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.
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.
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
In 1776, David McCullough gives a vivid portrayal of the Continental Army from October 1775 through January 1777, with sharp focus on the leadership of America’s greatest hero, George Washington. McCullough’s thesis is that had not the right man (George Washington) been leading the Continental Army in 1776, the American Revolution would have resulted in a vastly different outcome. He supports his argument with a critical analysis of Washington’s leadership during the period from the Siege of Boston, through the disastrous defense of New York City, the desperate yet, well ordered retreat through New Jersey against overwhelming odds, and concludes with the inspiring victories of Trenton and Princeton. By keeping his army intact and persevering through 1776, Washington demonstrated to the British Army that the Continental Army was not simply a gang of rabble, but a viable fighting force. Additionally, Mr. McCullough supports his premise that the key to the survival of the American Revolution was not in the defense of Boston, New York City, or any other vital terrain, but rather the survival of the Continental Army itself. A masterful piece of history, 1776 is not a dry retelling of the Revolutionary War, but a compelling character study of George Washington, as well as his key lieutenants, and his British adversaries, the most powerful Army in the 18th Century world. When I read this book, I went from a casual understanding of the hero George Washington to a more specific understanding of why Washington was quite literally the exact right man at the exact right place and time to enable the birth of the United States.
...s that he was unable to completely drive the Union forces from the South. His decisions to invade the north on two occasions were less than sound in many ways, and shows what I feel was wishful thinking on his part.
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.
George Washington was selected Commander in Chief of the Continental Army because of his courage and bravery, his ability to motivate and command respect from his followers, and his strategic ability in battle. His reputation as a daring and successful leader inspired confidence and loyalty in his followers. If it weren't for George Washington, it would be a different America today.
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.
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.
General Douglas Macarthur was one of the most well known military figures in the history of the United States. He gave his farewell speech to congress on 19th April 1951 and went into retirement after 52 years of service in the United States army. He was given the chance to address his final message to the US government. This analysis carefully examines his ethics, goals, strategies, strengths and weaknesses. The speech is very famous and highly popular among the American audience. Therefore, we will take into account all factors to critically evaluate the speech and find out what makes it important.
... 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.
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.
...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).
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.