George McClellan and Civil War History - Book Report/Review Example

Running Head: George B. McClellan and Civil War History Thomas Rowland's George B. McClellan and Civil War History of the [Name of the institution] Thomas Rowland's George B. McClellan and Civil War History Thomas Rowland's George B. McClellan and Civil War History is one f the best pieces f writing on the Civil War. The writer defines a framework in which early Civil War command can be viewed without direct comparison to that f the final two years. The army values f Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage are at the core f every Army leader. Although not defined as such values in the mid nineteenth century, Army leaders were held to these characteristics just as leaders f today's modern Army are. One more famous leader f the War Between the States is Ambrose Burnsides. Known more for his daring fashion sense than his tactics and stratagem, Burnside has gone down in history as the "luckless soldier." Although beginning and ending his military career with success, his downfalls and failures on the battlefield far outweigh his victories. Not only was Ambrose plagued with lucklessness, he was also indecisive and reckless. Ambrose Everett Burnside was born in Liberty, Indiana in 1824. He became a tailor's apprentice in his home town until he received an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point. He graduated from West Point in 1847, low in his class and showed more promise singing and cooking than using tactics and strategy. He was commissioned a second lieutenant in the 2nd U.S. Artillery where he accompanied Braxton Bragg's Battery throughout the Mexican-American War all the way to Mexico City. At the close f the war the then Lieutenant was sent to the New Mexico Territory to fight against the Apaches. In 1849 he was shot through the neck by an arrow and by 1852 appointed to the command Fort Adams in Newport, Rhode Island. While stationed there he married Mary Bishop f Providence, Rhode Island. In 1853 he resigned from the Army, yet retaining a position in the state militia. While in Rhode Island he worked on his firearm, the Burnside Breechloading Carbine. The Secretary f War at the time John B. Floyd, decided to arm the army with his carbine, and had Burnside establish many factories for this contract. The works were no sooner completed than another gunmaker bribed Secretary Floyd to accept his contract and reject Burnsides. Burnside was bankrupt, so he went west in and soon found himself working for George B. McClellan, his future commanding officer. Rowland explains that at the outbreak f the Civil War, Burnside was appointed as Colonel f the 1st Rhode Island volunteer infantry. His initial success in North Carolina brought him much acclaim and got him to the rank f major. A year later Burnside took command f the Army f the Potomac. His first action, at Fredericksburg, showed his distinction as a failure to command and lead. Burnsides plan led to a humiliating and costly defeat at Fredericksburg. Burnsides advance upon Fredericksburg was rapid, but later delays, due to poor planning and communication in getting pontoon bridges for crossing the Rappahannock River, allowed the Confederates to concentrate their forces along Marye's Heights and easily repulse the Union attacks. Assaults to the south f town, which were supposed to be the main avenue f attack, were also mismanaged and the initial waves went unsupported. A special truce had to be called to bury the 100,000 Union dead at Fredericksburg, earning the battle the nickname "Burnside's Slaughter Pen." After being relieved f command f the Army f the Potomac, Burnside served in the army in much lesser roles to mediocre degree for the remainder f the war. One such instance was the Battle f the Crater during the Battle f Petersburg. Here Burnside agreed to a ridiculous plan thought up by some crazy Pennsylvania coal miners. The plan was to dig a mine under a confederate fort, and then ignite explosives there. The fort was successfully, but because Burnside was ordered not to use his division f black troops (specially trained for this mission) and had to use untrained white troops, the success came f as a blunder. Burnside received the blame for this fiasco and was sent on leave and never recalled. He finally resigned his commission on April 15, 1865. Burnsides post war career was very successful compared to his service record. He became a prominent figure in railroading, was the governor f Rhode Island for 3 terms, and was the National Rifle Association's first president. Not only was he popular in his time, he left his mark on American pop culture. The term sideburns come from his name due to the strange facial hair style he sported until his death. Burnside was not a great military leader by a long shot, but he was not the worst. He had his share f victories, and more than his share f humiliating defeats. Some historians attribute his defeats to extraneous circumstances. However, due to Burnsides flamboyant air and his indecisiveness, he could have averted some f his many losses. Good military leaders exuded a sense f direction, Burnside was more f a laid-back carefree individual. In addition to his attitude concerning tactical engagements, burnside was also very indecisive. One example f this was the Battle f Marye's Heights, during the battle f Fredericksburg. Burnside had ordered pontoon barges so the Army f the Potomac could cross at two key river points. There was a breakdown in communication somewhere in the chain f command. Instead f committing his troops and assaulting his objective, Burnside waited for the pontoons to arrive which allowed Confederate Generals Longstreet and Lee to position their men on the high ground and repel and attack that came from across the river with artillery and infantry. These qualities f hesitance and indecisiveness are not those qualities exhibited by a good military leader. General Ambrose Burnside had his share f successes and defeats, he became a prominent businessman and politician outside f the military. However, due to his lack f leadership qualities, Burnside will not go down in history as a great military leader. The Civil War is revered by many as being the worst war in the history f the world. However, many state that it was a war that was bound to happen because f the growing tension in the United States. Nevertheless, it was a war full f fantastic strategy, courageous fighting, and critical battles. If one were to judge the victor f the Civil War based on numbers and supplies, he would be certain to proclaim the north victorious. The north's adventage in manpower was evident, however the confederate's strategy seemed more efficient. After the initial battle at Bull Run, the north was morally crushed, getting demolished by a smaller southern force. Therefore, it was crucial that the Union come up with a new, better, more successful gameplan. Throughout the war, the Union gameplan consisted on making the South as week as possible through the cutting off f supplies--whether through Shermans burning or a Naval blockade. Also the Union stuck to strategies that incorporated movement through rivers and attacks on the capital. The new Union gameplan was a creation f General George McClellan. It was to call for a three pronged attack which was to begin with a penetration into Virginia to take the capital, Richmond. The second, 'prong' was for the Union troops to secure Kentucky and Tennesse, therefore opening Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia for capture. If the troops were to do this, they would split the southern army in half, making them vulnerable. The final piece f the puzzle was for the Union Navy to cut off the Mississippi River and all other southern ports. This was done in order to stop importing f all foreign goods into the south. The first stage f the strategy was to be carried out by McClellan himself. He took his troops into Richmond but he couldn't execute because he feared he was outnumbered. The fact f the matter was that the Union outnumbered the south nearly ten soldiers to one. But the clever mind f the south's Gen. Mcgrueter orderd his troops to cirlce to make the appearance f a larger core f soldiers. The plan worked, leaving McClellan scared, leading to the unsuccessful completion f the first 'prong.' The second prong was to be carried out by Gen. U.S. Grant. In order to carry out the plan to secure Kentucky and Tennesse he had to be victorious at Ft. Henry, and Ft. Donaldson. Amazingly, in just ten days U.S. Grant defeated the Confederates at both sites, making the security f Kentucky and Tennesse complete. Now the strategy was nearly complete; leaving only the all important third prong remaining. The control f the Mississippi river was so important, that Union General William Sherman stated, 'Whatever country can control the Ohio, Mississippi, and Missouri rivers, will control the continent, and win the war.' The stage was set for the Union Army to take control f the river, and the war. They did so by being victorious at Chatanooga. The Mississppi river was now in control f the north. Many claim that victories at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, as well as the draw at Antietam as being the turning points f the war. It is true that at Gettysburg the south lost over 28,000 soldiers and the Union prevented a northern movement, and at Antietam the south lost 1/4 f their army, but they are not the turning point f the war. Although contraversial, I believe that the turning point f the war took place in Virginia. Many proclaim May 1, 1863 as the greatest day in southern history--because f the great victory at Chancellorsville--and was the brightest spot for the south in the war. However, I believe that it was the worst day in southern history, and therefore the turning point in the war. The Battle at Chancellorsville was at the time a great southern victory. The south repelled the north because f the great fighting f General 'Stonewall' Jackson. Gen. Jackson was feared by many Union soldiers because f his reputation as a remarkable leader. In Antietam Jackson's troops slaughtered the northern troops in a few short hours. Jackson was thought f as the south's big gun, and so he proved, destroying the Union at Chancellorsville. However, the turning point in the war came when Gen. Jackson was shot by friendly fire. He had his arm amputated and ten days later he died. This blow to the south was so crushing that Gen. Lee said to Jackson before he died, 'You are lucky, for you have lost your left arm, but I have lost my right.' Lee was stating that Jackson, not Longstreet, was his right hand man. This loss that the south suffered would eventually cost them the war. Had Jackson not been killed, he certainly would have been at Getttysburg to face the Union. If Jackson was at Gettysburg, he may have prevented the southern loss, which eventually lost them the war. With the death f Jackson, the Union had a moral victory that is comparable to a basketball team prepping for a game, knowing that the opposing 6'10 center is injured for the season. In other words, the Union now longer feared the south as they had before, thus causing a moral boost that helped win the battle f Gettysburg. Whether or not one believes the fact that Chancellorsville was the turning point, they must believe the concept f the Gettysburg battle as being pivotal. The argument that Gettysburg was a major battle is valid, but the fact that it would have been the same if General Stonewall Jackson was there, is not. Reference Rowland, Thomas J., George B. McClellan and Civil War History. 1998 Read More