Grant Not impressed with Grants performance

[Burning Billy]

Well, when Grant slipped beneath Vicksburg, he was actually outnumbered by all the Rebel forces in the area. However, Grant was able to move faster than they were able to concentrate, and was able to defeat them in detail on his way to Jackson, and then at Champion Hill after he turned West to besiege Vicksburg itself. I would note that Jackson did the same during his Valley Campaign; Jackson fought several battles where he had superior numbers tactically in spite of being outmanned strategically; he nullified that advantage by concentrating his numbers and catching his foe piece-meal. This is what Grant during the latter state of the Vicksburg Campaign. I would also question the use of the world "overwhelming". Grant had numbers and firepower during the Overland and Petersburg Campaigns, it is true, but Lee had interior lines, the advantages of dug-in positions, and a better understanding of his own army and subordinates, Grant being a new-comer to the East.

Good post.

The terrain the Overland campaign was fought in also in many ways negated Grant's advantages in manpower and artillery.

 

[contestedground]

But how many men died and suffered unnecessarily because of Grant?

Not as many as died and suffered unnecessarily under William S. Rosecrans, who failed to achieve much.

 

[67th Tigers]

Per Civilwartrust website the Union had 62k vs 42k for the Confederacy at Petersburg well under a 2 to 1 manpower superiority for the Union. The battle of Petersburg was waged from June 9th 1864 to March 25th 1865.
Leftyhunter

This was the data compiled by Horn:

Even with 2:1 odds Grant was unable to crack Petersburg and Richmond. With Sheridan's arrival he was up at ca. 2.5:1 and that was sufficient to crack Richmond via the indirect route of cutting off the railroads.

Grant probably made a huge mistake in the autumn of 1864 by allowing Sherman to take 60,000 men off on his grand raid which accomplished little militarily. If he'd have brought them to Richmond he could probably have cracked it 4-6 months earlier than he historically did.

 

[CSA Today]

I never said the Confederacy didn't have dedicated soldiers. In a good defensive position it doesn't take a lot of soldiers to block a superior force in the short term. The Battle of Petersburg was less then a year. It didn't help the Union when they made the poorly executed Battle of the Crater. While Confederate soldiers are bottled up at Petersburg Sherman is slowly but surely grinding his way to Richmond.
Confederate troops were well motivated to fight to preserve slavery and because they thought that by some miracle the Union would give up the will to fight. They also didn't to live in a society where they couldn't maintain white superiority. This is proved by their actions post Civil War.
Leftyhunter

Grinding his way? I hardly considering token opposition grinding one's way. Sherman didn't face significant opposition until he reached North Carolina and then he didn't have it that easy despite vast superiority in numbers.

 

[leftyhunter]

This was the data compiled by Horn:

View attachment 133242

Even with 2:1 odds Grant was unable to crack Petersburg and Richmond. With Sheridan's arrival he was up at ca. 2.5:1 and that was sufficient to crack Richmond via the indirect route of cutting off the railroads.

Grant probably made a huge mistake in the autumn of 1864 by allowing Sherman to take 60,000 men off on his grand raid which accomplished little militarily. If he'd have brought them to Richmond he could probably have cracked it 4-6 months earlier than he historically did.

I don't know about Sherman accomplishing very little militarily. Sherman captured Savannah and Charleston so he really tightened up the Anaconda Plan. Sherman caused a lot of AnV soldiers to desert. Gallathaar goes into that in his book "Lees Army".
All in all not a bad piece of work for Uncle Billy.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Grinding his way? I hardly considering token opposition grinding one's way. Sherman didn't face significant opposition until he reached North Carolina and then he didn't have it that easy despite vast superiority in numbers.

I argue Sherman was slowly working his way up towards Richmond and he was grinding down Confederate manpower and resources. Every Confederate soldier opposing Sherman is one less opposing Grant. Not a bad trade off.
Leftyhunter

 

[Burning Billy]

Grinding his way? I hardly considering token opposition grinding one's way. Sherman didn't face significant opposition until he reached North Carolina and then he didn't have it that easy despite vast superiority in numbers.

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

"The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him."

"Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical. No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique."

"Speed is the essence of war. Take advantage of the enemy's unpreparedness; travel by unexpected routes and strike him where he has taken no precautions."

Sun Tzu would have been a fan of Sherman.

 

[wausaubob]

After the capture of Atlanta by Sherman, both Sherman and Grant pealed back the level of violence.
Early was still active in the Shenandoah, but that ended poorly for the Confederacy and helped Lincoln.
The casualty rate fell, soldiers were furloughed to go home and vote, and by November 1864 the US began to look for the end of the conflict.

 

[leftyhunter]

This was the data compiled by Horn:

View attachment 133242

Even with 2:1 odds Grant was unable to crack Petersburg and Richmond. With Sheridan's arrival he was up at ca. 2.5:1 and that was sufficient to crack Richmond via the indirect route of cutting off the railroads.

Grant probably made a huge mistake in the autumn of 1864 by allowing Sherman to take 60,000 men off on his grand raid which accomplished little militarily. If he'd have brought them to Richmond he could probably have cracked it 4-6 months earlier than he historically did.

Could it not ne argued that by Sherman by capturing Savannah and Charleston freed up Union naval ships for the blockade at Wilmington? I hopefully can get @AndyHall and @Mark F. Jenkins input on this.
Leftyhunter

 

[kevikens]

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.

I once shared your opinion. But the more I have read the more I have become convinced that Grant was a very capable commander and, for the Union in 1864, vital to getting the job done. May I suggest just one book to get you to think about revising your opinion, that is, "Grant Takes Command" a venerable work by Bruce Catton and an eminently readable book.

 

[AndyHall]

Could it not ne argued that by Sherman by capturing Savannah and Charleston freed up Union naval ships for the blockade at Wilmington? I hopefully can get @AndyHall and @Mark F. Jenkins input on this.
Leftyhunter

The closure of Confederate ports certainly did free up vessels to go onto the blockade at other locations. Here in the western Gulf of Mexico, the blockading force off Galveston increased from one or two vessels in 1861 to a dozen or more by the latter part of 1864. that's a function both of the increasing size of the U.S. Navy and the closure of other ports where those vessels were no longer needed.

Regarding Wilmington, Fort Fisher was successfully taken in January 1865, that effectively closed Wilmington as a blockade running port. This was about a month before Beauregard abandoned Charleston.

 

[cash]

I don't know about Sherman accomplishing very little militarily. Sherman captured Savannah and Charleston so he really tightened up the Anaconda Plan. Sherman caused a lot of AnV soldiers to desert. Gallathaar goes into that in his book "Lees Army".
All in all not a bad piece of work for Uncle Billy.
Leftyhunter

Really -- drop the Anaconda Plan. The United States dropped it almost at the moment it was proposed.

I agree completely with the point about desertions.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Could it not ne argued that by Sherman by capturing Savannah and Charleston freed up Union naval ships for the blockade at Wilmington? I hopefully can get @AndyHall and @Mark F. Jenkins input on this.
Leftyhunter

It is an undeniable fact that capture of the ports was more effective than blockading them. (Blockade was better than nothing, but, as experience proved, it was a lot more difficult to hermetically seal a port than it had been expected to be.)

 

[lakertaker]

If "men and resources " truly won wars, American history much different than it is... Grant had the courage of the sword, and the stomach for the blood. Not every military leader had those credentials?

 

[19thGeorgia]

"Not impressed with Grants performance"

I agree, but he was the best of the lot.

 

[BillO]

Grant was not a tactical genius nor an inspirational leader. Personally I don't think he was all that bright but he was good enough.

 

[CSA Today]

I don't know about Sherman accomplishing very little militarily. Sherman captured Savannah and Charleston so he really tightened up the Anaconda Plan. Sherman caused a lot of AnV soldiers to desert. Gallathaar goes into that in his book "Lees Army".
All in all not a bad piece of work for Uncle Billy.
Leftyhunter

May we say that Sherman made a herculean effort against daunting odds as he "grind" his way northward to unite with Grant?

 

[Bee]

Grant probably made a huge mistake in the autumn of 1864 by allowing Sherman to take 60,000 men off on his grand raid which accomplished little militarily

Sheman's raids had devastating psychological affect on both soldiers and civilians, alike. He wore down morale, caused desertion rates in the CSA to rise (as mentioned by lefty) and he accomplished this with low casualty rates to both sides. He negotiated Johnston's surrender, defeated Hood, and yet both generals had immense respect for Sherman, and became life long friends with him. Since I have no access to sources at this moment, I can only offer that I believe Sherman was quite effective.

 

[CSA Today]

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

"The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him."

"Move not unless you see an advantage; use not your troops unless there is something to be gained; fight not unless the position is critical. No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique."

"Speed is the essence of war. Take advantage of the enemy's unpreparedness; travel by unexpected routes and strike him where he has taken no precautions."

Sun Tzu would have been a fan of Sherman.

We can only wonder what one of the greatest military geniuses in history would think if he could somehow know that his campaigns would be later compared to Sherman's March to the Sea and then north into the Carolinas.

 

[WJC]

I haven't read extensively about either of the campaigns you mentioned, but what I have looked into, he basically seiged Vicksburg and didn't use battle tactics, but merely starved the inhabitants into submission.

Those quotes from Lee don't really explain much. Like I said, the end results were in Grants favor, but he always had the overwhelming manpower advantage.

A successful siege is one that threatens to starve inhabitants into submission. That has been the practice since time began. Some have been successful, some not.
At Vicksburg, Grant was successful.
Hard to argue with success....
For some quick reads that may be helpful, consider the short article. "Grant, Thomas, Lee." by W.T. Sherman posted recently by @KansasFreestater
And the short, but interesting comparison of Lee and Grant by Edward Bonekemper at http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/articles/comment/why_grant_won.htm
Enjoy!