Grant Grant on Meade

The OP is that Grant "scapegoated" Meade.

Meade thought the only reason Grant kept him around was if things went wrong he would take the fall, during the Overland Campaign in letters to his wife. Once the carriage began he worried all the deaths would be hep upon his shoulders. The Campaign was successful was no scapegoat needed... I have not found any letters on line yet or choose to thumb through any of my books...

I ma hoping there was a Meade fan around that happily find them... it seems not luck...
 
Last edited:
Meade thought the only reason Grant kept him around was if things went wrong he would take the fall, during the Overland Campaign in letters to his wife. Once the carriage began he worried all the deaths would be hep upon his shoulders. The Campaign was successful was no scapegoat needed... I have not found any letters on line yet or choose to thumb through any of my books...

I ma hoping there was a Meade fan around that happily find them... it seems not luck...
So now we are down to an incorrect interpretation of what Meade thought ... Meade was talking about press coverage, not Grant's intentions ... followed by a confession that the OP lacks documentary evidence to support his initial assertion ... although both the volumes of Meade's letters and Grant's papers are available online.

Watson, I believe we are done here. Back to Baker Street.
 
….both the volumes of Meade's letters and Grant's papers are available online….

Darn that pesky first hand documentation!….keeps getting in the way of a good soap-operatic yarn!

Meade may have confessed his 'feelings' to his wife…but that is exactly what it is….his unsupported hunches and guesses….Please consider that; his WIFE….his personal life confidant, cheerleader, muse,…friend and supporter. Remember Meade's wife came from a very active and respected political family. She and the general discussed ALL manner of politics frankly and aggressively with each other…they ENJOYED the discussions with each other…it made them tick and got their intellectual juices going…..

Grant (and by extension, Lincoln)….were presented with a unique situation: Meade was considered the VICTOR, by the public, of Gettysburg……How do you justify & spin to the public the 'Hero's' removal from command?…That had not happened before in the war (what do we do?)

Grant was very wise in his calculus in keeping Meade around and in command of the AOP. He was absolutely right in his thinking that a 'Western theatre commander of an Eastern Army'…may not go over very well with the Eastern troops…Also, as previously mentioned by others: The AOP was NOT the only command Grant had to be in charge of….yes, he relocated to the Eastern front and went with the AOP on it's Southern march and move to the left…..But he, Grant, is in communication with Sherman, Butler, Thomas, etc…..following through on the larger plan conceived by Himself, Sherman, Lincoln and Adm. Porter…..

This might be a bad analogy….but I've always likened it to a fleet Admiral having his flag aboard an aircraft carrier…..He is NOT in command of that boat (the ship's captain is)…but he sure is in charge of the fleet and the larger, grander movements of the fleet / force that ship is a part of.
 
For whatever reasons, General Meade stated at the end of the war: “I, however, now give up Grant.” General Grant's charge that Meade's "first idea was to take advantage of the lay of the ground, sometimes without reference to the direction we wanted to move afterwards," smacks of unjust criticism to the point of scapegoating Meade (just as he did other generals), especially in light of Grant's reputation as an unskilled tactician.
Unfortunately, this does not bear on @5fish's assertion. As you are rather familiar with evidence, please produce evidence that justifies @5fish's assertion, if you can. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
The OP is that Grant "scapegoated" Meade. Which is to say, he blamed Meade for his(Grant's) mistakes.

a. Is there evidence that Grant, during the Overland Campaign, blamed Meade for Grant's mistakes.
b. Is there evidence in his postwar writings about the war, particularly in his Memoirs, that he blamed Meade for Grant's mistakes.

And I don't mean blaming Meade for Meade's mistakes.

So far, in 19 posts, I haven't seen any.

And you won't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bee
Meade thought the only reason Grant kept him around was if things went wrong he would take the fall, during the Overland Campaign in letters to his wife. Once the carriage began he worried all the deaths would be hep upon his shoulders. The Campaign was successful was no scapegoat needed... I have not found any letters on line yet or choose to thumb through any of my books...

I ma hoping there was a Meade fan around that happily find them... it seems not luck...

I suppose it's very liberating to just make statements off the top of one's head and hope someone else might have the evidence to back one's claims up. No need for that time-consuming research, after all.
 
It is almost like Grant is giving Meade a performance appraisal at the end of the fiscal year. Meade had good characteristics as a commander, but his personal style left much to be desired. In my reading of Grant's memoirs Meade was the least of his issues with the AoP and the non-performing political generals Grant could not replace.
 
Grant knew Meade had flaws but was willing to work him anyway most probably to do with Meades history with the army and the fact that grant couldn't run the army directly while also dealing with Washington and coordinating all the other armies and Union forces in the field. I think Grant also thought a complete stranger to the east coast part of the war and to the army of the Potomac would maybe do more harm than good taking direct control
What makes you think Grant was not in direct control?
 
What makes you think Grant was not in direct control?
Perhaps Meade's letter to his wife on June 4 on who was in charge of the Cold Harbor assault's a good place to begin. Meade said he was in charge, and he was proud of it.

Given that at other times Meade complained of Grant's interference, this seems a good place to begin, especially as other people use Meade's letters as a source for their claims.
 
I am glad that Cold Harbour was brought into this conversation. I side with the scholars on how this particular battle played out, and based on myth, became the only standard by which Grant was judged by.
 
Which scholars would that be?

The highlighted link takes you to a narrative by Dr. Simpson, who in turn takes the reader through various myths regarding Cold Harbour, Grant & Mead. Within that narrative is a reference to yet another scholar, Gordon Rhea. There is a whole thread on the topic with even more information
 
The highlighted link takes you to a narrative by Dr. Simpson, who in turn takes the reader through various myths regarding Cold Harbour, Grant & Mead. Within that narrative is a reference to yet another scholar, Gordon Rhea. There is a whole thread on the topic with even more information
Hey, thankya. I'll take a look.
 
I am glad that Cold Harbour was brought into this conversation. I side with the scholars on how this particular battle played out, and based on myth, became the only standard by which Grant was judged by.

I was really looking to see if he named those authors whom he was talking about. There was nothing but a blog opinion.
But I did read it, and I disagree with Simpson. Grants unfortunate thing was his frontal piecemeal assaults against earthworks before he learned the difference at Petersburg.
 
There is a link in th middle of the post that re-routs you to an interview with Gordon Rhea. Anyhow, it is all part of the bigger picture of Mead & Grant. There will always be many opinions about Cold Harbour.

EDIT: I don't want to sound too fangirl here, but Dr. Simpson is one of the outstanding Grant scholars of our time. I am very careful about using blogs as sources, but his credentials are solid.
 
Last edited:
I was really looking to see if he named those authors whom he was talking about. There was nothing but a blog opinion.
But I did read it, and I disagree with Simpson. Grants unfortunate thing was his frontal piecemeal assaults against earthworks before he learned the difference at Petersburg.
I assume that you know that Dr. Simpson has written on the subject in book form, and that the blog is a reflection of that research. To dismiss it as opinion is to fail to engage with the argument.

It appears that Meade took responsibility for the June 3 assault. Are you going to argue that you know better than he who was in charge? Upon what basis would you offer your opinion on this matter?

Please specify where else you disagree and why. Frankly, "I disagree with Simpson" gets us nowhere, given that the blog entry in question makes a number of points. Delve into his scholarship and tell us why he's wrong.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bee
Or is this more of the same?


Here's part in the center of the page.....
lifeandlettersg01meadgoog_0221.jpg
 
Back
Top