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
      • 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.