Grant pursuing at Shiloh?

[Musket Man]

I've always been fascinated with the Battle of Shiloh and am currently reading "Shiloh, The battle that changed the Civil War". I have heard in the past where different people has stated that Grant should have pursued Beauregard and the Confederates and others stated that he was justified in letting the Confederates move on south.

In my opinion both sides took a heck of a beating in some pretty nasty conditions. Each sustained more casualitiues than anything anyone had experienced up until that time. Communication seemed to be horrible at best on either side. Soldiers were tired,hungry,wet,and cold.

Its hard for me to know what I would have done? On one side I think that it would have been a perfect time to give pursuit when the Confederates were so low on supplies, and in my opinion the Union had the upper hand as far as fresh troops. But on the other hand with so many casualties, maybe it was best to try to end it and regroup for another day.

Either way its history and there will always be two sides to this battle. The soldiers fought and died with courage and bravery. Faced horrific conditions with little nourishment and rest.

I was just curious to some of your opinions on this subject.

 

[Yankeedave]

Does anyone know the weather from the night it poured? The night of the battle plus four or something. My copy of daniels is over there but i am actually wargaming hallecks advance on (battle) of corinth as grant. Coincidence or what.

 

[Yankeedave]

totaly interested in your topic tho.

 

[leftyhunter]

I've always been fascinated with the Battle of Shiloh and am currently reading "Shiloh, The battle that changed the Civil War". I have heard in the past where different people has stated that Grant should have pursued Beauregard and the Confederates and others stated that he was justified in letting the Confederates move on south.

In my opinion both sides took a heck of a beating in some pretty nasty conditions. Each sustained more casualitiues than anything anyone had experienced up until that time. Communication seemed to be horrible at best on either side. Soldiers were tired,hungry,wet,and cold.

Its hard for me to know what I would have done? On one side I think that it would have been a perfect time to give pursuit when the Confederates were so low on supplies, and in my opinion the Union had the upper hand as far as fresh troops. But on the other hand with so many casualties, maybe it was best to try to end it and regroup for another day.

Either way its history and there will always be two sides to this battle. The soldiers fought and died with courage and bravery. Faced horrific conditions with little nourishment and rest.

I was just curious to some of your opinions on this subject.

Their is an old saying about about the Civil War "That an army is as disorganized in victory as defeat". It is very difficult to reorganize every one and have the logistics in good shape to try a speedy pursuit. Plus as you mention the men are hungry, bone tired and often psychologically out of their minds. Has a general rule after a major battle armies don't excell at quickly giving chase after a major battle.
Meade tried to do after Gettysburg it didn't eork out and Meade still had to face harsh criticism from Lincoln anyway.
Leftyhuner

 

[ivanj05]

Other than Appomattox, which is something of a unique case, there are very few examples of successful pursuit in the Civil War, even in such cases as Gettysburg where Meade certainly attempted it. Perhaps the biggest, but not the only, reason why is that it was exceedingly rare for armies in the Civil War to retreat in enough disorder to create the opportunity for a pursuer to "bag the lot" as it were.

 

[ole]

Their is an old saying about about the Civil War "That an army is as disorganized in victory as defeat". It is very difficult to reorganize every one and have the logistics in good shape to try a speedy pursuit. Plus as tou mention the men are hungry, bone tired and often psychologically out of their minds. Has a general rule after a major battle armies don't excell at quickly giving chase after a major battle.
Meade tried to do after Gettysburg it didn't

rk weork out and Meade still had to face harsh criticism from Lincoln anyway.
Leftyhuner

My understanding is that
, after Shiloh,
Halleck came down to lead the chase.


Halleck had his good qualities, but field command wasn't one of them.

You are correct in stating that the victorious army is usually in no condition to pursue the defeated army, but .... Meade did mount a pursuit.



































lincoln's disappointment is understandable, but misplaced.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

As pointed out in the OP, nothing on the scale of Shiloh had been seen on the North American continent up until that battle.

To oversimplify: think two heavyweight boxers that have just beaten each other to a pulp.

Although one boxer won the match, neither were ready to hop back into the ring on the third day.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Napoleon I managed a proper pursuit... but even for him is was not the norm.

To do it well, you need well trained light cavalry, plenty of it... and it need to have been in reserve for the entire battle. So it is still organized, rested and ready.
(and some infantry to support them, and horse artillery... so when someone organize a rear guard, they can break it)

Without it, you can naturally do some with infantry. But it still need to be organized, ready and rested.

Grant certainly didn't have the first and I don't believe he had much in the way of rested and ready reserves.
Any reserves he had by day two would (I think) be tired from the marching... or the fighting the day before.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

The final chapter of Shiloh comes to mind when I saw this thread.

Although technically not a pursuit, the results of Sherman's reconnaissance of the retreating Confederates resulted in the skirmish at Fallen Timbers.

To me, it seems both sides were ready to continue the fight if necessary. However, both knew "a breather" was definitely in order. Personally I think both the Federals & the Confederates realized it was in their best interests to step back, take care of the massive number of wounded and reevaluate the post battle situation.

Civil War Trust has an excellent page about Fallen Timbers.

Civil War Trust: Could Grant and Sherman have done a better job of pursuing the retreating Confederate army? Did they let slip an opportunity to decimate their opponent?

Stacy Allen: No! And I have always been fascinated with the criticism heaped upon military leaders of the past for failure to perform actions we ourselves have not been confronted by. There was never going to be a pursuit from the Shiloh battlefield and to imagine one was even possible is unrealistic. For one, the standing orders for Grant wait and Pittsburg Landing and not let the Confederates draw him into an engagement. Even though Grant initially, upon arrival at Pittsburg, seemed ready to move. But his superior, Henry W. Halleck, remained adamant Grant do nothing which would force the Confederates into a pitched general engagement prior to the arrival of Don Carlos Buell's approaching army, and then new instructions for both commanders would be forth coming.

More at:
http://www.civilwar.org/battlefield...-timbers-2011/shiloh-fallen-timbers-then.html

 

[Yankeedave]

Would the battle have been different if Smith had retained command not Grant?

 

[Study the Past]

Would the battle have been different if Smith had retained command not Grant?

Hard to say. Smith was a more than capable leader in his own right; however, it's difficult to ascertain what exactly would have been Smith's strategy/preparations/reaction to all that occurred prior to and during the Battle itself.

 

[Yankeedave]

Smith seens to responsible much that acured between march 2-16. Selecting savanah, sherman's yellow creek raid and other little movements that make the big one. He seems to have been agresive. With the change to grant, forward movement paused but this is almost expected.
what did grant to after this?

 

[diane]

I think Thomas up above has a good point about the proper use of cavalry. One of the problems early in the war was commanders were often civilian volunteers elected by their troops - this was the case with Forrest, who was guarding a creek. He left his position - it turned out to be ok but could have been disastrous - it was because he was not a trained soldier and didn't completely understand why he was there. He was a quick learner, though, and did a lot better after that. Grant, for his part, never did seem to see the real use of cavalry and didn't use it as well as he could have.

But, as Ole points out - Halleck was still pulling Grant's strings, which is why he decided to leave after the battle of Shiloh. He'd been stepped on when he hadn't deserved it and could see no point in continuing if Halleck was to be his superior. Fortunately for later events, Sherman, who had had his own bout with Halleck, unpacked Grant's bags.

Discipline was a very dire problem. Neither side was very good at being much more than 'an organized mob' as an apt description illustrated. One reason Johnston lost considerable momentum was because his men got sidetracked with looting and eating. Grant's men fled the field and hunkered down by the river, not to be moved by anything short of artillery.

And that's something C F Smith would never have allowed. He was an able veteran of many wars, knew the value of discipline and didn't hesitate to use it, and also knew A S Johnston very well from the Mormon Wars in Utah. It would have been an interesting contest if Smith had not hurt his leg!

 

[Yankeedave]

Grant would learn cavalry, but it would take him forever. This is juxtaposed with raids like grearson, but he falls asleep to raids from Forrest that alter campaigns. In the overland campaign it takes a few days till the army un knots from crossing the river. He then steadily lets the cavalry become a force of their own and a large part of an army valley.
No wonder halleck was frustrated.