Grant Not impressed with Grants performance

[frankconrad]

I seldom open a thread that has a Inflamatory title. this post is a prime example of why not. Grant picked some of his battles, and inherited some.
Grant and the Navy , in the west, had better relatinships than most before and since.
No mortal has never made a mistake, but few will admit major ones in there memoirs. When you do find one mark it you have to look for them.
I am a Grant fan but I know like all of us we make mistakes. What in my opinion was one of his best tributes that he knew who won his fame, his men
In the West Grant had to operate with what he could get, both US and CSA in the West were way down on the list. Hallack was one who unknown until after the war who, Changed, and sidetracked, many of Grants telegraph orders.
Rosey was leading the flite at Chicam----- Instead of being in command. It's to late to worry about spelling If you are always right.

 

[David Moore]

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


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

Mr Baldwin I am forever grateful to you for a discussion we had about Iuka a while back.
That was the impetus for me to restudy Iuka. I have found many interesting never before published things. As far as managing oneself I doubt Rosecrans ever needed the advice John Rawlings gave to Grant on the topic of self management.

I seldom open a thread that has a Inflamatory title. this post is a prime example of why not. Grant picked some of his battles, and inherited some.
Grant and the Navy , in the west, had better relatinships than most before and since.
No mortal has never made a mistake, but few will admit major ones in there memoirs. When you do find one mark it you have to look for them.
I am a Grant fan but I know like all of us we make mistakes. What in my opinion was one of his best tributes that he knew who won his fame, his men
In the West Grant had to operate with what he could get, both US and CSA in the West were way down on the list. Hallack was one who unknown until after the war who, Changed, and sidetracked, many of Grants telegraph orders.
Rosey was leading the flite at Chicam----- Instead of being in command. It's to late to worry about spelling If you are always right.

It is demonstrably false that Rosecrans led the flight at Chickamauga. He tried to stop the panic. There are a number of eye witness that attest to that.

 

[StephenColbert27]

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.

Let me put it this way: Cash's position is that due to Meade's claiming tactical control of the field on the day of the failed assault Grant's share of the responsibility for the failure is reduced. Your position is obviously that it was still fully Grant's responsibility, Meade's claim notwithstanding. Would you like to explain why we should ignore Meade's letter?

 

[Drew]

Let me put it this way: Cash's position is that due to Meade's claiming tactical control of the field on the day of the failed assault Grant's share of the responsibility for the failure is reduced. Your position is obviously that it was still Grant's responsibility, Meade's claim notwithstanding. Would you like to explain why we should ignore Meade's letter?

Grant was in charge. Meade's letter tells his reader he will be held responsible for failure while Grant will be rewarded for success.

Did you read it, or not?

 

[StephenColbert27]

Grant was in charge. Meade's letter tells his reader he will be held responsible for failure while Grant will be rewarded for success.

Did you read it, or not?

Meade says he held command of the field all day, and that Grant was only present on the field for an hour.
Did you read it, or not?

 

[Eagle eye]

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.

------------------------
Perhaps the press that detested Meade was the reason he got lousy press coverage. Meade was known to order reporters to leave his army as they were printinting sensitive military information that reached Lee very quickly. After riding one reporter out of camp on a rail the other reporters banded together & agreed to never write anything that Meade did unless it would embarrass him. Naturally these fellows turned to Grant for their more positive dispatches.

 

[67th Tigers]

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.

Grant advanced with 18,424 men, and McClellan sent reinforcements from Buell's army raising Grant's force to 26,909 on 13th Feb.

The rebels had 13,398 with 2,143 arriving 12th-13th (15,541 total).

18,424 is greater than 13,398 by a significant ratio (4:3) then by the 13th 26,909 is greater than 15,541 (7:4, nearly double)

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.

See, cutting at midnight. Grant moved 31,000 men over the river in one movement that took until 4am 1st May, with 1st Division, 17th Corps crossing after midnight.

The Confederate positions and strengths were:

Stevenson: 10,500 - Vicksburg
Smith: 5,000 - Vicksburg
Maury: 4,000 - Haynes's Bluff (10 miles north of Vicksburg)
Bowen: 4,500 - Black River Bridge
Loring: 8,000 - Fort Pemberton (70 miles north of Vicksburg, on the Yazoo)

Sherman's corps was on Snyder's Bluff opposite Haynes's, pinning Maury (and not counted by the proponents of Grant's meagerness). Loring was 70 miles north defending the Yazoo Pass. In Vicksburg and at the Big Black River Bridge Pemberton has 20,000 in 9 brigades to oppose the 31,000 Grant crossed. He sent 4 of his 9 brigades against McClernand (8,500), but Grant decided to reinforce McClernand.

The attempt to suggest Grant was outnumbered involves various manipulations. Apples vs apples counts shown Grant majorly outnumbered Pemberton.

 

[67th Tigers]

Moe d'Aoust once wrote an article entitled "Undeniably Serendipitous Grant" which may be of interest.

 

[cash]

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.

Apparently you have trouble understanding the letter. Too bad.

 

[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?

Don't expect any type of actual historical discussion.

 

[cash]

Meade says he held command of the field all day, and that Grant was only present on the field for an hour.
Did you read it, or not?

Probably not.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Much of what Ms Reed wrote about Grant is along the lines of what's on a NY Jets fan page about Tom Brady. 'He's thrown 150 interceptions, he has 100 fumbles, what a loser" " Why no, Super bowl rings don't matter, not one bit."
Tell us again how great Geno Smith is.

Critics of both, carefully refrain from mentioning the most important fact, that they made a habit of winning much more often than they lost, especially when the chips were down.

 

[leftyhunter]

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.

In my thread " by what metric was thr CSA soldier superior" I crunched the numbers for almost all the major battles and the average troop superiority ratio of Union vs CSA was only 1.86 to 1.
We have had numerous Grant bashing threads. I always say the best way to measure who the best general is the way you ask who the best professional sports coach is. Its the guy or gal with the most championship rings. By that metric the supebowl champ of the Civil War is Grant ain't nobody close.
Leftyhunter

 

[huskerblitz]

always say the best way to measure who the best general is the way you ask who the best professional sports coach is. Its the guy or gal with the most championship rings. By that metric the supebowl champ of the Civil War is Grant ain't nobody close.

As a sports fan even that is a lame metric to use. There have been plenty of duds that inherited established and high quality teams.

 

[OpnCoronet]

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.

Exactly how many feel about the overpraising of Lee.

 

[leftyhunter]

As a sports fan even that is a lame metric to use. There have been plenty of duds that inherited established and high quality teams.

Don't know about that. Grants army always won in the west. True Vicksburg had some up and downs but in the end they won.
The AoP never won a major offensive battle against the AnV until Grant became overall commander in the spring of 1864.
Leftyhunter

 

[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.

In war tactical or strategic deficiencies, are usually gauged by how(or If) they resulted in victories. The claimed deficiencies of Grant's tactics in Mississippi, led directly to the taking of Vicksburg. Exactly as the deficiencies of the Overland Campaign led to, not only the taking of the confederate capital of Richmond, but also, the taking of the ANV and Robert E. Lee.

 

[jgoodguy]

As moderator.
Please remember referring personally to fellow members other than complementing them, invites unpleasant moderator intervention. Address the post and not the poster.
Thank you for your kind attention.

 

[Michael W.]

It is, but it IS a hard start to assert a posit without either supporting facts or a knowledge base that suggests authority enough to present an opinion that is counter to the evidence.



If you were fishing for "activity", is it the kind that is useful in furthering your interest in the topic and encouraging others to assist you, or was it purely to stir the pot?



I believe that some fine examples have been provided above.



We go to the library and bring back what we have learned, so that we can -- hopefully -- engage in constructive discourse on a topic. If we made it up as we went, it would only contribute to chaos and discord. There is enough of that even when we have the facts.

Agreed. When I first joined the forum, being a newcomer I mainly read other individual's posts, commenting frequently, without creating my own threads. I guess I did this out of respect? Wanting to ease into it as a fresh fish. I try to post and comment on things where I feel I am knowledgeable, and ask questions on those things I am not. But regardless of how much research I do, I don't ever see myself becoming a Bragg fan.....

 

[jgoodguy]

Agreed. When I first joined the forum, being a newcomer I mainly read other individual's posts, commenting frequently, without creating my own threads. I guess I did this out of respect? Wanting to ease into it as a fresh fish. I try to post and comment on things where I feel I am knowledgeable, and ask questions on those things I am not. But regardless of how much research I do, I don't ever see myself becoming a Bragg fan.....

Bragg appreciation is an acquired taster, He has his fans.