"McClellan's Military Reputation?" Topic

Is it irredeemably stained or is there a sizable contingent of McClellan apologists out there?

Lincoln biographers seem to give George little credit for anything but staggering incompetence.

Most of what I´ve read give him credit as an able organizer and poor field commander, which seems reasonable.

I would think most who write Lincoln biographies are going to side with the president, sometimes at the cost of objectivity, so perhaps staggering incompetence is a bit overblown in an overall evaluation.

His men certainly loved him, as far as that goes.

He was a very, very capable engineer who had the bad luck to be a high ranking field commander

As noted by Texas Jack, he was extremely capable in organizing an army and the troops did adore him (which since me had sure they had rations/uniforms and billets was no surprise)

Irredeemably stained in what regard? Do you expect anyone to argue that he was a brilliant field commander? More of a cult of personality coupled with promotion beyond ability. From my readings Lincoln was incredibly patient with Mac.

I'm not a fan of Lincoln but cannot say I'm a fan of McClellan either. Lincoln failed in not removing McClellan earlier and when he did remove him it was hardly an improvement to then choose Burnside (who then led his men to Fredericksburg).

Lack of good military information and intelligence can lead to an overly defensive mindset in a commander.

The better the commander the less inactive he is and remains capable of making aggressive command decisions.

The worse a commander is the more inactive he becomes and remains reluctant or complelety avoids making aggressive command decisions.

DB

It goes back to a basic description of Union Generals/Politicians view on how to fight and win the war.

Soft war view was short war of Manoeuvre. Win one battle and the south rejoining the union. Also with not great cost in live lost on both sides..

Hard war view was a long war of attrition. Defeat all the Rebel Armies and defeat the south's will to fight. Which required a large lost of life on both sides.

General Mac was the template for Soft war. He failed as a General and a Candidate because he never was will to fight for what he wanted.

The recent publication in August of Steven Stotelmyer's Too Useful to Sacrifice: Reconsidering George B. McClellan's Generalship in the Maryland Campaign from South Mountain to Antietam may prove to add some new views on this subject. The book is available from Amazon and the reader's reviews are quite interesting, especially the comments following the posted reviews.

link

Right now the book is definitely on my "must-buy" list.

General Mac probably a very good Chief of Staff for an army. Reminds me of Napoleon's Berthier.

My book? Poor to very poor

I always thought of Little Mac as a great map general. He could create strategic situations of advantage, as in his approach to Richmond before the 7 Days and at Antietam, where a more aggressive general might have won the war. I think that is probably why Lee reportedly named him the best Union General. But once the fighting was underway, Mac seemed to be hands off in terms of managing the battle, and he lacked the killer instinct to take the risks necessary to press home his advantages. If he was Napoleon, he would have never committed the Old Guard.

Well, they thought enough of him to name a US Army fort after him in Alabama.

He organized the forces of Ohio at the start of the war and started the process of recovering northwest Virginia for the U.S. he then turned around and built the Army of the Potomac to over 100,000 men. No mean feat. Its what he did with it afterwards where he came up short. He was the right man to build the Army of the Potomac but not the right one to lead it into battle.

One thing I think he is unfairly tarnished for is his 1864 campaign for president. His party may have been anti-war, but he was not.

I agree with Mike Petro: He would have made an excellent chief of staff, but was too timid as a field commander.

I would recommend "Too Useful to Sacrifice " by Steven Stotlemyer for a balanced, fair assessment of McClellan. I found it interesting.

His men may have loved him but they sure didn't vote for him.

Against Lee he was outmatched, who knows what reputation he would have had if Johnston had stayed in command against him.

His biggest failing was to fear for the safety of
his soldiers.

Also his best attribute.

So he fed, clothed and trained them but could not
provide the battlefield leaders (his subordinates)
or the inspiration to his subordinates necessary
to prevail.

who knows what reputation he would have had if Johnston had stayed in command against him.

McClellan and Johnston were much alike: perfectionists, unable to commit for fear of failing -- the very antithesis of Grant, whose motto could have been "nothing ventured, nothing gained."

I think McClennan was responsible for making the Army of the Potomac as good as it was, but as others have said, he lacked faith in his own ability to beat General Lee.

I'm no fan but was he worse than Pope or McDowell?

Or Burnside come to that!

More important is that Meade was the best battlefield commander the AotP ever had.

I'm no fan but was he worse than Pope or McDowell? Or Burnside come to that!

Unfortunately, Burnside was just as bad, but in other ways, and Pope was worse in practically every way. McDowell only got the one chance and did pretty well at first -- hard to compare.

Late to the party but yah, as has been said. He was a great organizer, builder, logistics, etc, just a terrible battlefield commander that lacked that special "6th sense" that all great battlefield leaders have had since recorded history, going all the way back to Alexander the Great.