McClellan a good General or a Fool?

[CT23]

What was it 67th said in another thread...something like McClellan could have had the war won by 1863 if Lincoln had given him free reign?

 

[John Farson]

What was it 67th said in another thread...something like McClellan could have had the war won by 1863 if Lincoln had given him free reign?

HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Oh man, thanks, I needed the laugh.

McClellan, winning the war by '63. Sure, provided he was given a set of balls. And shot Pinkerton from a cannon.

 

[mrmandias]

This should be added to the Wiki.

I thought originally 67 was a combination of McClellan worship confused and Pro-Confederate likenings (No shortage of those on the forum). But after his Trent Affair TL, I realize he really doesn't like the South any much more than the North. You could say he was like the director Hugh Hudson, writer Robert Dillon, and producer Irwin Winkler, makers of the 1985 Al Pacino film "Revolution". They didn't choose sides between the British and Americans. They hated both of them, showing the only heroes as the hopeless and helpless Native Americans and African-American slaves (But that's another Imperialist War Horror Story). Uber-PC before it was PC to be Uber-PC.

It was filmed in England, cost $28,000,000+, and garnered $380,000! Poor Al Pacino couldn't get work for 4 long years. The film has an 8% rotten tomatoes rating and was nominated for 4 razzies. The reason? One long meal of Anti-Americanism with a heavy sprinkling of smearing the British. If 67 were to make a movie about the ACW, I suspect it would run something like "Revolution."

67th Tigers is an inveterate and incorrigible iconoclast. Whatever is the established historical dogma, he must destroy it, and call in a new interpretation based on a "clearer view of the data, unencumbered by emotion." In other words, villains must be rehabilitated, and heroes deconstructed. Hence, George B. McClellan. The exception to all this is the period of the Pax Britannica, a time of utopian brotherhood throughout the world where ever the Union Jack flew.

 

[benjamin]

... and so we see the bias.

Since Lincoln is "America's greatest President" [sic] then he must have done no wrong. Ergo the problems must have been due to those who opposed him, like McClellan. McClellan is reduced to a foil for Lincoln, which was a useful narrative technique when introduced.

Of course, Lincoln was, at the time, considered the worst President in US history (see Tagg's "The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln"). The period of him assuming direct command of the armies can only be considered disasterous (see, for example, Stoker's "The Grand Design" for discussions of high level strategy and war aims)

What does it matter how Lincoln was viewed "at the time." At the time it was acceptable in large parts of the world to own slaves and prohibit women from voting. Lincoln's lack of popularity stemmed from his position as a moderate. The Radicals and Garrisonian Abolitionists hated him for being too conciliatory to the South while the Slave Power and the Copperheads hated him for being a Black Republican. All of those groups were proven wrong.

You can criticize the man all you want, but he was almost certainly the only person of the era able to preserve the Union and end slavery. The bloodshed and misery of the Civil War were not of his making. He abhorred the thought of war, but he hated the thought of seeing the country ripped apart even more. The South knew full well that secession meant war and was illegal as other presidents, including Southerners, had said just that.

As for siting Tagg's work it's a very odd choice. Tagg himself says in an interview for AVClub.com that the contemporary view of Lincoln was wrong.

"But there’s good reason we perceive him as we do today. With distance, we can see the greatness of this man." Tagg says.

As for Lincoln's strategic sense...he was not a military man. And while he would have been better served by listening to Winfield Scott from the get go, he learned and was willing to admit his mistakes. Barring again General Scott, no really had a good grasp of strategy during the early years of the ACW. This includes Davis and Lee.

 

[CT23]

. And while he would have been better served by listening to Winfield Scott from the get go, he learned and was willing to admit his mistakes. Barring again General Scott, no really had a good grasp of strategy during the early years of the ACW. This includes Davis and Lee.

Are you referring to the Anaconda Plan?

 

[usertron2020]

What was it 67th said in another thread...something like McClellan could have had the war won by 1863 if Lincoln had given him free reign?

Yes, but for which side?

 

[usertron2020]

DOWN BOY!!!!!

Then again, I do seem to agree. I haven't really seen anything other than references in any of 67's posts. Yet I somehow find them informative....in a manner of speaking.

Of all the people on the forum, he is the only one who truly brings out the worst in me. There have been others, but their statements got them quickly banned.

As to your statement that in regard to 67's references you "somehow find them informative....in a manner of speaking"? Are you being literal, ironic, or both?

EDIT: Or were you speaking of the posts themselves and what they say of the author of them?

 

[CT23]

Yes, but for which side?

Was it you who said McClellan was one of the better generals the CSA had?

 

[usertron2020]

Was it you who said McClellan was one of the better generals the CSA had?

I simply must have said it somewhere, but don't ask me the thread or post#. It's exactly what I think, and have often said. Even in creating the AotP, he instilled in it his own paranoid personality causing a level of mutual distrust between senior commanders that with few exceptions (say, McClernand, Rosecrans, and a few others) just wasn't a problem out west. So even when he did well, he still created problems.

As to an earlier reference on the idea of how McClellan would do as a Southern commander, well, he wouldn't have any Gettysburgs to his discredit, that's for sure.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

EDIT: Or were you speaking of the posts themselves and what they say of the author of them?

Definitely this. A person cannot rely on books/sources all of the time to present their point of view. Yes, they are needed to reinforce said view, but so far i cannot tell whether he actually has his own point-of-view, or whether he is presenting several different sources POV's.

I mean, we can see that McClellan had some issues. He certainly isn't on the scale comparable to Grant or Sherman, or even Lee, even if Lee actually said that McClellan was the best Union General that he faced in battle. But if we compare McClellan to other brilliant tactician minds of the past, such as Napoleon, he certainly doesn't measure up.

Hell even Napoleon had his faults. And he was certainly no George Washington or or Frederick the Great either.

Personally i credit McClellan, like everyone else, with creating the Army of the Potomac. But creating something is hell-of-a-lotta different from being able to control it. It actually wouldn't have surprised me that McClellan would not have actually committed a coup against Lincoln just to remain in control.

Was it you who said McClellan was one of the better generals the CSA had?

I simply must have said it somewhere, but don't ask me the thread or post#. It's exactly what I think, and have often said. Even in creating the AotP, he instilled in it his own paranoid personality causing a level of mutual distrust between senior commanders that with few exceptions (say, McClernand, Rosecrans, and a few others) just wasn't a problem out west. So even when he did well, he still created problems.

As to an earlier reference on the idea of how McClellan would do as a Southern commander, well, he wouldn't have any Gettysburgs to his discredit, that's for sure.

Would anyone rate McClellan as the Union's version of Joseph E Johnston???

 

[usertron2020]

Definitely this. A person cannot rely on books/sources all of the time to present their point of view. Yes, they are needed to reinforce said view, but so far I cannot tell whether he actually has his own point-of-view, or whether he is presenting several different sources POV's.

Pax Britannica Uber Alles.
FDR caused the Fall of the British Empire.
Abraham Lincoln (may be) one of our worst presidents (he's never said that flat out AFAIK, but...)
The British Empire still had the ability to conquer the USA up to the mid-1940's-I'm not making this up
One Southern soldier is worth 5 Yankees, one British soldier is worth 5 Southern soldiers, so...
These appear to be his own POV's based on his post history, but good luck getting specifics from him, or even admitting the existence of some of his more outrageous claims. His final refuge is twofold: sophistry, followed by abandoning the thread altogether.

I mean, we can see that McClellan had some issues. He certainly isn't on the scale comparable to Grant or Sherman, or even Lee, even if Lee actually said that McClellan was the best Union General that he faced in battle.

Have you considered Lee may have been speaking tongue-in-cheek, whether Lee himself realized it or not when he said it? After all, if I were Lee, McClellan would be my favorite Union General too!

Personally I credit McClellan, like everyone else, with creating the Army of the Potomac. But creating something is hell-of-a-lotta different from being able to control it. It actually wouldn't have surprised me that McClellan would not have actually committed a coup against Lincoln just to remain in control.

He had his eyes on the White House through the ballot box. If not for the Fall of Atlanta, he may well have gotten it.

Would anyone rate McClellan as the Union's version of Joseph E Johnston???

You read my mind!

 

[CT23]

How is McClellan comparable to Johnston? (I don't know that much about Johnston)

Did Johnston screw potential opportunities for the South like McClellan did for the North?

 

[usertron2020]

How is McClellan comparable to Johnston? (I don't know that much about Johnston)

Did Johnston screw potential opportunities for the South like McClellan did for the North?

In regards to Johnston and McClellan? For Johnston, the impetus was on holding on to ground, and keeping the army intact. McClellan more or less did the same. However, it was his responsibility to drive the enemy back, destroy their armies, and seize the capital. Far better than Lee, Johnston kept his army together as a force in being. It was only when the issue of defending fixed points like Vicksburg that he got into trouble.

The Seven Days battles and Sherman's advance on Atlanta were perfect examples of how either McClellan or Johnston would operate on defense. Giving up ground regularly, making the enemy pay as much as possible while limiting their own losses. However, both men eventually ran out of room.

Johnston never himself really had the resources for any "opportunities" as McClellan certainly did. Unless you too believe in the 200,000 man Army of Northern Virginia.

Johnston's biggest problem was that what 67 says of Lincoln, Jefferson Davis actually DID. But that was the problem all southern generals had, save Lee, and to a lesser extent, Bragg.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

He had his eyes on the White House through the ballot box. If not for the Fall of Atlanta, he may well have gotten it.
You read my mind!

I know he had his eyes on the White House. Especially during the 1964 election. But what i am saying is that he was probably volatile enough when in command of the army of the Potomac to actually march the army into Washington and take control in a coup in 1862.

I mean, to actually quote McClellan here in one of his letters to his wife, just after he received command of the AotP he states that he "find's myself in a new and strange position here: President, cabinet, Gen. Scott, and all deferring to me. By some strange operation of magic I seem to have become the power of the land.“

So ,given enough pressure to continue attacking the COnfederates, and perhaps somewhere around Antietam, could the pressure have gotten to him??? I mean, you never know - in a manner of speaking - what a General commanding an army is capable until the final moment.

----

Oh, and to copy 67 for a mocking moment. Here is an interesting quote to back-up one of the posts before about McClellan become Commander-in-Chief with someone else in command of the AotP: General Phillip Kearny...(there are already some edits/additions to the actual quote, but i thought it relevant enough.)

“Still although there is no one to exactly replace McClellan-But I now proclaim distinctly that unless a Chief, a live officer, not an Engineer, of military prestige, (success under fire with troops) is put in command of the Army of the Potomac, (leaving McClellan the bureau duties of General in Chief), that we will be in for some awful disaster..McClellan’s fault is, that calculating for a future presidency, he succumbed to the politicians.”
Kearny, Phil
Kearney commenting on McClellan’s lack of front line troop leading experience
Mason, Jack C. Until Antietam The Life and Letters of Major General Israel B. Richardson, U.S. Army. Carbondale IL: Southern Illinois Press, 2009 Pg 124

 

[usertron2020]

I know he had his eyes on the White House. Especially during the 1864 election. But what I am saying is that he was probably volatile enough when in command of the army of the Potomac to actually march the army into Washington and take control in a coup in 1862.

JamesPhoenix

Um, please don't curbstomp me, but are you an American? (with a name like JamesPhoenix...) I can understand how someone living in a more gentile parliamentary system might think that was possible, considering the violent overthrows of so many republican style governments. But no matter how popular McClellan was with his troops, not a man would follow him. His own corps commanders would immediately put him under arrest. After all, the first to do so, or the most senior to do so (probably the same person), would be the one taking his place as commander of the Army of the Potomac.

McClellan's ego was huge, but not Napoleonic. You need to do more than secure West Virginia and build up an army to get the credentials Nappy had when he took power, and the 1st French Republic had only been around 14 years when the Napster declared himself Emperor. The US Constitution had been in force 75 years.

Moreover, his popularity didn't go very far beyond the AotP's encampments.

I mean, to actually quote McClellan here in one of his letters to his wife, just after he received command of the AotP he states that he "find's myself in a new and strange position here: President, cabinet, Gen. Scott, and all deferring to me. By some strange operation of magic I seem to have become the power of the land.“

Honeymoon ecstasy.

So, given enough pressure to continue attacking the Confederates, and perhaps somewhere around Antietam, could the pressure have gotten to him??? I mean, you never know - in a manner of speaking - what a General commanding an army is capable until the final moment.

See above. He might order it, only to find himself on the way to the Dry Tortugas (Dr. Samuel Mudd's future place of residence).

Oh, and to copy 67 for a mocking moment. Here is an interesting quote to back-up one of the posts before about McClellan become Commander-in-Chief with someone else in command of the AotP: General Phillip Kearny...(there are already some edits/additions to the actual quote, but i thought it relevant enough.)

“Still although there is no one to exactly replace McClellan-But I now proclaim distinctly that unless a Chief, a live officer, not an Engineer, of military prestige, (success under fire with troops) is put in command of the Army of the Potomac, (leaving McClellan the bureau duties of General in Chief), that we will be in for some awful disaster..McClellan’s fault is, that calculating for a future presidency, he succumbed to the politicians.”
Kearny, Phil
Kearney commenting on McClellan’s lack of front line troop leading experience
Mason, Jack C. Until Antietam The Life and Letters of Major General Israel B. Richardson, U.S. Army. Carbondale IL: Southern Illinois Press, 2009 Pg 124

But he was there, a contemporary witness of events! So why didn't he see the truth of McClellan's greatness? Must have been another Lincoln-lover! Dear God, their numbers are LEGION!

Tell me, JamesPhoenix. Do you think that 67 will ever come down from his ivory tower and see the real world for what it is, and was? That it wasn't the opinions of mid-twentieth century historians who molded the "historical dogma", as he likes to say, of Lincoln and McClellan?

These arguments 67 makes were settled on Election Day, 1864. And punctuated at Appomattox. They've been over for a century and a half, and 67 calls his ideas "a new look". Turn the page.

 

[Free Lancer]

But he was there, a contemporary witness of events! So why didn't he see the truth of McClellan's greatness? Must have been another Lincoln-lover! Dear God, their numbers are LEGION!

Tell me, JamesPhoenix. Do you think that 67 will ever come down from his ivory tower and see the real world for what it is, and was? That it wasn't the opinions of mid-twentieth century historians who molded the "historical dogma", as he likes to say, of Lincoln and McClellan?

These arguments 67 makes were settled on Election Day, 1864. And punctuated at Appomattox. They've been over for a century and a half, and 67 calls his ideas "a new look". Turn the page.

I know i am Part of that Lincoln Legion
Maybe ill make a Chat to talk about how Awesome he is
67 might some day come down but not today

but i will say this he makes for a preaty good Discussion for his Ideals

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Um, please don't curbstomp me, but are you an American?

I don't know whether i should be insulted by that??? ... I do say sir that i am an Australian and proud of it, but as another person said before, all people from Australia are apparently criminals and the scum of the British Empire - ergo they are rejects. So therefore i wouldn't know crap about your perfect model of Republicanism or Democracy.

with a name like JamesPhoenix...)

Wow. My name really bother's you that much. So depressing that you need to attack/obsess over my name in a post??? WTF

Tell me, JamesPhoenix. Do you think that 67 will ever come down from his ivory tower and see the real world for what it is, and was? That it wasn't the opinions of mid-twentieth century historians who molded the "historical dogma", as he likes to say, of Lincoln and McClellan?

These arguments 67 makes were settled on Election Day, 1864. And punctuated at Appomattox. They've been over for a century and a half, and 67 calls his ideas "a new look". Turn the page.

Are you like attacking me - personally? Or are you attacking me for attempting to rile up 67?

Still, i appreciate the criticism. (no sarcasm intended)

Man, you used to be cool!!!

 

[usertron2020]

Wow it made two Comments wonder why

You can edit one and delete the other.

 

[Free Lancer]

I don't know whether i should be insulted by that??? ... I do say sir that i am an Australian and proud of it, but as another person said before, all people from Australia are apparently criminals and the scum of the British Empire - ergo they are rejects. So therefore i wouldn't know crap about your perfect model of Republicanism or Democracy.



Wow. My name really bother's you that much. So depressing that you need to attack/obsess over my name in a post??? WTF



Are you like attacking me - personally? Or are you attacking me for attempting to rile up 67?

Still, i appreciate the criticism. (no sarcasm intended)

Man, you used to be cool!!!

Dont take it as a Insult what he trying to say is at that time the Chance of McClellan of Trying to Over throw the Lincoln Administration is at 10 Percent he would need his Army to do it and there corps Commanders who were Loyal to Lincoln and the Union.

 

[usertron2020]

I don't know whether i should be insulted by that??? ... I do say sir that i am an Australian and proud of it, but as another person said before, all people from Australia are apparently criminals and the scum of the British Empire - ergo they are rejects. So therefore i wouldn't know crap about your perfect model of Republicanism or Democracy.

Yikes! I was trying to say, as I have in the past, that parliamentary systems are, IMVHO, SUPERIOR to republican (small r, it refers to the system, not political parties) ones. You are blessed with a form of government far more responsive to the wishes of the public while keeping a good well-ordered government. Indeed, the only thing the republican system has which isn't inferior to the parliamentary system is the concept of the Independent Judiciary. Though even that has burned us from time to time (Kelo v. New London, and Bush v. Gore).

Since you suggested the possibility of a military coup in Washington I didn't think you would be upset about a discussion of the civics of the strengths of parliamentary and republican systems. What I meant to say, but obviously totally miscommunicated, was that a military coup is as unthinkable to Americans (USA) as it would be to anyone living in a parliamentary system.

In the Burt Lancaster/Frederic March film, "Five Days in May", the coup story was built around the impossibly unlikely story of the USSR and USA engaging in total mutual nuclear disarmament (Start learning chinese, people). Hence, the military goes out of it's gourd. But the film wasn't about that, only how the civilian government holds on to power in the face of a military threat that has genuine concerns, not simply the acts of a supreme egotist (though Lancaster's character, General James Matoon Scott, certainly was a megalomaniac).

The reason I asked about your origin was because it occurred to me that someone living in so stable a system as that of a prime ministerial government might find it easier to believe the USA was more vulnerable to such a thing. Considering the horrific histories of attempts by Third World countries to adopt the American system (as opposed to European style parliaments), especially in Latin America (and the Philippines), your concerns are far more understandable as a non-American.

ARE there even any countries in the process of adopting the republican system over the parliamentary? I don't think so, and wouldn't advise it. The American Civil War proved to many, particularly the Canadian people, that there were serious flaws in the US Constitution.

As to the ridiculous cunard about Australians? We in the US had that smear placed on us from our birth as a country until WWI, when Europe suddenly decided they needed us.

Wow. My name really bother's you that much. So depressing that you need to attack/obsess over my name in a post??? WTF

WTF indeed. I took your tag to be just that, a tag, not your given name. Not too many people do that. "Phoenix" could be interpreted that you are a fan of X-Men comics/movies, you live in Arizona, or that is your full given name. Depressing?

Are you like attacking me - personally? Or are you attacking me for attempting to rile up 67?

I'm attacking you personally?? JamesPhoenix, man, I LOVE your work, never think I have any ill thoughts against you for a second! I have NOTHING against you, personally or otherwise. Is this about that stupid mistake I made about Mr. STUPID Mel Gibson!? Man, I deleted it and apologized.

Attacking YOU for attempting to rile up 67??? WTFWTFWTFWTFWTF!? Nobody ever told me I was 67th Tigers' FRIEND!!x infinity

Still, i appreciate the criticism. (no sarcasm intended)

ABSOLUTELY NO CRITICISM INTENDED WHATSOEVER.

Man, you used to be cool!!!

I have been on this Earth 50 years. No one ever called me cool before, even in the past tense. Tell me what I can do to make things up to you. Other than to let you know I've seen "The Last Bastion" over 100 times. Really.