Comments on: McDowell’s Stuff

By: Harry Smeltzer

Harry Smeltzer — Sun, 26 Dec 2010 15:31:20 +0000

Tom,

Check your inbox!

By: Tom Rowland

Tom Rowland — Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:46:30 +0000

Harry:
Sorry it has taken a while to get back to you and take up your offer to get into contact with the descendant of McDowell. Please ask her to get in touch with me….perhaps she could point me in a positive direction.

I just completed my work on Franklin Pierce & it is off to the publishers….so I would like to pick up in earnest on my McDowell research.

The McDowells’ (Irvin & Helen) had a brood of children….including, I believe, three sons….who survived their father’s death in 1885 in the San Francisco area…I can’t fathom that there aren’t any direct line descendants who might be able to shed life on any family papers or artifacts….

But thanks very much for your offer….this will be a work that will keep me busy for awhile….I always admire how prolific Ethan Rafuse has become in cranking out good publications…..I find my teaching responsibilities & associated work very time-consuming.

By: Harry Smeltzer

Harry Smeltzer — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:16:36 +0000

Tom, Thanks for commenting. I have been contacted by a direct McDowell descendant (see here) - if you'd like to contact her, let me know and I'll put you in touch. As for the Waugh book, I have it here in a stack to preview for America's Civil War. I went straight to the 1864 election stuff, and found (as did this blogger) Waugh's thoughts on the likelihood of McC being easily influenced by "handlers" had he won the presidency to be off base. McC was a bad politician (personally and publicly) precisely because of his unwillingness to bend, and this was borne out in his later political career. Good luck with your work on McDowell. I look forward to what you come up with, particularly his political and family connections. I think that needs to be explored in more detail.

By: Tom Rowland

Tom Rowland — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:52:09 +0000

Just thought I would add a comment on this discussion. Encouraged by Ethan Rafuse, I have plans on reviving my McDowell research once I finish an interpretive biography of Franklin Pierce (hopefully off to the publisher by late fall 2010).
Yes, it is very frustrating to discover that there are virtually no existing papers/memoirs from McDowell. (Outside of a handful @ Chicago Historical Society). This is all the more difficult to understand because he was such a meticulous personality & because he had a lot of cause to want his side of the story told (since he was already pilloried by his contemporaries for his shortcomings).
I did establish contact with a remote descendant of the McDowells….who were able to furnish some interesting ancestral information on the McDowell’s in America…but little else.
As for the “McDowell Hat” controversy…..much of the discussion of this is in the National Tribune…..I came across quite a lively discussion of it in several editions from 1892 (30th anniversary of 2nd Bull Run)
The ultimate McDowell story is going to have to be told by mining a host of manuscript sources of folks he interacted with throughout these years. I believe it can be a very worthwhile endeavor….although it will always have the limitations of no McDowell papers.

I see where there is another book (John Waugh’s – on Lincolon & McClellan) out…any reactions?
regards – Tom Rowland

By: Harry Smeltzer

Harry Smeltzer — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 05:06:54 +0000

Brad,

I’ve not written anything here. Howevr, a long while back – maybe even before I started this blog – I did contribute to something Dmitri wrote about the subject over on his site. Go here http://cwbn.blogspot.com/search?q=mcdowell and scroll down towards the bottom…there are a couple of articles on the subject.

By: Brad Forbush

Brad Forbush — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 04:52:17 +0000

Dear Harry,
I research the 13th Mass Vols. and am building a website dedicated to them. I recently started blogging (13thmassblog) and posted a semi-serious bit about McDowell. A reader commented that you may have written something a while back about the generals unique hat. I did a search here but couldn’t find it. John Hennessy in Return to Bull Run cites the Nat’l Tribune, as a reference for the hat, which I will try to find. Anyway, if you have some info I would appreciate a heads up. Thanks very much. (nice blog).

By: Irvin McDowell in America’s Civil War Magazine « Bull Runnings

Irvin McDowell in America’s Civil War Magazine « Bull Runnings — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:51:46 +0000

[...] is a fine writer, and this article is a good read. Not a lot gets written about McDowell (see here), and anything that gets a discussion of the man going has got to be a good thing. However since [...]

By: Harry Smeltzer

Harry Smeltzer — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:38:35 +0000

I don’t want to sound like I think the “all green alike” mindset was a good mindset, or that the movement to Manassas was a good idea. I think the “all green” rationale assumed other things to be equal, and they weren’t. The Confederates had topography and objective (defense) on their side. If the Federals had something to offest that, say numbers, perhaps one could argue the soundness of the reasoning. But they didn’t have that advantage and, more important, they weren’t under the impression that they had it either.

By: Chris Evans

Chris Evans — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 21:12:33 +0000

Thanks Harry,
I think what you said is the best short review of McDowell that I have read and makes the most sense. I think the troops being green played havoc with everyone but as you mentioned the Confederates were just as green. It does seem so early in the war that a decisive Union victory at Bull Run could have been a key to overall victory.
Thanks again,
Chris

By: Harry Smeltzer

Harry Smeltzer — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:54:56 +0000

Well, there’s a lot in there to ponder, Chris. DO I think it was an impossible situation? No, not really. Defeat wasn’t preordained. He had some serious obstacles; while he was a brevet major, he was only a regular 1st Lt., and had spent his career as a staff officer; he didn’t have much of a staff of his own; his superiors (Scott) were less than firmly in his corner; his subordinates were inexperienced; his troops were green and unfamiliar with each other; he had very little cavalry to work with. But many of these problems were shared with the enemy. The rebels, of course, had the advantages of topography and defense on their side.

As for McDowell’s “plan”, I think that is one thing that gets consistently misrepresented. As discussed here before, his plan did not rely on Patterson holding Johnston in the Valley. His plan estimated a Confederate force of 35,000 at Manassas, and that is pretty close to what he ended up facing. In general, his plan was a turning movement. Initially he thought he would operate against the enemy’s right, but he changed it to the left. In execution, he was ill served by his engineer Barnard – poor recon, lousy order of battle (march). Even so, things were still looking good until the lull and the advance of Ricketts and Griffin.

What difference would a victory have made? I don’t enjoy what-ifs, but I think primarily we’re looking at a huge swing in attitude had the rebels been dealt a sound defeat at this stage. That’s a substantial swing in the attitudes on both sides. Combined with the setbacks the Confederacy was suffering in the west, who knows how long the fledgling country would have continued to receive popular support?