McClellan finished 2nd in his class of 59 at West Point, he served with distinction in the Mexican War and even visited the British siege lines at Sebastopol as an official observer. On paper he had the potential to be a brilliant general and upon being given command of the Union forces in the east in 1861 he was hailed as “The Young Napoleon”.
McClellan proved himself to be a great organiser and set about creating the Army of The Potomac virtually from scratch. In this he was hugely successful and, in the process, became very popular with the troops who would cheer with gusto as he rode along the lines during reviews. There was just one problem, McClellan didn’t like to fight.
That’s not to say that he was not personally brave but whenever he finally got his army in motion (usually only after much prodding from President Lincoln) he was slow and indecisive, always wrongly believing that he was greatly outnumbered by the enemy. On his first major campaign on the peninsula the Confederates referred to him disparagingly as “The Virginia creeper” because of the very slow progress made by the Union army towards Richmond.
That campaign did of course fail but McClellan thought he had carried off a spectacular fighting withdrawal against overwhelming odds and couldn’t understand why Lincoln (who he called “The Original Gorilla”) didn’t seem very impressed. Following Antietam, where he failed to capitalise on his victory by pursuing and destroying the Rebels, he was finally removed from command.
So why McClellan? I didn’t have to think twice about who my favourite commander is, it has always been McClellan since I first read about him some 35 years ago in Bruce Catton’s “Mr Lincoln’s Army”. I’m fascinated at how a person so theoretically suited to command of an army could turn out to be so bad at fighting with it.
I have played many ACW wargames over the years, but I always prefer to play McClellan over any other Union commander. The mixture of pompous incompetence and paranoia in the face of the enemy is something I am drawn to, not that I’m in any way like that myself as a commander of miniature armies of course.
18 comments:
Well done Sir! An original choice and I wholeheartedly agree with your observations.
Had you down as a U.S. Grant man myself!
Interesting choice - many of the other Union commanders (Burnside, Meade, Joe Hooker) seem to have had very little talent of any sort, or were they all hamstrung by the politics?
When you make the movie. looks like Johnny Depp is a shoe-in for the title role.
A great choice! I've always been fascinated by Little Mac as well. He had everything one needs as a general - organisation, popularity, courage - except aggression.
He was certainly very good at organization and training, as well as raising the troops morale. Pity he couldn’t have served in that role without being expected to attack. I think he had a true fondness for the troops he led, and couldn’t stomach them dying (and himself being responsible). To his credit, he did have the Pinkertons inflating enemy strength in their reports to him. And with 3-1 odds, he did just manage to drive Lee from Maryland at Antietam.
Hooray for interesting choices in commanders.
I have always been a Hendrik George de Perponcher Sedlnitsky man, myself.
Captain Nolan
Johnny Depp? I could see that! I always thought Matthew Broderick would have made a convincing Little Mac too.
I like McClellan too but I am afraid we might be in a minority.
Still not quite sure why he's your favourite, interesting yes, but favourite? I really can't put my finger one and if I could I doubt it'd e an ACW commander as they are all heavily coloured in my mind by eth actors who have played them in all those films: Gettysburg, Goods and Generals, etc.
If confined to a small group, say Napoleon's Marshals, I'd fid it easier; Massena mainly because he's a real fighting general in eth way that McClellan wasn't, also not beholdin' to the man.
Tony, Hooker and Burnside were ok corps commanders who were promoted beyond their abilities. Meade did beat Lee at Gettysburg so has to be rated above them also he was able to put his pride aside and remain in command of the Army of the Potomac when Grant was promoted over him, something none of the previous commanders would have managed.
Nolan, true about Pinkerton but you would have thought that an intelligent man, which he was, might have questioned the basis of the reports he was receiving!
Rob, I am sensing you are a Confederate!!!
Might be an interesting moment for people to reveal how their own real personality traits affect their tabletop generalship, for good or ill ! (Come on - 12 weeks to kill!)
No, no, NO!!! I almost fell off my chair when I read your accusation! My sympathies lie entirely with the boys in blue, not only politically but also in my preferred wargaming style - slow and cautious with a massive superiority in everything but especially artillery. I am not one of nature's dashing cavalry types. :o)
Stonewall - good idea!
Rob, phew you had me worried...
Strange choice but I like your reasoning. One can only sit back and admire the mans ability to see problems where none existed and bollocks up certain victory through listening to a paranoid clod like Pinkerton. Clearly risk aversion wasnt a modern concept. Mind he did look the part and talked the talk.
I think his vital contribution was in laying the foundation of The Army of the Potomac in the wake of the crisis following Bull Run. Just a shame that he couldn't bring himself to use it effectively but at least it was good and ready when Grant came along.
Interesting piece...I don't know much about ACW generals but I had picked up from fellow wargames comments that McClellan wasn't much good....as others have said, pity he could not have been in charge of recruitment and training, then left the prosecution of the war to others...a bit like the main officer in the first couple of episodes of Band of Brothers...he was great at motivating and building the raw recruits up into paratroopers but a complete failure when they had their first field exercise on England and was shipped back to the US...
That's a good parallel I think!
Post a Comment