Why McClernand was disliked by Grant

[gary]

I'm reading Lew Wallace's autobiography and he gave one more insight. We all know that Grant preferred West Pointers over civilians generals and and civilians over politician generals in particular. McClernand was one political general who was ambitious and maneuvering himself with political ambitions in mind.

Well, according to Wallace, after Fort Henry was captured, Grant held a council of war. He asked each of his division commanders their opinion on marching on Fort Donelson. McClerand responded yes and then pulled out a paper from his pocket and began reading it. Every other general simply answered yes. Wallace suspects that this was the beginning of Grant's disdain for McClerand.

 

[OpnCoronet]

It was not just Grant, in general, most West Pointers, twell of 'political' generals, even Lee. The described incident, if true, would cerrtainly have rankled Grant and marked McClernand as a man on the make for personal gain, of one type or another. McClernand was not a team player and always angling for an independent command, at the expense of any general, who had the misfortune to have him in their Dept.(in this case Grant)

 

[NedBaldwin]

.... We all know that Grant preferred West Pointers over civilians generals...

There were a number of non west point generals that Grant thought well of such as logan, blair, terry, mower, ransom, washburn. So his issues with McClernand can't be blamed on west point bias

 

[Specster]

During the second assault on the outer works of Vicksburg May 22 or 23, 1863 McClernand was in command of 13th Corp. The attack was flagging as it had the previous day when came a message from (Ill call him Big Mac or Mac 2), saying he had broken through and needed reinforcements. Grant could not see his situation at the time. When he rode up and saw no break thru he denied the request. Grant was a little confused for he didn't think Mac2 would outright lie but he had and most of the casualties that day came from 13th Corp.

Mac 2 wrote a long meandering speech which he read to the Corp than ran it off to the newspapers instead of Grant, violating one of Grants long standing General Orders. The speech put the blame for the failed attack squarely on the shoulders of Grant. Grant was angry upon hearing this and at 1 AM he wrote a letter to Mac 2 dismissing him from his Command. Grant's staff liked him so little they rode for 2 hours so they could wake him at was 2-3 AM. Ive read one account that he was up awaiting the order and another that he had to be roused and forced to open the letter. I think there were other malfeasance s - not believing he was subordinate to Grant, not wanting to work with Grant and generally believing himself a better man.

 

[Sid J.]

I'm reading Lew Wallace's autobiography and he gave one more insight. We all know that Grant preferred West Pointers over civilians generals and and civilians over politician generals in particular. McClernand was one political general who was ambitious and maneuvering himself with political ambitions in mind.

Well, according to Wallace, after Fort Henry was captured, Grant held a council of war. He asked each of his division commanders their opinion on marching on Fort Donelson. McClerand responded yes and then pulled out a paper from his pocket and began reading it. Every other general simply answered yes. Wallace suspects that this was the beginning of Grant's disdain for McClerand.

I think it goes back further. McClernand was commissioned Brig Gen of Volunteers in May 1861. At this time he was familiar with civilian Grant, who was also involved in recruiting. I think the problems between these two stemmed from the moment Grant showed up in Cairo IL and took over command from McClernand. Despite having the later date of commission, Grant ranked McClernand because of his prior Regular Army rank of Captain.


I think Wallace was observing an already established animosity. Though for him, it was the first time seeing it.

 

[wausaubob]

I think it goes back further. McClernand was commissioned Brig Gen of Volunteers in May 1861. At this time he was familiar with civilian Grant, who was also involved in recruiting. I think the problems between these two stemmed from the moment Grant showed up in Cairo IL and took over command from McClernand. Despite having the later date of commission, Grant ranked McClernand because of his prior Regular Army rank of Captain.


I think Wallace was observing an already established animosity. Though for him, it was the first time seeing it.

I think McClernand, Grant, Hurlbut and Prentiss were promoted to Brigadier together.
Southern Illinois was McClernand territory and he certainly thought he had a right to command there. The powers that were in control in August of 1861, when Scott was still in command, wanted a professional in command in Cairo. Why Scott could look in Grant's record and discount the problems Grant had in California is hidden from us. Why Fremont was willing to say Grant was his best problem solver probably had something to do with how many immigrants Fremont utilized. But we cannot be sure. All we really know is that Grant was planted in Cairo, and Farragut was posted in the West Gulf Blockading squadron and a giant pinching movement started to clear the Mississippi.
McClernand failed to realize that all the Democratic generals were on very short leashes after McClellan and Buell were relieved.

 

[Specster]

Actually grant did sen

During the second assault on the outer works of Vicksburg May 22 or 23, 1863 McClernand was in command of 13th Corp. The attack was flagging as it had the previous day when came a message from (Ill call him Big Mac or Mac 2), saying he had broken through and needed reinforcements. Grant could not see his situation at the time. When he rode up and saw no break thru he denied the request. Grant was a little confused for he didn't think Mac2 would outright lie but he had and most of the casualties that day came from 13th Corp.

Mac 2 wrote a long meandering speech which he read to the Corp than ran it off to the newspapers instead of Grant, violating one of Grants long standing General Orders. The speech put the blame for the failed attack squarely on the shoulders of Grant. Grant was angry upon hearing this and at 1 AM he wrote a letter to Mac 2 dismissing him from his Command. Grant's staff liked him so little they rode for 2 hours so they could wake him at was 2-3 AM. Ive read one account that he was up awaiting the order and another that he had to be roused and forced to open the letter. I think there were other malfeasance s - not believing he was subordinate to Grant, not wanting to work with Grant and generally believing himself a better man.

Actually grant did send reinforcements to mcclernand on may 22 and those reinforcements took heavy loses. When grant confirmed his duplicity he was livid but knew mac had significant alleys high up in government. Grant bided his time and took out mac soon after the newspaper letter

 

[wausaubob]

Strange thing about John McClernand, when he got an a command with Banks, and no longer had Sherman helping him with combat orders, and without Grant watching over his command at all times, he never accomplished much. He found out that having a command was one thing, but being part of a working operation was everything.

 

[Specster]

Strange thing about John McClernand, when he got an a command with Banks, and no longer had Sherman helping him with combat orders, and without Grant watching over his command at all times, he never accomplished much. He found out that having a command was one thing, but being part of a working operation was everything.

He was obviously an egomaniac totally full of himself under the delusion he alone was going to win the entire wear. As early (and I would gather far earlier), he was sending dispatches to his "Confederates" in Washington that Grant was always drunk and ineffective as early as 3/14/63. He was sniping Grant whenever possible with tales of drunkenness. Even though Grant with the unearned moniker of "Butcher" was incensed when he learned that the May 22 request for reinforcements were totally unfounded and cost the Union around 1000 unnecessary casualties. given Grants character, he would not let soldiers die on the field to prove another officer inept...as little Mac did IMO at Bull Run 2. Lincoln thought little Mac crazy for taking apparent joy in Pope's armys loss.

 

[Si Klegg]

I recall reading somewhere that McClernand was mercilessly pilloried around Grant's HQ in late 1862 as 'the Bridegroom' due to his courting and marriage to his 26 y/o sister-in-law who was half his age and whom he sailed to Memphis with on his honeymoon on the way to duty in the January campaign.

You know I always wonder whether Halleck and Grant encouraged McClernand to stay back in Illinois for the courtship and marriage to a. keep him out of the way and b. to let Sherman take over his Corps for Chickasaw Bayou.

 

[Specster]

I recall reading somewhere that McClernand was mercilessly pilloried around Grant's HQ in late 1862 as 'the Bridegroom' due to his courting and marriage to his 26 y/o sister-in-law who was half his age and whom he sailed to Memphis with on his honeymoon on the way to duty in the January campaign.

You know I always wonder whether Halleck and Grant encouraged McClernand to stay back in Illinois for the courtship and marriage to a. keep him out of the way and b. to let Sherman take over his Corps for Chickasaw Bayou.

Im not sure there was an agreement between Halleck and Grant to do so as Halleck was doing everything he could at that time to get rid of Grant but I am sure such things happened frequently.