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
      • 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.