Grant Not impressed with Grants performance

[dlofting]

Not a single specific refutation of Miss Reed's comments. Football references instead.

It's pretty hard to refute what is essentially an unsupported opinion.

 

[Sons of Liberty]

General Grant may have had his faults, and may have stumbled a time or two, but to accuse him of incompetence is inaccurate. The Confederacy had good soldiers and Robert E. lee to lead them. Don't insult them by saying they were whipped by a nincompoop. Face it. Grant was pretty B.A.

 

[Bee]

May I ask for the documentation for this most interesting post?

I believe that it was the clever use of satire, but than again, you could be playing along by asking for documentation, so the joke could ultimately be on me for not recognizing this

 

[johan_steele]

Have you read my book? I'd be more likely to forgive you (your request) if I saw some examples from my documented work not from off the cuff comments that appear on websites. In all seriousness I started writing on this thread today because I saw what I regarded as the piling on the originator of this thread Captain Dan. I have seen and experienced this type of treatment before. There is a group on this site that will engage in any activity to silence any critic of Grant (whatever happened to Horace Porter?) So you win. I will withdraw from this thread as I have discovered little has changed. Too many people are more interested in promoting heat rather than light. I won't of course stop researching and writing. My current project is Iuka. I'll let everyone know when it's done.

Yes I have and I'm very glad I did not pay for it. I don't have it on my bookshelf as a reference because I don't believe it worthwhile as one.

The op was an uneducated statement and you merely add to it with your own well known hate of Grant.

You should offer the op your book gratis. He's more likely to appreciate it.

In the meanwhile you have continued to dodge questions here as is your wont. Which is part of why you lack credibility.

 

[Old_Glory]

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 was well equipped, loaded with troops and he won. Call it what you will, but he didn't blow it. I think people do get carried away with praising him, so I can understand some frustration with him.

 

[cash]

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.

Anyway, now that I'm on my computer and not my phone I can address your central point much easier.

Gordon Rhea actually established Lee was getting reinforcements during the Overland Campaign.

 

[Captain Davis]

Captain Davis.
From the few postings I have made in this forum, it has become rather obvious that this is a very "pro-North" forum and any comments (even simple observations) made by contributors against anyone from the GAR do indeed seem to "touch a nerve" and evoke the "lashing out" similar to what you have received from your posting.
It's unfortunate that some educated, articulate discussions in this forum tend to denigrate into the kind of responses you find in the "comments" section of CNN and FOX news web sites

Lol, ***edit by Lnwlf: inappropriate***

While I see exactly what you are talking about, I'm getting exactly what I wanted out of it.

Thanks for all the replies, I'm going to research all I can that you have given me here.

 

[Drew]

Grant provided strategic direction, not tactical command. When we talk about tactics in the OC we're talking about Meade

This is very relevant when one brings up the topic of Cold Harbour. It is very difficult to have a conversation on this particular battle without first making this very important distinction mentioned in the quote.

It's not relevant at all. It's a distinction that absolves Grant of blame that is placed at the foot of General Meade, every time.

Now, when anything went right, Grant is the genius hero, Meade the backbencher. Funny how that works.

 

[Aussie Billy Sherman]

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.

Most of the time the Yankee generals had superior numbers and materiele, yet alot of them were unsuccessful against the Rebs. Why exactly was Grant the standout and hardly ever lost a battle?

 

[Aussie Billy Sherman]

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?

Nearly all the Union commanders had men and resource to burn! Yet Grant was the one who constantly won victories. The others certainly weren't as consistent. How do you explain that?

 

[Aussie Billy Sherman]

Its pretty amazing that an incompetent and petty loser who was also a drunk beat the pants off the best the South could offer. It's amazing that in the majority of cases all northern armies had superior number and materiele, yet didn't win all the time. The most consistent Northen winner just happened to be the same incompetent and petty drunk.

 

[David Moore]

I believe that it was the clever use of satire, but than again, you could be playing along by asking for documentation, so the joke could ultimately be on me for not recognizing this

A smart woman you are. However not everyone is into documentation at the

Yes I have and I'm very glad I did not pay for it. I don't have it on my bookshelf as a reference because I don't believe it worthwhile as one.

The op was an uneducated statement and you merely add to it with your own well known hate of Grant.

You should offer the op your book gratis. He's more likely to appreciate it.

In the meanwhile you have continued to dodge questions here as is your wont. Which is part of why you lack credibility.

It's pretty hard to refute what is essentially an unsupported opinion.[/QUO

 

[cash]

It's not relevant at all. It's a distinction that absolves Grant of blame that is placed at the foot of General Meade, every time.

Now, when anything went right, Grant is the genius hero, Meade the backbencher. Funny how that works.

Apparently you think Meade*** edited by Chellers, moderator*** was living in a fantasy world.

"HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE POTOMAC 8 A.M. JUNE 4, 1864 I have only time to write you that we had a big battle yesterday, on the field of the old Gaines's Mill battle-ground, with the positions of the contending forces reversed. The battle ended without any decided results, we repulsing all attacks of the enemy and they doing the same; losses estimated about equal on both sides; ours roughly estimated at seven thousand five hundred in all. I had immediate and entire command on the field all day, the Lieutenant General honoring the field with his presence only about one hour in the middle of the day. The papers will, however, undoubtedly inform you of all his doings, and I will therefore confine myself to mine."

https://books.google.com/books?oe=UTF-8&id=Kr7jU0hGkgEC&q="Great+howl"#v=onepage&q="immediate and entire"&f=false

 

[David Moore]

Grant was popular enough to be elected president twice and came close to a third nomination. His memoirs were a hot item when they first came out, right?

At what point did the 'Grant The Blundering Butcher' perception really get going, and when did it eclipse his popularity?

Some 19th century people who criticized Grant include Charles Sumner, Donn Piatt (soldier, diplomat, editor)
Henry VN Boynton (soldier, editor, medal of honor winner)
Here is a book from the 19th century that is critical of USG ( and Rosecrans as well)
https://archive.org/details/grantassoldier00alex

 

[Drew]

Apparently you think Meade***edited by Chellers, moderator*** was living in a fantasy world.

"HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE POTOMAC 8 A.M. JUNE 4, 1864 I have only time to write you that we had a big battle yesterday, on the field of the old Gaines's Mill battle-ground, with the positions of the contending forces reversed. The battle ended without any decided results, we repulsing all attacks of the enemy and they doing the same; losses estimated about equal on both sides; ours roughly estimated at seven thousand five hundred in all. I had immediate and entire command on the field all day, the Lieutenant General honoring the field with his presence only about one hour in the middle of the day. The papers will, however, undoubtedly inform you of all his doings, and I will therefore confine myself to mine."

https://books.google.com/books?oe=UTF-8&id=Kr7jU0hGkgEC&q="Great+howl"#v=onepage&q="immediate and entire"&f=false

The papers will, however, undoubtedly inform you of all his doings, and I will therefore confine myself to mine."

Thank you for this. General Meade is acknowledging Grant will get full credit for anything he, Meade, has done right.

Anything gone south will be blamed upon Meade and Grant held harmless. You're going a great job, Mr. Cash.

 

[StephenColbert27]

Which isn't true, when Grant first invested Fort Donelson he outnumbered the defenders 3:2 (I look at this here).

First of all, I said "roughly equals". I did not say there was perfect parity. Second, when looking at your source, I see little that changes the truth of what I said. When Grant first advanced to Fort Donelson, he did so with just under 16,000 infantry, versus 13,000 infantry inside. Of course, he received reinforcements later on that gave him an advantage, but that's why I qualified the statement with "when he first invested". I might have better said, "first made contact with", however.

Which I've heard before (and commented on); it is a bizarre construction counting Confederate troops 130 miles to th south of Vicksburg under attack from Banks' forces, and troops 100 miles north of Vicksburg, but not counting the Federal troops 130 miles south or 100 miles north facing them, or even troops facing Vicksburg on the west side of the river. It also has to be very precise in its timings, as when Grant crossed the river the movement took until 4 am, and to make Grant outnumbered those troops the count is made at midnight, before the rest of the troops cross.

Someone really wanted to do a Jubal Early on this one, and the first time I encountered it the aggregate present for the rebels was used as well!

According to Bruce Catton, when Grant first crossed below Vicksburg on April 30th, he did so with 23,000 men. Sherman did not arrive with the remaining troops until May 6th. In Vicksburg, there were 25,000 or so Rebels under Pemberton. At Port Gibson, there were 6000 under Bowen. At Raymond another 6000 under Gregg from Port Hudson. Overall, this makes 37,000. Thus, it can be said with truth that when Grant crossed below Vicksburg, he was outnumbered. In time, he would outnumber his foe. But when he first crossed the river, he was, in fact, outnumbered by the Rebel Forces taken together.

 

[NedBaldwin]

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.

After about the first year of war, he wasnt a tactical general at all. Once his command responsibility moved beyond a certain size and scope he dealt with operations, logistics and strategy; and left tactics to subordinates.

 

[StephenColbert27]

Thank you for this. General Meade is acknowledging Grant will get full credit for anything he, Meade, has done right.

Anything gone south will be blamed upon Meade and Grant held harmless. You're going a great job, Mr. Cash.

I believe the part that Cash highlighted directly contradicts your contention that Grant had tactical control of the Union forces that day. Would you like to address it?

 

[NedBaldwin]

Why didn't he then -post Vicksburg -use his genius to demand the War department send troops to Chattanooga?

Becuase he wasnt genius enough to realize Rosecrans wasnt capable of managing himself.

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.

Based on the directions given from Army HQ, the trip to New Orleans made sense.

 

[Drew]

I believe the part that Cash highlighted directly contradicts your contention that Grant had tactical control of the Union forces that day. Would you like to address it?

And you normally know better than to comment about a poster considering it is against the rules. Posted as moderator.

Simply put, when things went right, Grant was the genius. Otherwise, it was Meade's fault. So it went throughout the Overland Campaign.

Speak no Ill of Grant, mind you.