And it must be admitted that the friends of General McClellan themselves, or some of them, were unwise in the lavish praise they heaped upon him, by which they awakened such wild hopes and impossible expectations. He was commended not for what he had done, but for what he was about to do; and what he did and said, and still more what he was going to do, was paraded before the public gaze in a way that to no one could be more distasteful than to him, an essentially modest man, who knew better than anybody else the weight of the burden that was upon him. The highest kindness to him at that time would have been to let him alone and say as little about him as possible. To a manly and truthful nature, nothing is less welcome than undeserved praise. Undeserved blame is bitter, but undeserved praise is sickening. Besides,

and every six with a forge,—making six hundred and fifty carriages that go into a battle,-have to be carried, in wet weather, through a swampy country, like that, for example, on the Chickahominy? This is mere fighting-material; to which add two or three thousand wagons for feeding-purposes, and you begin to have an idea of what has to be moved when an army moves, to say nothing of the cattle by thousands that have to be driven along, and a horde of camp-followers of all kinds. I am not speaking now of a corps of ten or twenty thousand men who start on a foray with nothing but their shirts, pantaloons, and boots to carry, besides their arms, but of an army which, when a victory is gained, is prepared to retain what is won in an enemy's country,-just such an army as McClellan had in the Peninsula."-From "Three Great Battles" (a pamphlet printed, but not published), by J. H. B. Latrobe, Esq.

extravagant commendation is sure to produce a reaction, sooner or later.

The newspaper-correspondents who bedaubed him with flattery, who described his person and features with the minuteness of a passport, who chronicled all his movements, who named him the Young Napoleon,-he being of the same age as the Emperor was at the date of the battle of Austerlitz,— were moved by a friendly spirit, mingled with that hero-worship which is so decided an American trait; but they were doing him any thing but a kindness. Indeed, they were playing directly into the hands of his enemies and ill-wishers, political and personal.

Nor was this all. General McClellan was as little of a politician as a citizen of the United States well can be. The subject of politics had never occupied his mind. His time and attention had been wholly given to the duties of his profession while he remained in the army, and afterwards to the duties of his business. It had so happened that he had never but once, since reaching the legal age, been in a position to exercise the right of voting. But he had opinions upon the political issues of the time; and these opinions were not those of the party into whose hands the people had committed the government of the country; and the only time he had ever voted was in the memorable contest in Illinois between Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Douglas, when he had preferred the latter; but in our country, sooner or later, every thing is swept into the gulf of politics; and thus General McClellan's

military capacity, his courage, even his patriotism, began to be looked at from a political point of view, and to be called in question by heated political partisans.

When Congress assembled, in December, 1861, President Lincoln announced the appointment of General McClellan to the post of commander of the army, in these terms, which were generally received as expressing no more than the exact truth:

:

"With the retirement of General Scott came the executive duty of appointing in his stead a general-in-chief of the army. It is a fortunate circumstance that neither in council nor country was there, so far as I know, any difference of opinion as to the proper person to be selected. The retiring chief repeatedly expressed his judgment in favor of General McClellan for the position; and in this the nation seemed to give a unanimous concurrence. The designation of General McClellan is, therefore, in a considerable degree, the selection of the country, as well as of the Executive; and hence there is better reason to hope there will be given him the confidence and cordial support thus, by fair implication, promised, and without which he cannot with so full efficiency serve the country."

Within a few days after the meeting of Congress, the vague discontent and restless impatience of the community found expression in the shape of a Congressional Committee on the Conduct of the War, consisting of three members of the Senate and four members of the House of Representatives. The first motion towards the formation of the committee was made in the Senate on the 9th day of

December, and the first meeting of the committee was held on the 20th of the same month. From that time until the close of April they sat nearly every day; and there were several meetings during the months of May, June, and July. Had the committee confined their inquiries and investigations to past transactions, and considered themselves as charged with the duty of collecting and recording testimony to be used by future historians of the war, their labors might have been of value to the country; but they did not take this limited view of the scope and sphere of their operations. In their judgment, the future as well as the past was committed to their trust. For instance, the very first witness examined before them was General I. B. Richardson, and the second was General S. P. Heintzelman, and both were examined on the same day, December 24. General Richardson's examination was short, and not very important. The first question put to General Heintzelman by the chairman began thus:-"We have inquired a little about the past: now we want to inquire a little about the present and the future, which is, perhaps, more important. As you are a military man of great experience, we want some of your opinions on some matters." As to the "opinions" of the witness which they wanted, one or two questions and answers may suffice to show:—

"Ques.-'I would inquire whether there has been any council of war among your officers and the commanderin-chief.'

"Ans.-'I have never been consulted upon any military

"Ques.-"You think a council of war among the chief officers might be beneficial?'

"Ans.-'I thought so. Certainly it would be very satisfactory to some of them, I know. We have been very anxious to know what is proposed to be done. I should act with more confidence if I knew.'

"Ques. Is there any feeling among officers that they are not consulted,-that they are slighted?'

"Ans.-'Yes, sir: I suppose there is some,'" &c. &c.*

This particular grievance-the reserve of the commander-in-chief, and his not consulting with his inferior officers-was a frequent point of inquiry on the part of the committee during the winter. months, but by no means the only one. The general plan of the campaign, the policy which delayed a forward movement, the organization of the army, the proportion of cavalry to the other arms, the defences about Washington, the number of men requisite to make it secure, were also among the subjects to which the inquiries of the committee were directed. Their investigations were moulded and colored by a spirit not friendly to the commander-in-chief. Day after day, general officers, and sometimes those of inferior rank, were called before them, and invited, not to say encouraged, to give their opinions upon the plans of the commander-in-chief, his military views, and the manner in which he discharged his duties, and thus to

* Report on the Conduct of the War, Part I. pp. 117-121.