Major General George McClellan did a
great job of managing the Army of the Potomac in the beginning. The army was well disciplined, well trained,
and well supplied. Unfortunately, history
tells us that did not always result in victories. Many historians point to the lack of
leadership of the officers below him (Cook p131). Is it fair to blame McClellan for others’
inabilities to be leaders? After all he
was in charge of them as well.
McClellan had one drawback that many
did not like. He was a very cautious person.
President Lincoln wanted him to be more aggressive. Unlike Lincoln who admired McClellan, the same
cannot be said the other way around.
McClellan did not respect Lincoln and thought of him as nothing more
than an “ignorant Midwesterner deficient in gentlemanly virtues” (Cook p135).
One thing I have noticed about
McClellan is that even though he was a very organized man that could outfit and
train an army, he was not very good at leading them into battle. Maybe all of the blame cannot be placed on
his officers. It seems he made many
mistakes himself. Sort of reminds me of
a coach that can prepare his team, but struggle making good decisions during
the game. Do you think this is a fair
comparison?
Finally, Lincoln had enough and
relieved McClellan of his command on November 5, 1862. His men loved him but Republicans did not
like some of his qualities. One such
quality I mentioned earlier was about his cautious attitude. Another quality they did not like was his
“conservative view on slavery” (Cook p140).
To be fair to McClellan, many of the
Union’s generals failed. His
replacement, Major General Ambrose E. Burnside, did not do any better. Would it be fair to say that the South had
better officers? After all, the South
seemed to have the upper hand in many of the early battles.
Biblography
Cook,
Robert. Civil War America: Making a Nation 1848-1877. New York:
Routledge, 2013. Print.
I thought that General McClellan was a great leader and general for the Union. Even though he did not agree with President Lincoln on things doesn't make him a bad leader. I thought he was a very smart general and he was one who realized when he was out trained and out fought by the South. He didn't lead his men to battle because he realized what he was up against. The Southern army was much better trained with much tougher men. Just like Sean stated, General Burnside didn't do any better than McClellan had done.
ReplyDeleteI do think that McClellan was a cautious leader but not over cautious. McClellan wanted to destroy the Confederacies ability to fight through logistics rather than through battle. Without open waterways and railroads to feed and supply large armies, the South would fall, and Grant proved that. McClellan was always moving to places where the South had to come and attack him, which seems like a smart way to do things in my opinion. Although he did fight close up at Williamsburg, South Mountain, etc.
I also thought McClellan was a great leader and general as well. He was perhaps the most capable general in terms of organizing and training an army, during the time of being General, he was the commander of the Army of the Potomac, which at the time was the largest army that the United States has ever seen. In my opinion he lacked one significant trait, and that was his ability to accomplish things on the battlefield, he talked a big game but when it came to the fighting he didn't know what to do, it's like he got cold feet every time he stepped onto the battlefield. McClellan got paranoid very quickly, he was constantly overestimating the size of the enemy forces and always calling for more troops, and they would never come. He thought the northern political leaders were constantly out to get him and hey didn't trust Lincoln or any of his advisors. In the end he was probably one of the better generals for the North but he was there for his own personal agenda rather than the agenda of the North, he wanted to end the secession and he thought he could do it all by himself.
ReplyDelete