Customer Reviews
Were character flaws "peculiar to McClellan"? - By: , 17 Apr 1999 
Thomas J. Rowland set out to prove that, although George McClellan was not a great general, neither was he as bad as so many Civil War historians & writers have depicted him. I believe that he has succeeded. Having read Stephen Sears' classic biography on "Mac", I was certain that the definitive McClellan verdict was a fait accompli. How wrong I was! Historians T. Harry Williams, Kenneth P. Williams, & Bruce Catton were also cited for a less than even-handed assessment of McClellan. Still, one must add that Rowland did not maliciously criticize the intent of these historians. He merely pointed out that they needlessly made Lincoln, Grant, & Sherman--men who remain giants without anyone's help--larger than they should be, at McClellan's expense. After examining their records during the first two years of the war, each of these men showed less than a superlative level of performance, contrary to popular assumption. I think that Rowland's book is one of best buys I have ever made. A more superbly-written, well-argued, & illuminating book on George McClellan & his impact on the Civil War & its interpretation would be hard to find. It's great. Buy it!
Were character flaws "peculiar to McClellan"? - By: , 17 Apr 1999 Thomas J. Rowland set out to prove that, although George McClellan was not a great general, neither was he as bad as so many Civil War historians & writers have depicted him. I believe that he has succeeded. Having read Stephen Sears' classic biography on "Mac", I was certain that the definitive McClellan verdict was a fait accompli. How wrong I was! Historians T. Harry Williams, Kenneth P. Williams, & Bruce Catton were also cited for a less than even-handed assessment of McClellan. Still, one must add that Rowland did not maliciously criticize the intent of these historians. He merely pointed out that they needlessly made Lincoln, Grant, & Sherman--men who remain giants without anyone's help--larger than they should be, at McClellan's expense. After examining their records during the first two years of the war, each of these men showed less than a superlative level of performance, contrary to popular assumption. I think that Rowland's book is one of best buys I have ever made. A more superbly-written, well-argued, & illuminating book on George McClellan & his impact on the Civil War & its interpretation would be hard to find. It's great. Buy it!
This is a very refreshing look at an old subject. - By: , 06 Feb 1999 Not only does the author restore a much needed sense of perspective to the historical treatment of McClellan, but he suggests a needed framework in which Civil War leadership in the North can be examined without fallling into the "cliche" trap of "good general vs. bad general." If you want a refreshing view of familiar material -- this is the book to read!
The most important CW book published in 1998/99 - By: , 30 Jan 1999 This is the first book-length study of McClellan's critics. Its importance is magnified both by its challlenge to consensus "truths" about McClellan & by the importance of McClellan himself to the early Union war effort. Well written, eminently reasonable, thoroughly informed of alll the McClellan controversies, this is a volume for anyone who wants to delve just a little deeper than pop history. Rowland makes historiography (ugly word) easy & even enjoyable. I can't recommend this work highly enough.
