Search results

Great post but I'll push back a little in regard to McClellan and Hooker. Hooker did not start the centralization process it began under McClellan. For the Antietam campaign McClellan centralized the cavalry into a division, not a corps yet, but still a progressive step. During the campaign the...

I was referring to the day of Union attacking not the previous day of Confederate attack. The previous day is the Antietam equivalent to South Mountain I suppose. The Confederate army arrived back at Corinth intact I don't see much of a difference. Grant destroyed roughly the same amount of the...

I agree with you on the numbers. I'll give you the issues with day 2 and leave it up to your opinion. First issues are the weather heavy rain and McClellan himself is ill. Hooker is injured out of command, Mansfield is dead, Sumner got chewed up and Burnside is a bit demoralized. So the bulk of...

McClellan was already on the march before he got Lee's orders and had already planned to attack South Mountain. Also the marching orders were a week old so I think its overrated. It maybe gave McClellan a bit more optimism but not much else in my opinion. Again I'm not trying to make an excuses...

Yes people have been having this debate. The issue is that's McClellan's total strength which arrives by the night. Carman who was at the battle reported only 56,000 on the field that day. So yes McClellan has numerical advantage but not as gigantic as perceived. Even so if we imply McClellan...

I don't dislike Lee as a general. He was surely aggressive and was able to take advantage of mediocre generals Pope, Burnside, Hooker to great effect. When he fought McClellan, Meade or Grant he couldn't achieve the same results. People also overlook that Meade was largely in tactical control...

That's an interesting point. It could also be argued that Lee was overaggressive and it got him into trouble. While McClellan was a steady Wellington of sorts who would have won if given time. I think McClellan was prepared to take Richmond in 62 but when he didn't get McDowell's corps he got...

Yeah, I don't think Lee was necessarily a bad general but his star is exaggerated. He wasn't the most hands on commander and was blessed by able subordinates. Events like Malvern Hill and Picketts Charge just strike me as illogical. While his great victories such at 2nd Bull Run and...

I don't get into American politics much but heres what I'll say I could see people hijacking McClellan for their own purposes though I don't think he has any name recognition compared to Grant-Lee. McClellan is featured in alot of Confederate victory timelines I see but I think they forget he...

I don't read Joe Harsh's stuff personally so I can't comment on it. If you say he's a raging Neo-Confederate i'll take your word for it. I still don't know why this effects McClellan all that much? Neo-Confederates bash McClellan just as much if not more than Union people in my opinion. Wouldn't...

Just curious why does everyone seem too build up Lee at the expense of all the Union generals? Grant is a butcher and Meade-McClellan are too cautious I hear the same thing all the time. It doesn't change the fact that Grant crushed Lee, Meade defeated him at Gettysburg and McClellan defeated...

Sure an amphibious landing behind enemy lines isn't risky, he didn't have a 2nd Bull Run, Fredericksburg or Chancellorsville if that's what your looking for. If McClellan could have won slowly and methodically that would have been a good thing I think. I just don't see the positives of giving...

Rethinking this a bit, if McClellan had launched an attack on the 18th I can't see it ending differently then the previous days battle. I still might have launched it for the sake of trying but chances are it would have been repulsed which just adds to the casualties. I don't have an evidence to...

Thanks for the reply. I agree with you too an extent, I think McClellan did tend to dawdle a bit. Here's a few points i'll make on Antietam. Despite the common perceptions, I don't think McClellan had much reserves available for decisive action on 17th. Everything seems to have been put into the...

I fully understand most of the criticism of McClellan's style of command, the numbers debate, personality excreta. What however did he do as a commander that was so terrible? I don't recall any disasters of epic proportions. I think of him as a commander that could be effective at times but...

That's not the same. Army of Tennessee or Cumberland never driven from the field at such an early stage in the war. Had they been they would have need major restructuring and a morale boost. The situation after First Bull Run was really bad. The army was in shambles and the Confederate had taken...

Your right on Ike but you can't actually believe McClellan accomplished almost nothing? He built and rebuilt the Army of the Potomac after 1st and 2nd Bull Run, cleared/fortified the area around Washington, beat Lee back in Maryland. Without that I don't know how the Union would have stayed...

Welcome, Its funny because I hear alot of similar criticism directed at Eisenhower. He was too political, he was too cautious, he wasn't a field commander, he let the Germans escape at Falaise.

I don't know when the capital is in danger countries tend to pull out all the stops. By 1864 however I don't think they could anymore the manpower just wasn't available, 1862 is a different story. McClellan was getting attacked ferociously by Lee and I don't think its odd that he would inflate...

Yep I like him too, I have A Stillness at Appomattox in front of me. I read Beatie's books a few years ago. They aren't half bad either went in depth on alot of topics I didn't know much about like Ball's Bluff. I found this the other day, you might enjoy: Dwight D. Eisenhower and Historian...