General George McClellan’s Leadership Essay

General George McClellan was the amount Armys first air force officer in the early(a) part of the American cultured War. Because of how the core regular army was faring chthonian his loss leadership, McClellan was regarded as an ineffective general, if not a failure. As a result of how he commanded the pairing army and prosecuted the warfare, he was replaced by chairperson Abraham Lincoln until he constitute a much more abler leader in General Ulysses S. re relinquish who carried the nub to total victory which lead to the counterbalancetual(prenominal) surrender of the Confederacy and the end of the civilized war in 1865.This study intends to wait on if General McClellan has been fairly judged by historians and if his incompetency was valid. In his book, George B. McClellan and courteous War History, doubting doubting Thomas Rowland attempts to get together an impartial view of McClellan. found on an otherwise(prenominal) accounts he has analyse from other hist orians who discussed McClellan, history has not been so kind to the hapless general.McClellan had served as peerless of the benchmarks on how modern-day American generals would imbibe action such as the good example of General Norman Schwarzkopf during Operation recant Shield/Storm and former chairperson of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Po head in response to the troubles in the former Yugoslavia. The footing wherefore McClellan was brought up in study him with these two modern-day counterparts was both close make the self akin(prenominal) mis light upons he did in being indecisive or vacillant in taking the proper turn tail of action when they were facing a corresponding situation as he did (Rowland, 1998, p. 10).McClellan had a superior army at his g all overning body comp bed to the ragtag forces of the Confederacy, yet his issues led them to be mismanaged and what could exhaust been victories for the Union in the early battles ended up in defeat. other inference Rowland do was that mavin of the reasons why McClellan was probably not effective was he had mental problems that would explain why he was not an effective commander and it was quite unfortunate for him since his counterpart on the debate side was General Robert E. down raised who was undoubtedly whizz of the best generals the Confederacy had among its ranks. oneness historian pointed out that McClellan Alternating surrounded by fits of arrogant confidence and wretched self-abasement, the fully grown McClellan revealed an indulgent insolence displayed by those who are congenially in clear of acknowledging authority because it would forge them feel inferior (cited in Rowland, 1998). If one were to base McClellans leadership on this case, it would appear that McClellans psychological issues was the ancestor cause for his incomptence. Rowland would go on and name other flaws McClellan had as told by other historians.McClellan had tendencies of being vain, unstab le, undisciplined, dishonest and had a messianic complex. Besides being incompetent, he was even said to have problems with authority, particularly with President Lincoln who was his commander-in-chief. Some even went to the achievement of comparing McClellan to Napoleon not in terms of brilliance besides in terms of vanity and ego, a sign both commanders appear to possess and this date way back in his childhood and somehow carried over throught his life from his cadet days at West pourboire to his various forces postings as he rose through the ranks(17-18).Besides these issues, he also exhibited a tendency to be overcautious in terms of the simulated military operation and strategies he employed which proved to be ineffective when faced with a exceedingly competent enemy commander in Lee who had a precise tell apart military occupational group as well as having combat experience from the Mexican War that made him an even more capable commander besides other underling generals such as Thomas Stonewall Jackson, J. E. B. Stuart and James Longstreet, to name a few.Because of his apparent incompetency and despite having a seemingly superior army at his disposal, he squandered the chance to give the Union an early victory and made it easy for the associates to win, thus prolonging the war to quartet years. In one book, Crossroads of emancipation Antietam, written by James McPherson, McClellan is picture more kindly. Where other historians depicted McClellan as having issues with authority since his cadet days at West Point, McPherson saw him differently.McClellan graduated irregular in his class at the academy in 1846 and served with distinction in the Mexican War and was one of the few foreign military officers who were observers in the Crimean War. During his hiatus in civilian life, he was a four-in-hand in a railroad alliance where he was considered an exceptional manager (12-13). Clearly, one can see in that location appears to be some sort of discrepancy in the way McPherson depicts McClellan compared to Rowland and others. Contrary to depicting McClellan as a problematic commander vis-a-vis his subordinates, McPherson depicted him as someone who was charismatic and a capable motivator of his troops.In a letter to his wife, McClellan said that I never heard such squall I can see all(prenominal) eye glisten. (cited in McPherson, 2002) It can be inferred here that McClellan was hardly the man who had a psychological problem, the sort that would not cease him to assume command of the Army of the Potomac when the Civil War broke out. but later, McPherson would take a different turn when McClellan faux command and this was following the defeat of the Union army in the Battle of papal bull Run.Whereas writers like Rowland found McClellan to have psychological issues, McPherson depicted McClellan as a fantabulous officer facing what was probably the to the highest degree challenging commnand of his life and it was the kind of dispute that he could not meet and this at refinement resulted in his eventual relief as the war went on. McClellan, as McPherson saw it, was a perfectionist al intimately to the point though it may not be in the same line of thinking as Rowland and others that he had a case of obsessive peremptory appearance. He was a perfectionist in a profession where nothing could ever be perfect.His army was perpetually almost rear to move, but could not do so until the last horse was shoed and the last soldier fully equipped. (cited in McPherson 2002) in spite of his different approach with other historians, there are some aspects where McPherson agrees with them that McClellan was too cautious and tended to be on the defensive most of the time. This was manifested partly by his obsessive-compulsive behavior and his tendency to overestimate the strength and capabilities of the Confederate forces on the account they were led by more capable commanders such as Lee, J ackson, Longstreet, etc.This led him to have disagreements with hiws subordinate commanders, leading to their defeats. Because of his attitude, some speculated that McClellan might have sympathies towards the Confederacy owing to his ties with Democrats (13-15). But in fairness to McClellan, he was not constantly a loser. He did indeed gain a victory for the Union and that was at Antietam in 1862. Despite this victory, it was a very costly one as the Union army pained heavy casualties in this battle. beyond that, McClellans command of the Union army was dismal and he was eventually amend and replaced by a more capable commander in Grant.What made Grant different from McClellan, and this is what all civil war historians agree upon, especially Rowland and McPherson, was that Grant was the black eye of McClellan in the sentiency that Grant was a risk-taker like his Confederate counterpart Lee. What made Grant involuntary to take risks was that he was not afraid to fail. Because it was part of discipline and his initial defeats made him wiser in later(prenominal) battles and this was proven time and again. Grant did suffer some defeats when he took command but despite these setbacks, he was not relieved.He learned from his mistakes and redeemed himself in other encounters and this mattered the most and he eventually led the Union to victory and presided over Lees surrender at Appomatox Courthouse in 1865. In conclusion, history has not been so kind to George McClellan. Had he been decisive and willing to take risks, the war could have been over the moment it started and history could have judged him differently. But it turned out that his personality was his reverse and this cost him not only his career but the conduct of the war which had to step on it for four years.If it is any confort for McClellan, his apparent incompetence (for lack of a better term) proved to be a blessing in disguise for future American military leaders. He would often be referr ed to or invoked whenever his modern-day counterparts were about to make the same mistakes he did and whenever they would think about him, they would in all do a complete turn around and rectify it, thereby kind their wars and avoid being placed in the same spot as McClellan on being one of the (unfortunately) worst American military leaders in history.In a rather crude sense of irony, McClellans mistakes provided lessons for his future counterparts to learn and mitigate on and it was rather fortunate for McClellan that he have lost battles but his replacements did win the war but unfortunately for him, he could not partake of that victory because he was not involved in it. References Rowland, T. (1998). George B. McClellan and Civil War History. Kent, Ohio Kent State University Press. McPherson, J. (2002). Crossroads of freedom Antietam. New York Oxford University Press.