What caused many observers to believe that George McClellan was an incapable general in the US Civil War?

Answer 1

Answer I think because he lost to many men in the war, and didn't act fast enough. so, he lost many good advantages Answer Yes. He was slow to act. He took months to move his troops against the Confederate forces around Washington. He was great at training his troops. Answer McClellan was promoted to high command too soon. He had only commanded the Department of the Ohio and a relatively minor campaign in West Virginia when he was called up to command the entire Eastern department and soon after all of the United States forces. He was a great trainer and builder of Armies, he was great at winning the support and loyalty of the men under his command, he was good at logistics and relatively good at tactics and strategy. McClellans problems were in a lack of confidence in the face of his enemy and in being unable to deal with his superiors in Washington. More time in a minor theatre would have allowed him to iron out his flaws to a degree that would have allowed him to be more effective but because of his ego, his ambition, the northern press and Lincoln desire to find someone who wins at the earliest possible moment meant that he was never going to get that time to improve.

For the most part the first answer has currency, except for one major detail. That one concerns the loss of Union soldiers. Under Grant, with Lincoln's approval, US Civil War casualties on both sides were due to the strategies and tactics of total war. Neither men wanted extra bloodshed, however that was the price of victory. That price almost had Lincoln to not be the Republican candidate in 1864. In addition, Burnsides disaster at Fredericksburg where charges were led against fortified Confederate positions cannot be overlooked.

It might be an overstatement that George B. McClellan lost too many men. Despite McClellan's faults, it should be remembered that at times, US President Lincoln became obsessed with capturing Richmond. That cost the North many wasted lives and despite its location, so near to Washington DC, Richmond could have been captured based on the short distance it was from Washington DC along with the number of Union troops that could have been concentrated into an overpowering military force. It can be said that Lincoln gave McClellan more than enough chances. It can also be said that when subordinates fail, the buck stops at the top. The top was Lincoln. He had a habit of choosing the wrong Union generals much too often. As an aside, Lincoln made the commanding general of the Army of the Potomac a revolving door.

Answer 2

In the eyes of many people during the US Civil War and by historians afterward, Union General George B. McClellan did not live up to the expectations of US President Lincoln and others. With that said, the North's public gave him credit in sending Lee's army back to Virginia after the Battle of Antietam. In hindsight, his critics may have been too harsh. Not all of McClellan's failures were based on his actions and, or inactions. He and US President Lincoln had different views on how the war should be fought. Very few generals on both sides can easily be faulted for certain failures. Nevertheless, McClellan had great opportunities to defeat the Confederacy, and could not take advantage of them. As examples, US General Meade was criticized by Lincoln for not following up after his victory at Gettysburg. US Grant was caught napping at Shiloh, but reinforcements saved the day for him and the Union. Many see Grant as a "fighter" others see him as a general that would lose Union troops that his critics say were unnecessary. To win, he relentlessly believed as did Lincoln that the war was a numbers game. Openly Lincoln discussed that as long as the South continued to lose troops as did the Union, that was "OK" as the Union could replace the lost troops, while the South did not have that luxury.