General Grant

[sararichards_23]

why is General Grant your favorite?

 

[8thvacav]

He's not.....lol

 

[sararichards_23]

oh yea thnks that don't help

 

[sgtcsa]

8thcav,
I don't believe I've told you, but I must say, that you've picked a good unit for you to represent. I think that you said you had family in Virginia, or at least fought with a Va. unit, is this right? Anyway, it's rather nice to see a Northerner who looks upon the South with such ferver as you do. Kinda' makes me feel at home. Anyway, I found it rather humorous that someone should ask you why Gen Grant was your favorite General. That's got to be a joke........................right? Anyway, I liked your answer.........simple, direct, and to the point.

regards,
SgtCSA

 

[aphillbilly]

I like Grant as I think his prowess as a soldier was only surpassed by his ability as president.

 

[johan_steele]

Ms Richards, my apologies for the lack of serious replies to your query. They fail to do justice to the board.

Grant was a far better General than he was a President, after all he made Bobbi Lee surrender. As a President he has been underrated. Stephen Ambrose does a decent job on him in his To America. I think at the heart of things he was a good man, warts and all.

I wouldn't call him a favorite Civil War General or favorite President of mine but as Generals go he was certainly one of the best in the War. His strategic thinking was something the Lee & the CS failed to cope w/. It was after all his Vicksburg campaign that broke the back of the CS... probably the reason Aphillbilly loves him so. He had problems like any other man, but he rose above them.

He had mixed relations w/ his subordinate officers, most who showed noted competance he advanced and championed, but for those who crossed him he neither supported nor really appreciated when they excelled. He wasn't really a great leader of men, he lacked Lee's or McClellan's magnetism. Grant never inspired nor encouraged his men to cheer him as they passed, he would rather they save their breath for the march. In his own way he loved his men, he didn't shout it he didn't care for the pomp and show or spit and polish parades; he was a fighting man. Instead he endeared himself to his men by ensuring they had the supplies they needed, to uphold their rights when captured.

His willingness to incur heavy casualties in order to grind down Leewas both a weakness and a strength in his leadership. Grant would readily admit that he was not a perfect general nor was he a perfect person.

His strengths as a General derived from his strength of character, his battlefield results that were so central to Union victory mark him as the greatest General of the Union Army and one of the Great Generals of US military history.

For further reading on him I might suggest: Cattons Grant Moves South & Grant Takes Command, Geoffrey Perret Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph over Adversity and of coarse his personal memoirs.

 

[bill_torrens]

Shane,

"Bobbi Lee"? The Army of Northern Virginia was commanded by a woman? Did the people who called him "Granny Lee" have inside information?

I take the view that Grant was a decent man, and I acknowledge that his Vicksburg campaign was a masterpiece. But overall I believe that his greatest strength as an army commander (and I swear I'm not being facetious) was his lack of imagination.

Bill

 

[yankeewoman]

bill,

Bulldogs have very little imagination; they just hang on.

I liked Grant as commander of the Union Army. He was focused, not ruthless; he saw what had to be done to win. He knew there was a price to be paid.

For southern generals, I would take Joe Johnston over anyone, including Jackson. Lee fought well, but I feel that he gets more credit than what is deserved. He was an excellent defensive general, but had trouble with his offensive skills (early in the war in the Western theater and later at Antietam and Gettysburg).

 

[bill_torrens]

Bulldogs have very little imagination; they just hang on.

Well, precisely.

You make my point (or one of my points) for me. Saying that someone lacks imagination is generally taken as a criticism, or even a term of abuse. But there are many walks of life, and many situations, where a fertile imagination is a positive handicap. For me it is the most crucial of Grant's characteristics.

 

[johan_steele]

Bil my apologies for my fat fingers, Y should replace the I... hehehe I'm a product of the US education sys. I wasd a kolage studant, it taked me four yars to larn to type this way.

 

[DB Curtis]

I feel that Grant was at best an average general. Every general at one point or another had a battle that he was, for lack of a better term, m.v.p. of. For Grant, that was Vicksburg. After that, he seemed to just throw troops at Lee until he had to wait for more, then throw those in, too.

 

[elektratig]

Sara,

I'll stick up for poor General Grant. In my opinion, he was clearly the finest general of the war, on either side.

I'll get all the negatives out of the way first. He was repeatedly surprised -- Shiloh being an example. He was repeatedly lucky -- Fort Donelson, Vicksburg (Pemberton was an idiot), Chattanooga.

All that conceded, the positives are overwhelming.

- Although the "lack of imagination" stuff is nonsense, he possessed a bulldog determination that refused to be denied. His "lick 'em tomorrow" comment at the end of the first day of Shiloh is the epitome of that. Virtually any other general would have fled back down the river. Grant stayed, fought and won. Similarly, after the battle of the Wilderness, a bloody mess, Grant moved forward. The cheering of the troops when they realized he was moving South, rather than back North across the river, is one of the most dramatic moments of the War. In my estimation, there was no other general who would have moved forward.

-- On a related note, he was smart and decisive. For example, within days after his arrival at Chattanooga, after listening to Baldy Smith's plan to reopen the "cracker line," he personally inspected the area, approved the plan and got it moving. Yes, it was Baldy Smith's plan, but it was Grant who had the sense and determination to get it accomplished. Everybody else was just standing around. Grant got lucky at Missionary Ridge, but if he hadn't opened the "cracker line" he would have had no opportunity to be lucky.

-- Notwithstanding his tactical mistakes, he accomplished two of the greatest operational moves of the War. His decision to abandon his supply line after crossing below Vicksburg was a brilliant innovation. It totally befuddled Pemberton, who wound up being defeated at Champion Hill because he had been wandering around looking for that nonexistent supply train. Similarly, Grant's extrication of his troops from Lee's lines at Cold Harbor and crossing of the James was a logistical and operational tour de force. Lee had no idea where he was for days. Yes, it failed in that he didn't take Petersburg, but the fact remains that it could well have succeeded.

- He was politically astute and sensitive to the needs of his commander in chief. He didn't complain, he didn't constantly whine for more men or supplies, he didn't gripe when he was saddled with a bunch of utterly incompetent political generals because he respected Lincoln's need to retain them. He assured Lincoln by his words and actions that he was not a political rival and would follow political directives. He did the best he could with what he had. (If you think this isn't a big deal, I'd direct you to messrs. McLellan, Joe Johnston, et al.).

-- He put together a strategic plan for 1864 that worked and won the war. Notwithstanding all of the North's advantages in manpower, materiel and the like, I am firmly convinced that no other general could have done what Grant did in this respect. It's also worth noting that the plan that he adopted was not his first choice (for political reasons) and that, as noted above, a number of the commands were saddled with political generals (Sigel, etc.). It worked anyway.

-- Finally, I just don't agree with the idea that Grant was a straight-ahead, unimaginative fighter. On the Overland Campaign, Grant was not head of the Army of the Potomac. He was hoping to leave Meade more or less in charge. Unfortunately, the AOP was still a mess. It remained timid and unwieldy -- "McClellanized." Meade and the corps commanders were all mediocre to poor (sorry, all you Hancock and Sedgewick fans). Remember, until 1864, the only battles that the AOP had ever won were Antietam (if that was a victory) and Gettysburg -- and in the latter Meade had had the luxury of purely defensive fight. Grant tried to get the army to move and execute flanking movements, but the parts just didn't work right, and the result was a series of massive head-on collisions that resulted in the horrendous casualties you hear about.

-- Nonetheless, and going back to a point I mentioned earlier, I am firmly convinced that if Grant had not been put in charge, the North would have lost the war because Lincoln would have been defeated. No other general would have placed the "insane" Sherman in charge of the armies that took Atlanta, and no other general would have continued moving "on to Richmond" after the frightful mess in the Wilderness.

I've typed this on the fly because I've got to run, so please excuse if this is somewhat disjointed. All you Grant detractors, flame away!

 

[hoosier]

I'm not sure if I would call Grant my favorite general, but I'd have a hard time thinking of another one who did a better job of making sure he made full use of the advantages that were his.

I visited the site of Grant's supply depot at City Point, VA some years ago and was amazed to find out what a huge-scale operation it was and how well organized it was. Grant knew that the North's superior ability to keep its troops supplied was a huge advantage for him, and he took the time and did the work necessary to make sure that advantage was not wasted.

 

[sockknitter]

Thank you electratig and hoosier. Grant is my top favorite general. I believe the South was justified in seceding and there is a lot I'm not happy about in the Federal army and Federal politicians, but that is partly because I've simply heard about them. I haven't heard much detrimental about Confederate figures beyond their major "sin" (being FACETIOUS) of trying to leave the Union.

One other point that might be considered minor but says a lot to me is that Grant was almost never caught using profanity of any sort. Possibly he swore at a mule or two when he was crossing the Isthmus of Panama in 1852, but I haven't seen any other hints at all.

 

[ole]

I hate to put a "best overall" tag on any man, but since you've specified "favorite." I'll go with Grant as well.

Part of his subsequent popularity came about as it became known that the uncommon man was originally, quite common. That doesn't do any political harm and the history writers spoon out that treat quite liberally.

He stumbled from time to time, as all men do. But he got up and finished each round. He had moments of brilliance, Vicksburg, the Petersburg Sidestep, letting Sherman do his thing; but what amazes me most was his ability to command such a large host of details.

Most think of General Command as directing and maneuvering troops. That's a small part of the job. Selecting and directing subordinates. Checking on them until he's convinced they're right for the jobs. Supply. Logistics. Moving out those he could, adjusting the duties of those he couldn't. Now that's a job!

Ole

 

[bill_torrens]

the "lack of imagination" stuff is nonsense

Possibly so. But let's look at Grant's General Order No.11 of 1862, in which he expelled all Jews from the three states for which he had responsibility at the time. His order began:

The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the department within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.

I have always taken the view that Grant was an essentially decent man and that this extraordinary lapse was the result of a certain deficiency of sensitivity and imagination. If, on the other hand, he was as sensitive and imaginative as the average person then one would have to conclude that he was a poisonous anti-Semite.

 

[elektratig]

Bill,

Grant's Order No. 11 was indeed disgusting and appalling.

Ironically, I have never quite understood why more was not made of the statement at the time (or later, when he ran for President). Perhaps the explanation lies in the fact that even the government's condemnation of the Order was phrased in terms that seem bizarre to us today. Henry Halleck wired Grant,

"The President has no objection to your expelling traitors and Jew peddlers, which, I suppose, was the object of your order; but, as it is in terms proscribed an entire religious class, some of whom are fighting in our ranks, the President deemed it necessary to revoke it."

The distance between Grant's Order and the President's more enlightened view, I would suggest, was not all that far. Would any of us today naturally link the terms "traitors" and "Jew peddlers"? The message also has an uncomfortably practical rationale ("some of whom are fighting in our ranks").

Whether or not Grant was an anti-Semite – whether he believed, deep in his heart, that Jews were inferior or evil – I do not know. To the best of my knowledge, however, in the 23 years until his death Grant never again made any statement, written or oral, public or private, or took any action, that revealed anti-Semitism or discriminated against Jews. (In this regard, I do not pretend to have made an exhaustive study. If anyone is aware of such post-Order statements or actions, please correct me.) People who met him later were apparently mystified by and unable to explain the Order because it seemed to bear no relation to the man they knew. Whatever he thought, that does him great credit.

In response to Ole's comments, I believe that Grant's very ordinariness and numerous faults only add to his greatness. One could spend days listing his failings, and his detractors do. He was foolishly trusting of other people, leading to his consistent failure outside the army and mistakes as president. He was probably a technical alcoholic. etc. etc. But the fact remains that he transcended them all -- and noone knew quite how. As is well know, even his good friend Sherman had no idea quite how he succeeded: "I knew him as a cadet at West Point, as a lieutenant of the Fourth Infantry, as a citizen of St. Louis, and as a growing general all through the bloody Civil War. Yet to me he is a mystery, and I believe he is a mystery to himself."

Yankeewoman -- Since this is a Grant thread, I won't divert it, but Joe Johnston over Lee? Cmon! (Sorry, I can't help it!)

 

[30th_il]

I wonder what brand of cigars Grant smoked?

 

[elektratig]

I was looking for information about the brand of cigars that Grant smoked -- I didn't find anything -- when I ran across a fine essay about Grant by Victor Davis Hanson, one of my favorite military historians, although not a Civil War specialist (Hanson's background is in Classical Greek history). The quote I like best:

"Military leadership is not an easy thing in itself, but Grant was more than either a supreme commander or combat leader, but rather both and still more. He was a Patton and an Eisenhower all in one, stalking the front lines under fire and issuing his famous crisp, laconic orders to division commanders, even while as a grand military vizier he telegraphed orders over a continent-sized theater to Sherman, Thomas, and Sheridan confronting Confederate forces nearly two thousand miles distant."

The full article, actually a review of a book I haven't read, is at http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson110704.html

I did discover in my travels that the word "stogie" apparently derives from a well-known brand of cigars manufactured at Conestoga, PA.

 

[ole]

Halleck's message captured the gist. He was having trouble with speculators, peddlers, and traders attempting to grab captured stores, particularly cotton, and ship it north for sale at a great profit.

His omission of the word "peddlers" certainly took Halleck and Lincoln aback, hence, rhe order's withdrawal. As worded, the order would be read as meant by his subordinate commanders. They knew he wasn't ordering Jewish soldiers or citizens out of camp.

Antisemitic? I don't know that he ever met or associated with a Jewish person until he became president. And, I've read that he even ordered his father barred from the camp for trying to profit in hides.

He simply wanted nothing to distract his troops from his basic aim.
Ole