george-b.-mcclellan

•This is an Historically Accurate Transcription starring President Abraham Lincoln and General George B. McClellan•

McCLELLAN: But why are you being such a dick?
LINCOLN: I’m not being a dick.
McCLELLAN: You’re being a dick.
LINCOLN: I’m just sayin’…stop frontin’.
McCLELLAN: Whatever, dude.  You try getting excited about fighting for MARYLAND.
LINCOLN: I told you, I’m not letting you retreat to New Hampshire “just in case”.
McCLELLAN: You’ll be sorry.  You might as well just give Maine to the Confederates now.
LINCOLN: You know what you’re problem is, dude?
McCLELLAN: What?  Tell me what my problem is.
LINCOLN: You’re jealous of my height.
McCLELLAN: Not cool, homie.  Not cool.
LINCOLN: Let’s face the facts…I’m 6'4" of frontier goodness and you can fit in my stovepipe hat.
McCLELLAN: Are you done with this bullshit?
LINCOLN: I’m HONEST ABE…no bullshit from me, “Napoleon-Minus-The-Military-Genius”.
McCLELLAN: That’s it…
LINCOLN: What?  What you gonna do?  DO something!  I dare you.
McCLELLAN: I saw your Twitter - “If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time."  Real funny…how about your shove your army up your ass?
LINCOLN: At least it would finally be doing something.
McCLELLAN: Fuck you, dude.
LINCOLN: Sorry, I can’t hear you.  Can you perhaps stand on the table so the sound reaches my ears, little man?
McCLELLAN: Whatever.  You’ve turned into a real dick.
LINCOLN: Go get me General Burnside and hit the bricks, shorty.

anonymous asked:

Do you think Lincoln could have won in '64 without Johnson on the ticket?

I do. I really don’t think Johnson made much of a difference on the ticket. Lincoln was helped more by General Sherman taking Atlanta than Andrew Johnson on the ticket. Lincoln was also helped by the votes of Union soldiers who were able to cast absentee ballots from the field for the first time. They strongly supported him despite the fact that the Democratic nominee was former commanding General George B. McClellan, who had promised to end the war immediately.

So I’ve yet to see the best Lincoln-McClellan story in the George B. McClellan Hate Club, which is a shame, so here goes:

So Lincoln is getting kind of pissed at McClellan for being so slow and complaining about everything, so he starts to keep a shorter leash on him and make him report more often, which is annoying McClellan.

So McClellan, being all sassy, sends this telegram to Lincoln: “We have captured six cows. What shall we do with them.”

And Lincoln, being the big damn badass that he was, wires back: “As to the six cows captured- milk them.”

Because Abraham Lincoln is the Sassmander-in-Chief and you need to sit the hell down, George.

George B. McClellan, commanding general, to his wife following the draw at Antietem: “Those in whose judgment I rely tell me that I fought the battle splendidly & that it was a masterpiece of art.”

George G. Meade, commanding general, to his wife following the Union victory at Gettysburg: “I claim no extraordinary merit for this last battle, and would prefer waiting a little while to see what my career is to be before making any pretensions. I did and shall continue to do my duty to the best of my abilities, but knowing as I do that battle are often decided by accidents, and that no man of sense will say in advance what their result will be, I wish to be careful in not bragging before the right time.”

There are two kinds of people in the world.

When asked who was the best Federal commander the South ever faced in the War, John Mosby, the famous Gray Ghost and Confederate guerrilla (and later staunch Republican and supporter of Reconstruction), replied:

McClellan, by all odds. I think he is the only man on the Federal side who could have organized the army as it was. Grant had, of course, more successes in the field in the latter part of the war, but Grant only came in to reap the benefits of McClellan’s previous efforts. At the same time, I do not wish to disparage General Grant, for he has many abilities, but if Grant had commanded during the first years of the war, we would have gained our independence. Grant’s policy of attacking would have been a blessing to us, for we lost more by inaction than we would have lost in battle. After the first Manassas the army took a sort of ‘dry rot’, and we lost more men by camp diseases than we would have by fighting.

In my opinion, Mosby’s analysis - and we should take him at his word, being the well-placed and highly successful Confederate soldier he was - is spot on. McClellan’s actions were comparable to the strategy employed by Fabius in the Hannibalic Wars.

Fabius knew Hannibal’s armies couldn’t sustain a war in Italy indefinitely. In contrast to the impulsive Varro, Fabius preferred to avoid pitched battle and instead force Hannibal to attack fortified positions, where his natural genius at battle would be at least partially mitigated. When Fabius was deposed from command of the Roman consular armies, it was transferred to the aforementioned Varro, who sought a general engagement immediately. The result was the disaster at Cannae, which has since become a byword for total annihilation on the field. At the end of the grueling 17 year war, Fabius was vindicated by his countrymen who recognized his caution had spared the Republic.

Still, the war could not have been concluded without the elevation of the Scipio later awarded the agnomen Africanus. (Fabius’s agnomen, Cunctator, means 'delayer’ or 'ditherer’ - what began as an insult was later regarded as an honorific)  Africanus was unafraid to seek battle with Hannibal and, in a daring expedition launched at the Carthaginian capital, managed to defeat the great Punic strategist in the Battle of Zama. Livy credits Scipio’s successes to both the war-weariness and general supply problems of Carthage, Hannibal’s own difficulties with the Carthaginian Senate, but also to the fact that Scipio was able to imitate Hannibal’s own method of warfare. Hannibal’s habitual use of feints and flanking attacks was turned against him by Scipio at Zama.


Lee bemoaned the replacement of McClellan, upon hearing of the news he said,

“We always understood each other so well. . . . I fear they may continue to make these changes till they find someone whom I don’t understand.”

Eventually the Union happened upon Grant, who Lee understood, but couldn’t beat- Grant’s strategy was a withering, persistent assault, best typified by his protracted siege of Vicksburg. There he ordered charge after charge of exposed infantry against withering Confederate fire, only stopping when he could no longer guarantee the safety of his own lines. Nevertheless, Vicksburg eventually fell to the Union host. The Confederacy had neither the men nor the money to fight a war that heavy, and subsequently lost.

The analogy is not perfect, admittedly. Lee makes a compelling Hannibal, and McClellan is an admirable Fabius, but Grant is no Scipio- rather than preferring to imitate Lee, Grant chose to utilize the strengths of the Union, which were its ample supplies of men and materiel. But a strategy like Grant’s would not have succeeded in the close-run years of 1861 and 1862. Then, the European great powers were eagerly waiting for an opportunity to recognize the fledgling Southern nation and insist on an end of hostilities. Forced to contend with Britain and France, the United States would’ve had a totally different - and possibly unwinnable - war on its hands.

But after Antietam, and the Emancipation Proclamation, the landscape changed. The European powers could ill-afford opposing a war against slavery. By changing the reason why the war was fought, Lincoln effectively boxed out the European powers from the conflict. After 1862, the North can afford to fight bloody battles and, if necessary, lose them, if only because it knows it has all its resources to fight against only one enemy.

Looking at the war from this angle, it is hard not to feel some sympathy for McClellan. He was constantly opposed by his so-called friends in the Lincoln Administration and was routinely fed faulty intelligence by Lincoln’s own Pinkerton men. Still, he managed to evade and confound Lee’s designs at almost every turn, and if he had not been withdrawn from the Peninsula in 1862, might very well have ended the war then and there. There are those who maintain that McClellan’s so-called caution was simply a way to conceal his own cowardice, but McClellan’s considerable bravery in the West at the beginning of the war and his actions at Contreras and Churubusco in the Mexican-American War easily refute this charge. Indeed, McClellan’s caution, if anything, seems to me an act of great self-control when all around him were urging an ill-advised advance. Pope’s Varro-like behavior led to a second Union defeat on the fields of Bull Run.

McClellan’s subsequent performance at Antietam was admittedly lackluster, but the draw enabled Lincoln to propose the Emancipation Proclamation, which in turn made McClellan’s presence at the head of the Army of the Potomac no longer a necessity. Lincoln replaced McClellan with Burnside, knowing that the war could now be fought on Union terms, with no one defeat being fatal. After Antietam, the odds against the South grow increasingly longer, until, after Gettysburg, there is no real hope for victory.

anonymous asked:

I think it's really fucking idiotic of people to have a hate club for McClellan. He's a person who lived 128 FUCKING YEARS AGO. He isn't ALIVE anymore and isn't HURTING ANYONE. God, I mean, I don't love him if that's what your thinking but for people to join a club to hate on a person, who again, lived 128 years ago is pretty stupid. Booth fucking KILLED Lincoln and I don't see a hate club for him, I mean, seriously. It disgusts me how many people are actually making hate posts for McClellan.

Ya know, I was lying down reading a book and checking my phone when I saw this ask. It struck me so much that I had to get up and answer it. It got me thinking. 

Especially with the Booth comment. Booth set out to hurt MULTIPLE people. McClellan did seem to care for his men. This sometimes made his decisions not the best, but yeah. I’ll admit, I can’t help but laugh at some of the jokes said about him. But alas, I’m a human and I’m gonna do something like that and I admit it. He wasn’t the best general, by far. I don’t think he was the worst either, but yeah. I always wonder how the Civil War would ahve got if Winfield Scott was in better health, but that’s something we’ll never know about. 

He was a human being. He had his obvious faults. That is clear. The way history is written, we tend to really pronounce his faults to a point where we turn him in a comical laughing stock. Yet, a lot of people in his time LIKED him. His men liked him. People liked him. He wasn’t evil. He didn’t sit there going “MAUAHAHA I’M GONNA DO ALL THIS STUPID SHIT AND SABOTAGE THIS WAR FOR US”. He made some bad military decisions. I don’t much care for the guy, but he was human. 

Honestly, I cannot speak for the Hate Club. I don’t really consider myself a part of it. Sure, I laugh at some of the jokes, I know it. Especially the ones about the Quaker Cannons. But hind-sight is 20/20. He didn’t know they were just painted logs. 

But yeah, I can’t speak for the Hate Club, I can’t give their testimony. He wasn’t the only not so great leader the union army had, yet he’s the one who gets poked fun at the most. He did many annoying things during the war, but yeah. He’s human. I dunno. I try to see both sides of something before I make a decision. 

Though, we can’t really help when we dislike someone. It’s a human thing. It’s a human thing to love, but it’s also a human thing to hate, unfortunately. We usually have our reasons for hating (hating something just to be cool isn’t wise though.).  I’m sure there are people who have legit reasons for disliking or hating McClellan. Me? I just think he did a lot of annoying and unwise things. There are people in history I dislike waaaaaay more than him. I will admit, I’ve poked fun at him too. I’m guilty. 

I know there has to be people out there who like him, and it must be hard for them to express that when there are people everywhere putting him down. I know how that feels. Being an avid Andrew Jackson fan isn’t a walk in the park. I see people spewing hate about him all the time. And that’s fine, they’re allowed to. They’re allowed to have their opinions, just as much as I have mine. (though I get really annoyed at people who know like, TWO facts about him they heard in history class and don’t even bother to read up anymore about him and decide OH WOW I HATE HIM OVER ONE OR TWO THINGS I KNOW. God damn it, learn about him and dislike him for legit reasons if you have to, not just the small things you heard about) But yeah. I’ve also had to watch people say people who LIKE Jackson are BAD people as well. Wow, thanks. I’m bad cos I’m passionate about someone, yay for me!  But yeah, I deal with it. I take a deep breath and just move on. I have my reasons for loving him and no one can make me stop. Only I can affect my own thinking. 

But yeah. It’s gotta suck for McClellan fans. 

But yeah. I dunno. I can’t speak for the “Club”. I can just give this weird in the middle opinion I have. I can see both sides of the coin here. 

I do have to wonder  why there’s a not a Booth Hate Club though???? He killed Lincoln and almost got Seward killed. I mean, there HAS to be hate for him, right? 

I dunno, I literally think people on either side of this coin have their right to opinion, so who knows. I don’t much like the idea of “hate” clubs, but that’s just me. I still feel people have a right to their emotions at the same time. Wow this is complicated. 

I will say, for us history lovers, who are humans, I can see why since we can be SO IN LOVE with people who aren’t alive now, and that means I can see why we’d be SO MAD at people who aren’t alive now too. I don’t know this is a crazy can of worms. I don’t have the answers I’m just saying random things that pop into my mind. @.@