back to top
|An interesting perspective. However, since generalship, good or great bad or poor, is subjective, the definition of a successful commander or general, in this case, depends on several factors, the most important is how the 'reader' applies their own defined views and beliefs as it can be applied to their "hero". As a fan of McClellan, I would define him, from my perspective, as a commander with superior generalship; dare I say the best in the early parts of the war and the figure which would define and shape how others would or would not perform. I recently had an opportunity to discuss this point of view at 2nd Manassas where a park ranger and I discussed Pope and McClellan. Historians, scholars, and adademia have sided with the popular belief that McClellan was slow, religously fanatic, eccentric, and somewhat timid. If we take into account West Point and its instruction on Johmini tactics and the lack of a professional Army and the fielding of a force beyond which any force had been assembled before under one commander (I could list a dozen more but I think you get the point), McClellan faced all of these at one moment in time. I looked at his inactions or actions from a compete 180 perspective. Rather being slow he was thorough, rather than being timid he was analytical, and rather a religous fanatic he was par for the course. Rowland in his one opportuity clearly defends many of these points.
Great discussion point!