Grant's Hammer

[wilber6150]

Well, lets see:
Wilderness- caught in the flank, no calvary warning, forced to fight in the woods.
Spotsylvania- outmarched to courthouse, made a beautiful dawn attack completely stampedeing a corp of rebels and capturing a battalion of artillery and then lost all the gained ground and most of the artillery.
Cold Harbour- I don't even know where to begin!
Petersburg- Made a beautiful tactical move across the river , made a very successfull initial attack, storming several forts and taking several miles of lines and then stopped.
He was a butcher and a very level headed man but not a great general. I don't think Grant won the war, Lincoln did.

Grant also learned from his mistakes and tended not to repeat them..He was also the one General that didn't seem to be terrified of the War God General Lee, and knew him just to be a man as himself..

 

[whitworth]

Grant Won; Lee Lost

The American way is to overlook the defeat of the underdog.
Of course, Lee is seen as the great leader; a leader in defeat and never final victory.

Lee never won a major victory in any place but Virginia. He didn't win in Maryland and didn't win in Pennsylvania.

Lee in fact only defended part of Virginia. Lee never successfully defended or held land west of the Alleghenies; and Virginia land that bordered Pennsylvania and the Ohio River.
Lee never gained back the important seaport of Norfolk. Lee never controlled the Arlington, Virginia area, site of his wife's plantation. Lee never controlled land near the Potomac River nor ever started a seige of Washington.

Lee never won as commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, except for some battles in Virginia.

And many see Robert E. Lee as the great military genius. And Grant won and is seen by some as incompetent.

Ah, the magic American potion of admiring the underdog. Even a defeated underdog.

 

[DWMack]

Grant also learned from his mistakes and tended not to repeat them..He was also the one General that didn't seem to be terrified of the War God General Lee, and knew him just to be a man as himself..

Grant said something like "I'm sick of hearing you all talk about what Lee's going to do. Lets start thinking about what We're going to do". I am paraphrasing of course.

 

[Henry]

Perserverance

Whitworth, your observations regarding R.E. Lee's tenure as a military leader in Virginia are on the mark. The Army of Northern Virginia was forced into interior lines early in the game and never seemed to muster the resource to regain what was taken.Lack of a Southern navy being an important consideration there. Grant got good at judging Confederate intention by the lack of response to his movements.
I note you mention a seige of Washington as possible employment for Lee's forces. The only fellow I know of who ever seriously suggested this was Dan Ruggles, who was shipped west before he could do anything regarding his thoughts. I'm of a sense that other Confederates might have thought a move on D.C. was feasible, any word from them?

 

[Dred]

Well, lets see:
Wilderness- caught in the flank, no calvary warning, forced to fight in the woods.

Did not turn back to a safe place behind the Rappahannock and lick his wounds for a couple months like every AOP commander up to that point

Spotsylvania- outmarched to courthouse, made a beautiful dawn attack completely stampedeing a corp of rebels and capturing a battalion of artillery and then lost all the gained ground and most of the artillery.

Did not give up when the initiative was lost and kept hammering at the Confederate position until they were forced to make a move.

Cold Harbour- I don't even know where to begin!

Did not turn back to a safe place behind the Rappahannock and lick his wounds for a couple months like every AOP commander up to that point



Petersburg- Made a beautiful tactical move across the river , made a very successfull initial attack, storming several forts and taking several miles of lines and then stopped.

Not too familiar with the initial attacks, only the outcome.
He was a butcher and a very level headed man but not a great general. I don't think Grant won the war, Lincoln did.

Ahh yes, the old butcher analogy. Why? Because he wasn't afraid to use his army until the job was done? That's what war takes, men die.

 

[RobertP]

Did Grant ever win a battle anywhere without overwhelming men, materiel and other resources, i.e. Navy? If I recall correctly, he was losing badly with even odds at Shiloh until Buell bailed him out.

 

[brass napoleon]

Did Grant ever win a battle anywhere without overwhelming men, materiel and other resources, i.e. Navy? If I recall correctly, he was losing badly with even odds at Shiloh until Buell bailed him out.

Overwhelming manpower was necessary in that war when on the offensive. I'm sure Lee would have loved to have it at Gettysburg. Grant made some serious mistakes at Shiloh and Cold Harbor. The only generals in that war who didn't make mistakes were the ones who were too timid to. Great generals like Grant and Lee learned from their mistakes. Many other generals just kept making the same mistakes over and over again.

 

[ForeverFree]

And many see Robert E. Lee as the great military genius. And Grant won and is seen by some as incompetent.

Ah, the magic American potion of admiring the underdog. Even a defeated underdog.

I am not an expert on this, so color me wrong if appropriate.

But one reason that Lee gets so much credit is, he lacked the manpower needed to succeed, and may have overachieved based on what he had.

The feeling seems to be, if he the troop strength and other resources of Grant and the Union had, he would have had a lot more victories.

 

[RobertP]

Overwhelming manpower was necessary in that war when on the offensive.

Really. Lee in 7 Days, 2nd Manassas, Chancellorsville. Always with lesser resources, all offensive operations, all victories.

Also wondering how Grant might have done with Jackson's little army in the Valley Campaign.

Bottom line. Grant was the best the Union had. He recognized the advantages he had and wasn't afraid to use them. Give him credit for that.

 

[wilber6150]

Did Grant ever win a battle anywhere without overwhelming men, materiel and other resources, i.e. Navy? If I recall correctly, he was losing badly with even odds at Shiloh until Buell bailed him out.

Grant as overall commander did get caught with his pants down on the first day of Shiloh, but by the end of that day he had the situation stabilized and by the second had the Rebs on the run..Thats a rare Union commander who changed defeat into victory during the same battle..
Look at Chickamauga, the first day it was pretty much a Union victory having held back the Confederates, but by the second day it was the Union on the run, but all you ever hear was that it was a resounding Confederate victory.. Now with Shiloh and Grant we have almost the opposite situation, but the Union victory is always downplayed and the battle of the first day is always held over his head..Grant had a bad PR

 

[brass napoleon]

Really. Lee in 7 Days, 2nd Manassas, Chancellorsville. Always with lesser resources, all offensive operations, all victories.

Actually, I would consider 7 Days and Chancellorsville to be defensive campaigns on Lee's part. As for 2nd Manassas? IMHO that (and Chancellorsville) are what make Lee the greatest. But in no way does that take anything away from Grant. After all, Grant did beat him.

 

[prroh]

Actually, I would consider 7 Days and Chancellorsville to be defensive campaigns on Lee's part.

I think that such actions are known as "offensive defense". Longstreet claims that Lee also describes the gettysburg campaign in those terms.

 

[M E Wolf]

My personal observations, comments and opinions about General U. S. Grant, comes through reading quickly through may of Grant's early exchanges within the "Official Records of the Rebellion"; as I wanted to see the 'demeanor' of Colonel through Lieutenant-General U. S. Grant.

I was impressed with Grant admitting to a lesser rank, his mistake in judgment in an order and in a sense--taking responsibility, much like General Robert E. Lee.
=======================================================
O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 3 [S# 3]
CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, AND RETURNS, RELATING SPECIALLY TO OPERATIONS IN ARKANSAS, THE INDIAN TERRITORY, KANSAS, AND MISSOURI,(*) FROM MAY 10 TO NOVEMBER 19, 1861.
UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.--#3
HDQRS. DISTRICT SOUTHEAST MISSOURI,
Cairo, Ill., September 12, 1861.
Col. J. COOK, Commanding, &c., Cape Girardeau, Mo.:
All boats passing your post not recognized as in the employ of the Government will be hailed and brought to, papers examined, and, if necessary, cargo. Everything must be done to prevent the enemy's receiving supplies.

The work on the fortifications should be pushed forward as rapidly as possible. Protect all loyal citizens in all their rights, but carry out the proclamation of General Frémont upon all subjects known to come under it. Keep out pickets and scouts, so that you cannot be surprised.

I have no information about the Home Guards under your command, but as long as they carry United States arms and Government rations, they are entirely subject to the orders of the commanding officer. Should they refuse to obey you, arrest the officers, disarm the soldiers, and report the matter at once to General Frémont, and also to me.

If you are strong enough to give protection to points distant from you, it may be done; but be cautious to have always the post protected.

I approve of your course in sending Captain Stewart's cavalry by boat. I should not have ordered them by land after the storm of yesterday.

See that your post is constantly kept supplied with rations, at least ten days ahead, and that a full supply of ammunition of all kinds is kept constantly on hand.
U.S. GRANT,
Brigadier-General, Commanding.
=======================================================
Majority of correspondences to those officers of lower rank, I found very respectful to the individual commander. General Grant has several 'tones' in which he addresses commanders of units. "You will please;" being one of his most respectful. "I want;" "Have;" etc., being more direct and more commanding. One can see a pattern by how he addresses the individual commanders in direction/command.

=====================================================

O.R.-- SERIES I--VOLUME 3 [S# 3]
CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, AND RETURNS, RELATING SPECIALLY TO OPERATIONS IN ARKANSAS, THE INDIAN TERRITORY, KANSAS, AND MISSOURI,(*) FROM MAY 10 TO NOVEMBER 19, 1861.
UNION CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.--#3
HEADQUARTERS DISTRICT SOUTHEAST MISSOURI,
Cairo, Ill., September 15, 1861.
Colonel Ross,
Seventeenth Illinois, Comdg. U.S. Forces Elliott's Mills, Ky.:
You will please detach as much cavalry as you can spare from your command to make a reconnaissance in the direction of Blandville, under the direction of Colonel Waagner. You will be re-enforced by one regiment to-morrow, should they not arrive to-night.
U.S. GRANT,
Brigadier-General, Commanding.
=======================================================
Working with General Fremont in Missouri and in the Western Theater, they worked with thin supplies and support much like General R. E. Lee throughout his commanding days with the Army of Northern Virginia. Perhaps this ability to work with lean supplies and support 'forged and shaped' General Grant as to 'understand' what General Lee had to work with, especially once General Grant transferred from the Western Theater into the Eastern Theater.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted,
M. E. Wolf

 

[Dred]

Did Grant ever win a battle anywhere without overwhelming men, materiel and other resources, i.e. Navy? If I recall correctly, he was losing badly with even odds at Shiloh until Buell bailed him out.

Why should he have? What kind of General would he have been if he did not use everything at his disposal? So now we fault him for using a joint task force to get the job done? Keep i mind you can lose with the same overwhelming men, materiel, and other resources, i.e. Navy. Just look at McLellan 7 days... Completely relied upon the Navy to transport the troops in the first place, Definitely had overwhelming men and materiels, and he still blows it. Way to go Li'l Mac.

 

[BillO]

Sorry I'm slow getting back but I told everyone this was gonna be fun. I'm going to try to respond to everyone who jumped on this in reverse order.
Dred: I don't blame Grant for using what he had we are just saying in our opinion if the roles had been reversed Grant wouldn't have farede as well as Lee did.

 

[BillO]

To M E Wolf: I agree , I think he was a good man and not a bad general but I do think he was wasteful of his resources. He did learn from his mistakes but the carnage was tremendous. I think he should have learned much sooner than the 4th day at Spotsylvania not to frontal assault brestworks.

 

[K Hale]

Dred: I don't blame Grant for using what he had we are just saying in our opinion if the roles had been reversed Grant wouldn't have farede as well as Lee did.

But Lee lost. Are you saying Grant would have lost harder?

And, who is "we"?

 

[K Hale]

I agree , I think he was a good man and not a bad general but I do think he was wasteful of his resources.

He used his resources. As Porter Alexander said, he was the only general who was willing to fight his army for what it was worth.

McClellan carefully preserved his resources, I suppose. But you see where that got him.

 

[BillO]

Now back to Dred: In post #25 your reply on the Wilderness is correct. Good job. In your reply on Spotsylvania what you see as not giving up the initiative I see as stupid and needless slaughter of several thousand rank and file for no gain and he moved by his left flank first. He didn't force Lee to leave, after a while even Grant could see he wasn't going to gain anything by staying where he was.

 

[BillO]

K Hale, yes he did use his resources. I drive my car, I just don't drive it like I'm in a demolition derby and no, he wouldn't have lost harder just quicker!