Reassessing the Life & Legacy of Gen. George McClellan

[@johnmyers919]

This was a very good panel. I could listen to Dr. Rafuse all day. Just wish his mic was a little louder

[@jtofgc]

If "the enemy got away" is what makes a battle a draw, then all major battles of the civil war except for Vicksburg and Appomatox were draws.

[@oldline1775]

Great stuff guys!

[@healthwealthproductivity248]

Loved it! Donna McClellan

[@johnmartin7158]

Are you related to General McClellan.

[@josephhewes3923]

I have a suggestion. Tom Clemens gives an incredible breakdown of Special Orders 191 during this panel. Can not this segment be lifted out of the video and be the basis of it's own separate video? Perhaps using a still image of both Tom and or the special orders itself?

[@TheTattooedHistorian]

Great idea! I'll make this happen

[@airborngrmp1]

Both McClellan and Lee were from the wrong Era (Lee a little too late, Mac a little too soon), and both got slightly undeserved reputations from the Civil War: McClellan deserves (and sometimes gets) credit for rationalizing, organizing, equipping and generally turning the Army of the Potomac from a handful of poorly designed 'departments' of semi-professional, semi-standing military formations into what most certainly could be described as the largest, most modern and sophisticated (non-peacetime) field army on the face of the Earth by 1862-3. If the concept of a General Staff, on the level of the Prussian Imperial model of the 1870's, had existed in the American/Union Army I think it is quite interesting to think about what that would've looked like had Lincoln placed Mac at the head of such a body and tasked it with the organization of the Union Army, the operational prosecution of the war, and granted that body certain political influence to rationalize the war effort. Lee gets (and maybe doesn't deserve) credit for being the finest field commander of the War, despite the fact that he only took the strategic offensive twice - fighting both campaigns and pitched battles on the enemy's ground, the location chosen by his opponent, and losing. All this, despite the fact that Lee should've been the most hyper-aware military officer on Earth just how impossible a task that was to close-order infantry assault in the early 1860's. Lee did a masterful job of of fighting operationally defensive campaigns over, and over again. He clearly was an effective leader - borderline legendary - when it came to his ability to motivate and lead his troops, and despite everyone knowing he's the sole person responsible for the disaster on Day 3 of Gettysburg, somehow he's still the finest general the war produced - the closest to criticism levied at Lee is the usual refrain of, "No one else could've done such a job fighting a lost war as him."

[@TheTattooedHistorian]

Very well said!

[@MichaelWhite-lg7xz]

You all have done a good job tonight. McClelland's performance in the so called Maryland campaign, is highly underestimated . For one thing , it was not just a Maryland campaign. Lee's campaign was meant to be far more expansive , than McClelland allowed it to be. He covered Baltimore very quickly. A very intelligent move as it denied Lee of what would have been both a tactical and strategic advantage that the loss of Baltimore would have offered. McClelland took that option right away. Then in a short time developed a four prong attack at all 4 south mountain passed and succeeded in clearing them all. Putting McClelland directly on Lee's flank , canceling any offensive ideas lee may have had . Bottom line. McClelland foiled Lee's more expansive invasion plan. Bottom line Lee gave up the field

[@chadk2525]

If McClellan does not force lee to fight at Antietam then just think of of the strength lee would have in Gettysburg

[@random-J]

He could have been better running the war behind a desk

[@jeffwirick6099]

He had presidential ambitions

[@pablohernandez5550]

Great discussion, gentlemen and enlightening. The needle didn’t move on my low opinion of McClellan. Can’t get past his disobedience to the commander in chief. Curious how forgiving he would have been to the disobedience of one of his officers.

[@Gustav_Kuriga]

You mean the constant thing the politicians in Washington tried to do throughout his tenure? Including Lincoln appointees such as Halleck?

[@johnmartin7158]

Agree. It’s a putty Dr Gary W Gallagher wasn’t their with the 5 of them. By the time General Grant took over as Lieutenant General, I’m sure much planning and coordination had to e done. Of course that could take 4 weeks .General George McClellan from what I’ve read, he had the chance to finish the war early. His arrogance was his downfall.

[@commonsenserevolutionx1053]

George McClellan was probably one of America's smartest and best trained disciplinarians that ever wear the uniform. But he was not a fighter, at best an incompetent given that he never saw opportunity, or perhaps ignored opportunity. He frustrated Lincoln to no end, disrespected his commander in chief at every opportunity, disobeyed orders, actually a legend in his own mind, who never waged a successful campaign. America can be very thankful he never was elected president in the 1864 campaign, there would be four countries occupying North America, including the Confederate States of America, in addition the the U.S., Canada and Mexico .....today. McClellan was prepared to end the war on disastrous terms.

[@Gustav_Kuriga]

Sure bud, keep drinking that propaganda from the anti-McClellan politicians.

[@johnmartin7158]

Agree. And I’m sure Dr Gary Gallagher would agree with you.

[@Newdivide]

You lost! I didn't lose! I merely failed to win