A Student Resource & Online Community for Advanced Placement United States History
I read the top 3 because I only remembered reading about Burnside and McClellan. I agree why McClellan is # 2. Anyone to stumble upon their enemies plans and not to win against them in battle has no place being a general. He needs to take advantage of key opprotunities like that- and smoke the 3 cigars that came with the plans. Also, because McClellan was too hesitant to fight, he was a bad general because he was too cautious to help out in the war.Plus, as the document says McClellan would blamed others for his failures- this is not a good sign of leadership. I also thought the chamber pot for Butler was funny because he really must of been the worst general of the civil war if that is where his reputation brought him. My question is for burnside (it mentioned this in the book-pg.472- and I wasn't sure) is he where the term sideburns originated from or was that just a nickname? side-burns~ burnside~ facial hair...?
I agree with Sarah on the topic of McClellan. For one thing, he was way too cautious with whatever he did. He had the men and the training of the men to win the war, but always over estimating his enemies numbers and hesitating cost him. As well, the whole idea of having the battle plans with him and still not winning outright, is terrible. You would think that would secure victory, but if he did not find those plans, his whole army in command would probably have been wiped out. As for burnside, not only did he have the coolest facial hair ever, but he was a terrible leader. I wouldn't say I agree with 3rd place, but that's around the area. As for Butler, he had many humiliated defeats that this definitely deems him the worst General. -Mike E.
Post a Comment