# Was Civil War Union General McClellan totally useless? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 26, 2014, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585 "2014-09-26T01:47:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Lasciel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e79b87/32.png) [@Lasciel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lasciel)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585/1 "2014-09-26T01:47:34Z")
So I’m reading Karen Abbot’s Liar, Temptress, Soldier, Spy, and it’s interesting. It’s about four different women who got intimately involved with the Civil War on both sides. I’m a sucky child of the Confederacy, so I really know shit-all about the War of Northern Aggression (I kid). One of the characters in the book is real-life Emma somebody who is in drag as Frank somebody in McClellan’s army, and we’re rolling through 1862 now, and this General dude is really coming off as a stuck up useless cowardly lazy asshole who thinks the sun rises and sets due to the gravitational force of his shriveled ballsack. Is that actually pretty close to right, and if so, why didn’t they sack his ass for utter incompetence? Thanks for any edification! ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585/2 "2014-09-26T01:55:22Z")
George B. McClellan was a waste of space. The problem was we didn’t have anybody better until later in the war, when Grant, Sherman (blessed be his name!), Sheridan and the rest got to strut their stuff. McClellan was slow, pondering, indecisive and a total drag on the North in general and the Army of the Potomac in specific. ---
**Author:** ![wedgehed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8edcca/32.png) [@wedgehed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wedgehed)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585/3 "2014-09-26T02:49:07Z")
McClellan was great at organizing & training an army. The Army of the Potomac that eventually defeated R.E. Lee was his creation. He was a lousy field commander however. There were a lot of those during the Civil War. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585/4 "2014-09-26T02:52:15Z")
I disagree. He was a very competent general in many ways. He was great at building and organizing an army (which was very much a needed skill in 1860 and 1861). He was very popular with his troops. And he was great at maneuvering an army in the field. But he had two major flaws. He lacked nerve and he didn’t work well with other people. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585/5 "2014-09-26T02:53:18Z")
As noted: he was a brilliant staff officer, just not competent for field command. To his credit, he was at least partially aware of this, and asked not to be put into the field. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585/6 "2014-09-26T03:18:51Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > To his credit, he was at least partially aware of this, and asked not to be put into the field. Are you sure? Because I’d never heard this and it goes against what I have heard about MacClellan. From everything I’ve read about him, he was supremely self-confident and was sure he would win the war. It’s just that every time a battle approached, he’d suddenly lose his nerve and decide now wasn’t the right time and place. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585/7 "2014-09-26T03:51:18Z")
> [@wedgehed](#): > > McClellan was great at organizing & training an army. The Army of the Potomac that eventually defeated R.E. Lee was his creation. He was a lousy field commander however. There were a lot of those during the Civil War. There are a number of these in every war: Officers who are good at training and developing units/armies but lack the skills to actually lead them due to one or several shortcomings. The ‘Band of Brothers’ is a WW2 example of this on a small (company) scale. The original commander built some very tough paratroopers but none of the soldiers he trained wanted to serve under him as a commander. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585/8 "2014-09-26T04:16:17Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Are you sure? Because I’d never heard this and it goes against what I have heard about MacClellan. From everything I’ve read about him, he was supremely self-confident and was sure he would win the war. It’s just that every time a battle approached, he’d suddenly lose his nerve and decide now wasn’t the right time and place. Blast, I can’t find it. I was pretty sure I’d read it. But all I’m finding now is Burnside asking not to be put in command, so maybe I’m conflating the two. (Not hard to do, as both were really shitten commanders…) Sorry if I’ve put my foot in it. ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585/9 "2014-09-26T04:20:26Z")
What I heard was Lincoln said something along the lines of,“If McClellan isn’t using his army, I’d like to.” ---
**Author:** ![Timetrvlr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/53a042/32.png) [@Timetrvlr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Timetrvlr)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585/10 "2014-09-26T04:35:47Z")
No, he wasn’t totally useless, he recommended a new cavalry saddle and it was adopted by the army and forever after known as the McClellan Saddle. Uncomfortable as hell to ride (I know because I’ve ridden one) but it could double as a packsaddle.[Link](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McClellan_saddle) As a General in war, he was pretty useless. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585/11 "2014-09-26T05:02:53Z")
Huge ego, good at training and administration, couldn’t be counted on to fight. ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585/12 "2014-09-26T05:26:35Z")
From what I understand, he was more interested in pursuing his Presidential Campaign than pursuing Confederate forces. ---
**Author:** ![chacoguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/50afbb/32.png) [@chacoguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chacoguy)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585/13 "2014-09-26T05:28:31Z")
He was played like a violin by Robert E. Lee. ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585/14 "2014-09-26T06:53:40Z")
Random Eurotrash fellow chiming in here, whose _only_ source on McClellan and the Civil War in general is Ken Burns’ _The Civil War_: The impression you get from that one is that 1) yes, the General was indeed great at raising an army, and training it and equipping it, but 2) he just couldn’t bring himself to lead that army into battle, and hemmed and hawed and dragged his feet until hotter heads prevailed and shit got real. Is this more or less accurate? For a while now, I’ve been meaning to start a thread roughly along the lines of “hey Yankees, which parts of Ken Burns’ _The Civil War_ would you say were the _least_ reliable?” Would be good, I’m sure. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585/15 "2014-09-26T07:00:27Z")
He looked good in a uniform. Was Fremont any better? Should he have been in command at the beginning of the war? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 7:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585/16 "2014-09-26T07:09:04Z")
> [@Rick\_Kitchen](#): > > He looked good in a uniform. > > Was Fremont any better? Should he have been in command at the beginning of the war? No, Fremont was a hothead. He’d have probably screwed up worse than MacClellan who at least avoided losing the war. What was needed was a general who would ignore all the politics and just concentrate on fighting. But every general early in the war seemed to feel that the most important part of his job was telling Lincoln what to do. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585/17 "2014-09-26T07:20:42Z")
> [@Steken](#): > > Random Eurotrash fellow chiming in here, whose _only_ source on McClellan and the Civil War in general is Ken Burns’ _The Civil War_: > > The impression you get from that one is that 1) yes, the General was indeed great at raising an army, and training it and equipping it, but 2) he just couldn’t bring himself to lead that army into battle, and hemmed and hawed and dragged his feet until hotter heads prevailed and shit got real. Is this more or less accurate? One of my favorite stories about the war was the conversation between Grant and Sherman after the first day’s fighting at Shiloh. For context, the first day’s fighting had not gone well for the Union forces. Most commanders in the war up to then would have pulled back to avoid a second day’s fighting. Sherman saw Grant looking across the battlefield and said _“Well, Grant, we’ve had the devil’s own day, haven’t we?”_ Grant calmly said _“Yes”_ and then he added _“Lick 'em tomorrow, though.”_ That, to me, was pretty much the moment when the Confederates lost the war. Grant was willing to fight a battle and then, regardless of the outcome, come back and fight another battle. And Grant knew that if he kept fighting the Confederates would run out of men and supplies before the Union did. Grant had figured out the strategy to win the war. ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585/18 "2014-09-26T11:24:56Z")
Would it had been just as bad if not worse if a commander like Grant had been in charge from the start? The Union wanted to believe in Napoleonic brilliance, quick fixes and only short-term enlistments. It requires a period of dicking around like that for it to sink in that this was going to be a meat grinder.\* OTOH, what if, along with the Anaconda closing Southern ports, the Union hadn’t wasted time tying to take Richmond and instead went straight to Sherman’s March and Sheridan’s destruction of the Shenandoah Valley? \*I’d love to see a thread of military history examples of “Brilliant Plan A turns to shit, Hardass Plan B gets the job done.” ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585/19 "2014-09-26T12:16:37Z")
A large part of McClellan’s paralysis was due to his unshakeable faith that the Confederate Army in front of him always outnumbered him, sometimes by as much as 2 or 3 to 1. This, of course, was never true. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2014, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585/20 "2014-09-26T12:24:34Z")
> [@Slithy\_Tove](#): > > OTOH, what if, along with the Anaconda closing Southern ports, the Union hadn’t wasted time tying to take Richmond and instead went straight to Sherman’s March and Sheridan’s destruction of the Shenandoah Valley? Those both took place when the Confederate Army was already falling to pieces. The former, especially, could not have happened any earlier in the war than it did. It required all the work that Grant did in the west to make it possible. I don’t think Grant would have lasted had he been in charge of the eastern theatre from the beginning. The experience he gained in the west, where he was far more removed from the spotlight of publicity and the back-stabbing of politics than McClellan, Burnside, etc. were, is what made him capable of leading the final push. His accomplishments in the west were what made Lincoln determined to support him no matter what. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-civil-war-union-general-mcclellan-totally-useless/699585.md?page=2)