I'm sure many of our number are watching the re-broadcast of Ken Burns' classic, The Civil War, this week on PBS (at least in the greater Philadelphia area). That work suggests in more than one instance that McClellan was a genius at organization, administration, and morale, but mediocre/pedestrian at best when it came to strategy and tactics.
For example, the account of Antietam indicated that even a modest amount of forcefulness/audacity would have led McClellan to follow up an attack on the Confederate center. Such a follow-up, Burns suggests, would have led to a breakthrough and essential annihilation of the Confederate forces--and very possibly an end to the war in 1862. The accounts of the Peninsula campaign indicate the same: extreme cautiousness that led to the repulsion of an overwhelmingly superior (in numbers) Union force by a relatively small Confederate force, when a bit more forcefulness could have yielded Richmond and the Confederate government in full flight.
So: discussion. Is this anywhere accurate? My inclination is to believe so, given Burns' penchant for research, but others may dissent.
For example, the account of Antietam indicated that even a modest amount of forcefulness/audacity would have led McClellan to follow up an attack on the Confederate center. Such a follow-up, Burns suggests, would have led to a breakthrough and essential annihilation of the Confederate forces--and very possibly an end to the war in 1862. The accounts of the Peninsula campaign indicate the same: extreme cautiousness that led to the repulsion of an overwhelmingly superior (in numbers) Union force by a relatively small Confederate force, when a bit more forcefulness could have yielded Richmond and the Confederate government in full flight.
So: discussion. Is this anywhere accurate? My inclination is to believe so, given Burns' penchant for research, but others may dissent.