WI: No McClellan?

TFSmith121

Banned
It's the double C and the double L...

I wasn't quite sure how his name was spelled.:eek:

It's the double C and the double L...

So, in terms of what he was educated to do (as opposed to running a railroad or whatever):

If GBM isn't around in 1861, then someone else gets command of the Ohio state volunteers raised that year and takes them into western Virginia; likely candidates - literally - run from Robert Allen to Charles R. Woods.

Realistically, given McClellan's historical subordinates in the western Virginia campaign, probably would have been Rosecrans or Joseph J. Reynolds; less likely could have been Kelly, Morris, Hills, R.L. Cox, Benham, Milroy, Schenck, Landers, or Shields.

Best,
 
Last edited:
Realistically, given McClellan's historical subordinates in the western Virginia campaign, probably would have been Roscrans or Joseph J. Reynolds; less likely could have been Kelly, Morris, Hills, R.L. Cox, Benham, Milroy, Schenck, Landers, or Shields.

Well, that reminds me that McClellan wasn't the only shit general on the Union side.
 
No George B. McClellan means the US Government is reliant on the Armed Mob of the Potomac to enforce its policy on the Rebels in the region of Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania, well probably not so much in Virginia. His field command was unimpressive, some might go so far as to to say rubbish but his organisational ability gave the Union an actual Army that could wage war.

There was a reason he remained popular with actual Union soldiers long after he was dismissed. They understood the importance of being in an army whose officers, especially those on the staffs of higher commands, knew not merely how to find their own asses but their horses asses (actual asses are also useful in pre-motorised warfare but are a very different animal to the part of you, you sit on) and how to get, say, cartridges and rations to the fighting brigades and not dumped in a field getting wet.

Every success of the Army of the Potomac and possibly Union arms in general owes something to him. However it should also be remembered that he underperformed as a field commander and showed far too much interest in politics than is perhaps advisable in the senior most officer of an army serving a democratic republic.
 
Say what you will about him as a commanding general during the actual fighting but McClellan did train and build up the AoTP and did lay the beginning groundwork for the eventual victory with it. Without him I don't know if anyone can train the army even half as well in the year he had with it.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
That seems a trifle harsh on GBM...

Well, that reminds me that McClellan wasn't the only shit general on the Union side.

That seems a trifle harsh on GBM... to whatever level he organzied and then commanded the Army of the Potomac, he gets (at least) credit for Antietam, which considering who was leading the ANV, seems like a reasonably noteworthy accomplishment.

As far as his subordinates in West Virginia, Rosecrans was certainly capable enough at the corps-level and below, and showed to be very effective at maneuver warfare during Tullahoma, at which point his troops - both straigtleg and mounted infantry - proved themselves quite capable of dealing with apparently best the rebels had in the west, and on the offensive, at such locations as Liberty Gap and Hoover's Gap.

JJ Reynolds rose from regimental commander to brigade, division, and corps command, serving effectively in combat at every level, and served as George Thomas' chief of staff; not exactly a slouch, either.

Kelly had a mixed record as a general officer in various garrison and security assignments; nothing spectacular, but ended up as a bvt. major general;

Morris did well with a brigade in West Virginia in 1861 and actually declined a MG's commission in the USVs, returning to the railroad industry as an executive in 1862;

Hill did okay with his brigade in West Virginia, but left the service afterwards, akin to Morris;

Cox served as a brigade and district commander effectively enough, and also ended up a MG in the USVs;

Benham had a poor record as an infantry brigade commander, but excelled as a combat engineer, and led the AotP's engineer brigade from 1863 to the end of the war, also getting a MG bvt.

Milroy had a mixed record as a brigade commander, and his division was smashed by Ewelll's corps at Winchester in '63;

Schenck wasn't much of a field commander, but was WIA in '62 and served on rear area duties for the rest of the war;

Lander died of illness in '62 after a record in '61 that wasn't especially bad or good;

Shields also wasn't much of a field commander.

So of the 11 men named, two were solid combat commanders at the corps level; one was a solid brigade commander and was offered significant promotions, but declined; another was excellent in his chosen combat arm, but not as an infantry commander; one died, one was WIA, and of the other five, two seem capable enough, based on their records. Three seem marginal.

Doesn't seem like a particularly poor cross-section; not every officer is going to command an army in the field, after all.

Best,
 
No George B. McClellan means the US Government is reliant on the Armed Mob of the Potomac to enforce its policy on the Rebels in the region of Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania, well probably not so much in Virginia. His field command was unimpressive, some might go so far as to to say rubbish but his organisational ability gave the Union an actual Army that could wage war.

There was a reason he remained popular with actual Union soldiers long after he was dismissed. They understood the importance of being in an army whose officers, especially those on the staffs of higher commands, knew not merely how to find their own asses but their horses asses (actual asses are also useful in pre-motorised warfare but are a very different animal to the part of you, you sit on) and how to get, say, cartridges and rations to the fighting brigades and not dumped in a field getting wet.

Every success of the Army of the Potomac and possibly Union arms in general owes something to him. However it should also be remembered that he underperformed as a field commander and showed far too much interest in politics than is perhaps advisable in the senior most officer of an army serving a democratic republic.

No, they simply find someone else. Maybe Halleck?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Interestingly enough, if one looks at the field army/departmental

No George B. McClellan means the US Government is reliant on the Armed Mob of the Potomac to enforce its policy on the Rebels in the region of Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania, well probably not so much in Virginia. His field command was unimpressive, some might go so far as to to say rubbish but his organisational ability gave the Union an actual Army that could wage war.

Interestingly enough, if one looks at the field army/departmental commands in the winter of 1861-62 (basically, when the 3-year-volunteers of 1861 were being organized and deployed for the first time), it seems pretty clear that both McClellan, Buell, Grant, and Halleck were able to organize their forces quite effectively for field service.

Best,
 
McClellan seems to be of those unfortunate men in history who has been vilified in popular belief for what he was not, rather than having his strengths recognised.

He seems to have been a superb organiser who understood logistics and not a bad defensive or reactive leader of men. What he was not was a proactive one.

It is a pity that he wasn't put in charge of the training and/or supply of the Union Army. However for him he was unfortunate enough to be the man in place when the situation didn't suit his strengths.
 
McClellan seems to be of those unfortunate men in history who has been vilified in popular belief for what he was not, rather than having his strengths recognised.

He seems to have been a superb organiser who understood logistics and not a bad defensive or reactive leader of men. What he was not was a proactive one.

It is a pity that he wasn't put in charge of the training and/or supply of the Union Army. However for him he was unfortunate enough to be the man in place when the situation didn't suit his strengths.

Training, possibly. I don't think replacing Montgomery C. Meigs would be a good idea. From what I understand, he was brilliant as the quartermaster general.
 
reading Grants memoir right now (can't recommend it enough by the way, highly readable and reasonably honest)

He likes General C.F. Smith a lot, who died just after Shiloh from infection caused by a stupid (in terms of really unlucky) accident. He seems to believe that Smith would have been a very good army commander had he not died

My own reading is that the professional officers on both sides did a remarkably good job organizing and training their 'armed mobs of volunteers' into field armies. After Wilson's Creek, Shiloh and 1st Bull Run I am not familiar with organization and discipline being a problem with any field army on either side.

I don't think McClellan would be all that much of a loss really. Some one else could have filled his shows readily enough, even McDowell could have done the job if he had been allowed the time before Bull Run
 
Yeah Grant's memoir is excellent- and it really does show that McClellan wasn't uniquely gifted at organization. Little Mac may have been good for morale, but the idea that he was the only general able to form an army ignores the western generals and McDowell's own efforts.
 
I didn't claim that he was indispensable (no one is) just that the situation didn't play to his strengths but to his shortcomings.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
McClellan as adjutant general of the army has always struck

McClellan seems to be of those unfortunate men in history who has been vilified in popular belief for what he was not, rather than having his strengths recognised. He seems to have been a superb organiser who understood logistics and not a bad defensive or reactive leader of men. What he was not was a proactive one. It is a pity that he wasn't put in charge of the training and/or supply of the Union Army. However for him he was unfortunate enough to be the man in place when the situation didn't suit his strengths.

McClellan as adjutant general of the army has always struck me as a possibility (replacing Lorenzo Thomas) but the problem with that is when it comes time to recruit the USCTs, McClellan is not the man for that job, obviously; Thomas was, and made quite a success of it.

Meigs and the rest of the US QM, Commissary, Ordnance, etc departments were very well run; McClellan could very well have been an excellent choice for the USMRR, if the USG had taken control of the entire system, but there was never a need to do so.

He led a corps-sized force, capably enough, in western Virginia in 1861; giving him a corps in the Army of the Potomac (presumably Banks' V Corps, for the Shenandoah) would seem reasonable; that of couse means the GinC post, and that of the department/army of the Potomac would have to be filled. McCellan as chief of staff of the AotP, under Mansfield or Sumner as CG, is another possibility.

Best,
 
Top