The removal of McClellan was a loss for the army of the Potomac. The loss of McClellan was a loss of experience in army techniques, an advanced knowledge of organization, and an very qualified general.
George McClellan was a very accomplished military general. He graduated second in his class from West point and had a mind for military organization and strategy. He trained the army of the Potomac for the Union army during the Civil War and improved the army's chances of winning the war because of the new way he organized the troops. He was a veteran soldier and able engineer. His skills and knowledge were important to the success of the Potomac army. He was dismissed by Lincoln the first time for not acting on Lincolns orders to advance, even when McClellan felt that the army was not ready to do so. McClellan was called back to the army because a general with experience and knowledge was needed. The removal of McClellan was a loss for the army of the Potomac.
General George McClellan was a very qualified general. He graduated second in his class from west point, had new clever organization ideas for the army and had to command his army without helpful help of other people. McClellan was an "accomplished soldier and able engineer (Document D)". He had the best qualifications for the job as general; his removal was not a military improvement but an interference of politicians. President Lincoln never studied military tactics or commanded on a battlefield as McClellan had. Any advice that was given to McClellan by politicians did not help the army, McClellan believed that he owed no thanks to any people in Washington because if the army was saved it would be because of him because the politicians were telling him to sacrifice the lives of the soldiers (Document D), which in the end would only damage the army. General McClellan was the best man qualified and his removal was a loss to the army.
George McClellan was an experienced soldier and was doing they best he could to the best of his ability. He had to deal with politicians that were not experienced in military strategy trying to tell him what to do. He was trained at one of the best military academies in the country, he had the knowledge and did what he was taught to do in certain situations.
McCullough describes washington as a leader of many qualities in which makes him successful. After making the British evacuate from Boston, washington is praised for being such a courageous and smart leader, therefore lifting morale around American troops. The war most likely would not have been won without George Washington's help most likely due to his incredible leadership skills. The colonies are virtually nothing without George Washington because he keeps them together by asking congress to support them and as McCullough describes, is relentless about doing so as we're Knox and Greene later on. George Washington was so important that even the loyalists plotted to assassinate him with hopes to derail the American rebellion. However, the colonies success wasn't just off George washington. Mccullough describes the average british soldier as strong and more fit compared to the colonial soldier, superior and overall well trained.The fact that the colonies were untrained made the British cocky, Making them think they didn't have to use their superior weaponry thinking the Americans would surrender out of free will. McCullough gives us an insight to how the Americans tried new things using their resources making great things with what little they
...didn’t over step his authority or attempt to subvert the army for his own purposes. Instead, George Washington sets the example of the military commander who was subservient to civilian political leadership. He also showed patience and coolness in the face of adversity. On many occasions in the book, the author cites Washington’s expressions of doubt and fears of failure, yet Washington never showed fear or doubt in action in front of his troops.
...e gun, it seemed, the greater the owner‘s pride in it.” (McCullough 33) The Continental army certainly did not look like an army yet these people were brought together in this fight for freedom and prevailed even winning the support of Americans who had no hope the British would be defeated.” Merchant Erving had sided with the Loyalists primarily because he thought the rebellion would fail. But the success of Washington‘s army at Boston had changed his mind as it had for many” (McCullough 108). The reader must comprehend the power of this accomplishment for the rag-tag army. “Especially for those who had been with Washington and who knew what a close call it was at the beginning-how often circumstance, storms, contrary winds, the oddities or strengths of individual character had made the difference- the outcome seemed little short of a miracle.” (McCullough 294).
Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America, showed weaknesses within his leadership which may have contributed to the confederacy’s loss and the unions win . Davis failed in three vital ways. These ways were: his relations with other confederate authorities and with the people, as well as in his fundamental concept of his job as president and in his organization and specific handling of his role as commander in chief . Davis failed in maintaining communication with leaders and with his people, often unable to admit when he is wrong which led to lack organization in his role . In addition, Davis was a conservative leader, not a revolutionary one which meant that his strength was often in protocol and convention rather than in innovation . Studying each of these aspects that represented a weakness in Jefferson Davis’s leadership, Lincoln in comparison provided more admirable and outstanding qualities within his leadership which in many ways affected the outcome of the war
Grant viewed the Battle of Cold Harbor as a means to complete his Overland Campaign, and ultimately, be the driving force for Union victory of the Civil War. Grant chose the Army of the Potomac to be the decisive operation and General George G. Meade acted as the commander. Though both Generals were experienced leaders, they had different skills, abilities and opinions that not only led to a dysfunctional command climate, but also was a major reason for the Union loss of the Battle of Cold Harbor. Grant viewed his command position as a strategic role with subordinate Meade making the tactical decisions, but Meade did not view...
Nathanael Greene, although not afforded many victories in battles, was a masterful strategist, soldier and statesman. He was able to successfully employ militia, regular, light and mounted units during his command in the South. He built upon the reputation that he made for himself at the beginning of the war in Boston. It is because of this reputation and his ability to produce results that made him the second most important general in the continental army, next only to George Washington.
General Lee said, to be a good soldier you must love the army, to be a good general you must be prepared to order the death of the thing you love, and therein lies the great trap of soldiering. When you attack you must hold nothing back." Thomas J. Jackson was both a good soldier and a good general. In the Mexican War he fought with all his heart for his country. When the Civil War came, he was a general. He never hesitated to send his men forward. He held nothing back. George McClellan also fought with all his heart for his country in the Mexican War. When the time came to send his men forward in the Civil War, he couldn’t do it. He loved the army to much to order its death.
A Southern refugee once reflected, and referred to the Army of the Potomac as the “greatest army in the planet.” Although this is a clear exaggeration, from a Southern perspective following the Battle of Antietam, this was not too far off. Relative to the Army of Northern Virginia, the Federal army was vastly larger, in better spirits, and strategically in better positions. To direct this army of great potential, President Lincoln appointed the reluctant Major General Ambrose Everett Burnside. Almost immediately after receiving command, Burnside adopted a plan; the objective was Richmond.
Grant has an illustrious past. People talked about his being a drunkard but Catton says “He was simply a man infinitely more complex then most people could realize.” Grant, even though he was a West Point graduate, never wanted to be a soldier or to have a life in the military. He wanted to be a teacher. What Grant did bring to the Army of the Potomac was his ability to relate to the soldiers and made them his army. He completely retrained and re-organized the armies, and re-enlisted troops that were going to go home. They all realized that under Grant the Army of the Potomac changed which meant now that the entire war would change.
... all involved. President Johnson was determined to have a limited involvement in the war without involving the legal approval of Congress or the knowledge of the people of America. McNamara and Taylor regularly lie to conceal actions. McMaster has written a thorough look at the decisions of all these men, which certainly shows a Dereliction of Duty.
Abraham Lincoln wrote one of the greatest speeches in American history known as the Gettysburg Address. It was not only used as a dedication to the fallen troops of the North and South, but as a speech to give the Union a reason to fight and attempt to unite the divided nation. The sixteenth president’s handling of his speech at Gettysburg demonstrated how the effectiveness of juxtaposition, repetition, and parallelism, could bring unity to a nation deeply divided on beliefs. His speech touched the hearts of many and indirectly put an end to the Civil War. Lincoln may have been considered a tyrant at the time but he was a great leader of a nation, a war, and a democracy.
Abraham Lincoln (12 Feb. 1809-15 Apr. 1865) the 16th president (civilwar.org) of the United States of America was one of the main public persons that influence the civil war in many aspects. Even though the civil war may have been the last resource the nation had, it could be argue that Lincoln’s governments try its best to find a different solution. The civil war was a conflict that destroyed the nation; it perhaps could have been avoided if the second party had work for a solution. But it is true that maybe both parts could have looked out for the benefits of the people as a whole instead of their personal benefits. Lincoln principal positive effect on the civil war was actually before and during the war when Lincoln’s government had many attempts to prevent the confrontation, and when this one began he took the right decisions to win the war. One of the biggest effects on the civil war was the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, which gave the slaves their liberty. Many would agree is that Abraham’s Lincoln effect on the civil war was positive but Lincoln made many mistakes or misjudgments during the war as well. Perhaps the biggest mistake Lincoln did was underestimating the South what caused many unnecessary deaths. He also did had misjudgments that cause many causalities. Since the beginning of time humanity has fought for what they thought was right. In April 12 of 1861(civilwar.org) The US would begin a fight for civic and moral rights, a civil war that perhaps was the last option for a country to reunite its values. Abraham Lincoln was the president of the time and the person the influence the most the course the war took. I strongly believe that Lincoln’s decisions influence or had more positive effects on the country. Being the president at times like the civil war is without doubt it is one of the toughest jobs, and one way or another there is going to be correct and incorrect decisions but I can agree president Lincoln did what he thought it was the best at that moment.
General Ambrose Burnside was a commander, leader, senator, governor, and many other things. He was a part of the Union army. He brave soldier who fought in the Civil War. He had many successes, but he also failed throughout his career.
Grant remained a child at heart throughout his life, and seems never to have realized that he was one. His faith in the goodness of humanity was unbounded, and he was taken advantage of. His simplicity of nature was remarkable, yet this simplicity was the mainspring of his success; certainly it was the first asset of his generalship. While McClellan could see nothing beyond his own operations and Halleck nothing outside of his textbooks, Grant saw things as they were, uncontaminated by his ideas or anyone elses. He saw that the entire problem of winning the civil war was nothing more than an equation between pressure and resistance. The side which pressed the hardest along the lines of least resistance was going to win.
GEN McClellan may not have been a great war time General but he excelled at training Soldiers, getting his men ready to fight and raising the morale of the Armies he commanded. Multiple historians and various political leaders agreed on this point about McClellan. In a statement, President Lincoln told John Hayes,” There is no man in the army who can man these fortifications and lick these troops into shape half as well as he” . As it can be seen from a statement from a prominent figure such as the President during the war, GEN McClellan was a Soldiers General, but the ability to get political leaders on his side was another story. His cautious attitude towards war soured his reputation with both congress. McClellan’s biggest political obstacle was Edward Stanton, the Secretary of War. He started to work on a petition that would end McClellan’s career.