" and less competant layer of "command" between him and the troops. But overall, when Mac organized the Army of the Potomac, he made sure that it's leaders were "Little Mac" fans and supporters. It took a while to "clean house" after he was dismissed, but by Chancellorsville they were almost all gone.

regularbird -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/21/2006 10:02:57 PM)
Did any sub subordinates criticise him at antietam in their memoirs, following the war? Guys like meade or Hancock? I am just trying to establish if another general around that time thought Mac's battle plan and actions during the battle were idiotic. Just asking.

AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/21/2006 10:12:11 PM)
As I recall, there was a lot of heated criticism. I am not at home, so I can't document it.

Mike Scholl -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/21/2006 10:15:56 PM)
None I can quote off the top of my head..., but it's been a while since I was deeply immersed in ACW reading. I'll let you know if something comes to mind or I have a chance to look at some old sources.

Oldguard -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/21/2006 10:26:38 PM)
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. As others have pointed out, the issue isn't whether Mac was a great field commander - the issue was that the Union didn't have anyone better at the time - it's why Mac was given his army back after Lincoln's other attempts at command change (something you claim he didn't do) failed. 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. You're the world champion strawman debater aren't you? quote: In future do me the favor of actually reading what I wrote, not what you think I meant. Oh, believe me, I read what you wrote. Right after I had a good laugh I responded to you. Specifically when you said earlier: 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. Complete nonsense (as I pointed out) but go ahead and paint it however you wish - you've done a good job of exposing your own dearth of historical insight in several threads, now. Good job.

Twotribes -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/21/2006 10:54:47 PM)
I dont know what your problem is BUT be so kind as to explain how me pointing out Lincoln failed to assign generals to commands more suited to their abilities is funny? You IGNORED what I said and tried to make it sound like I said Lincoln never told macClellen what he expected. Never did such. I SAID Lincoln never ask MacClellen to assume the role of Staff Officer and allow a better field Commander to take over once it was obvious he couldnt command the Army effectively. Lincoln could have had mac as Head of the Army and instructed him to allow others to lead it in Battle, as Meade did with Grant later in the war. Mac would have still had the head job but would be doing what he was good at while others fought the actual battles. Your the one assuming, OBVIOUSLY Lincoln assigned Mac to command because he believed he could do the job, just as he fired him when he couldnt. Firing him though wasnt neccassary IF Mac would have agreed to allow others to run the Field Commands while he trained, equiped and drilled the Army. Lincoln never ask him if he would do that ( though I suspect Mac would have refused) OBVIOUSLY Lincoln assigned people to command because at the time he believed they were the best avaialble. The point is with Mac he didnt go the extra mile and try to keep him in a position he was good at. Not just Lincoln's fault though, Mac was to big headed I suspect to have agreed.

Mike Scholl -> RE: The Great McClellan debate from jchatain's thread (11/22/2006 12:08:06 AM)
OBVIOUSLY Lincoln assigned people to command because at the time he believed they were the best avaialble. The point is with Mac he didnt go the extra mile and try to keep him in a position he was good at. Not just Lincoln's fault though, Mac was to big headed I suspect to have agreed. Actually, after Second Manassas, he tried to offer the command to some of Mac's Corps Commanders..., but they each refused. Lincoln didn't go with what he thought was the "best choice"..., he went with what he found was his ONLY choice.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

6.421875