Who Won Vicksburg?

[tony_gunter]

McClernand wrote to Lincoln:

Springfield, III., August 24,1863.
His Excellency A. Lincoln,
President of the United States :
...
Is it not hard that I should be dismissed from command and Sherman and McPherson, of the same army, complimented by promotion in the Regular Army, when it will hardly be said that they have done more or better than myself?
Your obedient servant,
JOHN A. McCLERNAND.



Really? If we consider Vicksburg as a group project with 100 total points to be assigned to the corps and division commanders, how would McClernand fare against the others?

My take:

McPherson: 46
Carr: 17
Sherman: 17
Hovey: 10
McClernand: 9
AJ Smith: 1

 

[SSVilla]

That was funny. Had McClernand not been a schemer who backstabbed his fellow colleagues for his own glory he would have been fine. He could have gotten along with the others just fine like Logan, Frank Blair and other political generals who performed well enough. Not that you'd want them as the head of the army but you can trust them to command a division or corps well enough.

I get the impression that the problem with McClernand is that he always wanted the glory, schemed with the press to slander Grant, and diminished the contributions of others for his own ends. He wouldn't work well in a team environment. Sherman despised him. Porter too, and Porter specifically had originally wanted to work with civilian generals because he thought the West Pointers were arrogant.

Even if McClernand was just average he would have been fine except nobody could trust him, not to get knifed in the back. The other problem was that save Grant he outranked everyone else in that army, even Sherman if my recollection is true, and thus that made him doubly unmanageable.

 

[TallTallMan]

The Union.

 

[huskerblitz]

Bagging on McClernand again? Why don't you just give the nod to your boy Grant? Heck, give him credit for Gettysburg while you're at it.

 

[huskerblitz]

schemer who backstabbed his fellow colleagues for his own glory

Every single general did this.

 

[SSVilla]

Every single general did this.

I don't know the story is the same for everyone and some were definitely the worst.

 

[SSVilla]

Bagging on McClernand again? Why don't you just give the nod to your boy Grant? Heck, give him credit for Gettysburg while you're at it.

I don't know the story of this… but I don't think I want to know. You are awfully hostile…

 

[wausaubob]

That was funny. Had McClernand not been a schemer who backstabbed his fellow colleagues for his own glory he would have been fine. He could have gotten along with the others just fine like Logan, Frank Blair and other political generals who performed well enough. Not that you'd want them as the head of the army but you can trust them to command a division or corps well enough.

I get the impression that the problem with McClernand is that he always wanted the glory, schemed with the press to slander Grant, and diminished the contributions of others for his own ends. He wouldn't work well in a team environment. Sherman despised him. Porter too, and Porter specifically had originally wanted to work with civilian generals because he thought the West Pointers were arrogant.

Even if McClernand was just average he would have been fine except nobody could trust him, not to get knifed in the back. The other problem was that save Grant he outranked everyone else in that army, even Sherman if my recollection is true, and thus that made him doubly unmanageable.

Once Halleck took over, the West Point graduates had an inside track to promotion. And by August 1862 I believe Halleck made it explicit that promotions would be based on achievement. That applied even to Lincoln's friend, McClernand.

 

[wausaubob]

Sherman had doubts about the plan and both he and Grant thought Sherman might have to take over. But Sherman hustled and his people usually did not have to do much fighting, because they were in the right place on time.

 

[SSVilla]

Once Halleck took over, the West Point graduates had an inside track to promotion. And by August 1862 I believe Halleck made it explicit that promotions would be based on achievement. That applied even to Lincoln's friend, McClernand.

Thanks for this detail. I didn't know this. I knew Halleck had diverted McClernand's recruits to Grant but I didn't know this. Asking for an independent command to start was a red flag indicating his reluctance to work and cooperate with others, or even be subordinate. He would have been another Banks had he been allowed to take command of the Vicksburg expedition and wasted resources and lives. Halleck did the Union team a solid there.

 

[Irishtom29]

Don't forget Ord. His taking over the 13th Corps during the siege resulted in a significant improvement in that corps performance.

 

[General JJ]

Don't forget Ord. His taking over the 13th Corps during the siege resulted in a significant improvement in that corps performance.

How so?

 

[General JJ]

Side note but the 13th really drew the short straw after Vicksburg. The rest of the army had succcess in the Atlanta Campaign, Carolinas, the March, etc. Meanwhile the 13th was wrecked at Mansfield.

 

[Irishtom29]

How so?

The engineering and aggression of the engineering improved. McClernand had no grasp of the pressing of a siege.

 

[Irishtom29]

Side note but the 13th really drew the short straw after Vicksburg. The rest of the army had succcess in the Atlanta Campaign, Carolinas, the March, etc. Meanwhile the 13th was wrecked at Mansfield.

Yes, it was an excellent corps woefully misused.

 

[General JJ]

That's interesting, but makes sense. Ord was an engineer after all.

 

[tony_gunter]

Don't forget Ord. His taking over the 13th Corps during the siege resulted in a significant improvement in that corps performance.

My evaluation eliminates anything beyond Big Black River and before Port Gibson.

It was this period that doomed Vicksburg to capture.

I'm divvying up points based on the commanders during the key movements and engagements.

Champion Hill: 30
Port Gibson: 20
Raymond / Jackson: 20
Big Black: 10
Grindstone Ford / Willow Springs 10
March to Fourteen Mile Creek: 10

Probably my only controversial take is that McClernand gets less credit for Port Gibson than Carr and McPherson,

Honestly, most of the points McClernand gets on the board is his masterful change of face within striking distance of Pemberton's army when Grant changes direction toward Jackson.

 

[tony_gunter]

That was funny. Had McClernand not been a schemer who backstabbed his fellow colleagues for his own glory he would have been fine. He could have gotten along with the others just fine like Logan, Frank Blair and other political generals who performed well enough. Not that you'd want them as the head of the army but you can trust them to command a division or corps well enough.

I get the impression that the problem with McClernand is that he always wanted the glory, schemed with the press to slander Grant, and diminished the contributions of others for his own ends. He wouldn't work well in a team environment. Sherman despised him. Porter too, and Porter specifically had originally wanted to work with civilian generals because he thought the West Pointers were arrogant.

Even if McClernand was just average he would have been fine except nobody could trust him, not to get knifed in the back. The other problem was that save Grant he outranked everyone else in that army, even Sherman if my recollection is true, and thus that made him doubly unmanageable.

As far as I can tell, McClernand did well with division command. If given a straightforward task he would aggressively work it to completion.

Port Gibson gives us the first insight into how he fared in complex situations and he seems to lose his nerve and get stuck in an analysis paralysis loop, eventually deciding to retire from the battle and wait for day 2.

That could have been a fatal decision if Pemberton had been marching south with his army.

 

[tony_gunter]

Bagging on McClernand again? Why don't you just give the nod to your boy Grant? Heck, give him credit for Gettysburg while you're at it.

I'm just curious how McClernand is trying to assert he did as well if not better than Grant's other subordinates at Vicksburg.

I'd be curious to see how you grade the corps and division commanders. Do we give McClernand any credit for those efforts over which he exercised no control, say Hovey at Champion Hill or Carr and Osterhaus after Champion Hill?

 

[Bruce Allardice]

I don't know who WON it (other than Grant), but I sure know who LOST it.