AGEOD Forums

Minister of War Jefferson Davis and Captain Mc Clellan were in Crimea during siege of Sebastopol. It seems they were really impressed by Russian fierce defence , especially Mc Clellan.

A question to those who maybe know better than me :

Do you think Mc Clellan future ( passive) attitude during civil war was influenced by what he saw at Sebastopol ?

Could be.
I just read something about Mac, stating he was politically a centrist and therefore did not agree with either the staunch abolitionist or secessionists. Because of these centrist beliefs he attempted to fight the war with minimal lose of life and damage to property.

Here is a new book on the subject "McClellan's War" by Ethan S. Rafuse.
http://www.cwbr.com/cgi-bin/dbman/cwbr/cwbr.cgi?db=cwbr&uid=default&sb1=11&so1=descend&sb2=3&so2=ascend&ma=on&fields1=Author&value1=rafuse&view_records=1&bool=and&nh=1&mh=1

Adlertag wrote:Minister of War Jefferson Davis and Captain Mc Clellan were in Crimea during siege of Sebastopol. It seems they were really impressed by Russian fierce defence , especially Mc Clellan.

A question to those who maybe know better than me :

Do you think Mc Clellan future ( passive) attitude during civil war was influenced by what he saw at Sebastopol ?

His strategy for attacking Yorktown and Richmond was definitely influenced by Sebastapol.

As for his passive attitude, he wasn't really passive... he was just always sure that he was outnumbered by at least two-to-one and was trying to make sure he could save his army when they were attacked by the hordes of "secesh". Or if the Army was destroyed he could then blame Lincoln and the government for not giving him enough men.....

I'd highly recommend reading Sears' book about the Peninsula Campaign if you want to learn more about McClellan. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory....

Although McClellan's role as a military observer during the Crimean War is well documented, I am not aware that Sec of War Jefferson ever made a trip to the Crimean. Do you have some details?

Le Ricain wrote:Although McClellan's role as a military observer during the Crimean War is well documented, I am not aware that Sec of War Jefferson ever made a trip to the Crimean. Do you have some details?

I could be wrong, but he was the one who SENT McClellan. Davis didn't go himself.

I found more infos and you are correct , J.Davis didn't go to Crimea.

The commission was composed by :

Majors Mordecai and Delafield
Captain Mc Clellan
Another unindentified officer...

Thank you for your answers.

PS : in the image below, Mc Clellan is at right ( 1855 ).

I think what the Crimean observation mission did was to make McClellan a "rising star" within the Regular Army community.
That and the fact that he also translated French military manuals for use by the US Army.
At the start of the war he was one of the few US Army officers with any "european" experience.
This gave him plenty of creditability and influence over other officers.

tc237 wrote:I think what the Crimean observation mission did was to make McClellan a "rising star" within the Regular Army community.
That and the fact that he also translated French military manuals for use by the US Army.
At the start of the war he was one of the few US Army officers with any "european" experience.
This gave him plenty of creditability and influence over other officers.

He also invented the McClellan saddle used by the US Army from 1859 until cavalry and horse art regiments were officially dismounted during WWII.

George McClellan also served as president (I believe) of the Illinois Central railroad, employing his good friend Ambrose Burnside. Since Lincoln was a prominent attorney in railroad law, and did I believe handle some cases for the IC, I have always wondered if he and McClellan had known each other before the war.

Director wrote:George McClellan also served as president (I believe) of the Illinois Central railroad, employing his good friend Ambrose Burnside. Since Lincoln was a prominent attorney in railroad law, and did I believe handle some cases for the IC, I have always wondered if he and McClellan had known each other before the war.

According to Sears, they had a few run-ins and part of McClellan's hatred of Lincoln came from those.

Well, though I can't rise to his defense, one Robert E. Lee was asked who his most skilled opponent was on the battlefield (question came after the war) and he said, McClellan.

Pinkerton, that lame excuse for a spy, was the cause of most of McClellan's worries, as someone previously mentioned, estimates of CSA strengths were always WAY off from reality.

I'll say it again, read the 3 part Shelby Foote series. REALLY the only thing you'll ever need to read on the ACW. OF course, I hope you read more, but that is the 101, 201 and 301 all in one 2400 page grouping.

Yeah, it takes a while......

Adam the VIth wrote:Well, though I can't rise to his defense, one Robert E. Lee was asked who his most skilled opponent was on the battlefield (question came after the war) and he said, McClellan.

Well... considering he would only consider McClellan, Burnside, Hooker, Meade and Grant as possible answers to that question he probably gave the right answer if the opponent was considered as an overall commander (strategy, logistics, etc.). McClellan's big problem was he wanted to be the "next Napoleon" and make a grand campaign to utterly destroy the "secesh" in one huge battle. And that required everything to be planned to the last detail. As anyone who has studied history at all can tell you that is an imposible goal. Throw in some character flaws and there you have George Brinton McClellan in a nutshell.

There is a story told about General Joseph Johnston that I believe applies very well to McClellan. Johnston was supposedly a crack shot, and was invited to go hunting with a group of friends. But somehow the conditions were never quite right and so he never fired a shot... afraid to risk his great reputation, he simply waited for a perfect opportunity that never came.

McClellan was perhaps as great an organizer, trainer, molder and motivator as existed on either side. He had great abilities, and could do anything with an army except lead it in battle. Pinkerton's intelligence estimates simply gave him an excuse to drag his feet.

Adam the VIth wrote:I'll say it again, read the 3 part Shelby Foote series. REALLY the only thing you'll ever need to read on the ACW. OF course, I hope you read more, but that is the 101, 201 and 301 all in one 2400 page grouping.

I've never read Foote and don't really intend to.
There has been much more research done and new resources discovered in the 40 years since Foote's series.
To me it seems most history books written in the 1950-60's tend to be biased one way or the other.

Pinkerton, that lame excuse for a spy, was the cause of most of McClellan's worries, as someone previously mentioned, estimates of CSA strengths were always WAY off from reality

Not to defend Pinkerton, his information was off, but the buck stopped with McClellan.
McClellan used no other resources to gather intelligence. He dismantled the Cav units and sent them on courier duty.
The more Pinkerton worked for McClellan, the more Pinkerton's numbers grew to match what Mac wanted and not the other way around.

tc237 wrote:I've never read Foote and don't really intend to.
There has been much more research done and new resources discovered in the 40 years since Foote's series.
To me it seems most history books written in the 1950-60's tend to be biased one way or the other.

All history books are biased in some way. People 50-60 years from now will be saying the same thing about books being released now.

Not to defend Pinkerton, his information was off, but the buck stopped with McClellan.
McClellan used no other resources to gather intelligence. He dismantled the Cav units and sent them on courier duty.
The more Pinkerton worked for McClellan, the more Pinkerton's numbers grew to match what Mac wanted and not the other way around.

True. There were several instances where several generals who were either facing the enemy in combat or had scouted ahead on their own gave Mac pretty close to dead-on accurate information and he totally ignored it because he either didn't like or didn't "trust" the source or the information didn't fit his plans. But in comes Pinkerton with 10 times the amount of soldiers in his estimate and Mac takes his word as gospel.

I know Lee is credited with that statement, however, I believe he was intending this remark as an insult to Grant; no serious student could credit Little Mac with being a better general than Grant. Grant was a pusher and a grinder but, that was what was needed. Lee was nothing if not serious. Tag