Civil War History - The South & Western TheatersCheck this forum for all South and Western Theater Questions. Included are the Western, Pacific, Trans-Mississippi, & Lower Seaboard and Gulf Approach Theaters.
Hey, Johnny Rube, nit-pik away! Chunky? Didn't even think to nit-pik that one. Grant was a little bitty guy, even by 1860 standards. He couldn't have personally whupped Julia, assuming he wanted to. He was built rather squarely, but on the smallish side. Chunky? Nah.
Didn't know you were quoting. I suppose some writers won't grant a victory unless the opposing side is physically chased off the field. To me, if you go home before the other guy does, you lost. Of course, all that makes no difference to people who don't nit-pik,
A question (all right! wrong theater again!). Was Grant whupped in most of the 40 days battles? He didn't retreat, but he did abandon the fields without clear wins.
A question (all right! wrong theater again!). Was Grant whupped in most of the 40 days battles? He didn't retreat, but he did abandon the fields without clear wins.
Hey Ole,
Is this a trick question, or should I know what the "40 day battles" are?
There's a lot I don't know about Grant...and everyone else involved in the C.W. I have a number of books I haven't read yet...Like someone else said recently (perhaps it was you) I'm several years behind on my reading.
As to your question...off the top of my head, I'd have to say I'm unaware of any battles that Grant fought in which he was badly whupped, nor do any come to mind from which he actually skedaddled. Did Grant ever publicly admit defeat at the end of any battle? If Shiloh had ended that first evening, Grant clearly was on the losing end. But it didn't end there, and the ultimate resolution to that battle made it a Union win, even if just barely.
I would have to say that backing off from a battlefield in order to re-group and find another way to approach a particular problem, is not something I would consider being whupped, (Grant did a lot of that) so for me the question becomes, how far did any particular army go when they abandoned the field? Seems to me that any time an army is fought-out, so to speak, unable to continue, and completely leaves the area, that has to be considered a whuppin'. Re-positioning doesn't qualify as a defeat. (Keep in mind that any generalization is bound to be faulty.)
So, let me pose a question. It's pretty well accepted that U.S. Grant was not a success in civilian life. By all accounts, he was a gentle man, and in his private life there seems to be no trace of violence or inclination for violence. Indeed, as I recall, Grant had no desire to be a soldier. West Point was purely his father's idea, and even with that training, it seems unlikely Grant would have chosen a military career had he not been such a colossal economic failure in private life.
What, in Grant's character, made him so good at waging war? Was it simply superior manpower, more bullets, better horses, etc., as some have suggested, or was Grant truly a GREAT warrior.
If Grant and Lee had changed positions, with Grant fighting for the South and Lee fighting for the North, each of them accepting whatever strengths and limitations those armies had, how would that war have turned out? Would we have seen Grant surrendering at Appomattox?
Grant wasn't always a winner. It took him over a year before he could even get to Vicksburg to besiege it. After winning laurels there and relieving Rosecrans' (or more properly, Thomas' Army of the Cumberland), Grant was defeated and The Wilderness, Spotsylvania Court House, Cold Harbor but he didn't consider himself whupped. Nor did the Army of the Potomac. It wasn't the battle but the campaign Grant sought to win. Grant had the best grasp of strategy for the war. He was a winner.
First, Johnny, my apologies. The term "40 days" is something I use for Grant's moves from his appointment as general of the armies until his investment of Petersburg. Beats the heck out of recounting each individual battle, as the "Penninsula Campaign" encompasses the 7 days and "Maryland Campaign" includes Frederick and South Mountain as well as Sharpsburg.
I agree that reforming to renew does not constitute defeat. The Wilderness and Spottsylvania, South Anna, Cold Harbor were all "defeats." But the man didn't go home. He re-advanced. Not, technically, in my opinion, defeats.
As to what made Grant the general? I've read a few opinions. One of my favorites holds that his mind could see the entire field (we might call that spatial concept, but I could be wrong). This quality is not necessarily conducive to success in a commercial atmosphere. His calm. His ability to inspire confidence and contribution from his lieutenants (notice I didn't say subordinates? I don't think he ever considered anyone his subordinate. They were his team. And he had to lead them. )
So his mind could see the whole field. And we know that when he saw something clearly, that is where he went. That was his personality. "I want to do this. I will do this. 'Nuff said."
Another example. At Shiloh he saw the end of the day before it was over. They were pushing his people back in big jumps and slow progress. Where did he go? "We're going to end the day here. Set up the guns along this line. Then we'll lick 'em tomorrow."
Calm. Reasoning. Reflective. A leader. "Leader" is a misused term. Sometimes we give the name to people who had nowhere near the capabilities of Gen. Grant. Oh well.
Your final question: "What if Grant and Lee's positions were reversed?" I suspect Grant would have concluded that all was lost somewhere during the Petersburg investment, and cut the losses. Don't know, but he was a realist.
The man was a GENERAL, in every sense of the word. If he had an advantage, he used it. If he had a disadvantage, he worked his way around it. But he moved forward. Always. He took his setbacks and plotted a new course. He never quit. And if that ain't a general , there ain't any.
Finally, Grant used the resources he had. Superior resouces were his and he used them. They were not the reason he was successful.
Ole, your statement above, about Grant's exceptional "spatial" visualization abilities. I've read that in several books, but the way you phrased it; "his mind could see the entire field", brought it home to me more so than other descriptions I've read. I'm pretty much convinced that his superior ability in that area was better than most of his opposing generals, and was most likely a major player in his success, maybe not THE major factor, but most certainly worthy of mention. And my personal opinion is that he never panicked. I'm not sure he knew HOW to panic. His mind naturally shifted into problem solving, probably through his temperament from birth and maturity, and completely bypassed the panic "Ohmigod!" option. I believe he would have had to make the concious decision to panic, in order to actually achieve that state of mind. He never LEARNED to panic, I guess is what I'm trying to say. It was just not a concious part of his thought process. It was an unlearned behavior that to his credit he never learned. That's pretty much my opinion mainly because I've never read ANY material that conveyed in any sense that he panicked on certain occasions, or that he panicked in ANY situation, that I know of. Sure he experienced regret and remorse, and all that other human stuff, but panic was not in his vocabulary. It was an unfamiliar, foreign pattern of thought, an emotion that he rarely, if ever experienced.
I believe you have hit the nail squarley with the "panic" angle, Terry.
He wasted no time worrying about "what if." The whole thing might be summed up with his (paraphrased) statement that he didn't want to hear about what Lee might do to the Union army -- all he wanted to hear was what the Union army was going to do to Lee.
Simple. Direct. Conclusive. A lesson from history?
Grant's ability to concentrate on the job-at-hand is legendary. Other commanders (Stonewall Jackson comes to mind) reportedly had little concern for their own safety on the battlefield, but one might question the common-sense behind riding through a hail of bullets as if they were out for a Sunday drive. It's a miracle that so many of them survived the war.
Grant seems to have had a somewhat contradictory nature. For all of his apparent reserve in dealing with other people, and a rather shy, quiet demeanor, there was still a bit of the rebel in the man, dating back to childhood. Old Jesse Grant told how, as a young child (I think under ten years old), Ulysses would ride the horses down to the river (pond - stream - creek?) for water. He rode sans saddle, standing on the horses bare back, holding the reins, and running the critter as fast as it could go. As an adult he loved fast horses, and speed. He was actually given a speeding ticket in D.C. while he was president, and I think if Grant lived today he would probably be a Nascar driver.
He also had a wry sense of humor that popped out every now and then. One of my favorite "Grantisms" (and I can't quote this accurately without looking it up and I'd have to get off this chair to do so, which would give the teenagers the chance they're always watching for to usurp my position as the unrepentant computer-hog in this house, but this is close enough) was in commenting about his decision to re-enlist in the army in 1861...he said (paraphrased) that he had thoroughly investigated the issue of poverty, and decided it wasn't for him.
U.S. Grant is as fascinating a character as one will find in the C.W. era. I'm convinced that behind his quiet, controlled, and seemingly conservative exterior lurked a very real maverick.
I visited his old house in Galena in 1998, and when I came back out to my car, after the tour I found that it wouldn't start. So I called AAA and told the operator I needed a tow. She asked me where I was, and I said "General Grant's home." She asked, "You got an address on that?" She was in a call center somewhere. I told her no I didn't know the address but if she would just call their local towing contractor in Galena, I'm sure they would know the location. She said "okay". And about 15 minutes later the tow showed up. While I was waiting I was stung by a bee in the butt, after I sat down on a stone wall, and evidently the bee was there before me. So it was a memorable day for me at General Grant's house.
It is called Grant's House, but the Grant's did not live there. It was a gift from the city after the war. I believe he visited now and then, but his home was elsewhere.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
