Talk:George B. McClellan

Revisionism

we work like a freakn train an hardof revisionists editing the articles of poorly regarded ACW generals. I am currently on vacation and cannot provide adequate responses for the recent edits for GBM, but will do so early next week. Hal Jespersen 02:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I've given you a little help in that department. The article as it is wreaks of a pro-McClellan bias, and I tried to make it a bit more balanced. Feel free to edit it as you wish, however. --ExtraordinaryMan 23:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have done some considerable rewriting to set this story straight, adding a number of footnotes. I think it behooves us in Wikipedia to present majority opinions of historians with greater weight than the minority opinions. By sprinkling generally accepted assertions with "allegedly" and by presenting minority arguments either alone or before the majority ones, you greatly dilute the value of the article and descend inot WP:NOR. For example, if there were a growing movement that said Germany won World War II, we might report that fact, but not early in the introduction of the article or say that the Allies "allegedly" won it. I have left a brief paragraph toward the end of the introduction and more material in the "controversial legacy" section that covers this pro-McClellan movement, balanced in a way that I believe is NPOV and appropriate. Now that there are a number of footnotes in the article, I would expect that any modifications would maintain this level of documentation and instances of "many believe" and so forth be replaced with real citations. Hal Jespersen 00:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Updating

I'm in the process of slowly updating this article and adding a lot of citations. Since I'll be doing it on an erratic schedule, I won't ask others to refrain from correcting or adding in the meantime. Hal Jespersen 23:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am now finished. A rather lengthy article, but this is a controversial figure and many of the details are quite interesting (to me, at least). If you decide to modify the article, please note the style in which citations are used liberally and avoid adding unsourced material. Thanks. Hal Jespersen 19:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

reads like OR

There is some unsubstantiated revisionism going on here, or an attempt to discuss his legacy, but it ends up seeming like a high school history essay. Someone with more familiarity in the subect should deal with this.Desertsky85451 22:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide some specific guidance on what you want to see changed. Otherwise, I intend to remove your warning tag after a few days. This section is here because there is a small community of McClellan proponents who believe that much of the negative impression that McClellan has amassed is due to a conspiracy by radical Republicans. This is a minority view, but in the spirit of NPOV, the pros and cons are discussed here. There is no original research here that I am aware of; citations are provided. Opinions from others are welcome. Hal Jespersen 23:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I see some sections which need work and I see citations missing, but unless Desertsky85451 wants to make specific comments instead of pejorative generalities, I'm not sure the user's criticism merits more than this cursory response. If user sees problems with articles, he or she is encouraged to edit boldly. BusterD 10:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think there are citations missing, feel free to annotate the specifics with {{fact}}. This article has more citations than any other I've done. However, I am also looking for guidance on why this seems "essay-like" and why that is a bad thing. Hal Jespersen 14:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In the section I tagged, sentences like this: "Others think that McClellan....", this: "generally ended up with negative opinions of the man." Or this: "In a similar vein, some feel...." just seem very un-encyclopedic. Perhaps I tagged it overzealously, but I feel like this does need some rewriting. I honestly no sword to grind with either McClellan or Meade or whoever, but these sentences are very vague and generalizing. The rest of the article looks great, honestly. Desertsky85451 16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have updated it. See if that satisfies; further editing by you is appropriate as well. I am gratified to report that the most offending paragraph was one that I did not write. :-) Hal Jespersen 16:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

GAC

1. Well-written: Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Pass
7. Images: Pass

I previously reviewed this article and saw that it met the criteria, but I apparently neglected to post why.--Bookworm857158367 15:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit more in depth explanation is what was being looked for?A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 15:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

1864 Presidential election

The article introduction seems to give a misleading impression of his platform for the 1864 election. It says "He ran on an anti-war platform, promising to end the war and negotiate with the Confederacy". However when you read the politics section it says "He supported continuation of the war and restoration of the Union, but the party platform, written by Copperhead Clement Vallandigham of Ohio, was opposed to this position. The platform called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and a negotiated settlement with the Confederacy. McClellan was forced to repudiate his party's platform, which made his campaign inconsistent and difficult."

So while the platform he ran on was anti-war his personal position was not anti-war in the election. The introduction should surely be changed to make this more clear otherwise that sentence is very misleading. Davewild 19:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for catching it. Hal Jespersen 20:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

name

I have restored the article name to George B. McClellan. The standard we use on Wikipedia is to name the article with the form of a person's name that is most well known. For example, Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant. Simply because a man has a son that he names Junior does not mean that the man is known popularly (or even by his family) by the suffix "Senior." Furthermore, there are almost a thousand links to the old article name and there is little justification for changing those into re-directions. I did add a disambiguation link to avoid confusion with the less famous son. Hal Jespersen 00:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

NGA

I wanted to comment on the edit that added a link to the National Governors Association biography. I thought this was interesting from two standpoints: (1) That official biography of McClellan has a link to this Wikipedia article! (2) Their bio does not mention anything about leading the Army of the Potomac, being general in chief, the Peninsula Campaign, or Antietam. Amazing. Hal Jespersen 18:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle Added

A couple of edits on 13 Dec. 2007 by 24.29.168.119 added the battle of Antietam under the list of Battles/Wars section beneath his Brady photo. Since the battle was part of the Maryland Campaign(and was placed under the campaign heading) I feel it should be removed as redundant. If none object I'll kill it in a few days. Kresock (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the list indentation before I saw your comment. Although you are correct, I think his most important battle probably deserves mention. Hal Jespersen (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment on McClellan

For all his faults, and he had quite a few, it must be pointed out that McClellan fought Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia when they were in their best condition. The ANV could take the offensive at will and while they were on the defensive were almost unbeatable. While it is true that Lee was outnumbered 2-1 at Antietam, that was due to the fact that a large percentage of Lee's army refused to leave Virginia because they were fighting a war of independence, not invasion. McClellan probably should have destroyed Lee's army in Maryland on that day. However, during the Peninsula Campaign, McClellan fielded 105,000 men for actual combat and faced 90,000. Also, these 90,000 men were of very good fighting ability. Burnside and Hooker, who faced a smaller and slightly less quality ANV, fared no better against Lee. As a matter of fact, they fared quite a bit worse, but they retained command at the corps level after they nearly wrecked the North's premeir army. McClellan was given no such command, despite leaving the Army of the Potomac intact and in good fighting spirits. Meade defeated Lee in one battle, which happened to be the largest battle of the war and what many consider the turning point in the Confederacy's fortunes. By the time Grant was put in charge and faced Lee head to head, Lee's army was in no condition to take the offensive, which doomed him to defeat. McClellan was by no means the greatest general of the war. However, I would rate him far above the lowest tier of generals for several reasons. First, he was the only general that defeated Lee twice in major battles. Second, he was a superb organizer and trainer, and he boosted morale. His men loved him because they knew they would be treated well under him. Third, he conducted a civilized war against the Confederate Army, not against women, children and the elderly. He did not burn, rape, loot and pillage like the generals that came after him did. He respected private property, including slaves. As far as why he is the only Union Army general I have any respect for, he despised the radical abolitionists who would almost succeed in destroying the White South after the war. This is why he was not allowed to remain in the field after he was relieved of command of the Army of the Potomac. He also would have made a much better president than the tyrant Lincoln. If not for the army being allowed to vote in the 1864 election, McClellan would certainly have won. I suspect that the soldiers that were known to support Lincoln were given furloughs in much larger proportion than those known to support McClellan. This could have easily have been done because the Lincoln administration controlled the army. As it stood, McClellan only lost by just over 400,000 votes, which tells me that the civilians of the North were tired of war. At any rate, speaking as an Unreconstructed Southerner, I feel that McClellan is an underrated general and historical figure. I have visited his gravesite in Trenton, New Jersey. His headstone stands out and the gravesite looks to be well maintained.

Walter Ring

Thanks for your opinion. You probably would enjoy the recent work:

• Rafuse, Ethan S., McClellan's War: The Failure of Moderation in the Struggle for the Union, Indiana University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-253-34532-4.

I think everyone agrees that McClellan was a great organizer and administrator. I have been trying to think of the two battles you consider to be victories against Lee. I assume one is Battle of Malvern Hill and the other is Battle of Antietam. In the former case, McClellan had no direct role in the battle, having left the battlefield without a subordinate commander formally named. In the latter, the battle is seen as a Union victory only because of its later ramifications and the Emancipation Proclamation, not because it was a tactical defeat of Lee. McClellan's legacy as a general is strongly influenced by his failures: his total lack of nerve in the Seven Days Battles, his petulant failure to cooperate with Pope in the Northern Virginia Campaign, his squandering of the strategic and tactical advantages at Antietam, and his failure to pursue and destroy Lee's Army during its retreat. Although some of the other Union generals had some spectacular failures—Burnside and Hooker come to mind immediately, Rosecrans and Buell as well—only McClellan was left in command long enough to amass a long string of failures before being relieved. That's why he is usually classified in the lower tier of Union Civil War generals. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Battle of Beaver Dam Creek can also be considered a Union victory, which would make three victories for McClellan over Lee. As far as McClellan not being present on the battlefield at Malvern Hill-in my opinion, victories and defeats are credited to the overall commander of an army whether he is present on the battlefield or not. Wikipedia seems to agree, since they list McClellan as a principal Union commander of the battle. As I stated in my first comment, McClellan did indeed have weaknesses as an army general. However, if he had been allowed to implement his strategy without constant interference from the abolitionist administration, McClellan may have shortened the war considerably. I absolutely cannot accept McClellan being ranked below Burnside or Hooker.

Walter Ring

Sorry, I forgot BDC, although the tactical victory there was squandered when McC lost his nerve and abandoned his campaign against Richmond. Yes, he was technically in command at Malvern Hill, but in the domain of historical legacies and biography, his actual participation was a personal embarrassment. One can argue rankings of generals forever, but I'll point out that Hooker had a good, aggressive record through most of the war except for May-June 1863 and Burnside had two very successful campaigns (North Carolina and Knoxville), whereas McClellan had the minor 1861 West Virginia campaign as his only undisputed success, and once again he had little personal involvement in the victory. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hooker had an excellent record as a CORPS commander, and Burnside had some success as well commanding corp sized units. Commanding an army, especially as large as the Army of the Potomac, however, is a whole different story. You are obviously very knowledgeable on this subject, so I will just say that IMO McClellan belongs in the middle tier of Army commanders and should rate higher as a historical figure as well.

Walter Ring

I think the size of the unit is less important than whether independent command is involved. In that case, you are correct about Hooker, but both of Burnside's successes were in independent command. In the Knoxville campaign, he commanded the Department and Army of the Ohio (2 corps) and did very well in a campaign against arguably the second best Confederate general in the Eastern Theater. As to McClellan's ranking, check out North and South magazine, May 2004, in which a panel of historians collectively ranked McClellan as the sixth worst general of the war, after Floyd, Bragg, Pillow, Banks, and Polk. It was not a scientific survey, of course, but rather indicative of current thinking. (Personally, I would have ranked Benjamin Butler as worse than McClellan.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Burnside commanded two corps in the west where the Confederacy was weak. He commanded one corps in the east with less success (remember Burnside's Bridge?) Even when he had an independent command in Virginia, he did not have the success that he had in the west and on the NC coast. This is because of who he was fighting against in Virginia, Lee. You have to judge success not only on your wins and losses, but against who those wins and losses came against. Also, the size of your command is as important as if the command is independent or not. Is not an army command considered independent? Burnside proved he could not command an army of well over 100,000 as he could a corps or an army the size of two corps.

Walter Ring

A Coward

Os or possible or probable McClellan was a coward? His inability to take advantages and fully commit to the battle and his constant worries of a stronger enemy perhaps were only excuses, the fact he was a coward would explain many things?!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.168.10 (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This topic is addressed in the article. See the second paragraph of Legacy. Hal Jespersen (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

His most trusted intelligence came from a spy ring that was largely inefficient. He was often informed that there were many times the actual number of enemy soldiers in areas he planned to attack. His actions during the Mexican war can also show that he was not a coward... He was far more cautious with his army than himself. 12.157.120.87 (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

He was twice breveted for conspicuous courage in Mexico, one of those for leading what we'd call a "forlorn hope". Whatever else people want to make him out to be he wasn't a coward. Nor indeed did he ever not commit fully to battle. The most obvious charge is not using Porter's Fifth Army Corps at Antietam, but take a look at the unit positions, and try and work out how he could move the only force covering his centre either N (to reinforce 6th Corps in extracting the shattered 1st, 2nd and 12th Corps from contact) or S to assist Burnside. Finally 5th Corps, being undamaged, was the only force capable of pursuit, and McClellan indeed did order Porter to mount an aggressive pursuit of Lee leading to the Battle of Shephardstown, where AP Hill (Lee's rearguard) turned to make a stand against Porter. 67th Tigers (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits of February 12

I broke the Maryland campaign section into the Battle of Antietam and a new much shorter section for the Battle of South Mountain. I added the quote from Sears regarding McC at South Mountain. I also added two images from Wiki commons and moved down one image to the new Battle of Antietam section.Mtsmallwood (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)