Perhaps no other Union commander's reputation has been the subject of as much controversy as George B. McClellan's.
Thomas J. Rowland presents a framework in which early Civil War command can be viewed without direct comparison to that of the final two years. Such comparisons, in his opinion, are both unfair and contextually inaccurate. Only by understanding how very different was the context and nature of the war facing McClellan, as opposed to Grant and Sherman, can one discard the traditional "good general-bad general" approach to command performance. In such a light, McClellan's career, both his shortcomings and accomplishments, can be viewed with clearer perspective.
©1998 The Kent State University Press (P)2013 Redwood Audiobooks
"Good reading that can be enjoyed by both the general public and Civil War specialists." (Trenton Times)
George McClellan almost universally gets a bad rap for his performance in the Civil War. The author argues that this is perhaps not entirely justified. He doesn't claim that he was a great general, just that if the same criteria are applied to the more celebrated generals a more balanced perspective can be gained. The book is perhaps overly redundant, but the point seems to be valid.
Report Inappropriate Content