Grant Not impressed with Grants performance

[CSA Today]

A successful siege is one that threatens to starve inhabitants into submission. That has been the practice since time began. Some have been successful, some not.
At Vicksburg, Grant was successful.
Hard to argue with success....

The big guns of the Yankee brown water navy had something to do with success.

 

[contestedground]

What exactly would impress you armchair generals?

 

[wausaubob]

What exactly would impress you armchair generals?

The odd thing about it as the people who fought against Grant and then dealt with him after the war had absolute respect for him.
But since someone had to be blamed for the casualties incurred from September of 1864 to April of 1865, and the government of the South never admitted a mistake, it had to be due to Grant. Grant was a butcher completely absolves the rich men of the Confederacy for continuing the war. But there is nothing new in that.

 

[KansasFreestater]

Well, when Grant slipped beneath Vicksburg, he was actually outnumbered by all the Rebel forces in the area. However, Grant was able to move faster than they were able to concentrate, and was able to defeat them in detail on his way to Jackson, and then at Champion Hill after he turned West to besiege Vicksburg itself. I would note that Jackson did the same during his Valley Campaign; Jackson fought several battles where he had superior numbers tactically in spite of being outmanned strategically; he nullified that advantage by concentrating his numbers and catching his foe piece-meal. This is what Grant during the latter state of the Vicksburg Campaign. I would also question the use of the world "overwhelming". Grant had numbers and firepower during the Overland and Petersburg Campaigns, it is true, but Lee had interior lines, the advantages of dug-in positions, and a better understanding of his own army and subordinates, Grant being a new-comer to the East.

Grant did not have an overwhelming advantage during the Vicksburg Campaign. He did develop a plan to move around Vicksburg, maneuver quickly to defeat two Confederate Armies before they could join together, and defeat both in detail. The Vicksburg Campaign was a great campaign for Grant that used his superior understanding of and handling of supplies and maneuvering from an unexpected direction. He defeated two smaller Armies before they could work in unison to defeat his army. Grant moved so quickly that the Confederates were dazed and confused. Grant came up with a better plan than the Confederates and outfought the Confederates Armies.

When the entire Vicksburg Campaign is shortened to only the siege of Vicksburg it is a disservice to Grant.

Great comments. To the Vicksburg Campaign, I would add Grant's slipping around Robert E. Lee after Cold Harbor and getting nearly his whole army across the James before Lee knew what was happening, as one of the most brilliant maneuvers in the war. Just dazzling. Grant really knew how to use those engineers.

Which is a perfect example of the first of at least four things that I think made Grant a superior general.
1. Grant excelled at coordinating a massive organization of many branches and functions, using them all to achieve his objective -- kind of like the way a conductor plays an orchestra. Grant was the first to really conceive and execute sophisticated joint army-navy operations on the rivers. He constantly made excellent use of railroads, telegraph, every technology available. He also excelled at 4-dimensional topographic/temporal visualization -- maps and movements in his brain -- which is one of the things that made him able to....
2. Adapt as he went, taking advantage of situations as they presented themselves. Sure, he made mistakes, like everyone else, but, unlike so many other generals....
3. He learned from his mistakes. The ones who occupied themselves with self-seeking and political intrigues didn't have enough brain capacity left over for the hard work of learning from their mistakes.
4. Grant's calm, quiet, but firm leadership did not inspire any hero-worship from his men, but it did get their respect, and thus enabled Grant to get the job done.

 

[KansasFreestater]

I highly suggest you read Gordon Rhea's outstanding series on the Overland Campaign. I also suggest reading Terry Winschel's study of the Vicksburg Campaign, Triumph and Defeat: The Vicksburg Campaign.
Then perhaps reading a good study of the Appomattox Campaign, such as Chris Calkins' book, The Appomattox Campaign: March 29 to April 9, 1865.

Finally, perhaps two books by the eminent British military historian, Major General J. F. C. Fuller:

Grant and Lee: A Study in Personality and Generalship
The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant

To the list of those who thought highly of Grant's generalship, I would add T. Roosevelt and Gen. Eisenhower.

J. F. C. Fuller is remarkable for admiring Grant despite being an Englishman. For some reason, Brits to this day seem to sympathize with the Confederacy and adore Robert E. Lee. Churchill, much as I like him, was a good example of that.

 

[wausaubob]

Dwight Eisenhower's opinion is convincing. Had Grant been a drunk he never would have survived the Overland campaign.

 

[Bee]

What exactly would impress you armchair generals?

YES!....and thank you for the first laugh of the day.

 

[wausaubob]

To get to Petersburg Grant had to have the confidence of Lincoln and Stanton.
Then he had to have the staff to allocate the road space, get the logistics right, the engineers had to get the pontoons in place and protect them from Confederate disruption and have the transports pick up other units and deliver them to City Point.
While screening the entire move from the AofV.
He used McClellan's strategy, while taking advantage of what George Meade told Grant that McClellan had to deal with during the 7 days, and added his own unique water transport knowledge to the move.
Meade's experience was very important, and here is another of Grant's preferences. He got help from as many people as possible.
After that, the Union Army could be supplied by water, and then build its only railroad to keep the trenches supplied.
The number of wagons, horses and mules required fell rapidly. There were no wagon trains or railroads for the Conf. cavalry to raid.
Then the Confederates did what the should have done, move up the Shenandoah to threaten Washington.
Grant picked a general to deal with this and Phil Sheridan swamped Early and Lee had to withdraw most of people in the Valley just so they could eat.

 

[wausaubob]

What is impressive is that 150 years after Grant won battles in all three theaters of the war, his hand picked subordinates won battles, he refused to participate in Andrew Johnson's struggles with Congress, gave up his permanent pension as a Lt. General, won two elections, subdued the KKK in South Carolina and went on a highly successful worldwide goodwill tour, there is still this internet drive to criticize Grant.

 

[WJC]

The big guns of the Yankee brown water navy had something to do with success.

Thanks for your response.
Indeed. As did the 'bluewater' US Navy in WW2.
A successful commander uses all available resources.

 

[Andersonh1]

Grinding his way? I hardly considering token opposition grinding one's way. Sherman didn't face significant opposition until he reached North Carolina and then he didn't have it that easy despite vast superiority in numbers.

Exactly. Marching a gang of 60,000 looters and vandals through civilian areas with very little military opposition is hardly an impressive accomplishment. I suppose it did take a little time to stop and burn buildings along the way, and to loot all that jewelry, money and livestock. I guess that could be considered "grinding". :/

 

[Will Carry]

Grant's record speaks for itself, but Omar Bradley?

 

[WJC]

What is impressive is that 150 years after Grant won battles in all three theaters of the war, his hand picked subordinates won battles, he refused to participate in Andrew Johnson's struggles with Congress, gave up his permanent pension as a Lt. General, won two elections, subdued the KKK in South Carolina and went on a highly successful worldwide goodwill tour, there is still this internet drive to criticize Grant.

Agreed. Add that he commanded at the national level, not just one theater of the war. Sadly, today Grant is remembered by all too many by the false narrative that during the Civil war and afterward he was influenced by drunkenness.
His blind reliance and trust in family and friends as President is well known and tarnished his presidency. But perhaps my greatest criticism of Grant is that all too often he made 'snap judgments' about some subordinates before fully knowing the facts. W. S. Rosecrans and Lew Wallace come to mind in the Civil War, G. A. Custer in 1876.

 

[WJC]

Exactly. Marching a gang of 60,000 looters and vandals through civilian areas with very little military opposition is hardly an impressive accomplishment. I suppose it did take a little time to stop and burn buildings along the way, and to loot all that jewelry, money and livestock. I guess that could be considered "grinding". :/

Running for office in a 'deep south' state?
Seriously, Sherman set out to destroy the Rebel war supply chain and 'will to fight'. He succeeded.
Was there looting? Burning? Certainly. But historians point out not all of that was the 'work' of Union soldiers. Some was accidental, some done by Confederate stragglers. Certainly one can argue it wouldn't have happened without the presence of Sherman's army. But one can also, with just as much validity, argue that it wouldn't have happened had the southern states not seceded....

 

[WJC]

The odd thing about it as the people who fought against Grant and then dealt with him after the war had absolute respect for him.
But since someone had to be blamed for the casualties incurred from September of 1864 to April of 1865, and the government of the South never admitted a mistake, it had to be due to Grant. Grant was a butcher completely absolves the rich men of the Confederacy for continuing the war. But there is nothing new in that.

Grant and Sherman.
In order to have a paragon of virtue- an angel- one must have devils. No Lee without a Grant or Sherman....

 

[cash]

The big guns of the Yankee brown water navy had something to do with success.

How many big Navy guns played a role in Champions Hill or any of the other battles Grant fought in his movement from the Mississippi to Vicksburg?

 

[cash]

What exactly would impress you armchair generals?

Fighting for the confederacy. It would automatically make him a genius.

 

[wausaubob]

Exactly. Marching a gang of 60,000 looters and vandals through civilian areas with very little military opposition is hardly an impressive accomplishment. I suppose it did take a little time to stop and burn buildings along the way, and to loot all that jewelry, money and livestock. I guess that could be considered "grinding". :/

Sherman's fault: or the natural and expected consequence of rejecting the protection of the federal government and then continuing the rebellion well past the point at which the rebel armies could win any battle anywhere in any theater?
Naturally, it is the people that fought the war that are to blame not the people who started and continued it.

 

[johan_steele]

Exactly. Marching a gang of 60,000 looters and vandals through civilian areas with very little military opposition is hardly an impressive accomplishment. I suppose it did take a little time to stop and burn buildings along the way, and to loot all that jewelry, money and livestock. I guess that could be considered "grinding". :/

What does it say for the CS that they couldn't do a thing to slow down those "looters & vandals?"

What does it say for your idols that their hopes & dreams were dashed by those 60k "looters & vandals" walking unopposed through their backyard?

Put simply the men stood up pulled themselves up and went on with their lives becoming good citizens. The rest authored the Lost Cause you idolize.

Grant figured out how to forge those "looters & vandals" into an army the cream of the slaveocracy couldn't even slow down. How humiliating it must be for them to have been crushed by such "looters & vandals." It's a good thing actual history shows they were beat by real men.

 

[Andersonh1]

Sherman's fault: or the natural and expected consequence of rejecting the protection of the federal government and then continuing the rebellion well past the point at which the rebel armies could win any battle anywhere in any theater?
Naturally, it is the people that fought the war that are to blame not the people who started and continued it.

Blame the victims.