George B. Mcclellan's Leadership During The Civil War

The Civil War placed brother against brother, dividing families over whether to own slaves or not. While several armies had poor leaders the Army of the Potomac had strong leaders. Some of their leaders include George B. McClellan, George Stoneman and Joseph Hooker. George B. McClellan was the credited with the creation of the official Army of the Potomac. Because the Army of the Potomac followed their decisive and caring commanders, their intelligence unit had a great bureau and they often were victorious. The first general to lead the army was George B. McClellan; he was the most empathetic general and led the army without fear, he was under Brigadier General Irvin McDowell (Fordney 2). The second general was Ulysses S. Grant; he was the

The intelligence unit was made up of soldiers and civilians, but was commonly known as scouts or agents. The bureau gave the assistants abrupt access to high-ranking officers.
At the end of the war the Union army destroyed the operation, due to the bureau’s valuable contributions (Alberti 4). After the war, American leaders established the Central Intelligence Agency, known today as the C.I.A, because they did not want to make that mistake. General McClellan cared for the Army of the Potomac and while his command of the army came to an end before the war reached its halfway point, his influence on its high command, for good or ill, continued through the Appomattox Court House Battle (Morris 1). During the Chancellorsville campaign in 1863, General Stoneman led the Army of the Potomac’s cavalry on its first raid under separate command, which brought the confederate forces, a decisive decision that eventually led to the well-known Battle of Gettysburg (Fordney 1). General Ulysses S. Grant, then the commanding the Army of the Potomac, decided that in order to put pressure on his opponent it was time for his army to cross the James River gave the first order to break camp and that was a monumental decision in the war. “All armies, in all wars, are riven by controversy; the intense, life-and death pressures on ambitious and often exhausted men naturally produce moments of personal conflict in the heat of battle and more insidious jealousies in the aftermath of fighting” (Morris