Geroge B. McLellan

[judgedredd]

So I'm watching Ken Burns Civil War series and I cannot believe the two contrasting sides of McClellan as laid out in the series.

He seemed to be instrumental in forming the cohesive, structured fighting force that became the Army of the Potomac - and yet he sat on his laurels and refused to engage the enemy.

Meanwhile, Sherman, Buell and Grant (and particularly Grant in the west) were making attempts to take the Confederacy head on.

Did he just create something so he could admire it and actually didn't want what he had created to be destroyed? Was he just against fighting a war - or just fighting Americans?

Thoughts?

[bob48]

Yep, he did indeed do wonders for establishing the esprit de corps of the Army of the Potomac after its earlier reverses that had demoralised it  but, as you say, he found it difficult to commit what he had created to battle. He was also very aware that he commanded the only substantial force that stood between Washington and the Confederates, and that likely clouded his judgement to some extent.

He obviously missed chances to take decisive action at Antiatem (Sharpsburg) and in the Yorktown Peninsular campaign.

he also relied a lot on Alan Pinkerton, who he used to gather intelligence, and who frequently massively over estimated the size of the Confederate forces that confronted him.

If you have not already done so, then the 3 books written by Bruce Catton about the Army of the Potomac is well worth reading, and, as a counter, read https://www.amazon.co.uk/Stonewall-Jackson-American-Civil-Classics-ebook/dp/B00SGJZCWI/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Stonewall+Jackson+and+the+American+Civil+War&qid=1582286602&sr=8-2

[bbmike]

I recently discovered the Gettysburg National Park Service series of lectures on Youtube and they are quite good. There is one on George McLellan that I haven't watched yet but I suspect it is very insightful.

[besilarius]

Grant wrote that he felt Mclellans problem was his fast rise.  He jumped from commanding a very small force I. west Virginia, to a huge command that was really beyond him.  This promotion came about from a very small, almost laughably small, campaign in a mountain backwater.  The small fights were won with division size forces, and Rosecrans did the hard fighting.
Mac had run a railroad and was a good organizer.  If he had been chief of staff under a good commander, that would have let him show his skill and let him grow.
A similar situation mighr be General Cunningham in Eighth Army.  He was by all accounts a great staff officer but had no command experience facing the enemy.  Once Rommel did not follow Cunningham s script, he lost control

[mirth]

McClellan...ugh. Right up there with MacArthur and Mark Clark for worst US General of All-time.

I especially love how he abandoned the army during the Seven Days.

[BanzaiCat]

The Union had a dearth of good generals at the outset of the Civil War. A lot of them were shoe-horned into jobs they had little to no business being within.

[bob48]

..and some of them 'Wen't South'...........

[judgedredd]

According to Ken Burns, some old Union General who's name escapes me, said if anyone were to replace him, for the love of god let it be Lee"

Lee was called to the Whitehouse by Lincoln and asked to lead the Union army and he said he couldn't...the day before this request, Virginia (North?) has seceded.

It's all incredibly interesting. I've had the series for 5 years or more and only just getting around to watch it.

[bob48]

Lee's loyalty was to his State. If Virginia had not seceded, then Lee may well have taken up a Union Command.

[BanzaiCat]

Yep. Loyalty to one's State back then was seen as more of a thing than loyalty to the Federal Government. At least, for Southerners. I think Northerners took a great deal of pride from their States (and cities, too), but for the South, when it came to fighting against your home and neighbors, their choice was pretty clear.

[bob48]

As someone who has had a very long time interest in the ACW, I've always been aware that as a non American, I would never be able to understand the depth of feeling that people had in those days, and maybe to some extent even today, for their native State.  Given how mobile people are now, I'm not even sure if the same depth of feeling still exists with Americans of today?

[BanzaiCat]

Well, a lot of people are "proud to be a Texan" or something similar. I loved Texas, but nowadays in my mind it's more about the country as a whole and not individual states.

You'll find all kinds of interesting stuff out there on movements that want to have their state secede from the Union, though. If you scroll down to 'State Secession' in this article it gives you a few good ones to look at. These are definitely people that prefer to go it alone over staying with the federal government. While some of them are whack jobs, some of these movements have a frightening amount of support.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States

[Twitter3]

Interesting topic. I read this thesis a while back and if I remember it correctly it states that part of why McClellan may have been hesitant to attack is because of his time spent as an observer during the Crimean War where he witnessed English and French losses while trying to storm the Russian fortifications.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a133315.pdf

[bob48]

That makes for interesting reading - I was not aware that any serious threat existed these days; just 'fringe' stuff. The only one can remember reading about that seemed to make some sort of sense was Hawaii, given its location.

[bayonetbrant]

As someone who has had a very long time interest in the ACW, I've always been aware that as a non American, I would never be able to understand the depth of feeling that people had in those days, and maybe to some extent even today, for their native State.  Given how mobile people are now, I'm not even sure if the same depth of feeling still exists with Americans of today?

not even close, and the Civil War had a lot to do with that