McClellan as General

Paper Summary:

This paper discusses various views of General George McClellan and his role in the Civil War. It analyzes Thomas Rowland's "George B. McClellan and Civil War History: In the Shadow of Grant and Sherman" and then compares and contrasts the interpretations of McClellan's generalship with James M. McPherson's views in "Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction."

From the Paper:

"In conclusion, both of these authors have clearly researched their subject and have come to different, but compatible theses about McClellan. Rowland believes he might not have been as bad as he has been portrayed, while McPherson holds with the majority opinion that he was one of the worst generals of the Civil War. Some of his decisions seem to point toward that conclusion, especially in his consistent inability to attack at times, and his consistently overrating the numbers of southern forces he was about to engage. He may have had mental problems, or, he may just have been too cautious for his own good. Either way, these two authors paint a picture of a troubled man who was a fantastic organizer. He would have served himself better had he remained in an organizer's role, rather than the general for the Army of the Potomac."

Sample of Sources Used:

• McPherson, J.M. (2001). Ordeal by fire: The Civil War and reconstruction. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Rowland, T. J. (1998). George B. McClellan and Civil War history: In the shadow of Grant and Sherman. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.

More papers on McClellan as General:

• Analytical Essay # 135920 : "The Winnipeg General Strike of 1919"
• Descriptive Essay # 112082 : "The Bloody Lane"
• Essay # 4579 : "Overview of the Battle of Antietam"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: