Lincoln and Stanton were those of civilians who were constrained by force of circumstances to intervene in military business, while McClellan's trade was war; and when offensive operations had to be conducted on a large scale, he showed himself to be incompetent in his trade. It is no longer necessary to bring proof, indeed it is hardly necessary even to state, that Lincoln desired sincerely and ardently the success of his general. To me it is equally clear that Stanton shared this feeling. The very nature of the case, the combination of patriotism and self-interest, must have made the Secretary eager for victories no matter by what general won. His letters, despatches, and verbal assurances are evidence either that he did all in his power to aid McClellan, consistent with what he deemed his duty elsewhere, and that he would have rejoiced with no feeling of envy at the success of the Peninsular campaign, or that he was black-hearted and treacherous, to a degree inconceivable of one trusted by the most honest and magnanimous of men, Abraham Lincoln.1

McClellan's failure was due largely to his absurd overestimate of the enemy, which unnerved him when active operations were needed.2 Perhaps his tactics would have been

1 See Stanton to McClellan, April 16, May 4, O. R., vol. xi. part iii. pp. 103, 134; McClellan to his wife, June 9, 12, Own Story, pp. 402, 404. Stanton wrote McClellan, June 11: "Be assured, general, that there has never been a moment when my desire has been otherwise than to aid you with my whole heart, mind, and strength, since the hour we first met; and whatever others may say for their own purposes, you have never had, and never can have, any one more truly your friend, or more anxious to support you, or more joyful than I shall be at the success which I have no doubt will soon be achieved by your arms."—O. R., vol. xi. part i. p. 47. See, also, Stanton to McClellan, July 5, Marcy to McClellan, July 4, 10, part iii. pp. 294, 298, 310; Stanton to McClellan, July 5, McClellan's Own Story, p. 476; Lincoln's speech at a Union meeting Aug. 6, Complete Works, vol. ii. p. 219. For McClellan's side see his letter to Stanton, July 8, and a note of the editor, ibid., pp. 477, 478.

2 McClellan seems to have accepted without question the estimates of Allan Pinkerton, the chief of his Secret Service division: these were grossly incorrect. May 3 Pinkerton estimated the Confederate strength at Yorktown under Johnston as 100,000 to 120,000. At this time it did not exceed 63,000, and was probably 10,000 less. June 26 Pinkerton reported: 66 The

less timid and disjointed had he been on the field when his battles were fought, but he was persistently absent.1 At Fair

summary of general estimates of the rebel army shows their forces to be at this time over 180,000 men, and the specific information already obtained warrants the belief that this number is probably considerably short of the real strength of their army." —O. R., vol. xi. part i. p. 269. Lee's force on that day was between 80,000 and 90,000. It certainly did not exceed 90,000. Pinkerton's general estimates are printed on p. 271, ibid. Most of them might have been called camp rumors. Euripides wrote:

"It behoves the man

Who claims the merit of an able chief,

Not to depend upon his spies alone."

So preposterous was McClellan's estimate of his enemy, that General Palfrey writes: "It is impossible that he could have believed that the Confederates possessed such numbers." This notion has met with considerable favor, but in view of McClellan's reiterated expressions I cannot accept it. See O. R., vol. xi. part i. pp. 11, 51; part ii. p. 20; part iii. pp. 151, 188, 231, 264, 265, 266, 267, 280, 282; McClellan's Own Story, pp. 344, 363.

In a discussion which followed my reading of a paper on the Peninsular Campaign, before the Massachusetts Historical Society in Jan., 1896, the question was raised: Ought the commanding general at that stage of the war to have known with some degree of accuracy the size of the opposing army? I think that may be answered in the affirmative. From the larger population of the North, and its very much greater facilities for equipping an army, the presumption ought to have been that it would have more troops in the field than the South, until at least results began to flow from the Confederate Conscription Act, passed April 16. The veteran General Wool, in command at Fortress Monroe, felt sure that McClellan outnumbered the Confederates. — O. R., vol. xi. part iii. pp. 143, 190. A remarkable example of what might have been known is seen in the testimony of Uriah H. Painter, a correspondent of the Philadelphia Inquirer, before the Committee on the Conduct of the War, July 10. Painter was with the Army of the Potomac from April 2 until about the 22d or 23d of June, and estimated that when the Confederates evacuated Yorktown, they had a force of "perhaps 50,000 to 60,000." His estimate of the number of Lee's troops, shortly before Gaines's Mill, was "about 100,000."

Question. "By what means did you obtain that information, and reach that conclusion?"

Answer. "By getting statements from prisoners, contrabands, and deserters, and learning about different divisions and brigades, and drawing conclusions from the mass of information collected. I have at different

1 Webb makes some excuse for McClellan in that he did not have a proper staff. - P 182.

Oaks the fighting took place on the south side of the Chickahominy, while he remained on the north side. After Fair Oaks, in an address to his army, he declared in speaking of a conflict near at hand: "Soldiers, I will be with you in this battle and share its dangers with you;" and later in a despatch to Stanton he said, If my army "is destroyed by overwhelming numbers, I can at least die with it and share its fate." 2 But the next important battle was Gaines's Mill; it was fought on the north side of the Chickahominy, and during its progress McClellan remained at his headquarters on the south side. Nor was he present at the battles of Savage's Station and Glendale, nor at the critical position of Malvern Hill. All writers and observers, with whom I am acquainted, agree that this irresolution arose from no lack of physical courage; moreover, it is inconceivable that he could have retained the confidence and love of his soldiers, and aroused their enthusiasm, had he been delinquent in this respect. The truth is, that an extreme sensitiveness, which would have been creditable indeed to a humanitarian but out of place in the general of an army bent on the offensive, led him always to shun the sight of bloodshed and suffering. In short, all

times found a great many of their muster rolls, and learned in that way how many men they had in their regiments." — C. W., part i. p. 292.

It is fair to McClellan to refer to Lanfrey's statement, that Napoleon in his correspondence with the Directory habitually underestimated his own force and magnified that of the enemy. - Tome i. p. 148, note. Lieutenant-Colonel G. F. R. Henderson, in his Life of Stonewall Jackson, writes: "McClellan forgot that in war it is impossible for a general to be absolutely certain. It is sufficient, according to Napoleon, if the odds in his favor are three to two; and if he cannot discover from the attitude of his enemy what the odds are, he is unfitted for supreme command.” — Vol. ii. p. 4. Again he writes: "From his knowledge of his adversary's [McClellan's] character and still more from his attitude, Lee had little difficulty in discovering his intentions. McClellan, on the other hand, failed to draw a single correct inference. And yet the information at his disposal was sufficient to enable him to form a fair estimate of how things stood in the Confederate camp."-P. 5.

1 O. R., vol. xi. part iii. p. 210.

2 June 25, ibid., part i. p. 51.

3 "I am tired of the sickening sight of the battlefield, with its mangled corpses and poor suffering wounded! Victory has no charms for me when

the circumstances of this campaign, the faults of omission and commission, show that although McClellan was a good organizer and knew how to win the affection of his soldiers, he lacked the quality of aggressive generalship, so essential to the North in their conduct of the war. The criticisms of Generals Francis A. Walker and Francis W. Palfrey, who were with the Army of the Potomac on the Peninsula, are unanswerable, and appear the more convincing as being offered in a spirit of kindliness by men who once believed thoroughly in McClellan, and doubtless threw up their caps when he rode along their lines.

After the victory of Gaines's Mill the Confederate President and generals felt sure of capturing or destroying the Union army, and their confidence was shared by the people of Richmond. The disappointment of all was keen when McClellan reached a safe position on the James River after signalizing the last of the Seven Days' Battles by an acknowledged victory over Lee. There was a disposition on the part of the public to find fault with those in command that the Union army had made its escape, but reflection that induced a better understanding of what had been done led the Southern generals and soldiers, the President and people, to comprehend how great reason they had for rejoicing. The elaborate preparations of the North had come to naught, the siege of Richmond had been raised; and the well-disciplined and splendidly equipped Federal force had been driven back a distance of twenty miles. The spirit of victory was with the Army of Northern Virginia. In those seven days Lee's soldiers began to love him and to acquire a belief that he was invincible, which lasted almost to the very end of the war. The association of Lee and Davis on those battlefields cemented a friendship already close. Lee displayed a considerate deference to his superior, Davis an affectionate concern for his general. "I will renew my caution to you," he wrote Lee,

purchased at such a cost." "Every poor fellow that is killed or wounded, almost haunts me!"-McClellan's letters to his wife, June 2, 23, Own Story, pp. 398, 408.

"against personal exposure either in battle or reconnaissance. It is a duty to the cause we serve, for the sake of which I reiterate the warning." All conditions united to brighten the hopes of the South. To the work of conscription, which was urged with vigor, a response seemed assured that would show the enthusiasm of the people to have been quickened by their army's success.2

1 July 5, O. R., vol. xi. part iii. p. 632.

2 Lee's and Jackson's reports, ibid., part ii.; Richmond Examiner, June 28, 30, July 3, 4, 7, 8; Richmond Dispatch, June 28, 30, July 5, 7, 9; Davis, Confederate Government, vol. ii.; Davis, Memoir by his wife, vol. ii.

Touching the failure to hurt McClellan more than was done, Davis wrote his wife, July 6: "Had all the orders been well and promptly executed, there would have been a general dispersion of McClellan's army, and the remnant which might have held together could have only reached the James River by first crossing the Chickahominy. Our success has been so remarkable that we should be grateful." In view of a disposition of Southern writers since the war to rate McClellan's generalship high, see what follows in this letter. Mrs. Davis's Memoir, vol. ii. p. 322. Joseph E. Johnston wrote Beauregard, Aug. 4, 1862: “ I am not sure that you are right in regarding the success of McClellan's strategic movement' as evidence of skill. It seems to me to be due rather to our having lost two days immediately after the principal fight, that of Friday [Gaines's Mill, June 27] and many hours afterwards, especially on Tuesday [Malvern Hill, July 1]. I was told that the action on that day commenced about six o'clock P. M., but one and one-half or two miles from the field of Monday's engagement. It is said too that a large portion of our army was idle on each of those days. The battle of Malvern Hill (Tuesday) was but fifteen or twenty miles from the middle of McClellan's position on the Chickahominy. The result of that action terminated our pursuit. It seems to me that the 'partial results' were due to a want of the bulldog tenacity' you give us credit for. If the enemy had been pressed vigorously on Saturday and Sunday [June 28 and 29], he must have been ruined, could never have fixed himself securely on the James River. He left his position on the Chickahominy without our knowledge, because the wide interval by which he escaped was not observed by cavalry as it should have been. . . . I must confess that the advantages we have gained by what is termed the seven days' fighting are not very evident to me." -N. Y. Times, June 17, 1883.

General Viscount Wolseley wrote in the North American Review for Aug. 1889, p. 174: "The retreat to the James was an extremely ably-conducted operation, carried out under great difficulties, and, above all, in the presence of such opponents as Lee and Jackson. It ought not to have succeeded as it did; had the defeated army been pressed as it should have been, it must have been destroyed. For some reason or other, however, Jackson and his army did not show their usual quality in that pursuit."