Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
Simply put, does General George McClellan deserve the reputation that history has awarded him?
Broadly speaking, the facts are thus: He was an excellent training commander, whipping green boys into soldiers. He was very slow and cautious on the offense, believing too readily the estimates of his spies, and never doubting that the Confederates outnumbered him by about as much as he outnumbered them in reality. He was slow to move down the valley, and he was slow to move up the peninsula. If he had been more aggressive, less fearful of phantom forces, he probably could have taken Richmond then. And then at Antietam, he had Lee's plans, but the plans might have been a clever forgery, and the plans didn't list troop strengths.
When asked after the war who his strongest opponent was, Lee said it was McClellan. He'd be the one to judge. As a strategist, I know I favor speed and audacity more than others. That gives me a certain respect for the slower, more methodical strategists; the ones who are careful to never leave you an opening you can exploit. You know, not like Fightin' Joe Hooker leaving a flank uncovered, or Burnside hitting Lee where he was strongest because he'd never expect it.
On the other hand, there's no substitute for results. McClellan would have undoubtedly made an excellent garrison commander, training units in DC to be rotated into combat units in time, were his ambition to let him take a secondary role. And he certainly had his chance to defeat Lee.
Does McClellan deserve the reputation that history has awarded him?
Discussion (39)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
The Confederate forces were ground down by the length of the war. Early on, they moved with greater urgency than the Union troops. That advantage evaporated as the Union forces grew stronger.
McClellan had the slows. As Lincoln roughly said about Grant's claimed drinking, I wish more of my generals were doing that. Grant was a bulldog, and the bulldogs eventually ground down the Confederates.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
He deserves it. At Antietam, despite the uncoordinated Union assaults, McClellan had the Army of Northern Virginia on the ropes and backed up against the Potomac River at the end of the day. His officers from the front lines reported that the Confederate lines were in a state of chaos, and several ranking generals begged him to order a general assault. Longstreet later said that if the Union had thrown in 10,000 fresh men, Lee's army would have collapsed. McClellan had those 10,000 men and more available. Instead he did nothing, and did nothing again the next day as Lee's army waited for the Potomac to lower enough to cross.
McClellan could never bring himself to fully commit his army, at Antietam and elsewhere, something Lincoln was aware of when he advised later leaders of the Army to "put in all your men."
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I've heard this evaluation of McClellan by Lee before but never gave it much thought, but it does seem really surprising.
The exact quote is
There is discussion online about why and whether Lee actually said it. The remark was recorded by Lee's son in a book of letters and recollections that he wrote about his father three decades after his father had died. The son wasn't present for the conversation, but heard it from a son of the man who asked Lee the question. Although there is some doubt about exactly what Lee said on this occasion, he had expressed admiration for McClellan on other occasions after the war, so it is not out of character for his to say what was recorded.
Also, notice that Lee was asked which Federal general was the greatest, not the most skilled or dangerous. Lee likely respected McClellan for his decency and magnanimity. Lee's family and property were captured by the Union at one point, and McClellan made sure they were returned. They maintained a continuous dialog about exchanging prisoners of war. McClellan scrupulously followed the rules of war, and Lee appreciated that.
McClellan was also a by-the-book general, so he fought the way Lee expected him to. McClellan was tactically an able commander and trained his troops well, so they always fought they way they were supposed to. Because McClellan always fought the "right" way, Lee respected his ability. But Lee was an innovator and aggressive and thus almost always able to defeat McClellan despite the respect that he had for him.
Some good discussion of the quote is here and here and here.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Alternate history question: supposing he had ordered a general assault, and Lee's army collapsed and surrendered. What then?
Would the war have ended, or would the CSA have tried to fight on? Or perhaps, sued for peace but negotiated better terms that would have avoided Reconstruction? Does Lincoln still issue the Emancipation Proclamation in the aftermath? Is there a scenario where a chastened South rejoins the Union and slavery remains legal?
CONTRIBUTOR
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Yeah, that's the nub of it. Too cautious up the peninsula, that might be forgivable. Retreating from Richmond's doorstep, that you can blame on political influence from above. But having the enemy in your grasp and not executing, that has to be his fault.
There's always going to be some doubt about these things; battles aren't chess games that you can run over and over to see who's better. A good general might lose despite doing everything right. Even so, that won/loss record is important.
You're seeing five of 39 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.