Grant Not impressed with Grants performance

[David Moore]

I b

Once again you completely misrepresent a discussion.

Please show where I said what you claim.

This is a dead end discussion. We both could be doing real reading and research instead of talking past each other. Btw I am currently researching
the battle of Iuka. I have four eyewitness (earwitness?) accounts of soldiers hearing the sounds of battle (and am constantly looking for more.). I have never before published information about Ord's actions on Sept 19. I will let you know when I publish my article.

 

[David Moore]

I stand corrected. Thank you. How about commander of the Union Army? He still gave the orders to the army in the Eastern Theater in the ensuing battles after G-Burg. He made the decisions where to march, where to fight, etc. My point was that he couldn't help but to have larger numbers than Lee so it wasn't his fault that he outnumbered his foe. Not to mention that POW paroles were ended which hurt Lee even further.

Beware. Grant to some people is never blameworthy and always praiseworthy regardless of what he did in a battle. He gets credit for Iuka and Corinth even though he took no part in the fighting and is exonerated for Cold Harbor and the Crater, Some would say he is the true Marble Man.

 

[Sid J.]

Beware. Grant to some people is never blameworthy and always praiseworthy regardless of what he did in a battle. He gets credit for Iuka and Corinth even though he took no part in the fighting and is exonerated for Cold Harbor and the Crater, Some would say he is the true Marble Man.

And some people believe Rosecrans could have taken Vicksburg in 6 days from 240 miles away.

 

[David Moore]

And some people believe Rosecrans could have taken Vicksburg in 6 days from 240 miles away.

Even some who were there.

 

[nc native]

When discussing the merits of General Grant's performance during the Civil War,
one thing has not been mentioned so far: his organizational and administrative
skills. For example, when he issued an order it was written in clear, simple language
and the objective of the order was plain to see. There was none of the confusion and
contradiction that plagued other commanders when their orders were issued and
not followed in the spirit in which they were written.

In my opinion, General Grant was every bit the equal of any of the army commanders
during the Civil War in performance and character. His determination, willingness to
adapt his tactical and strategic goals to fit the situation he was in and the cool head
he showed during adverse situations all combine to make him a leader that is hard
to beat whenever one discusses the top generals in American history. Add his modesty
and his moral character to this and you have a noble and decent man.

 

[Sid J.]

And some people believe Rosecrans could have taken Vicksburg in 6 days from 240 miles away.

Did you leave these people out of your book?

 

[Eagle eye]

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.

--------------------
The CSA had no assets on hand to lay siege to Grant at Shilo nor the men nor the navy. Grant broke the siege at Chattanooga & I see no reason why he would have been starved at Shilo or anywhere else for that matter.

 

[Eagle eye]

As Frank Varney has shown in his book Grant's Memoirs are often accepted without criticism but often are the only source cited for statements regarding USG. Our understanding of USG is disproportionately shaped by the Memoirs.

---------------
Just curious but have you read Grants book?

 

[hankc]

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.

hmmmm.

Without the Navy and it's gunboats and Transports, Grant would not *be* at Shiloh - they were tools employed to maximum effect.

Grant has faults, but leaving resources behind is not one of them.

 

[RobertP]

--------------------
The CSA had no assets on hand to lay siege to Grant at Shilo nor the men nor the navy. Grant broke the siege at Chattanooga & I see no reason why he would have been starved at Shilo or anywhere else for that matter.

Grant's situation at Shiloh on Day 1 was similar to Pemberton's at Vicksburg. Both were penned in an impregnable position with their backs to a wide river. We know how Vicksburg ended and without a navy, or as I said earlier a competent CS navy to oppose his, Grant would have been in the same pickle as Pemberton.

 

[RobertP]

hmmmm.

Without the Navy and it's gunboats and Transports, Grant would not *be* at Shiloh - they were tools employed to maximum effect.

Grant has faults, but leaving resources behind is not one of them.

Except at Holly Springs.

 

[RobertP]

Beware. Grant to some people is never blameworthy and always praiseworthy regardless of what he did in a battle. He gets credit for Iuka and Corinth even though he took no part in the fighting and is exonerated for Cold Harbor and the Crater, Some would say he is the true Marble Man.

He also said that Joe Johnston was the CS general he feared the most. He knew better but his ego wouldn't let him say differently.

 

[Eagle eye]

Grant's situation at Shiloh on Day 1 was similar to Pemberton's at Vicksburg. Both were penned in an impregnable position with their backs to a wide river. We know how Vicksburg ended and without a navy Grant would have been in the same pickle as Pemberton.

----------------
Well unlike Johnston, Buell did show up to allow Grant to end the 'Siege of Shilo or Pittsburgh Landing'… Do you really think Grant was in an impregnable position at Shilo? I don't think Beouregard (sic) had that impression judging from his plans for a second day of attacks.
The Union troops certainly didn't have the time to set up fortifications at Shilo compared to the extended time that Vicksburg enjoyed. They were formable enough that Grant wasn't going to sacrifice any more men in an infantry attack but as long as Sherman kept Johnston at bay Vicksburg would eventually surrender its 35,000 army & tons of weaponry some of which was issued to Union troops to replace their obsolete weapons.
I agree that the lack of an adequate CSA navy was fatal to Vicksburg.

 

[hankc]

Why didn't he then -post Vicksburg -use his genius to demand the War department send troops to Chattanooga? If that had been done before Chickamsuga the war probably would have ended earlier and less death and suffering would have been the result. Instead a trip to New Orleans seemed more important for USG.

Unluckily, the Army of the Cumberland was not Grant's to command in the summer of 1863.

 

[Bee]

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.

One of the biggest surprises about sourcing was encountered as I read Pfanz Gettysburg The First Day. The author will actually place two eyewitness officer accounts side by side, and they read like different events. Each one had to be further corroborated to choose the correct version. I suppose that a less than honest author could pick one version or another if it supported his point, and still document the use of 'primary source'

 

[novushomus]

So then you find it convenient to dismiss an account from someone who was there when it serves your propaganda purpose but you try to accuse others of propaganda when they say such accounts should not be taken at face value.

An aside (and not pointed at you @cash or this reponse), most historians.... at least most objective and good historians know to critically examine all sources they use. It is a standard that has existed in the historical occupation since Polybius. This is not to question the integrity of the sources themselves (or an attack), but to consider their natural biases and point of view and to take those into account. Knowing the weaknesses and contexts of a source make interpretation infinitely more valuable and able to sustain scrutiny.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Grant's situation at Shiloh on Day 1 was similar to Pemberton's at Vicksburg. Both were penned in an impregnable position with their backs to a wide river. We know how Vicksburg ended and without a navy, or as I said earlier a competent CS navy to oppose his, Grant would have been in the same pickle as Pemberton.

Even with no Buell and no Navy, Grant had a fresh division show up at the end of the Day 1 battle. So Grant was definitely not in a hopeless position on Day 2.

 

[OpnCoronet]

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.

Before going into details, perhaps a quick overview of Grant's generalship would be beneficial.

Grant began the war, in the farthest corner of the West of the Mississippi. and throughout the war, he moved his campaigns East, with ever growing commands and responsibilities, along the way, defeating all confederate armies and commanders, including all the most famous armies, including the ANV, and commanders, including Rob't E. Lee(of those, that chose to fight him, that is).

 

[David Moore]

One of the biggest surprises about sourcing was encountered as I read Pfanz Gettysburg The First Day. The author will actually place two eyewitness officer accounts side by side, and they read like different events. Each one had to be further corroborated to choose the correct version. I suppose that a less than honest author could pick one version or another if it supported his point, and still document the use of 'primary source'

Of course. That is was a honest historian does. It's why I search libraries around the country. I have some eyewitnesses who didn't hear battle sounds at Iuka and I will put that in my Iukka article. All sides of an issue should be presented.

 

[David Moore]

Unluckily, the Army of the Cumberland was not Grant's to command in the summer of 1863.

Why do you say that? Rosecrans' soldiers loved him and especially appreciated his concern for their wellbeing.