Pres. Lincoln long time before picked Gen. Grant head Army.McClellan & Halleck very poor.Better early picks?

Question

Prominent military historians, such as T. Harry Williams, consider Pres. Lincoln to be a military genius. He did have some ability. However, his picks to head the U.S. Army and the Army of the Potomac were largely poor. As far as heading the U.S. Army McClellan would not fight and was terrible, and Gen. Henry Halleck turned himself into a clerk, instead of an overall commander. Ultimately, Gen. Grant was an outstanding choice to head the U.S. Army, but he was selected relatively late. Were not more competent possible generals available, and who might have they been?

As far as heading the Army of the Potomac, McClellan, Burnside, Hooker, and Meade varied from terrible to disappointing. Again were there not other possible generals available? Who might have been considered? I would be grateful for any listing of candidates. I also note that no one can actually know how someone will perform in advance, but instead of sticking with McClellan, Reynolds and Sedwick were around.

Answer 1

Logically, a vast majority of the later casualties on both sides can be directly attributed to McClellan's reluctance to fight early on. He could have dealt a devastating, and potentially war ending, blow to the confederates when their army was stranded out on the peninsula, however he wanted to wait, and allowed them to escape.

Lee was the best man in the war, and if he had been a Union General, the war wouldn't have been much more than police action LOL.