- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Was George McClellan a coward or an idiot?
Posted on 2/7/15 at 9:28 am
Posted on 2/7/15 at 9:28 am
Was he scared to go into battle? Was he secretly against fighting the south?
Or was he just a terrible commander with no sense or decision makin skills?
Also if he'd have been more aggressive would the Civil war have ended sooner?
Or was he just a terrible commander with no sense or decision makin skills?
Also if he'd have been more aggressive would the Civil war have ended sooner?
21
Posted on 2/7/15 at 9:29 am to Tiger1242
A hero you fricking whore
Posted on 2/7/15 at 9:31 am to Tiger1242
quote:
Was he scared to go into battle?
No, but he was too attached to his men and warfare during that period was just brutal and costly.
quote:
Was he secretly against fighting the south?
He was no big fan of the war, itself, but he was a loyal soldier.
quote:
Or was he just a terrible commander with no sense or decision makin skills?
He is widely regarded as one of the best trainers in U.S. Army history. The ANV was so far ahead of the North in the early going and had a broader and deeper roster of the better generals that all that dallying about, training, equipping, drilling that Little Mac did ultimately resulted in more parity by 1863 and directly led to the success his successors (ultimately, Grant) had with the army he built.
So, take that FWIW.
This post was edited on 2/7/15 at 9:32 am
Posted on 2/7/15 at 9:34 am to Tiger1242
Arrogance
Posted on 2/7/15 at 9:34 am to Tiger1242
He was great at preparing units and fiercely loyal to and protective of his men. But he didn't have much stomach for casualties.
The South lost the Civil War decisively, btw. Unconditionally surrendered, too. Just like to help folks remember that.
The South lost the Civil War decisively, btw. Unconditionally surrendered, too. Just like to help folks remember that.
Posted on 2/7/15 at 9:36 am to Ace Midnight
I know he gets a lot of the credit (rightly so) for the training of the Union troops. But a great trainer of men does not make you a great leader of men all of the time
Posted on 2/7/15 at 9:42 am to Navytiger74
quote:
The South lost the Civil War decisively, btw.
No question - it was a logistical losing cause from the very beginning - one can admire their elan and tactical/operational brilliance (bordering on genius at times), while still conceding that was a silly, silly war to try to fight a bordering nation with roughly 7 times your industrial capacity, and significantly larger population.
quote:
Unconditionally surrendered, too.
Meh. There were minor concessions offered, but I won't quibble - the South was beaten fairly thoroughly, when you consider the occupation of New Orleans, the savage burning of Georgia and the Shenandoah by Sherman and Sheridan, respectively. Heck, Reconstruction was almost as bad as the war itself, on an economic, political and industrial scale (obviously, not the casualties).
quote:
Just like to help folks remember that.
Nobody around here forgets that.
Posted on 2/7/15 at 9:47 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Ace Midnight
You know I was stirring shite with the last part.
But I honestly never understood the seemingly widely held view that the South was teaming with nothing but capable commanders and the North nothing but drunks and imbeciles. Obviously the North had every advantage imaginable, but they had their share of good military leaders.
This post was edited on 2/7/15 at 9:48 am
Posted on 2/7/15 at 9:49 am to Navytiger74
Who do you talk to that thinks that?
Fact is the south had the greatest commander in the war, but Grant and Sherman were no slouches.
McClellan was a slouch though, at least when it came to executing decisions
Fact is the south had the greatest commander in the war, but Grant and Sherman were no slouches.
McClellan was a slouch though, at least when it came to executing decisions
Posted on 2/7/15 at 9:51 am to Tiger1242
An army of lions led by a sheep.
Posted on 2/7/15 at 9:52 am to Navytiger74
quote:
But I honestly never understood the seemingly widely held view that the South was teaming with nothing but capable commanders and the North nothing but drunks and imbeciles. Obviously the North had every advantage imaginable, but they had their share of good military leaders.
Well, they didn't. They had the much larger population, but only a handful of capable leaders at the Corps level and above. I mean you had guys like Hooker and Burnside in charge at times, man. Come on? Stonewall Jackson was a better commander in the grave than either of those cats alive, awake and sober were.
It is completely fair to say that the South, despite their flair for aristocratic mannerisms ran an army that was much more a meritocracy than the North did - at least through 1863. Lincoln finally figured it out when they wanted to fire Grant for being a drunk. "I can't spare this man - he fights!"
Posted on 2/7/15 at 10:07 am to Tiger1242
damn if you do damn if you don't
"He is a butcher and is not fit to be at the head of an army. Yes, he generally manages to claim a victory, but such a victory! He loses two men to the enemy's one. He has no management, no regard for life."
Mrs. Lincoln on US Grant
"He is a butcher and is not fit to be at the head of an army. Yes, he generally manages to claim a victory, but such a victory! He loses two men to the enemy's one. He has no management, no regard for life."
Mrs. Lincoln on US Grant
Posted on 2/7/15 at 10:20 am to Tiger1242
Great trainer. Horrible fighter.
Posted on 2/7/15 at 10:55 am to Tiger1242
quote:
Was he scared to go into battle?
McClellan was no Irvin McDowell.
Posted on 2/7/15 at 11:02 am to Tiger1242
McClellan was in the vein of Bernard Montgomery. Slow, ponderous and not a risk taker.
R E Lee was just the opposite.
After Antietam, Lincoln didn't understand why McClellan didn't pursue the Army of Northern Virginia.
Simple fact was his troops were just as dead, wounded and tired as the Rebs. He probably though if he re-engaged Lee, he just might lose the entire Army of the Potomac. I don't blame the man one bit.
R E Lee was just the opposite.
After Antietam, Lincoln didn't understand why McClellan didn't pursue the Army of Northern Virginia.
Simple fact was his troops were just as dead, wounded and tired as the Rebs. He probably though if he re-engaged Lee, he just might lose the entire Army of the Potomac. I don't blame the man one bit.
This post was edited on 2/7/15 at 11:03 am
Posted on 2/7/15 at 11:03 am to Tiger1242
More Arrogant than cowardly But also extremely hesitant to wage a "hard war" or be associated with destruction of slavery. His constant over estimation of Lee's forces and incessant excuses not to advance was devastating to union cause. He was a hell of an organizer and skilled at preparation.
Posted on 2/7/15 at 11:03 am to Tiger1242
His saddles were great for eunuchs.
Posted on 2/7/15 at 11:04 am to Navytiger74
quote:This comment right here will make this thread go on for 15+ pages.
The South lost the Civil War decisively, btw. Unconditionally surrendered, too. Just like to help folks remember that.
Posted on 2/7/15 at 11:05 am to Tiger1242
You want a horrible Union General look no further than Burnside.
Butler was horrible as well.
Butler was horrible as well.
Posted on 2/7/15 at 11:07 am to Tiger1242
He was just a little soft IMO. I mean, its fricking war!
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News