| |
| Page 1 of 4 (Page: 1 2 3 4 ) |  |
|
| jthlmnn
Milwaukee, WI, USA
Posts: 418
 | | Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/17/2012 1:16:57 PM | Article on the Civil War Trust website by Stephen Sears. [Read More]
Agree with his assessment? Disagree with all or part?
JohnT
|
| phil andrade
London, UK
Posts: 2336
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/17/2012 3:54:43 PM | Some perverse streak in me compels me to make a plea on behalf of L'il Mac.
I cannot forget that Lee rated him as his most able opponent, " by all the odds".
And I also emphasise that at Seven Pines and in the Seven Days, the yankees under McClellan's command inflicted heavier casualties than they recieved. And even at Antietam, when committed to those piecemeal assaults, the Federals meted out terrific punishment, with Lee's men taking five casualties for every six they inflicted : a striking parity considering that an attacking army was generally expected to suffer the higher losses.
I know, of course, that casualty figures are not the be all and end all, but they do offer a criterion for assessing combat performance, which is itself a function of a commander's influence.
So, by this reckoning, the soldiers who fought under McClellan's generalship gave a very good account of themselves, and McClellan himself - I suggest - had something to do with that.
Regards, Phil
---------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
| Steve Clements
Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1198
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/17/2012 5:51:28 PM |
Quote:Some perverse streak in me compels me to make a plea on behalf of L'il Mac. You said it, I didn't -:)
Quote:I cannot forget that Lee rated him as his most able opponent, " by all the odds". And Grant stated that Johnston was his most able opponent...and I give that as much weight as I do Lee's supposed comment.
Quote:And I also emphasise that at Seven Pines and in the Seven Days, the yankees under McClellan's command inflicted heavier casualties than they recieved. The Confederates were on the attack at Seven Pines and during essentially all of Seven Days. In several of the Seven Days battles, the Federals had decent defensive positions (Gaine's Mill & Malvern Hill stand out here) So it is hardly a surprise that the attacking Confederates suffered heavier casualties.
Quote:And even at Antietam, when committed to those piecemeal assaults, the Federals meted out terrific punishment, with Lee's men taking five casualties for every six they inflicted : a striking parity considering that an attacking army was generally expected to suffer the higher losses. I am guessing that the Federal artillery had something to do with that.
Quote:I know, of course, that casualty figures are not the be all and end all, but they do offer a criterion for assessing combat performance, which is itself a function of a commander's influence.
So, by this reckoning, the soldiers who fought under McClellan's generalship gave a very good account of themselves, and McClellan himself - I suggest - had something to do with that. At Seven Pines, Sumner came to the aid of the IV Corps - without orders. No doubt - if orders had been given - Mac would have had Sumner stay on the north side of the river. Mac was south of the river during Gaine's Mill and had nothing to do with the battle. Mac was way off on the right - well away from the fighting - at Malvern Hill. And Mac was no where near the fighting at Frasier's Farm. On a boat actually, if memory serves me correctly. And no one was left in charge at Frasier's Farm.....the Federal generals (and their men) were left to fend for themselves.
For the sake of discussion, point out what (if anything) that you disagree with in the posted link i.e. Sears' evaluation of Mac's tactical abilities at Antietam.
I think that history has been way too kind to Mac. He should have been court martialed after Frasier's Farm. And again after Second Bull Run ("....let Pope get out of his scrape the best he can").
s.c.
|
| phil andrade
London, UK
Posts: 2336
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/18/2012 8:35:47 AM | Perhaps I'd better reconsider, Steve !
I will read that link again, and make a more pertinent commentary.
Maybe I like tilting at windmills, but I want to ensure that if we censure a general for his mistakes - and I endorse the view that McClellan had serious flaws - we must countenance his qualites, too.
Regards, Phil
---------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
| Lightning
Glasgow, UK
Posts: 654
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/18/2012 11:28:18 AM |
Quote:Perhaps I'd better reconsider, Steve !
I will read that link again, and make a more pertinent commentary.
Maybe I like tilting at windmills, but I want to ensure that if we censure a general for his mistakes - and I endorse the view that McClellan had serious flaws - we must countenance his qualites, too.
Regards, Phil
--phil andrade
I'll bite!
Qualities:
McLellan was a keen and able organiser and managed to sort out the mess of the Union army after the disaster at Bull Run. He organised the defences of Washington D.C to make it nearly invulnerable to attack. He was popular amongst his soldiers and kept their loyalty and affection, long after he had lost the confidence of his fellow officers and his C-in-C.
Flaws:
A hysterical tactician, regularly over-estimating the strength of the opposition forces and unable to use his superior firepower and manpower to effect, particularly at Antietam. His strategic vision was out-dated; by hoping to defeat the Confederacy in one grand campaign, he ignored the reality that Confederacy would not and could not commit to such a battle at this stage (although Lee later set about a similar policy).
He was arrogant and stubborn and a disloyal comrade-in-arms; abandoning Pope really ought to have led to court-martial, as stated (I think) by Steve.
He was indecisive at critical moments; Yorktown, Seven Pines, Antietam, etc.
Antietam was a real chance to end the war; had he been a little bit braver, he might have crushed the AoNV there and then and saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
For all that, I believe that he left the Armies of the Republic in a better state than in which he found them.
Best regards,
Colin
---------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
|
| phil andrade
London, UK
Posts: 2336
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/18/2012 12:07:35 PM | Revisiting the link with Sears's article, I have indeed reconsidered.....
I reckon that what Sears writes is incontestable in most aspects. I would certainly refrain from criticising his narrative in regard to the facts : after all, he's forgotten more about Antietam than I'll ever know.
I will, however, express some misgivings on how he seems to predicate his article.
He states, as an opening shot, that " Antietam must stand as the measure of his generalship..."
THE measure ? A measure, surely, but there are other features of his record that should also be used in the measure of his command : organisational ability; winning the confidence of his men and imbuing them with pride, and creating an army that could make an excellent account of itself in combat ; the requisite standards of training themselves attest McClellan's effectiveness.
Sears makes much of McClellan's culpability in " ...reacting to events rather than directing them."
Didn't Lincoln admit that he himself was afflicted with the same flaw ?
In regard to the conduct of the battle itself, I reckon that too much has been made of Mac's piecemeal mode of attack. It's not as if he were the only commander to adopt such tactics. How did Lee attack at Gettysburg on day two ? Conceptually sound : flawed in execution....this applies to so many battles in that war, and in other wars, too. So too does the failure to exploit and pursue.
Grant at Shiloh, Meade at Gettysburg and Bragg at Chickamauga might be cited, with more or less justification, as exemplifying this.
I wonder how far we might do justice to the battle by explaining it in the light of a supreme performance by Lee and Jackson, rather than as a dismal botch by McClellan.
An episode in the battle might serve as a mitigating feature in judging Mac's conduct. I allude to the terrible fate of Sedgwick's division. This was one of the war's supreme examples of how catastrophic casualties can result from imprudent deployment against a first class enemy.
Bearing in mind Mac's obsessive caution, the effect of this slaughter can only have amplified his reluctance to take risks.
I have to confess that his failure to deploy cavalry effectively in guarding his army's flanks must weigh heavily against him.
I'll try and think more about this, and present a rather more coherent defence.
But, OTOH, I'll happily fall on my sword if I think it's a lost cause !
Regards, Phil
---------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
| Steve Clements
Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1198
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/19/2012 7:43:31 PM | Colin,
Quote:A hysterical tactician... I like that. I may 'borrow' it some day -:)
Quote:McLellan was a keen and able organiser and managed to sort out the mess of the Union army after the disaster at Bull Run. History seems to like to emphasize Mac's organizational abilities...and I gather he does deserve credit in terms of making the AoP capable of fighting (I am thinking pre-Seven Days, primarily). His being put back in command (afater Second Bull Run) did give the various units that fought at Second Bull Run a noticable and badly needed lift. How much credit he deserves for actually reorganizing/resupplying etc. the "merged" AoP after Second Bull Run, I am less sure of...the majority of the units that he took to Antietam did not fight at Second Bull Run.
I would toss out two other thoughts... 1) A case can probably be made that Hooker was perhaps the best administrator of the AoP (although he would look good in comparison to Burnside, a man that seemed unable to feed or clothe his own men...). 2) From what I have read (okay, Sears), Mac appears to have done a very poor job of getting the AoP back into fighting shape after Antietam. The fact that Lincoln was pressing him to go after Lee just might have had something to do with this.....
Quote:He was popular amongst his soldiers and kept their loyalty and affection, long after he had lost the confidence of his fellow officers and his C-in-C. True, I gather...albeit, past a certain point, not necessarily an asset. I would argue that Mac also managed to infuse into the workings of the AoP an attitude of "good enough for government"....in other words, when a commander was supposed to move his men out at 3:00 a.m., and have them at a certain point by 7:00 a.m., but in reality left at 4:30, stopped for breakfast, and got there at 10:00, well, that just seemed to be accepted in the AoP as "good enough". Not an attitude that Grant was able to (easily) overcome.
Phil,
A pretty good post IMO. Not enough to put Mac back on my Christmas card list, but ....
Quote:In regard to the conduct of the battle itself, I reckon that too much has been made of Mac's piecemeal mode of attack. It's not as if he were the only commander to adopt such tactics. How did Lee attack at Gettysburg on day two ? Conceptually sound : flawed in execution....this applies to so many battles in that war, and in other wars, too. So too does the failure to exploit and pursue.
Grant at Shiloh, Meade at Gettysburg and Bragg at Chickamauga might be cited, with more or less justification, as exemplifying this. I don't disagree. Tactically, most would argue Mac made a complete mess out of Antietam, but as you noted, in that regard, he was hardly alone. There were relatively few major battles where the commander deserved an "A"....maybe Lee at Second Bull Run and at Chancellorsville, Grant for his Vicksburg campaign, Thomas at Nashville, Grant for his swing across the James and under Petersburg (although that didn't end the way it was meant to....).
s.c.
|
| John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 2847
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/19/2012 9:04:53 PM | Steve,
Grant gets a A for Vicksburg? Even if I could forget all the failed attempts and focus only on the last successful attempt its only a B because of Champion Hill and the frontal attack on Vicksburg itself.
Edit You know I think Thomas could have done just about everything wrong at Nashville and still won big, the AOT just didn't have anything left to give. Franklin was the graveyard of the AOT.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
|
| Sgt. Saunders
West Palm Beach, FL, USA
Posts: 451
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/19/2012 10:55:47 PM |
Quote:Article on the Civil War Trust website by Stephen Sears. [Read More]Agree with his assessment? Disagree with all or part? JohnT --jthlmnn
I agree with Sears. McClellan proved to be one of the worst army commanders of the war, if not the worst. One need only ask just how many Union soldiers died because McClellan launched an uncoordinated assault (in any battle); or because he failed to support his subordinates and left them to cooperate with one another on their own; or because he was deliberately slow in assisting another army commander. Regardless of the exact number that one may up with, it is a fair measure of McClellan's worth as an army commander, or as a leader of men. Certainly his actions toward Pope are little different than those committed by Bernadotte against Davout just prior to Jena. Whether conciously or instinctively, his conduct at moments of crisis paints him as one who was more concerned with his own welfare than that of the men who served him. By comparison, Lee is an absolutely startling contrast.
Sgt.
---------------
"The beginning of the end of war lies in remembrance".- Herman Wouk
"Is it because they are lucky that great men become great? No- but, being great, they have been able to master luck... What is luck? The ability to exploit accidents"- Napoleon
|
| John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 2847
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/20/2012 1:15:56 AM | Sgt. Sanders,
Sorry Loring, Bragg and Hood are a tough bottom three to crack.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
|
| Sgt. Saunders
West Palm Beach, FL, USA
Posts: 451
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/20/2012 2:14:04 AM | John,
One might accuse any of the three you mentioned of incompetance, indecisiveness, excessive caution, or of being too aggressive. None of these are in the same league as the concious act of allowing one's own men to go into battle unsupported because of personal self interest; or when one deliberately avoids supporting an ally out of personal pique or vindictiveness. These are the kind of actions on the part of a leader that are inexcuseable. I don't remember the casualties from the seven days or second Manassas offhand, but at Jena, Davout's III Corps about 25% casualties. One of his divisions took 40%. One contemporary noted that "The whole army expected to see Bernadotte severely punished". One wonders how the men in the AotP or the AOV would felt had McClellan's comments and actions regarding Pope prior to 2nd Manassas seen the light of day.
Sgt.
---------------
"The beginning of the end of war lies in remembrance".- Herman Wouk
"Is it because they are lucky that great men become great? No- but, being great, they have been able to master luck... What is luck? The ability to exploit accidents"- Napoleon
|
| Lightning
Glasgow, UK
Posts: 654
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/20/2012 4:01:26 AM |
Quote:Colin, Quote: A hysterical tactician... I like that. I may 'borrow' it some day -:) --Steve Clements
All yours Steve! 
Best regards,
Colin
---------------
"There is no course open to us but to fight it out. Every position must be held to the last man: there must be no retirement. With our backs to the wall and believing in the justice of our cause, each one of us must fight to the end."
|
| Steve Clements
Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1198
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/20/2012 11:14:19 AM |
Quote:Steve,
Grant gets a A for Vicksburg? Even if I could forget all the failed attempts and focus only on the last successful attempt its only a B because of Champion Hill and the frontal attack on Vicksburg itself.
Edit You know I think Thomas could have done just about everything wrong at Nashville and still won big, the AOT just didn't have anything left to give. Franklin was the graveyard of the AOT.
--John R. Price
Hi John,
I was counting on you to pick up on that...yeah, I was ignoring the "failed attempts"...cuz frankly, what he did after (floating past Vicksburg, and coming up from the under belly, with somewhat limited supplies, etc.) justified the "A" grade.
As for Thomas at Nashville, I would still argue that he did just about everything right. His patience paid off... No small feat, given that Grant was about two seconds from ending his career.....
As for the AoT being on its last legs, yup, but the ANV was on its last legs at Antietam, facing similar odds, and got to walk away from it to fight many more days...
Nashville was the closest thing, during the CW, to a true battle of annihilation. As a result, despite the weakness of the AoT, I would argue that Thomas deserves his “A”.
s.c.
|
| John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 2847
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/20/2012 1:59:51 PM | Sgt Sanders,
I see you haven't read much about Champion Hill. Loring was ordered 4 seperate times to come to the aid of first Stevenson's Division then Bowen's Division as it counterattacked.
It is MHO that the war was lost in the West and along with Davis these three men bear the most responsibility for it being lost.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
|
| John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 2847
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/20/2012 2:08:59 PM | Steve,
But with all due respect "floating past" the batteries should have been the plan from the beginning and if Loring had followed orders the majority would have spent the rest of the war in Libby or Andersonville.
Totally different situations. What damage does Hood inflict? Does any of Thomas's unit even take 10% casualties? Where are the prior decisive victories?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
|
| Sgt. Saunders
West Palm Beach, FL, USA
Posts: 451
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/20/2012 3:01:42 PM |
Quote:Sgt Sanders,
I see you haven't read much about Champion Hill. Loring was ordered 4 seperate times to come to the aid of first Stevenson's Division then Bowen's Division as it counterattacked.
It is MHO that the war was lost in the West and along with Davis these three men bear the most responsibility for it being lost.
--John R. Price
John,
Do you have evidence that Loring deliberately failed to come to the aid of Stevenson because he detested Stevenson?- or that he wanted Stevenson to fail for his (Loring's) own personal reasons?
Sgt.
---------------
"The beginning of the end of war lies in remembrance".- Herman Wouk
"Is it because they are lucky that great men become great? No- but, being great, they have been able to master luck... What is luck? The ability to exploit accidents"- Napoleon
|
| John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 2847
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/20/2012 3:53:43 PM | Sgt Sanders,
Not because he detested Stevenson but his commander Pemberton and yes there is ample evidence that it was well know to everybody in the AOM. I do give Loring more credit than Hood because Hood went behind Johnston's back to get command while being the consumate subordinate to Johnson's face but Loring treated Pemberton with the same level of disdain to his face as he did in his letters and reports to Richmond.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
|
| Steve Clements
Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1198
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/20/2012 6:48:55 PM | John,
Easy to say now that the floating past the batteries plan should have been the plan from the beginning...it was VERY unconventional, very risky and very imaginative IMO.
As for Champion Hill, you are a more knowledgable student of that battle than I, but my bias is that Grant's numbers would have won the day, one way or the other. I think that you are overstating your case when you state that if Loring had just followed orders, most of Grant's men would have ended up in Andersonville.
As for Nashville, Thomas' losses were around 3,000 in killed and wounded. Out of maybe 55k engaged (not sure how many of the 55k actually were 'engaged').
I am not convinced that they are "totally different situations". Both Mac at Antietam and Thomas at Nashville had a "dog's breakfast" of an army. Both had a lot of "green" troops (something like 25% of Mac's men had never fought before, something that does tend to get overlooked). In both situations, the manpower advantage was in the 2:1 or 2.25:1 range. Lee's men were not entrenched (okay, yes, the sunken road...). Hood's largely were. It is easy to say in hindsight that Thomas had an easy victory...but there were a number of times when Union forces had a significant advantage in numbers, and were unable to inflict defeat on the Confederates, let alone drive them from the field. Ultimately, Thomas was quite successful. And deserves the credit for it.
Not sure what you are asking about when you noted "Where are the prior decisive victories?"
s.c.
|
| Steve Clements
Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1198
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/20/2012 6:51:02 PM |
Quote:Article on the Civil War Trust website by Stephen Sears. [Read More]Agree with his assessment? Disagree with all or part? JohnT --jthlmnn
Hey JohnT,
I think that it is about time that you waded into the issue that you raised -:) Est ce que vrai?
s.c.
|
| John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 2847
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/20/2012 7:15:42 PM | Steve,
It is basically how the Union took New Orleans and how the British tried to. Burnside was also pretty succesfull in NC with the same tactics and Grant used them at Henry.
What numbers? If Loring supports Bowen with only a brigade three full divisions are off the board. Plus Champion Hill is still within reach of Johnston at Raymond with another three divisions that can be up the next day with any luck the day after at the latest.
FRANKLIN! 1862 vs 1864! The ANVA vs the AOT! Lee vs Hood!
Thomas deserves credit but...
Edit That should be Johnston at Jackson, Raymond is on the route and where Grant defeated a two brigade force under Gregg to start the fighting.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
|
| Sgt. Saunders
West Palm Beach, FL, USA
Posts: 451
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/20/2012 7:39:03 PM |
Quote:Sgt Sanders,
Not because he detested Stevenson but his commander Pemberton and yes there is ample evidence that it was well know to everybody in the AOM. I do give Loring more credit than Hood because Hood went behind Johnston's back to get command while being the consumate subordinate to Johnson's face but Loring treated Pemberton with the same level of disdain to his face as he did in his letters and reports to Richmond.
--John R. Price
I've read the essentials of Champion's Hill (it's been awhile though). I have to confess that I've never read about Loring supposedly not coming to the aid of Stevenson because he (Loring) detested Pemberton. If true, it certainly would put Loring in much the same category as McClellan- just MHO. Just out of curiosity here- what is the ample evidence that you are referring to?
Sgt.
Edit- Both McClellan and Bernadotte made references to having done what they did either for interests other than the common good (McClellan) or for personal reasons (Bernadotte). Is Loring on record in the same manner? Be quite a stunner since such things are rare.
Sgt.
---------------
"The beginning of the end of war lies in remembrance".- Herman Wouk
"Is it because they are lucky that great men become great? No- but, being great, they have been able to master luck... What is luck? The ability to exploit accidents"- Napoleon
|
| John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 2847
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/20/2012 11:36:22 PM | Sgt Sanders,
Can't put my hands on the two books I'm looking for right now so I'll try from memory.(one came out within the last 5-6 years and is called Champion Hill and the other is older on all the efforts to take and hold Vicksburg) The second leans heavily on the letters of a Lt from Featherston's staff who was present when two of the orders to move reached Loring. In one he states that he and a Capt from the divisional staff agreed that "Loring would gladly see Pemberton lose a battle if it meant he lost command." That the distrust and emnity between the two was evident and that it rose to the "level of hate on Loring's part." The first gives a lot more on the subject with a statement from one of the staff members who delivered theI believe first or second order to the effect that Loring made a joke of it to the officers present. It also gives the background that Loring had been openly disrepectful to Pembertons face for months while mocking him and his plans and ideas to all other officers who would listen. It also gives the quotes from the Lt in greater detail and going back farther. Then there is also Loring's reports and even Pemberton's.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
|
| scoucer
Berlin, Germany
Posts: 2246
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/21/2012 2:39:20 PM |
Quote:John,
These are the kind of actions on the part of a leader that are inexcuseable. I don't remember the casualties from the seven days or second Manassas offhand, but at Jena, Davout's III Corps about 25% casualties. One of his divisions took 40%. One contemporary noted that "The whole army expected to see Bernadotte severely punished".
--Sgt. Saunders
Sgt. Saunders,
I agree that McClellan should have been court-martialled for his treatment of Pope and "desertion" at the Seven Days. However, I don´t think Bernadotte could be put in the same boat. Lousy staff work from Berthier and Napoleon covering his initial blunder.
[Read More]
Trevor
---------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
Some swim with the stream. Some swim against the stream. Me - I´m stuck somewhere in the woods and can´t even find the stupid stream.
|
| Sgt. Saunders
West Palm Beach, FL, USA
Posts: 451
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/22/2012 2:02:28 AM |
Quote:Quote: John,
These are the kind of actions on the part of a leader that are inexcuseable. I don't remember the casualties from the seven days or second Manassas offhand, but at Jena, Davout's III Corps about 25% casualties. One of his divisions took 40%. One contemporary noted that "The whole army expected to see Bernadotte severely punished".
--Sgt. Saunders Sgt. Saunders, I agree that McClellan should have been court-martialled for his treatment of Pope and "desertion" at the Seven Days. However, I don´t think Bernadotte could be put in the same boat. Lousy staff work from Berthier and Napoleon covering his initial blunder. [Read More]Trevor --scoucer
Hi Scoucer,
Yeah I've read that before. Note Davout's orders from the Emperor (via Berthier):
"The Emperor has recognised a Prussian Army which stretches a league away before and on the heights of Jena as far as Weimar. He proposes to attack it on the morrow. He orders Marshal Davout to proceed to Apolda in order to fall on the rear of that army. He leaves the Marshal the choice of his route, provided he takes part in the fight."
Berthier added this post script,
"If Marshal Bernadotte is with you, you can march together, but the Emperor hopes that he will be in the position which he pointed out to him at Dornburg."
and now the Emperor's remarks:
"According to a very precise order you should have been at Dornburg, which is one of the principal passages of the Saale, on the same day as Marshal Lannes was at Jena, Marshal Augereau at Kahla, and Marshal Davout at Naumburg. In case you had not executed these orders, I had informed you during the night that, if you were still at Naumburg, you should march with Marshal Davout and support him. You were at Naumburg when this order arrived; it was communicated to you; but nevertheless you preferred to make a false march in order to turn back on Dornburg, and in consequence you did not find yourself in the battle, and Marshal Davout bore the principal efforts of the enemy's army."
The point here is not that Bernadotte's corps was exactly with Davout, but that Bernadotte's corps was in close enough proximity to it's commanding officer- Bernadotte- who WAS with Davout, to warrant Bernadotte marching with Davout just as Berthier mentioned. Instead, Bernadotte chose to avoid marching with Davout. He even used as an excuse the fact that his I Corps should take the lead over Davout's III Corps (which would have necessitated I Corps marching THROUGH III Corps) because the number I came before the number III. Then of course their is Bernadotte's later admission that:
"I may have felt piqued at taking something like orders from Davout, but I did my duty".
Just my opinion here, but this is a tacit admission that he allowed his dislike of Davout (or of Davout's approach to Bernadotte) to take precedence over his duty to aid Davout as per Napoleon's instructions.
Sgt.
---------------
"The beginning of the end of war lies in remembrance".- Herman Wouk
"Is it because they are lucky that great men become great? No- but, being great, they have been able to master luck... What is luck? The ability to exploit accidents"- Napoleon
|
| phil andrade
London, UK
Posts: 2336
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/24/2012 1:37:09 PM | Lincoln said of McClellan something like " If he cannot fight himself, he certainly excels at getting others to fight..."
And that is something.
Lee correctly assessed McClellan as exceedingly cautious, and predicated outrageously bold moves on that assessment. But he also used, with emphasis - at the time - the word "able" in regard to Mac.
And so I'm inclined not to dismiss the report that he unequivocally and emphatically endorsed McClellan as his most able opponent.
He was an exasperrating, puffed up little man. He probably had a messianic complex, seeing himself as father of the Army and Saviour of the nation. In regard to the first, let him have his credit.
As for Antietam, I remain strongly disposed toward the view that we do better justice to this horrific engagement if we see it as a supreme confederate feat of arms rather than a uniquely poor demonstration of generalship by the union commander.
Regards, Phil
---------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
| John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 2847
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/24/2012 6:59:20 PM | Sgt Sanders,
Hope you don't mind me expanding a little here. I believe twice from Dalton to Peechtree Creek Hood failed to engage when major attacks were planned by Johnston. Given that at the same time he is sending back channel letters to both Davis and Bragg full of negative comments about Johnston, his generalship and future plans is it possible that those failures to engage were deliberate? Then there are the letters between Bragg and his wife and the whole anti anything and anybody from Tenn that comes through clearly in them. Factor in Bragg's relationships with Polk and Cheatham to name just two and they don't seem like the rantings of a crazy woman and a husband just going along with her.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
|
| Sgt. Saunders
West Palm Beach, FL, USA
Posts: 451
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/24/2012 10:50:24 PM | John,
Can't say for sure there. I don't think that I can put Hood or Bragg (or Loring for that matter) in the same category as either McClellan or Bernadotte. Hood just MAY have legitimately believed that Johnston was not agressive enough; I don't know enough about Bragg and the anti-Tennessee bias that you refer to; as for Loring, he just MAY have been the victim of a smear campaign spread by lower ranking officers who detested him. I'm not saying that the chances are high on any of these- just that there appears to be SOME doubt. I'm satisfied that there is no doubt as to what motivated McClellan and Bernadotte- thanks to their own words.
Sgt.
---------------
"The beginning of the end of war lies in remembrance".- Herman Wouk
"Is it because they are lucky that great men become great? No- but, being great, they have been able to master luck... What is luck? The ability to exploit accidents"- Napoleon
|
| John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 2847
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/24/2012 11:18:17 PM | Sgt Sanders,
I don't know how you can accuse somebody of not being aggressive enough when it is you that has failed to attack when given the order by that person. It is Hood's fault that Johnston wasn't agressive in that campaign.
Bragg's wife was a little off and she goes into great detail how anybody from Tenn can't be trusted. That Bragg should post "good men from Miss, LA or AL" behind them with orders to shoot them down when the run. Bragg answers these letters by basically agreeing with everything she says. I know at first glance its a husband knowing the wife is a litte out there just agreeing to keep harmony. But when you look closer and connect the dots there does appear to be prejudice on Bragg's part.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
|
| Sgt. Saunders
West Palm Beach, FL, USA
Posts: 451
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/24/2012 11:55:37 PM | John,
All I'm saying is that there is some doubt regarding Hood, Bragg, and Loring. Not much perhaps, but some. In the case of both McClelland and Bernadotte, I don't personally believe that there is any; both men were, I believe, very clear in what they said.
Sgt.
---------------
"The beginning of the end of war lies in remembrance".- Herman Wouk
"Is it because they are lucky that great men become great? No- but, being great, they have been able to master luck... What is luck? The ability to exploit accidents"- Napoleon
|
| phil andrade
London, UK
Posts: 2336
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/25/2012 10:58:15 AM | Might a more sympathetic view of McClellan's battle at Antietam be accepted if we consider that he really was convinced that he faced 120,000 rebels rather than fewer than 40,000 ?
He was, of course, delusional in his perception of the size of the enemy army : this was a constitutional flaw which nothing was going to change.
I've been commanded to cook my grand daughter's dinner.
I must obey.
I will return.
Regards, Phil
---------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
| Steve Clements
Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1198
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/25/2012 12:48:07 PM | Phil,
Quote:Might a more sympathetic view of McClellan's battle at Antietam be accepted if we consider that he really was convinced that he faced 120,000 rebels rather than fewer than 40,000 ?
No.
Quote:He was, of course, delusional...
Yes.
|
| phil andrade
London, UK
Posts: 2336
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/26/2012 12:18:00 PM |
Quote:Phil, Quote: Might a more sympathetic view of McClellan's battle at Antietam be accepted if we consider that he really was convinced that he faced 120,000 rebels rather than fewer than 40,000 ? No. Quote: He was, of course, delusional... Yes. --Steve Clements
Gettysburg, Shelby Foote said, was the price the South paid for Robert E. Lee. Antietam, it might be said, was the price the North paid for McClellan.
He was more frightened of losing than he was eager to win. He couldn't help it ; he was made that way.
He had good reason for fear : this was the time when the predicament of The Republic was at its most fragile. He really believed he was outnumbered. He thought the Union was fighting for survival in that battle....we all know now that it was really the AoNV that was fighting for its life.
McClellan picked up the pieces of a defeated and demoralised army and reconstituted it into the instrument that drove out the invader.
" Remember, General, that I command the last reserve of the last army of the Republic", Porter reminded him as he was coutnenancing pressing home the attack that could and should have smashed Lee's army.
I cannot help sympathising. A flaw in my nature, I suppose.
If any further deterrent was needed to dissuade McClellan from more aggression after the slaughter of Sedgwick's men, the dismal affair at Sheperdstown a couple of days later served that purpose.
Regards, Phil
---------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
| Steve Clements
Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1198
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/26/2012 1:07:29 PM | Hi Phil,
You were obviously NOT impressed with my admittedly somewhat succinct replies to the questions that you posed -:)
To some extent, we are just re-cycling our arguments....but I am usually up for a discussion of Little Mac.
Quote:Antietam, it might be said, was the price the North paid for McClellan. Except, in the case of Bobby Lee, there was a "reward" attached to the "price". There was little reward for having Mac mess up the Antietam campaign - I say campaign, cuz I see the battle as an after-thought. The real opportunity to smash Lee was arguably on the 15th, surely the 16th, or with an aggressive and coordinated attack on the 17th....not the piece meal tactics that Mac ended up using.
Quote:He was more frightened of losing than he was eager to win. He couldn't help it ; he was made that way. Phil, you are making my arguments for me -:) I agree completely. He was severely flawed as a general.
Quote:He really believed he was outnumbered. He thought the Union was fighting for survival in that battle.... Not sure I agree with this anymore. IF Mac REALLY believed that Lee had 120,000 men (and to do so would suggest that Mac was way past merely incompetent and had passed into a delusional state...which you have already alluded to), Mac would NEVER have gone on the offensive, IMO. He would have sat in Frederick and nagged Lincoln endlessly for more men. The entire "Lee had 120,000 men" thing was just his excuse for fighting a flawed and uncoordinated battle.
Quote:McClellan picked up the pieces of a defeated and demoralised army and reconstituted it into the instrument that drove out the invader. There is clearly some truth to this (Lincoln thought that Mac was probably the only one that could pull it off), but the army that Mac took to Antietam had, I believe, relatively few units that fought at Second Bull Run, vs. a good chunk of his own AoP plus many new/green regiments that had just been formed. I believe that fully a quarter of Mac's army at Antietam were green. In other words, I think that he gets too much credit for "picking up the pieces of a defeated and demoralized army".
Quote:" Remember, General, that I command the last reserve of the last army of the Republic Birds of a feather....they drank each other's kool-aid.
s.c.
|
| Red Bailey
Prescott, AZ, USA
Posts: 2151
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/26/2012 4:21:17 PM |
Quote:John,
Hood just MAY have legitimately believed that Johnston was not agressive enough; I don't know enough...
Sgt.
--Sgt. Saunders
Right on Sarge, I recall that Longstreet pushed for Lee to come out to Tennessee to lead that army for just that reason.
---------------
Human action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed. ....Lincoln
As usual,
Red
|
| phil andrade
London, UK
Posts: 2336
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/26/2012 5:25:07 PM |
Quote:Hi Phil,
You were obviously NOT impressed with my admittedly somewhat succinct replies to the questions that you posed -:)
To some extent, we are just re-cycling our arguments....but I am usually up for a discussion of Little Mac.
--Steve Clements
Be assured I like the cut of your jib, Steve.
I am afraid that I am not convinced by your argument that Mac was disingenuous in his reckoning as to enemy numbers. To support my contention that Mac really believed that Lee outnumbered him, I cite this passage from Jacob D. Cox's account of the battle
" ...Could McClellan have known the desperate condition of most of Lee's brigades he would have known that his own were in much better case, badly as they had suffered. I do not doubt that most of his subordinates discouraged the resumption of the attack, for the rooted belief in Lee's preponderance of numbers had been chronic in the army during the whole year. That belief was based upon the inconceivably mistaken reports of the secret service organisation, accepted at headquarters, given to the War Department at Washington as a reason for incessant demands of re-enforcements, and permeating downward through the whole organisation till the error was accepted as truth by officers and men, and became a factor in their morale which can hardly be over - estimated.
The result was that Lee retreated unmolested on the night of th 18th, and what might have been a real and decisive success was a drawn battle in which our chief claim to victory was the possession of the field."
Incidentally, this same account, earlier on, alludes to Sedgwick's defeat, which sustained McClellan's "...conviction...that Lee was overwhelmingly superior in force, and was preparing to return a crushing blow upon our right flank."
Here was a man who was doing the best he could by his own lights, even if those lights threw a distorting glare over the reality of the contest.
Regards, Phil
---------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
| John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 2847
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/26/2012 6:28:05 PM | Red,
Lomgstreet said that because of Bragg not Johnston. Bragg was in command of the AOT at Chickamauga and while Johnston was supposed to be C&C West it was a position without any real responsibility because the major army commanders took their orders directly from Richmond. Johnston could only advise and his "orders" could only be followed if they didn't contradict those from Richmond/Davis.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
|
| phil andrade
London, UK
Posts: 2336
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/27/2012 3:05:05 AM | Here's something to throw into the pot...
McClellan's supporters, during or shortly after the war, compiled a casualty total for the AoNV for the Battle of Antietam :
Killed : 3,500 ; Wounded ; 16,399; Missing ; 6,000. Total : 25,899.
The actual casualty returns of Lee's army, for the entire Maryland campaign - Harper's Ferry, South Mountain, Sheperdstown and all other engagements, and Sharpsburg itself - aggregated 13,964, of whom, by the most authoratitive estimate, 10,318 were incurred in the great battle.
The disparity between the partisan exaggeration of Lee's Antietam casualties and the careful assessment of Ezra Carman bears a ratio roughly similar to McClellan's inflated estimate of enemy numbers and the actual total that Lee commanded in the battle.
Regards, Phil
---------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
| John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 2847
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/27/2012 10:51:42 AM | Phil,
It seems to me that Pinkerton is responsible for the inflated estimates of the size of the ANVA but Pinkerton's reputation doesn't suffer because of it neither during or right after the war. If Mac is baseing his plans on the intel than Punkerton has to bear at least part of the blame for the inflated numbers. Now in my mind this brings up a couple of questions. First who brought or elevated Pinkerton to his position with the army? Second who kept him there after Mac was fired? Third why isn't he ruined by his mistaken information which in large part Mac is baseing his stratigic and tactical plans on not only here but in the previous two campaigns?
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
|
| phil andrade
London, UK
Posts: 2336
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/27/2012 12:45:14 PM | Good points, John. There must be a wealth of discussion here. Perhaps Pinkerton was the kind of slippery guy who survives while others' heads roll. The quintessential private detective. He'd done a lot of work for the Illinois Central when McClellan had been an executive there in the late 1850s.
In the war, he gave a good account of himself at catching spies and foiling plots, just as he had managed to nabb bank robbers and railway bandits. For example, he cracked the Washington spy ring headed by Rose Greenhow. Maybe his record here was sufficient to secure his reputation.
Edit : Apparently, when McClellan was relieved in November 1862, Pinkerton left too, although he continued to investigate claims.
Regards, Phil
---------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!"
"That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress."
Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
|
| John R. Price
Wilkes-Barre, PA, USA
Posts: 2847
| | Re: Sears on McClellan/Antietam | | Posted on: 9/27/2012 1:32:53 PM | Phil,
Its something that everytime the discussion of Mac's generalship starts pops to mind but I've never really done the reading to get the answers.
---------------
A battle long forgotten by our country in a war never understood by our country.
"to satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds, in the name of destiny and in the name of God"
|
| |
| Page 1 of 4 (Page: 1 2 3 4 ) | |
|
|
|
|