and this is what winfield scott wanted to do. he wanted to see what was going on even though he was no longer in a position, he weighed almost 300 pounds at this point and couldn't ride a horse, to go see what the army was actually about. finally it became obvious to winfield scott and those around him it was time for him to turn over the reins to a younger man, much younger, and so his request for retirement was approved in late october, 1861. as he left on a train up to west point, the military academy where he would live out his days, a new order arrived for mcclellan. he was now appointed commanding general of the entire united states army. remember, he's only 35 years old. he's now commanding all of the federal forces. in response to president lincoln's express concern, here's your commission, and i'm really worried that you can't do all this. the young general looked back at the president and said simply, i can do it all. and so given that, the assurance that i can do it all, they moved forward together. but it wasn't long

i like to use the example of winfield scott. you know, winfield scott was there. he was a great military mind. great military hero. but he does very little preparation for this war that, well, it may come, it may not come. until george mcclelland comes up with this idea of the transmontane campaign, going across the mountains from ohio and capturing richmond from behind, it will all be over very, very quickly. it's then when winfield scott comes up with what's the ann con da plan. he basically says, george, that's an interesting idea but those kind of campaigns don't work. but i've got this better idea. of course, i'm going to want you to be a leader in all of this. well, the war comes, doesn't it? what happens at first bull run. both sides have the same battle plans. they're both going to hit the other one's flank. i used to do this in the classroom on a blackboard, whiteboard, whatever it is today, show the two sides and show them if both battle plans had worked at the same time, what would have happened is they would have been chasing each other. maybe that's t

i mean, when winfield scott is approaching the gates of mexico, a bunch of indiana volunteers, their team is up, and nobody even questioned the fact that they're going to go home. and scott even worked to get them home before the yellow fever season, to get them through veracruz and get some reinforcements in to replace them. i mean, they factored this into military thinking in the united states. and the confederate states shared this tradition. so, if you don't have a draft or some kind of legislation, you don't have an army to defend the confederate states of america. well, lee said everybody has an obligation to serve, and 18 to 35, later raised to 45, and there had to be exemptions. and realize what this does, this makes the war department -- puts them in control of the confederate economy, the industrial war industry economy. because you control labor just like the war department would control raw materials and also try to control transportation. it set the stage for the closest thing to a managed economy that the american continent had ever seen. i think. and this from the confe

winfield scott hancock was superb. giving hancock, of course, that hancock was superb that would last the rest of the war, all the generals north and south came out of that experience understanding that leading a troop of cavalry in texas in 1858 was a lot different than commanding a division of 6,000 soldiers all of whom are looking to you for guidance, inspiration, and development on the field at williamsburg. they all had a lot to learn. as the union forces followed up on that success at williamsburg and followed joe johnston's forces retreating up the peninsula, they encountered one of the rainiest months of may on record. and they struggled with maps, u.s. army topographic service maps that bore little if any relation to reality. mcclellan received a note from colonel george stoneman whose cavalry found him at new kent courthouse on the 10th of may. solomon says, the map is wrong with regard that this road and every road! mcclellan then sent a telegram up to edwin stanton at the war department saying that he has a

, winfield scott, when he stayed with the great military mind. look what he did in previous wars. but the difficulty was, those people who all went to west point got to know each other. and when the war began and someone -- some went one way, some went the other way, the problem is that they did know each other. they were all the same training. they had the same ideas, many, many of them. so as a result, when the war began, they all fought in terms of fighting about the same way. consequently, when you fight the same way, and you know what the guy is going to do, it's very difficult not to react -- pardon me. it's very difficult to react in an appropriate way. the west pointers were all prepared in the same particular sort of way. and what happened at west point, of course, end this fact that some people left meant that west point bore of stigma of traitorism, before and after the war for a long time and that had an enormous impacts on the development of military policy. >> that's an interesting concept. everybody fighting the same kind of war. i

mcclellan to commanding general of the army as opposed to the defeated irwin mcdowell and the aged winfield scott. but as soon as they began to work closely together, friction developed here. stanton was a republican. mcclellan was a -- what was then called a war democrat, someone who was in favor of certainly restoring the union, but not much else. and so they had different political views, different personalities, and stanton did complain, mcclellan always wanted more men and he wanted them yesterday. and so that's why after the failure to take richmond in 1862, mcclellan was ordered to begin shipping his army back up to the washington area and was not reinforced for a second try in richmond. it wouldn't be until grant came in 1864 that richmond would hear cannons just outside its gates once again. >> john mountcastle thank you for taking time and spending with our viewers here on "american history tv." >> i appreciate it. and i appreciate the great questions. >> john mountcastle's nomination once again was george b. mcclellan. he's the fourth out of five historians who will nominate person of

i cannot imagine andrew jackson and william henry harrison and winfield scott or jacob brown. any of the other great manders and he felt he had to surrender. they would have made a different decision and taken a different path earlier. >> one other question. i read a back or part of a book, i think the author's name was walker? it's about the war of 1812 that came out last year. his point largely in the book was and it may be a retor cal question, but until 1812, there was question about what parts of canada may be part of the united states or vice-versa. his argument was that the war of 1812 definitively ended that discussion. >> not entirely. one of the arguments that alan taylor makes in his book and it's a good one, there were two conflicting visions about what was going to happen in north america. were in north america. were we going to nex canada or was our republican experiment was going to collapse? and who knows what would happen in its place. now where i think taylor is wrong is he argues that a number of british and canadians actually believed the u.s. collapsed, an

taylor was a leading military commander along with winfield scott. both taylor and scott were whigs. polk seemed to be muttering he was making heroes out of two whigs that had run for president. polk didn't run for re-election. he didn't run against taylor but was a kind of uncomfortable carriage ride to taylor's inauguration. taylor said something to the effect to polk that maybe it is good that california and oregon are territories. he doubted they would become state, because they are so far away. that irked polk and called taylor a well-meaning old man. he thought that taylor lacked vision for the continental united states. sure enough, california would become a state thanks to the gold rush in 1850 a year after he died. >> was there speculation as to why he chose not to run? >> when he was nominated in 1844, it was a strange situation that he wasn't even running. the main democratic candidate leading up to the convention was mark van buren who had lost running for election from 1840 but was trying to regain the presidency again. he seemed to be m

army, winfield scott, remembered curtis from the mexican war. and he essentially arranged his appointment to general. scott's faith in curtis was not misplaced. when the dust settled, curtis would be the most successful commander in blue or gray west of the mississippi river. curtis realized early on that his greatest opponent, his toughest opponent would be geography. the campaign would take place atop the ozark plateau in the middle of winter. the absence of railroads and rivers meant the federals would have to advance on crude frontier roads. the operative word is crude. under such circumstances the science of logistics assumed critical importance. every step forward would take the federals farther and farther away from their base of supplies in raleigh mathematics of the process was inescapable. at some point the union army would reach the end of its logistical tether and it would simply grind to a halt. it could go no further. now precisely when and where that would happen could not be predicted. curtis prepared as best he could. fortunatel

one of them is the son of winfield scott, the great general from the war of 1812, the mexican-american war and even the civil war. he was visiting madison in the 1820s with his son. his son became ill and died, and the family extended to him the privilege of having him buried here in this cemetery. the other individual buried here actually was an owner of montpelier in the later 19th century. there's a madison family association and every three years they have their reunion here at montpelier. we're delighted to have them come. but this is no longer an active cemetery. there are no burials in the cemetery by the family or by anyone else. my archaeological evidence shows that this cemetery is really full. there's no room left. the cemetery had been neglected over the years. and starting about ten years ago, in fact, many of the monuments were no longer vertical. part of the enclosing brick wall had collapsed and vandals had pushed over the monument marking dolley madison's burial site, so we joined with the virginia chapter of the daughters of the american revolution and with the fundra

and i cannot imagine andrew jackson, william henry harrison, winfield scott, or jacob brown, any of the other great commanders of the war putting themselves in the position that hall found himself in mid-august of 1812, when he felt he had to surrender. they would have made a different decision, taken a different path earlier. >> one other question. i read a book, or part of a book let's say, i think the other's name was walker is that possible? about the war of 1812, it came out last year. anyway, his point, largely in the book, and it may be a rhetorical question, but until 1812, there was a question about whether or not parts of canada may become part of the united states or vice versa, and his argument was that the war of 1812 definitively ended that discussion. >> not entirely. one of the arguments that alan taylor makes in his book, and i think it's a good one, is that there are two conflicting visions about what was going to happen in north america. were we going to annex canada and it would become part of the great american republic, or was our republican experiment going to col

in 1852, they nominate general winfield scott, predictably another war hero, another mexican war hero, to be their standard bearer. in the campaign they downplayed traditional issues. they downplayed their traditional opposition to unrestricted immigration. they downplayed some of their traditional issues like temperance prohibition laws that they had long been champions of. they tried to portray franklin pierce as anti-catholic, which is quite a stretch. there's scott on the left and franklin pierce on the right. pierce was a brigadier general from the war with mexico and democratic, excuse me, party politician. and scott, as i said, one of the -- well, the most important general in that war. and so they try to portray pierce as anti-catholic. this proves to be a huge miscalculati miscalculation, as people are not suddenly convinced that the whig party -- immigrants are certainly not suddenly convinced the whig party is now their friend. so immigrants continue to support the democratic party and the whigs, thereby, remove the last major source of difference. remember we said differen