Grant Not impressed with Grants performance

[hanna260]

I think my sarcasm failed to come through. I meant that I am very sure Gen. Grant wouldn't give a fig what 'impressed' these modern armchair know-it-alls. There's something ludicrous about the purpose of this thread.
I've edited in an explanation to my post.

I had a good giggle at your post myself, John. Armchair generals win every battle, don't ya know?

 

[johan_steele]

The sieges were successful, but they weren't planned, they were forced.

Quite right. The CS didn't plan to suffer sieges as is evident in their loss of each one. Grant forced those seige as well as forcing the surrender of those within.

 

[Rebforever]

Union desertion

In view of the conditions which prevailed in the war department and in the Union army, it is not surprising that desertion was a common fault. Even so the actual extent of it, shown in official reports, comes as a distinct shock. Though the determination of the full number is a bit complicated, the total would have been over 200,000. From New York there were 44,913 deserters according to the records; from Pennsylvania, 24,050; from Ohio, 18,354. The daily hardships of war, deficiency in arms, forced marches sometimes made straggling a necessary for less vigorous men), thirst, suffocating heat, disease, delay in pay, solicitude for family, impatience at the monotony and futility of inactive service, and (though this was not the leading cause) panic on the eve of battle—these were some of the conditioning factors that produced desertion. Many men absented themselves merely through unfamiliarity with military discipline or through the feeling that they should be "restrained by no other legal requirement than those of civil law governing a free people"; and such was a general attitude that desertion was often regarded "more as a refusal… to ratify a contract than as the commission of a grave crime."

The sense of war weariness, the lack of confidence in commanders, and the discouragement of defeat tended to lower morale of the Union army and to increase desertions. General Hooker estimated in 1863 that 85,000 officers and men had deserted from the Army of the Potomac, while it was stated in December of 1862 that no less than 180,000 of the soldiers listed on the Union muster roll were absent, with or without leave. Abuse of leave or furlough privilege was one of the chief means of desertion. Other methods were: slipping to the rear during a battle, inviting capture by the enemy (a method by which honorable service could be claimed), straggling, taking French leave when on picket duty, pretending to be engaged in repairing a telegraph line, et cetera. Some deserters went over to enemy not as captives but as soldiers; others lived in a wild state on the frontier; some turned outlaw or went to Canada; some boldly appeared at home; in some cases deserter gangs, as in western Pennsylvania, formed bandit groups.

To suppress desertion the extreme penalty of death was at times applied, especially after 1863; but this meant no more than the selection of a few men as public examples out of many thousands equally guilty. The commoner method was to make public appeals to deserters, promising pardon in case of voluntary return with dire threats to those who failed to return. That desertion did not prevent a man posing after the war as an honorable soldier is evident by a study of pension records. The laws required honorable discharge as a requisite for a pension; but in the case of those charged with desertion Congress passed numerous private and special acts "correcting" the military record.

Source: J.G. Randall, David Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company) pp. 329-331

The Federal unionist war weariness is reflected in that th Federal desertion rate had jumped from the average of 4,647 a month in 1863 to an average of 7,333 a month in 1864.
See footnote on page 330 of J.G. Randall and David Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction.

Confederate Desertion

Desertion in the South though less extensive than in the North was a factor of large significance; and a study of the causes that produced it goes far toward revealing the conditions which made the war intolerable to thousands among people and soldiers. As explained by Miss Ella Lonn, backwoodsmen and crackers were drawn into the army who had no sympathy with slavery and no interest in the issues of a struggle which they did not understand. The conscript net gathered in even Northerners and Mexicans, whose tendency to desert was natural enough. Many of the deserters were mere boys. Poor food and clothing lack of shoes and overcoats, and insufficient pay inevitably produced dissatisfaction. Sometimes the pay was fourteen months behind; Often a soldier on leave could not pay the transportation to return to his command. Unsanitary camp conditions had their debilitating effect. Soldiers kept in unwholesome inaction were more than commonly subject to homesickness and depression. Often the alternative was abandonment and neglect of wife and children or departure from the army – in other words, a choice between two kinds of desertion, a dilemma in facing conflicting loyalties. Not a few Southern soldiers found themselves in the situation of an Alabaman who deserted the army when his wife wrote him: "We haven't got nothing in the house to eat but a little bit of meal… I don't want you to stop fighting them Yankees… but try and get off and come home and fix us up some and then you can go back." Some Arkansas soldiers deserted when informed that Indians were on a scalping tour near their homes. Indignant at extortioners and profiteers, soldiers would become disgruntled at the "rich man's war and the poor man's fight." For such men desertion bore no stigma; and, in sum, it appears that this factor (which after all, was but a reflection of many other factors) 'contributed definitely to the Confederate defeats after 1862 and to the catastrophe of 1865."

J.G. Randall, David Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction, pp. 516-517

















Ibid. pp. 516-517

All well and good but we should measure the qualitative desertion. That is did Union deserters join the Confederate Army or become Confederate guerrillas or free lance bandits. There is considerable evidence that I have posted that Confederate deserters did indeed join the Union Army and or become Unionist guerrillas or freelance bandits.
My previous threads " how serious was CSA desertion" "Union vs CSA guerrillas " has sources.
In my other thread" who has Unionist ancestors" Many posters on this forum had ancestors that originally fought for the Confederacy and then switched sides.
Leftyhunter[/QUOTE]

Did it ever occur to you the evidence may be wrong?

 

[leftyhunter]

All well and good but we should measure the qualitative desertion. That is did Union deserters join the Confederate Army or become Confederate guerrillas or free lance bandits. There is considerable evidence that I have posted that Confederate deserters did indeed join the Union Army and or become Unionist guerrillas or freelance bandits.
My previous threads " how serious was CSA desertion" "Union vs CSA guerrillas " has sources.
In my other thread" who has Unionist ancestors" Many posters on this forum had ancestors that originally fought for the Confederacy and then switched sides.
Leftyhunter

Did it ever occur to you the evidence may be wrong?[/QUOTE]
Then it's your burden to show that they are wrong. I also quoted Confederate ORs.
Leftyhunter

 

[Rebforever]

Did it ever occur to you the evidence may be wrong?

Then it's your burden to show that they are wrong. I also quoted Confederate ORs.
Leftyhunter[/QUOTE]
I was just asking. I don't have to show anything.

 

[leftyhunter]

Then it's your burden to show that they are wrong. I also quoted Confederate ORs.
Leftyhunter

I was just asking. I don't have to show anything.[/QUOTE]
Your opinion is noted. If you wish to challenge my sources just go the appropriate thread and show why a source is wrong.
Leftyhunter

 

[Rebforever]

I was just asking. I don't have to show anything.

Your opinion is noted. If you wish to challenge my sources just go the appropriate thread and show why a source is wrong.
Leftyhunter[/QUOTE]
Tnx.

 

[wausaubob]

The national past time, which began in the late 19th century, of demeaning Ulysses Grant, and the Republicans, or trying to take credit for his accomplishments, continues unabated.
It is just a way to advocate a weak federal government, and that the attempt to establish civil rights for blacks was misguided, wrong, tyrannical and corrupt.
The same press that venerated Robert E. Lee and emphasized the land battles in the Eastern theater, while Grant, Farragut, Sherman and Porter took one strategic point in the west after another, picked right up after the main participants were dead or out of power.
Nothing new here.
Halleck could have fired Grant. Lincoln could have fired him. The country could have quit on Lincoln and Grant.
His personal life could have fallen apart.
Meade and Sherman could have spilled an expose to the press.
None of that happened.
The people who knew him best were loyal, and that included a heck of lot of white male voters.

 

[Jimbo_Poke]

What exactly would impress you armchair generals?

Perhaps if he had suddenly turned a double somersault, and landed in Lee's rear and on both his flanks at the same time?

 

[brass napoleon]

Perhaps if he had suddenly turned a double somersault, and landed in Lee's rear and on both his flanks at the same time?

 

[wausaubob]

Perhaps if he had suddenly turned a double somersault, and landed in Lee's rear and on both his flanks at the same time?

Not enough. He could only do that because he a better trampoline and a better stunt cushion, they would report

 

[johan_steele]

For most of those naysayers it would only be impressive if done by a Confederate. Anyone else was subhuman.

 

[John S. Carter]

All outstanding quotes, but none of them answer my question. Did he ever win a battle where he didn't have overwhelming advantages?

Grant was an attack bull dog..Even Lee admits that prior to him all the other generals would return to the Potomac .GRANT manuvered into areas that forced Lee to react to them.He had two major advantages over Lee; he had Sherman , in the west he had Thomas.Grant was willing to sacrifice in the knowledge that this would also coast the Confedercey even more. and thereby shorten the war.

 

[contestedground]

Perhaps if he had suddenly turned a double somersault, and landed in Lee's rear and on both his flanks at the same time?

Horace Porter would approve.

 

[Aussie Billy Sherman]

I can't believe this thread is still ongoing. Still back to the OP's point. How can you be unimpressed with the only general in the war who received the surrender of three enemy armies in multiple theaters?

 

[Bee]

I can't believe this thread is still ongoing. Still back to the OP's point. How can you be unimpressed with the only general in the war who received the surrender of three enemy armies in multiple theaters?

Cannot even remember if I commented or not, but this far down the road, and this late in the evening, I would be inclined to say that if one is not impressed with Grant, than he/she must certainly have no regard for Lee, because Grant was better. He made mistakes, but Lee made more.

BTW that old canard about Grant having more men being the reason he won was nicely illustrated as a fallacy at Fredericksburg & Chancellorsville.

Grant was best. Lee was second best.

 

[cash]

I can't believe this thread is still ongoing. Still back to the OP's point. How can you be unimpressed with the only general in the war who received the surrender of three enemy armies in multiple theaters?

He wasn't a confederate.

 

[Mike Griffith]

Cannot even remember if I commented or not, but this far down the road, and this late in the evening, I would be inclined to say that if one is not impressed with Grant, than he/she must certainly have no regard for Lee, because Grant was better. He made mistakes, but Lee made more.

BTW that old canard about Grant having more men being the reason he won was nicely illustrated as a falacy at Fredericksburg & Chancellorsville.

Grant was best. Lee was second best.

And Grant's leaving his wounded on the field to die rather than admit defeat doesn't bother you?

I agree that Grant was not the brutish dunce that some critics have painted him as being. Grant showed on several occasions that he was capable of superb tactics. Some of his battles were brilliantly conducted. Yet, Hannibal was a far more brilliant tactician than Grant, but he was also a murderer and a thug, and we should be very glad that Carthage did not defeat Rome.

In my view, moral conduct must factor into the judgment. As a former NCO in the U.S. Army, I cannot fathom viewing as a "hero" any general who knowingly let his wounded suffer and die because he didn't want to concede defeat by following the long-established custom of asking for a truce to retrieve the dead and wounded. Sorry, but it's hard to think of anything that could counter-balance such behavior, especially given the fact that he did it more than once.

General Thomas never would have done such a thing. Nor would Meade. Nor would McClellan. Nor would Porter. Nor would Keyes. Nor would Rosecrans. Nor would Lee, nor Longstreet, nor Johnston, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Bee]

And Grant's leaving his wounded on the field to die rather than admit defeat doesn't bother you?

He made mistakes,

You will note that on the "Who is your Civil War Hero" thread, I have no response. My hero does not reside on these "pages".

You will note that whilst I admire Grant, I have never declared him my hero.

I find that leaving the wounded on the battlefield was a deplorable situation that was complicated by both Grant's and Lee's foolish stubborn behavior.

 

[cash]

And Grant's leaving his wounded on the field to die rather than admit defeat doesn't bother you?

It's just as bad as Lee leaving wounded men on the field while he demanded adherence to his view of protocol.