Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I personally don't believe Grant was some great General. He took a VERY rudimentary understanding of the situation and used it unlike any of his predecessors which simply was, "We have more men and more supplies than you and we're going to keep after you until you cave." Grant was a master at running a "war of attrition" which naturally he knew the South could not withstand.....
I personally don't believe that makes him a great general. I don't believe it takes a great general to say, "I have 90,000 troops and you have 40,000. I'm going to come right at you until you crack.", which is, in effect, what he did in the east...
JMO.... great conversation.
I don't agree with this, although his Eastern Campaign's against Lee, basically a war of attrition, appears that way. I have Grant's autobiography on my shelf, although I haven't read it cover to cover yet, but it indicates very thought out and calculated campaigns - I mean literal mathematical calculations, variances, odds, etc on men, materials, movements, etc.
Also his Vicksburg Campaign was just incredible. Very complex - basically he took a whole army behind enemy lines by using diversion and stealth, fought in one direction to defeat any attempt at reinforcement, then turned completely around and fought in another direction to defeat the objective, while at the same time foraging off the land and dealing with threats in both directions.
Grant made his share of mistakes for sure - Cold Harbor, failing to fortify prior to Shiloh, etc.
I don't agree with this, although his Eastern Campaign's against Lee, basically a war of attrition, appears that way. I have Grant's autobiography on my shelf, although I haven't read it cover to cover yet, but it indicates very thought out and calculated campaigns - I mean literal mathematical calculations, variances, odds, etc on men, materials, movements, etc.
You will find that McClellan had very thought out and calculated campaigns too. Didn't make him a great general though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Also his Vicksburg Campaign was just incredible. Very complex - basically he took a whole army behind enemy lines by using diversion and stealth, fought in one direction to defeat any attempt at reinforcement, then turned completely around and fought in another direction to defeat the objective, while at the same time foraging off the land and dealing with threats in both directions.
I did an entire college term-paper on John C Pemberton and the defense of Vicksburg. It was a good 14 years ago but one thing I do recall is that Grant took SEVERAL shots at taking Vicksburg and failed a couple of times with a couple of plans before finally succeeding. Nice as a general to have the luxury to fail... The Confederacy had no such luxury... Johnston could have bolstered the defenses of Vicksburg, or at least given Grant something else to think about in order to attempt to break the siege but never moved.... Once again a matter of Grant having vastly superior numbers at his disposal..
I don't want you to think I'm completely penalizing Grant for almost always having numerical superiority, but it seems to be a theme in his greatest victories... I'm also not claiming him to be a bad General by any stretch. Simply IMO a man who knew how to use his advantages to defeat his enemy, but as far as "Best General of the Civil War", I'd almost have to go on the side that won consistently for over two years without ever having numerical superiority, but instead, outwitted it's enemy..... Again, JMO.
Last edited by Rhett_Butler; 12-09-2007 at 04:00 PM..
I don't want you to think I'm completely penalizing Grant for almost always having numerical superiority, but it seems to be a theme in his greatest victories... I'm also not claiming him to be a bad General by any stretch. Simply IMO a man who knew how to use his advantages to defeat his enemy, but as far as "Best General of the Civil War", I'd almost have to go on the side that won consistently for over two years without ever having numerical superiority, but instead, outwitted it's enemy..... Again, JMO.
Yes but you have to also remember that common military doctrine at the time was for the attacker to have 3 to 1 manpower advantage over the defendor. And it was indeed a fact - as common civil war combat was to march attacking troops in close formation usually against an entrenched enemy, being on the offense was a bloody business. So I wouldn't penalize Grant for always having a military advantage, as in his role as the attacker he needed it to even the odds.
Burnside had a 3 to 1 advanatage against Lee at Fredricksburg, and we know how that turned out. McClellan had a numerical advantage all through his command as well. What differentiates Burnside and McClellan from Grant is the command abilities of knowing what to do and when to do it, and having determination and the force of will to get it done. That's what makes a good general.
Yes Grant took almost 9 months in various attempts to take Vicksburg - a repulse at Chickasaw Buffs by Sherman, trying to dig a ditch to bypass Vicksburg, trying to advance over land from northern Miss. But once he formulated and commited his forces to the south of Vicksburg he was committed to the campaign under considerable risk. No one, not even his personal friend Sherman, was confident in it. You have to also remember that complex military moves, flanking attacks, etc., were just so difficult in those days and often ended in failure. Johnston could not enforce Vicksburg because he moved in between Johnston and Pemberton, and also he destroyed the railyards at Jackson before turning back toard Vicksburg. It was a war of maneauver rather than bloody combat (all though his forces engaged in something like 6 battles in 2 weeks) and it was succesful.
Burnside had a 3 to 1 advanatage against Lee at Fredricksburg, and we know how that turned out. McClellan had a numerical advantage all through his command as well. What differentiates Burnside and McClellan from Grant is the command abilities of knowing what to do and when to do it, and having determination and the force of will to get it done. That's what makes a good general.
The bolded is what sets Grant apart from his other Union couterparts. IMO not a reason to elevate Grant to "The Greatest General in the Civil War"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Yes Grant took almost 9 months in various attempts to take Vicksburg - a repulse at Chickasaw Buffs by Sherman, trying to dig a ditch to bypass Vicksburg, trying to advance over land from northern Miss. But once he formulated and commited his forces to the south of Vicksburg he was committed to the campaign under considerable risk. No one, not even his personal friend Sherman, was confident in it. You have to also remember that complex military moves, flanking attacks, etc., were just so difficult in those days and often ended in failure.
So then you concede the point that Grant made several failed plans before finding one that worked, no?? Grant won by way of a siege of the town. He had over 70,000 troops encircling 30,000. With no help from the outside I don't find that an amazing feat. He was constantly re-enforced in troop numbers whereas Pemberton received no help from Johnston and his 30,000 troops...... We'll never know what might have happened, but 70K vs. 60K sounds like a much more level playing field....
Bottom line is that Vicksburg probably would have fallen simply because of the status of the rest of the holdings along the Mississippi River and it's tributaries.... Grant was charged with taking Vicksburg and eventually on about plan #3 was able to put himself in position to do so. Again IMO I just don't find it that brilliant.
So then you agree that Stonewall Jackson was the best General of the Civil War?
Yeah sure why not. I think you misinterpret my defense of Grant. I think he is one of the best generals of the civil war, not the best. I had a list of the first page and it was not intended to be in qualitative order. Yeah Jackson is probably better, as a corps commander at least. Robert E. Lee of course is probably a better general. No argument.
One additional note on Vicksburg - Vicksburg was not doomed to fall, it could have very well lasted until the end of the war. It was a tough nut to crack I am sure you know, surrounded by the river bluffs on one side, high bluffs on another, and swamp land on three sides. The challenge was getting troops even near Vicksburg to invest it for a siege as main Union advance and supply routes were way up north in Memphis or down from Baton Rouge (and the south also had Fort Gibson held on the river) while the South could resupply from Jackson by rail. At this time federal forces were still slogging it out near Nashville and in Union territory in Pennsylvania so Vicksburg was quite a penetration into Confederate territory at the time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL!!!!
