Grant Not impressed with Grants performance

[StephenColbert27]

I absolutely agree with everything you wrote. However, I've often wondered why Grant witnessed the blowing of the craters at Vicksburg (3rd LA Redan), and the subsequent, abject failures of his infantry to take the position because they became trapped in a fishbowl and slaughtered! Then, later, he allowed the same exact thing to happen again at Petersburg. It's one of those weird things. To be as smart as he was (and I truly think he was a brilliant commander) you'd think he would have said during the planning of the explosion at Petersburg, "I've been there done that, it won't work." Or, ""I've been through this before, don't get trapped inside the crater!"

Grant was a complex commander, for sure! But boy was he good!!!

The plan at the Crater was excellent; the execution was awful, no thanks to the spectacularly bad leadership displayed by the IX Corps in the attack. It did not help that Meade ordered Burnside to use a different division than he had planned, on the grounds that the division he had planned on using were black and had not yet seen battle. Meade ordered him to use a different division. This in of itself should not have sunk the plan; however, Burnside made the incredible decision to have his division commanders draw lots for the job, and gave it that way to literally the worst person possible. I'll let the source below tell the rest.

Initially, the Union high command placed little stock in the mine's potential. But by the end of July, Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant had decided to authorize the explosion and use it to capture Petersburg in a spectacular coup de main. Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside's plan was to pass his leading division through the gap created by the explosion and then have his troops turn north and south respectively to widen the breach, and clear the way to the vital Jerusalem Plank Road. The Ninth Corps commander chose Brig. Gen. Edward Ferrero's division of black troops to spearhead the assault. Though these troops had spent most of their service guarding wagon trains and building fortifications, Burnside believed their enthusiasm would compensate for their lack of combat experience. What's more, each brigade in Ferrero's division trained for its role in Burnside's carefully choreographed scheme.

On the day before the assault, however, General Meade ordered Burnside to select a white unit instead. Burnside had his division commanders draw lots for the job. Brig. Gen. James H. Ledlie—possibly the worst general officer in the Union army—picked the short straw. Untrained, ill-prepared, and led by a drunken coward, Ledlie's men would lead one of the Civil War's most calamitous attacks the next morning.

Source.

 

[JohnW.]

The CS lost the war in the west. Grant started in the west helping to shape that defeat. Grant was a brawler and a winner. The enemies of his nation discovered that the hard way.

Yeppers...Lee knew the first day of the Wilderness campaign that his b###s were smack against the wall with Grant personally driving the Union bus in the east. He knew there was no way to win with brute strength so it was maneuver, maneuver, maneuver....and who knows??? Lee and the Confederacy might just win this thing through attrition. It was pretty much the only strategy left for the South in 1864 and 1865 because the Army of Northern Virginia was sure as heck not the "powerhouse" it was in 1862 and 1863.

 

[Captain Davis]

Watkins is a bit unfair towards Bragg however. Everyone gets from Watkins the impression of how cruel Bragg was when they describe the execution of a deserter by Cheatham's division. However, the beloved Joe Johnston executed more deserters at Dalton than Bragg did in his entire tenure as commander of the Army of Tennessee. Yet Watkins gloss this over. Which is why taking personal biases into account are important for evaluating and interpreting primary sources.

I didn't get that from Watkins. I think that Watkins being more favorable toward Johnston because Johnston showed empathy for the men. Bragg was portrayed to be overbearing, asked for everything, but gave nothing.

 

[johan_steele]

Yeppers...Lee knew the first day of the Wilderness campaign that his b###s were smack against the wall with Grant personally driving the Union bus in the east. He knew there was no way to win with brute strength so it was maneuver, maneuver, maneuver....and who knows??? Lee and the Confederacy might just win this thing through attrition. It was pretty much the only strategy left for the South in 1864 and 1865 because the Army of Northern Virginia was sure as heck not the "powerhouse" it was in 1862 and 1863.

Just so you know the ANV was actually larger in 1864 than ever before with far more Veterans in its ranks.

 

[Captain Davis]

Greatest American Generals... if it doesn't include Geronimo & Cochise it isn't a viable list.

Coming onto a board with no real knowledge, as admitted, and making claims with admittedly no research behind them isn't fishing; it's trolling.

The OP was given an excellent list to further his education and knowledge base. All the titles are readily available via the local library, several on audio book. The response of lacking time to read... explains much. As I average 1500 miles a week driving and typically 50 hours of work and yet still manage to read explains why I have little sympathy or appreciation for such a response.

Grant accepted the surrender of three major armies. Lee accepted none. Anyone who has studied military history, something grossly lacking in most students of the ACW and many self proclaimed experts as well, knows that when one side forces the other into receiving a siege... the besieged rarely wins.

Grant accepted the surrender of a CS army at Ft Donelson, held at Shiloh and counterattacked on the 2nd day driving the enemy completely from the field. He split the CS in half with taking Vicksburg; the CS never seriously tried to retake it. He raised the siege of Chattanooga on his way east to take command of the AoP and rest of the US Army. Upon taking command of the AoP it never again retreated instead grabbing the ANV by the belt buckle and never letting go until the ANV cased their flags and gave up the fight.

The Vicksburg Campaign was a campaign of maneuver. Want to learn how & why the CS lost the war study it. Those who refuse to read or study a subject and make comments shouldn't expect to be taken seriously. As a courtesy I have included three quick clicks that should give at least the beginning of an education on the subject.

https://www.nps.gov/fodo/index.htm
https://www.nps.gov/shil/index.htm
https://www.nps.gov/vick/index.htm

The CS lost the war in the west. Grant started in the west helping to shape that defeat. Grant was a brawler and a winner. The enemies of his nation discovered that the hard way.

Thanks for the links and your dedication is admired.

 

[RobertP]

I've come to the conclusion that besides a couple of small time battles along the Cumberland against subpar leadership and accepting the surrender of Lee, Grant was an unimpressive tactical general.

Many times he simply used his superior numbers until the rebels had to back out or give up due to attrition. Vicksburg and The Wilderness are a couple of examples.

Even when Lee surrendered at Appomattox, he was simply overwhelmed after accidentally running into the entire Army of the Potomac on their way to North Carolina.

Outside of his tenacity, I'm not impressed with his performance.

I do realize I am but an infant in my quest for Civil War knowledge, but if I am wrong, I'd like to hear examples
of his tactics winning battles onstead of just having superior numbers.

The Union Navy won the war. Without it, or with a competent CS Navy opposing it, the West would have never been won. Whether it be Forts Henry and Donaldson, Shiloh, New Orleans and Vicksburg, none would have been taken without the US Navy.

 

[Andersonh1]

I've come to the conclusion that besides a couple of small time battles along the Cumberland against subpar leadership and accepting the surrender of Lee, Grant was an unimpressive tactical general.

Many times he simply used his superior numbers until the rebels had to back out or give up due to attrition. Vicksburg and The Wilderness are a couple of examples.

Even when Lee surrendered at Appomattox, he was simply overwhelmed after accidentally running into the entire Army of the Potomac on their way to North Carolina.

Outside of his tenacity, I'm not impressed with his performance.

I do realize I am but an infant in my quest for Civil War knowledge, but if I am wrong, I'd like to hear examples
of his tactics winning battles onstead of just having superior numbers.

Don't you know you're not allowed to criticize Grant?

He was good enough to win, and he was doggedly persistent, and he seems not to have been driven by any animosity (contrast with someone like Sheridan), but let's face it: he had men and resources to burn. Without that, who knows?

 

[1SGDan]

I've come to the conclusion that besides a couple of small time battles along the Cumberland against subpar leadership and accepting the surrender of Lee, Grant was an unimpressive tactical general.

Many times he simply used his superior numbers until the rebels had to back out or give up due to attrition. Vicksburg and The Wilderness are a couple of examples.

Even when Lee surrendered at Appomattox, he was simply overwhelmed after accidentally running into the entire Army of the Potomac on their way to North Carolina.

Outside of his tenacity, I'm not impressed with his performance.

I do realize I am but an infant in my quest for Civil War knowledge, but if I am wrong, I'd like to hear examples
of his tactics winning battles onstead of just having superior numbers.

Grant destroyed three Confederate armies....Nuf said!

 

[RobertP]

Don't you know you're not allowed to criticize Grant?

He was good enough to win, and he was doggedly persistent, and he seems not to have been driven by any animosity (contrast with someone like Sheridan), but let's face it: he had men and resources to burn. Without that, who knows?

Without the Navy and it's gunboats and Transports, Grant would have been starved out at Shiloh, a reverse of Vicksburg, and not heard from again.

 

[Study the Past]

 

[cash]

Of course, Sam Watkins was actually there. The busloads of historians who wish they were, were not. So there's that.

It's dumb to take a person's word at face value just because he was there. We have to take into account the person's bias and whether or not they have an axe to grind. We also have to take into account the effect of the passing of time on memory and whether the person is trying to embellish or perhaps trying to write a good story.

 

[David Moore]

It's dumb to take a person's word at face value just because he was there. We have to take into account the person's bias and whether or not they have an axe to grind. We also have to take into account the effect of the passing of time on memory and whether the person is trying to embellish or perhaps trying to write a good story.

So primary sources and eyewitness accounts are to be disregarded when they go against one's opinion? That seems like the end of history and the beginning of propaganda.

 

[RobertP]

Don't you know you're not allowed to criticize Grant?

He was good enough to win, and he was doggedly persistent, and he seems not to have been driven by any animosity (contrast with someone like Sheridan), but let's face it: he had men and resources to burn. Without that, who knows?

Very true. Historians can't make a living if they parrot what previous historians have written so they have to continually reinvent the wheel. For well over a hundred years Grant was thought of as a drunk and a butcher. That opinion didn't come out of thin air nor was it a Lost Cause myth, it's what contemporaries thought. Now Grant is being rehabilitated because, 1) it sells books, and 2) it dovetails nicely with the take down of Lee. Thus the peanut gallery eats up it with a spoon.

 

[cash]

I absolutely agree with everything you wrote. However, I've often wondered why Grant witnessed the blowing of the craters at Vicksburg (3rd LA Redan), and the subsequent, abject failures of his infantry to take the position because they became trapped in a fishbowl and slaughtered! Then, later, he allowed the same exact thing to happen again at Petersburg. It's one of those weird things. To be as smart as he was (and I truly think he was a brilliant commander) you'd think he would have said during the planning of the explosion at Petersburg, "I've been there done that, it won't work." Or, ""I've been through this before, don't get trapped inside the crater!"

Grant was a complex commander, for sure! But boy was he good!!!

Well just because it failed once doesn't mean it will always fail. There are cases in military history where mining was successful.

We don't know what he said or didn't say during the planning, but the tactical planning was Burnside's responsibility with Meade supervising.

 

[RobertP]

It's dumb to take a person's word at face value just because he was there. We have to take into account the person's bias and whether or not they have an axe to grind. We also have to take into account the effect of the passing of time on memory and whether the person is trying to embellish or perhaps trying to write a good story.

Grant's Memoirs???

 

[David Moore]

Anyone on this thread familiar with Rowena Reed's comment on Grant during the Vicksburg campaign.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

To successfully besiege Vicksburg first Grant had to encircle it.

To partially besiege Petersburg and put Lee's army in a fatal embrace first Grant had to get there.

If you are only impressed by great battlefield performances you ignore the importance of strategy and logistics. Many generals that won when the odds were on their favor did so because they made decisions to tilt the odds in their favor. If you are only impressed by generals who won despite being outnumbered then you mistakenly reduce war to a numbers game. Superior numbers are irrelevant if not used properly.

Let's not forget he did have two disastrous attacks prior to the siege in May.

Is there anything Grant could have done to make those attacks successful? I'm doubtful.

 

[Captain Davis]

Don't you know you're not allowed to criticize Grant?

He was good enough to win, and he was doggedly persistent, and he seems not to have been driven by any animosity (contrast with someone like Sheridan), but let's face it: he had men and resources to burn. Without that, who knows?

That's my point. I wonder what the war would have looked like if Lee and Grant's roles were reversed?

 

[David Moore]

Grant's Memoirs???

Grant's Memoirs aren't even eyewitness accounts but were written almost 20 years after the fact. They have been described by one Grant biographer as "camp fire stories. "

 

[cash]

Without the Navy and it's gunboats and Transports, Grant would have been starved out at Shiloh, a reverse of Vicksburg, and not heard from again.

Good thing he was smart enough to use them and plan for their participation. A great general uses all his resources wisely, and that's what Grant did.