I am kind of torn on this issue. His men loved him. He prepared them better than anyone could have imagined but did not use them to their full strength. It was as if he tried to throw the war at times for his own gain but when relieved the second time he refused the wishes of his men by not staging a military coup, stating civilian control of the military was what was best.

It goes without saying Lincoln did not like McClellan and Stanton wanted him shot. But was the guy really that bad?

Yes, ce, he was a *****.

My understanding is that he also never wanted to destroy the south, just bring them back to the Union. In a nut shell.

He was a democrat and was not real big on emancipation.

He was not an idiot by any means but he lacked moral courage in battle. He had too huge an ego thinking he was smarter than the rest of the world. He thought he created the Army of the Potomac, and in a sense he did, but he treasured that army so much, he was afraid to use it to its full capabilities for fear of destroying it. Good in organization and the camp but horrible in combat.

Your soldiers loving you rarely has anything to do with whether or not you're a good general.

I'm not aware of many soldiers who fought under MacArthur or even Patton who loved them. They generally thought they were asses. With Mac, I tend to agree. Both of them had genius moments, but also bonehead ones, especially Mac.

As for McClellan, he wasn't a complete idiot, because he was being beaten by good generals. That being said, it's accurate to say that he was a great quartermaster. Had our military been set up in the modern sense, he would have filled the role of George Marshall expertly, but not that of Patton very well.

Except Marshall had diplomacy that McClellan totally lacked.

But is that revisionist? For all those people that say Lincoln was the greatest president in the history of our country I think it is safe to say he was seriously flawed. But history goes to the victor.

Take this as an analogy. Was Richard III a hunchback murderer? No. Who put that into popular history? Shakespeare. Who paid Shakespeare? Elizabeth II. Who was her father? Henry VIII. Who was his father? Henry VII? Who did he beat in battle to become king? Richard III.

Your use of the term "revisionist" implies that it is only recently that McClellan has been the subject of critical reviews.

From a wiki citation on Antietam:

quote:

---

The president was even more astonished that from September 17 to October 26, despite repeated entreaties from the War Department and the president himself, McClellan declined to pursue Lee across the Potomac, citing shortages of equipment and the fear of overextending his forces. General-in-Chief Henry W. Halleck wrote in his official report, "The long inactivity of so large an army in the face of a defeated foe, and during the most favorable season for rapid movements and a vigorous campaign, was a matter of great disappointment and regret." Lincoln relieved McClellan of his command of the Army of the Potomac on November 7, effectively ending the general's military career.

---

Hardly "revisionst history".

I agree that Lincoln send Stanton hated him.

quote:

---

Take this as an analogy. Was Richard III a hunchback murderer? No. Who put that into popular history? Shakespeare. Who paid Shakespeare? Elizabeth II. Who was her father? Henry VIII. Who was his father? Henry VII? Who did he beat in battle to become king? Richard III.

---

I wrote a paper for a grad school class on "Reading Shakespeare historically" that went into just this thing, but in this case, I looked at the historical treatment of the Wars of the Roses and how Shakespeare made them out to be terrible and bad so that the Tudors came out like heroes for bringing stability back to England.

And come to find out the Tudors were blood thirsty savages.

aalan:

I would like to read that if you still have it.

I'm related to the Tudors........<j/k>

I can't find my paper, but I need to. I'm trying to transfer graduate hours to Texas State, and it's a pain in the butt without all the documentation.

George McC was a "thorn in Lincoln's side." He had the chance to end the war early, but failed when he was south and had numerical superiority. He drilled his men and helped turn raw recruits into a fighting army, but he had trouble following through and fighting.

Organized, prepared his troops meticulously, but afflicted with indecisiveness...thats McClellan.

"It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man," Psalm 118:8.

quote:

---

Who paid Shakespeare? Elizabeth II.

---

Something wrong with this payment scheme...

Yes, that was an embarassing mistake. Thanks for being a gentleman about it. If I had done that on the politics board they would have butchered me mercilessly.

Elizabeth I.