Battle of Belmont

Jantzen64

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
1596723546501.png


I just finished reading Nathaniel Hughes' book on the Battle of Belmont. I never realized how much criticism Grant received for picking this fight. It seems to me, given his move into Paducah, and his various feints at Columbus, that the attack on Belmont was eminently justifiable, if only to test Polk's reactions and deployments. Thoughts?
 
If nothing else, it also provided Grant and his men with a "practice run," which at that stage of the war gave them real experience under fire and exposed any shortcomings in discipline, drill, and tactics. Not to forget also that Grant was under somewhat of a cloud for his alleged drinking problems and his reputation in the Old Army. However, Belmont and the other actions he took at Paducah and Columbus started to establish Grant as an aggressive commander with real merit.
 
It certainly seems he was ready to prove his mettle as a commander . . . .
 
Last edited:
Back
Top