Grant Lucky he Started in the West?

[WJC]

U. S. Grant is generally acknowledged as the greatest U. S. General in the Civil War. His success in the Western Theater brought him to the attention of Lincoln.
But even with his greatness, was that success in large part due to fighting lesser generals in the west?

 

[Krieger]

Focusing on the opposing generals is always a serious oversimplification, IMO. Western generals were much farther away from Washington and could get away with a lot more mistakes, allowing for men like Grant and Sherman to learn by trial and error how to fight a modern war and ultimately become the Union's best generals through experience gained. In the east, it's not three strikes and you're out, it's one strike regardless of whether Lee is your opponent or not. Had Grant somehow made his way to command the AoP in 1862-1863 we can at the very least reasonably assume that he wouldn't have lost his nerve in a major battle and would have put all his men in, and no one can really say what the outcome of that would have been since there's no way to really set up a hypothetical battle like that.

Unfortunately I can't really agree with any of the poll options, personally. My answer would of course be more along the lines of, "Yes, because the political pressure wasn't nearly as strong on the western army commanders."

 

[Cavalry Charger]

I posted the first vote so for now Grant is at 100% for winning in any theatre, against any opponent.

I think Grant definitely passed the test with Lee. There was a psychological element to battling Lee as well, and Grant was able to focus his men in order to do that which is something I don't think any of the other Generals were able to do. He also had a tenacity about him where anything other than moving forward in order to win the battle was never going to be a possibility.

The idea that Grant was fighting lesser Generals doesn't explain how he was able to defeat Robert E. Lee.

He may have been able to hone his skills in the West, but this only becomes a 'what if' question in the end should Grant have met Lee earlier in the 'contest'.

Maybe the West was the 'dumping' ground for untried General from both sides. Or at least Generals there was some caution around.

Washington was considered to be in need of protection, and Richmond was the prize in terms of it being the capital of the Confederacy, so both being in the east it appears that's where the focus may have been for placing the more qualified Generals. I'm only speculating, btw.

 

[jackt62]

There seems to be a common misperception that the western theater was a "dumping ground" for losing generals. While it is true that Lee had commanders he deemed ineffective (Magruder, Holmes) relocated to the west, I don't think a strong case can be made for the western theater containing any more or less effective generals than the eastern theater. The Confederacy certainly had strong leaders in the west (Forrest, Breckenridge, Taylor) and many commanders of various capabilities shuttled back and forth between the two areas (Johnston, Beauregard, Hood, Longstreet). Similarly, the north had its share of commanders considered ineffective in both theaters of war (Burnside, Buell) as well as strong leaders (Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Meade). So getting back to the question of Grant's success, I contend that his abilities as a leader and commander were integral to his personality. In any event, he beat Lee, the Confederacy's top commander, in the east.

 

[WilliamH]

General Grant made serious mistakes at Shiloh, his army was not ready for an attack and the river prevented any retreat.

Had General Grant made a similar mistake early in the East against Lee and Jackson, then he may have lost an Army, and his reputation. In such a scenario the "Greatest General of the Civil War" would have ended up as another name on the list of "lesser" Generals defeating by General Lee and the ANV.

 

[alan polk]

Well, if Vicksburg was what launched his career in the eyes of Lincoln, his success had less to do with Confederate generals and more to do with a deplorable Confederate command structure.

 

[Irishtom29]

General Grant made serious mistakes at Shiloh, his army was not ready for an attack and the river prevented any retreat.

Had General Grant made a similar mistake early in the East against Lee and Jackson, then he may have lost an Army, and his reputation. In such a scenario the "Greatest General of the Civil War" would have ended up as another name on the list of "lesser" Generals defeating by General Lee and the ANV.

As long as we're fantasizing maybe Lee gets killed in fictitious battle, as Johnston was at Shiloh.

Note that in the real world three of the main generals who delivered the final killer blows in the east came from the west--Grant, Ord and Sheridan.

 

[WJC]

Note that in the real world three of the main generals who delivered the final killer blows in the east came from the west--Grant, Ord and Sheridan.

What about Sherman?

 

[Seduzal]

I have not really studied any of the above General's mentioned. So I have no opinion .

 

[Saruman]

U. S. Grant is generally acknowledged as the greatest U. S. General in the Civil War. His success in the Western Theater brought him to the attention of Lincoln.
But even with his greatness, was that success in large part due to fighting lesser generals in the west?

I think Grant was very lucky not to have been killed at Belmont or Shiloh.

Belmont - Wearing a normal soldier's overcoat, Grant rode into a cornfield. Suddenly, Confederate troops appeared only 50 yards away. Camouflaged by the tall cornstalks, he slowly turned around and walked his horse away. Once at a safe distance, he began to gallop as fast as he could back to the landing. Later he learned that Polk had spotted him in the cornfield and invited his marksmen to take a shot. Not recognizing Grant as the opposing general, none of the marksmen did so, missing an opportunity that might well have changed the outcome of the Civil War and radically altered American history.

Shiloh - Grant "continuously rode along the line of battle, through the hottest of their fire, for the whole distance of about five miles," wrote one of his escorts. Grant was covered in the blood and brains of his aide-de-camp, Captain Carson, after his head was taken off by a cannon ball. A canister shot also hit Grant on his sword scabbard and bent it. An inch or two in either direction could have killed or mortally wounded him.

 

[Irishtom29]

What about Sherman?

Good point; Sherman's and Johnston's force were by that stage operating in the east. I guess I just kind'a think of the Carolinas Campaign as the west moved east, know what I mean?

 

[Pat Answer]

Shiloh - Grant "continuously rode along the line of battle, through the hottest of their fire, for the whole distance of about five miles," wrote one of his escorts. Grant was covered in the blood and brains of his aide-de-camp, Captain Carson, after his head was taken off by a cannon ball.

Interesting. IIRC, the same thing happened to Rosecrans when Lt. Col Julius P Garesché was decapitated by a cannonball at Murfreesboro...

 

[James N.]

Ironically enough, Grant might've started out in Western Virginia or Eastern Tennessee if George McClellan had been at his Cincinnati headquarters and agreed to meet with Grant when he came looking for a position in early 1861. This was between attempts to secure a post in Illinois and he went not only to visit McClellan, who he never got to see, but also Nathaniel Lyon in St. Louis, who also ignored or snubbed him, according to Bruce Catton in Grant Moves South. Remember that Western (soon to be West) Virginia was also where Grant's later nemesis Rosecrans had also begun as one of McClellan's subordinates, largely responsible for winning battles Mac was then able to take credit for.

 

[James N.]

… Unfortunately I can't really agree with any of the poll options, personally. My answer would of course be more along the lines of, "Yes, because the political pressure wasn't nearly as strong on the western army commanders."

That would probably come closest to my opinion also.

 

[Carronade]

There were a variety of postings in the east; for example, Grant would likely have done well in amphibious operations along the Carolina coasts, but the thrust of this thread seems to be Grant facing Lee and the ANV. Grant would be one of many generals in the east, so he would probably not achieve high command as early as he did; no "Unconditional Surrender" Grant in 1862. Most likely he would work his way up like Hooker or Meade, doing well at each level. He might have been a candidate to replace Hooker and ended up facing Lee at Gettysburg.

 

[James N.]

There were a variety of postings in the east; for example, Grant would likely have done well in amphibious operations along the Carolina coasts, but the thrust of this thread seems to be Grant facing Lee and the ANV. Grant would be one of many generals in the east, so he would probably not achieve high command as early as he did; no "Unconditional Surrender" Grant in 1862. Most likely he would work his way up like Hooker or Meade, doing well at each level. He might have been a candidate to replace Hooker and ended up facing Lee at Gettysburg.

Oddly enough, around the time he was spinning his wheels serving in the do-nothing role of Halleck's second-in-command at Corinth he was interested in doing that very thing in order to regain a semi-autonomous position like he had enjoyed at Donelson. Fortunately for him, nothing came of it.

 

[wbull1]

It's interesting to me that Grant suggested McClellan might have done better if he had started in the West. Maybe less important than the generals Grant faced was the politics of the East he avoided. Sherman got a second chance in the West he might not have received had there been people looking his shoulder at his every move.

That was not offered as an option.

 

[Irishtom29]

It's interesting to me that Grant suggested McClellan might have done better if he had started in the West. Maybe less important than the generals Grant faced was the politics of the East he avoided. Sherman got a second chance in the West he might not have received had there been people looking his shoulder at his every move.

That was not offered as an option.

Was McClellan never offered work soldiering in a different job?

Something I admire about Pope was that after his licking in Virginia he took up his demotion to fighting the Dakota Rebellion in Minnesota and did a pretty good job too. I'm under the impression his stature in the Army grew greatly after he went West. Maybe he learned something.

 

[wbull1]

Was McClellan never offered work soldiering in a different job?

Something I admire about Pope was that after his licking in Virginia he took up his demotion to fighting the Dakota Rebellion in Minnesota and did a pretty good job too. I'm under the impression his stature in the Army grew greatly after he went West. Maybe he learned something.

As I understand it (and there are many who know a great deal more about McClellan than I do) he was appointed second in command of the Union armies early in the war. Then he was the top General in the Union Army. It would have been a spectacular demotion to move to anything less. McClellan did not ever have a chance to work his way up because he started a the top.

 

[Andy Cardinal]

Focusing on the opposing generals is always a serious oversimplification, IMO. Western generals were much farther away from Washington and could get away with a lot more mistakes, allowing for men like Grant and Sherman to learn by trial and error how to fight a modern war and ultimately become the Union's best generals through experience gained. In the east, it's not three strikes and you're out, it's one strike regardless of whether Lee is your opponent or not. Had Grant somehow made his way to command the AoP in 1862-1863 we can at the very least reasonably assume that he wouldn't have lost his nerve in a major battle and would have put all his men in, and no one can really say what the outcome of that would have been since there's no way to really set up a hypothetical battle like that.

Unfortunately I can't really agree with any of the poll options, personally. My answer would of course be more along the lines of, "Yes, because the political pressure wasn't nearly as strong on the western army commanders."

Completely agree.