Leadership

[Elennsar]

Just clarifying my comment on politics.

McClellan wanted to influence policy and dictate how the war would be fought. That sort of "politics" Grant and Sherman seem to have stayed out of. Or stayed much quieter about.

 

[ole]

Some Confederate generals never were seen as acceptable for higher command. The lack of a West Point degree, did not help.

It wasn't unique to the Confederacy. Among the command of both sides there seems to have been a prejudice for the West Pointer. A Good Ol' Boy network.

Ole

 

[Elennsar]

To be fair, they were the vast majority of educated (I do not say "capable" for a reason) officers available.

Assuming that all things are even, one should prefer a professional to an amateur.

All things weren't, however. But if you can come up with, of the officers available in the (or to the) Eastern Theater, better choices than what the AotP and AoNVA had between Chancellorsville and the Wilderness, to use the period one can observe, I'd like to know which West Pointers would be replaced.

I'm not familiar enough with the situation with the Western Theater, particularly beyond the Army of Tennessee (and not very much so there), to even try to guess.

But of the guys who commanded from brigade up, who would you replace?

Good Ol' Boys Network is only a problem when there's incompetence being preserved or competence being excluded.

If its six of one, half a dozen the other, I don't see the point of giving volunteers half the spots just to be "fair".

 

[ole]

McClellan wanted to influence policy and dictate how the war would be fought. That sort of "politics" Grant and Sherman seem to have stayed out of. Or stayed much quieter about.

And a most excellent clarification it is, Elennsar. All politics is local.

One doesn't get very far, even today, without the mentor. But there is a point beyond which you don't get to play anymore: compare McClellan with MacArthur. Play your cards; but until the boss asks you into his game game, stay with your table.

Ole

 

[Elennsar]

McClellan crossed it to some extent (enough to irritate several Radicals and worry Lincoln in ways that should not have come up). MacArthur crossed it to the point of...well, Caesar would be an unfair comparison, but that one can even consider making it is no compliment to him, whether his ideas were good or bad being another discussion entirely.

 

[ole]

McClellan crossed it to some extent (enough to irritate several Radicals and worry Lincoln in ways that should not have come up). MacArthur crossed it to the point of...well, Caesar would be an unfair comparison, but that one can even consider making it is no compliment to him, whether his ideas were good or bad being another discussion entirely.

One of the lessons of history: If you cross the CnC hard enough, you won't find enough sympathy to force him to let you back on board. Enjoy your retirement, dude. (On another day, at another time, you would be shot.)

 

[PINCKNEYUSMCRET]

Both McClellan and MacArthur believed their Press, and forgot that the commander in chief, the President is Who has the final say. they both thought their President to be a bumpkin. A mistake in both cases.

Pinckney

 

[Elennsar]

Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.

Worse, they're doomed to be mocked by the future.
:laugh1:

 

[ole]

Both McClellan and MacArthur believed their Press, and forgot that the commander in chief, the President is Who has the final say. they both thought their President to be a bumpkin. A mistake in both cases.

You said it better, Pinckney. We tend to make heroes out of those who bucked the system, but only those who ended up right. We can count Billy Mitchell among that minority. McClellan and MacArthur didn't qualify. But we like Jesse James and John Dillinger and Machinegun McGurn, as well. And Bonnie and Clyde, the Barker Gang and others who flailed against "the system."

Mostly, we tend o be fruitcakes. Mixing the human with history is not mutually exclusive.

Ole

 

[trice]

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen;

Owing to the fact, that the US Military at the breakout of the hostilities between North and South, was rather small to begin with; with Lt. General Winfield Scott being the elder chief; had been grooming Colonel Robert E. Lee for the position of his replacement. General Twiggs had been showing signs of behavior contrary to the Army's benefit and totally manifested when the incidents in the South took place.

Scott apparently thought the two finest officers in the Army were Robert Anderson and Robert E. Lee. General Twiggs, as he took command in Texas in the fateful "Winter of Secession" was quoted as saying that he full well knew that Scott believed the Lord had to spit on his hands before he made Bob Lee and Bob Anderson.

Anderson, of course, was sent to command in Charleston harbor in November of 1860, and Lee was the acting commander in Texas until Twiggs arrived. Scott clearly was trying to have his top men where trouble might arise.

I agree with posts prior to mine; where engineers were the 'cream of the crop' and best educated in their class. Although West Point/U. S. Military Academy did many things to educate their students--to actually fight though was on the job training. Yes, horsemanship, fencing, organization, drilling, artillery, etc. was taught--the classes of West Point proved they produced failures as well as successes.

Predicting who will make a great combat soldier before the fact is one of the most difficult tests possible. History is littered with men who "everyone knew" would be the next great leader, and filled with unknowns who blossomed into greatness when their time came.

For example, in 1796 the French commander in Italy became so outraged over the unrealistic plans being proposed in Paris that he sarcasticly suggested they send the crazy officer proposing them to carry them out. To his surprise, they did: a young general with political connections named Napoleon Bonaparte.

When the war started, Grant (like many others) thought the three great men for the Union would be McClellan, Buell, and Rosecrans. He even tried to hitch his star to McClellan (who didn't want him). The three all failed; Grant rose on his own.

The pension system for soldiers/officers were awful. Like today--unless you hold full bird Colonel or above, do pensions give some measure of comfort but, even so--unless a general or higher; do you fully retire.

Yes, there really was no retirement system. When the Civil War started, Joe Johnston, as Quartermaster-General, was the youngest bureau chief in the Army at age 54. He was youngest by quite a few years. Old generals tended to stay as long as they could.

I disagree with the assessment that Jefferson Davis did not have any military experience. President Jefferson Davis graduated from West Point (U.S. Military Academy) in 1828, had frontier duty, fought in the Mexican War; at Monterrey and Buena Vista and wounded at Buena Vista.

Also several years as Secretary of War in the 1850s.

President Abraham Lincoln was a Captain in the militia.

Well, that experience was pretty minor, about a week or two of being on "active service" during the Black Hawk War, nowhere near the bullets.

So, in my personal opinion--any of the two presidents that should have known better, as far as military goes--should have been President Davis.

Absolutely. Anyone looking at it in 1860-61 would have had a hard time arguing otherwise.

The engineers of the Military, often went into private practice after their obligations to the military were over. Meade, Haupt, etc. to name a few.

Yes. Many in the country and Congress thought it the real reason for the school; a military career was not looked on with favor by society, particularly in the North.

They were creating the internal structure of the industrial 'North.'

Yes, there was great opportunity for them there.

I find many of the Southern military, being career military more so than those in the Northern regions. I can only assume, that those from the South had more personal wealth, e.g. plantations, family wealth; e.g. Lee with the marriage to Mary Custis, grand daughter to Washington, Lee with his connections to Lighthorse Harry Lee and his various uncles. Whereas, those in the North who were without the personal wealth and or family wealth; had to create it.

Further differences. Very few "professions" were acceptable to a Southern gentleman. The military was one.

Those who sought to increase their wealth had to do so, outside the military. Some brilliant officers left the military as to teach in military like schools; such as VMI.

Yes. And a man like Bragg could marry into money and leave, using his wife's fortune and connections to become a very successful planter in Louisiana.

When the Rebellion and Secession took hold; it is evident that people often sided with their state. Not all but a good portion did so.

Then as now, Southerners seem to have a stronger connection to their state.

Militias and those who volunteered out numbered the regular military, and in order to be supported by the population; those political generals were appointed on both military armies. Civilian generals weren't all bad--I look at General Gordon for the CSA, N. B. Forrest, Turner Asby, Thomas Logan, Stand Waite etc.; as well as for the North--General J. L. Chamberlain (of 20th Maine fame), Francis Barlow, Francis Blair, John Brook, Daniel Butterfield, etc.

It takes time for the necessary skills to develop, but talent can make a man rise in wartime.

But, for certain--The Southern Army had more engineering grads from military academies then the North. The North seemingly had more generals who served frontier/garrison/artillery duties/quartermaster.

All the West Pointers were engineering grads, and most of them stayed with the Union. Outside of VMI, Southern military academies were few and small. The 2nd biggest in the country was actually in Vermont.

In my opinion, the leadership qualities have nothing to do with having military education or not--it is the man who must have that quality first. The military academy polishes and refines it. But, actual on the job training can be more practical. When the Southern army lost so many up and coming officers at Gettysburg; they could not be replaced as rapidly as they were killed that day. North lost a good many good leaders also but, not as critical to their army as it was to the South.

IMHO, true for genius and great leaders. Military training can produce large numbers of capable officers with valuable knowledge and skills, however.

Tim

 

[timewalker]

Seems to me that at the time, an engineering education would serve officers well come the war. An engineer of the time learned surveying and drafting (and thus could read terrain and a map) and had an understanding of fortifications and the use of fields of fire and the like.

Of course, what made Grant a great general had little to do with engineering (although he apparently had a tremendous ability to visualize terrain). As a colonel of volunteers, Grant did a good job training his men. He also had on the job training in the Mexican War in logistics and that served him extremely well in the war. As to where his two greatest strengths, his strategic vision and his "four o'clock in the morning courage" (as Shelby Foote calls it), who knows where those came from. As others have noted, some elements of a great commander will not be apparent until one is actually in command.

 

[Glorybound]

by Timewalker

As to where his two greatest strengths, his strategic vision and his "four o'clock in the morning courage" (as Shelby Foote calls it

Timewalker, I heard Mr. Foote speak of the 0400 courage on TV, maybe it was in the PBS series on the CW (Ken Burns). I forgot his definition of it though. If you could can you 'splain what that is? Thanks.



Lee

 

[Elennsar]

I'm not sure, but I think Foote means the following:

The "its dark, its gloomy, everything is unclear, you're tired..."

And you've got the cool head to keep on plugging.

You're just paitently waiting for the sun to come up, no stress or bother.

That's my impression of what Grant did so well, it may be a different thing. But Grant had "grace under pressure" in spades. Not just in the heat of action when the blood is pounding, but when one is feeling weak and vulnerable and alone.

 

[Glorybound]

I'm not sure, but I think Foote means the following:

The "its dark, its gloomy, everything is unclear, you're tired..."

And you've got the cool head to keep on plugging.

You're just paitently waiting for the sun to come up, no stress or bother.

That's my impression of what Grant did so well, it may be a different thing. But Grant had "grace under pressure" in spades. Not just in the heat of action when the blood is pounding, but when one is feeling weak and vulnerable and alone.

Thanks Elennsar. That might well be it. I guess I had it in my head that the "0400 courage" meant that had Grant been abruptly awakened at that time with bad news, he would have figured out the correct solution fairly quickly, without having to go thru a pot of coffee first. I don't know, but your explanation makes sense also.


Lee

 

[trice]

Timewalker, I heard Mr. Foote speak of the 0400 courage on TV, maybe it was in the PBS series on the CW (Ken Burns). I forgot his definition of it though. If you could can you 'splain what that is? Thanks.

To begin with, virtually all of the men we talk about, the generals who became leaders in the war, seem to have had physical courage in abundance. Men like the Johnstons, Beauregard, Lee, Jackson, Bragg, Hardee, Polk, Pemberton, Van Dorn, etc. for the Confederates. Men like McClellan, McDowell, Pope, Hooker, Meade, Grant, Sherman, Buell, Thomas, McPherson, etc. for the Union. By physical courage, I mean the type that makes men stand up to lead a charge, or expose themselves to fire to encourage the men, and similar acts. Virtually without exception, these men had that.

The four-o'clock-in-the-morning sort is what I refer to as all-alone-in-the-dark courage. The Grants and Lees had this. The criticism we see of Hooker or McClellan is essentially that they didn't have it, or didn't have enough of it. It is perhaps what a commander needs most when the weight of decision is all on his shoulders and all eyes turn to him.

With McClellan, this led to constant belief that he was outnumbered and that the government was betraying him. With Hooker, this led to hesitation at a crucial moment; Hooker was so close to having it that he would get to the brink of success and hang on the edge of it. It is a lot like being a closer in baseball: you have to forget the last blown save, you have to bear down even more when the pressure is on. Mariano Rivera has it. Benitez of the Orioles, Mets, and Giants never did: he compiled great stats in average games and blew every important opportunity.

A Grant took what he had and went to work. When the battle grew crucial and the stress made strong men waver, he continued to fight on. When Lee hammers him at Wilderness (and the ANV hits the AoP at least as hard and probably harder at Wilderness than they did at Chancellorsville), Grant sucks it up and moves on to Spotsylvania and North Anna and Cold Harbor and Petersburg, what Northern newspapers refered to as "The Forty Days" in a biblical reference. I don't mean to say this was easy; I think Grant was wracked with anguish over his losses and the strain of the battles. But Grant mastered himself and continued. I cannot picture McClellan or Hooker doing that.

Tim

 

[timewalker]

Thanks Elennsar. That might well be it. I guess I had it in my head that the "0400 courage" meant that had Grant been abruptly awakened at that time with bad news, he would have figured out the correct solution fairly quickly, without having to go thru a pot of coffee first. I don't know, but your explanation makes sense also.


Lee

As I recall, that's pretty much it. Wake a man at 0400 and tell him that the enemy has overrun his flank and he will not freak out, will not lose his never. He will simply say, "All right" and start issuing orders to rectify the situation. At a talk I was at, he illustrated it with Grant's famous meeting with Sherman after the first day at Sherman was freaking out and was going to commiserate with Grant. But coming upon him, he found him sitting composed under a tree. So Sherman simply said, "Well Grant, we've had the devil's own day." Grant replied, "Yup. Lick em tomorrow, though." That's four o'clock in the morning courage.

 

[Glorybound]

Thanks to you Trice and Timewalker. I believe that Grant and Lee, and I'd like to include Sherman after he recovered from his confidence crisis, had elements of all the qualities described in both your posts. And there were a few others as Trice mentioned.

Selling firewood in the streets of St. Louis to commanding an army charged with saving the very Union itself, is no small leap forward. I have wondered often what was in Grant's mind that lent him toward this monumental task, and to be successful. Genes, past experiences, humiliations, achievements, upbringing, or simply circumstances, or a combination of all seemed to form him into the kind of person who could summon that "four o'clock courage" in an instant anytime...especially at four a.m. near the battlefield. But there had to be something else there, in his brain, that would set him apart from the rest who didn't have that kind of courage.

What situations are life-altering, or defining, in an ordinary man's mind seems to have been less so in Grant's mind. In other word's an ordinary general commanding might say, at Vicksburg, "I've got to get that surrender no matter what it costs. If I don't, my career is ruined and my life as well", where Grant's mindset might lead him to think in less dramatic terms: " If I don't get that surrender from Pemberton today this headache's only gonna get worse." I mean, it wasn't a matter of "if" he got the surrender, but "when", whereas the former general had doubts about his ultimate success, period, and was already worrying about how the remainder of his life would turn out if he failed.

Grant and Lee both, IMO, were truly great generals and found their calling in life. For me they are men to wonder about and study, to find the key to their unflappable courage and confidence.






Lee

 

[trice]

...
What situations are life-altering, or defining, in an ordinary man's mind seems to have been less in Grant's mind. In other word's an ordinary general commanding might say, at Vicksburg, "I've got to get that surrender no matter what it costs. If I don't, my career is ruined and my life as well", where Grant's mindset might lead him to think in less dramatic terms: " If I don't get that surrender from Pemberton today this headache's only gonna get worse." I mean, it wasn't a matter of "if" he got the surrender, but "when", whereas the former general had doubts about his ultimate success, period, and was already worrying about how the remainder of his life would turn out if he failed.
...

In the end, I think it is about the person involved. Life and upbringing and schooling can all help, but they can't give you what you never had inside, only enhance what you do have.

Pemberton and Grant are a perfect example.

Pemberton told his subordinates he could get the best deal with Grant on July 4th. Grant would have thought a surrender on July 4th nice, but not a lot different than July 3rd or 5th. In the reversed positions, Grant would have thought it his duty to hold on as long as possible, which probably would have meant another few days or weeks.

Of course, Grant had known Pemberton in Mexico, and had little regard for his abilities.

Tim

 

[ole]

All excellent analyses ... many thanks to all of you.

In the training business, an adage was, "Don't try to teach a pig to sing; you'll only waste your time and annoy the pig." There are simply some things that are not learned in school. (Nature/nurture arguers may take this up with their own threads.) It was mostly applied in a simpler context, as in "if this person has been a belligerant all his/her life, you aren't going to train him/her to be personable."

Training is easy when someone wants to grow to be a top salesman, and you can show him/her some of the ins and outs. To be a 0400 type -- confident and calm when you are all alone -- is not something that can be taught easily. Grant and Lee seem to have had that quality early; for Sherman it came later; for Joe Johnston -- never.

One of the reasons I got into the study of the USCW was the opportunity to look for the personalities and other characteristics in the primary players. You can soon see who had what. But the question is where did they get it? Certainly not at West Point.

 

[Elennsar]

I guess part of it is nature (some people "just have it") and part of it is...well...

I'm not sure. I guess its experience, in part. Not so much as in learning, but if you face a situation like what Grant faced (selling firewood), you either toughen up or break.

Why or how Grant had the grit to toughten up, I don't know. But I think its experience with those kind of situations. You don't know if you have 4-in-the-morning courage until you're in a position where it would be just so much easier to collapse.

That is what amazes me about Grant. Grant, if he was half as bad a drinker as his enemies accused him of being, would have curled up in a bottle during that time. Is there any sign he did it? None.

For someone who enjoyed his liquor more than the average man (or at least, held it worse), that took a certain driving determination.

Bravo, Grant. Bravo.