Was George McClellan a bad or good general in the US Civil War?

Answer 1

McClellan was a very poor battlefield commander. If the ultimate test of a general's quality is how well he performs in battle, McClellan was a failure. McClellan always outnumbered his opponent, but talked himself into believing HE was outnumbered two to one. And he NEVER, EVER got all the men he had on hand into the fight. At Antietam, he had Lee outnumbered better than five to two, but failed to get two of his entire Corps into position to fire a single shot. The Confederates had the Potomac at their backs, and it was in flood stage after recent heavy rains. The Rebels barely held on by their fingernails. Yet the next day, Lee remained on the field, daring McClellan to attack again. He had the measure of his foe, and knew McClellan probably would not. Even such a military amateur as Lincoln understood what a colossal blunder this was, on McClellan's part at Antietam. Lincoln said "He had them in the palm of his hand, and all he had to do was close his hand on them". If McClellan had closed his hand on Lee, the war probably would have ended very soon after, in the fall of 1862.

What McClellan was good at was training an army. He had great organizational skills. But having taken a rabble and turned it into an army, he was not the man to get the most out of it.

Answer 2

Most critics of George B. McClellan give him high marks for the following:

A. Military intelligence. His announced plans for dealing with the enemy innovative;

B. Graduating near the top of his class at West Point was an honor no one can take away from him;

C. He was a child prodigy and matriculated at the University of Pennsylvania as a teenager (15 year old perhaps )

D. His training and organization skills with his army was superior;

E. The men in his armies were loyal to him; and

F. His failures revolved around his ability to act quickly.

Answer 3

General George B. McClellan must be compared to other US generals in order to make a decision concerning his performance. McClellan was in a unique position when he became general in chief. It was a t the very beginning of the war, and this was a disadvantage. The generals that followed him as either general in chief or as commander of the Army of the Potomac, were not top notch military men. If we go right to the heart of the matter, there will be the reasonable argument that General US Grant was a better general.When Grant took over a Lieutenant General in 1864, President Lincoln had just ordered that 500,000 men be recruited from the Northern states. Never was such a "cushion" been given to McClellan. Grant finished near the bottom of his class at West Point for a reason, he was not as smart as his peers. In early 1864, it was only the sheer will of the South that gave it any chance of its mission, namely to have the North grow weary of war and the high cost of lives.

He always had a good numerical advantage when he battled. Vicksburg was a siege because after numerous tries it could not be assaulted. Even Petersburg was a siege. This was made possible by his depth of recruits.

It is difficult to imagine how Grant would have performed at Antietam, Gettysburg or the Second Bull Run. Inclusion, it is reasonable to assert that if McClellan had the resources given to Grant, his performance would have been equal or better then the other major Union generals.