Little Mac had some real courage

Wouldn't the Confederate government just have retreated to Montgomery?



And 67th Tigers, let's say McClellan had more of a free reign in the army (since you've said Lincoln hampered him in other threads); what is the soonest he could have won the war?

CT23

67th Tigers lives in the world of the 50,000 man Army of the Potomac (if that) and the 100,000 (to 200,000) man Army of Northern Virginia. Therefore, McClellan could never defeat Lee at Antietam. And Lincoln refused to let him win at the Peninsula Campaign.:rolleyes:

As to Montgomery? Once Richmond's industry is lost, the Confederacy won't last long. Kind of like things would have been if the ACW had only been against the original Confederate Secession.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
CT23

67th Tigers lives in the world of the 50,000 man Army of the Potomac (if that) and the 100,000 (to 200,000) man Army of Northern Virginia. Therefore, McClellan could never defeat Lee at Antietam. And Lincoln refused to let him win at the Peninsula Campaign.:rolleyes:

Harsh, Confederate Tide Rising, Appendix 2C

80,000 Confederate effectives attacked 70,000 Union effectives.

We can argue other categories, which are roughly:

Regiments of all arms: 219 vs 170 (28%)
Aggregate present and absent: 180,000 vs 145,000 (24% CS advantage)
Aggregate present: ca. 140,000 vs 115,000 (21%)
PFD(E): 113,000 vs 95,000 (18%)
Effectives: 80,000 vs 70,000 (14%)
 

67th Tigers

Banned
There are different types of courage. He didn't lack physical courage but he did lack courage in the willingness to look bad. He won 6 of the 7 days battles but retreated every time. If he would have advanced he would have whipped Lee. Hell, he suprised the Confederacy so badly he had Macgruder outnumbered at least 10:1 and should have stompped him on the way to Richmond. He greatly outnumbered Lee at Antietham and had plentiful reserves. If he would have commited them Lee would have been stompped. He might not necessarily have to surrender his army but it would have been devestated.

No, Magruder was never that badly outnumbered. As I discuss here. Magruder was heavily reinforced before the armies made contact, and the position was stronger in position and numbers than, say, Vicksburg in mid-1863.

The Seven Days battles sees McClellan outnumbered and turned. It's not popular but it is true. McClellan is indeed actually "saving the army".

The question of reserves at Antietam is interesting. McClellan kept a single division in reserve for most of the battle. Initially it's Richardson's, but he releases Richardson to Sumner and grabs Morell's division as it arrives. Later on McClellan releases 2 of Morell's 3 brigades to shore up Burnside.

Franklin's 2 divisions were largely used to relieve shattered sections of his line. 2 brigades of Slocum's division were ordered to attack, but Sumner stopped them and McClellan agreed when he visited Sumner's lines that the line was in such a bad shape he needed the troops to shore up the line against a counterattack.

Incidently, Lee was gathering a counterattack. He had 2 brigades of Stuarts cavalry, 2 unengaged brigades from Hill's division and Hood's division moving to turn the Federal right. It fizzled, mainly due to a lack of Confederate artillery ammunition (they'd already withdrawn their reserve ammunition train over the Potomac).
 
CT23

67th Tigers lives in the world of the 50,000 man Army of the Potomac (if that) and the 100,000 (to 200,000) man Army of Northern Virginia. Therefore, McClellan could never defeat Lee at Antietam. And Lincoln refused to let him win at the Peninsula Campaign.:rolleyes:

As to Montgomery? Once Richmond's industry is lost, the Confederacy won't last long. Kind of like things would have been if the ACW had only been against the original Confederate Secession.

With a bonus Grant-Wank. :D
 
I think part of the question here is what "Courage" means according to 19th Century versus present day standards. This was the era of glorious charges, strategy based on Napoleonic warfare, affronts to personal honor, and so forth. Was Mac a bad general by the standards of his day? Yes, IMO. But today he would probably have made a decent commander.

Also I think if Mac were more successful on the field then he probably wouldn't have run against Lincoln but waited until 1868 and maybe run against Grant.
 
Top