Re: [civilwarwest] Re: McClernand's Competency
- 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 MixSent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 1:47 AMSubject: 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
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.
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@ ...>
> 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
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
- --- In email@example.com, "Tony Gunter" <tony_gunter@...>
>Kiper does point out that Smith also attacked. But what he said was
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "hank9174" <clarkc@> wrote:
> > At Ft Donelson he atacked without orders and was bloodily repulsed.
> Kiper points out that Smith did too, without rebuke.
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.
- 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