Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: McClernand's Competency

Expand Messages
  • bjer50010
    ... politicking ... esp. ... I think he was somewhat more than moderately competent in combat. One thing about him, which is admirable, was his ability to
    Message 1 of 27 , Jul 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Jfepperson@... wrote:
      >
      >
      > It is difficult, if not impossible, to separate McClernand's
      politicking
      > from his on-field performance. You couldn't get the one w/o the
      > other. Was he a moderately competant combat performer,
      esp.
      > on defense? Yes.

      I think he was somewhat more than moderately competent in
      combat. One thing about him, which is admirable, was his
      ability to learn fairly quickly. Don't forget that even West Pointers
      had very little experience leading large bodies of troops, prior to
      the war. McClernand learned to do so; and became, as you say,
      "moderately competent." I think, had he been able to
      subordinate his ego, he might have become a very good officer.

      > But since the politicking came with that, I
      > don't blame anyone for not wanting him on their team.
      >

      IMHO it isn't the politicking per se, that was the problem with
      McClernand. Every general had to have a level of political
      support in order to be noticed and to gain promotion. But that
      was a part of the game they knew they had to play. Had
      McClernand stuck to sending letters to governors, senators,
      congressmen, etc. I would have no problem with his behaviour
      (both Grant and Sherman, and most other officers engaged in
      the same sort of behaviour). What sets McClernand apart, IMO,
      is that he by-passed the chain of command and wrote directly to
      Stanton and to Lincoln (in his role as C-in-C) to denigrate fellow
      officers and to seek an appointment for which he was only
      marginally qualified. It was his attempts to subvert the chain of
      command that make his actions reprehensible IMO.

      JB Jewell

      > JFE
      >
      > James F. Epperson
      > http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
      > http://members.aol.com/siege1864
      >
    • jaydee2065
      ... Given these grades for McClernand, how would you grade Grant s performance at: Belmont Fort Donelson Shiloh Champion Hill Vicksburg Assaults
      Message 2 of 27 , Jul 30, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "josepharose" <josepharose@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Belmont B+
        > Fort Donelson B-
        > Shiloh B
        > Arkansas Post B
        > Port Gibson B
        > Champion Hill C
        > Big Black Bridge B+
        > Vicksburg Assaults B+

        Given these grades for McClernand, how would you grade Grant's
        performance at:

        Belmont
        Fort Donelson
        Shiloh
        Champion Hill
        Vicksburg Assaults
      • Jfepperson@aol.com
        In a message dated 7/30/2006 12:02:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, ... Jfepperson@., Jfepper ... It seems as if Grant disliked McClernand for more than
        Message 3 of 27 , Jul 30, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 7/30/2006 12:02:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, josepharose@... writes:
          --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, Jfepperson@. .. wrote:
          >
          >
          > It is difficult, if not impossible, to separate McClernand's politicking
          > from his on-field performance. You couldn't get the one w/o the
          > other. Was he a moderately competant combat performer, esp.
          > on defense? Yes. But since the politicking came with that, I
          > don't blame anyone for not wanting him on their team.

          It seems as if Grant disliked McClernand for more than politicking, as
          McC didn't seem to do all that much of it before Shiloh, and Grant
          already had it in for him by that time.
          =====
          Such things are subjective, of course, but my quick skim of Kiper's book
          shows a couple of instances of McClernand's politicking prior to Belmont,
          and of course he did a fair amount of it *at* Belmont, so I don't blame
          Grant for being a bit down on him by Shiloh.  Kiper points out that
          McClernand tried to take a lot of credit for Belmont, and thus got on
          Rawlins's bad side, which no doubt influenced Grant.  It is also worth
          noting that McClernand communicated directly with McClellan about
          Belmont, which was indicative of his problems and personality.
           
          JFE
           

          James F. Epperson
          http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
          http://members.aol.com/siege1864
        • josepharose
          ... [snip] ... Belmont, ... Grant, in turn, had apparently proposed a reorganization to Washburne where he would get an independent department (according to
          Message 4 of 27 , Jul 30, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Jfepperson@... wrote:

            [snip]

            > =====
            > Such things are subjective, of course, but my quick skim of Kiper's book
            > shows a couple of instances of McClernand's politicking prior to
            Belmont,
            > and of course he did a fair amount of it *at* Belmont, so I don't blame
            > Grant for being a bit down on him by Shiloh. Kiper points out that
            > McClernand tried to take a lot of credit for Belmont, and thus got on
            > Rawlins's bad side, which no doubt influenced Grant. It is also worth
            > noting that McClernand communicated directly with McClellan about
            > Belmont, which was indicative of his problems and personality.
            >
            > JFE


            Grant, in turn, had "apparently proposed a reorganization to
            Washburne" where he would get an independent department (according to
            Kiper's dissertation). As McC was working with Grant to get this
            independent command set up, they seem to be much closer than what you
            have intimated. Do you have any citations for Grant's alleged
            annoyance with McC at this early date?

            If you look at Grant's 11/20/61 message to Washburne, Grant used his
            political channel--as he did throughout the war--to attend to his
            military needs. Grant also released a rather bombastic after-battle
            address to his troops. He seems little different from McC, who
            received a letter from Lincoln before replying to him, above and
            beyond the message to McClellan. What did he say to McClellan that
            was inappropriate?

            If Lincoln was in the habit of corresponding with McC and asking for
            information or advice, it would also appear unjust to severely blame
            McC for going outside of channels.

            Joseph
          • jaydee2065
            ... Joseph: How do guesstimate Grant s performances for the following battles? Belmont Fort Donelson Shiloh Champion Hill Big Black Bridge Vicksburg Assaults
            Message 5 of 27 , Jul 30, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "josepharose" <josepharose@...>
              wrote:
              >

              > I think that he was quite competent as a commander. As
              > guesstimates of his tactical battlefield performances, I posit:
              >
              > Belmont B+
              > Fort Donelson B-
              > Shiloh B
              > Arkansas Post B
              > Port Gibson B
              > Champion Hill C
              > Big Black Bridge B+
              > Vicksburg Assaults B+
              >

              Joseph:

              How do guesstimate Grant's performances for the following battles?

              Belmont
              Fort Donelson
              Shiloh
              Champion Hill
              Big Black Bridge
              Vicksburg Assaults
            • Tony Gunter
              ... Kiper s book ... blame ... that ... got on ... worth ... to ... you ... According to Kiper, the contention between Grant and McClernand didn t begin until
              Message 6 of 27 , Jul 31, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "josepharose" <josepharose@...>
                wrote:
                >
                > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Jfepperson@ wrote:
                >
                > [snip]
                >
                > > =====
                > > Such things are subjective, of course, but my quick skim of
                Kiper's book
                > > shows a couple of instances of McClernand's politicking prior to
                > Belmont,
                > > and of course he did a fair amount of it *at* Belmont, so I don't
                blame
                > > Grant for being a bit down on him by Shiloh. Kiper points out
                that
                > > McClernand tried to take a lot of credit for Belmont, and thus
                got on
                > > Rawlins's bad side, which no doubt influenced Grant. It is also
                worth
                > > noting that McClernand communicated directly with McClellan about
                > > Belmont, which was indicative of his problems and personality.
                > >
                > > JFE
                >
                >
                > Grant, in turn, had "apparently proposed a reorganization to
                > Washburne" where he would get an independent department (according
                to
                > Kiper's dissertation). As McC was working with Grant to get this
                > independent command set up, they seem to be much closer than what
                you
                > have intimated. Do you have any citations for Grant's alleged
                > annoyance with McC at this early date?

                According to Kiper, the contention between Grant and McClernand
                didn't begin until Henry & Donelson ... I can't recall which offense
                of several was the one that set Grant off (the self-aggrandizing
                reports, renaming the forts without authority, etc.).

                Logan, however, was irate with McClernand after Belmont, because
                Logan, who had basically led the charge into the Confederate camp and
                then led the charge back out, had nearly been written out of the
                report by McClernand.

                > If you look at Grant's 11/20/61 message to Washburne,

                The difference being that Washburne was not in the federal chain of
                command.
              • bjer50010
                ... Kiper s book ... don t blame ... that ... got on ... worth ... to ... Grant to Washburne 11/20/1861. I saw through the press of the country the new
                Message 7 of 27 , Jul 31, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "josepharose" <josepharose@...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Jfepperson@ wrote:
                  >
                  > [snip]
                  >
                  > > =====
                  > > Such things are subjective, of course, but my quick skim of
                  Kiper's book
                  > > shows a couple of instances of McClernand's politicking prior to
                  > Belmont,
                  > > and of course he did a fair amount of it *at* Belmont, so I
                  don't blame
                  > > Grant for being a bit down on him by Shiloh. Kiper points out
                  that
                  > > McClernand tried to take a lot of credit for Belmont, and thus
                  got on
                  > > Rawlins's bad side, which no doubt influenced Grant. It is also
                  worth
                  > > noting that McClernand communicated directly with McClellan about
                  > > Belmont, which was indicative of his problems and personality.
                  > >
                  > > JFE
                  >
                  >
                  > Grant, in turn, had "apparently proposed a reorganization to
                  > Washburne" where he would get an independent department (according
                  to
                  > Kiper's dissertation).

                  Grant to Washburne 11/20/1861. "I saw through the press of the
                  country the new assignment of Military Departments and knew that it
                  would defeat the plan proposed by Gen McClernand and myself." (PUSG
                  3: p.204). Footnote: "No othr USG correspondence relating to this
                  plan has been found. Apparently USG had discussed it when Washburne
                  was in Cairo."

                  > As McC was working with Grant to get this
                  > independent command set up, they seem to be much closer than what
                  you
                  > have intimated.

                  Not necessarily. Cheairs points out that at that time, McClernand
                  was a very powerful politician in IL, which also happened to be
                  Grant's home state. Because of political considerations Grant was
                  forced to tred carefully where McClernand was concerned.

                  > Do you have any citations for Grant's alleged
                  > annoyance with McC at this early date?
                  >
                  > If you look at Grant's 11/20/61 message to Washburne, Grant used
                  his
                  > political channel--as he did throughout the war--to attend to his
                  > military needs.

                  Not really. For one thing, Grant was replying to two letters from
                  Washburne. He then goes on to state that he had received telegrams
                  from McClellan and QM Sibley, "the first calling for a full report
                  of all my wants as well as everything connected with this command,
                  and announcing that 3000 stands of arms were to be sent. The latter
                  enquiring the articles of clothing most needed." He proceeds to
                  discuss the "plan" as I indicated above.

                  But he continues, "I asked for nothing for myself. I believed that
                  Cairo should be the HQ of the Department called upon to act South."
                  After explaining why, he writes, "The very flattering interest you
                  have taken in my personal welfare and advancement I know of no way
                  of repaying." As a PS he asks for Washburne to look into getting a
                  BG appointment for WHL Wallace. That's the extent of the letter to
                  Washburne. It can hardly be stated "Grant used his political
                  channel--as he did throughout the war--to attend to his military
                  needs." In each instance he is looking out for his men, or for a
                  trusted subordinate. He asked for nothing for himself, as you seem
                  to be implying.

                  > Grant also released a rather bombastic after-battle
                  > address to his troops.

                  So what? Are you saying Grant was not permitted to address his
                  troops after their first battle?

                  > seems little different from McC, who
                  > received a letter from Lincoln before replying to him, above and
                  > beyond the message to McClellan.

                  Grant was also replying to Washburne, but you seem to be criticising
                  his behaviour. Strange that you accept certain behaviours in
                  McClernand that you criticise in Grant.

                  > at did he say to McClellan that
                  > was inappropriate?
                  >

                  You entirely miss the point. It wasn't what he wrote to McClellan,
                  it was that he again by-passed the chain of command to send a
                  message directly to the general-in-chief, instead of sending it
                  through proper military channels.

                  > If Lincoln was in the habit of corresponding with McC and asking
                  for
                  > information or advice, it would also appear unjust to severely
                  blame
                  > McC for going outside of channels.
                  >

                  It is wrong for a number of reasons. As pointed out to you already,
                  it was inappropriate for him to contact Lincoln directly because
                  Lincoln was part of the chain of command to which McClernand was
                  supposed to answer. He by-passed that chain of command as he
                  usually did. OTOH, Washburne was no in the chain of command. As I
                  stated in a previous post, had McClernand stuck to writing to
                  senators, governors, etc. no one would care. Instead he took it
                  upon himself to write directly to superiors without sending the
                  letters through proper channels. BTW, apparently all Lincoln wrote
                  to McClernand was a commendation for the performance of his troops
                  at Belmont. McClernand replied by sending his own version of what
                  happened, included his OR (which should have been sent through
                  Grant) and made a number of requests. Lincoln does not appear to
                  have asked for "information or advice", though McClernand did
                  provide it. I see no reason, based on your argument, not to
                  criticise his behaviour.

                  > Joseph
                  >
                • hank9174
                  ... don t ... also ... about ... (according ... offense ... IIRC, the Confeds escaped at Ft. Henry through McC s sector. At Ft Donelson he atacked without
                  Message 8 of 27 , Aug 1, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Gunter" <tony_gunter@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "josepharose" <josepharose@>
                    > wrote:
                    > >
                    > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, Jfepperson@ wrote:
                    > >
                    > > [snip]
                    > >
                    > > > =====
                    > > > Such things are subjective, of course, but my quick skim of
                    > Kiper's book
                    > > > shows a couple of instances of McClernand's politicking prior to
                    > > Belmont,
                    > > > and of course he did a fair amount of it *at* Belmont, so I
                    don't
                    > blame
                    > > > Grant for being a bit down on him by Shiloh. Kiper points out
                    > that
                    > > > McClernand tried to take a lot of credit for Belmont, and thus
                    > got on
                    > > > Rawlins's bad side, which no doubt influenced Grant. It is
                    also
                    > worth
                    > > > noting that McClernand communicated directly with McClellan
                    about
                    > > > Belmont, which was indicative of his problems and personality.
                    > > >
                    > > > JFE
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Grant, in turn, had "apparently proposed a reorganization to
                    > > Washburne" where he would get an independent department
                    (according
                    > to
                    > > Kiper's dissertation). As McC was working with Grant to get this
                    > > independent command set up, they seem to be much closer than what
                    > you
                    > > have intimated. Do you have any citations for Grant's alleged
                    > > annoyance with McC at this early date?
                    >
                    > According to Kiper, the contention between Grant and McClernand
                    > didn't begin until Henry & Donelson ... I can't recall which
                    offense
                    > of several was the one that set Grant off (the self-aggrandizing
                    > reports, renaming the forts without authority, etc.).

                    IIRC, the Confeds escaped at Ft. Henry through McC's sector.

                    At Ft Donelson he atacked without orders and was bloodily repulsed.


                    HankC
                  • Tony Gunter
                    ... I don t think he can be blamed for that, though, after the fighting that his division did that day. ... Kiper points out that Smith did too, without
                    Message 9 of 27 , Aug 1, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > IIRC, the Confeds escaped at Ft. Henry through McC's sector.

                      I don't think he can be blamed for that, though, after the fighting
                      that his division did that day.

                      >
                      > At Ft Donelson he atacked without orders and was bloodily repulsed.

                      Kiper points out that Smith did too, without rebuke.
                    • nickrelee@aol.com
                      But I don t think its any deficiency in McC that they escaped, no Union troops were in position to prevent that escape. The navy took the fort too quickly.
                      Message 10 of 27 , Aug 1, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        But I don't think its any deficiency in McC that they escaped, no Union troops were in position to prevent that escape.  The navy took the fort too quickly.  Also I thought Henry's commander started to evacuate once the bombardment began, knowing that he couldn't hold the fort too long.
                        --Nick Kurtz
                         
                        In a message dated 8/1/2006 8:27:59 AM Mountain Daylight Time, clarkc@... writes:
                        IIRC, the Confeds escaped at Ft. Henry through McC's sector.
                         
                      • Tony Gunter
                        ... Oops ... thought you were talking about Donelson.
                        Message 11 of 27 , Aug 1, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Gunter" <tony_gunter@...>
                          wrote:
                          >
                          > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > IIRC, the Confeds escaped at Ft. Henry through McC's sector.
                          >
                          > I don't think he can be blamed for that, though, after the fighting
                          > that his division did that day.

                          Oops ... thought you were talking about Donelson.
                        • Tom Mix
                          I think we know those answers with out setting him up for them. The bottom line is that Grant won at 4 of the 5 battles listed and that is what mattered. He
                          Message 12 of 27 , Aug 1, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I think we know those answers with out setting him up for them. The bottom
                            line is that Grant won at 4 of the 5 battles listed and that is what
                            mattered. He was not forced from the field of battle in any of them.
                            At Shiloh he fought for time first and won. Then, on the next day, he fought
                            for ground and won that too. Napoleon said that he could always retake
                            ground but he could not retake time. Words that Grant followed to the max at
                            Shiloh.
                            I would give Belmont a C as it was his first combat command and he did
                            adequate and learned tremendously. While not a victory it was not a
                            devastating loss and it prepared him for the future. Great Generals learn
                            from good and bad experiences and Grant learned. Then he applied that
                            knowledge in his future efforts.
                            The remaining battles were at least a B for each one. He utilized his
                            available resources which includes the talents of his officer corps as well
                            as his logistics and man power. At Vicksburg he showed innovation and
                            creativity as he tried to go the West with a canal system. It did not work
                            but at least he tried something. Then he courageously (b...s out, if you
                            will) moved his army by water, at night, down the river in front of the
                            enemy guns. To me, all interesting efforts.

                            Why don't we study the battle with out getting into one specific member's
                            hatred of a specific individual for once. I already know where the hate lies
                            around here without needing to revisit it again.
                            But every body may do as they please.

                            Dog out here.
                            Tom

                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com [mailto:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com] On
                            Behalf Of jaydee2065
                            Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 2:24 PM
                            To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: McClernand's Competency

                            --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "josepharose" <josepharose@...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            > Belmont B+
                            > Fort Donelson B-
                            > Shiloh B
                            > Arkansas Post B
                            > Port Gibson B
                            > Champion Hill C
                            > Big Black Bridge B+
                            > Vicksburg Assaults B+

                            Given these grades for McClernand, how would you grade Grant's
                            performance at:

                            Belmont
                            Fort Donelson
                            Shiloh
                            Champion Hill
                            Vicksburg Assaults











                            Yahoo! Groups Links
                          • Ronald black
                            Mr. Rose: The point is that Grant persisted despite any and all battlefield difficulties. He continued to be aggressive both in a battle and in the campaign.
                            Message 13 of 27 , Aug 2, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Mr. Rose:
                              The point is that Grant persisted despite any and all battlefield difficulties.  He continued to be aggressive both in a battle and in the campaign.  The armies that he commanded continued to advance through whatever the confederates threw at him.  The battles were only stations along the track of the civil war, and he continued down that track.  Perhaps, instead of asking for ratings concerning a battle, if instead you asked for a rating during the entire civil war.  How would you rate him?  I rate him as a A and I'm not really a fan of Grant but I recognize a job well done.
                              Ron
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: Tom Mix
                              Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 1:47 AM
                              Subject: RE: [civilwarwest] Re: McClernand's Competency

                              I think we know those answers with out setting him up for them. The bottom
                              line is that Grant won at 4 of the 5 battles listed and that is what
                              mattered. He was not forced from the field of battle in any of them.
                              At Shiloh he fought for time first and won. Then, on the next day, he fought
                              for ground and won that too. Napoleon said that he could always retake
                              ground but he could not retake time. Words that Grant followed to the max at
                              Shiloh.
                              I would give Belmont a C as it was his first combat command and he did
                              adequate and learned tremendously. While not a victory it was not a
                              devastating loss and it prepared him for the future. Great Generals learn
                              from good and bad experiences and Grant learned. Then he applied that
                              knowledge in his future efforts.
                              The remaining battles were at least a B for each one. He utilized his
                              available resources which includes the talents of his officer corps as well
                              as his logistics and man power. At Vicksburg he showed innovation and
                              creativity as he tried to go the West with a canal system. It did not work
                              but at least he tried something. Then he courageously (b...s out, if you
                              will) moved his army by water, at night, down the river in front of the
                              enemy guns. To me, all interesting efforts.

                              Why don't we study the battle with out getting into one specific member's
                              hatred of a specific individual for once. I already know where the hate lies
                              around here without needing to revisit it again.
                              But every body may do as they please.

                              Dog out here.
                              Tom

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com] On
                              Behalf Of jaydee2065
                              Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 2:24 PM
                              To: civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com
                              Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: McClernand's Competency

                              --- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, "josepharose" <josepharose@ ...>
                              wrote:
                              >
                              > Belmont B+
                              > Fort Donelson B-
                              > Shiloh B
                              > Arkansas Post B
                              > Port Gibson B
                              > Champion Hill C
                              > Big Black Bridge B+
                              > Vicksburg Assaults B+

                              Given these grades for McClernand, how would you grade Grant's
                              performance at:

                              Belmont
                              Fort Donelson
                              Shiloh
                              Champion Hill
                              Vicksburg Assaults

                              Yahoo! Groups Links


                              No virus found in this incoming message.
                              Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                              Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/404 - Release Date: 7/31/2006
                            • bjer50010
                              ... Kiper does point out that Smith also attacked. But what he said was that Grant rebuked McClernand, the political general, but not Smith, the former
                              Message 14 of 27 , Aug 3, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Gunter" <tony_gunter@...>
                                wrote:
                                >
                                > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > At Ft Donelson he atacked without orders and was bloodily repulsed.
                                >
                                > Kiper points out that Smith did too, without rebuke.
                                >

                                Kiper does point out that Smith also attacked. But what he said was
                                that Grant rebuked McClernand, the political general, but not Smith,
                                the former commandant of WP. His sources are the ORs and Grant's
                                memoirs. It's unknown whether Grant rebuked Smith or not (certainly
                                there is no record of it).

                                But I will point out some key differences in the two situations.
                                McClernand attacked a defensive redan in the middle of the Confederate
                                line. He used 3-4 regiments, which collectively numbered about the
                                same as the defenders (even Kiper criticised this action). In
                                contrast, Smith attacked near the Confederate right flank and used two
                                full brigades. It is possible, though there is no evidence of this,
                                AFAIK, that Grant and Smith had discussed the possibility of the attack
                                to feel out the rebel defenses. In contrast, McClernand acted
                                completely on his own authority and impulsively, to remove an annoying
                                rebel defensive point.

                                If this is correct, then it makes sense Grant would rebuke McClernand
                                and not Smith. Smith's action appears to have made some sense, while
                                McClernand's was just a knee-jerk reaction to some annoying enemy fire.
                              • keeno2@aol.com
                                Have been following this thread with interest. It would seem that McC made the same mistakes as other citizen generals early in their careers. Some of them
                                Message 15 of 27 , Aug 3, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Have been following this thread with interest. It would seem that McC made the same mistakes as other citizen generals early in their careers. Some of them remained because of their political value. Many of them were given important posts in Montana. McC seemed to be learning the trade. Had he not been so annoying to his superiors, he might have made an able division or corps commander.
                                  Ken
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.