Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


McClellan - Without Question - George McClellan - The Participants of the War - Mikitary & Civilian - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sun Oct 23rd, 2011 05:50 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
21st Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 901
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Pender, what source are you getting your numbers from? Looking at the Civil War Battles Page their posting numbers out of the offical records.

Seven Days  http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/pottery/1080/seven_days_battles_va_25jun62.htm#seve01a1
  • Federal Strength: 105,445
  • Federal Casualties: KIA 1,734, WIA 8,062, MIA 6,053, Total 15,849
  • Confederate Strength: 80,000 - 90,000
  • Confederate Casualties: KIA 3,286, WIA 15,909, MIA 940, Total 20,135
South Mountain http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/pottery/1080/south_mountain_md_14sep62.htm
  • Federal Strength: Unlisted
  • Federal Casualties: KIA 323, WIA 1,419, MIA 85, Total 1,827
  • Confederate Strength: Unlisted
  • Confederate Casualties: Unlisted (only casulaties for Rodes Brigade are listed at KIA 61, WIA 157, MIA 204, Total 422)
Note: The page lists that it includes Fox's Gap, Turner's Gap, and Crampton's Gap.

Antietam (Sharpsburg)  http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/pottery/1080/maryland_campaign_md_14sep62.htm
  • Federal Strength: 87,164
  • Federal Casualties: KIA 2,629, WIA 11,538, MIA 911, Total 15,203
  • Confederate Strength: 40,000
  • Confederate Casualties: KIA 1,890, WIA 9,770, MIA 2,304, Total 13,964
Note: The page lists this as being for the Maryland Campaign,  it says it includes South Mountain, Fox's Gap, Turner's Gap, Crampton's Gap, and Antietam (Sharpsburg) though it links to the first four.

Fredericksburg  http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/pottery/1080/fredericksburg_va_13dec62.htm


  • Federal Strength: 116,683
  • Federal Casualties: KIA 1,284, WIA 9,600, MIA 1,769, Total 12,653
  • Confederate Strength: 58,500
  • Confederate Casualties: KIA 608, WIA 4,116, MIA 653, Total 5,377

Chancellorsville http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/pottery/1080/chancellorsville_va_30apr63.htm
  • Federal Strength: 130,000
  • Federal Casualties: KIA 1,606, WIA 9,762, MIA 5,919, Total 17,287
  • Confederate Strength: 60,000
  • Confederate Casualties: KIA 1,649, WIA 9,106, MIA 1,708, Total 12,463
Note: the page says this is for April 30th through May 4th and includes Germanna Ford (April 29th), Franklin's Crossing (April 29th - May 2nd), Fitzhugh's Crossing (April 29th - May 2nd), Stoneman's Raid (April 29th - May 11th), Old Wilderness Tavern Chancellorsville (April 30th), Spotsylvania Courthouse (April 30th), Rapidan Station (May 1st), Chancellorsville (May 1st - 6th), Fredericksburg (May 3rd - 4th), Marye's Heights, Salem Church.

Cold Harbor http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/pottery/1080/cold_harbor_va_1may64.htm
  • Federal Strength: 113,000
  • Federal Casualties: KIA 1,844, WIA 9,077, MIA 1,816, Total 12,737
  • Confederate Strength: Unlisted
  • Confederate Casualties: Unlisted
Note: page includes Gaines's Mills, Salem Church, and Hawe's Shop

Looking at The Library of Congress Civil War Desk Reference the numbers look like:

Seven Days  (the battle has no seperate entry of it's own so there are no listings for strengths or casulaties though Confederate casulties do appear in a chart on page 331)
  • Federal Strength: Unlisted
  • Federal Casualties: Unlisted
  • Confederate Strength: Unlisted
  • Confederate Casualties:  Page 331 lists the following: KIA 3,478, WIA 16,261, MIA 875, Aggregate Loss 20,614
South Mountain (the battle has no seperate entry of it's own so there are no listings for strengths or casulaties)
  • Federal Strength: Unlisted
  • Federal Casualties: Unlisted
  • Confederate Strength: Unlisted
  • Confederate Casualties: Unlisted
Antietam (Sharpsburg)  (page 266)
  • Federal Strength: 75,000 engaged
  • Federal Casualties:  12,469 (Page 330 lists the following, not including South Mountain or Crampton's Gap: KIA 2,108, WIA 9,549, MIA 753, Aggregate Loss 12,410)
  • Confederate Strength: 35,000 engaged
  • Confederate Casualties: 13,724
  • Page 331 lists the following Confederate Casulatiesfor the entire Maryland Campaign: KIA 1,886, WIA 9,348, MIA 1,367, Aggregate Loss 12,601
Fredericksburg  (the battle has no seperate entry of it's own so there are no listings for strengths or casulaties though Federal casulties do appear in a chart on page 330)


  • Federal Strength: Unlisted
  • Federal Casualties:  Page 330 lists the following: KIA 1,284, WIA 9,600, MIA 1,769, Total 12,653
  • Confederate Strength: Unlisted
  • Confederate Casualties: Unlisted

Chancellorsville (page 277)
  • Federal Strength: 133,868 engaged
  • Federal Casualties: 17,287 (Page 330 lists the following: KIA 1,606, WIA 9,762, MIA 5,919, Total 17,287)
  • Confederate Strength: 57,352 engaged
  • Confederate Casualties: 12,764 (Page 331 lists the following: KIA 1,649, WIA 9,106, MIA 1,708, Total 12,463
Cold Harbor (Page 308)
  • Federal Strength: 108,000 engaged
  • Federal Casualties: 13,000 (Page 330 lists the following: KIA 1,844, WIA 9,077, MIA 1,816, Aggregate Loss 12,737)
  • Confederate Strength: 62,000 engaged
  • Confederate Casualties: 2,5000
Then there's William H. Prices Civil War Handbook which gives the numbers as

 

Seven Days 
  • Federal Strength: Unlisted
  • Federal Casualties:  KIA 1,582, WIA 7,709, MIA 5,958, Total 15,249
  • Confederate Strength: Unlisted
  • Confederate Casualties: 17,583
South Mountain (with Turners and Crampton's Gaps)
  • Federal Strength: Unlisted
  • Federal Casualties: KIA 443, WIA 1,806, MIA 76, Total 2325
  • Confederate Strength: Unlisted
  • Confederate Casualties: 4,343
Antietam (Sharpsburg) 
  • Federal Strength: Unlisted
  • Federal Casualties:  KIA 2,010, WIA 9,416, MIA 1,043, Total 12,469
  • Confederate Strength: Unlisted
  • Confederate Casualties: 25,899
Fredericksburg 


  • Federal Strength: Unlisted
  • Federal Casualties:  KIA 1,180, WIA 9,028, MIA 2,145, Total 12,353
  • Confederate Strength: Unlisted
  • Confederate Casualties: 4,576

Chancellorsville
  • Federal Strength: Unlisted
  • Federal Casualties: KIA 1,512, WIA 9,518, MIA 5,000, Total 16,030
  • Confederate Strength: Unlisted
  • Confederate Casualties: 12,281
Cold Harbor
  • Federal Strength: Unlisted
  • Federal Casualties: KIA 1,905, WIA 10,570, MIA 2456, Total 14,931
  • Confederate Strength: Unlisted
  • Confederate Casualties: 1,700
 

 



 Posted: Sun Oct 23rd, 2011 11:41 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
22nd Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hellcat, here is the source I used http://americancivilwar.com/cwstats.htm

Did your list have the Seven Pines Battle causalties?

The page does not come through. Hit return to American Civil War home page, then hit Battle Statistics.

Last edited on Sun Oct 23rd, 2011 11:52 am by pender



 Posted: Sun Oct 23rd, 2011 12:56 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
23rd Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

McClellan did a fantastic job at rebuilding the army after Bull Run, or Manassas as it is called down south. He instituted badly needed reforms and began weeding out the political officers. What he did for the Army of the Potomac is amazing. Problem is...he didn't know when to go in for the kill. Antietam/Sharpsburg is a perfect example. A full third of the Union army hadn't seen any action that day. When Lee's center started caving instead of sending in the reserves and ending the war he wilted and held them back just in case. The next day the armies just stared at each other. McClellan let a golden opportunity to win the war slip through his hands. His timidity and not coordinating his assaults caused a lot more casualities than there should have been.

Grant despite all his critics was the better general. He believed in hitting as hard as he could repeatedly. Playing nice was not going to end the war. He went in hard and refused to ease up. He was definitely the best strategic general of the war on either side. Grant was asked about McClellan after the war and basically he said McClellan was one of the great mysteries of the war. So much potential.



 Posted: Mon Oct 24th, 2011 02:30 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
24th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 901
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

pender wrote:
Did your list have the Seven Pines Battle causalties?


 

I just went back to your thread and found out how I missed Seven Pines. Let's see, you said McClellan vs Johnston, so thet's May 31st to June 1st. Looking at the Civil War Battles Page:

Seven Pines http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/pottery/1080/seven_pines_va_31may62.htm
  • Federal Strength: Unlisted
  • Federal Casualties: KIA 790, WIA 3,549, MIA 647, Total 5,031
  • Confederate Strength: Unlisted
  • Confederate Casualties: KIA 980, WIA 4,749, MIA 405, Total 6,134
Note: The page says the battle is also known as Fair Oaks

Looking at The Library of Congress Desk Reference:

Seven Pines  (the battle has no seperate entry of it's own so there are no listings for strengths or casulaties)

  • Federal Strength: Unlisted
  • Federal Casualties: Unlisted
  • Confederate Strength: Unlisted
  • Confederate Casualties: Unlisted
The Library of Congress Civil War Desk Reference has a chapter on Battles and Battlefields which is basically broken up by campaign but also features Battle Profiles. Both Seven Pines and Seven Days are only under the Peninsula Campaign, neither have their own individual Battle Profile. And at least Seven Days has a mention in the chart on Greatest Losses by Confederate Forces in Particular Battles which gives any idea for losses by either side in the battle. Seven Pines is a complete loss in that sense.

Looking at the Civil War Handbook:

Seven Pines and Fair Oaks

  • Federal Strength: Unlisted
  • Federal Casualties:  KIA 890, WIA 3,627, MIA 1,222, Total 5,739
  • Confederate Strength: Unlisted
  • Confederate Casualties: 7,997
Pender, this page might be of some interest to you http://www.phil.muni.cz/~vndrzl/amstudies/civilwar_stats.htm . Particulary scroll down to #5. I knew about the 26th NC at Gettysburg but with the recent comments of battle stats concerning McClellan I kinda had to laugh looking at the 6th Alabama and the 4th NC at Seven Pines. Laugh because Seven Pines was one of those that had been discussed so it really just popped off the screen, so to speak.

I think I found the same chart on losses on the Shotgun's Home of the American Civil War website as Price used in his Civil War Handbook back in '61. This chart, http://www.civilwarhome.com/battlestats.htm , does match what's in the book, but Phisterer's Statistical Record Of The Armies Of The United Statesis not listed in the recomended reading of Prices book.

 

BHR, you forgot his tendency to overestimate the size of the force he was facing. McClellan was certainly a very good organizer and army builder given what he did after First Bull Run (1st Manassas). But then in the field he seemed to often move slowly because of his overestimating the size of his enemy. So there was hesitancy there that you don't really see with Grant. McClellan may loose fewer troops than Grant, but Grant kept the pressure up.

It's been mentioned in his bio on Shotgun's page (http://www.civilwarhome.com/macbio.htm) that McClellan survived Seven Pines more through the Generals under him and confusion among the Confederate forces than his own actions. And during the Seven Days he actually had a shot to attack Richmond as the south side of the Chickahominy was under defended.



 Posted: Wed Oct 26th, 2011 10:59 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
25th Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hellcat, If I remember right. I had read some where your ancestor was in the 6th Alabama. Can not remember the thread to look it up. Am I right?  Very high casulties for the 6th AL. and the 4th N.C. at Seven Pines. All in all I still believe little Mac done better than he is given credit for. He did make alot of mistakes but he did not get trounced as bad as Pope, Banks, Burnside, Hooker and Grant( Cold Harbor ).

Pender

Last edited on Wed Oct 26th, 2011 11:00 pm by pender



 Posted: Thu Oct 27th, 2011 09:32 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
26th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 901
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

One of. Supposed to have been a grandfather. And their the only one I may have a regiment for. My mom used to have his service record but she showed it to someone in the family and it vanished. She's certain she remembers it said he served with the 6th AL, though without the records she's not a hundred percent. He did survive the war.

I think if you're going to talk being trounced that you need to consider the percentage. If I've done the math right (rounding off at anything above or below .5 of a percent), Grant suffered an 11% to 12% casualty rate at Cold Harbor given the numbers we had for the number of troops he had. By contrast at Antietam McClellan suffered between a 16.5% to 17% casualty rate. Hooker is looking at a 13% to 15% casualty rate at Chancellorsville. Surprisingly Burnside is looking at 11%. So comparing Cold Harbor, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville to  Antietam you have Grant, Hooker, and Burnside loosing more men than McClellan, but they have more men to loose.

Seven Pines McClellan is looking at 12% casulties. During the Seven Days he's looking at 15% to 17% casualties. South Mountain is his best of the listed battles, at  6% it's the only battle where his causalties are lower than Grant, Hooker, or Burnside.

With two battles where his casualty rate reaches 17% and only one battle where it's below the other three for all the battles listed McClellan looks like he got trounced as much as they did despite having fewer casualties.



 Posted: Thu Oct 27th, 2011 08:58 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
27th Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Yes, but look at the confederate casulties, McClellan inflict's in the above mentioned battles. My point being in the battles discussed, Burnside only inflict's 5,377 compared to losing 12,653. From your first post on stats. Hooker inflict's 12,463 compared to losing 17,287. Your first post. Grant inflict's 2,500 compared to losing 13,000. Your second post.

In none of McClellan's battles did he lose more than he inflicted. As I said before McClellan was not great, just better than given credit for. If it was a war of numbers as some believe it was. Could not McClellan accomplish this as good as the next man?

As I stated before just because you lose the most men does not necessarily mean you lose the battle. But I would not call Second Manassas (Pope) Chancellorsville (Hooker) Fredericksburg (Burnside) Cold Harbor (Grant) anything else, but a trouncing. McClellan never suffered a defeat such as these in any of his battles.

Pender

 

 

 



 Posted: Thu Oct 27th, 2011 11:46 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
28th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

pender wrote:
McClellan never suffered a defeat such as these in any of his battles. 


I would argue that is because McClellan never truly committed his troops to battle. To truly win a victory you have to be willing to risk defeat.

Mark



 Posted: Fri Oct 28th, 2011 01:09 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
29th Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Mark, Using the offical records of all McClellan's battles except the Seven Pines, on that I used Hellcats first post of that battle. There is a total of 38,618 union causalties that fought under General McClellan that would more than likely disagree with your post.

Also to get back to the original question of this thread why would Gen. Lee say his best opponent during the war was McClellan? IMO it is because the battles between Lee and McClellan were always very intense, not to say each battle during the war was not. The Seven Days Lee was under pressure to relieve Richmond. At Sharpsburg Lees back was against the wall.

What's your's and Hellcats opinion on why Lee would say this? It is always said at Sharpsburg McClellan could of finished Lee. But before 1865 could this be said of any other union general except maybe Meade after Gettysburg?

Pender

Last edited on Fri Oct 28th, 2011 01:33 am by pender



 Posted: Fri Oct 28th, 2011 06:16 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
30th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 901
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Ok, Looking at the Confederate percentages (again rounding anything over .5 percent up and anything under down)

Seven Pines: 15%

Seven Days: 20% to 25%

South Mountain: 15%

Anteitam: 26% to 39%

Fredericksburg: 7% to 9%

Chancellorsville: 21% to 22%

Cold Harbor: 4%

Now the arguement as I followed it is that compared to some of the other generals, Hooker, Grant, and Burnside, McClellan looses fewer troops and preforms better while they are out preformed. Chancellorsville then should have been McClellan. But While Hooker looses the battle he actually inflicts more casualties than he takes. Hooker was looking at a 13% to 15% casualty rate, he's inflicting a 21 to 22% casualty rate. That's putting him on par with McClellan during the Seven Days, with McClellan only slightly edging him out in terms of casualties inflicted while slightly loosing to him in terms of casualties taken.

pender wrote:
What's your's and Hellcats opinion on why Lee would say this? It is always said at Sharpsburg McClellan could of finished Lee. But before 1865 could this be said of any other union general except maybe Meade after Gettysburg?

Pender


Why would Lee say it? Who would you call your best opponent. Someone you were more likely to beat because they were hesitant, someone who sent their troops against your heavily fortified position, or someone who even when they were defeated they just changed direction and kept going forward? Lee was a damn good General, in my opinion one of the best of the war, if not the best. But even a good general is going to want to fight a more hesitant opponent who over estimates their opponent to the point where they take too long to bring up their full force.

Burnside was a blood bath for Lee. He just sent his troops in to die rather than pull back when it should have become obvious that he couldn't take Lee. He was too far away for his atillery to do any good in supporting the infantry and it was as if he trusted too much that he could just hammer Lee's fortified position into submission

And Grant was more likely to loose to Lee. But instead of simply pulling back and giving both sides a chance to breath while he planned his next campaign Grant just seemed to say "Ok, let's turn to the left and keep going," or "Hmmm, guess it time to go to the right." Grant waged a war of attrition against Lee by keeping the pressure up.

As I've understood things Hooker was more Jackson's victory than Lee's per se. I'd understood that it was Jackson's plan that they were using and that Lee was to use the main body of the Army of Northern Virginia to hold Hooker's attention while Jackson took his Corps and attacked Hooker's "protected flank." Maybe I'm wrong about that, but if not that would likely have been part of Lee's view on Hooker. Of course the other thing is Hooker cost Lee is right arm, aka Jackson, and I doubt Lee was too pleased about that or that he'd want to face Hooker again and possibly loose his left arm. Longstreet.

McClellan had to be prodded to fight at times. Even then he moved hesitantly. And as has been pointed out it's been said that McCleallan survived Seven Pines thanks to confusion of the Confederate forces and his subordinate generals. Now I doubt confusion played a big role in most of his battles, but you have to wonder just how much of any generals successes go to their subordinates actions in the field.

Last edited on Fri Oct 28th, 2011 06:27 am by Hellcat



 Posted: Fri Oct 28th, 2011 03:22 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
31st Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hellcat, I would also agree with you and most other members about McClellan being slow and too cautious. But on the other hand if he had not of been. One of his battles may of had been as a second Manassas or Chancellorsville. The most criticism of little Mac is usually at Antietam for not sending in his whole force. I can agree with that assessment but also on the other hand it was the bloodiest single day of the war. Not at Gettysburg or Chancellorsville and Spotsylvania was a one day battle that bloody. Personally I am not convinced he could of had beat Marse Robert if he had.

As for your reply on Lee's answer "McClellan without question". I took it as meaning he was the best General he faced during the war. Not for his blunders.I also thank you for breaking down the causalties stats in round numbers. That gave me a better understanding. I was looking at the raw numbers for each battle.

IMO I think McClellan's greatest calamity during the war was Gen. Robert E. Lee taking command of the army. If he does not, Richmond is probably his in 1862. He is the first to meet on the field of battle the great Confederate General.

As a side note, I got out a couple of my books on the Seven Days battle looking up some stuff on little Mac since our discussion. And I got hung up on the 6th AL. trying to see where they took all them causalties. Bound to be Malvern Hill.

Pender

 



 Posted: Fri Oct 28th, 2011 10:14 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
32nd Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 901
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I can absolutely agree with you that McClellan's greatest problem was Lee taking command. Despite his hesitancy and his over estimating his opponent, he was moving up the Penninsula against Johnston. But once Lee took command that was it. Lee stopped him and he would come to retreat to Harrison's Landing at Berkley Plantation.

But more aggersive moves on McClellan's part might have changed things all together, possibly ending the war sooner or possibly prolonging it. Even during the Seven Days he had a chance to strike at Richmond. Lee was weaker on the Chickahominy's south side. If he had sent a couple Corps at Richmond at that time Lee would have been forced to weaken his own army to counter the move. What would have happened then if McClellan had moved aggressively?



 Posted: Fri Oct 28th, 2011 11:23 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
33rd Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I think during the Seven Days Lees aggressive strikes total overwhelmed McCelllan so much so that he could think of nothing but saving his army. He was totally and completely unnerved. Also a note on McClellan at the gates of Richmond, McClellan might not be the most aggressive commander, but as an engineer he understood sieges and how to capture a city using spades, artillery and patience. Lee had to act quickly and he did. Just as in 1864 he knew if he did not stop Grant before he got to the James it would become a siege and it would only be a matter of time.

Last edited on Fri Oct 28th, 2011 11:38 pm by pender



 Posted: Fri Nov 4th, 2011 06:54 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
34th Post
Cogswell Pepperbox
Did I Fire 6 Shots or Only 5 ?


Joined: Mon Oct 4th, 2010
Location:  
Posts: 28
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

A google search of "mcclellan without question +Lee" brings up several pages of hits linking back to this topic and this:

http://echo.asablo.jp/blog/cat/history/?offset=50



 Posted: Fri Nov 4th, 2011 05:02 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
35th Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I just don't see how Lee could say that with a straight face. Grant produced results and McClellen always had an excuse. Grant was the go to guy when Chattanooga was on the verge of falling. I'm very pro-Grant because the guy delivered in the clutch wherever he went. Against Lee he wore him down thru constant combat whereas McClellan showed timidness. He coordinated all the Yank armies to be in motion at the same time to pressure the south until it caved. I will now get off my Grant soapbax.



 Posted: Thu May 10th, 2012 01:17 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
36th Post
Double Canister
Member
 

Joined: Wed May 9th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 4
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Lee beat Mac. He did not beat Grant. We all have ego. IF he made that statement I feel he was looking forward to his legacy and was able to claim he beat the "best" the Union had to offer. One pumps up ones enemies at times. Makes victory sweeter. I do think this was, in part, the deal going down...if the quote is true. Like man, is he gonna say "Grant was the best and just whupped up on me cause he was better." No. I doubt it. Think. Lee WAS human. By the way...Mac was horrific for a myriad of reasons I have not the time to detail here. Craven blame shifter. Dis-honerable and a craven punk. Read his letters to his wife. Guy was wayyyyy over his head.



 Posted: Thu May 10th, 2012 01:45 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
37th Post
Double Canister
Member
 

Joined: Wed May 9th, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 4
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I have often wondered why Lee could haul azz and move fast, get away, and Hooker, Meade, Mac could not move with dispatch? With ALL the resourses that the Union had this is a problematic thing to ponder.  I think the will was just not there. Grant was a whole new ball game for Lee and Longstreet warned him he would be. Grant had the WILL...to bring things to a conclusion.  His men saw that after The Wilderness.



 Posted: Wed Apr 3rd, 2013 05:06 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
38th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 901
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Double Canister wrote:
Lee beat Mac. He did not beat Grant.

Technically Lee did beat Grant even though he surrendered to Grant. If you look at it Lee and Grant actually are involved in fourteen battles against each other. Lee claims victory in nine of those, Grant only in five. But remember that Grant had more men than Lee along with more weapons and ammunition. And Grant knew not only that but that he also had access to more of all three and Lee didn't so he could afford to loose them more than Lee could.

Grant fought a war of attrition, McClellan didn't. McClellan tended to be more cautious, even in victory he tended to pull back and rest while he planned what to do next. Which too often meant over estimating the strength of the forces he was to engage and thus he moved overly cautiously which meant the forces he was to engage could escape, could be reinforced, or had time to dig in. I could see Lee rather facing off against someone who would give him time to recover between battles and time to dig in rather than someone who would fight a war of attrition.



 Posted: Thu Apr 4th, 2013 09:39 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
39th Post
JG6789
Member
 

Joined: Mon Apr 23rd, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 71
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hellcat wrote: Technically Lee did beat Grant even though he surrendered to Grant. If you look at it Lee and Grant actually are involved in fourteen battles against each other. Lee claims victory in nine of those, Grant only in five.

 

I guess that all depends on how you look at it.  For one thing, it’s not clear whether the overland campaign should be viewed as one long battle, or a succession of separate ones, as you suggest.   It’s all a bit arbitrary, given the constant nature of the fighting.  More importantly, scoring these battles as “wins” or “losses” is kind of meaningless; they weren’t sporting competitions.  All that matters is outcome, and that, at least, is clear: McClellan never truly threatened the existence of Lee’s army, and Grant destroyed it.   

More to the point, though, even if Lee’s quote about McClellan is authentic—and I suspect it isn’t—what does that even mean?  Grant is supposed to have said to John Russell Young, “I never ranked Lee so high as some others in the army, that is to say, I never had so much anxiety when he was in my front as when Joe Johnston was in front…Lee was of a slow, cautious nature, without imagination or humor, always the same, with grave dignity. I never could see in his achievements what justified his reputation.” 

And: “ I question whether [Jackson’s] campaigns in Virginia justify his reputation as a great commander. He was killed too soon, and before his rank allowed him a great command. It would have been a test of generalship if Jackson had met Sheridan in the Valley, instead of some of the men he did meet.  From all I know of Jackson, and all I see of his campaigns, I have little doubt of the result. If Jackson had attempted on Sheridan the tactics he attempted so successfully upon others he would not only have been beaten but destroyed.”

 
What are we to make of that?

 



 Posted: Thu Apr 4th, 2013 11:42 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
40th Post
Johan Steele
Life NRA,SUVCW # 48,Legion 352


Joined: Sat Dec 2nd, 2006
Location: South Of The North 40, Minnesota USA
Posts: 1065
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I don't believe Lee said it, too out of charachter for him and all we have is a questionable source that essentially said: "I heard him say---" I'm one of those that call the veracity of the quote extremely questionable.



 Current time is 05:12 amPage:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.4595 seconds (7% database + 93% PHP). 31 queries executed.