Sacred Trust Talks 2016 - Did George McClellan Out-Think General Robert E. Lee?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 июл 2024
- Sacred Trust Talks 2016 - Did George McClellan Out-Think General Robert E. Lee During the First Invasion?
George McClellan is fun to bash. His arrogance and insolence invite censure and criticism. But did McClellan save the U.S. in September, 1862? Did the Little Napoleon out-fox the Confederacy’s great Gray Fox? Come and discover the answer. Presented by Dennis E. Frye, Chief Historian at Harpers Ferry National Historical Park.
This is a very good video, but I have to differ with Mr. Frye on McClellan's stance on slavery. He was against slavery, but he did not think it was in the authority of the fed. government to abolish it. He evolved in his view, to the point in Oct. 1862 that he recognized that the war would result in the end of slavery, and he had no problem with that. He was just adamant that it was not the fed. governments role, or within it's Constitutional authority, to abolish slavery.
The biggest mistake I made was reading the comments to this video.
Mac takes command Sept. 2 and on the third night falls asleep at his table of maps, in his own words: About 10 minutes later the locked door was suddenly thrown open, someone strode right up and in a voice of power and authority said: "General McClellan, do you sleep at your post? Rouse you, or ere it can be prevented, the foe will be in Washington." General Mac in his published article describes his strange feelings...He seemed suspended in infinite space and the voice from a hollow distance all about him. The furnishings and walls of the room had vanished leaving only the table covered with maps before him. But he found himself gazing upon a living map of America including the entire area from the Mississippi River to the Atlantic Ocean. McClellan was aware of the being that stood beside him, but could only identify it as a vapor having the vague outline of a man.
As he looked at the living map the general was at first amazed and then elated as he saw troop movements and a complete pattern of the enemy's lines and distribution of forces. This knowledge would enable him to terminate the war speedily. But this elation dissolved as he saw the enemy occupy positions he had intended occupying within the next few days. He realized his plans were known to the enemy.
At this realization the voice spoke again: "General McClellan, you have been betrayed! And had not God willed otherwise, ere the sun of tomorrow had set, the Confederate flag would have waved above the Capitol and your own grave. But note what you see. Your time is short.
McClellan did note what he saw on the living map, transferring it to the paper map on his table. When this was done he became aware that the figure near him had increased in light and glory until it shone as the noonday sun. He raised his eyes and looked into the face of George Washington.
With sublime and gentle dignity Washington said, "General McClellan, while yet in the flesh I beheld the birth of the American Republic. It was indeed a hard struggle but God's blessing was upon the nation, and with His mighty hand brought her out triumphantly. A century has not passed since then...and now by reason of this prosperity she has been brought to her second great struggle.
But her mission will not then be finished; for ere another century shall have gone by, the oppressors of the whole world shall join themselves together and raise up their hands against her. But if she still be found worthy of her high calling, the enemy shall surely be discomfited.
"Then will be ended her third and last great struggle for existence.
Washington raised his hand over McClellan's head in blessing, a peal of thunder rumbled through space, and General awoke with a start. He was in his room with his maps spread out on the table before him, but as he looked at them he saw the maps were covered with marks and figures he had made during the vision...this convinced him that his dream or vision was real and was from above.
He set about immediately to thwart the enemy's plan riding his horse from camp to camp to implement the changes at once.
On Sept.5, his army begins to move out of Washington.
Dennis, you know the personality of McClellan; to see this move was a big change in the way he usually did things. He couldn't have known these plans unless as he admitted himself, he was helped by General Washington. His maps and experience are in the National Archives.
Awesome !!!
Gives even more credence to being visited by an angel who showed McClellan where Lee's armies were going in advance, and he cut off the advance. He saved the Union. Our Destiny was to remain united as a country.
Outstanding lecture. So interesting how we see then and now, how politics played such a key role.
Absolutely eye opening. Very good and Important information. It confirms the old saying, "the Victor writes the history. "
Dennis E Frye wrote a book?what's the title?
Second thought: comparing Richmond/Petersburg to Washington/Baltimore is a second failed premise. McClellan may have *believed that, but he believed a lot of other silly things, so what he believed is hardly a strong premise on which to rehabilitate his reputation. For example, he eagerly accepted Pinkerton’s overestimation of Lee’s force, so his whole evaluation of the situation was built on a set of false data.
Several differences: Grant could supply handsomely by sea his army at Petersburg; Lee could not have foraged more than a few days in the vicinity of Baltimore, and while he could forage for food, he could neither resupply any ammunition he expended, nor replace any troops lost to combat, sickness, or straggling. Moving to Baltimore would have put him in a death trap. Similarly, Washington could easily have been supplied by sea for the brief span of time Lee could have sat astride the rail lines from Baltimore to DC.
That and Lee's objective was never Baltimore but Harrisburg
This was very good.. Id really enjoy hearing other professionals opinions on the topic.
I’m sure Dr Gary W Gallagher has an opposing view. And there’s nothing wrong with varying views.
If Lee never intended to fight a battle at Sharpsburg, why didn't he concentrate west of the Potomac at Shepherdstown or Martinsburg? Jackson could have met him there and the army could have continued wherever they pleased. Frye's argument there doesn't make sense to me.
They needed to maintain the forces at South Mountain, for one thing.
It's absurd to think that Lee's objective was to go into Maryland and have a battle in Maryland. He fought at Antietam as a last resort, because he desperately wanted a battle, and under-estimated McClellan. He thought he'd defeat McClellan, and then continue his invasion northward. It's absolutely absurd to think a battle with his back to the Potomac was his intended purpose of crossing the Potomac in the first place.
Lee mistakenly thought slave state Maryland would be thrilled to welcome the Army of Northern Virginia- they mostly didn’t but he wanted to bloody Macs nose, and he somewhat did
For Lee to continue moving into Pennsylvania after the bloodletting at Antietam I believe would have been incredibly risky, if not downright foolish. The ANV had crossed the Potomac into Maryland already worn out from almost continuous marching and fighting since the move north from the Peninsula in early August. They were losing strength through sickness, straggling and the feeling amongst many in the ranks that invading the North wasn't something they signed on to do. Many refused to cross the river, but would later rejoin the army after it returned to Virginia. I believe the ANV lost about 1/3 of its numbers due to these factors. Add to this the number who were killed, wounded, captured or missing between the 14-20 September.
Also, had he crossed over into Pennsylvania with McClellan in pursuit, wouldn't the Army of the Potomac be interfering with his line of communications? He may have been able to live off the land for awhile, but for how long? He would be in not a border state, but truly in enemy territory.
7 1/2 minutes in and he hasn't even touched on the subject matter of the talk. Get to the damned point. And stop yelling, it's obnoxious.
@Francis Sullivan So many brave keyboard warriors on the internet. Go fuck yourself.
Overly dramatic wasn’t it.
God I love History, outstanding! Well done.
Over 5 minutes in & waiting for the speaker to get to a significant point. He named his dog Abe Lincoln?
Washington could not have been isolated by the taking of Baltimore. The Union had complete command of navigation on Chesapeake Bay and by sea. Lee would have had to defend the Baltimore & Ohio as well as the Baltimore & Washington, which he could not have done and maintained blockage of the latter. The crucial target -- as in 1863 -- was the Cumberland Valley and the rail crossings on the Susquehannah north and south of Harrisburg.
Communications and transit relied on rail. Naval connection could only be a band-aid while the North repaired the destroyed train lines.
On the point of George resisting the temptation to turn his back on his president speaks volumes of his character but then again he is the direct descendant of Sir Patrick MacLellan of Kirkcudbright who in turn was also was urged to turn his back and overthrow the Young King James II of Scotland of which Patrick refused and was subsequently murdered.
PROVOCATION is in WHAT is said....Not the Volume at which it is said
Conclusion: not worth finishing the video.
Dam! It painful to give him credit for anything good.
I hope he is wrong lol
Am I crazy or is the argument that Baltimore was Lee's target, rather than Washington completely undermined by the fact that Washington, unlike Richmond, is a port city, and didn't require overland resupply? Or was it also Lee's intention to construct an entire war fleet in Baltimore, establish naval superiority, and then begin blockading the Chesapeake? I appreciate the talk and arguments in support of McClellan are refreshing, but come on.
Lee target was supposedly Harrisburg, PA, but I think the real objective was to bring the war to the North and destroy the Army of the Potomac.
The point wasn't to stop supplies from reaching Washington, but to disrupt communications outwards from Washington and break coordination in the Union war effort. Additionally, no one of any rapport has ever claimed that Washington was Lee's target, because of the simple fact it wasn't.
Lee wanted the war to be on northern soil. Not just for a battle. But he wanted to have his Army in the north for an extended period of time. Just like the north had done to the south. He was trying to turn the tables, and bring the union to it's knees. And he was a failure in that aim. McClellan threw his ass out of Maryland, and he didn't return until a year later.
@@josephhewes3923 I wouldn't quite go that far. Antietam was a draw at best, and Mac only had the guts to move because he knew Lee's plans, more or less
@@matthewanstatt1913 You are quoting a narrative that has been thoroughly debunked. Finding "Special Orders 191" which were four days old, didn't give numbers of Confederate Commands, and other events contradicted are vastly over-rated. And scholarship is acknowledging this more and more now. As for McClellan not acting fast enough, McClellan had troops almost at the foot of South Mountain the morning before he even found Special Orders 191, and the rest of his troops were already in movement, on the limited roads of Western Maryland. Immediate action was not necessary, because his troops were already moving in that direction. There are several videos out there on the Maryland campaign, that don't tell the tired old, smear campaign against McClellan. I encourage you to check them out.
Fast forward to 12 minutes in
Patting yourself on the back for so long detracts from the opportunity to make your point. Focus
Third thought: maps are really helpful, as opposed to hand gestures, which do not linger in the air. Not using PowerPoint is not really something to be proud of.
Lee absolutely did intend a fight at Sharpsburg.
On what do you base that assertion?
This guy is not only wrong, he's wrong at the top of his voice.
LOL I love that comment
Delmar Meyer dorky presentation.. but correct that McClellan bashing is easily refutable unionist propaganda
I have tried to watch this several times. However shouting a lecture is annoying despite good information.
Lol. He is wrong at a very high yet un-amplified volume.
historians evolve? it is what it is. he thinks that the Confederates are the villians. total hate on Lee and the South.
I really enjoyed this different point of view on the 1962 Antietam Battle. My only question would be why the North with 130,000 men, could not crush Lee's army of about 75,000 men ?.
Couldn't. Before Battle of Gettysburg, Lee just needed 60000 men to defeat North army with 135000 men. North Army need at least 150000 to deal with 75000 Confederate soldiers.
Union troop totals include all those troops "present for duty" whereas the Confederate troop totals are usually expressed as "combat effectives."
Present for duty includes non frontline troops such as teamsters and cooks and the like while combat effectives is just fighting men. Confederates had slaves carrying out the other chores that allowed those combat effectives to focus on fighting and with them being slaves, why bother counting them as with the army.
Your statistics are somewhat off, but the point stands. The answer is that given the weapons and tactics of the day, it was much easier to defend than to attack. Challenging terrain, such as at South Mountain, or fortifications, such as in the Overland campaign, further multiplied the strength of defenders significantly.
75,000?? More like 33,000, give or take.
Your stats are wayyyyy off. McClellan had a 4:3 advantage in men. Not that much and many were green troops.
I came here after watching an old CSPAN interview with Shelby Foote. When Dr Foote was asked who R E Lee thought was his toughest Northern general he said McClelland. McClelland reminds me of Gen MacArthur during the Korean War. MacArthur was egotistical but saved a losing position when the South's army was pushed to Pusan. He initiated the brilliant Incheon landing and liberated to the Chinese border. Moving to the Yalu River was a big mistake because of the bad upcoming winter and lack of air cover. MacArthur was replaced by the president just like McClelland because each had talk of being run to replace their president in the up coming election after reversals on the battlefield!
MacArthur was ultimately a failure in Korea, not anticipating what should have been clear as day, and underestimating Chinese troop strength by 900 percent. His mistakes with regards China nearly lost that war, and resulted in that dysfunctional cease fire that we live with to this day.
Lee's goal was Baltimore? LOL! Utter fantasy. What is he on and where can I get some? Also, refusal to offer any sort of visual aid in my opinion is a sign of laziness.
When General Walker expressed concerns to Lee over the risks of his Harper's Ferry operation, Lee told Walker that he felt McClellan would not move out for several weeks. "By that time I hope to be on the Susquehanna." Unless they moved Baltimore off the Chesapeake and sat it down next to Harrisburg without our knowledge, I think you make a good point here.
I don't think the direct target was Baltimore either, but it sure wasn't Antietam. Lee wanted his Army in Pennsylvania. The entire campaign was a disaster for Lee, as well it should have been. He was reckless and arrogant throughout.
Ugggh. This guy reminds me of a lieutenant I knew some years ago. And he equates a fireworks display with the sounds of battle?
Just to lend a little perspective. I'm from Western Maryland and I've been to that fireworks show many times. It's performed on the battlefield and in coordination with a concert from the Maryland Symphony Orchestra. They do it to celebrate the 4th of July annually and it's massive. Something Frye neglects to mention is that in coordination with the fireworks the orchestra also performs the 1812 Overture with the assistance of a battery of modern howitzers. While I'm in no way saying that it sounds exactly like what a 19th century battle would, it is most certainly the closest thing a civilian will get to what that would sound like.
I have my issues with Frye's theories in this presentation (especially his idea that Lee's army could take Baltimore) but his comparison of that specific fireworks/concert with what September 17, 1862 may have sounded like is closer to reality than what he alludes to here.
Hope hes getting cucked. "I love Lincoln so much that I named my dog Lincoln." What a pussy, "I can't stand McClellan!". I personally love McClellan and despise Grant, because Grant allowed his men to die in overwhelming numbers to win. While McClellan never gave a shit about freeing the slave, neither did Lincoln, as the only purpose was to preserve the Union. What they never mention is that all of McClellan's soldiers loved him, and hated to see him go. A large chunk of veterans voted for him in the election after the war. I am not a democrat, but I think McClellan was the perfect General. He wanted to loose as little men as possible, and did not throw them at the enemy without thinking through the situation, whether it was wise to go or not. I'd have voted for him, and likely would have been a democrat back then. "Oh, democrat were wacist and didn't want the swaves to be freed! Oh no!". While, actually, parties were split on the situation, and McClellan wouldn't magically reverse the outlawing of slavery. So yes, I like McClellan.
Very painful to watch. I’ve seen Dennis E. Frye in numerous documentaries, and he certainly knows his business. However, by eschewing the use of a microphone and ANY visuals (save his hands), Frye only succeeded in making himself look like a clown.
Agree
Fourth thought: sure, give McClellan credit for blocking Lee from moving back towards Hagerstown. But does any of us think that Lee was going to continue his failed offensive with only 40k exhausted men? McClellan may have *thought so, since he irrationally believed Lee had 150k men, but McClellan’s gross neglect of accurate intelligence-gathering doesn’t exactly credit him as a general.
Lee could easily have slipped across the Potomac on the 16th, just as he did on the 19th. The fact that there was a battle on the 17th is due entirely to Lee’s desire to have a battle - any battle. If Lee *had slipped away on the 16th, his invasion would have been crowned by the capitulation of Harpers Ferry. Instead, he was determined to fight a battle. But Lee’s mistake is not McClellan’s genius.
McClellan wasn't negligent in intelligence gathering. The person in charge of intelligence gathering (which wasn't McClellan) was just extremely cautious and pessimistic about enemy numbers.
I’d like to see a debate between Dr Gary W Gallagher and the history lecturer on this channel.
MJ Fleming makes sound views.
This presenter is obviously enchanted with himself. He is too bombastic snd assumes his audience is stupid. I don’t care how much research he’s done. Facts yes skewed to support his opinions.
Insecurity
There’s always an outlier Mary.
First thought: Lee didn’t “know” anything about Northern politics. He *hoped that he could create panic by invading the north. What he *did was galvanize northern support for the war. Lee failed to learn his lesson and tried the same trick in ‘63. It failed again. Did Lee, who was so determined to defend his own state, think that Pennsylvanians would enjoy an invasion of their own state? No, folks, Lee was an excellent general in some regards, but he was politically and strategically clueless. Citing what Lee “knew” about strategy or politics is a terribly shaky premise.
cum on dude....Antietam WAS something of a TACTICAL failure
mcclellen's Strategic moves were a win BASED on the finding of Lee's orders
His strategic moves were all set in motion before finding the orders, which offered limited information and were out of date upon arrival.
That's been thoroughly debunked. The troops in question were already moving BEFORE the orders were found. Orders which were out of date anyways.
McClellan skill set was more of an administrator like Marshall or Ike but he didn't have a George Patton like Marshall or like if he did have a battle field Commander like Patton or Stonewall Jackson to execute his strategy history may have seen him
too much repetitive words, get to the point
His hands are not effective. Power point would have been better. This guy shouldn't be bragging about not using Power Point. His ego is preventing him from personal growth and he's doing a presentation on McClellan, irony.
Disagree, thought his lecture technique was successful.
there's No Way Lincoln was the best president
I'm pretty sure this guy got fragged by his own troops in Vietnam.
McClellan would have been a disastrous president. His self-inflicted demise was his greatest achievement. RIP/POS
He actually only half heartedly ran for president, opposing parts of the platform impressed upon him by the Democrat Party, and in fact, opposing his own Vice Presidential running mate.
Of course Lincoln was the correct choice. Of course.
This is ridiculous. McClellan only had to use half his reserves to totally annihilate Lee.
3:36 Lost me when he referred to Lincoln as the universally agreed upon greatest president in the history of the United States.
Lincoln certainly excelled all other presidents in some areas:
1) Starved more citizens than any other US President
2) Shelled more US cities with artillery (soldiers & civilians alike) than any other US President
3) Sent his armies to invade more states, counties, cities than any other US President
4) Burned down more US cities than any other US President (And congratulated those officers on a job well done)
5) Imprisoned more newspaper editors for the crime of disagreeing with him than any other US President
6) Arrested more Representatives of the People for the crime of believing they might vote in a way he did not like (Maryland / Kentucky) than any other US President
7) Destroyed the Constitution and established Federal tyranny over the States more than any other US President- All subsequent US Presidents that continued to erode the Constitution and rob states & citizens of their rights have done so on the firm foundation Lincoln laid.
8) Murdered 700,000 of his own people
9) The most successful dictator the Western Hemisphere has produced, his sycophants have deceived people into thinking he was a liberator, not the man who betrayed the founding fathers, the Revolution of '76 and the Constitution.
You forgot the quotation marks around this post with --Frank DiLorenzo at the end of it.
The south started the war
lol im sure it was worth it to those people that used to work for free, ooooo what were they called??
President Lincoln is responsible for the both of the United States. He saved the Union and hence this was the true birth of a Nation.
His entire thesis is wrong. McClellan only "saved the country" in so much as he just drove Lee out of MD while allowing him to live to fight another day. A good general would have destroyed Lee's far weaker army against the banks of the Potomac and ended the war, sparing the nation an additional 500,000 deaths and 2.5 more years of destruction. Lee played McClellan well after South Mountain. (And I am no Lee-worshipper. Quite the opposite) Thanks to McClellan, the first invasion of the North--the best chance the Union would have to destroy the Confederacy's most potent army until April 1865--should go down as the greatest missed opportunity of the war and a tragedy for both sides given what was to follow.
The Confederacy lost 30,000 men at Vicksburg and fought on for several more years, but losing 40,000 men in Maryland (assuming McClellan achieves the most complete victory of the Civil War, as if by magic) would cause them to instantly lose the war? Sounds extremely dubious.
The most missed oportunity of the war is when hood failed to destroy half of the army the cumberland under schofield
@@roberthansen5727 It would have laid Richmond wide open for capture. And certainly the complete loss of the South's premier army and its capital would have invited peace feelers from what remained of a demoralized Confederate government. Would their terms have been accepted? Who knows. So not by magic. But modern wars need not be won by wiping out every single enemy soldier in the field. Japan still had over a million men under arms when they surrendered, and sure Vietnam teaches that home morale is key to a sustained war effort. I can't imagine much after Lee, Jackson, Longstreet and their entire army (those still alive) are marched into captivity. But please make a case for me that without the Army of Northern Virginia the war would have dragged on for another two years.
@@elmascapo6588 Missed opportunity to rapidly hasten the end if not end the war outright.
@@bradschaeffer5736 Lee had around 100,000 men during the Seven Days and lost less than 30,000 between the Peninsula Campaign and Second Bull Run, many of these men were missing from the invasion of the North.
It's also not as if there was no possibility of crossing the river, and that McClellan simply had to wave his magic wand and make the Army of Northern Virginia disappear completely. The generals would escape, and much of the army would too. Even if McClellan destroyed half of the Confederate army on the banks of Antietam (far from a certainty given that every Civil War pursuit failed, that attacking was extraordinarily difficult, and that the central reserve available at the end of the battle was only 11,000 men who would eventually tire, become disorganized, and lose their ability to conduct offensive operations), the leaders could absolutely escape and there were men to reconstitute the Army of Northern Virginia.
Plus, a quarter of the troops engaged in Antietam were already casualties. Even if two-thirds of the Confederate army are lost, that's only the loss of another 15,000 men compared to the actual battle.
Grant's tenure proved that there was to be no rapid victory in the East.