Grant Not impressed with Grants performance

[major bill]

I knew Grant had to work his way around Vicksburg and encountered several battles along the way, but I thought he still had the numbers entoute. Also, he didn't really "slip" around. He was forced to go the long way because he was repelled.

The Confederates had planned this and knew it was nearly impossible to take Vicksburg form the north due to the terrain and the difficulties of supplies. where ever Grant tried to go North of Vicksburg the Confederate could use parts of their large army and stop him. Combine the Confederate had more men than Grand because Grant was being forced to use many of his men to guard his supply line Grant tried this and predictably failed. What the Confederates did not plan for was for Grant to find a way to avoid the trap set for him by the large Confederate army. Grant moved quickly with limited supplies and no long need to guard his supply lines. Grant then reestablish new supply lines. Grant risked total destruction of his army but by pursuing a bold stratagem carried the day. When it became clear he could not take Vicksburg by a rush he sieged the city while keeping Confederate relief armies at bay.

 

[Bee]

However, this is a message board. If I am not mistaken, it is the intention to have conversation and interaction.

It is, but it IS a hard start to assert a posit without either supporting facts or a knowledge base that suggests authority enough to present an opinion that is counter to the evidence.

Maybe I was fishing for some activity. Instead of leaving to read a bunch of material, how about discussing it here?

If you were fishing for "activity", is it the kind that is useful in furthering your interest in the topic and encouraging others to assist you, or was it purely to stir the pot?

How about a few examples to prove my completely uninformed opinion wrong?

I believe that some fine examples have been provided above.

If we all take to the library, why have this place?

We go to the library and bring back what we have learned, so that we can -- hopefully -- engage in constructive discourse on a topic. If we made it up as we went, it would only contribute to chaos and discord. There is enough of that even when we have the facts.

 

[Captain Davis]

It is, but it IS a hard start to assert a posit without either supporting facts or a knowledge base that suggests authority enough to present an opinion that is counter to the evidence.



If you were fishing for "activity", is it the kind that is useful in furthering your interest in the topic and encouraging others to assist you, or was it purely to stir the pot?



I believe that some fine examples have been provided above.



We go to the library and bring back what we have learned, so that we can -- hopefully -- engage in constructive discourse on a topic. If we made it up as we went, it would only contribute to chaos and discord. There is enough of that even when we have the facts.

I made the assumptions based on what I had found out about those campaigns. Alot of us don't have time to do a ton of research.

I said that my opinion was based on my limited knowledge. I am not looking for a fight, just a different perspective or information that proves me wrong. I didn't know we needed to be history experts to have a conversation.

BTW, if we always agreed this place wouldn't be very interesting and if the thread title doesn't get your attention, you will skim right over it.

 

[cash]

My perspective on Bragg was from reading Sam Watkins memoirs. I really enjoy getting the men's perspective over anything else.

Remember Watkins wrote long after the war. Postwar memoirs need to be taken with a big grain of salt.

Here's what Ed Bearss says about Sam Watkins: "think of the biggest bulls**t artist in your unit, and that's Sam Watkins."

 

[Saruman]

Grant did not have an overwhelming advantage during the Vicksburg Campaign. He did develop a plan to move around Vicksburg, maneuver quickly to defeat two Confederate Armies before they could join together, and defeat both in detail. The Vicksburg Campaign was a great campaign for Grant that used his superior understanding of and handling of supplies and maneuvering from an unexpected direction. He defeated two smaller Armies before they could work in unison to defeat his army. Grant moved so quickly that the Confederates were dazed and confused. Grant came up with a better plan than the Confederates and outfought the Confederates Armies.

When the entire Vicksburg Campaign is shortened to only the siege of Vicksburg it is a disservice to Grant.

I'd give Joe Johnston equal credit for the Union victory at Vicksburg

 

[cash]

Thanks I'll check them out.

However, this is a message board. If I am not mistaken, it is the intention to have conversation and interaction.

Maybe I was fishing for some activity. Instead of leaving to read a bunch of material, how about discussing it here?

How about a few examples to prove my completely uninformed opinion wrong?

If we all take to the library, why have this place?

There has to be a baseline of knowledge before we can have a meaningful discussion. You're basically asking for a reproduction of what's in the books, so why not go to the source and see for yourself all the evidence?

A few examples would be that the Vicksburg Campaign, as I said, was one of maneuver and encompassed far more than the siege outside the city. Grant fought and won six battles before he got to the city of Vicksburg, keeping the rebel forces, which initially outnumbered him in the theater, from uniting against him. If all you know is the siege, we have nothing to talk about until you can learn more about it.

The Overland Campaign is much the same. There's a lot more to consider, including Grant's position and responsibilities in the campaign. If a person has no clue about that, as well as the maneuvering that went on in the campaign, then it's a waste of time to try to discuss the campaign.

 

[cash]

I would add Patton, Omar Bradley, Stormin Norman Schwartzkopf, and Robert E. Lee (yes...Marse Robert. He may have fought with the Confederacy but he was still VERY AMERICAN) to that list.

That's not a top five list. Also, I wouldn't put Schwarzkopf ahead of Eisenhower or Marshall, or even Pershing. But that's off topic.

 

[johan_steele]

Greatest American Generals... if it doesn't include Geronimo & Cochise it isn't a viable list.

Coming onto a board with no real knowledge, as admitted, and making claims with admittedly no research behind them isn't fishing; it's trolling.

The OP was given an excellent list to further his education and knowledge base. All the titles are readily available via the local library, several on audio book. The response of lacking time to read... explains much. As I average 1500 miles a week driving and typically 50 hours of work and yet still manage to read explains why I have little sympathy or appreciation for such a response.

Grant accepted the surrender of three major armies. Lee accepted none. Anyone who has studied military history, something grossly lacking in most students of the ACW and many self proclaimed experts as well, knows that when one side forces the other into receiving a siege... the besieged rarely wins.

Grant accepted the surrender of a CS army at Ft Donelson, held at Shiloh and counterattacked on the 2nd day driving the enemy completely from the field. He split the CS in half with taking Vicksburg; the CS never seriously tried to retake it. He raised the siege of Chattanooga on his way east to take command of the AoP and rest of the US Army. Upon taking command of the AoP it never again retreated instead grabbing the ANV by the belt buckle and never letting go until the ANV cased their flags and gave up the fight.

The Vicksburg Campaign was a campaign of maneuver. Want to learn how & why the CS lost the war study it. Those who refuse to read or study a subject and make comments shouldn't expect to be taken seriously. As a courtesy I have included three quick clicks that should give at least the beginning of an education on the subject.

https://www.nps.gov/fodo/index.htm
https://www.nps.gov/shil/index.htm
https://www.nps.gov/vick/index.htm

The CS lost the war in the west. Grant started in the west helping to shape that defeat. Grant was a brawler and a winner. The enemies of his nation discovered that the hard way.

 

[hankc]

hmmmmm.

i'm not sure the garrison at Fort Donelson is considered an 'army'.

it was about the same size as the union force captured at Harpers Ferry in September 1862.

 

[StephenColbert27]

hmmmmm.

i'm not sure the garrison at Fort Donelson is considered an 'army'.

it was about the same size as the union force captured at Harpers Ferry in September 1862.

Considering that Grant's "Army" as you might say, was of roughly equal size when the Fort was first invested, it's very fair. Fort Donelson and its sister Fort Henry were both critical to the Rebel defense system that stretched all across Kentucky and Tennessee. By capturing them, Grant forced the Rebels to abandon all of Kentucky and most of Tennessee. He also denied them use of about 14,000 fighting men for future campaigns. Those men, I would note, would have surely come in handy at Shiloh.

 

[novushomus]

hmmmmm.

i'm not sure the garrison at Fort Donelson is considered an 'army'.

it was about the same size as the union force captured at Harpers Ferry in September 1862.

Bear in mind that early in the war you did not the big multiple corps sized armies that we associate with the later conflict - those didn't really come until 1862 was well underway. The United States Army had been relatively small and a constabulary force in peace time thanks to the historic Democratic-Republican mistrust of large standing armies. Historically the largest armies ever fielded by the U.S. were no bigger than a few divisions (though Washington did employ "wings" at various stages of the Revolutionary War).

The force that surrendered at Donelson was only slightly smaller than Van Dorn's Army of the West, the largest Confederate army ever assembled west of the Mississippi. For more comparisons, Scott conquered Mexico City and Brown invaded Canada with smaller armies than the command Floyd and Pillow had their disposal.

 

[novushomus]

I've come to the conclusion that besides a couple of small time battles along the Cumberland against subpar leadership and accepting the surrender of Lee, Grant was an unimpressive tactical general.

Many times he simply used his superior numbers until the rebels had to back out or give up due to attrition. Vicksburg and The Wilderness are a couple of examples.

Even when Lee surrendered at Appomattox, he was simply overwhelmed after accidentally running into the entire Army of the Potomac on their way to North Carolina.

Outside of his tenacity, I'm not impressed with his performance.

I do realize I am but an infant in my quest for Civil War knowledge, but if I am wrong, I'd like to hear examples
of his tactics winning battles onstead of just having superior numbers.

But is tenacity and persistance such a bad thing in a general?

"Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not: nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not: the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent." - Calvin Coolidge.

As others have stated above, Vicksburg is not really an example of attrition. He outmaneuvered several Confederate forces, beating each force in land battles that he met, and ultimately cornered Pemberton after winning battles at Port Gibson, Champion Hill, and Black River Bridge. After that, it became a siege.

The Wilderness is complex. It is part of a larger campaign, and it also involves Grant with a complex command structure - Meade, Burnside, and Sheridan chaffing under Meade. Meade wanted tactical control of the army, while Grant had to make the Army of the Potomac work and do its part while overseeing all the other Federal armies, especially Sigel's command in the Valley and the Army of the James at Bermuda Hundred.

In terms of Grant's tactics winning battles, Grant was an army commander. army group commander, and later commander of all Union armies. Most of the tactics he dealt with were higher level or grand tactics, operations, and strategy. Most tactics as we consider, troop deployment, etc. are done by corps, division, brigade commanders, etc. For an examination of Grant as a tactician or his role in primary tactics, look at some of his battles commanding the Army of the Tennessee and look at his grand tactics or operations as the Military Division of the Mississippi commander at Chattanooga and over Meade's shoulder in Virginia.

 

[huskerblitz]

others have stated above, Vicksburg is not really an example of attrition. He outmaneuvered several Confederate forces, beating each force in land battles that he met, and ultimately cornered Pemberton after winning battles at Port Gibson, Champion Hill, and Black River Bridge. After that, it became a siege.

Let's not forget he did have two disastrous attacks prior to the siege in May.

 

[cash]

Bear in mind that early in the war you did not the big multiple corps sized armies that we associate with the later conflict - those didn't really come until 1862 was well underway. The United States Army had been relatively small and a constabulary force in peace time thanks to the historic Democratic-Republican mistrust of large standing armies. Historically the largest armies ever fielded by the U.S. were no bigger than a few divisions (though Washington did employ "wings" at various stages of the Revolutionary War).

The force that surrendered at Donelson was only slightly smaller than Van Dorn's Army of the West, the largest Confederate army west of the Mississippi. For more comparisons, Scott conquered Mexico City and Brown invaded Canada with smaller armies than the command Floyd and Pillow had their disposal.

And the force that was in Fort Donelson was actually larger than the entire US Army prior to the war.

 

[novushomus]

Let's not forget he did have two disastrous attacks prior to the siege in May.

Not forgotten, but still does not take away from Grant's maneuvers once he landed at Port Gibson until he routed Pemberton's army at Big Black River Bridge.

 

[huskerblitz]

Not forgotten, but still does not take away from Grant's maneuvers once he landed at Port Gibson until he routed Pemberton's army at Big Black River Bridge.

That's true. And wasn't meant to deny Grant what he did achieve but at the same time it wasn't a flawless exercise either. And since those attacks were left out I thought they deserved recognized.

 

[Drew]

Remember Watkins wrote long after the war. Postwar memoirs need to be taken with a big grain of salt.

Here's what Ed Bearss says about Sam Watkins: "think of the biggest bulls**t artist in your unit, and that's Sam Watkins."

Of course, Sam Watkins was actually there. The busloads of historians who wish they were, were not. So there's that.

 

[novushomus]

That's true. And wasn't meant to deny Grant what he did achieve but at the same time it wasn't a flawless exercise either. And since those attacks were left out I thought they deserved recognized.

Of course. Grant and his campaigns certainly weren't perfect (for instance, as a general he could favor on the more rash side when it came to assaults unlike Sherman and his personal judgement of both character and military ability in the subordinates he picked could be way off base) but I still think Grant's record places him head and shoulders over most of his peers, including his ability to learn from mistakes, adapt, and persist no matter what his opponents did or did not do.

 

[novushomus]

Of course, Sam Watkins was actually there. The busloads of historians who wish they were, were not. So there's that.

Watkins is a bit unfair towards Bragg however. Everyone gets from Watkins the impression of how cruel Bragg was when they describe the execution of a deserter by Cheatham's division. However, the beloved Joe Johnston executed more deserters at Dalton than Bragg did in his entire tenure as commander of the Army of Tennessee. Yet Watkins glosses this over. Which is why taking personal biases into account are important for evaluating and interpreting primary sources.

 

[alan polk]

Of course. Grant certainly wasn't perfect (for instances, he could favor on the more rash side when it came to assaults unlike Sherman and his personal judgement of both character and military ability in the subordinates he picked could be way off base) but I still think Grant's record places him head and shoulders over most of his peers, including his ability to learn from mistakes, adapt, and persist no matter what his opponents did or did not do.

I absolutely agree with everything you wrote. However, I've often wondered why Grant witnessed the blowing of the craters at Vicksburg (3rd LA Redan), and the subsequent, abject failures of his infantry to take the position because they became trapped in a fishbowl and slaughtered! Then, later, he allowed the same exact thing to happen again at Petersburg. It's one of those weird things. To be as smart as he was (and I truly think he was a brilliant commander) you'd think he would have said during the planning of the explosion at Petersburg, "I've been there done that, it won't work." Or, ""I've been through this before, don't get trapped inside the crater!"

Grant was a complex commander, for sure! But boy was he good!!!