Was General McClellan really as big a pussy as Ken Burns' Civil War documentary made him out to be?
>>1170148
yes. the dude was a great organizer but shit field commander.
No he just refused lincoln's insane battle plans. It be like if Mussolini's generals actually stood up against his libya and greece invasion time tables
>>1170169
He defeated Lee once. He's underrated.
>>1170148
Perfidious bastard who basically refused to get his hands dirty because it may have ruined his chances of getting elected on the democratic ticket against Lincoln. Not only that, but he was running on the platform of making peace with the Confederacy. Fucking Bastard.
>>1170419
>The war of northern aggression should have continued so the US could eventually rise to be the shittest colonial power besides belgium
>>1170148
yes but he certainly wasnt as incompetent as Burns would have you believe. People forget that this dude was an observer of the Crimean war and saw the absolute brutality of two modern armies colliding.
It makes sense that he was so unwilling to follow Lincolns very aggressive plan of action because he knew that far more people would die if Lincoln had his way. He certainly wasnt the best choice for General since if he had his way entirely things would not have turned out well either, but the guy was fucking great at organizing an army.
Not to mention he soundly defeated Lee in West Virginia and is basically the only reason the unionists in that part of the state didnt get massacred by those rebel savages.
A lot of people blame him for every death in the civil war after antietam because he didnt pursue lee, but we all fucking know that if McClellan fought as often as Lincoln wanted him too the death toll would be far far higher than it ended up being.
Fun Fact, in order to increase moral at Gettysburg officers would tell the privates that McClellan was in command, not Meade.
>>1170440
>Literally fight a war to keep owning niggers when you can just work the Irish and polacks to death in factories to exponentially increase production
C'mon southerners. Get your shit together. McClellan was a nice guy that loved his men, but he had no business on the front.
>>1170174
Lincoln never presumed to offer battle plans. He just wanted McClellan to fight.
>>1170440
Fuck off Reb
The most remarkable thing about McClellan is how he got promoted so high based on so little.
The press mad him a hero after he lead a victory at a place called Philippi. It was little more than a skirmish which they should have won anyway since they outnumbered the confederates four to one. And even THEN it was another U.S. commander that deserved more credit for the victory.
But the U.S. was panicky after Bull Run and the press loved this guy so much, they put him in charge even though he was completely in over his head.
I can't remember how much details the Burn piece went into. Did mention Pinkerton at all? He was the Union spymaster, and every time McClellan would as how many troops the enemy had, and Pinkerton would give numbers two or three times higher than the actual numbers, and McClellan being as paranoid as he was ate that shit up at every opportunity.
>>1170450
>freeing millions of niggers into your own country side
I wonder why they didn't want to.
>>1170485
>expressing your constitutional rights
>make war
Billy Sherman was just butthurt he got embarrassed at Bull Run and Kentucky so he had to take it out on empty buildings.
>>1170440
>War of Northern Aggression
Go home, Cletus
>>1170488
>I can't remember how much details the Burn piece went into. Did mention Pinkerton at all?
I don't recall Pinkerton coming up in the Burns documentary, but I might just not remember. Seems like an important detail to understand McClellan's motivation. Mostly I remember Burns saying things like "McClellan had 3 times as many troops as the enemy. He sat and did nothing. Lincoln was annoyed."
What I did not understand from the documentary was why Lincoln re-hired McClellan at one point. It said Lincoln fired him after being frustrated the he wasn't more aggressive and instead hired some guy named Pope. Then it said there was a Sioux uprising in the West, so Lincoln sent Pope to deal with that and begrudgingly re-hired McClellan. Why not keep Pope in charge of the main war and send McClellan to deal with the Sioux?
>>1172940
Yeah this.
Fucking Burns just shitting on McClellan with no mention of Pinkerton feeding him shit intelligence which overestimated the Confederate strength.
Robert E. Lee, on being asked (by his cousin, and recorded by his son) who was the ablest general on the Union side during the late war, replied emphatically: "McClellan, by all odds!"[95]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_B._McClellan#Legacy
>>1173095
Grant and Sherman confirmed for plebe tier generals who won due to overwhelming numerical advantages.
>>1170353
You mean Antietam? The man literally had Lee's battle plans (a scouting party found a copy in a cigar box that had not been properly disposed of, a stroke of luck which borders on divine intervention) and could only force a draw. Even when he knew how many men Lee had, and where they were to be deployed, and how strong each Confederate deployment was, he was still overly cautious in the extreme. That is not even cautiousness. Not at that point. That is indecisiveness and gutlessness and incompetence. Which is to say: Being a big pussy.
>>1172940
>Why not keep Pope?
Second Manassas. That's why. After that debacle Pope was radioactive in the extreme. He was also something of an arrogant bully and blowhard that nobody really liked all that well.
To McClellan's credit he never suffered a major defeat. He never achieved a major victory either. But he never suffered a major defeat. Guy was trying to fight a defensive war even though his side was on the offensive for the most part. McClellan would have made a far better Confederate general, ironically enough.
>>1173179
>Guy was trying to fight a defensive war even though his side was on the offensive for the most part.
McClellan had a plan to reach Virginia by sea that Lincoln didn't let him do.
>>1173192
The guy who holed up in a corner and refused to move was going to launch an amphibious strike right into the heart of Confederate territory. I actually wished Lincoln had okayed that plan because watching the overly cautious McClellan try and implement an incredibly risky and bold strategy would be an entertaining spectacle. McClellan would have been convinced he was surrounded by million southerners and would have been rushing to the boats in no time. Grant's Overland Campaign ended up working just fine. Why is there a desire to in this thread to castigate the Union generals who won the war and play up a Union general who could have won the war if he did everything differently?
>>1173226
>Why is there a desire to in this thread to castigate the Union generals who won the war and play up a Union general who could have won the war if he did everything differently?
McClellan was actually doing just as well as Grant, with much less troops than he had. He COULD have won the war if Lincoln had given him more time. In fact, let me tell you, the war would have been won a lot faster, but Lincoln was too demanding and replaced him with generals who were a lot less competent (yes, this includes Grant as well). McClellan never suffered a defeat like Grant at Cold Harbour.
I'm assuming one of the reasons McClellan gets it as bad as anyone is that he's seen as symptomatic of the "failure" of West Point that a lot of people had around his time since they saw it as slow, lumbering elephant that pumped out pampered idiots with no practical experience detached from what the common soldier on the ground saw or something to that effect anyway. Garfield was a big detractor of West Point for instance; no clue if it was warranted since I have no clue what West Point's actual curriculum and shit were like but considering Garfield basically taught himself military tactics reading about the great commanders (especially Frederick the Great; Garfield loved him some Ol' Fritz) and was a pretty good commander maybe there was something to it? Then again, Garfield was sharp and able to pick up on things quickly.
>>1173340
McClellan didn't have any major victories to his name either. There is a difference between winning a war and not losing a war. Once again, McClellan fought for the wrong side given his preferred strategies and movements.
Also, you say he would have won if he had more time. How much more time would he have needed? And how would he have won? The fact is he was a huge pussy who was afraid of actually engaging the enemy and giving battle to them. That makes fighting a war somewhat difficult you know.
>>1173487
Antietam was a pretty major victory, and the Seven Days were a pretty Pyhrric victory for the South (more men lost than the Union, and nothing major achieved, which is bad when you have way less manpower). I don't know how much time he would have needed. Probably a year or so. Two years max.
>>1173495
See above, Antietam SHOULD have been a major victory, but wasn't. It was largely a draw. And given the unprecedented intelligence breakthrough McClellan received prior to that battle, I think it's safe to say that McClellan blew a major opportunity to decisively crush Lee's army. That he didn't speaks to his incompetence.
>>1173510
The intelligence he received prior to that always turned out to be wrong. And again, it's still a way better result than what other commanders of the army of the Potomac achieved.
>>1173529
Grant achieved victory over Lee's army and subsequently the Confederacy as a whole. That is a hell of a better result than McClellan's "victory" at Antietam.
>>1173531
Yeah, he achieved victory after a series of defeats when he grossly outnumbered Lee's army. Nothing glorious about that. McClellan beat Lee when both armies had similar numbers.
>>1173535
A series of defeats? Outside of Cold Harbor, what defeats did Grant suffer (the "Battle" of the Crater doesn't count, that was a mere part of the larger Siege of Petersburg which Grant ended up winning)? And Grant was able to turn his engagements into an overall victory. What, pray tell, did McClellan accomplish with his "victory" at Antietam? What was his plan after that battle? You keep telling me McClellan would have won the war with few casualties if he had just a year or so more to enact his master plan. So, just what was that master plan supposed to be exactly?
>>1173585
>A series of defeats? Outside of Cold Harbor, what defeats did Grant suffer
Wilderness. Spotsylvania. Both lost (though not decisively), even though Grant had a huge numeric superiority, which McClellan never had.
> And Grant was able to turn his engagements into an overall victory. What, pray tell, did McClellan accomplish with his "victory" at Antietam? What was his plan after that battle? You keep telling me McClellan would have won the war with few casualties if he had just a year or so more to enact his master plan. So, just what was that master plan supposed to be exactly?
I don't know what his plan could have been, but he could have done anything and he would have won at that rate. How did Grant win? Walking towards Richmond with Lee's army not able to win on the long term due to a lack of manpower. McClellan could have done exactly the same, but better, because he actually performed better than Grant in battle when you take into account the armies they had.
>>1173603
McClellan had a 50% larger force during the Maryland Campaign relative to Robert E. Lee's army. He also outnumbered Lee's army nearly 2 to 1 at Antietam. He suffered much greater casualties than Lee as well. However, despite throwing wave after wave of men to their deaths and suffering greater casualties, he was able to turn back Lee's army and achieve a strategic victory. Even though he should have been able to destroy Lee's army outright given the circumstances. If Grant had achieved such results you would have considered that evidence that he was a butcher who made victory a needlessly long and bloody road for the Union Army to travel.
McClellan had the numerical superiority in most battles he fought. He always thought he was outnumbered, but that was rarely so. Grant had numerical superiority too. The difference is, Grant ended up winning, while McClellan ended up chickening out and frequently refused to engage the enemy. That is why Grant is on the 50 dollar bill, and McClellan's reputation is still working its way through the Washington DC sewer system.
>>1173632
The truth is that Grant was allowed to remain general only because Lincoln finally realized that sacking generals just because they're not performing as well as your unrealistic standards demand it is not a winning strategy. If Grant had been the first commander of the army, he would have been fired a lot faster than McClellan. You really need to revisit the early and late civil war with a more objective look.
McClellan definitely wasn't some sort of genius commander, but he was the best one that the army of the potomac ever had. That's why his men loved him so much. And don't start blaming him for casualties. One of the things he's the most criticized for is being too cautious because he wanted to safeguard the lives of his men.
And by the way, I never called Grant or anyone else a butcher. I think Grant was competent by civil war standards, but inferior to McClellan and to Lee by quite a lot. I hope you can see that someday, because he is criminally underrated.
>>1173603
>Wilderness. Spotsylvania. Both lost (though not decisively), even though Grant had a huge numeric superiority, which McClellan never had.
Both Wilderness and Spotsylvania were inconclusive battles, Confederate forces didn't win anything and Grant just moved around their flank towards richmond. If anything, Lee's forces lost more than Grant as they were not able to easily replace their losses.
>I don't know what his plan could have been, but he could have done anything and he would have won at that rate. How did Grant win? Walking towards Richmond with Lee's army not able to win on the long term due to a lack of manpower. McClellan could have done exactly the same, but better, because he actually performed better than Grant in battle when you take into account the armies they had.
Armchair general all you want, but their records speak for themselves. Grant and Farragut were pretty much entirely responsible for cutting the south in two and sealing the fate of the Confederacy.
>>1173686
>And don't start blaming him for casualties
Yes I will blame McClellan for the casualties his army suffered while he was commander. Because he was the commander. That line alone tells me all I need to know about you and your "thought" processes. He tried to avoid casualties. By avoiding fighting at all. When he had to fight, he wasn't any better than Grant. You keep saying he was so competent but I see no reason to believe that. You blame Lincoln for McClellan's failures. You absolve McClellan of all responsibility for casualties suffered under his tenure in command of the Army of the Potomac, and you completely disregard the actual accomplishments achieved by Grant in his tenure as Commander of the Army of the Potomac. To the point where you say that McClellan could have done what Grant did if he wanted to. Then why didn't he?
You are enamored with a theory and are upset with the actual historical reality because it does not comport with said theory.
And! now, before I end my song, this free advice I'll tender:
We soon will use the Rebels up and make them all surrender,
And, once again, the Stars and Stripes will to the breeze be swellin',
If Uncle Abe will give us back our darling boy McClellan.
Oh! we'll follow Little Mac,...
He'll lead us on to glory, O!
He'll lead us on to glory, O!
To save the Stripes and Stars.
>>1174041
Yes, McClellan was popular with the Irish soldiers. A word of advice: Never take military advice from the Irish. Ever.
>>1170440
>Le northern aggression maymay
Rebs must hang
>>1174057
The Irish loved him because McClellan didnt throw them suicidally at the confederates.
>>1174092
So Irish soldiers loved a General who didn't make them fight. I mean, I understand why that would be the case, but the fact remains that McClellan lacked for military efficacy (i.e. he didn't get results). What's good for the common soldier isn't always good for the larger cause and war effort. You shouldn't go too far in the opposite direction, obviously, but you do have to be willing to take casualties when waging war. As I'm fond of saying, Hannibal still lost 6,000 men at Cannae. Even the greatest victories are going to have their price. This does not mean you simply avoid fighting at all like McClellan did.
>>1171911
Empty buildings and your great grandmother's slizz
>>1170440
>muh northern aggression
wew lad
>>1173585
>So, just what was that master plan supposed to be exactly?
CRASHING THIS REBELLION
WITH NO SURVIVORS
>>1170148
>Memen Memern's Memivil War
Little Mac is pretty underrated. One of the reasons he was so beloved by his men was that he was seen as a "Soldier's General" and that he put paramount emphasis on safeguarding his men and their supply lines. He was an unparalleled logistican and administrator when it came to moving troops, organizing supplies, detailing battle plans, unit moral, all that sort of stuff.
But part of his bad wrap is sort of unfairly emphasized due to the fact his relationship with Lincoln was extremely tenuous and stressed by both men. He did have plans for an invasion and his 7 Days campaign in Virginia cost the Confederacy under Lee an unacceptable amount of losses in manpower and supplies simply to net nothing except aggravate them.
As for his legacy and talent, well Lee even in the thick of things late in the Civil War with Grant still commented that the most strategically and tactically brilliant Union general as McCellan. Its a sad thing that his own memoirs condemn him because he overly emphasizes his faults due to his humbleness but I certainly believe Little Mac is underrated.
>>1171872
Should have thought about that before bringing them.
>>1170485
Wrong hair color.
Lincoln needed a fighter.
>>1177447
He was a preening boob.
>>1178869
Shut up Stanton
>>1177447
>"his" 7 Days campaign
>implying he wasn't put on the defensive from the get-go by a hard Rebel counter-attack against his feeble probing
>implying he didn't get lucky in that Jackson was unusually ineffective throughout
>implying that the 7 Days didn't spell doom for the entire Peninsula campaign
He may have "won" five out of the six battles but that was in spite of himself rather than thanks to any generalship qualities, he lost the campaign and subsequently passed the initiative to the south.
He has absolutely no excuse for his bungling of the Antietam campaign, he himself judged the recovered plans to be legit, but he did nothing about it, sat himself too far back from the fighting to be of any use and refused to commit his ample reserves for what should've been the killer blow. He's somewhat fortunate that Burnside and Hooker dun goofed even worse than he did and overshadowed his failures.
So much attempted rehabilitation of this moron lately, sure glad real historians know better.
>>1179838
>in spite of himself
>he lost the campaign
>implying "revisionism"
>using this slur on /hist/ to poison his legacy
Fuck off.
>>1176849
Go fuck yourself
>>1178869
Truth
