Once again, I’m reading T J Stiles biography of Custer. At this point the young Lieutenant is serving on General McClellan’s staff during the Peninsular Campaign. Here, Stiles brings up some points that I had never considered before. Little Mac constantly, throughout his command of the Army, believed he was outnumbered nearly two to one by General Lees forces. These enemy estimates were all the product of the Pinkerton Agency. Once McClellan was gone, these Pinkerton estimates disappear from history. But was Mac paying the Pinkertons or was their investigation payed for by the Lincoln run government? Remember, Pinkerton was originally hired as a body guard to the President elect before he got anywhere near Washington DC! I won’t directly fault Lincoln himself. No history author has to my knowledge. (Not that I don’t put it past him) But Stanton in particular, and many republican senators and politicians were very anti McClellan, quietly at first, but openly and rabidly after Mac was gone. I would almost compare their persecution of McClellan supporters to the Nazts pursuit of the Jews! Mac was a very staunch and outspoken democrat, and I sure many republicans saw him as a potential rival, and possibly a post war threat to political power. Could it be that republicans were deliberately feeding Mac false information in order to prevent a great strategic victory by a democrat? In today’s political climate, this is very easy to believe. But how underhanded was the Republican Party in 1861/62? Like I said, I hadn’t thought about this directly before, but it poses a very interesting and serious question as to who and what exactly drove the government to incite and prosecute a bloody civil war. Maybe, just maybe, the war was fought with the goal of eradicating slavery?!!! Reon
Lincoln was put out by McClellan's inaction. As for the Pinkertons I cannot say but it might be a good guess they were sympathetic to the South and fed tainted information. I see the General as a country club political appointee with little talent for prosecuting a war. He was popular with his troupes but ineffective in the job he was tasked with.
He probably doesn’t get enough credit. Lee considered him the best Yankee general of the war. Without question, his logistical expertise built the northern army. And without him, the north may have lost the war early.
As to your questions, I could definitely see it. He was immensely popular with the public and the troops early in the war. He was a Democrat who was a staunch enemy of the radical Republicans and he had made allegations of voter fraud in the election of Lincoln. He claimed to have stopped an entire train of illegal voters who were being shipped to another location to vote for Lincoln. He was NOT an abolitionist and believed that as it was in the Constitution, slavery should be protected by the national government. In any case, he would have had go after the Emancipation Proclamation because of this stance alone. Which, of course, he was fired a couple months after it was released.
No on southern sympathy, but controlled by republicans I can buy easily! Stanton was one of the Democratic Nominees in 1860. When he was invited into Lincoln’s cabinet, he figured on Lincoln being a figurehead, and he himself holding the reins. Based on most of my reading, I don’t doubt he had much more clout than he should have, so who knows for sure? Maybe Lincoln was only a moderating influence, and Stanton was pulling the strings In 1862 he switched to Republican Party, and he was certainly one of the leaders of what we now call “black republicans”. This is the first time this popped up in my mind, but it is an interesting question, so I tossed it out here. At the risk of starting another whizzing contest, there are several members who I respect and value their opinions!😀 Reon
Lincoln was put out by McClellan's inaction. As for the Pinkertons I cannot say but it might be a good guess they were sympathetic to the South and fed tainted information. I see the General as a country club political appointee with little talent for prosecuting a war. He was popular with his troupes but ineffective in the job he was tasked with.
Would the Pinkertons have been sympathetic to the south for financial reasons?
Lincoln was put out by McClellan's inaction. As for the Pinkertons I cannot say but it might be a good guess they were sympathetic to the South and fed tainted information. I see the General as a country club political appointee with little talent for prosecuting a war. He was popular with his troupes but ineffective in the job he was tasked with.
Take Antietam for example Lee had 38k troops lil Mac had 87k somebody on the yanky side of the creek grossly overestimated
I sorta doubt it. Like I said, they were hired to protect Lincoln from assassination plots when he was headed to Washington to take office. They infiltrated several gangs of conspirators, and I believe they managed to break a couple plots up before they attempted anything. I rule out southern sympathy on this. Remember, McDowell also believed these estimates before Bull Run. I’m just wondering who really signed the checks though. I rule out Little Mac because they were already in place when the war started. If my theory that they were working for some Republican is correct, I can easily believe they fed Mac inflated estimates in order to keep him from being overly aggressive. I have always believed what we were taught, that Mac was afraid to commit the AOTP in a finish fight. It was his creation, and he was rightfully proud of it and his soldiers. I doubt anyone else could have formed such an organization in such a short period. He was truly an inspiration to those who served under him. They were proud of him and I believe, would have charged Hell itself if he had asked them to. My question addresses the reason he never did? Cowardice? I have a rough time buying that. But as I get more and more cynical viewing our government now, that cynicism invades what is written now as history! Mac knew his army was the only real obstacle between the Rebel Army and the Capital. If the numbers were true, he had to be cautious. What exactly was it that made him so damn cautious? Reon
Lincoln was put out by McClellan's inaction. As for the Pinkertons I cannot say but it might be a good guess they were sympathetic to the South and fed tainted information. I see the General as a country club political appointee with little talent for prosecuting a war. He was popular with his troupes but ineffective in the job he was tasked with.
Take Antietam for example Lee had 38k troops lil Mac had 87k somebody on the yanky side of the creek grossly overestimated
I just read something to that effect.
Like one battle McClellan had more troops in reserve than the CSA had in the fight.
Even at Antietam, Mac still believed he was fighting a force over 100,000. He was fixing to send in Franklin’s corps, his last reserves. He had Lee on the ropes. But Franklin reminded him, “General, my corps is the last reserve of The Army Of The Potomac”. He backed down, and Lee got across the river. I think some of you forget, what happened between the Peninsula Campaign and Antietam. Remember John Pope? Got his ass handed to him at 2nd Bull Run, and many of Mac’s divisions were sent over to Pope! What I’m getting at is that consistently, he was getting false reports of enemy strength. Why? Was Pinkerton crazy, or was somebody in the Lincoln Administration deliberately preventing Little Mac from achieving victory.by way of feeding him false intel? Remember, a victorious McClellan would be a shoe in on the next election! My mind keeps pointing the finger to either Lincoln or Stanton. It maybe was a war to end slavery after all, but they were hiding that agenda, and keeping Little Mac from gaining a clear cut victory in order to achieve that purpose. Reon
Dang, I was really looking forward to hearing from the ‘Campfire “Brain Trust” on this! I know there are many of us who have read into this, and enjoy threads regarding the Civil War. And this is something that I had never considered before, and I’m sure deserves some thinking and comments. If Stanton was in fact guiding this, it explains an awful lot. Reon
Stanton was not. Could be you’re thinking of Seward, the Sec Of State. He was stabbed and cut up, along with his son and daughter who tried to stop the assassin. Someone was also to murder A Johnson as well, but the perpetrator just got drunk instead. Every writer I’ve read comments on how Stanton “took charge of everything” the night Lincoln was shot. But the thoughts of him deliberately feeding Little Mac false intel makes me think that he was actually in charge from the beginning. Reon
Once again, I’m reading T J Stiles biography of Custer. At this point the young Lieutenant is serving on General McClellan’s staff during the Peninsular Campaign. Here, Stiles brings up some points that I had never considered before. Little Mac constantly, throughout his command of the Army, believed he was outnumbered nearly two to one by General Lees forces. These enemy estimates were all the product of the Pinkerton Agency. Once McClellan was gone, these Pinkerton estimates disappear from history. But was Mac paying the Pinkertons or was their investigation payed for by the Lincoln run government? Remember, Pinkerton was originally hired as a body guard to the President elect before he got anywhere near Washington DC! I won’t directly fault Lincoln himself. No history author has to my knowledge. (Not that I don’t put it past him) But Stanton in particular, and many republican senators and politicians were very anti McClellan, quietly at first, but openly and rabidly after Mac was gone. I would almost compare their persecution of McClellan supporters to the Nazts pursuit of the Jews! Mac was a very staunch and outspoken democrat, and I sure many republicans saw him as a potential rival, and possibly a post war threat to political power. Could it be that republicans were deliberately feeding Mac false information in order to prevent a great strategic victory by a democrat? In today’s political climate, this is very easy to believe. But how underhanded was the Republican Party in 1861/62? Like I said, I hadn’t thought about this directly before, but it poses a very interesting and serious question as to who and what exactly drove the government to incite and prosecute a bloody civil war. Maybe, just maybe, the war was fought with the goal of eradicating slavery?!!! Reon
Originally Posted by 7mmbuster
Once again, I’m reading T J Stiles biography of Custer. At this point the young Lieutenant is serving on General McClellan’s staff during the Peninsular Campaign. Here, Stiles brings up some points that I had never considered before. Little Mac constantly, throughout his command of the Army, believed he was outnumbered nearly two to one by General Lees forces. These enemy estimates were all the product of the Pinkerton Agency. Once McClellan was gone, these Pinkerton estimates disappear from history. But was Mac paying the Pinkertons or was their investigation payed for by the Lincoln run government? Remember, Pinkerton was originally hired as a body guard to the President elect before he got anywhere near Washington DC! I won’t directly fault Lincoln himself. No history author has to my knowledge. (Not that I don’t put it past him) But Stanton in particular, and many republican senators and politicians were very anti McClellan, quietly at first, but openly and rabidly after Mac was gone. I would almost compare their persecution of McClellan supporters to the Nazts pursuit of the Jews! Mac was a very staunch and outspoken democrat, and I sure many republicans saw him as a potential rival, and possibly a post war threat to political power. Could it be that republicans were deliberately feeding Mac false information in order to prevent a great strategic victory by a democrat? In today’s political climate, this is very easy to believe. But how underhanded was the Republican Party in 1861/62? Like I said, I hadn’t thought about this directly before, but it poses a very interesting and serious question as to who and what exactly drove the government to incite and prosecute a bloody civil war. Maybe, just maybe, the war was fought with the goal of eradicating slavery?!!! Reon
Originally Posted by 7mmbuster
Once again, I’m reading T J Stiles biography of Custer. At this point the young Lieutenant is serving on General McClellan’s staff during the Peninsular Campaign. Here, Stiles brings up some points that I had never considered before. Little Mac constantly, throughout his command of the Army, believed he was outnumbered nearly two to one by General Lees forces. These enemy estimates were all the product of the Pinkerton Agency. Once McClellan was gone, these Pinkerton estimates disappear from history. But was Mac paying the Pinkertons or was their investigation payed for by the Lincoln run government? Remember, Pinkerton was originally hired as a body guard to the President elect before he got anywhere near Washington DC! I won’t directly fault Lincoln himself. No history author has to my knowledge. (Not that I don’t put it past him) But Stanton in particular, and many republican senators and politicians were very anti McClellan, quietly at first, but openly and rabidly after Mac was gone. I would almost compare their persecution of McClellan supporters to the Nazts pursuit of the Jews! Mac was a very staunch and outspoken democrat, and I sure many republicans saw him as a potential rival, and possibly a post war threat to political power. Could it be that republicans were deliberately feeding Mac false information in order to prevent a great strategic victory by a democrat? In today’s political climate, this is very easy to believe. But how underhanded was the Republican Party in 1861/62? Like I said, I hadn’t thought about this directly before, but it poses a very interesting and serious question as to who and what exactly drove the government to incite and prosecute a bloody civil war. Maybe, just maybe, the war was fought with the goal of eradicating slavery?!!! Reon
No, Fredericksburg wasn’t so much bad intel as it was dumb on Burnside. It’s pretty basic stuff that most every officer knows. The faster you move, the less resistance you meet with! Burnside waited 3 days on bridging equipment to cross a fordable river, then another day for the men to sac the town. Lee had 4 days to dig in up to his eyeballs!😀 But seriously, after Mac was relieved following Antietam, I cannot recall ever reading about grossly inflated enemy numbers again. And it’s well known that Stanton and several others in the cabinet and congress hated Mac with a passion. I can easily see them deliberately doing this to prevent McClellan from ending the war before slavery could be made an issue! Reon
Reynolds’s was offered command of AOTP before it was given to Meade. Meade was not popular with the men, Reynolds was very popular with them. He asked if he would have free rein to place the army as he saw fit to best defeat Robert E Lee. He was told he must comply with all instructions from Washington, and he turned it down flat. This opens up another question. Is it possible that Reynolds thought maybe the administration was deliberately preventing a complete northern victory? Reynolds’s was sorta outspoken about being against government interference with slavery. I’m thinking he was reading between the lines and identified the administration as deliberately trying make slavery an issue, and tried to stay out of it. Reon
Bill O'Reilly has some interesting observations on Stanton at the end of 'Killing Lincoln'.
Maybe I’ll have to read that. Not really a fan of O’Reilly. He give Lon Horuchi a pass on shooting Vicky Weaver, and he several times described semi auto .223s as “heavy weapons”. I think he pretends to be a conservative. But I would be interested on what he has to say about Ed Stanton. Maybe I’m reading more into this than i should, but I have always considered him to be a snake in the grass. I think Little Mac used that term too when he wrote to his wife Ellen! He chummed up to McClellan long enough to gain his trust, and then he betrayed him. Maybe today’s political climate has got me jaded. I don’t know. I can’t imagine why!😀 The democrats are clearly corrupt, and the Republicans bitch and investigate, but they do nothing about it, even with clear evidence. That tells me that they’re working together. And reading the political background of the Civil War has me thinking that a lot of what I read earlier and believed is in fact, BS! I’ve learned somewhat, to start reading between the lines. As “Monk” says, it’s a blessing, and a curse”! Reon
My thoughts are that Reynolds was the best general the North had and he was not willing to play politics with his army. Even though Reynolds died early at Gettysburg, he played a pivotal role in the North winning the battle.
“Fighting Joe”? Pretty good general, considering… Aggressive enough, and he did steal a couple days march on Lee, which wasn’t easy to do! He had Lee dead to rights that first evening at Chancellorsville. He and Phil Kearny were pretty close, but Kearny was killed at Chantilly, covering the retreat of Pope after 2nd Bull Run. I honestly believe that if Kearny had been alive on 30 April, 1863, the North would have finished Bobby Lee! But Hooker choked. If Kearny had been there to steady him, who can say? He said he suddenly lost confidence in Joe Hooker, and pinned himself with his back to a River. I think if Jackson hadn’t been killed, he and Lee might have possibly removed the AOTP from the board! Probably not. Their flanks protected by a river, a line studded with artillery? Hooker may have choked, but the guys who commanded the troops had not! As it worked out, the Northern army got away, and ended up in Gettysburg under a new commander. And we’re still overlooking the emancipation proclamation, which I’m beginning to think was the endgame all along! Reln
I read O'Reilly book "The Day Lincoln was Shot.". IIRC he said Lincoln was planning on being hard on the South after the war and Stanton was wanting to go easy. Yet Stanton was a driving force on Reconstruction and I believe it was Lincoln intent to not go hard.
Back in the ‘90s I got to watching O’Reilly on a friend’s recommendation. Back then he did a short thing every show about a ridiculous news item, I believe it was titled “Ridiculous”. One evening he commented on someone who had suggested the shooting of Vicky Weaver be investigated further, and the agents involved punished. Bill thought that was ridiculous. After (I think) Sandy Hook, several occasions he referred to defense rifles, caliber .223 as “heavy weapons” and should be registered and owners licensed to own them. After that, he has been on “ignore”.🤬 Reon
Second resurrection of an old thread due to a video adding more information!😀 I don’t recall reading about Hooking creating the Bureau of Military Intelligence. It might be an oversight on my part, but I honestly didn’t know this until I saw this clip! This would explain the lack of Pinkerton intel later in the war. I don’t buy the major impact on Gettysburg, though. It was obvious on the evening of 2 July that Lee would be forced to attack or retreat. It wouldn’t take a tactical rocket scientist to figure that out!😀 And I still hang onto the theory that Stanton was using it to influence Little Mac’s decision making. The more I think on it, the more I think the republicans were delaying victory in order to make emancipation an issue. Reon
Back in the ‘90s I got to watching O’Reilly on a friend’s recommendation. Back then he did a short thing every show about a ridiculous news item, I believe it was titled “Ridiculous”. One evening he commented on someone who had suggested the shooting of Vicky Weaver be investigated further, and the agents involved punished. Bill thought that was ridiculous. After (I think) Sandy Hook, several occasions he referred to defense rifles, caliber .223 as “heavy weapons” and should be registered and owners licensed to own them. After that, he has been on “ignore”.🤬 Reon
I stopped listening to anything O'Reilly said/wrote many years ago, long before his "assault rifles" nonsense. He's been anti-Second Amendment for a long, long time. A left liberal trying at times to wax conservative.
At least you didn’t start with “if only Stonewall would have been there”!😀 Fact is, Lee fought the first two days of that battle without any idea who was in front of him, and where they were placed. He went into Gettysburg blind, with only a couple small brigades of Cavalry until Stuart finally showed up the evening of the 2nd. I respect “Marse Robert” as much as anyone. But Gettysburg is a “WTF were you thinking” battle for him. He let Early push him into attacking on 2 July, against his better judgement, and his Army paid for it in blood. If you remember, he wanted to slide around to his right down Emmitsburg Road on the evening after the first day. Early talked him out of it, sighting a dip in moral after the men had won a victory. He ordered Longstreet to attack Cemetery Hill , right up Emmitsburg Road, not knowing that Meade had occupied Cemetery Ridge. Pete did the reconnaissance, delaying an attack that wasn’t ordered for the morning anyway. That delay actually give Sickles time to stick his head through a noose by vacating his position and moving ahead to the Peach Orchard. There was never a “dawn attack” order for the 2nd or the 3rd. That myth was dreamed up by Early and Pendleton after Lee had died and Longstreet became a (gasp) Republican in 1870. Pete, with only two divisions, nearly won. Quick thinking by several Union officers, Warren, Hunt, and Hancock held the ground, at terrible cost. Reon
As much as I don’t like him, I still would like to read his take on Stanton, before and after the assassination. Like I said, I’m beginning to think that he was actually the one pulling the strings. And I can easily believe he would feed Little Mac bad intel to keep him from winning the war. If he had taken Richmond in 1862, the war would have been over, and Mac would have been President in 1865. With slavery still legal! Reon
I think it’s a stretch to think that the Pinkertons were purposefully inflating Confederate numbers for any reason given the uncertainty of the times.
What was the methodology used to gather estimates by the Pinkertons? It certainly wasn’t radio intercepts or drones.
Also, when they were providing estimates, would it not be safer for them to err on the high side?
I’m inclined to go with Occam on this one: that McClellan was exactly as portrayed; a great organizer but not a risk-taker.
Mike, I had been wanting to get your thoughts on this. As to method, I can only say for sure that they had an agent in the Confederate commissary dept who was feeding them info as to how much food, rations, and such were distributed to each army or unit. What else they may have had going, I can’t say with any certainty. And while I agree that they’d naturally err on the side of caution, I remind you that Little Mac, on the peninsular campaign believed he was outnumbered more than 2 to 1! Nearly the same applies to the Antietam campaign. Mac thought Lee had over 120k to his own 87000. That’s a little high for the sake of caution!😀 Any prudent commander who believed those numbers would rightfully be cautious, and with the proximity to the capital, hold onto a large reserve. (Franklins Corps) I also point out that Stanton did everything possible to gain Macs trust, then back stabbed him repeatedly after he had left Washington for the peninsula. A victorious democrat McClellan in 1862 would be a slam dunk for president in1864. I’m sure savvy republicans knew this, and would attempt to prevent it! Lastly, I’ll remind you that even after Little Mac was gone, Stanton never stopped purging the army of his friends and supporters. I’d almost compare it to the Nazis persecution of the Jews in WW2. I’m a big fan of using Occams Razor. Applying it to this particular mess, it points the finger towards Stanton!😀 Reon
Pinkerton himself served on several undercover missions as a Confederate soldier using the alias Major E.J. Allen. He worked across the Deep South in the summer of 1861, focusing on fortifications and Confederate plans. He was found out in Memphis and barely escaped with his life.
Stanton leaned Abolitionist before the war, McClellan did not, opposed the Emancipation Proclamation and was in fact favoring just the opposite to accommodate the South and possibly induce them to quit, lending credence to your theory.
…just for interest, Pinkerton’s methodology…..
Military historians have been strongly critical of the intelligence Pinkerton provided for the Union Army, which for the most part was undigested raw data.…….
Pinkerton's estimates of Rebel troop numbers, derived from his credulous interrogations of Confederate prisoners, deserters, refugees, escaped slaves ("contrabands"), and civilians unused to counting large bodies of men, badly exaggerated the size of those formations, sometimes almost doubling their actual strength. Pinkerton's numbers caused McClellan to consistently believe that he was drastically outnumbered.
Pinkerton's estimates of Rebel troop numbers, derived from his credulous interrogations of Confederate prisoners, deserters, refugees, escaped slaves ("contrabands"), and civilians unused to counting large bodies of men, badly exaggerated the size of those formations, sometimes almost doubling their actual strength. Pinkerton's numbers caused McClellan to consistently believe that he was drastically outnumbered. [/i]
I’ll just take credit for having a lucky hunch.😀 I have always believed that McClellan got dealt a bad rap by most historians. The war he fought in 1861, 62, was a far different war from what it became in late 1863. But, as I said reading Stiles account of the Peninsular Campaign jarred loose the memory of what I had read before about Macs indecisiveness. Thanks for looking into the possible motives. I had my mind on Stanton as the chief culprit, but with this it looks like it may have been a conspiracy to extend the war and bring emancipation into the equation. Reon
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/tgt6bBrG/IMG-4226.png)