Friday
July 31, 2015

Homework Help: history- response to Ms. Sue's comment

Posted by Andre on Sunday, May 31, 2009 at 7:24pm.

I dont understand this question:

the removal of general mcclellan represents a loss of the army and the potomac and a victory for the interfering politicans in washington

(validate)

i know that mcclellan was replaced by grant because he was to hesitant to attack. but i dont understand this quesiton at all. i tried for an hour to try to understand it please help!


Responses


history - Ms. Sue, Thursday, May 28, 2009 at 5:56pm
You're being asked to support the statement that McClellan's removal was a loss to the army and the Army of the Potomac. His removal was caused by the politicians. The implication is that a general in the field knew better how to fight a war than desk jockeys in Washington.




Is this a good opening paragraph? [ im still a little unsure of what tehy i'm trying to prove]

I claimed that McClellan's removal was positive. IS THAT OKAY?


**********General McClellan’s removal was not as big of a loss as many politicians dub it so. Although McClellan was an incredible organizer and strategist, he was too cautious and never seemed ready to fight because he tried to avoid conflict as much as possible. Because of his extreme discretion, he missed many appropriate opportunities and cost even more lives trying to fix what he had done. Lincoln and many other northern politicians were irritated and impatient with McClellan’s delayed actions, especially on the onset of the First Battle of Bull Run, a Union defeat.

Answer this Question

First Name:
School Subject:
Answer:

Related Questions

More Related Questions

Members