George B. McClellan and Civil War History

In the Shadow of Grant and Sherman

De: Thomas J. Rowland

Narrado por: Kirk Winkler

Duración: 9 h y 19 m

Resumen del Editor

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

Reseñas de la Crítica

"Good reading that can be enjoyed by both the general public and Civil War specialists." ( Trenton Times)

A different perspective

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.

E for effort

George B. McClellan & Civil War History; In the Shadow of Grant & Sherman

Thomas J. Rowland

Nearly all of my reading regarding Gen. McClellan has been ancillary. The primary focus would be a particular battle, or another commander, or Lincoln. As the author described, McClellan invariably comes off as difficult, obstinate, insubordinate, and potentially cowardly or traitorous.

I wanted to learn more. Even if he was not ultimately successful, surely someone did not rise to the top with no redeeming qualities.

Mr. Rowland provided the information, and gave a vigorous defense of “Little Mac’s” actions. As suspected, he likely did get an excessively bad rap. He had to take the Army from a small, untrained force and create a professional fighting force at a time when warfare was changing.

However some of Mr. Rowland’s logic did not convince me. There famous incident where the president and others were waiting to speak to Mac and the general ignored them and went to bed is frequently retold. The author discounts it by calling into question the legitimacy of John Hay’s story, and stating nobody else told of the account. Mr. Hay had a long, distinguished career in government, serving numerous presidents. I’ve read biographies on him, and do not recall anyone describing him as a liar. If nobody else commented on the event, they neither denied it. Perhaps the insubordinate behavior was so typical as to make it unremarkable?

Mr. Rowland did convince me the general was likely not as irredeemable as normally portrayed, but he did not convince me Mac was not a jerk. Or that he lacked aggressive tendencies where they were needed.

One final point; the information conveyed probably could have been condensed to a third of the book’s length. A great deal of time was spent explaining why others were jerks also.