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

Re: McClernand's Competency

Expand Messages
  • jaydee2065
    ... Given these grades for McClernand, how would you grade Grant s performance at: Belmont Fort Donelson Shiloh Champion Hill Vicksburg Assaults
    Message 1 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
    • jaydee2065
      ... Joseph: How do guesstimate Grant s performances for the following battles? Belmont Fort Donelson Shiloh Champion Hill Big Black Bridge Vicksburg Assaults
      Message 2 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
      • 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 3 of 27 , Aug 1 7:25 AM
        • 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 4 of 27 , Aug 1 9:06 AM
          • 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 5 of 27 , Aug 1 9:10 AM
            • 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 6 of 27 , Aug 1 9:35 AM
              • 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 7 of 27 , Aug 1 10:47 PM
                • 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 8 of 27 , Aug 2 5:47 AM
                  • 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 9 of 27 , Aug 3 7:27 AM
                    • 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 10 of 27 , Aug 3 9:22 AM
                      • 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.