On the McClellan Go Round- George McClellan and the Antietam Campaign (Lecture)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ธ.ค. 2024
- George Brinton McClellan- one of the Civil War's most controversial and disliked generals- has been the subject of scorn and derision for decades. Frequently near or at the top of "worst generals" lists, historians typically use words such as coward, traitor, or foolish to describe this former commander of the Army of the Potomac. But is the story we all seem to know so well correct? Does George McClellan deserve the reputation he has today? Join Ranger Dan Vermilya for a look at McClellan's actions in the pivotal Antietam Campaign, the most important of McClellan's military career, to see why when it comes to the "Young Napoleon" history tends to be ruled by perceptions and not realities.
I was very impressed with Ranger Dan Vermilya; his knowledge of his subject, his speaking & presentation were very smooth and he spoke with confidence and seemed very comfortable on stage. I really applaud him for having the honesty and desire to learn something new, something different, something that he and most everyone else who studies the Civil War had come to believe about McClellan. Well done, Ranger Vermilya..!!
This Ranger is an excellent orator and he represents the U.S.Park Rangers extremely well.
I think the Ranger acquits Gen M very well in this lecture. I am not as knowledgeable about Northern gens as Southern, but I have never heard one good word about M, and Ranger D makes a very good case for why he has been treated badly by history.
McClellan was a great strategist - one of the greatest of Civil War. His plan of the Peninsula campaign was a masterpiece - just imagine Grant executing it :)
Also McClellan had a magic ability to raise and train new armies. Lee planned to do everything in Maryland before McClellan could counter-attack - SURPRISE, McClellan put a new army out of his sleeve and rushed to chase Lee off Maryland.
But he had two big shortcomings which ruined his military carreer. First was his inability to organize scouting. McClellan was always blind and unaware about the enemy - no wonder he always thought he was outnumbered.
The second one was his toxic personality. He was smart, he should've been over petty quarrels - but he created them everywhere. I think that was the main reason McClellan wasn't appointed anywhere since Antietam.
P.S. Speaking of strategists - was there someone at the South who cared about strategy and winning the war, not a single battle? Lee wasn't the case - he was all about battles.
I personally think that Joseph Hooker is underrated and should not have been replaced. A lecture on that subject would be fascinating too.
Indeed. I wonder how things would have gone had he not been stunned at Chancellorsville.
Hooker was a great Corps commander but I don't think he would perform better than Meade at Gettysburg. I'd like to see more of Hooker in the West - he retired was sooner than it was needed...
McClellan gave a damn about his men. He is quoted as saying he wants to achieve victory with the least amount of life lost possible. I have to respect him for that. He understood the savage nature of modern weapons and old tactics. I can't fault the man for having a heart. Its easy to say he should have continued Antietam and destroy Lee...but we didn't have to see all the dead bodies, blood, and guts scattered all over the field after a day of fighting. Most of us would be to busy vomiting to command an Army after that fight. Armchair Generals dont have to deal with dead bodies stacked and scattered everywhere or have their deaths on your conscious.
Arm chair generals also aren’t in the moment for all McClellan knew at Antietam lee could have had more men that arrived and to pursue he could have fallen into a trap in his shoes I don’t think I’d have attacked either In about all those battles lee magically pulled reinforcements out of his hat when ever he was losing I’m certain 99% of people that criticized him not pursuing after Antietam would have done the same thing I think people grossly overestimate civil war era intelligence I mean in the early battles near Richmond in the peninsular campaign the confederates has bad intelligence bad intelligence only a few miles away from your own capital for gods sake
Kim Jong-un intelligence was so bad that during the peninsula campaign the confederates just marched their forces around in circles over and over again to make them look much larger. McClellan had no way of knowing what he was actually facing, which was a very small force in reality. It’s not like he had a drone to fly over and see the CSA marching in circles. Lee was a master of deception and some speculate the “ lost order” may have been a deception. I suppose that’s possible and McClellan May have taken it into consideration too. It could have been a trap. Either way after the bloodiest fight in American history I would have had enough too.
Grant just threw men into the fire like they were a unlimited resource. I have no respect for that. That’s what won the war...the willingness to butcher every man in America in order to win. McClellan wasn’t willing to do that and neither was Lee
JohnnyRebKy if I recall correctly the marching men in circles thing even fooled some people into thinking a force was larger then it was in ww1 that says something about that little trick another neat trick to bamboozle the enemy I heard about was tying logs to horses and as they went the logs would scrape up the ground and create a dust cloud which gives the option of a large army on the march
@@kimjong-un9506 Blame Lincoln and his smear campaign, he dropped McClellan at such a convenient time after the Emancipation Proclamation that it's impossible to doubt that he intended to steal credit for the Union's victory. McClellan and Lincoln never got along for a reason. Lincoln didn't care about the slaves, he cared about the popularity and wanted to stay in power - I'm glad he's dead. "He did the right things for the wrong reasons." - sums up Lincoln entirely.
Always good to learn about new perspectives. Very interesting lecture.
I met Dan when I volunteered at Antietam. He is very good.
This is an Outstanding Program by a gifted historian!
Well, he is the general that halted and repulsed Lee's first invasion of the North, set up the conditions for the Emancipation Proclamation to be issued and severely impacted the possibility of English and French support for the Confederacy. There's that.
And then Lincoln cast him aside immediately afterwards. Lincoln was in it for himself.
Excellent talk and learning experience Ranger Vermilya deserves a promotion! VIP DEWA.
Great presentation. I love to get different points of view from knowledgeable park rangers. Thanks for presenting these lectures.
Ryan Han agreed with you
I greatly enjoyed this talk. A wide array of perspectives are necessary to an understanding of this era, and the personalities involved, (especially the commanders). I also enjoy discussing history with others who are truly interested in facts. The insults are far more civilized, such as "balderdash". Thanks for another excellent presentation.
Interesting lecture. Even reading the old classic Shelby Foote history, you get a sense that McClellan was a very capable general, certainly more than Pope or Burnside.
Lee admitted he was the best Union general "By all odds!". It's clear that Lincoln and the Republican party smeared him. It makes me wonder what Lincoln was really up to since he was assassinated, mainly did the Emancipation Proclamation to gain popularity, etc. I trust Lee's account far more than Lincoln or his friends. I think Lincoln was terrified of McClellan getting credit for the Union's victory - he wanted it for himself. Makes me wonder if Lincoln didn't deserve it, after all. I have a feeling McClellan will be viewed more and more as a hero as we find out about Lincoln's manipulative prowess.
An excellent presentation. It made me wonder where my own blind spots and facile opinions might be.
This educated park Ranger is the prime example of this crazy republican party we have today, everyone knows the real truth.
Agree. McClellan knows everything. Just like Trump, lol.
Great video and thank you.
per "Lincoln's Lieutenants", the North contracted The Pinkerton Detective Agency to conduct all the spying on the Confederate forces (Strengths and locations) with the reports being given to McClellan. And the Pinkertons, being no dummies, developed a simple three step process;
1. "The more we inflate the numbers, the longer McClellan waits."
2. "The longer McClellan waits, the longer the war drags on."
3. "The longer the war drags on, the longer we get paid."
shut the fuck up stupid spam posters
These mans knowledge of this is deep. A new view for me if General McClellan more positive. For me at least. Excellent delivery of material in my opinion.
McClellan was a USELESS COWARD
@@francissullivan6400 he would have of beat your ass that's for sure
@@francissullivan6400 So that must be why he was Lee's most respected rival general from the Union? You sound like a useless coward, lol. Regurgitating the opinions of others over a hundred years old.
He would have taken 20 years to win the war. And would have spent most of his time being disobedient and argumentative.
And he didn’t know what humility and humbleness meant.
I wonder how many lives would have been saved If Lincoln could have found a decent General at the beginning of the war?
Great presentation this definitely gives me a better idea of the army’s situation during the battle of Antietam. In my opinion, he it was more important for mcllelan to not lose rather than a full win.
Impressive talk! Well done!
It would be interesting if the actual numbers of Lee's troops were addressed in the same detail and offer a more balanced presentation.
Stephen Sear's book *Landscape Turned Red* does a pretty good job at explaining Lee's situation in 9/1862, especially on the number of deserters and those left behind by orders and how worn out the ANV was as the Maryland campaign began.
Can you imagine how hard pressed those Confederates were @ Confederate Left @ Antietam? No wonder Lee lost 3/4 of his men in ANV.
@@indy_go_blue6048 No it doesn't. Sears is way off. Sears is a good storyteller but bad on actual facts. Lee likely had about 48,000 effectives, and McClellan had about 60,000 (IIRC).
I'd like to know the source for these numbers.
This presenter does a great job!
I think the Civil War narrative that has come down through the last 150 years is highly tainted. Northern historians have sought to reflect Abraham Lincoln in the best possible light. And southern historians have sought to portray Robert E. Lee in the best possible light. And in doing so, have felt compelled to portray George B. McClellan in the worst possible light.
George McClellan was a much better General than he has been reported as. Certainly not perfect, but not even close to the popular conception.
This is all well and good until you compare it to Grant in the overland campaign. In 8 weeks Grant had 55,000 casualties and was scrapping together every last cook and idle garrison the Union had to maintain his strength and momentum at the front. Pressing Lee to the gates of Richmond itself. Likewise with Sherman intentionally cutting off his own supply lines, marching 60,000 men all the way to the sea in the Deep South. And McClellan couldn't get his army moving after Antietam for 6 weeks in the middle of Union territory? I am not saying McClellan was incompetent, but he certainly was no Grant or Sherman.
You seem to forget that McClellan reached Richmond with negligible casualties.
You also seem to forget that Grant was BY FAR the worst general in modern history, so many needless deaths by errant "strategy". A literal gorilla would have had better tactics. You're a great example of how misinformation and a smear campaign affects how people are viewed even a hundred and fifty years later. My Civil War teacher never missed an opportunity to ream Grant at every mention. He sent so many good young men to die. Lee respected McClellan as his best opposing general, "By all odds!". The proof is in the pudding. Lee didn't think Grant was shit, cause he wasn't. Grant nearly cost the entire union the war in the process of losing so many men. Screw Grant.
I enjoyed this presentation, very much, and I can appreciate the historians who avoid using a "broad brush" to "paint" Li'l Mac.
He wasn't a perfect man, and his views on slavery and African-Americans, certainly leaves so, so much, to be desired, but he wasn't a coward, or a bad leader...
My love of history, specifically American History (1750-1950), and my choice to pursue a degree in American History, came about because of my own family's history. I am the great great great grandson of Georgia Wade McClellan, and the great great great great great grandson of Colonel John Joseph Henry McClellan.
Monitors of Decorum & Decency good for you. I hope your pursuit of history is satisfying
Excellent.
On both sides of the war I don’t think any commander knew how many soldiers were available. The loss of experienced officers was a problem. Politicians even Lincoln should’ve kept their noses out if the military
Indeed however I don’t much like how you said “even”Lincoln more like especially Lincoln I mean if he hadn’t ended little Macs peninsular campaign the war could have been over in 1862 or Fredericksburg burnside didn’t want to cross and attack but he was under political pressure or 1st Manassas Lincoln wanted to give command to McDowell (who didn’t want the command) because he himself knew he was a SUPPLY officer Lincoln and those politicians added about 4 extra years to that war
President Lincoln was an outstanding strategist.
I think McClellan got and gets the right amount of credit and blame for everything he did. Can't blame him for not being aggressive enough, but can blame him for always being persnickety with Lincoln. I don't remember who it was, but the person said McClellan and Lincoln had a relationship like Joe Johnston and Davis. McClellan was great at building the army, but wasn't as good at wielding it because he really didn't know how to and those that did know how to, only knew how to in clunky movements that usually caused just as much damage to themselves as the enemy. Lee I think was probably the first to get it mostly right at least from a cavalry and infantry stand point. The artillery always seemed to lag the other two. The biggest problem I have with McClellan was his undermining of Lincoln's strategy. McClellan may have been a compromiser, but Lincoln was commander in chief and if he wasn't going to prosecute the war like Lincoln wanted then he should have resigned like the Southern officers did.
Well presented. At the time of my comment here, the Federal Gov't shut down is in effect. Dan may be home without pay :(
It was sad that a gov shut down affected the working people such as the park rangers. I was surprised hate groups didn’t take advantage of personnel lack to damage things on these preserved battlefields.
thank you for redeeming on some level my great great great great grandfathers name. i have always been proud of his organization and the love from and for his soldiers but i wanted to learn more about him. my father had shame for his cowardice, but i hope he watches this and sees him in a new light. his hand in his coat alluding to him being a freemason makes me wants to further investigate him.
McClelland was great in many ways. If a Recruit Training Command organization was in existence in the ACW, he would have shone. I never thought he was a coward, but his views on fighting and how to use an army... well, he never rose to the occasion. I think it's his egotism that turns most people off.
@Michael Parker well I guess my grandmother telling me I'm relatives with him from the lineage she traced is trumped by your infinite wisdom.
@Michael Parker it would seem that you are right after a short dig his children had no children, I will have to ask my grandmother about what documents she has as she did say when I was in middle school he was related and I thought she said grandfather 5 greats on her side, I never thought to question the validity of her claims.
I don't think the hand in coat thing guarantees he was a freemason. Tons of officers and soldiers back then were pictured doing it, many of whom were not masons
It's interesting to me that in "Battles & Leaders", D. H. Hill believes that finding SO #191 actually benefitted Lee as the knowledge that Longstreet was nearby hindered the prosecution of the South Mountain attack. I don't know that I agree with Gen. Hill, but it's interesting that someone believes other than the accepted wisdom. The shame of McClellan to me (other than his being an egotistical SOB) is that while he was a brilliant organizer, at the time there wasn't an organization like Recruit Training Command. He would've flourished in that role.
Excuse me, BUT, Lee's plans discovered ,pre-battle, wrapping 3 cigars did tell McClelland that Lee had split his forces. Valuable info. he might have acted on and not waited 18 hours.
Been reading Sears? He'd committed to the attack at South Mountain before SO191 was discovered. He was handed the order on returning from seeing 9th Corps off on their approach.
He did not wait for 18 hours. He had his troops moving by 3pm on the day Lee's Special Order 191 was found. Stop reading Sears he is not a historian and has devoted his entire life to trashing McClellan. Read "Confederate Tide Rising" by Joseph Harsh for an unbiased look at McClellan.
@Leonardo's Truth He didn't delay.
This is a bold topic. I will be very surprised if he changes my mind on the Young Napoleon, but let's have a listen.
It doesn't change my mind but it interesting topic
Well...he still had an arguably better battle plan than Lee on July 3rd, 1863. **Argument and debate ensues**
He had a good battle plan; that he failed miserably to execute it isn't an argument.
@@indy_go_blue6048 Did he though?
Think maybe Edwin Stanton was george's biggest enemy.
McClellan was rude to Lincoln when he came to see him which showed his distain for Lincoln. Neither Grant or Sherman would have been so rude to the commander in chief
We judge our generals by what they do. He raised a great army. He failed in battle using it. Good lecture.
this cannot be said too often...
the confederacy lost the war, but was allowed to win the peace
Wrong
My favorite subject to know more about my 5th great unkle . . . . ☺
Casey Mcclellan unkle lol
McClellan was an ardent Democrat with personal ties to the Confederate leadership.
Did Mc ever win a battle? Certainly he frustrated Lincoln
I'm related to him and I can tell you that the McClellan side of my family is inept. Apparently not inept enough to become a Major General in the 1860's, but they're pretty spot on with the stereotypes. Funny enough most of the McClellan's left live down south now. My uncle just died not to long ago in Florida. I live in Pa and my mother still carrys the McClellan name, my brother and I do not.
Considering McClellan started out against Johnston and not Lee, he's already in trouble at 6 minutes in..
Panzerdeal McClellan faced Lee in West Virginia very early in the war.
Hehe so far from Napoleon. I read Lee rated him the best union General is this true? Or is Lee being facetious. I don't personally think he is the horrible general he is made out to be. Perhaps too cautious and not quick enough to act to be a truly effective Napoleon
No not at all. He was being serious. McClellan fought the army of Nova where their moral was at the highest, Grant fought them when moral was low and just threw bodies at the army to wear them down. No tactics at all just threw good northerns to the slaughter even when they had a hard fighting force and well organized army. McClellan while the great organizer only organized green troops with little or no battle experience.
@@mrmustang1 Grant was the worst general in modern history, which thank god the Japanese in WW2 modeled their pacific campaign after him and got wrecked at Midway or it'd be a different world. McClellan was the victim of a smear campaign, and he was well aware of it - stating (basically) that he is relying on history to clear up his name. All the naysayers had on him was his coarse personality - but he was a shrewd strategist and tactician and his men loved him. Lincoln just kicked him out of military office so that he wouldn't get credit for the Union's successes(why else?), he prioritized saving human life over swiftly ending the war unlike Lincoln and Grant. The more I study about Lincoln, the more strongly I feel that he deserved the bullet, I think he was a really fake person: he didn't care about freeing the slaves as much as being popular. Just follow the money, the whole cherry tree tale being fake lends towards Lincoln being a liar.
He was being facetious. Also Grant was asked the same question and he gave a disingenuous answer as well.
He seems like a McClellan apologist. Grant had success with same Federal Army.
Grant had success with the same Federal Army against a Confederate army that was half the size of the one McClellan faced.
I'm not buying that the AOP after 2nd Bull Run needed as much organizing as the AOP after 1st Bull Run. One of several significant flaws in the analysis. There's food for thought here, but in the end I think the ranger is trying to put lipstick on a pig.
An outstanding presentation! I was very skeptical at first but there was a lot of solid backing for the thesis. It mitigates McClellans failures to a certain degree, but ignores a few factors. The first and foremost is that while McClellan may have shown brilliance in re-forming the army in very short order, he remains largely to blame for its terrible condition due to his bumbling and cowardice in the Peninsular campaign. Other smaller points include his attitude towards troops who had marched hard all night and were too tired to fight. Well, don’t tell that to Francis Herrin and the Army of the Frontier. And who can doubt that Grant would have acted much more rapidly and decisively? And yet Grant’s gracious evaluation of McClellan holds a lot of water....Grant and Sherman got to build up e perience on smaller fields where the stakes were a bit lower and the political scrutiny a bit lower. Grant was a much more seasoned and mature man at the start of the war and had dealt with a great deal of adversity in his life, whereas McClellans youth and good fortune were no fault of his own. Anyway, an excellent presentation giving much food for thought.
And yet Grant has far more human blood on his hands... There's no comparison. Grant is legit the worst general ever in modern history with zero exaggeration. Study his strategy and tactics and all you'll see is a buffoon who practically murders his own men with great disregard for human life and the intellect of a slug. Lee respected McClellan the most, there's no contest. My Civil War teacher's favorite pasttime was reaming Grant for being a fool - and one of the students in my class proudly stated he was a direct descendent of Grant as my teacher savagely talked about how Grant was the worst general immediately afterwards. Grant nearly cost the Union the war - that's what he should be remembered by. Whoever touted Grant as a hero must have something in it for themselves, if history changed just a little - Grant would be blamed for the Union completely losing the war. McClellan never came close to such blunders. Lincoln dropped him to preserve his ego. There's truly no comparison, McClellan just had a lot of haters for being strong willed and rivaling the presidency: the smear campaign against him has been effective all the way to the modern day, apparently. Meanwhile, Grant gets false accolades when the dead who fought for him vouch against himself after crossing over.
@@maskcollector6949 Your “teacher” ought to have his teaching license revoked for gross incompetence. I suggest you begin your remedial education with Grant and Lee by general JFC Fuller.
"bumbling and cowardice" ok mr. "I don't know how difficult logistics is".
The major problem with the McClellan defense is what happened at the Sunken Road. Richardson and French's divisions achieved a complete breakthrough there. All that opposed them was a few Confederate artillery and a handful of men.
McClellan had several thousand in the 6th Corps under Porter to capitalize on that break. He didn't do it. There's no excuse for that
I don’t like McCllelan at all, but to be fair to him, John Fitz Porter, commanding the Reserve, would tell McClellan (after M.G. George Sykes recommends a fresh redoubled attack on the centre), “Remember General, I command the last reserve of the last army of the republic”
It’s similar to Napoleons at Borodino in 1812, when refuses to throw His imperial guard to break the Russian army, proclaiming he’s “leagues from France, I will not throw my last reserves”
What I can’t forgive McCllelan for is not using Franklin’s VI corp
Maybe McClellan was a decent commander...... BUT, and many will perhaps disagree, had Lincoln put Grant & Sherman in command at the get go, the war may have not lasted 4 years.
No doubt it would have, but Grant hadn't been in the military in 6 years and had a reputation as a drunk. He had to earn it.
Brian Kistner and Sherman was so overwhelmed by command at the beginning of the war that he had a nervous breakdown and was considered crazy. Both of them eventually ended up being great commanders but they grew into those roles.
McClellan might be remembered as a subpar battlefield commander but he deserves a lot of credit for building the Army of the Potomac into a capable fighting force.
If Sherman hadn't taken Atlanta Lincoln may not have kept the presidency. McClellan and the democrats would have negotiated for peace, which would have meant 1. the CSA would have been allowed to remain or 2. the seceding states would return but slavery would be allowed to resume for who knows how many years. Taking Atlanta may have been the most influential campaign of the entire war.
As far as his march you can disagree with the way he conducted it but unquestionably it helped bring a quicker end to a war.
I don't see how anyone could come to that conclusion on Sherman. Sure he didn't have a spotless record, but no general did. Still, Sherman was a big part of several victories in the Western theatre - Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Corinth, Chattanooga, Atlanta, the march.
Before the war the South thought highly enough of him to make him the first superintendent at LSU which was a military school at the time. He was one of a minority of people that recognized how long and costly the war would be ahead of time and he tried warning those in the South about it.
Grant thought highly enough of him that he left him in charge of the Western theatre when Grant headed East to fight Lee. During the Atlanta campaign a confederate soldier was quoted saying Sherman would never go to hell, he'd outflank the devil and get past heaven's guard. Confederate general Joe Johnston said there hadn't been such an army since the days of Julius Caesar about Sherman on his march.
After the war he became commanding general of the army and had a short stint as secretary of war.
The 'hard war' objectives that he employed in his march were ahead of their time. It helped to end the war quicker and with less bloodshed, saving countless federal and confederate soldier's lives. His strategy of taking away the will and means to fight is employed by the US military to this day.
Neither Grant nor Sherman performed well in the early stages of the war so I doubt that it would have made much difference.
Why are all these park rangers so amazing? What are they paid?
Macs letters to his wife are pretty damn ridiculous. He comes off as quite the bufoon. Plus, you get the strong sense he didn't really want to kill the enemy, much less put his own soldiers in danger. He also comes off as one of the least self aware person I've ever read about or encountered. I mean he accuses Lee, of all people, of being too timid to commit, fight, and win.
It sounds strange but I think I good way to describe him is that he was so moderate, he became an extremist in his moderation. Don't win too many battles, by too much. Don't kill too much of the enemy. Don't hurt the enemy too much. Don't win the war by too much.
Martinez Angela Jackson Larry Garcia Anna
To bad you took the McClellan position on this. Ever consider the situation of Lee with his rag tag and deprived army. Tired of these excuses for the little general. His stance on slavery was just let the south go, but you’ll never say it!
Lee's army wasn't nearly that bad until the last few years of the war.
No lion and no fox.
I greatly enjoy these lectures from the GettysburgNPS. However, this is the first time I have been badly disappointed. This guy does nothing but excuse and rationalize McClellan's failures, arrogance and utter incompetence. He has the gall to marginalize the Lincoln/McClellan problems as nothing more than a 'personality dispute' and a disagreement over ideology and 'Whig conservatism.' In fact, politics was ABSOLUTELY NONE OF McCLELLAN'S BUSINESS. He was an extreme racist and an utter fool in thinking that the South could somehow be coerced into surrendering without being totally defeated.
More importantly however, McClellan was completely incompetent as a combat general. The reason why he had to rebuild the army is because he himself had ruined it during the Peninsula Campaign, which he mismanaged so badly that Lincoln took most of it away from him. And don't be fooled by all those numbers Vermilya is throwing out, the Rebels had just as many problems with stragglers etc as the Union and were totally outnumbered from the beginning. In addition, his downplaying of the discovery of Lee's Order's 191 is ludicrous. It gave McClellan a tremendous advantage which he virtually squandered. And Vermilya's depiction of the battle of Shepherdstown as somehow 'proving' that McClellan pursued Lee is an absolute joke.
Sherman said of Grant that 'he knew when the supreme moment of crisis occurred on the battlefield and could impose his will on the enemy and defeat them.' When the supreme moment of crisis came for McClellan, when he could have thrown into the battle not one but TWO!! completely fresh Union corps, Porter's V and Franklin's VI, he refused saying it 'would not be prudent.'
As one of the preeminent Civil War historians, James McPherson, has said, McClellan had the heart of a chicken...
Cry more my dude. You've been blinded by well over a century of people with no idea of how to command an army creating a narrative of who the good and bad commanders were.
Also Dr Gary Gallagher has a low opinion of McClellan. In the last few years all this revisionism makes no sense. All of a sudden they’re putting him on a pedestal.
Wow. How disingenuous. I don't know where to begin. Firstly, he pushed Winfield Scott out of office and he blatantly disregarded Lincoln, his commander. You brush aside his complete failure during the Peninsula Campaign. He trained a superb army and had a brilliant plan, but even with overwhelming numbers, he moved slowly. He split the army crossing the Chickahominy and then left Porter to face the bulk of the Confederate army alone. He was not on the field during the battle. At Williamsburg, he chose to supervise the loading of transports. At Oak Grove, he is 3 miles away directing the battle by telegraph. When he does appear on the field, the battle is over and he attributes whatever success there is to his arrival. Leaving out the rest, you carefully neglect to mention that while his army is being hounded by the enemy, he abandons it at Glendale, and goes aboard the gunboat Galena. Leaves no orders for his corps commanders. There is too much more of the Peninsula campaign to fit here.
@Everstruggling In dealing with the MD campaign, he made some good points. Overall, Little Mac remains an egotistical asshole who got what he deserved after Antietam. Only Pope's monumental blunder gave him the second chance.
You don't know what disingenuous means, apparently.
“Is he really going to lead an army in the overthrow of the government”? He was a Democrat.
Nice lecture but I still cannot forgive McClellan. During the most desperate of the Seven Days, he rode off to have a nice dinner on board the USS Galena. No place for a commanding general. And he hung John Pope out to dry. No right or wrong there, only wrong. He dragged his feet in sending troops to Pope, hoping he would be defeated.
McClellan did send some support out to Pope, but they could not locate him because Pope's communication had been cut off from Washington just prior. McClellan preferred that Pope retreat back to his position for a stronger, combined army
No amount of warm bodies could have saved Pope from his own hubris and negligence.
Pfft, Pope just did what you all wanted McClellan to do. It's irrational logic for you to think he was not at fault but McClellan is.
Huge mistake rationalizing McClellan's competence by comparing him to two other successful generals. McClellan should be judged on his own merits not against the merits of others.... Write that down!
Tell me more about your bullshit idea of logic.
interesting but, wrong
failed to accurately attain realistic numbers of Lee's forces
ignores the condition of confederate forces after all the fighting of 1862.
Union had well fed forces, better equipment, concentration and interior lines.
no apologist can account for his failure to act quickly upon the receipt of order 191.
Speed is a basic tenet of success in battle.
failed to personally coordinate attacks on the day of the battle.
did not follow up and finish the job after the battle....
nice try but NO!!!
Meanwhile, Grant nearly loses the WAR (not a battle) by sending thousands of men to their deaths in lieu of a hasty victory. Grant will always be remembered as a horrible general. Lee respected McClellan the most: he has the final say on all of this. There's nothing to apologize for. Furthermore, Confederates had greater numbers than reported - McClellan was made to look like a fool via a smear campaign which skewed history to side with Lincoln/the Republicans. You're just too dumb to read between the lines and have your mind made up already. There's no point arguing with stupid.
McClellan reaction to losing the 1864 election: I didn't lose, I mainly failed to win!
Oversimplified anyone?
''He sought moderation in politics and feared that the civil war would destroy the fabric of the United States...''
He was 100% right.
America died in 1865.
The parody of a nation that came out of that illegal Federal tax war is just a slowly dying exploitation/cuck fest.
By 1861 most Federal income came from the south, by the way, in the form of extortionate tariffs to develop northern industry at the cost of fatally draining the southern agricultural economy... That and that alone was the cause for war and it was a long time brewing.
If only the southern states had seceded decades before when the trouble began when the north didn't have the strength to stop them... They'd have gotten away with it and the world would be a better place.
This is entirely wrong.
Yeah ....we are just going to completely gloss over 9 million enslaved people in the south right? Why it's all the NORTH'S FAULT!
No southern politician or general ever mentioned taxes as the cause of secession.
@@flbphotography2239 what's to 'glass over'? I don't care about that at all... those slaves were all slaves before they ever saw a European or European American and were much better off than anyone who stayed in Africa by any contemporary measure of standard of living...
and despite popular but completely uneducated opinion they were paid something for their labour and were obviously living free of charge until they'd fulfilled their contract. similar lifestyle to any peasant or slave of any times previosly. anyway they wouldn't even be in America without slavery.
besides it's not even remotely a cause for the war so yeah, I will 'glass it over' in a discussion about causes for the war 🤷🏻♂️
stands to reason really...
@@flbphotography2239 ''glass it over'' like it as some crime or something abhorrent 😅 it wasn't... it was just the economic institution that had prevailed throughout the majority of human history
you are funny
Good try, but finally not convincing.
Yes and even so Grant would have crushed the Confederates at Antietam. Was the situation any different for Grant, Sherman or Thomas? McClellan was a bad general, you can make any excuses you like. 😀
Grant was the worst strategist in modern history, my Civil War teacher loved to point that out. If the Japanese didn't study Grant, assuming "he was good cause he won" - the U.S. would have never won Midway, so in a way, I'm thankful for Grant's incompetence. Grant valued victory at all costs, McClellan valued his soldiers. It's a no brainer who was the best general of the union, just ask General Lee, "McClellan, by all odds!"
Yes. The situation was vastly different for Grant and the rest. The confederacy peaked in 1862. They never had as many men as they did when they faced McClellan on the peninsula. Grant only faced half as many confederates when he marched on Richmond.