Thomas Rowlands George B. McClellan and Civil War History: In the Shadow of Grant and Sherman - Book Report/Review Example

War History of the Civil War “In the shadow of Grant and Sherman” By Thomas Rowland & James Mc. Pherson Order No: 181403 No: of pages: 8 Premium writer – 6530 War…..2 Abstract Union commander George B. McClellan has always been a potent subject for controversy because he was one of the most complex generals in History. Even though he was much gifted with organizational and administrative skills, yet he was both unwilling and unable to fight with the strong army that he has created. Most of the Modern day historians maintain that McClellan was a poor general; others believed him to be a highly capable commander. Therefore this legacy of debate continues even today. War…..3 Introduction: George Brinton McClellan was born in Philadelphia and was fondly called or referred to as “GBM” or “Mac”. He held different positions during different phases in his career such as being the commander of all Union armies, governor of New Jersey, a presidential candidate and much else. He was considered to be the most modern manager ever produced during the Civil war, but is critically remembered for his key managerial failings –He is also famous for having repeatedly disappointed Lincoln who had somehow put his trust in him. He was also a big let down for the politicians and public in general. The animosity he attracted persists even today among the present generation of historians and hence even modern writers fail to hold scholarly distance from McClellan. Thomas J. Rowland’s book is not so much an enquiry as it is a review of some of the gross mistakes or categorical errors committed on the part of McClellan. The book brims with professional courtesy but yet at the same time exposes the not so good historical practices of McClellan chapter after chapter. War…..4 Chapter two of Rowland’s book describes this journey as a “Foray into the twilight zone” emphasizing the weakest link in modern McClellanology. In a most scholarly manner, Rowland breaks down various claims made by other historians who portrayed McClellan to be a coward, messianic, a religious fanatic, a nasty person and one who is paranoid. Rowland used simple common sense to look at McClellan’s criticisms. The main instruments he used for dissecting bad practices were to make comparisons and supplying the context. As the subtitle aptly suggests “In the Shadow of Grant and Sherman”, Rowland brings before us the wartime records of Grant and Sherman, and tells us how those records were handled by McClellan critics, which help to provide counterpoints for restoring the right perspective. The language used by Rowland is both simple and easy to understand, not only by the general public but also Civil War specialists. Speaking of the context in which McClellan dealt with some of the difficulties that were faced in the first 15 months of the war by the Federal army, not much attention is paid to his early tenure which deprived him of leading the seasoned, matured and well trained civilian soldiers who were War…..5 very much adapted to the modern or new age warfare “that later commanders of the Army of the Potomac had." James McPherson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the “Battle cry of Freedom” brings to light the many tangled incidents giving it in a much clearer perspective. His eloquent and scholarly portrayal of the facts during the Civil War, make it interestingly readable. McPherson in his account doesn’t sacrifice important detail just because of the flow of narrative, but on the other hand he prefers to tell it as it is. As it is rightly pointed out, “This is historical writing of the highest order…..”Battle Cry of Freedom” is in every respect, a deeply satisfying book”. (The New York Times Book Review) McPherson paints a masterful picture of the War of Antietam, fought on September 17th 1862, which is considered as the bloodiest of battles in American History because of the loss of lives which amounted to about 6,000 soldiers. He not only speaks of the misjudgment and folly on the part of McClellan, Lincoln and others but also gives them credit for some of the decisions made by them. McPherson tells of how the Union had suffered a great set back due to consecutive defeats and the British Government was openly recognizing War…..6 the Confederacy which had set up its Government at Richmond and was contemplating peace between the North and the South which made the Northern armies demoralized. McPherson speaks openly and tells us how Lincoln changed his mind about passing the Proclamation and instead put it off until he gained a victory. If Lincoln wanted to Keep America as a whole he would have to use all his Union armies and defeat the Confederates which seemed an impossible task. Mc Pherson deftly unravels the threads of Political, social, diplomatic and military tangles that took place during the war. Though McClellan failed in his attempt to destroy Lee’s army, he managed to turn away the invasion of the North by Confederates. According to McPherson, Antietam is considered very important because it was responsible in deciding the fate of the country. The Emancipation Proclamation was declared just five days after Antietam. Though the Proclamation was made months ago by Lincoln, he had waited for a victory in order to legitimize it in the eyes of his opponents. The battle of Antietam, according to a delusional McClellan, was a complete victory to him but yet it served the purpose of a catalyst for the major transition of slavery to freedom for the African Americans living War....7 there. Though everyone was happy about the Proclamation, it was just like McClellan to miss the point and call it “infamous” and “an incitement to servile insurrection”. In the beginning Lincoln had put much faith in McClellan but as time proved otherwise he shifted his faith and trust to Grant. One of the reasons that led to this was that though McClellan was responsible in training and putting together a strong and viable army, yet he failed to utilize or harness this army to the best of his ability. According to McPherson, McClellan had a bad penchant for overstatement of events and a weakness of megalomania. A good example of this would be when he described General Lee as “Cautious and weak under grave responsibility ... likely to be timid and irresolute in action." McPherson duly points this out by stating, “A psychiatrist could make much of this statement, for it really described McClellan himself. It could not have been more wrong as a description of Lee." Another massive let down for the country, was McClellan’s paranoiac over- inflation of the strength of the Confederates. Even though he had numerical supremacy over his enemies, yet he procrastinated ending the war though he had so many chances to do so. If this had been done in the War….8 first place, thousands of lives would have been saved. Lincoln was totally frustrated by the events of the war and after a few months he relieved General McClellan from his post in November 1862. In Rowland’s view, even Grant and Sherman had flaws but they overcame them by facing their demons and hence adequately pursued their undertakings. But as for McClellan, he did nothing about his flaws and continued in the same vein because he lacked common sense. After he catapulted to fame and became chief of all the Union armies, his paranoia, fears and insecurities grew with him which inhibited him from taking smart and quick decisions which is so very necessary for a man in his position. Another great flaw in McClellan’s character was his poor psychological make up. He could never admit to the ghastly mistakes that he committed. According to the calculations he had done, he felt he was out numbered and frantically called for reinforcements. He could have ended the war in 1862 by taking Richmond and he could have defeated Lee’s badly outnumbered army easily, but his over cautious attitude prevented him from doing so and the war carried on for four long years which was a big black mark in his career. War…..9 Conclusion: Even after a whole century, debates, arguments and discussions continue to take place, making the stature of McClellan al the more elusive. After his death, the New York Evening Post made a comment in his obituary saying, "Probably no soldier who did so little fighting has ever had his qualities as a commander so minutely, and we may add, so fiercely discussed." (New York Evening Post, 1885) Both Rowland and McPherson have picked up the gauntlet of trying to analyze McClellan’s character and have succeeded in giving us a clear picture of the General by going back in time and delving into the historical events that had taken place during his time. Both writers however claim, as many had before them that McClellan was a person good skill and capacity but never got down to doing things because of his fear and over cautious attitude. Though loud spoken and boastful, he always procrastinated at the wrong time and never admitted to his blundering mistakes. I agree with both writers because after going through the events of the Civil War, I am rather convinced about all they had to say of General McClellan and his decisions during the Civil War. References: George B. McClellan and Civil War History by Rowland www.georgebmcclellan.org/rowland.html George B. McClellan and Civil War History by Thomas J. Rowland www.upress.kent.edu/books/Rowland.htm Crossroads of Freedom: Antietam 1862 by James M. McPherson www.dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2002/09/17/mcpherson/index1.html George B. McClellan & The Civil War History. www.amazon.com/George-McClellan-Civil-War-History/dp/0873386035 Read More