Grant and Meade in The Wilderness

[trice]

Originally Posted by J_Man0507

While Meade made some very good command decisions after he first took command of the AoP, it seems that he was just as bad as many of the other generals who had been put in charge of that army.

Hmm, can't quite agree:

McClellan didn't have the intestinal fortitude Meade had. I would think Meade would have done better at Antietam, wouldn't have hung Pope out to dry at 2nd Manassas, and wouldn't have been off on the ironclad Galena when Malvern Hill was fought. McClellan was bright enough, had personal/physical courage, lots of charisma, knew tons about military matters -- and should never have been in complete field command of such a force.

Pope (not really AoP, but still) wore his troops to a frazle, created command friction, and fought 2nd Manassas like an amateur. Meade would have done better, IMHO.

Burnside, well, I think Meade was a lot better. I can't picture Meade creating that mess at Fredericksburg and then smashing his men into Longstreet's line time after time.

Hooker ... maybe you have some points with Hooker. He was sharp, knew his stuff, turned that army around in a hurry, could plan, could see opportunities and move. But his politicking, his flop at Chancellorsville and erratic course at Chattanooga and a few other things make me think he might be a superior Corps commander and an inferior independent army commander. Sherman seems to have been happy to get rid of him instead of giving him an army.

Originally Posted by J_Man0507

...He was, unfortunately, overly cautious. Now sometimes that is a good thing, I do admit. A prime example was during the Mine Run campaign, when Meade was urged to attack and he did not because Lee was entrenched in a formidable position, and to have attacked would have been foolhardy.

Hmm, more like overly prudent. He was actually more than willing to attack at Mine Run when Warren called it off; mad at Warren, but willing to look and see that -- whether or not Warren should have stopped the attack -- it was too late now, so it should be called off.

Originally Posted by J_Man0507

... But while Meade was competent, I would have to rate him as only a fair commander. He badly bungled in his first battle under Grant. I think part of this is because he is being watched by Grant, who is, as we know, a particularly aggressive general. I think Meade wanted to show that he could be aggressive too, and he messed up by pressing his forces into battle too soon and unsupported. And in the Wilderness, the terrain seems to negate the numbers in most cases.

I could agree with most of this; maybe all of it. But you might also want to take note that the initial plan for Cold Harbor was Meade's (bringing Smith up for a planned breakthrough) and that realistically the plan for the intitial attack really should have worked, smashing through Lee's right, and taking Richmond in a day. But the exhausted army couldn't execute the plan properly, the attack was delayed, delayed again, giving Lee time to plug the hole. They should have cancelled it then, like Mine Run, and didn't. Some 6,000 Union casualties later, we have the Cold Harbor tragedy.

Originally Posted by J_Man0507

Now Grant isn't entirely blameless, but he should be cut some slack in my opinion. He had made it a point that he was not taking over command of the AoP, and that it was still Meade's army to command; he was just giving a general order and Meade was to carry it out in his own way.

As bad a command arrangement as you can imagine. Amazing that they made it work.

Originally Posted by J_Man0507

The Wilderness showed Grant that Meade wasn't as competent as those who had served under Grant before, such as Sherman and Thomas, who could be given an order and be expected to carry it out almost to perfection.

Hmm, Sherman was a lousy offensive tactical commander. Flopped completely at Chattanooga. Missed opportunity after opportunity to smash the Confederates before him in the Atlanta Campaign (the two by McPherson, and the one at the end of the campaign at Jonesboro). Smashed straight into Kennesaw Mountain. Should have wiped Johnston out in North Carolina. Grant trusted him, he was tough and a fighter with lots of interesting strategic ideas, but he lacked a lot on offensive tactics and operational movements.

Thomas -- well, I like him but Grant didn't. Apparently he thought Thomas had tried to steal his command after Shiloh, and Thomas is regarded as having treated him rudely when he came to Chattanooga. Grant respected Thomas' competence, thought he was too slow, a good defensive but not an offensive fighter.

OTOH, Grant thought in 1861 that McClellan, Buell, and Rosecrans would surely be the great generals of the war, and he wanted Franklin as his AoP Cavalry commander. Had a high opinion of Baldy Smith, Gillmore, and Hunter as well. He and Sherman thought McPherson was going to surpass both of them. Judging commanders is hard.

Originally Posted by J_Man0507

After the Wilderness, Grant began taking tighter hold on the reigns and gave more direct, clear cut orders, and to an extent began to command the AoP.

Yes, all true -- except that sometimes he let Meade do it. For example, Cold Harbor as above, and a lot of the movement to Petersburg after that.

Originally Posted by J_Man0507

On the point of Meade being a student of Napoleon, I have to agree. He went to West Point, and Napoleonic tactics were the norm in that day, and were predominantly taught at the USMA. However, I think he, like most generals by 1863, were realizing that new technology in the form of rifling and better ammunition were making those tactic obsolete. Gettysburg was really the last stand up fight in the Eastern theatre, in my opinion, and the Wilderness was a mix of trench and stand up fighting. At Spotsylvania, its all trench warfare, with massed assaults launched to take the enemies works.

West Point officers had very little exposure to formal study of Napoleon as cadets. I think it amounted to one short (6 week course that mainly touched on outposts and small units). They actually study it more today. But some men studied it on their own. From the library records, you can see what they took out. Beauregard, IIRR, read a 4 volume treatise on Napoleon in the original French. Grant prefered romantic novels.

Regards,
Tim

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by trice

That said, I thought it would be instructive to see what passed between them on the morning of May 5th, when Lee's advance appeared:
----
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE POTOMAC,
Old Wilderness Tavern, May 5, 1864.
(Received 7.30 a.m.)
Lieutenant-General GRANT:
The enemy have appeared in force on the Orange pike, and are now reported forming line of battle in front of Griffin's division, Fifth Corps. I have directed General Warren to attack them at once with his whole force. Until this movement of the enemy is developed, the march of the corps must be suspended. I have, therefore, sent word to Hancock not to advance beyond Todd's Tavern for the present. I think the enemy is trying to delay our movement, and will not give battle, but of this we shall soon see. For the present I will stop here, and have stopped our trains.
GEO. G. MEADE.
-----
HEADQUARTERS ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES,
Germanna Ford, May 5, 1864--8.24 a.m.
General MEADE:
Your note giving movement of enemy and your dispositions received. Burnside's advance is now crossing the river. I will have Ricketts' division relieved and advanced at once, and urge Burnside's crossing. As soon as I can see Burnside I will go forward. If any opportunity presents itself for pitching into a part of Lee's army, do so without giving time for disposition.
U.S. GRANT,
Lieutenant-General.
----

Zip-zap-bang. No hesitation by Meade. Lee shows up, he stops his army and turns to the attack on his own authority. Grant gets the message and replies: I am pushing more men up and coming myself; if you get a chance to hit Lee before I get there, go after him quick and hard.

That is a command team sure of themselves and each other, in agreement about what they want to do.

That's an excellent, concise analysis of the situation, and the attitudes of Meade and Grant.

-

[ole]

That's an excellent, concise analysis of the situation, and the attitudes of Meade and Grant.

That's why it's nice to have him around.

ole

[J_Man0507]

Trice, you make some good points. On that first one, I went over it and realized that I had put the wrong phrase in there. Where I said that he was just as bad, I really meant that he had some of the same faults as the other commanders of the AoP. I think Meade was the best commander that they had, though he had his faults. I don't think that there could have been a better commander at that point (Hancock maybe, but having been wounded, he wasn't going to be the man he had been early in the war, and Reynolds, but he was dead.)

As to Napoleon, Meade might have had just a little more instruction on these tactics as Grant had. Meade had attended West Point from 1831-1835. I am not sure of the cirriculum at that time, but being only a little over twenty years after Napoleons last campaign, it was probably taught more than in the 1840's. But once again, I am not entirely sure, and it will take some digging. Call it a logical assumption for the moment.

Other than that, I have to agree with alot that was said. The Meade-Grant relationship was strained at times, and it is a miracle that it survived at all. The command arrangement was, in my opinion, too bulky. They had taken two corps and consolidated them into the other three, which I think made them too unwieldy. They should have taken the 1st and 3rd and consolidated those two, and made four corps instead of three. But in the end, it got the job done I guess.

[trice]

Originally Posted by J_Man0507

As to Napoleon, Meade might have had just a little more instruction on these tactics as Grant had. Meade had attended West Point from 1831-1835. I am not sure of the cirriculum at that time, but being only a little over twenty years after Napoleons last campaign, it was probably taught more than in the 1840's. But once again, I am not entirely sure, and it will take some digging. Call it a logical assumption for the moment.

Same courses. They didn't teach formally much in the way of Military History or Tactics in those days. I think the only course they had was Mahan's, that was about 6 weeks, and it was really more about outpost duty and such than how to run a large army.

FYI, I have three close relatives who graduated West Point, one of whom returned to become permanent staff at USMA/USMAPS for 18 of his 30 years. Heck, I have a sister who did guided tours of the place while her husband was stationed there. I've also read a lot about what the cadets of the pre-Civil War days went through. Trust me on this.

Grant's best subject, BTW, was drawing/art, which was compulsory in those days. USMA was primarily a school for engineers, and it was assumed a soldier/engineer officer needed to be able to draw accuurately and clearly in a day before reliable cameras.

Also, Stonewall Jackson was regarded as a dunce when he arrived in the same year with McClellan. Most Western and Southern Cadets were way behind the Easterners when they arrived due to the difference in school systems. But he was close to the top when he graduated, moving up by dint of ferocious effort and discipline. His classmates said he would have finished first if there was another year in the program.

Regards,
Tim

[ole]

(Hancock maybe, but having been wounded, he wasn't going to be the man he had been early in the war, and Reynolds, but he was dead.) Given the nature of his wound, you might at least have indicated that no pun was intended.

ole

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by J_Man0507

The Meade-Grant relationship was strained at times, and it is a miracle that it survived at all. .

I'll agree with this point, tho the post above from trice would indicate that at the start, G and M were 'on the same page'.

I do think that as the campaign wore on, the relationship became frayed, as witnessed by some of Meade's letters to his wife would indicate. Such incidents as the Sheridan/Meade mix up might be an indicator of how things between G and M may have deteriorated.

[matthew mckeon]

Excellent thread.

Wasn't Jomini's distillation of Napoleonic tactics a common text for officers on both sides. I seem to remember Halleck either translating or editing or teaching this.

By the way, in the blog "Civil Warriors" there are lenghty excerpts from Meade's letters to his wife that are quite interesting.

[J_Man0507]

Originally Posted by trice

FYI, I have three close relatives who graduated West Point, one of whom returned to become permanent staff at USMA/USMAPS for 18 of his 30 years. Heck, I have a sister who did guided tours of the place while her husband was stationed there. I've also read a lot about what the cadets of the pre-Civil War days went through. Trust me on this.

Grant's best subject, BTW, was drawing/art, which was compulsory in those days. USMA was primarily a school for engineers, and it was assumed a soldier/engineer officer needed to be able to draw accuurately and clearly in a day before reliable cameras.


Regards,
Tim

I believe you . I had also always read/heard/thought that Grant's best subject had been horse riding, but that could be wrong too. I unfortunately haven't gotten to read as much as I would like to about him. Have to add that to whole list of things to read/add to the library. Thanks for the info though. Adding it to the memory banks!

Originally Posted by samgrant

I'll agree with this point, tho the post above from trice would indicate that at the start, G and M were 'on the same page'.

From all that I have seen, I would agree that they were on the same page for the most part. But their relationship became more frayed as time went on it seems, from all the letters he wrote to his wife, even though I think it was more Meade getting annoyed that he wasn't getting the credit in the papers than Grant exacerbating the situation. Meade was still the commander of the AoP and Grant had made that clear. But the papers and the reporters gave all the credit to Grant, even though it might have been something he hadn't ordered or had no control over. I think Meade was just angered that he wasn't getting credit where he felt credit was due. I think the relationship between the two could have been better, but unfortunately the media didn't help matters much. They did seem to work well together once a routine was established, however, I think.

Originally Posted by ole

(Hancock maybe, but having been wounded, he wasn't going to be the man he had been early in the war, and Reynolds, but he was dead.) Given the nature of his wound, you might at least have indicated that no pun was intended.

Didn't see that there ole. Thanks for the heads up! Good thing that nail hadn't gone in a little further over eh?

[samgrant]

Here's some links which 'illustrate' Grant's proficiency at art/drawing:

http://www.granthomepage.com/grantartist.htm

http://faculty.css.edu/mkelsey/usgrant/geom.html

I wonder if that spacial sense helped him on the battlefield?