A Brief History
On July 26, 1861, Major General George McClellan was appointed the commander of the Army of the Potomac, a move President Lincoln hoped would instill professionalism and competence to that Army. McClellan was outranked only by Winfield Scott, the 75 year old relic who was increasingly under fire from a public that demanded a quick and thorough victory.
Digging Deeper
Scott advocated a plan of siege and blockade called “The Anaconda Plan” by which the Confederate States would be squeezed and starved into submission. As the Union Army and Navy at that time did not have the means to make this happen, it would obviously take time to develop those forces. Politicians and the public did not understand, and Scott became perturbed by the pressure for fast results.
Lincoln replaced Scott with the well educated and connected McClellan in November of 1861, but his tenure was marked by disaster, indecision, and defeat. McClellan’s pathetic time in charge ended in March of 1862, and led to the Democrat soldier to face off with Lincoln in the 1864 presidential election. McClellan is generally described as a poor general, and was somewhat insubordinate as well, causing Lincoln to can him and elevate General Henry Halleck to overall command of the Army in July of 1862.
Halleck fared a bit better than McClellan, and lasted almost 2 years as top general. Major battles such as Gettysburg were won by the Union Army during his tenure, but too many lost opportunities and a war weary nation demanded more decisive leadership.
Lincoln finally found his decisive leader in General Ulysses S. Grant (born Hiram Ulysses Grant) who was appointed as Army commander in March of 1864. Grant stayed at the helm throughout the rest of the war, as his Union Army marched inevitably toward victory. Unlike his predecessors, Grant remained popular and was elected President in 1868 and 1872, having been appointed “General of the Army” in 1866 by President Johnson. As such, Grant was the only officer of that rank in the US Army and wore 4 stars indicating his rank. William T. Sherman succeeded Grant as “General of the Army” and Philip Sheridan was the third and last man to have that particular rank. The rank was later revived in a different form during World War II and was given 5 stars, the equivalent of a European Field Marshall.
Generals have always faced an impatient and sometimes unrealistic public and politicians and have always been one step away from being replaced or even executed for not delivering success quickly enough. Lincoln was positively patient compared to Josef Stalin before and during World War II, for example.
Question for students (and subscribers): Which generals in history that were not fired do you think should have been replaced? Please let us know in the comments section below this article.
If you liked this article and would like to receive notification of new articles, please feel welcome to subscribe to History and Headlines by liking us on Facebook and becoming one of our patrons!
Your readership is much appreciated!
Historical Evidence
For more information, please see…
Marszalek, John F. Commander of All Lincoln’s Armies : A Life of General Henry W. Halleck. Belknap Press, 2004.
Sears, Stephen W. George B. Mcclellan: The Young Napoleon. Da Capo Press, 1999.
The featured image in this article, a patriotic cover honoring the arrival of Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan in Washington, D.C., on July 26, 1861, is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and 1.0 Generic license. Attribution: Centpacrr at English Wikipedia.
You can also watch a video version of this article on YouTube:
<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="12931 https://www.historyandheadlines.com/?p=12931">52 Comments
When I think of Josef Stalin I do not envision a very patient man, anyone who expects great success knows that it is not a instant reward.
Major General John H. Tilelli, Jr Cdr, 1st Cav Div DESERT STORM (See the example be the example)
PFC Lawrence Weidleman, 115th Forward Support Battalion, 3/32 Forward Support Team
Amazing history.
Takes time to build up anything. No one can expect it to happen in a day. Got to give the guy a chance and believe in him.
When want results you have to wait you can not expect to instant results just because you hired a new person to lead. Lincoln was under a lot of stress but that does not excuse his actions.
It takes time to build up something and when your facing scrutiny from the public and have the fear of being replaced in the back of your mind constantly it would only make it harder.
The importance of leadership should not be underestimated. Often the best soldiers, or today workers, don’t make the best leaders.
There is not much room for error once you are in charge of so many people at such a critical time. It isn’t surprising that they were quick to replace them.
especially today, we expect instant changes in the world when a new leader steps forward. this is a little more complicated than we may think.
We dont think about what goes into day to day events of leadership
Sometimes you don’t get instant results. Staying with something is the only way to see a payoff
Well politicians who dont understand battles and wars shouldnt have influence over them
If you don’t understand what you’re doing you shouldn’t be in charge.
This was an important time to have strong generals; therefore, I certainly understand why they were cycled through so easily. However, I also recognize that it takes time to show results, yet I am not sure how much time they had to waste…
Managing the army must be a hard task that not everyone can qualify for. I think it took time to find the right general for the army and that is why so many served before they found the best one. Yes, it took time and patience, but Grant was the best general Lincoln could have found for his Army.
McClellan is name I have heard many times but never understood fully what his role was in the Civil War. I think that in general that the Civil War came as a surprise to the entire country that this wouldn’t be an easy victory for either side. At the first battle of Manassas, there were even civilians that came in carriages and brought picnic baskets to watch their side win decisively. Here is an article about it:http://www.civilwar.org/hallowed-ground-magazine/spring-2011/spectators-witness-history-at.html. So, I think what this shows is that people weren’t prepared for a long war and neither were built up enough for that. I think that it took Lincoln a few tries to find a leader that understood what needed to be done to end the war.
As previous posts have said, it makes sense they would have to go through many generals to find the best one. I think it is important that Ulysses was popular to the people he was commanding. I do not think many people would listen to somebody they did not think was decisive enough.
It seems like the Union army went through generals as fast as the Cleveland Browns goes through football coaches! It must be incredibly difficult as a general to make the public understand your actions when in reality they may never understand the tactics involved in war.
People are impatient and always demand immediate results from those in leadership position. When drafting the Anaconda Plan, Scott had to have realized that the operation would take time. Had the people not grown impatient, it could have worked well. All in all, these decisions to change leadership worked out in the end because of how successful Grant was as both a war leader and later president.
The comment that Morgan said is priceless about the Cleveland Browns and how the Union Army went through generals. The changes in leadership worked out because Grant was a great leader and also president for the United States. Leaders will also be criticized for their actions when making a major decision.
Lincoln finally found his man in Grant. The pressure to achieve quick results was too much for the other generals to handle. Grant was able to deliver quick results, and eventually led the Union to victory in the Civil War.
I’d be interested in comparing Grants success as President and his success as army commander.
They just went through people without time to adjust to a strategy of sort and honestly the link to the Cleveland Browns changing personnel so quickly from Morgan hits it on the spot. Good thing I am a Steelers fan.
Grant led the Union to a victory the two generals before him just could not achieve. The pressure for quick results and quick wins is not something everyone can handle. Scott only lasted a couple months and although McClellan lasted two years he could not get the victory the Union was looking for and missed opportunities to achieve it.
I did not know that the North had four different generals over the course of the Civil War. It was definitely important to have a savvy decision maker. Without Lincoln finding Grant the war may have gone in a different direction.
I never realized the U.S. once had a General of the Army. It was such a big opportunity that McClellan messed up. It took us three generals to win the war, which could be interpreted as a sign of the strength of the Confederate Army.
Lincoln had to go through many leaders before the army fared well. It was unfortunate that it took so many to find the right one but he finally did with Grant.
I think more during this time in our history we associate the President of the United States as Commander-in-Chief of the military. In today’s politics, we do not see generals from the army running for president, whereas in the past that was a huge factor in election. It makes sense that generals who were not capable were replaced so quickly because in war you have to be ready always.
I never knew that Lincoln had to go through so many generals during his time before finding one that fit the job. I applaud him for being to patient. It might have took Lincoln awhile to find the right general but once he did, Grant stayed around for a solid amount of time.
It is disappointing that McClellan was such a let down to Lincoln. I never knew Ulysses S. Grant was such an amazing general. This shows what a great person Grant was to later be elected as president.
This is amazing that in a few years (1861-1864) there were four different generals for the army and none of them died. Each of the were “fired” for doing a bad job and not being successful. At least the last one, U.S.S Grant, became a great president after his time as general.
Lincoln had to go through so many generals to find the right one which is good in the end but frustrating along the way. I feel like he did not give any enough of a chance to prove themselves or to make adjustments.
In a war as tense and scary as the civil war, it is incredible how patient Lincoln was dealing with his generals. I do not know if I would be that patient if losing my country was on the line. But he was and it paid off. In Grant they won the war and solidified the union.
McClellan was not the leader Lincoln believed he was. Only serving one year and then being replaced eventually by Grant.
It is amazing how many generals it took for Lincoln to find the right one. But once he found the right one it seemed to be worth it! It is pretty cool that Grant then became president. It must have been very stressful for Lincoln to make these decisions with the stakes that were on the line.
I can understand the impatience the public had. If you are in the middle of a war, especially if you have family fighting in it, you would prefer to have it over as soon as possible.
I find this stuff interesting, the stuff behind the line that no one ever talks about and the number of people it takes to finally find the right fit.
The fact that McClellan turned around and ran against Lincoln shows how unreliable he was. Thankfully Lincoln was able to defeat him and find better generals to replace him!
I do not think anyone in the public wants a war to continue to go on and on. I couldn’t imagine being a General and being harassed by the public with questions about ending the war.
I believe the public has many misconceptions about war and just want unrealistic time frames of wars to be won and fought in. They think just because you have a bigger army you should just be able to go in and crush them and walk right back out in like a day which just isn’t true.
Everyone seems to go into war thinking that it’ll be over within the week, oh how wrong these people are every single time.
i seen two comments under me that kind of goes with what i said in the last story, just because you have more man doesn’t necessarily mean anything, and people go to war for the wrong things sometimes, and i thought wars wore just maybe a few days but no they are decades.
You cant predict any war outcome. We didn’t think we would be in iraq for eight years and wars were we had more people then our enemy we didn’t always win. A war requires a lot from the army. Preparation, tactic, proper medical assistance, and weapons all are necessary too.
I think a lot of people don’t really understand exactly what war entails. They think that it’s just simple and can be started and finished in a short time.
During World War II it was given 5 stars and Halleck lasted 2 years as general.
It was a good thing that Lincoln won the 1964 election against McClellan. That just shows you that he was unreliable to lead the army.
I don’t know much about military history but it sounds like it was a good thing McClellan was forced to step down.
Ulysses S. Grant seems to be a good General and everyone liked him to make him president twice, I have been told that any person that wants to be president should have some form of military background to make a good president.
I never realized how unpredictable wars can be.
It’s really cool that Grant was such a high ranking military member, a 4-star general.
At least they found a better replacement to fix the problems with the army.
I’m glad Lincoln continued to hire and fire the generals. It stinks they weren’t doing their job, but Grant would not have been found, and the South surrendering to Grant would not have happened either.