At 11:48 PM 1/22/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>John Garcia wrote: > > >>Not every incompetent general was a graduate of West Point. Indeed, many >>were political appointees on both sides, either granted commissions by >>their respective states or appointed by Lincoln or Davis to shore up his >>political machine. Some were just no damn good leading troops in the >>field, but performed well when given tasks commensurate with their >>abilities. McClellan did a fine job training the Army of the Potomac, and >>a terrible job leading them in battle. Others did a fair job leading >>troops, and some were outstanding. Grant was a political appointee, as >>was Joshua Chamberlain. Some generals did well leading a brigade or >>division, yet performed poorly when moved up to higher command. ><snip> > > >But the stuff I'm talking about was often just defiance of sound military >practice. Obvious examples are McClellan's failure to destroy Lee in his >first foray into Union territory despite having intercepted documents that >gave away plans and positions (including the poor coordination of his >forces at Sharps burg.) Bragg's petulant refusal to follow up the >stunning confederate victory at Chickamauga (which was in turn made >possible at least in part by boneheaded tactical errors on the part of >Rosecrans). Bragg's inept defense of Missionary Ridge. Meade, in a >position to smash Lee who was short on ammunition and provisions and >trapped on the wrong side of the Potomac after Gettysburgh, dilly dallying >around until the enemy was able to escape. Joe Johnson failing to come to >the aid of Pemberton besieged at Vicksburgh. Joe Hooker leaving his right >flank in the air and ignoring warnings that Jackson was doing an end >around at Chancellorsville. The inept use of the cavalry by the Union >early in the war. Etc etc. I could easily come up with a dozen more examples. > >I haven't really studied other wars, so perhaps these kind of things are >typical? > >By the way, I don't mean to undermine the courageousness exhibited by the >men of both armies. It is nothing short of amazing to me that men could >march into the face of almost certain death the way they did repeatedly. > >-- >Doug McClellan is an odd duck. He seems to have had all the qualities of a great general except one: The willingness to "..put it to the touch, to win or lose it all." I don't really care for armchair psychoanalysis, but it occurs to me that since McClellan had enjoyed nothing but success in his military and civilian careers, he may have been reluctant to open himself up to the possibility of failure. As for the others, well without getting into all the ins and outs, the personal dynamics between generals, the varying levels of competence, and just plain bad luck, lets just say that sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you. There are many examples of boneheadedness in other generals in other wars. McArthur's inexplicably inept defense of the Philippines (the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor hours before they attacked the Philippines; McA was not the victim of a sneak attack); Fredendall's lousy performance at Kasserine Pass; countless British, French, German, Austrian, Russian and Italian generals during WWI; Braddock in Western Pennsylvania during the French and Indian war; etc. Yes, their courage is remarkable. john (the other one ;-))
