Is it possible to have a Victorious McClellan TL without any sort of bias?

As the title says. Is it at all possible to have a Victorious McClellan Timeline without any sort of bias? And by this i mean, are we able to actually make McClellan attack during the Battle of Seven Days and even take Richmond. To have an actual successful TL where McClellan is the hero of the west, and say even president in 1865 or 1869m, if at all possible?

Is it actually that much of a challenge to make McClellan to be something that he was making himself out to be, especially in terms of Brilliance and Generalship?
 
It's possible to make McClellan a winner if Lee does not get command in the Peninsula Campaign. It's impossible to make McClellan as brilliant a general as he thought he was.
 
It's possible to make McClellan a winner if Lee does not get command in the Peninsula Campaign. It's impossible to make McClellan as brilliant a general as he thought he was.

Agreed. He may have been prodded into somewhat heightened aggression, and against somebody other than Lee he may even have done better, but the man literally thought he was the Napoleon of his age.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
McClellan had one winning campaign under his belt in 1861

Agreed. He may have been prodded into somewhat heightened aggression, and against somebody other than Lee he may even have done better, but the man literally thought he was the Napoleon of his age.

The Western Virginia campaign, which although not simple for the US forces, was certainly not easy for the rebels given the distances involved, terrain, and generally limited resources both sides had at the time, plus the advantages the US forces had...

So having said that, if Lincoln had been more realistic about the next "jump" for GBM, the likely move is to Ohio-Kentucky...

If GBM had been sent west in 1861, leaving Rosecrans in WV, presumably he takes over from Sherman in what became the Department of the Ohio.

The 1862 campaigns in Kentucky and Tennessee, with Grant and GBM rather than Grant and DC Buell, could be an entertaining series of events to explore.

Of course, that begs the question of who - if anyone - gets the general-in-chief post in 1861, along with the Army of the Potomac.

My personal picks are JKF Mansfield as GinC and EV Sumner for the AotP, based on seniority and assignments in the Old Army.

Could be interesting come spring, 1862...

Best,
 
Last edited:
The 1862 campaigns in Kenutcky and Tennessee, with Grant and GBM rather than Grant and DC Buell, could be an entertaining series of events to explore.
Now that is interesting, especialy considering that McClellan snubbed Grant when he was called upon in Illinois was it? and he would most likely go along with what Halleck says about Grant's drunkeness, and would also try to remove him and place himself in command. Then again, doesn't he rank Grant? So that would be a problem in itself, even though Grant did alright with Halleck, i guess.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Two different commands, however

Now that is interesting, especialy considering that McClellan snubbed Grant when he was called upon in Illinois was it? and he would most likely go along with what Halleck says about Grant's drunkeness, and would also try to remove him and place himself in command. Then again, doesn't he rank Grant? So that would be a problem in itself, even though Grant did alright with Halleck, i guess.


McClellan would have the Army/Department of the Ohio (instead of Buell), and Grant the Army/Department/District of the Tennesee.

Of course, if GBM goes all the way west, he gets the position that Halleck received, historically, and so he is theater commander over Curtis, Pope, Grant, and Buell.

Which seems like a stretch from running something less than a corps in West Virginia, but then he got the G-in-C billet replacing Scott, so anything is possible, presumably...

Best,
 
McClellan would have the Army/Department of the Ohio (instead of Buell), and Grant the Army/Department/District of the Tennesee.

Of course, if GBM goes all the way west, he gets the position that Halleck received, historically, and so he is theater commander over Curtis, Pope, Grant, and Buell.

Which seems like a stretch from running something less than a corps in West Virginia, but then he got the G-in-C billet replacing Scott, so anything is possible, presumably...

Best,
so that would mean that Halleck would maybe be next in command after Scott maybe. I mean, he was a rather excellent organiser, especilaly as CoS.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Halleck is certainly an obvious choice, but if the POD

so that would mean that Halleck would maybe be next in command after Scott maybe. I mean, he was a rather excellent organiser, especilaly as CoS.

Halleck is certainly an obvious choice, but if the POD is where does GBM go in July, 1861 (i.e., after 1st Bull Run) then Halleck is still in California, as is Sumner.

Which is why I think Mansfield is the likely choice among the regulars, given his rank and assignments in the Old Army; Wool's age, and Dix's, stand against them.

Best,
 
Halleck is certainly an obvious choice, but if the POD is where does GBM go in July, 1861 (i.e., after 1st Bull Run) then Halleck is still in California, as is Sumner.

Which is why I think Mansfield is the likely choice among the regulars, given his rank and assignments in the Old Army; Wool's age, and Dix's, stand against them.

Best,

And as I recall, Scott held Mansfield in esteem (why, that I don't know). That's gotta count for something, both as Scott vouching for him and whatever it is that made Scott doing so attracting other support.
 
And as I recall, Scott held Mansfield in esteem (why, that I don't know). That's gotta count for something, both as Scott vouching for him and whatever it is that made Scott doing so attracting other support.
I just had a look at his wiki entry, and i did not see anything that was , well, like Lee-level esteem.
 
I wonder to what extent McClellan's observation of the seige of Sebastopol obscured his thinking about big slow moving sieges and logistical concerns.

What if instead McClellan is an observer of the more fluid battles of the Franco-Austrian War?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
He ends up becoming Kearny?

I wonder to what extent McClellan's observation of the seige of Sebastopol obscured his thinking about big slow moving sieges and logistical concerns.

What if instead McClellan is an observer of the more fluid battles of the Franco-Austrian War?

Mansfield was USMA, second in the class of '22; served as an engineer, including as cheif engineer under Taylor in the northeastern Mexican campaign, and was brevetted major, lt. colonel, and full colonel. He saw action and led troops at Monterey and Buena Vista - so, basically, he was a well-educated, smart, engineer/combined arms officer who had been recognized three times for gallantry by the age of 45.

Not bad.

Then, in 1853, he was recommended as inspector general of the army (staff rank: full colonel, RA), in which post he served for the next years, working directly for Scott as general-in-chief and touring every post (including the arsenals and armories) and meeting a wide range of the serving active duty officers of the prewar Army.

Again, not bad, and explains Scott's high regard for him.

In May, 1861, Lincoln appointed him brigadier general (RA) and Mansfield was assigned to command the defenses of Washington; he seized and fortified the south side of the Potomac, and laid out the initial defenses of the capital.

So, all in all, he's the closest equivalent of Scott (or Lee, for that matter) in blue in '61, and he was only 57 - four years older than Lee - and in excellent health.

He would have been my Old Army pick (and in fact is, in BROS) for G-in-C, to replace Scott.

Best,
 
Top