George B. McClellan

[Jack Torrance]

McClellan also refused to include Lincoln's and his chief civilian and military advisers on his war plans unless he was ordered to by the president because, as Mac put it, it (the plans) would appear in the Herald the next day. Yet he freely gave his entire war plan for the 1862 campaign to the New York Herald after being introduced to one of the Heralds reporters by Stanton.. Does Rafuse mention that?

[grognard]

Originally Posted by Jack Torrance

McClellan also refused to include Lincoln's and his chief civilian and military advisers on his war plans unless he was ordered to by the president because, as Mac put it, it (the plans) would appear in the Herald the next day. Yet he freely gave his entire war plan for the 1942 campaign to the New York Herald after being introduced to one of the Heralds reporters by Stanton.. Does Rafuse mention that?

Gemnerally, you proofread your posts bett mineer than I do, but Mac's 1942 plan?:

[hellboy30]

Originally Posted by grognard

Gemnerally, you proofread your posts bett mineer than I do, but Mac's 1942 plan?:

Bomb ze Germans?

[Charger]

He was a very forward thinker!

[hellboy30]

Jack, you know we like you....we're just having some fun at your expense.

[67th Tigers]

If you read Beatties Army of the Potomac vol 2 pgs 503-511 you'll see that what McClellan told Ives was in fact not really true. The truths he told (such as Burnsides destination) were already leaked. Despite the fact that an amphibious move to the lower Chesapeake was already the plan Ives came away reporting an overland movement, with Burnside attacking Richmond from the south and Buell from the east. Not what was planned at all.

I'd chalk it up to McClellan cooperating with Stanton in leaking disinformation for the Confederates to pick up.

[mgronski]

I don't think Mac and anyone else in DC could agree on anything, more or less espionage...besides which DC was a sieve of leaked information that the Southern spies could use (especially those wiley women spies).

[Jack Torrance]

Originally Posted by grognard

Gemnerally, you proofread your posts bett mineer than I do, but Mac's 1942 plan?:

Honestly, I thought it was coffee I drank this morning. Mistake has been corrected.

[Jack Torrance]

Originally Posted by hellboy30

Jack, you know we like you....we're just having some fun at your expense.

That's perfectly OK. We're among friends.

[Jack Torrance]

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

If you read Beatties Army of the Potomac vol 2 pgs 503-511 you'll see that what McClellan told Ives was in fact not really true. The truths he told (such as Burnsides destination) were already leaked. Despite the fact that an amphibious move to the lower Chesapeake was already the plan Ives came away reporting an overland movement, with Burnside attacking Richmond from the south and Buell from the east. Not what was planned at all.

I'd chalk it up to McClellan cooperating with Stanton in leaking disinformation for the Confederates to pick up.

Unfortunately, I don't have Beatties book but I do have Sears bio of McClellan. Of course it's an unfavorable bio of Mac but at least Sears does try to be even handed in his treatment of Mac and his role in using Ives as a conduit for using the New York Herald as a Mac mouthpiece. Sears does say that Ives saw Mac as too naive and was unwilling to use the Herald to serve as an agent of intelligence for the CSA so Ives would consciously make changes to the information Mac provided. Mac also used Ives as a conduit of disinformation and in this they both agreed but the initial meeting between Ives and Mac provided what Sears called "the largest official leak of military secrets in the entire course of the Civil War". This and Mac's dealings with Ives and Bennett of the New York Herald can be found on pages 142 - 44 of Sears bio George B. McClellan: The Young Napoleon.

For a very informative article on Rafuse treatment of his dealings with Lincoln and which also serves as a mini bio this web site is pretty good, I think.http://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom....D=129&CRLI=177

[67th Tigers]

Originally Posted by Jack Torrance

Unfortunately, I don't have Beatties book but I do have Sears bio of McClellan. Of course it's an unfavorable bio of Mac but at least Sears does try to be even handed in his treatment of Mac and his role in using Ives as a conduit for using the New York Herald as a Mac mouthpiece. Sears does say that Ives saw Mac as too naive and was unwilling to use the Herald to serve as an agent of intelligence for the CSA so Ives would consciously make changes to the information Mac provided. Mac also used Ives as a conduit of disinformation and in this they both agreed but the initial meeting between Ives and Mac provided what Sears called "the largest official leak of military secrets in the entire course of the Civil War". This and Mac's dealings with Ives and Bennett of the New York Herald can be found on pages 142 - 44 of Sears bio George B. McClellan: The Young Napoleon.

Sears being even handed? :O

Maybe Sears believed he was being even handed, but he always adopts the most critical interpretations, even to the point of missing evidence. For example, according to Sears when McClellan was on the Galena at Glendale he had no telegraphic communications with the army. All the primary accounts say Lieutenant Clum's signals detachment was on the Galena and that McClellan commanded by telegraph. I use this example as Sears was once quoted to he as evidence McClellan had no signals and I quoted back Major Myers report on signals operations. However, see http://archive.org/stream/signalcorp...e/316/mode/2up (very useful data generally).

As for Ives, he reported back honestly, but suggested they not publish it. It's worth noting the timings, Ives interview was the evening of the day that McClellan appeared before the JCCW.

For a very informative article on Rafuse treatment of his dealings with Lincoln and which also serves as a mini bio this web site is pretty good, I think.http://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom....D=129&CRLI=177

Remember, Nicolay and Hay frankly lied a lot. They are not reliable sources by any means.

[grognard]

Originally Posted by hellboy30

Bomb ze Germans?

Ja, and then Mac couyld really complain about having a second front.:-)

[Savez]

"Richmond is a hard road to travel"

[Jack Torrance]

Originally Posted by 67th Tigers

Sears being even handed? :O

Maybe Sears believed he was being even handed, but he always adopts the most critical interpretations, even to the point of missing evidence. For example, according to Sears when McClellan was on the Galena at Glendale he had no telegraphic communications with the army. All the primary accounts say Lieutenant Clum's signals detachment was on the Galena and that McClellan commanded by telegraph. I use this example as Sears was once quoted to he as evidence McClellan had no signals and I quoted back Major Myers report on signals operations. However, see http://archive.org/stream/signalcorp...e/316/mode/2up (very useful data generally).

I'm the one who thinks Sears tried to be even handed in at least providing evidence that Mac used Ives as well and for the purpose of using the NY Herald to provide disinformation. Sears could have left that out if he was just interested in burying MaClellan but I think MaClellan dug himself a pretty deep grave all on his own.

On the Sears bit about McClellan not having telegraph communications I would like to see the evidence. In Sears biography of Mac you can see on page 22 evidence to the contrary:

"At 11:00 PM he went aboard the Galena to spend the night, and the next morning the gunboat took him downriver to join the army. "If not attacked during this day I will have the men ready to repulse the Enemy tomorrow," he telegraphed President Lincoln."

BTW, that is an excellent link on the AoP Signals Corp. A very old but useful source.

As for Ives, he reported back honestly, but suggested they not publish it. It's worth noting the timings, Ives interview was the evening of the day that McClellan appeared before the JCCW.

Again using Sears as my source Mac gave the initial Ives interview a day after the 13th, the day Mac refused to share his plans with the President and his advisers. That would be the 14th and Mac gave his testimony to the JCCW on the 15th.

Remember, Nicolay and Hay frankly lied a lot. They are not reliable sources by any means.

I haven't read their 10 volume Lincoln biography but from what I've read on the internet they were very partisan and anti-MaClellan. They were also primary sources for much of what Lincoln said. Let me provide what the link has on Ives and Hay and then tell me if it's a lie:

"As McClellan's health deteriorated so too did the Administration's confusion. John Hay reflected the nation's expectations when he wrote anonymously in the press the previous November: "The nation is fortunate in its new commander. It is seldom that a man so simple and so plain in his manners, so free from the ordinary tricks of popularity, and the ordinary appliances of journalistic influence, attains a recognition so sudden and so universal. The people repose entire confidence in McClellan. He has had nothing of that frenzied impatience to complain of, that forced Scott into error and disaster."

Historian Winston Churchill was more sympathetic to McClellan: "Ill-treatment was meted out to General McClellan, by the Washington politicians and Cabinet, with the cautious, pliant General Halleck as their tool. For this Lincoln cannot escape blame. He wanted an aggressive General who would energetically seek out Lee and beat him. McClellan for all his qualities of leadership lacked the final ounces of fighting spirit. Lincoln with his shrewd judgment of men knew this. But he also knew that McClellan was probably the ablest commander available to him. His instinct had been to stand by his chosen General. Instead he had yielded to political outcry. He had swapped horses in mid-stream. He found he had got a poorer mount. As the different corps of McClellan's army were landed at Aquia they were hurried off to join Pope, until McClellan had not even his own personal escort with him."

"Many in Washington, including a majority of Mr. Lincoln's cabinet, were unhappy with McClellan's return to command. John G. Nicolay and John Hay wrote: "In the [cabinet] meeting of 2d of September, when the President announced that he had placed McClellan in command of the forces in Washington, he was met by an outbreak of protest and criticism from the leading members of the Government which might well have shaken the nerves of any ruler. But the President stood manfully by his action. He admitted the infirmities of McClellan, his lack of energy and initiative, but for this exigency he considered him the best man in the service, and the country must have the benefit of his talents, although he had behaved badly. We need not refer again to the magnanimity with which the President had overlooked the insolent dispatches of General McClellan from Savage's Station and Harrison's Bar. He closed his ears persistently during all the months of the winter and spring to the stories which came to him from every quarter in regard to the tone of factious hostility to himself which prevailed at McClellan's headquarters."