I don't 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 don't 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.

Yes. It's an excellent opening paragraph. You are definitely on the write track.

I agree. McClellan had to be removed to defeat the Confederacy. He was reluctant to attack. He ran against Lincoln for the presidency in 1864, and wanted to negotiate a truce.

I believe you copied the question incorrectly. McClellan's command was called the "Army of the Potomac", not "The Army and the Potomac".

Also, McClellan was not immediately replaced by Grant. Grant was promoted later. MClellan was replaced by Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside after the horrendously bloody stalemate at Antietam.

The question is asking you to validate the statement that the removal of General McClellan represented a loss for the Army of the Potomac and a victory for the interfering politicians in Washington. In order to answer this question, you need to provide evidence or arguments that support this statement.

To start, you can mention that General McClellan was known for his caution and hesitancy to engage in battle. This can be supported by the fact that he was replaced by General Grant, who was known for being more aggressive and willing to take risks. McClellan's cautious approach may have hindered the progress of the Army of the Potomac and potentially cost them opportunities for victory.

Additionally, you can mention that the decision to remove McClellan was influenced by politicians in Washington. This can be supported by historical evidence showing that President Lincoln and other northern politicians were frustrated with McClellan's slow and indecisive actions. They wanted a general who could take decisive action and achieve victories on the battlefield.

Overall, you can argue that McClellan's removal represented a loss for the Army of the Potomac because of his cautious approach and missed opportunities, and a victory for the politicians who desired a more decisive and aggressive strategy.