George B. McClellan and Civil War History: In the Shadow of Grant and Sherman

by Thomas J. Rowland

Perhaps no other Union commander's legacy in the Civil War has been the subject of as much controversy as George B. McClellan's. Since the midpoint of this century, however, he has emerged as the complex general who, though gifted with administrative and organizational skills, was unable and unwilling to fight with the splendid army he had created.
Thomas J. Rowland argues that this interpretation rests squarely within the context of general historical verdicts of the way in which the North eventually triumphed. Civil War scholars have found the quality of Union leadership in the early years of the war wanting, and that it was not until U.S. Grant and W.T. Sherman emerged that success was ensured. On the other hand, Grant and Sherman knew failure but were judged less harshly than was McClellan.
In George B. McClellan and Civil War History, Rowland presents a framework in which early Civil War command can be viewed without direct comparison to that of the final two years.

Genres: History, Civil War, American History

248 pages, Hardcover

First published December 30, 1998

Reviews

[Mark Peacock · Rating 4 out of 5]

Author clearly has a crush on McClellan - neurotically researched and presented - impossible not to learn something new - excellent arguments with superb presentation - the crush part is a tad annoying

[Alex Raines · Rating 5 out of 5]

Right now, I am just sitting here, trying not to freak out. This book has sold me on the notion that George B. McClellan gets a bad rap. The two biggest criticisms against McClellan have been 1) psychological issues and 2) he failed to destroy the AoNV. The problem with the criticism of his psychology is that the diagnoses don’t hold up when you scrutinize the source (mainly letters to his wife) and consider the milieu in which he lived. Beyond that, if you honestly consider McClellan’s purported psychological issues as something worthy of criticism, then would need to reevaluate Grant the drunk, Sherman the neurotic, and Lincoln the depressive. Turning to the criticism that McClellan failed to bag the AoNV, it is a factual statement. McClellan never destroyed the Army of Northern Virginia. But let’s do a quick survey. How many armies were destroyed during the American Civil War? At most, the answer is one - the Army of Tennessee under J.B. Hood at Nashville. Yep, that’s right - the way destruction an opponent’s army during the American Civil War could only get happen with a Texan involved. All you needed to do was get your opponent to put Hood in charge and then bide time. All of this is to say, destroying an army during the Civil War was near impossible unless your opponent was a moron. If you doubt Hood was moron when in high command, just read about the Battle of Franklin.

None of this is to say that McClellan deserves a spot in the pantheon with Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and Thomas, but perhaps we need to adjust the AoP power rankings. McClellan was more successful than Pope, Hooker, and Burnside, but gets treated by modern historiography like he was a donkey. This book has convinced me we need to, at a minimum, stop being so dismissive of the man. He did, after all, organize and train the AoP. Had McClellan taken a little while to find success, or if he’d started in the West, McClellan would have probably done well.

[Mark Mears · Rating 3 out of 5]

George B. McClellan & Civil War History; In the Shadow of Grant & Sherman

Thomas J. Rowland

Nearly all of my reading regarding Gen. McClellan has been ancillary. The primary focus would be a particular battle, or another commander, or Lincoln. As the author described, McClellan invariably comes off as difficult, obstinate, insubordinate, and potentially cowardly or traitorous.

I wanted to learn more. Even if he was not ultimately successful, surely someone did not rise to the top with no redeeming qualities.

Mr. Rowland provided the information, and gave a vigorous defense of “Little Mac’s” actions. As suspected, he likely did get an excessively bad rap. He had to take the Army from a small, untrained force and create a professional fighting force at a time when warfare was changing.

However some of Mr. Rowland’s logic did not convince me. There famous incident where the president and others were waiting to speak to Mac and the general ignored them and went to bed is frequently retold. The author discounts it by calling into question the legitimacy of John Hay’s story, and stating nobody else told of the account. Mr. Hay had a long, distinguished career in government, serving numerous presidents. I’ve read biographies on him, and do not recall anyone describing him as a liar. If nobody else commented on the event, they neither denied it. Perhaps the insubordinate behavior was so typical as to make it unremarkable?

Mr. Rowland did convince me the general was likely not as irredeemable as normally portrayed, but he did not convince me Mac was not a jerk. Or that he lacked aggressive tendencies where they were needed.

One final point; the information conveyed probably could have been condensed to a third of the book’s length. A great deal of time was spent explaining why others were jerks also.

[James McCarthy · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book will make you think differently about McClellan. I think Rowland makes a very good argument that McClellan shouldn’t be compared to Sherman and Grant. McClellan may have had faults, but he wasn’t the only one. I definitely recommend this. Just remember to keep an open mind.

[Celia Jansen · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was a slap and a half. A thorough comparison of McClellan with Grant, Sherman, and other Union generals.