Lee was never really given the opportunity to make grand strategy, Jeff Davis took that on himself. (Instead of president Davis would have much preferred to have been a general and couldn't resist playing one.) Lee was in command of the Army of Northern Virginia only and could only make suggestions to Davis about grand strategy but nothing more. Lee WAS appointed commander of all Confederate forces eventually but only in the last months of the war when it was too late to do any good.
@@voivodvlad1 Actually, Grant was more like George Marshall. Not exactly like him in all respects but Grant was the first US Army commanding general who could see the "Big Picture" and act accordingly. Until Grant took over Union armies acted without coordination, all operating independently. Grant coordinated their movements so the Confederates couldn't shift forces from one hotspot to another as they'd done in the past.
McClellan was a far better general than he gets credit for. He got 100,000 men to the games of Richmond with low casualties. Even after his "retreat" to Harrison's Landing, he was 25 miles from Richmond with his army in decent shape. The battles of the Seven Days were mostly Union victories. Few people understand why he did what he did. But he is entirely comprehensible to me. His great fault was in not seizing the moment when it was there. But even then, there are mitigating circumstances. One of his great defenders was Grant. He said very nice things about McClellan. In every sentence of Grant's I read "thank God that wasn't me". McClellan was never able to fight the campaign he wanted, because Lee made sure he couldn't. It is disputed, but Lee reportedly was asked by his nephew after the war which Union commander worried him most. Lee allegedly said " It was always McClellan".
Lincoln didn't need a Lee or a Jackson. He needed a Grant and by God he would get his Grant. Grant would take the Army of the United States and send it on simultaneous campaigns in East and West, hounding the rebels until they were spent and then hounding them more.
@abduldinero6363 tell me you know nothing about the American Civil War without telling me you know nothing about the American Civil War. Let's look at some numbers, shall we? From the time Grant took command from Fremont in the West in 1861 to the time the War ended in 1865, 94,000 of the men under his command were killed or wounded. In exchange, Grant defeated Confederate armies in decisive engagements at Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, Petersburg, and Appomatox. His operational plans after becoming Commanding General in 1864 saw Sherman cut a swath of destruction through the farmland and industry of the Deep South, cutting off Lee's access to lead, sugar, salt, molasses, and other essentials of war. Meanwhile, Meade and Grant kept Lee bouncing around Virginia until finally pinning him against Richmond and forcing Lee to surrender, ending major combat operations. In contrast, Robert E. Lee, often touted as a masterful commander, caught 121,000 of the men under his command killed between his taking command of the Army of Northern Virginian in June of 1862 and his surrender at Appomatox in 1865. 80,000 of those men were lost in the first 14 months of Lee's command. In that time, he saw no strategic success of any kind. He was defeated both times he entered Union territory, at Antietam and at Gettysburg, and was unable to destroy or significantly hinder any Union force that entered Virginia. The tactical success at Chancellorsville is widely regarded as Lee's single greatest victory where, over the course of a week, he managed to kill 21% of his army (among them Thomas Jackson) in exchange for less than 13% of the Federal Army. A Federal Army which was able to withdraw in good order and kill half his army only two months later at Gettysburg, driving Lee back into Virginia. When Lee and Grant finally did meet in the campaigns of 1864 and 1865, Lee was routinely outfought. Between 4 May and 24 June of 1864, Grant suffered 44.2% casualties while Lee, with a much smaller army, suffered 53.8% casualties. Furthermore, Lee was driven from The Wilderness of Northern Virginia to Petersburg, where Lee would spend the rest of the war besieged by the very Army he had failed to destroy for two years previous. No matter how you look at it, Grant was a successful commander and master of strategic, operational, and tactical warfare.
Where is the bias shown? In the direct comparison of the proportional losses of Grant and Lee during the Overland Campaign, where Lee's primarily defensive and much smaller army suffered a higher proportional loss rate than Grant's larger and generally offensive army? Or when I point to specific examples of Grants tactical, strategic, and operational acumen, such as the campaign against Forts Henry and Donelson, his ability to bring his army back from disaster at Shiloh, his brilliant campaign of maneuver that cut the Confederacy in half at Vicksburg, or the multi-theater campaigns of 1865 and 1865 that saw coordinated thrusts by Meade and Sherman to shatter what remained of Confederate war capacity within 13 months of his being made Commanding General? Or is it biased simply because I conclude that Grant was the superior commander? Do enlighten me.
Thanks for posting this, I have always wondered exactly what was wrong with McClellan. He was popular enough, but for some reason he seemed unable or unwilling to act aggressively enough to rout the rebels. I just read the rest of the thread, it's wonderful to find a thread where someone like me can read a reasoned intelligent discussion of various aspects of the Civil War.
McClellan was ridiculously arrogant. His overcautiousness and indecisiveness to pursue the enemy unnecessarily lengthened the union’s war effort, yet he still had the nerve to essentially snub president Lincoln whenever he tried to visit or talk to him. Then he later runs for president against Lincoln in 1864. Talk about delusions of grandeur…
This movie misrepresents the situation. McClellan pushed right up to the gates of Richmond and found himself evenly matched by the enemy. You simply cannot besiege a city without an overwhelming numerical advantage. Lincoln had promised another corps of reinforcements but when Jackson started routing Union forces up in the Shenandoah Valley, Lincoln sent McClellan's reinforcements there instead.
I was sooooo GLAD that actor Hal Holbrook was asked to reprise his role as President Lincoln in this 1980's tv mini series. He did such an tremendous job as Lincoln in the 1970's tv mini series ' Carl Sandburgs : Lincoln' that Mr.Hobrook was an OBVIOUS choice to play Lincoln in this mini drama. 😁😁😁😁😁😁👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
I don’t care for that depiction of Lincoln, too modern, I believe he was much more contemplative. Certainly quick minded but weighing all the aspects of the situation.
I would think Lincoln would have been more interested in learning about Rosecrans than Sherman, at least at that point. Rosecrans' star was on the rise. Sherman was still rather obscure by comparison.
Rosecrans was a very educated man and excellent tactician but, but he lack of guts to crush the confederates, he was too soft to fight them, that's why he got relieved by Grant in TN.
@@humbertoflores2545 Not true at all. Murfreesboro and Chickamauga were two of the bloodiest battles fought in the Civil War. The battle of Corinth was also quite sanguinary. Making comments about him being too soft is just silliness.
At this point, no. Rosecrans came to prominence in October after he fought the Battle of Corinth. Sherman came into his own at Shiloh and distinguished himself. Stanton was not a big fan of Rosecrans. Sherman was promoted to Major General on May 1st, 1862. Rosecrans was not promoted until October 24th, with the promotion dated retroactively to March 21 so that he would outrank George Thomas, who had turned down command of the Army of the Cumberland previously. Rosecrans came out west after Shiloh and had a command under John Pope. To claim his star was on the rise at this time is just not accurate.
1987MartinT You're right about McClellan. He was a bad field commander because he could not order large numbers of soldiers to fight knowing that many of them would die. Grant could do that. I'm an old man and i think I'm more like McClellan. I don't think i could order men to fight, knowing many would die, unless i went along with them. I think most of us are like that. Grant could do what most of us could not do. That made him exceptional.
@@kchishol1970 Probably. He could have stayed in Washington, building up armies for others to use. And considering his strategy for the Peninsula campaign was pretty good(it failed when he tried to execute it), maybe he could be an overall planner who let others carry out his plans.
reading between the lines, it seems obvious to me mclellan was a moral coward who was terrified by the idea of risking his neck for any reason. everything else was just an excuse to get out of being shot at. he probably cared about his men sure. he probably cared about his hide more. he constantly exaggerated lee's army size twice, even triple their actual strength, demanding more and more reinforcements and still never attacking. by the time he was forced out, the union army was probably the most fearsome army ever arrayed for battle in history. grant and sherman proved that while wielding the same army, yet mclellan was utterly frozen by fear. frankly he should've been court martialled for cowardice and dereliction of duty.
England actually did take the side of the South unofficially . They built war ships for them and got around Union blockade to supply them with guns and ammunition. In the aftermath at the Battle of Corinth( MS) in 1862 ,Union troops found discarded guns that were new and of English origin
The ships, CSS Alabama and Florida, were built by private yards under false pretences to get around the government's neutrality laws. Once this was realised, the British government stopped several more from doing the same. British firms sold arms to both sides during the war and simply followed the money. Arms dealing, especially in the 19th century, was hardly a moral affair, and US companies were quite happy to do it themselves. Even during the Civil War, they were building two ironclads for the Italians, who shortly used it against the Austrians (one was sunk at Lissa). I suppose that makes the Americans non-neutral in that conflict?
The Federal government also bought British arms, so no, they didn’t take the side of the South unofficially. There were elements of the British government that would have liked to have supported the south, but it became clear very early on that the majority of the population were against propping up slavery.
lincoln memorial i was but a man of Kentucky and my rise from that place history will judge me as i may from this place i now sit and i can in thought judge fairly those that pass before my gaze, my deep expression and features would seem i was moulded by the very events of my life and each line in my face the very mountains i have climbed within me and of the place where i was born i am but the self taught man who hankered to bring a wisdom to my fellow men and to move by understanding to unite our great nation and indite those who oppose by political dogma and who's unwillingness to give ground and by this seek to defeat by war with no wish to find an understanding of another's view, my ears now will hear the sound of battle and not the debate of reasoned men and this will ring in my ears for a thousand years by a civil war that divided this nation and will forever echo such divisions still held within all the flags of our nation
It was rumored (right before he was killed) that General Phil Kearny had caught Lincoln's eye. Kearny was a hell for leather cavalry officer that had served with the French and lost an arm in the process. Kearny openly called McClellan's motivation was driven either "by cowardice or treachery" for the withdrawal ordered from the Peninsula. McClellan was a Democrat that believed in keeping the war limited, keeping slavery intact, and welcoming the seceding states back as if nothing had happened.
You just hit the nail right on the head. The Democratic party was completely against the 13th amendment and after that, they were against former slaves or any other African Americans having the right to vote.
@@hankcovey4420 You miss the point that racism was as pervasive in the north as it was in the south. No northern states wanted freed African slaves living in their communities, sharing political power by enfranchising them. The northern states wanted the Africans bottled up in the southern states. If the northern states were unwilling to accept freed slaves in their communities, how could it reasonably be expected that the south would accept that reality? The problem was way more complex than your simple explanation suggests.
McClellan was a horse's arse. Referred to Lincoln in private letters as a baboon, and the like. Always over-estimated size of Lee's army. A legend in his own mind
Actually neither Lee or Jackson were particularly effective in the Peninsular Campaign, but McClellan was so cautious so reluctant to take aggressive action when called for that he "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Mr. Barone, McClellan was forced to change his base of supply from the York River/ Pamunkey River to Harrison's Landing on the James River, after Lincoln withheld the 40,000 men of McDowell's Corps from joining up with Porter's Fifth Corps. McClellan's Army of the Potomac won most of the battles on the Peninsula. They lost at Gaines Mill but Lee suffered very high losses he could not afford. The AOP had to deal with heavy rain, washed out bridges and roads, along with swollen creeks and rivers. They had to rebuild roads and bridges. That tends to "Slow down an invading army." Lincoln knew nothing about army battle tactics except what he read in Henry Halleck's books. Instead of trusting McClellan and supporting his offensive he undermined his efforts and berated him at every opportunity. Grant won the war because Lincoln did not interfere with his operations like he did with McClellan. The Republican-controlled Congress wanted a quick war with quick results. They did not want to wait while Mac trained his army and planned the invation of Richmond.
If Mac had listened to the advice of his subordinate officers, it would have been a success. Not moving on Dam #5 was one major failure. His lack of capitalization on the plans that were found on the Sharpsburg Campaign was another.
@@johnsandy3982 You are essentially correct. Professional historians make their living extolling Lincoln's innate military acumen and trashing McClellan's military reputation. However, Lincoln did interfere with Grant. Grant's initial plan of campaign was for an amphibious landing south of the James. He was informed by Halleck that that plan would be unacceptable because if successful it would prove that McClellan had been right and the war could have been won two years before. Instead, Grant was forced to adopt his overland plan of campaign which cost the Union 60,000 casualties in 40 days to get to the same place McClellan had been while suffering 15,000 casualties.
Lee a strategist? Nope, he was a good tactician but a lousy strategist. He was so commited to his homestate Virginia, that he completely neglected the rest of the confederation. He himself never fought outside of Virginia exept when he invaded the north.
General George McClellan is a study in contrasts. He was a great organizer and trainer of men, but when it came to commanding troops in combat he was incompetent. He believed his "intelligence" people who constantly over estimated the number of troops General Lee had at his disposal. He also had several personality flaws; he thought of himself as the "American Napoleon" that his newspaper friends called him, and that he was the smartest man in America. When he ran for the presidency he thought his troops would support him, but they voted three to one against him! His troops were in fact, voting to continue fighting and dying until complete victory was assured!
We have to understand the strengths and weaknesses of General McClellen. His weaknesses of excessive caution made him overestimate Confederate strength. Little Mac despite his shortcomings as a field commander was an excellent trainer of soldiers, administrator, who also had extensive railroad management experience. We know now that McClellen was mediocre field commander but his strength as a trainer of troops meant he would have made an excellent rear area administrator. General McClellen should have been put in charge of administering and defending Maryland's railroad from Baltimore to the District of Columbia, and trainng all officers and soldiers going to the Army of the Potomac. Little Mac could have been sent as a War Department rear area inspector-trouble shooter point man. All military organizations with several theaters of operations need administrators that serve as a fire brigade to ensure rear areas are operating at peak efficiency. Critical areas in supplies, logistics, transportation, rear area security, training, housing and care of troops were all areas where McClellen could have made a big difference serving as a rear area administrator/trouble shooter for the War Department. These rear area jobs are overlooked but are of critical importance in any military organization in wartime otherwise time, vital resources, and manpower are wasted from inexcusable administrative incompetence. In an emergency, McClellen was perfectly competent at leading a large Army on a defensive battle but McClellen was not a good choice as a long term Army commander. He lacked the judgement and temperment to sieze the initiative during ofensive operations. He always saw the negatives during a crisis without see potential opportunities to turn the battle against the enemy. General Grant at Shiloh was surprised at the Confederate attack on the first day. Union losses were very heavy but Grant quickly called in all available troops in the area to reinforce his command. He formed a defensive line while gathering stragglers forming them into ad hoc units putting them on the defensive line. Grant also rapidly organized his artillery to support his defensive line including nearby river boats with field guns on them. All of this effort stopped the Confederate offensive. But Grant also was thinking to himself, how was he going to strike back at the Confederates? Grant on the next morning concentrated all the Union Army units he could at the point of attack, to hit back as hard as he could, as soon as he could, against the Confederates to drive them back. This factor of tenacity and stubborness to hit back hard at the enemy during a very tough desperate battle, shows the difference between a successful Army commander and one who vacillates during a crisis.
This makes so much sense! Would McClellan have accepted one of the lesser rear jobs though? He seemed to think he was the only one intelligent and savvy enough to run things, and that others, including Lincoln, were beneath him in judgement.
penelope snopes: McClellen was an engineer. He also understood the importance of the Anaconda plan from General Scott.General McClellen could have been kept fully employed training new regiments troops and officers for amphibious attacks along the coast. The Union was able to generally attack and capture most Southern coastal forts at will with the Union navy. Other Union commanders could have had the mission of staying on the defensive capturing Manassas and later Fredericksburg while constructing extensive fortifications for troops and guns. Engineers are also good at building supply depots, hospitals, and railroad lines to ensure Union troops always had fresh supplies and reinforcements when attacked. The idea would be to ensure Union troops were entrenched or had lines of entrenchments from which to launch attacks from or fight defensive battles from if repulsed. This inflicts casualties on the Confederates while keeping them out of Northern territory. The same engineer's approach should have been done in the Shenandoah valley. Harpers Ferry should have been turned into a fortress of strongpoints and entrenchements. After Harpers Ferry was turned into a fortress, the Union army advances onto the next community, secures it, and fortifies it with strongpoints, entrenchments, and fortifications. The railroad is laid to connect it to Harpers Ferry. Armored trains with infantry and cavalry patrol the rail lines to protect them from sabotage and repair them. The routine of a reconnaissance in force with cavalry would advance from one town to the next with fortifications built around each significant town in the Shenendoah Valley connected by a military railway network with fortified garrisons all along the way. The idea here is that a railway, fortification, engineers war played to Union strengths of industrialization, supplies, logistical and material advantages. The Confederates would have spent much of their time fighting armored troop trains or besieging fortified towns in their OWN TERRITORY while Union commanders could concentrate reserves Union troops anywhere along this military railway network threatened with Confederate attack. But Harpers Ferry and the surrounding high ground had to be turned into an impregnable fortress that could with stand any Confederate attack. I think McClellan would have been almost ideal for such a careful methodical and engineering based strategy. So what if the Confederates were more clever at maneuver and tactics? These advantages would have been negated with vast employment of the ax, spade, engineering expertise and railway network of connected fortresses around Manassas and Fredericksburg to the Shenenadoah valley. When a more clever Union commander than McClellen could have been found that future commander would have the advantage of well supplied troops with a solid base from which to advance from for the final battles. Yeah there is some hindsight here but the Union Army under Grant and Sherman did operations similar to the one described here with riverine forces, ironclad gunboats, cavalry, and railroads in the West. Memphis was a major river port and railway center for the Vicksburg campaign. Chattanooga became a major port and railway hub for the Atlanta camapaign under Sherman. These railway hubs and river ports allowed the Union forces to keep up the advance, resupply and reinforce after defeats to maintain the pressure. Grant turned City Point, VA as a major port and railhub base that allowed him to besiege Petersburg. Logistics, transport capacity, and engineering expertise to maximize these critical components do more to win long wars of attrition than anything else on the batlefield.
Wow, I am keeping your reply to re-read and absorb. Thank you! I feel like I finally have some insight into why McClellan was so popular with his troops, in the beginning anyway, but such a puzzlement in his strategy. It almost seemed like he was secretly a Copperhead at times.
penelope snopes: McClellen was an engineer who was very cautious and deliberate to be a general in chief. Lincoln should have put his foot down and cancelled McClellen's Peninsula campaign while the area around Manassas and Harpers Ferry were threatened. Manassas and especially Harpers Ferry should have been turned into impregnable fortresses with secure railroad connections to resupply and reinforce with fresh armies as necessary. Again a series of fortifications, military railroads, strong points, and fortresses should have been constructed to keep Lee boxed into northern Virginia. I forget all of the rivers such as the Rapidan, Rappahanock, and others but these river lines could have been formed into impenetrable defensive lines to keep Lee's bottled up in northern Virginia permanently. This is a conservative and defensive strategy for the Union but it is the smart way to go in the beginning until overwhelming numbers of men, guns, and supplies can be mobilized and concentrated years later to crush Lee during a Union offensive. McClellen was a good engineer and excellent trainer who could have easily accomplished this important defensive mission of protecting Washington and training troops until a general capable of defeating Lee on the battlefield could be found. McClellen was a man better suited for training, engineering, and administrative tasks useful for building up the forces and bases necessary for a better suited Union general to attack Lee and bring the war to an end later on.
I am actually more upset by the "General" part of it... He might have had the rank, but... to call him "general"... that's a stretch and a spit in the face to real generals...
Mcclellan: what if they have 10000 men? Lincoln: then we'll give you 20000 men Mcclellan: what if they have 30000 men I'll need 40! Lincoln: thats fine, we'll give you 40 Mcclellan: well what if they have 50?!! I'LL NEED 60!!!
North and South. It's actually a TV miniseries from the mid 1980s.
6 лет назад+15
George McClellan was a Preening Self-Promoter, he was also a Gutless Coward. He knew how to train Troops and win them over but when it can to a fight he was clueless.
Lincoln once said McClellan was a great engineer and student of the 'stationary engine'. McClellan didn't want to commit to total war as he was a Democrat who opposed abolishing slavery and wanted to simply end the rebellion and welcome back the Southern states like nothing happened. In the end his timidness contributed to 3 more years of bloodshed as he didn't commit to a sledgehammer type of attack that would have shattered Lee's weak lines at Antietam. Instead he kept committing these trickling attacks that allowed Lee to shift reinforcements from quiet sectors to an endangered one. Even with his half-assed attempts at attacks the one in the center actually broke Lee's line-except McClellan didn't bother using the 20,000 reserves the entire battle.
The 20,000 reserves you refer to were brand new recruits that were issued their rifles on the road to South Mountain and the passes below. They had no knowledge or training in the manual of arms or army formations. They would have been slaughtered in a frontal assault by Lee's defensive line in front of Sharpsburg.
James Robert Since McClellan was a Democrat who ran against Lincoln in 1864, I've wondered if he wasn't a confederate sympathizer who threw his battles against Lee. That could have been the case for all the generals before Meade.
The Big Brother Union had immigrants fighting in their Army. They also had more bodies more guns more bullets. If General Lee had their resources he would've won in the East!
General Lee could have had those resources too, if he hadn't declined Lincoln's offer to command the Union army (before Lee's state joined the Confeds)
Lee has been overrated historically I regularly see him mentioned as one of, if not the, greatest general who ever lived, but that's utterly bizarre. Lee was not a strategist he had no consideration for the Western Theater of the war (which is where the Confederacy was destroyed) and instead called for more forces to be sent to the Army of Northern Virginia, which defended its territory for quite some time but failed to ever achieve any decisive result. Lee's two invasions of the North were both foolish and both failures. Lee basically gave the Union two great victories at Antietam and Gettysburg and suffered horrible casualties in the process. Both battles need never have happened because Lee's invasions of the North were strategically foolhardy Confederate victory was predicated on remaining alive long enough for the North to give up, which requires a force in being. Lee's invasions risked his army in both cases, a more aggressive Union commander could have utterly destroyed Lee's forces (even if the Union suffered horrible casualties in the process), leaving Richmond unprotected and eliminating one of the largest Confederate armies. As a tactician, Lee was generally successful, but he wasn't some tactical genius if any Confederate general deserves that title (and I don't believe any of them do), Stonewall Jackson is probably the one who deserves it, or that racist psychopathic killer Nathan Bedford Forrest. Lee did have a penchant for frontal assaults that were no longer terribly effective with rifled muskets. In the end, Lee lost because he was foolish with his men and his army and because the Confederacy itself was decisively beaten in the West, which opened up the back door for Sherman to run rampant and break the Confederacy's back.
Was McClellan army really the best equipped army in Western History as claimed here by President Lincoln? I would think the Prussian army at the time was probably the best.
Prussians learned a lot from us during our Civil War. Such as using railroads to move armies that's how they managed to run circles around the French when they went to war with them not long after this.
The North had an enourmous industrial potential. But in the early stages of the war, the northern troops were indeed underequipped with a bad leadership. Because the army grew way faster than the industry could support them and the rest was the result of an untrained and hastely build officer-corps.
When Lincoln removed McClellan as general-in-chief prior to the Peninsula Campaign he took over the role himself. The blunders that followed were the consequence of that poor decision. Holding back McDowell's Corps from the army conducting active operations in front of Richmond to deal with the non-threat from Jackson's movements in the Valley was a supreme blunder. Good generals use engineering and artillery against fortified positions, not frontal infantry assaults. Lincoln was not a good general-in-chief. Realizing this, Lincoln brought in Halleck, whose glacial advance from Pittsburgh Landing to Corinth (20 miles) was slower than McClellan's up the Peninsula (60 miles). Professional historians make their living by crucifying McClellan and extolling Lincoln's innate military sense.
McClellan had already resolved to run for President in the election of 1864. With this foreknowledge, he could not allow himself to be defeated in a major engagement. Such a defeat would have tarnished his reputation and wiped out the prestige that the northern press has given him. I believe this is why McClellan was so cautious. He was not trying to defeat the South, he was trying to protect his career. If the confederate leadership had abandoned Richmond, he would have gladly marched in to claim the prize. But when Lee began to attack him during the seven days, McClellan's instinct for self preservation kicked in and he decided it wasn't worth the risk to stand his ground and fight. Throughout this frustrating period, McClellan was constantly blaming others for his failure. Lack of troops, gunboats, supplies, reinforcements etc... It all points to someone laying the groundwork for a political misdirection. Nothing is my fault, it's our commander n chief. As cynical as it sounds, McClellan was more motivated by his political aspirations than the immediate needs of his country. Lincoln, even confided to members of his cabinet (before firing the general), that he believed this was the primary reason for McClellan's constant indecisiveness. Ironically, the Civil War general who went on to actually become President was willing to take risks everyday and fight the enemy with great determination. That general of course of Ulysses S Grant. Such leaders are once in a generation.
Exactly, besides the fact that McClellan was listening to his advisors that told him the Confederate Army was like 3 times stronger than it actually was.
@@tchoupitoulos No argument from me on that one. It was a bodice-ripper with about as much historical accuracy as anything remotely resembling a book on why secession wasn't about Slavery.
It's absolutely awful. It's all exposition, the opposite of how people talk in the moment. The only way it could be worse is if they started each sentence with "As you know...."
Good acting for Lincoln - but the rest was sooo bad. Either too hammy or too understated. ... "I need me a Lee", someone who can do the same thing over & over whether it works or not and constantly pesters me with the business of running an army.
This scene always felt sloppy. 1 President, 2 Cabinet Members and 2 Major Generals....Yet a mere Colonel barges in interupting the whole lot with unsollicated advice... 🤨
Had General McClellan pursued the Army of Northern Virginia immediately after the victory at Antietam (Sharpsburg, MD) and routed it during the retreat then that would have ended the Civil War!! Even George Meade screwed up after the Battle of Gettysburg when he let General Lee escape back to Virginia!! It would have been different had General Grant, General Sherman or General Lyon had been at Gettysburg!!
You forget Lee army should have destroyed McClellan army during the Seven dAYS AND HE WOULD HAVE done in Grant in the Wilderness had Longstreet not have been hit....... And this would have stopped all the evil men who have put our lands in debt over our heads ... Wake up America the evil is at our door.....................................
@@edwardclement102 Yes I do see your point!! General Longstreet was a very underrated General from the Civil War and had General Lee listened to Longstreet then it would have been a whole different battle!!
The dialogue, is laughable, in this scene. Suggesting that Lincoln was fearful of Great Britain joining France, in supporting the CSA? Lincoln knew that Great Britain was in support of the CSA, mainly because of the south's production of cheap cotton. Their morality was expendable, when it came to matters of a fiscal nature. This, of course, is a reprehensible way to conduct one's self. Anyways... I just wanted to make mention of that clear disregard for history, that was on display in this scene.
Indeed. To list the worst... -I doubt Lincoln cared about freeing slaves on the grounds of human rights. He recognized slavery got in the way of winning the war, but was not for racial equality at all. -Lee was a great tactician, possibly the greatest in history, but was not a great strategist. It seems odd to claim such when the peninsular campaign was far from his best generalship, which would only become apparent later.
Lincoln: you lost
McClellan: I didn't lose! I mainly failed to win!
- oversimplified
Lol good one, you an oversimplified fan?
@ does the quote here mean anything to you? Of course I am
@@Newdivide You are a fan, I am too ayeeee
@@NapoleonFanboy_1 yeeee
@@Newdivide We got both in common and one more thing he said in napoleon compilation was "And you are definitely average height for the time"
Robert E Lee was less a strategist than he was a brilliant tactician
Butcher and blood lustful, more like.
He was both.
Lee was never really given the opportunity to make grand strategy, Jeff Davis took that on himself. (Instead of president Davis would have much preferred to have been a general and couldn't resist playing one.) Lee was in command of the Army of Northern Virginia only and could only make suggestions to Davis about grand strategy but nothing more. Lee WAS appointed commander of all Confederate forces eventually but only in the last months of the war when it was too late to do any good.
Grant was rather like Montgomery perhaps? Arrange all the pieces so that victory was eventually assured?
@@voivodvlad1 Actually, Grant was more like George Marshall. Not exactly like him in all respects but Grant was the first US Army commanding general who could see the "Big Picture" and act accordingly. Until Grant took over Union armies acted without coordination, all operating independently. Grant coordinated their movements so the Confederates couldn't shift forces from one hotspot to another as they'd done in the past.
dear gen.mcclellan, if you are not using the army i'd like to borrow it for awhile. pres.lincoln.
McClellan was a far better general than he gets credit for. He got 100,000 men to the games of Richmond with low casualties. Even after his "retreat" to Harrison's Landing, he was 25 miles from Richmond with his army in decent shape. The battles of the Seven Days were mostly Union victories. Few people understand why he did what he did. But he is entirely comprehensible to me. His great fault was in not seizing the moment when it was there. But even then, there are mitigating circumstances. One of his great defenders was Grant. He said very nice things about McClellan. In every sentence of Grant's I read "thank God that wasn't me". McClellan was never able to fight the campaign he wanted, because Lee made sure he couldn't. It is disputed, but Lee reportedly was asked by his nephew after the war which Union commander worried him most. Lee allegedly said " It was always McClellan".
Lincoln didn't need a Lee or a Jackson. He needed a Grant and by God he would get his Grant. Grant would take the Army of the United States and send it on simultaneous campaigns in East and West, hounding the rebels until they were spent and then hounding them more.
I agree. Grant was fortunate to hook up with Admiral Farragut and they figured out how to use a river as a highway and not a barrier
@abduldinero6363 tell me you know nothing about the American Civil War without telling me you know nothing about the American Civil War.
Let's look at some numbers, shall we? From the time Grant took command from Fremont in the West in 1861 to the time the War ended in 1865, 94,000 of the men under his command were killed or wounded. In exchange, Grant defeated Confederate armies in decisive engagements at Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, Petersburg, and Appomatox. His operational plans after becoming Commanding General in 1864 saw Sherman cut a swath of destruction through the farmland and industry of the Deep South, cutting off Lee's access to lead, sugar, salt, molasses, and other essentials of war. Meanwhile, Meade and Grant kept Lee bouncing around Virginia until finally pinning him against Richmond and forcing Lee to surrender, ending major combat operations.
In contrast, Robert E. Lee, often touted as a masterful commander, caught 121,000 of the men under his command killed between his taking command of the Army of Northern Virginian in June of 1862 and his surrender at Appomatox in 1865. 80,000 of those men were lost in the first 14 months of Lee's command. In that time, he saw no strategic success of any kind. He was defeated both times he entered Union territory, at Antietam and at Gettysburg, and was unable to destroy or significantly hinder any Union force that entered Virginia. The tactical success at Chancellorsville is widely regarded as Lee's single greatest victory where, over the course of a week, he managed to kill 21% of his army (among them Thomas Jackson) in exchange for less than 13% of the Federal Army. A Federal Army which was able to withdraw in good order and kill half his army only two months later at Gettysburg, driving Lee back into Virginia.
When Lee and Grant finally did meet in the campaigns of 1864 and 1865, Lee was routinely outfought. Between 4 May and 24 June of 1864, Grant suffered 44.2% casualties while Lee, with a much smaller army, suffered 53.8% casualties. Furthermore, Lee was driven from The Wilderness of Northern Virginia to Petersburg, where Lee would spend the rest of the war besieged by the very Army he had failed to destroy for two years previous.
No matter how you look at it, Grant was a successful commander and master of strategic, operational, and tactical warfare.
If Lincoln had listened to Fremont from the get go and armed all able bodied Black Men and some black women the war would have ended in 1 year.
Bias much?
Where is the bias shown? In the direct comparison of the proportional losses of Grant and Lee during the Overland Campaign, where Lee's primarily defensive and much smaller army suffered a higher proportional loss rate than Grant's larger and generally offensive army? Or when I point to specific examples of Grants tactical, strategic, and operational acumen, such as the campaign against Forts Henry and Donelson, his ability to bring his army back from disaster at Shiloh, his brilliant campaign of maneuver that cut the Confederacy in half at Vicksburg, or the multi-theater campaigns of 1865 and 1865 that saw coordinated thrusts by Meade and Sherman to shatter what remained of Confederate war capacity within 13 months of his being made Commanding General? Or is it biased simply because I conclude that Grant was the superior commander? Do enlighten me.
Thanks for posting this, I have always wondered exactly what was wrong with McClellan. He was popular enough, but for some reason he seemed unable or unwilling to act aggressively enough to rout the rebels.
I just read the rest of the thread, it's wonderful to find a thread where someone like me can read a reasoned intelligent discussion of various aspects of the Civil War.
@Joseph Henderson I agree, and Sherman became terrifying too. They hastened the end of the war.
McClellan was ridiculously arrogant. His overcautiousness and indecisiveness to pursue the enemy unnecessarily lengthened the union’s war effort, yet he still had the nerve to essentially snub president Lincoln whenever he tried to visit or talk to him. Then he later runs for president against Lincoln in 1864. Talk about delusions of grandeur…
This movie misrepresents the situation. McClellan pushed right up to the gates of Richmond and found himself evenly matched by the enemy. You simply cannot besiege a city without an overwhelming numerical advantage. Lincoln had promised another corps of reinforcements but when Jackson started routing Union forces up in the Shenandoah Valley, Lincoln sent McClellan's reinforcements there instead.
Bias much?
Genocide murder.rape of women and children Yankee hero for sho
I was sooooo GLAD that actor Hal Holbrook was asked to reprise his role as President Lincoln in this 1980's tv mini series. He did such an tremendous job as Lincoln in the 1970's tv mini series ' Carl Sandburgs : Lincoln' that Mr.Hobrook was an OBVIOUS choice to play Lincoln in this mini drama. 😁😁😁😁😁😁👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
The only problem is the voice; the real Lincoln had a much higher pitched voice that this. But aside from that he's pretty spot on.
@@Stardweller1 : I definitely Agree 900%👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
@@Stardweller1 they did a great makeup job on Holbrook, since he looked nothing like Lincoln. He certainly wasn't as tall as Lincoln.
He did great but my god was Daniel Day Lewis something special in the movie
@@mikehoncho1005 what's funny is he was with Daniel Day Lewis in that movie as Preston Brooks the creator of the Republican party lol.
I don’t care for that depiction of Lincoln, too modern, I believe he was much more contemplative. Certainly quick minded but weighing all the aspects of the situation.
I would think Lincoln would have been more interested in learning about Rosecrans than Sherman, at least at that point. Rosecrans' star was on the rise. Sherman was still rather obscure by comparison.
Rosecrans was a very educated man and excellent tactician but, but he lack of guts to crush the confederates, he was too soft to fight them, that's why he got relieved by Grant in TN.
@@humbertoflores2545 Not true at all. Murfreesboro and Chickamauga were two of the bloodiest battles fought in the Civil War. The battle of Corinth was also quite sanguinary. Making comments about him being too soft is just silliness.
At this point, no. Rosecrans came to prominence in October after he fought the Battle of Corinth. Sherman came into his own at Shiloh and distinguished himself. Stanton was not a big fan of Rosecrans. Sherman was promoted to Major General on May 1st, 1862. Rosecrans was not promoted until October 24th, with the promotion dated retroactively to March 21 so that he would outrank George Thomas, who had turned down command of the Army of the Cumberland previously. Rosecrans came out west after Shiloh and had a command under John Pope. To claim his star was on the rise at this time is just not accurate.
Hal Holbrook is good at playing historical figures. His Mark Twain is the best.
It's a pity his Lincoln was surrounded by so much bad acting in this scene.
McClellan was an excellent organizer of armies, but he was a horrendous field commander.
1987MartinT You're right about McClellan. He was a bad field commander because he could not order large numbers of soldiers to fight knowing that many of them would die. Grant could do that. I'm an old man and i think I'm more like McClellan. I don't think i could order men to fight, knowing many would die, unless i went along with them. I think most of us are like that. Grant could do what most of us could not do. That made him exceptional.
McClellan was a pro slaverer, a pro "states rights"... that's why he runned against Lincoln in 1864..
I've read that McClellan would have been a decent Chief-of-Staff for the US Army if he had been content to play to his strengths.
@@kchishol1970 Probably. He could have stayed in Washington, building up armies for others to use. And considering his strategy for the Peninsula campaign was pretty good(it failed when he tried to execute it), maybe he could be an overall planner who let others carry out his plans.
reading between the lines, it seems obvious to me mclellan was a moral coward who was terrified by the idea of risking his neck for any reason. everything else was just an excuse to get out of being shot at. he probably cared about his men sure. he probably cared about his hide more. he constantly exaggerated lee's army size twice, even triple their actual strength, demanding more and more reinforcements and still never attacking. by the time he was forced out, the union army was probably the most fearsome army ever arrayed for battle in history. grant and sherman proved that while wielding the same army, yet mclellan was utterly frozen by fear. frankly he should've been court martialled for cowardice and dereliction of duty.
England actually did take the side of the South unofficially . They built war ships for them and got around Union blockade to supply them with guns and ammunition. In the aftermath at the Battle of Corinth( MS) in 1862 ,Union troops found discarded guns that were new and of English origin
The perfidious Albion strikes again
The ships, CSS Alabama and Florida, were built by private yards under false pretences to get around the government's neutrality laws. Once this was realised, the British government stopped several more from doing the same.
British firms sold arms to both sides during the war and simply followed the money.
Arms dealing, especially in the 19th century, was hardly a moral affair, and US companies were quite happy to do it themselves. Even during the Civil War, they were building two ironclads for the Italians, who shortly used it against the Austrians (one was sunk at Lissa). I suppose that makes the Americans non-neutral in that conflict?
The Federal government also bought British arms, so no, they didn’t take the side of the South unofficially. There were elements of the British government that would have liked to have supported the south, but it became clear very early on that the majority of the population were against propping up slavery.
Mom referred to McClellan as" pretty boy McClellan and his stationary army of the Potomac" she read a lot of civil war history like dad did.
Your parents must be total badasses.
👍
Lincoln:you have way more MEN than them go give the hell McClellan:no
Lincoln:you know what old buddy old pal you're fired
McClellan:dude uncool
Oversimplified
I didn't loose I'M NEARLY FAILED TO WIN
Ok,this is definently an oversimplified viewer
I understood that reference. Cool.
lincoln memorial
i was but a man of Kentucky and my rise from that place history will judge me as i may from this place i now sit and i can in thought judge fairly those that pass before my gaze, my deep expression and features would seem i was moulded by the very events of my life and each line in my face the very mountains i have climbed within me and of the place where i was born i am but the self taught man who hankered to bring a wisdom to my fellow men and to move by understanding to unite our great nation and indite those who oppose by political dogma and who's unwillingness to give ground and by this seek to defeat by war with no wish to find an understanding of another's view, my ears now will hear the sound of battle and not the debate of reasoned men and this will ring in my ears for a thousand years by a civil war that divided this nation and will forever echo such divisions still held within all the flags of our nation
what's the name of this movie or show ?
North & South
It was rumored (right before he was killed) that General Phil Kearny had caught Lincoln's eye. Kearny was a hell for leather cavalry officer that had served with the French and lost an arm in the process. Kearny openly called McClellan's motivation was driven either "by cowardice or treachery" for the withdrawal ordered from the Peninsula. McClellan was a Democrat that believed in keeping the war limited, keeping slavery intact, and welcoming the seceding states back as if nothing had happened.
You just hit the nail right on the head. The Democratic party was completely against the 13th amendment and after that, they were against former slaves or any other African Americans having the right to vote.
McClellan was a Whig before the war.
@@hankcovey4420 You miss the point that racism was as pervasive in the north as it was in the south. No northern states wanted freed African slaves living in their communities, sharing political power by enfranchising them. The northern states wanted the Africans bottled up in the southern states. If the northern states were unwilling to accept freed slaves in their communities, how could it reasonably be expected that the south would accept that reality? The problem was way more complex than your simple explanation suggests.
A lot of what you say is right, but he did believe in the Union though.
McClellan was a horse's arse. Referred to Lincoln in private letters as a baboon, and the like. Always over-estimated size of Lee's army. A legend in his own mind
He should have been Chief of Staff rather than Halleck. He would have been good as the chief administrator of the Army.
You're probably right about that. Little Mac could train an army very well indeed -- just didn't know what to do with it after that
Exactly. I've always wondered about that whole dynamic. Why did Lincoln stick with Halleck and not put Mac in there?
McClellan wanted to end the war and draw up a peace treaty with the CSA.
Imagine how many lives would've been spared?!?!
Dr Doom -- wow, scatological references, a sure sign of double-digit IQ. Actually, I do have a PhD, so it's 'Doctor' to you, sir.
What is this clip from please?
Actually neither Lee or Jackson were particularly effective in the Peninsular Campaign, but McClellan was so cautious so reluctant to take aggressive action when called for that he "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Mr. Barone, McClellan was forced to change his base of supply from the York River/ Pamunkey River to Harrison's Landing on the James River, after Lincoln withheld the 40,000 men of McDowell's Corps from joining up with Porter's Fifth Corps. McClellan's Army of the Potomac won most of the battles on the Peninsula. They lost at Gaines Mill but Lee suffered very high losses he could not afford. The AOP had to deal with heavy rain, washed out bridges and roads, along with swollen creeks and rivers. They had to rebuild roads and bridges. That tends to "Slow down an invading army." Lincoln knew nothing about army battle tactics except what he read in Henry Halleck's books. Instead of trusting McClellan and supporting his offensive he undermined his efforts and berated him at every opportunity. Grant won the war because Lincoln did not interfere with his operations like he did with McClellan. The Republican-controlled Congress wanted a quick war with quick results. They did not want to wait while Mac trained his army and planned the invation of Richmond.
If Mac had listened to the advice of his subordinate officers, it would have been a success. Not moving on Dam #5 was one major failure. His lack of capitalization on the plans that were found on the Sharpsburg Campaign was another.
@@johnsandy3982 You are essentially correct. Professional historians make their living extolling Lincoln's innate military acumen and trashing McClellan's military reputation. However, Lincoln did interfere with Grant. Grant's initial plan of campaign was for an amphibious landing south of the James. He was informed by Halleck that that plan would be unacceptable because if successful it would prove that McClellan had been right and the war could have been won two years before. Instead, Grant was forced to adopt his overland plan of campaign which cost the Union 60,000 casualties in 40 days to get to the same place McClellan had been while suffering 15,000 casualties.
Lee a strategist? Nope, he was a good tactician but a lousy strategist. He was so commited to his homestate Virginia, that he completely neglected the rest of the confederation. He himself never fought outside of Virginia exept when he invaded the north.
Agree. Those two invasions were disastrous for the Confederacy.
Whats this movie?
what is this from?
"North and South," a TV miniseries.
General George McClellan is a study in contrasts. He was a great organizer and trainer of men, but when it came to commanding troops in combat he was incompetent. He believed his "intelligence" people who constantly over estimated the number of troops General Lee had at his disposal. He also had several personality flaws; he thought of himself as the "American Napoleon" that his newspaper friends called him, and that he was the smartest man in America. When he ran for the presidency he thought his troops would support him, but they voted three to one against him! His troops were in fact, voting to continue fighting and dying until complete victory was assured!
His troops understood better than he that victory is the fastest way home.
What movie is this?
We have to understand the strengths and weaknesses of General McClellen. His weaknesses of excessive caution made him overestimate Confederate strength. Little Mac despite his shortcomings as a field commander was an excellent trainer of soldiers, administrator, who also had extensive railroad management experience. We know now that McClellen was mediocre field commander but his strength as a trainer of troops meant he would have made an excellent rear area administrator. General McClellen should have been put in charge of administering and defending Maryland's railroad from Baltimore to the District of Columbia, and trainng all officers and soldiers going to the Army of the Potomac. Little Mac could have been sent as a War Department rear area inspector-trouble shooter point man. All military organizations with several theaters of operations need administrators that serve as a fire brigade to ensure rear areas are operating at peak efficiency. Critical areas in supplies, logistics, transportation, rear area security, training, housing and care of troops were all areas where McClellen could have made a big difference serving as a rear area administrator/trouble shooter for the War Department.
These rear area jobs are overlooked but are of critical importance in any military organization in wartime otherwise time, vital resources, and manpower are wasted from inexcusable administrative incompetence. In an emergency, McClellen was perfectly competent at leading a large Army on a defensive battle but McClellen was not a good choice as a long term Army commander. He lacked the judgement and temperment to sieze the initiative during ofensive operations. He always saw the negatives during a crisis without see potential opportunities to turn the battle against the enemy.
General Grant at Shiloh was surprised at the Confederate attack on the first day. Union losses were very heavy but Grant quickly called in all available troops in the area to reinforce his command. He formed a defensive line while gathering stragglers forming them into ad hoc units putting them on the defensive line. Grant also rapidly organized his artillery to support his defensive line including nearby river boats with field guns on them. All of this effort stopped the Confederate offensive. But Grant also was thinking to himself, how was he going to strike back at the Confederates? Grant on the next morning concentrated all the Union Army units he could at the point of attack, to hit back as hard as he could, as soon as he could, against the Confederates to drive them back. This factor of tenacity and stubborness to hit back hard at the enemy during a very tough desperate battle, shows the difference between a successful Army commander and one who vacillates during a crisis.
Should have employed Mac at his strength - raise, train and sustain.
This makes so much sense! Would McClellan have accepted one of the lesser rear jobs though? He seemed to think he was the only one intelligent and savvy enough to run things, and that others, including Lincoln, were beneath him in judgement.
penelope snopes: McClellen was an engineer. He also understood the importance of the Anaconda plan from General Scott.General McClellen could have been kept fully employed training new regiments troops and officers for amphibious attacks along the coast. The Union was able to generally attack and capture most Southern coastal forts at will with the Union navy. Other Union commanders could have had the mission of staying on the defensive capturing Manassas and later Fredericksburg while constructing extensive fortifications for troops and guns. Engineers are also good at building supply depots, hospitals, and railroad lines to ensure Union troops always had fresh supplies and reinforcements when attacked. The idea would be to ensure Union troops were entrenched or had lines of entrenchments from which to launch attacks from or fight defensive battles from if repulsed. This inflicts casualties on the Confederates while keeping them out of Northern territory.
The same engineer's approach should have been done in the Shenandoah valley. Harpers Ferry should have been turned into a fortress of strongpoints and entrenchements. After Harpers Ferry was turned into a fortress, the Union army advances onto the next community, secures it, and fortifies it with strongpoints, entrenchments, and fortifications. The railroad is laid to connect it to Harpers Ferry. Armored trains with infantry and cavalry patrol the rail lines to protect them from sabotage and repair them. The routine of a reconnaissance in force with cavalry would advance from one town to the next with fortifications built around each significant town in the Shenendoah Valley connected by a military railway network with fortified garrisons all along the way. The idea here is that a railway, fortification, engineers war played to Union strengths of industrialization, supplies, logistical and material advantages. The Confederates would have spent much of their time fighting armored troop trains or besieging fortified towns in their OWN TERRITORY while Union commanders could concentrate reserves Union troops anywhere along this military railway network threatened with Confederate attack. But Harpers Ferry and the surrounding high ground had to be turned into an impregnable fortress that could with stand any Confederate attack. I think McClellan would have been almost ideal for such a careful methodical and engineering based strategy. So what if the Confederates were more clever at maneuver and tactics? These advantages would have been negated with vast employment of the ax, spade, engineering expertise and railway network of connected fortresses around Manassas and Fredericksburg to the Shenenadoah valley. When a more clever Union commander than McClellen could have been found that future commander would have the advantage of well supplied troops with a solid base from which to advance from for the final battles.
Yeah there is some hindsight here but the Union Army under Grant and Sherman did operations similar to the one described here with riverine forces, ironclad gunboats, cavalry, and railroads in the West. Memphis was a major river port and railway center for the Vicksburg campaign. Chattanooga became a major port and railway hub for the Atlanta camapaign under Sherman. These railway hubs and river ports allowed the Union forces to keep up the advance, resupply and reinforce after defeats to maintain the pressure. Grant turned City Point, VA as a major port and railhub base that allowed him to besiege Petersburg. Logistics, transport capacity, and engineering expertise to maximize these critical components do more to win long wars of attrition than anything else on the batlefield.
Wow, I am keeping your reply to re-read and absorb. Thank you! I feel like I finally have some insight into why McClellan was so popular with his troops, in the beginning anyway, but such a puzzlement in his strategy. It almost seemed like he was secretly a Copperhead at times.
penelope snopes: McClellen was an engineer who was very cautious and deliberate to be a general in chief. Lincoln should have put his foot down and cancelled McClellen's Peninsula campaign while the area around Manassas and Harpers Ferry were threatened. Manassas and especially Harpers Ferry should have been turned into impregnable fortresses with secure railroad connections to resupply and reinforce with fresh armies as necessary. Again a series of fortifications, military railroads, strong points, and fortresses should have been constructed to keep Lee boxed into northern Virginia. I forget all of the rivers such as the Rapidan, Rappahanock, and others but these river lines could have been formed into impenetrable defensive lines to keep Lee's bottled up in northern Virginia permanently. This is a conservative and defensive strategy for the Union but it is the smart way to go in the beginning until overwhelming numbers of men, guns, and supplies can be mobilized and concentrated years later to crush Lee during a Union offensive. McClellen was a good engineer and excellent trainer who could have easily accomplished this important defensive mission of protecting Washington and training troops until a general capable of defeating Lee on the battlefield could be found. McClellen was a man better suited for training, engineering, and administrative tasks useful for building up the forces and bases necessary for a better suited Union general to attack Lee and bring the war to an end later on.
Is that Hal Holbrook as Lincoln? Sounds like him, can’t tell with all the makeup...
Sherman beat him by a mile or so. The Final March should have been left alone.
Did I hear one actor say "Steward" instead of Seward and then another say "General McClelland" instead of McClellan? Sheesh.
I am actually more upset by the "General" part of it... He might have had the rank, but... to call him "general"... that's a stretch and a spit in the face to real generals...
Mcclellan: what if they have 10000 men?
Lincoln: then we'll give you 20000 men
Mcclellan: what if they have 30000 men I'll need 40!
Lincoln: thats fine, we'll give you 40
Mcclellan: well what if they have 50?!! I'LL NEED 60!!!
What show is this?
North &South
What movie was this from?
North and South. It's actually a TV miniseries from the mid 1980s.
George McClellan was a Preening Self-Promoter, he was also a Gutless Coward. He knew how to train Troops and win them over but when it can to a fight he was clueless.
Lincoln once said McClellan was a great engineer and student of the 'stationary engine'. McClellan didn't want to commit to total war as he was a Democrat who opposed abolishing slavery and wanted to simply end the rebellion and welcome back the Southern states like nothing happened. In the end his timidness contributed to 3 more years of bloodshed as he didn't commit to a sledgehammer type of attack that would have shattered Lee's weak lines at Antietam. Instead he kept committing these trickling attacks that allowed Lee to shift reinforcements from quiet sectors to an endangered one. Even with his half-assed attempts at attacks the one in the center actually broke Lee's line-except McClellan didn't bother using the 20,000 reserves the entire battle.
The 20,000 reserves you refer to were brand new recruits that were issued their rifles on the road to South Mountain and the passes below. They had no knowledge or training in the manual of arms or army formations. They would have been slaughtered in a frontal assault by Lee's defensive line in front of Sharpsburg.
James Robert Since McClellan was a Democrat who ran against Lincoln in 1864, I've wondered if he wasn't a confederate sympathizer who threw his battles against Lee. That could have been the case for all the generals before Meade.
If he committed 20,000 reverses who were not trained, it would’ve been a even bigger blood bath.
@@nora22000 McClellan was a Whig before the war.
@@hvymettle Oh-kay, let's say McClellan was NOT a Republican before the war and had no loyalty.
False. Lee was a great TACTICIAN. He was, however, not that great a STRATEGIST.
The Big Brother Union had immigrants fighting in their Army.
They also had more bodies more guns more bullets.
If General Lee had their resources he would've won in the East!
Ares99999 Longstreet was a better Strategist in my opinion.
General Lee could have had those resources too, if he hadn't declined Lincoln's offer to command the Union army (before Lee's state joined the Confeds)
Agree - tactically sound under pressure apart from 3 July 1863. Grant, Sherman and Longstreet were better strategists IMHO.
Lee has been overrated historically I regularly see him mentioned as one of, if not the, greatest general who ever lived, but that's utterly bizarre.
Lee was not a strategist he had no consideration for the Western Theater of the war (which is where the Confederacy was destroyed) and instead called for more forces to be sent to the Army of Northern Virginia, which defended its territory for quite some time but failed to ever achieve any decisive result.
Lee's two invasions of the North were both foolish and both failures. Lee basically gave the Union two great victories at Antietam and Gettysburg and suffered horrible casualties in the process. Both battles need never have happened because Lee's invasions of the North were strategically foolhardy Confederate victory was predicated on remaining alive long enough for the North to give up, which requires a force in being. Lee's invasions risked his army in both cases, a more aggressive Union commander could have utterly destroyed Lee's forces (even if the Union suffered horrible casualties in the process), leaving Richmond unprotected and eliminating one of the largest Confederate armies.
As a tactician, Lee was generally successful, but he wasn't some tactical genius if any Confederate general deserves that title (and I don't believe any of them do), Stonewall Jackson is probably the one who deserves it, or that racist psychopathic killer Nathan Bedford Forrest. Lee did have a penchant for frontal assaults that were no longer terribly effective with rifled muskets.
In the end, Lee lost because he was foolish with his men and his army and because the Confederacy itself was decisively beaten in the West, which opened up the back door for Sherman to run rampant and break the Confederacy's back.
Was McClellan army really the best equipped army in Western History as claimed here by President Lincoln? I would think the Prussian army at the time was probably the best.
Back then America would have been known as the west.
Prussians learned a lot from us during our Civil War. Such as using railroads to move armies that's how they managed to run circles around the French when they went to war with them not long after this.
The North had an enourmous industrial potential. But in the early stages of the war, the northern troops were indeed underequipped with a bad leadership. Because the army grew way faster than the industry could support them and the rest was the result of an untrained and hastely build officer-corps.
When Lincoln removed McClellan as general-in-chief prior to the Peninsula Campaign he took over the role himself. The blunders that followed were the consequence of that poor decision. Holding back McDowell's Corps from the army conducting active operations in front of Richmond to deal with the non-threat from Jackson's movements in the Valley was a supreme blunder. Good generals use engineering and artillery against fortified positions, not frontal infantry assaults. Lincoln was not a good general-in-chief. Realizing this, Lincoln brought in Halleck, whose glacial advance from Pittsburgh Landing to Corinth (20 miles) was slower than McClellan's up the Peninsula (60 miles). Professional historians make their living by crucifying McClellan and extolling Lincoln's innate military sense.
McClellan had already resolved to run for President in the election of 1864. With this foreknowledge, he could not allow himself to be defeated in a major engagement. Such a defeat would have tarnished his reputation and wiped out the prestige that the northern press has given him. I believe this is why McClellan was so cautious. He was not trying to defeat the South, he was trying to protect his career. If the confederate leadership had abandoned Richmond, he would have gladly marched in to claim the prize. But when Lee began to attack him during the seven days, McClellan's instinct for self preservation kicked in and he decided it wasn't worth the risk to stand his ground and fight. Throughout this frustrating period, McClellan was constantly blaming others for his failure. Lack of troops, gunboats, supplies, reinforcements etc... It all points to someone laying the groundwork for a political misdirection. Nothing is my fault, it's our commander n chief. As cynical as it sounds, McClellan was more motivated by his political aspirations than the immediate needs of his country. Lincoln, even confided to members of his cabinet (before firing the general), that he believed this was the primary reason for McClellan's constant indecisiveness. Ironically, the Civil War general who went on to actually become President was willing to take risks everyday and fight the enemy with great determination. That general of course of Ulysses S Grant. Such leaders are once in a generation.
Exactly, besides the fact that McClellan was listening to his advisors that told him the Confederate Army was like 3 times stronger than it actually was.
Let's not forget: Little Mac also said that his horses were tired.
What terrible dialogue. It's like they're reading from a 10th grade history textbook.
Dude, its from a John Jakes novel.
@@kellycochran6487 Yeah well John Jakes should learn to write better dialogue.
@@tchoupitoulos No argument from me on that one. It was a bodice-ripper with about as much historical accuracy as anything remotely resembling a book on why secession wasn't about Slavery.
It's absolutely awful. It's all exposition, the opposite of how people talk in the moment. The only way it could be worse is if they started each sentence with "As you know...."
Kelly Cochran Jakes was a pretty uneven writer. I did think they nailed the secession scenes in this miniseries.
General McClellan is like Ben Simmons
Good acting for Lincoln - but the rest was sooo bad. Either too hammy or too understated. ... "I need me a Lee", someone who can do the same thing over & over whether it works or not and constantly pesters me with the business of running an army.
This scene always felt sloppy. 1 President, 2 Cabinet Members and 2 Major Generals....Yet a mere Colonel barges in interupting the whole lot with unsollicated advice... 🤨
McClellan had good men underequipped and wouldn't waste them for nothing without fresh shoes
Had General McClellan pursued the Army of Northern Virginia immediately after the victory at Antietam (Sharpsburg, MD) and routed it during the retreat then that would have ended the Civil War!! Even George Meade screwed up after the Battle of Gettysburg when he let General Lee escape back to Virginia!!
It would have been different had General Grant, General Sherman or General Lyon had been at Gettysburg!!
You forget Lee army should have destroyed McClellan army during the Seven dAYS AND HE WOULD HAVE done in Grant in the Wilderness had Longstreet not have been hit....... And this would have stopped all the evil men who have put our lands in debt over our heads ... Wake up America the evil is at our door.....................................
@@edwardclement102 Yes I do see your point!! General Longstreet was a very underrated General from the Civil War and had General Lee listened to Longstreet then it would have been a whole different battle!!
True but why don't you try organizing thousands of men who just fought for days to go fight again, this time on the attack.
Great to see a POTUS making a solid descion
Glad they had A.C. in 1862.
I'd venture to say the historic value of this is dubious at best. Makes a nice story though.
After Daniel Day-Lewis, every other Lincoln looks stupid, phony, and lame; and Tony Kushner could have written better dialog even if he were dead.
B-but what if they have 10,000 men
I'll need 20,000!
Then well give you 30000 thousand
Well what if they have 40,000 men
*I'll need 50!!!*
@@FlyingTooFast *Then well give you 60000!!*
*WELL WHAT IF THEY HAVE 70,000?!? I'LL NEED 80!!!!!*
@@FlyingTooFast you know what mcclelan buddy old pal your fired
Call it blasphemy, but I think Holbrook was the best Lincoln.
Hal was excellent, yet Daniel Day Lewis was superb & transcendent!
Agreed
@@taylorahern3755
Daniel Day Lewis over acted it.
Awfully heavy handed with the historical exposition. It’s almost like they’re acting out a textbook.
Gotta love all the M*A*S*H Hair! Definitely not period for the 1800's!
As a junior officer George Hazard certainly asks a lot of questions...
The irony is that this war had very little to do with slavery. History is written by those in charge.
It had plenty to do with slavery, slavery just wasn't the primary cause of it. But ending it became the Union's casus victorum.
Wrong Confederate flag but okay
No actor has captured the high pitch purported to be a trait of Lincoln's voice.
Daniel Day Lewis came about as close to it lacking a voice recording of Lincoln. Also Dennis Weaver many years ago in a TV movie.
@@LordZontar what's funny is the guy who plays Lincon in here was in that Lincoln movie as the founder of the Republican Party.
Looks like Lincoln was afraid
Anyone with half a brain was afraid
McClellan: The best Quartermaster in US in history, worst General in US history also.
The dialogue, is laughable, in this scene. Suggesting that Lincoln was fearful of Great Britain joining France, in supporting the CSA? Lincoln knew that Great Britain was in support of the CSA, mainly because of the south's production of cheap cotton. Their morality was expendable, when it came to matters of a fiscal nature. This, of course, is a reprehensible way to conduct one's self. Anyways... I just wanted to make mention of that clear disregard for history, that was on display in this scene.
not at all stilted dialogue.
McClellan Is One Of The Reasons I Have Been Ranting On The Democratic Party
Too much prosthetics on "Lincoln's head".
Hal H. didn't look like Lincoln at all. Blocky head and not 6'4".
Why didn't they give Hal Holbrook some high heels or lifts or stilts? The shortest incoln ever.
This clip is straight out of USSR Pravda studios circa 1959.
Haha!! What a piece of lying propaganda.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_and_South_(miniseries)
This is poorly acted, poorly written, factually incorrect and overly simplistic in so many respects. But other than that....
Indeed. To list the worst...
-I doubt Lincoln cared about freeing slaves on the grounds of human rights. He recognized slavery got in the way of winning the war, but was not for racial equality at all.
-Lee was a great tactician, possibly the greatest in history, but was not a great strategist. It seems odd to claim such when the peninsular campaign was far from his best generalship, which would only become apparent later.
The acting is bad, but it's hard to act well when your lines come from a high school textbook.
Since when does the general disobey their commander and chief McCullen should’ve Been Court, Marshall
What movie is this?
What movie is this from?
North and south
What movie is this from?
What movie is this?