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.
From what I recall, the "upper" road was dry and comparatively traffic free. The lower road was kind of messed up that day, so there is some logic to his choice.
Also, I visit Brookville, IN every once in a while and read the marker in front of Wallace's house.
Some say his experience at Shiloh, followed by his confrontation of Early later on led to his writing of Ben Hur.
Probably under-rated, but if he'd centerpunched the CS left that afternoon...
Grant certainly knew how to play politics with the best of them. Look at his handling of McClernand. He had permission to sack him weeks before he actually did, but bided his time to make sure he built the case in such a way, and played his card at the right time, so that McClernand was left twisting in the wind even though he was a favorite and confidant of Lincoln. not that I don't think McClernand deserved it, mind you.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
When you're in a position where you are running something large, you want your closest associates to be on your side ... right? McClernand proved himself to be a formidable general, and Grant gave him some rather large leeway. But McClernand was on McClernand's side and not on Grant's.
McC made his play and got trumped. That's the way the game is played.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
When you're in a position where you are running something large, you want your closest associates to be on your side ... right? McClernand proved himself to be a formidable general, and Grant gave him some rather large leeway. But McClernand was on McClernand's side and not on Grant's.
McC made his play and got trumped. That's the way the game is played.
ole
Yes, he handling of John McClernand was brilliant and lets admit McClernand was a political "rascal". Grant easily best him at the political game that McClernand live by.
My grip with Grant and historians is that they present him as a political naive and the truth is. He was skilled politically.
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
The historical record seems to indicate Grant was Not particularly skillled (having great ability) in politics.
But why OPN?
His damage control after Shiloh it was obvious and it worked.
He easily handle McCernand a political rascal.
He easily handle Butler, Baldy Smith, and Burnside when he was in the east.
So where does this historical notion that Grant was not particularity skilled comes from? It must come from his informal nature that makes him seem naive at politics.
Maybe someone knows something for what I see a skilled manager of military politics with any back stabbing done when needed.
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
His damage control after Shiloh it was obvious and it worked.
He easily handle McCernand a political rascal.
He easily handle Butler, Baldy Smith, and Burnside when he was in the east.
So where does this historical notion that Grant was not particularity skilled comes from? It must come from his informal nature that makes him seem naive at politics.
Maybe someone knows something for what I see a skilled manager of military politics with any back stabbing done when needed.
I don't know that I would say that he "handled" Butler and Burnside. He lived with them because Lincoln told him they were too necessary politically for the 1864 election. Once the election was over and they were no longer necessary, he jettisoned them with Lincoln's blessing. A true political operative would have figured out a way to get rid of them without any political ramifications, but that was not done.
I think at the beginning Grant was indeed naive when it came to politics. He learned as the war progressed, but I do not get the feeling he was ever skilled at politics the way, say, Halleck was. Indeed, after the war Grant found out the way Halleck had played him and his opinion of Halleck plummeted.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
What is seen as craft and guile of a high order by some, is seen by others as politics (old army style) as usual.
The 'damage control' exercised after Shiloh, If such it was, was not particularly effective. Grant lost control of his campaign to Halleck and if not for Halleck's being promoted and called East, Grant would have most probably left the army, under a cloud.
With Lincoln behind him, Grant needed no great poklitical talent.
Few competent army commander's position would have been challenged by Smith, Butler Or Burnside.
Lincoln, a politician of some ability in his own right, was not impressed by Grant's political skills, but his military ability to win battles with a minimum of hand holding from the White House.
When you read accounts of people at the Hornet Nest, they refer to Gen. Grant ridding up to Gen Prentiss and telling him to hold the line. Gen. Grant is quoted to have said "hold at all Hazard".
Why does Gen. Grant leave this whole moment out of his Official Report and memoirs?
It would be hard to believe Gen. Grant would forget this important moment of the battle and not giving Gen. Prentiss his due.
Did it even happen?
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
LEW stew 
Linear Mode
