2006-07-16 06:28:35 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
When McClellan was in command, the mandate for "total war" did not yet exist. His tactics were designed to preserve his army, to contain the Confederacy, and to apply sufficeint pressure to lend muscle to the diplomatic efforts that were taking place between Washington and Richmond.
That said, he was overcautious professionally, and a whining bureaucrat in private, and was totally overmatched against the daring, dashing and charismatic leaders of the South (Lee first and foremost).
Not a traitor, just way, way out of his depth.
2006-07-16 06:45:04 · answer #1 · answered by Grendle 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
McClellan was a "political" general. He was a top-notch administrator and organizer, who was pretty much credited with creating the Army of the Potomac from nothing. Trouble was, he was like a kid with a favorite toy - he was afraid if he played with it, he'd break it. He was also a thorn in Lincoln's side politically. The main reason Lincoln kept him on so long in spite of his shortcomings was that he couldn't afford to alienate McClellan's political faction. McClellan's policies made him very popular with the army, and he had presidential aspirations of his own.
2006-07-16 17:01:18 · answer #2 · answered by Spel Chekker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Geo. McClellan may have been over-cautious but he was no traitor. What he wanted to avoid was a) unneeded loss of his own troops and, b) total destruction of the South. He wanted very badly to see the Union back together and didn't want Southerners to be downtrodden. He wanted them back in the Union with their pride intact. Lincoln didn't like his leadership style and fired him -- twice.
2006-07-16 13:34:50 · answer #3 · answered by Lonnie P 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think he was definitely a bit too sympthetic with the Southern cause. Had he been elected president he would most certainly sought a deal with the Confederacy.
2006-07-16 20:11:40 · answer #4 · answered by Modest intellect 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
he was a problem but not a traitor. he was too caucious.(no fight).
the north didn't have a decent general till grant.(he fight).
2006-07-16 15:55:00 · answer #5 · answered by Stuie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no i think he was gutless great organizer but battle command was not his skill like us grant
2006-07-16 20:55:02 · answer #6 · answered by Dan B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
wat did he do
2006-07-16 13:31:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋