Jump to content

Talk:George B. McClellan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Revisionism

We seem to be faced with a number of revisionists editing the articles of poorly regarded ACW generals. I am currently on vacation and cannot provide adequate responses for the recent edits for GBM, but will do so early next week. Hal Jespersen 02:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I've given you a little help in that department. The article as it is wreaks of a pro-McClellan bias, and I tried to make it a bit more balanced. Feel free to edit it as you wish, however. --ExtraordinaryMan 23:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have done some considerable rewriting to set this story straight, adding a number of footnotes. I think it behooves us in Wikipedia to present majority opinions of historians with greater weight than the minority opinions. By sprinkling generally accepted assertions with "allegedly" and by presenting minority arguments either alone or before the majority ones, you greatly dilute the value of the article and descend inot WP:NOR. For example, if there were a growing movement that said Germany won World War II, we might report that fact, but not early in the introduction of the article or say that the Allies "allegedly" won it. I have left a brief paragraph toward the end of the introduction and more material in the "controversial legacy" section that covers this pro-McClellan movement, balanced in a way that I believe is NPOV and appropriate. Now that there are a number of footnotes in the article, I would expect that any modifications would maintain this level of documentation and instances of "many believe" and so forth be replaced with real citations. Hal Jespersen 00:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Updating

I'm in the process of slowly updating this article and adding a lot of citations. Since I'll be doing it on an erratic schedule, I won't ask others to refrain from correcting or adding in the meantime. Hal Jespersen 23:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am now finished. A rather lengthy article, but this is a controversial figure and many of the details are quite interesting (to me, at least). If you decide to modify the article, please note the style in which citations are used liberally and avoid adding unsourced material. Thanks. Hal Jespersen 19:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

reads like OR

There is some unsubstantiated revisionism going on here, or an attempt to discuss his legacy, but it ends up seeming like a high school history essay. Someone with more familiarity in the subect should deal with this.Desertsky85451 22:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide some specific guidance on what you want to see changed. Otherwise, I intend to remove your warning tag after a few days. This section is here because there is a small community of McClellan proponents who believe that much of the negative impression that McClellan has amassed is due to a conspiracy by radical Republicans. This is a minority view, but in the spirit of NPOV, the pros and cons are discussed here. There is no original research here that I am aware of; citations are provided. Opinions from others are welcome. Hal Jespersen 23:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I see some sections which need work and I see citations missing, but unless Desertsky85451 wants to make specific comments instead of pejorative generalities, I'm not sure the user's criticism merits more than this cursory response. If user sees problems with articles, he or she is encouraged to edit boldly. BusterD 10:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
If you think there are citations missing, feel free to annotate the specifics with {{fact}}. This article has more citations than any other I've done. However, I am also looking for guidance on why this seems "essay-like" and why that is a bad thing. Hal Jespersen 14:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
In the section I tagged, sentences like this: "Others think that McClellan....", this: "generally ended up with negative opinions of the man." Or this: "In a similar vein, some feel...." just seem very un-encyclopedic. Perhaps I tagged it overzealously, but I feel like this does need some rewriting. I honestly no sword to grind with either McClellan or Meade or whoever, but these sentences are very vague and generalizing. The rest of the article looks great, honestly. Desertsky85451 16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I have updated it. See if that satisfies; further editing by you is appropriate as well. I am gratified to report that the most offending paragraph was one that I did not write. :-) Hal Jespersen 16:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

GAC

  1. Well-written: Pass
  2. Factually accurate: Pass
  3. Broad: Pass
  4. Neutrally written: Pass
  5. Stable: Pass
  6. Well-referenced: Pass
  7. Images: Pass

I previously reviewed this article and saw that it met the criteria, but I apparently neglected to post why.--Bookworm857158367 15:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit more in depth explanation is what was being looked for?A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 15:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

1864 Presidential election

The article introduction seems to give a misleading impression of his platform for the 1864 election. It says "He ran on an anti-war platform, promising to end the war and negotiate with the Confederacy". However when you read the politics section it says "He supported continuation of the war and restoration of the Union, but the party platform, written by Copperhead Clement Vallandigham of Ohio, was opposed to this position. The platform called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and a negotiated settlement with the Confederacy. McClellan was forced to repudiate his party's platform, which made his campaign inconsistent and difficult."

So while the platform he ran on was anti-war his personal position was not anti-war in the election. The introduction should surely be changed to make this more clear otherwise that sentence is very misleading. Davewild 19:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for catching it. Hal Jespersen 20:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

name

I have restored the article name to George B. McClellan. The standard we use on Wikipedia is to name the article with the form of a person's name that is most well known. For example, Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant. Simply because a man has a son that he names Junior does not mean that the man is known popularly (or even by his family) by the suffix "Senior." Furthermore, there are almost a thousand links to the old article name and there is little justification for changing those into re-directions. I did add a disambiguation link to avoid confusion with the less famous son. Hal Jespersen 00:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

NGA

I wanted to comment on the edit that added a link to the National Governors Association biography. I thought this was interesting from two standpoints: (1) That official biography of McClellan has a link to this Wikipedia article! (2) Their bio does not mention anything about leading the Army of the Potomac, being general in chief, the Peninsula Campaign, or Antietam. Amazing. Hal Jespersen 18:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Battle Added

A couple of edits on 13 Dec. 2007 by 24.29.168.119 added the battle of Antietam under the list of Battles/Wars section beneath his Brady photo. Since the battle was part of the Maryland Campaign(and was placed under the campaign heading) I feel it should be removed as redundant. If none object I'll kill it in a few days. Kresock (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the list indentation before I saw your comment. Although you are correct, I think his most important battle probably deserves mention. Hal Jespersen (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment on McClellan

For all his faults, and he had quite a few, it must be pointed out that McClellan fought Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia when they were in their best condition. The ANV could take the offensive at will and while they were on the defensive were almost unbeatable. While it is true that Lee was outnumbered 2-1 at Antietam, that was due to the fact that a large percentage of Lee's army refused to leave Virginia because they were fighting a war of independence, not invasion. McClellan probably should have destroyed Lee's army in Maryland on that day. However, during the Peninsula Campaign, McClellan fielded 105,000 men for actual combat and faced 90,000. Also, these 90,000 men were of very good fighting ability. Burnside and Hooker, who faced a smaller and slightly less quality ANV, fared no better against Lee. As a matter of fact, they fared quite a bit worse, but they retained command at the corps level after they nearly wrecked the North's premeir army. McClellan was given no such command, despite leaving the Army of the Potomac intact and in good fighting spirits. Meade defeated Lee in one battle, which happened to be the largest battle of the war and what many consider the turning point in the Confederacy's fortunes. By the time Grant was put in charge and faced Lee head to head, Lee's army was in no condition to take the offensive, which doomed him to defeat. McClellan was by no means the greatest general of the war. However, I would rate him far above the lowest tier of generals for several reasons. First, he was the only general that defeated Lee twice in major battles. Second, he was a superb organizer and trainer, and he boosted morale. His men loved him because they knew they would be treated well under him. Third, he conducted a civilized war against the Confederate Army, not against women, children and the elderly. He did not burn, rape, loot and pillage like the generals that came after him did. He respected private property, including slaves. As far as why he is the only Union Army general I have any respect for, he despised the radical abolitionists who would almost succeed in destroying the White South after the war. This is why he was not allowed to remain in the field after he was relieved of command of the Army of the Potomac. He also would have made a much better president than the tyrant Lincoln. If not for the army being allowed to vote in the 1864 election, McClellan would certainly have won. I suspect that the soldiers that were known to support Lincoln were given furloughs in much larger proportion than those known to support McClellan. This could have easily have been done because the Lincoln administration controlled the army. As it stood, McClellan only lost by just over 400,000 votes, which tells me that the civilians of the North were tired of war. At any rate, speaking as an Unreconstructed Southerner, I feel that McClellan is an underrated general and historical figure. I have visited his gravesite in Trenton, New Jersey. His headstone stands out and the gravesite looks to be well maintained.

Walter Ring

Thanks for your opinion. You probably would enjoy the recent work:
  • Rafuse, Ethan S., McClellan's War: The Failure of Moderation in the Struggle for the Union, Indiana University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-253-34532-4.
I think everyone agrees that McClellan was a great organizer and administrator. I have been trying to think of the two battles you consider to be victories against Lee. I assume one is Battle of Malvern Hill and the other is Battle of Antietam. In the former case, McClellan had no direct role in the battle, having left the battlefield without a subordinate commander formally named. In the latter, the battle is seen as a Union victory only because of its later ramifications and the Emancipation Proclamation, not because it was a tactical defeat of Lee. McClellan's legacy as a general is strongly influenced by his failures: his total lack of nerve in the Seven Days Battles, his petulant failure to cooperate with Pope in the Northern Virginia Campaign, his squandering of the strategic and tactical advantages at Antietam, and his failure to pursue and destroy Lee's Army during its retreat. Although some of the other Union generals had some spectacular failures—Burnside and Hooker come to mind immediately, Rosecrans and Buell as well—only McClellan was left in command long enough to amass a long string of failures before being relieved. That's why he is usually classified in the lower tier of Union Civil War generals. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Battle of Beaver Dam Creek can also be considered a Union victory, which would make three victories for McClellan over Lee. As far as McClellan not being present on the battlefield at Malvern Hill-in my opinion, victories and defeats are credited to the overall commander of an army whether he is present on the battlefield or not. Wikipedia seems to agree, since they list McClellan as a principal Union commander of the battle. As I stated in my first comment, McClellan did indeed have weaknesses as an army general. However, if he had been allowed to implement his strategy without constant interference from the abolitionist administration, McClellan may have shortened the war considerably. I absolutely cannot accept McClellan being ranked below Burnside or Hooker.

Walter Ring

Sorry, I forgot BDC, although the tactical victory there was squandered when McC lost his nerve and abandoned his campaign against Richmond. Yes, he was technically in command at Malvern Hill, but in the domain of historical legacies and biography, his actual participation was a personal embarrassment. One can argue rankings of generals forever, but I'll point out that Hooker had a good, aggressive record through most of the war except for May-June 1863 and Burnside had two very successful campaigns (North Carolina and Knoxville), whereas McClellan had the minor 1861 West Virginia campaign as his only undisputed success, and once again he had little personal involvement in the victory. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Hooker had an excellent record as a CORPS commander, and Burnside had some success as well commanding corp sized units. Commanding an army, especially as large as the Army of the Potomac, however, is a whole different story. You are obviously very knowledgeable on this subject, so I will just say that IMO McClellan belongs in the middle tier of Army commanders and should rate higher as a historical figure as well.

Walter Ring

I think the size of the unit is less important than whether independent command is involved. In that case, you are correct about Hooker, but both of Burnside's successes were in independent command. In the Knoxville campaign, he commanded the Department and Army of the Ohio (2 corps) and did very well in a campaign against arguably the second best Confederate general in the Eastern Theater. As to McClellan's ranking, check out North and South magazine, May 2004, in which a panel of historians collectively ranked McClellan as the sixth worst general of the war, after Floyd, Bragg, Pillow, Banks, and Polk. It was not a scientific survey, of course, but rather indicative of current thinking. (Personally, I would have ranked Benjamin Butler as worse than McClellan.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Burnside commanded two corps in the west where the Confederacy was weak. He commanded one corps in the east with less success (remember Burnside's Bridge?) Even when he had an independent command in Virginia, he did not have the success that he had in the west and on the NC coast. This is because of who he was fighting against in Virginia, Lee. You have to judge success not only on your wins and losses, but against who those wins and losses came against. Also, the size of your command is as important as if the command is independent or not. Is not an army command considered independent? Burnside proved he could not command an army of well over 100,000 as he could a corps or an army the size of two corps.

Walter Ring

A Coward

Os or possible or probable McClellan was a coward? His inability to take advantages and fully commit to the battle and his constant worries of a stronger enemy perhaps were only excuses, the fact he was a coward would explain many things?!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.168.10 (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This topic is addressed in the article. See the second paragraph of Legacy. Hal Jespersen (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
His most trusted intelligence came from a spy ring that was largely inefficient. He was often informed that there were many times the actual number of enemy soldiers in areas he planned to attack. His actions during the Mexican war can also show that he was not a coward... He was far more cautious with his army than himself. 12.157.120.87 (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
He was twice breveted for conspicuous courage in Mexico, one of those for leading what we'd call a "forlorn hope". Whatever else people want to make him out to be he wasn't a coward. Nor indeed did he ever not commit fully to battle. The most obvious charge is not using Porter's Fifth Army Corps at Antietam, but take a look at the unit positions, and try and work out how he could move the only force covering his centre either N (to reinforce 6th Corps in extracting the shattered 1st, 2nd and 12th Corps from contact) or S to assist Burnside. Finally 5th Corps, being undamaged, was the only force capable of pursuit, and McClellan indeed did order Porter to mount an aggressive pursuit of Lee leading to the Battle of Shephardstown, where AP Hill (Lee's rearguard) turned to make a stand against Porter. 67th Tigers (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Calling GBM a coward is an insult to (typical) cowards. You said,
Nor indeed did he ever not commit fully to battle. [Bold added]
Are you kidding me!? The Seven Days Battles are hardly what I call a full committment to battle, unless you mean he was fully committed to retreating. (he wasn't even on the field at Malvern Hill!). More importantly, GBM should have completely crushed Lee's army at the Battle of Antietam, and every unbiased historian recognizes that.
Of course, he was not a coward in the conventional meaning of the word, in that he feared for his personal safety (although the position his HQ at the Battle of Malvern Hill & Antietam may, at that at this stage of his life, indicate otherwise). However, in the sense that his super ego desparately wanted to be the "savior" of the Union (as he claimed in his personal letters after Malvern Hill) to the point of suffering command paralysis, he certainly CAN be considered a type of coward. Indeed, the worst kind of coward, since it was based on his own self-image and/or delusions of grandeur and he was willing to risk the lives of others in his quest for messiahship.
In other words, a typical coward would have simply quit the army and gone home but GBM, with his very pronounced messiah complex didn't want to risk anything that would have any chance of making him look bad, even if it cost the lives of tens of thousands in the long run.
There is a lot of truth in the first sentence of the "Legacy" section in this wiki article:
The New York Evening Post commented in McClellan's obituary, "Probably no soldier who did so little fighting has ever had his qualities as a commander so minutely, and we may add, so fiercely discussed." [Bold added]
If anyone thinks I'm being too harsh, then consider this: his abject failure at Antietam prolonged the war for another 2+ years and, ultimately, caused much more pain, suffering, and death than would otherwise have been necessary. Perhaps that is why so many people, like myself, absolutely despise this man, his excellent "execute officer" abilities not withstanding. And that's my never-to-be-humble opinion.  :)
By the way, the well-known atheist Christopher Hitchens said (on TV, a couple of years ago) that there is a equestrian (sp?) statue of GBM somewhere (in Washington D.C.?) and he is facing north, with his back to the South (i.e., the "enemy"). Can anyone confirm that such a statue exists? If true, it would be ironic that even in death, he shows his cowardice.
Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Throwing insults at a dead man is hardly debate. Recent examinations of McClellan by Ethan Rafuse, Savvas Beattie, Joseph Harsh &c. confirm Robert E. Lee's comments that McClellan was the best Union commander he ever faced. They also comprehensively destroy much of the hyperbole (indeed, Harsh disproved much of what you've just said in 1973, which doesn't stop sloppy authors from repeating it).

McClellan consistently won against Lee, put his crime seems to have been not winning well enough. He fought Antietam at parity in troop numbers and won, he fought the Seven Days massively outnumbered and won, he had split Lee's army in two and was in the process of completing the envelopment and destruction of one wing when he was relieved of command.

I'm glad you have your opinions and beliefs on McClellan, but believe you should not conflate them with facts. 67th Tigers (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Although you may find this hard to believe, I'm not "throwing insults" based on personal prejudices. After all, he died long before I was even born. I'm simply evaluating his performance and arriving at conclusions based on his record.
If McClellan was the best Union commander Lee faced, then how do you explain his massive failure at Antietam? You said, "...his crime seems to have been not winning well enough." I mean, I can get into the ring with a professional boxer and if I'm not knocked out by the middle of the first round, then I would consider that a "victory" for me and a failure for him. You said, "He fought Antietam at parity in troop numbers and won...." No, that is simply not true. GBM had a nearly 2-1 advantage in troops available. Just because he didn't use all of those extra troops does not mean the battle was evenly matched. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


Edits of February 12

I broke the Maryland campaign section into the Battle of Antietam and a new much shorter section for the Battle of South Mountain. I added the quote from Sears regarding McC at South Mountain. I also added two images from Wiki commons and moved down one image to the new Battle of Antietam section.Mtsmallwood (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

External Link: McClellan Society

This link looks like it goes to a Russion site. Since I can't read Russian, I can't tell if it has anything to do with McClellan. It looks like a travel agency to me. Can someone confirm my conclusion? Thanks.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Nuked it. (It used to work!) Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I checked it at archive.org. We can live without it. BusterD (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Isn't there a Web prescence for those who support GBM? I mean, the one at archive.org is very incomplete. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Simply searching on "George B. McClellan" in Google should come up with something. If not, it means there are not sufficient people with web skills who "support" him. You can always find livelier discussions on topics of this type at http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/forums/ . Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Epic" failure?

In regards to a recent edit and reversion:

The definition of "epic", according to Webster is: "extending beyond the usual or ordinary especially in size or scope". If the Penisula Campaign wasn't an "epic" failure on the part of McClellan, then I don't know what is. Nevertheless, perhaps "epic" is not the proper word. It may be better to call it a miserable or abject or, even better, an unmitigated failure.

So, to call the Penisula Campaign simply a failure is to be very kind to McClellan and, therefore, is a POV. GBM blew it big time, and I don't think any rational person would disagree. However, we need to give a reference for such an assessment (hey! I'm starting to think like Hal. I'm feeling old.  :) ). I would be more than happy to be THAT reference, but I'm a nobody.  :)

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It is best to avoid adjectives (outside of quotes from reliable sources) and let the context lead the reader to understand the scope of the failure. Actually, McClellan partisans see it differently, blaming Lincoln for prematurely withdrawing Little Mac from Harrison's Landing (and for denying him McDowell's corps earlier in the campaign). (Please don't argue with me about the validity of that point of view in this venue. I don't subscribe to it personally, but I'm quite aware of its prevalence in certain quarters.) In the interest of WP:NPOV, failure is a term we can all agree to accept. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Peninsula Campaign was actually successful as far as it was allowed to proceed by Washington. McClellan defeated Lee's attempt to destroy his army using his overwhelming numerical advantage and placed himself in a position on the James where Richmond was undefendable. Unfortunately the Washington administration didn't understand that they were actually on the brink of winning the war, and contrived to play it safe. 67th Tigers (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that GBM was at a numerical disadvantage? And GBM was on the brink of winning the war and the administration prevented him from doing so!? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Biased Sources?

Checking the references section I see nearly all the references are to Sears. Now this is problematic since Sears' book is highly partisan towards the anti-McClellan PoV. While this particular opinion is valid (see Joseph Harsh, "On the McClellan-go-round", Civil War History 19(2) (June 1973), 101-118 for an examination is it's origins and inaccuracies), it actually flies in the face of the majority of those who've written major works on him in the recent decades (Beattie, Hagerman, Harsh, Rafuse, Reed and Rowland).

Thus the article only promotes the "shortsightedness of earlier scholars" (Rowland, Leaders of Civil War (Ed. Ritter and Wakelyn), Greenwood (1998), 270) by using a single source almost exclusively. Thus it is in need of a major rewrite to make it NPOV. 67th Tigers (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that Sears is used a lot too. However, what does Sears say that makes him "highly partisan?" That as a battlefield commander, GBM was "in the wrong profession?" I wouldn't call that partisan, since it is obviously true. Thus, I would have to disagree that this article needs a major rewrite. In my never-to-be-humble opinion, this article, as well as most historians that I'm familiar with, are, if anything, too kind to GBM. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
As with many Wikipedia articles, a lot of the citations are merely verifying facts such as dates, casualties, etc. and using a preponderance from a single author reflects more upon the laziness of the editor (me, in this case) than any attempt to display bias. There is certainly room for well edited insertions of additional opinions with appropriate citations from reliable sources and anyone is invited to do so. However, make sure you are on the side of the looking glass, Alice, where McClellan did not win the Seven Days Battles or Antietam against overwhelming superior forces. By the way, as an interim step I would like to see a more precise list of the "major works" about McClellan by Hagerman, Reed, and Roland. Ethan Rafuse is obviously a well known recent author on McClellan, and Beatie has been doing exhaustive work on the very early part of the war, which will not yet tell us much about anything after the early Peninsula. I am familiar with Harsh's work, which focuses much more strongly on Lee than McClellan. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't blame GBM (too much) for the Seven Days Battles since according to the Wiki article on it, the Union did not have overwhelming superior forces (104k to 92k). The Battle of Antietam is, on the other hand, another story.
Also, who are the modern authors who are the most "kind" to GBM? I would really like to read how they excuse...ahem...I mean...what they had to say about GBM's actions (or lack thereof) at the Battle of Antietam. It would also be good to quote them in this article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The works I'd like to use are:

  • Burton, The Peninsula and Seven Days, Nebraska 2007
  • Hagerman, The American Civil War and the Origins of Modern Warfare, Indiana 1992
  • Harsh, Confederate Tide Rising, Kent State 1998
  • Harsh, Taken at the Flood, Kent State 1999
  • Rafuse, Antietam, South Mountain and Harper's Ferry, Nebraska 2008
  • Rafuse, McClellan's War, Indiana 2005
  • Rafuse, Robert E, Lee and the Fall of the Confederacy 1863-5, (UK Print Edition, Plymouth 2008)
  • Reid, America's Civil War: The Operational Battlefield 1861-3, New York 2008

The most kind, at least militarily, are Harsh and Rafuse. Harsh spent a lot of time examining that Robert E. Lee was thinking in the 1862 campaigns and showed just what a dangerous opponent McClellan was. Rafuse has extended this to cover the rest of the war. Rafuse also did a pull back with his McClellan's War and examined just how badly McClellan's strategy (which was ultimately shown to be the correct one when Grant implemented it in 1864) was undermined by Washington. Hagerman is primarily about logistics, but points out that when McClellan was relieved he was in the middle of the most daring movement attempted in the entire war. Burton and the first Rafuse books are "battlefield guides", but are accepted as exceptional analyses of the battles, whilst Reid is a good recent analysis of the entire first two years of the war.

Also, McClellan didn't have a major numerical advantage in effectives at Antietam. Lee was on the field at the start of the 17th with ca. 30,000 effective infantry to McClellan's 36,000 PFD infantry (at most 28,000 actual effectives). McClellan thus attacks at a slight disadvantage in numbers. Another three divisions join him during the day amounting to about 14,000 PFD (many fewer effectives since they had considerable straggling on their way in, maybe another 8,000 effectives), and AP Hill brings an extra 2,000 effectives onto the field. Thus as far as the infantry numbers are concerned Antietam is fought roughly at parity. 67th Tigers (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion, considering that you are likely a new editor on Wikipedia, is that you attempt an isolated edit in the article to inject alternative views. Applying alternatives to cited, arguably mainstream views is a tricky editing job. A couple of points you need to consider. McClellan's strategy -- attacking Richmond either from Urbana or later Fort Monroe -- was not the strategy that Grant used to win the war. In fact, Lincoln was the one who urged McClellan in the winter of 1861-63 to drive overland through Manassas, Fredericksburg, and then to Richmond. (And Grant's strategy was a lot more complex than that simple explanation.) Also, we need to leave the analysis of comparative troop strength to the secondary sources. I would suggest that most historians consider troops available on the battlefield within a few hours of the start of the battle to be effectively available and countable as total strength. After all, a general makes decisions about what to do based on how many of the enemy he expects to arrive pretty soon as well as those immediately to his front. McClellan was not relieved during any dangerous maneuver so I don't know what your source is talking about or how you are interpreting it. (He was relieved of his post as general in chief in March before the Peninsula Campaign and then as commander of the Army of the Potomac in November, after the Battle of Antietam.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Since all of the ACW articles on Wiki are very well done (which is not the norm for many articles on other subjects), I've limited myself to arguing for different points of view on the various talk pages and minor edits on the main article. Having said that, I would love to read (at least on the talk page) the point of view of GBM supporters. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Some historian named "Harsh" is the most kind? That's funny (i.e., Harsh is kind). On a more serious note, I do know that because GBM refused to commit troops he had available to him, the number of troops engaged was roughly the same. But that's a far cry from the battle as a whole. Is that what you meant? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Which uncommitted troops are they? He had Morell's Division arriving around 11am (after he'd committed every single available division to battle), and Franklin's two divisions coming in which he committed to strike the centre, but then called off the attack (which Sumner had already suspended) after it was plainly obvious that the entire right was shattered, and vulnerable to a counterstroke (made more ominous by Stuart redeploying his cavalry around the Federal right). A counterstroke by AP Hill shattered his left forcing him to send in his last reserves. When he called off the attacks his army was disintegrating and a determined counterattack could have shattered the army. Indeed, there was such a counterattack underway, but it was stillborn when Stuart decided he could get round the Federal right (which would have triggered a general counterattack by Longstreet and Jackson). By shoring up the existing positions with what few reserves he had McClellan probably saved his army. To be sure, had McClellan known there was nothing left up Lee's sleeve (as we know with hindsight) then his position would be indefensible. However, with what he actually knew he had the right call. 67th Tigers (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you serious? Have you even read the article? "General McClellan had committed barely 50,000 infantry and artillerymen to the contest. A third of his army did not fire a shot." Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm completely serious.
  • 1st Corps (Hooker): totally wrecked
  • 2nd Corps (Sumner): totally wrecked
  • 5th Corps (Porter): Sykes wrecked, 2 brigades from Morell under fire screening Sumner, 1 brigade from Morell defending the artillery line
  • 6th Corps (Franklin): under fire in the East Woods. Hancock's brigade was supporting the artillery (and engaged in a prolong firefight with CS skirmishers), Brook's brigade was engaged in a long range firefight, Irwin's brigade wrecked by a poorly executed bayonet charge; Slocum's 3 brigades were formed in a Column d'Attaque but the attack was called off.
  • 9th Corps (Cox): totally wrecked
  • 12th Corps (Mansfield): totally wrecked
McClellan only had Slocum's division unengaged by the end of the battle, and only because Sumner had called off the attack McClellan had ordered (which McClellan then agreed with after arriving to check why this attack hadn't been executed). He only had 3 brigades left in line, 2 defending his artillery concentrations and 3 in an attack column (2,500 men) as a reserve by the end of the battle. Most of the rest of his army was wrecked and reforming slowly. 67th Tigers (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Then what does Sears mean by his words quoted above? Also, if you have a good source for the state of the army you listed above, then you should list them in the Battle of Antietam article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
One more thing. Your description of "totally wrecked" is not factual and I challenge you to prove otherwise. The total Union casualties for the entire Battle of Antietam was around 12k. That's about the size of a single Union corps. Disorganized? Yes. But "totally wrecked"? Definitely not (except, perhaps, in the mind of GBM). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill the Cat 7 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This link goes to some Russian travel agency (the same one I mentioned in the "External Link: McClellan Society). This footnote is added at the end a long pargraph regarding some strong claims. That is:

And fourth, that Lincoln and Stanton deliberately undermined McClellan because of his conciliatory stance towards the South, which would have resulted in a less destructive end to the war had Richmond fallen as a result of the Peninsula Campaign.

Are these GBM adherents saying the Lincoln wanted a destructive end to the war!? That's bizarre, and unless a valid reference can be given, I suggest that the whole paragraph be removed.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I added the citation needed and dead link templates to the paragraph mentioned above. Please let me know if this was not done correctly (in terms of "best practices"). Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The author listed in this footnote, "Dimitri Rotov", does not seem to be a historian. He claims to be a "critic"...I found this on Amazon.com (which I got to by going through the archived external link "McClellan Society": http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3A5QV8SYXWCLB/ref=cm_cr_pr_pdp

Sounds like someone is playing games here. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WARNING: unless we can get some current documentation regarding this paragraph, I'm going to delete it by Friday, August 21, 2009. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The standard I use for allowing citation corrections is 10+ days, so I suggest you use the same courtesy. I am doing some off-line research into the status of the McClellan Society webpage, but it will likely not be completed by tomorrow. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, will do. Paragraph will be deleted 9/29/09. Hopefully, and I mean that sincerely, you can find something. I'm really curious what the justification is for the text I quoted at the beginning of this section. Thanks Hal. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Hal, you removed a quote I gave and then provided no justification for doing so. You provided the following citation, which does not address the claims of the paragraph in question:

Rowland, pp. 268-70, provides a concise historiography of McClellan's legacy, stating that "McClellan has had few supporters in the literature over the last half-century." Rafuse, pp. 384-96, presents an analysis of McClellan that is more sympathetic than the majority of current works, focusing not only on his military strategy, but how his Whig political heritage affected the way he proposed to wage war in a manner that would promote reconciliation with the South. See also the archived Rotov, Dimitri (1998). "McClellan FACs, FAQs, and Facts". McClellan Society. http://web.archive.org/web/20080127135137/http://www.georgebmcclellan.org/faq-toc.html. Retrieved 2007-03-25.

The footnote you gave says absolutely nothing about the four claims; it speaks only in generalities. The link to the "McClellan Sociey" is an archived web page whose author is not a historian, but merely a "critic" by his own admission. Either provide a reference for the four claims made by the so-called "McClellan supporters" or I'm going to remove the entire paragraph by 9/29/09, as well as re-add the Sifakis quote (which I'm going to do in any case, unless you have a valid reason for not including the Sifakis quote). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not typically place a lot of credence in requests for citations about individual sentences within a footnoted paragraph, but since you are a productive member of the Wikipedia community, I will take a shot at it. Do not remove the paragraph because you think the citations can be improved -- the citation there now does cover the entire paragraph, so this is material that does not qualify for complete deletion under Wikipedia verifiability rules. The genesis of this paragraph was a contentious set of editing and counter editing in May 2006, which you could look up in the article history. At the time, I distilled the arguments being made by the other editor into a single paragraph and used the McClellan Society link as an example of a website that put forward similar arguments. I have heard all of these arguments expressed in various places prior to this, so did not think that exhaustive footnoting was required, because it is there primarily to show that minority opinions are extant.
I removed the quotation for two reasons that were difficult to explain in the short editing summary: (1) There is usually no reason to have multiple quotations in the same paragraph unless they provide unique insights. There were already two in the paragraph: Nevins talking about the historiographical use of the memoirs and Goodwin making character judgments about the contents. And saying that <minor historian> "echoes" the view of <major historian> in the previous sentence is not very useful. (2) The paragraph in question is specifically about McClellan's memoirs and the second quotation is ambiguous about whether the author was talking about that or not. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey Hal, I have no problem with a summation of the pro-McClellan partisans. My problem is that the "four levels" in which GBM was "poorly served" are not referenced. The first two "levels" are plausible, and perhaps there are historians out there who can make a good case for them. But I think that these first two contentions MUST be referenced in order to allow readers to investigate the claims for themselves.
The third claim (i.e., Lincoln is repsonsible for military failures) is tenuous at best. Lincoln was extremely accomadating to all of his generals, as the vast majority of historians have noted. However, if Abe was accomodating to all his generals, except for GBM, then such a claim must be validated by reliable sources. I mean, Abe literally humbled himself before GBM, begging him for positive results on multiple occasions--as McPherson quotes in Battle Cry of Freedom (p. 365), "...the president reportedly said: "I will hold McClellan's horse if he will only bring us success." Therefore, the claim that Abe undermined GBM requires some level of evidence and referencing.
The fourth claim (i.e., that Lincoln and Stanton deliberately undermined McClellan because of his conciliatory stance towards the South; and that Abe wanted a more destructive end to the war) is simply a wild accusation. This claim, most of all, demands a reference and justification. I have never read any reliable source that makes that claim, nor have I even heard anyone imply that. Abe's actions, statements, etc., before the start of the war, during the war, and immediately after Lee's surrender contradicts any such claims. Abe was committed to northern/southern reconcilation and was willing to free the slaves or keep them in chains as long as it preserved the union (in the short run that is, since Lincoln was ultimately oppossed to slavery on principles--see his "Divided Nation" speech).
Regarding other comments:
"...the citation there now does cover the entire paragraph."
Ok, fine. I'll rearrange the paragraph to be more explicit at a later time. I was just concerned that it referenced the preceding paragraph.
"At the time, I distilled the arguments being made by the other editor into a single paragraph and used the McClellan Society link as an example of a website that put forward similar arguments."
Again, no problem, but this so-called McClellan Society no longer has a Web prescence (it is archived), and the reliability of their (his?) statements are in question.
"I have heard all of these arguments expressed in various places prior to this, so did not think that exhaustive footnoting was required, because it is there primarily to show that minority opinions are extant."
Once again, I have NO problem with the arguments per se, since even the slightest contrary opionion is notable in my opinion, but two of them (#3 and #4) are so serious that a reference, in my opinion, is demanded.
Finally, if you want to investigate the four claims made by GBM partisans and provide references, then I don't have a problem with delaying the deletion of the claims until 12/31/09. However, I've spent the last couple of weeks, off and on, investigating such claims on the Web and I've found absolutely nothing. And, from what I understand, even though Rafuse is "kind" to GBM, he takes a completely different angle from the GBM partisans. At any rate, that's my $1.50.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I will work on the citations. I should be clear that I have little sympathy for any of these minority arguments, but as I have said, I have heard them espoused in various venues, so I knew they had to be included for WP:NPOV purposes when they were injected by another editor in 2006. (Unfortunately, in that timeframe Wikipedia editors were not nearly as concerned about citations as they are today, or I probably would have just tossed out these uncited opinions at the time.) By the way, although you cannot find much about Dmitri Rotov personally, his blog about books and historiography is very well known in the Civil War community and is frequently mentioned by well-known historians. I sent him an e-mail trying to find out the status of the McClellan Society, but I am still waiting for a response. I may end up deleting this. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I provided an initial set of citations. I may find some more as I keep digging. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
All I have to say is keep digging. In the mean time, I'll look up the references you provided. Thanks Hal. You are the best!!! Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
In case you want to pop for a subscription, both of those added refs are online at www.questia.com. (My library is not as limitless as it might seem. :-)) Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Well done, Hal. And thanks for the link. I doubt my opinion is going to change, but I DO like to know the arguments from the "other side". By the way, I separated reference 92 into two different references (92 and 93) to make it more readable and removed the "citation needed tag from reference 94. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I missed deleting the lingering citation request. The style of footnotes using this article (selected by me, the person who wrote the article) is to use compound footnotes rather than adjacent numbers, the latter a style you will see in virtually no printed publication. (That style might make sense for editors who use really verbose citations, but since I use the abbreviated <author>, <page-num> style, it is easy and clean to concatenate multiple citations into a single footnote. And I include the abbreviated title of a book only when I am disambiguating multiple books from a single author, such as Rowland in this case--or Sears in many others.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
If that's your preferred styple, then no problem. However, I think this style makes it difficult to read, but that's just my opinion.
Nevertheless, the reference by Eckenrode & Conrad in footnotes 89, 90, and 92 do not list the title of the book, which I looked up on questia.com and is titled, I think, "George B. McClellan, the Man Who Saved the Union". Was this an oversight?
Also, the "Leaders" reference by Rowland in footnote 93; is that "Battles and Leaders" or some other book? Also, I looked up Rowland's "McClellan and Civil War History" on Amazon and found only this: "George B. McClellan and Civil War History: In the Shadow of Grant and Sherman by Thomas J. Rowland". Is the title of the book you mentioned in the reference an out of print book, or is this just an abbreviation?
Finally, my understanding is that an abbreviated title is only used after an initial, full citation in order to prevent ambiguities and confusion (as above :) ). That is, if a particular book is referenced 10 times, the first citation is a full citation, with the authors full name and the full title of the book, and the other nine citations would be abbreviated. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Ummm, ok, I think I see what you are doing. I was confusing the "Notes" and "References" sections. As Gilda Radner used to say..."never mind".  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

GBM's Legacy in the intro section

I'm not sure a phrase in the intro is accurate:

His legacy therefore defies easy categorization.

If the vast majority of historians agree with Sears, that GBM as a battlefield commander was in the "wrong profession", why does that mean that it's not easy to assess GBM's legacy? This seems odd to me. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please consider adding this external link to the entry on McClellan

Quote

In Page 65 of a book authored by Joy Hakim, titled "War, Terrible War", when McClellan was relieved from his post as Commander of the Army of the Potomac, he said "They have made a great mistake. Alas, for my poor country." --Arima (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln's commentary on McClellan

Take a look at the changes I've made in the choice of quotations; don't you agree these are more apropos? I retained the original quote "...would like to borrow it." and just moved it into another section where, I think, it fits better, chronologically and context. Do you agree?

Also, a parentheses that points out that Lincoln was not a Radical Republican until summer 1962. He pledged to preserve and protect slavery, just like McClellan, up to that time.

No problem, although you didn't format the citations in the same way as the article does. Fixed. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Seemingly wrong number

Section 'The 1864 Presidential election', last sentence reads: "Lincoln won the election handily, with ... a popular vote of 403,000, or 55%."

The statement is wrong as worded. One, 403,000 is not Lincoln's "popular vote." It is the -difference- between Lincoln's 2.206 million and McClellan's 1.803 million popular votes. Two, 403,000 is therefore not "55%" of a meaningful number at issue here. Fix.

Jimlue (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed! Jucchan (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

His report

'The War Department was reluctant to publish his report because, just after completing it in October 1863...'

Was this his report to the US Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War? Supposedly, it was only when Lee read this report (reprinted in the press) that he realized that he had lost Antietam through the pure accident of Order No. 191 going astray, and not because the Union army had greater capability. This gave him the confidence to try again to invade Pennsylvania. But that must have been sometime before June of that year 1863. Valetude (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

No, the War Department was not responsible for approving or delaying testimony demanded of officers by the JCCW. McClellan's report was for the use of the War Department and they did not want to publish it for the reasons stated. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Racist comments should be removed

In the section titled "building an army" the article quotes McClellen as saying he disliked the "smell of billy goats and niggers" and catagorizes this as the "feeling of most northerners". Most northerners?!!! This statement is not only unsupported, it is offensive to the descendants of the thousands of white abolishionists in the north that fought to abolish slavery, opened their homes to friends like Harriet Tubman and hundreds of other former slaves, some of whom had those homes burned to the ground, and, worst of all,lost loved ones in the war that was fought over slavery. FACT- White Representatives of "Most northeners" passed the 13th ammendment, making freedom for African Americans the law in this land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎71.191.143.44 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 28 January 2014

Wikipedia is not censored. Just because the quote is considered offensive to some, that's no reason for removal. However, I've removed the quote and the segment which labels the opinion common amongst most northerners, not because of offensiveness but because neither the quote nor the assessment are cited. Per WP:QUOTE, "Any quotation that is not sourced may be removed at any time..." BusterD (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:QUOTE adds: "...however, a good faith search in an effort to find a source before removing a quote is appreciated (see WP:UNSOURCED and WP:PRESERVE)." A gsearch for the quote finds the paragraph's end source contains the exact quote and a reasonable assessment similar to that mentioned in the section. I've reverted myself, and I'll add the appropriate citation. BusterD (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

TFAR notification

I've nominated this article for WP:TFAR consideration, discussion at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/George B. McClellan. — Cirt (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Dashes

This isn't a major matter, but the article is chock-full of &mdash; and &ndash;. I notice that nearly three years ago, an attempt to change these to characters was reverted on the basis that it was difficult to tell them apart. I would suggest, alternatively, that the use of the HTML symbols makes text appear clunky to the editor, and editors can discern the characters by looking at their respective length and the context in which they are used. Also, it seems to be commonplace to use the characters rather than the HTML symbols at this point. Is there really a strong objection to converting these to characters? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarify "Villa Antietam"

The text text states that Ellen died in Nice but not that "Villa Antietam" was in Nice. The significance of "Villa Antietam" needs to be clarified. Is "Villa Antietam" in Nice or near (outside) Nice? At present, anything regarding the significance of "Villa Antietam" is purely an assumption. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George B. McClellan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Article distorts McClellan's legacy and contains a sympathetic bias

George McClellan, whatever his other virtues and triumphs, was a disastrous Civil War leader. His failed command of the Army of the Potomac is his legacy - it is the reason we remember him, by overwhelming consensus of historians military and otherwise, over many decades. Were I asked to guess, I would venture that this article is primarily the work of one of Gen. McClellan's descendants.

- Funny thing is, I'm sure it has an anti-McClellan bias. Much of that though is from quoting of Sears' "alternate facts". 67th Tigers (talk) 08:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George B. McClellan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George B. McClellan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George B. McClellan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George B. McClellan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_B._McClellan/Archive_1&oldid=1136758933"