General Grant Promoted

[T. A. Gardner]

Duh! Donaldson and Henry were Before Shiloh

Grant was at all three. Nit picking doesn't add anything to your argument.

 

[Walt]

That would be a wrong supposition. Grant’s Father in-law gave Jones to his daughter Julia as a wedding gift.

Wrong! The Slave was a gift to Mrs Grant from her father.

I could be wrong, but I believe you are mistaken. Grant's wife was given five slaves, but none were William Jones. More importantly, the five slaves were not legally transferred to her, so neither her nor her later husband Grant were able to free them.

The legal documents for how Grant gained possession of Jones to free him have not been discovered.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

No, they weren't. Lee had the great luck to have two perfectly matched subordinates in Jackson and Longstreet, while facing mediocre opponents. With Jackson's death, and the expansion of the Army of Northern Virginia into three corps, that magic was gone, and Lee subsequently never saw another victory.

Grant in the West showed what tenacity and staying on the offensive could do. In combination with Foote's naval flotilla he took the Mississippi river from the South and his victory at Vicksburg was all tenacity. Afterwards, sending Sherman on his march was in following Union grand strategy to divide up the South. Against Lee, Grant had overwhelming forces and he ground Lee down until forced to surrender.

It wasn't brilliant generaling. It was tenacious and aggressive. It was a lack of those two qualities that did Macclellan in earlier in the war. He thought himself a brilliant strategist and sharper than anyone else in terms of warfare. His arrogance and an unwillingness to fight before having massive, overwhelming, odds ala Montgomery, caused him to be sacked and replaced.

See Wood:

I would have to strongly disagree. Other Union Generals had the same advantages as Grant but failed to capitalize on them.

The Union did have serious material advantages but what is not mentioned is that the Confederacy had the advantage of only needing to gain a stalemate to win their political objectives of Independence as a separate nation. The Union had the disadvantage of having to invade a vast region and conquer its Armies. The Confederacy had the geographical advantage of superior interior lines, knowledge of the geography, better communications, did not have to fight on the offensive as they had a far greater advantage on defense when defensive advantages due to the advent of the rifle and the defensive reigned supreme. One of the reasons Grant is credited with being the first Modern General is that he was the first and only Civil War General to realize, at very high cost, that the rifle had unalterably changed warfare and was the only General who adapted to it though, at times, like at Cold Harbor, though Grant never made that mistake again. Which was another excellent attribute of Grants Generalship. He learned from his mistakes when others didn’t.

So in all the Confederacy had some serious advantages too and I can also cite quite a few times where countries that had defeated opponents that had far greater disadvantages against far more powerful opponents yet still won. To cite just two, the U.S. during the American Revolutionary War by General Washington and the Vietnam War by General Giáp (probably the most underrated General of the 20th Century.).

So defeating the Confederacy by sheer numbers alone was a pipe dream (and still is). An example I can give you comes from his Memoirs on the Peninsula Campaign he stated that it was a great misconception that in battle during the Peninsula Campaign that the Union had overwhelming man power in battle. Granted stated that this numerical advantage was lost because of the large amount manpower he needed for communications, logistics and transportation and protecting his lines of communication and transport, that on the battlefield the numbers of combatants on both sides were more or less equal.

I would suggest looking at Vicksburg a little closer. There are reasons why it is considered the greatest military campaign, on the North American Continent, in history.

Over a nine month period Grant completely bamboozled the Confederacy. He distracted and deceived the Confederacy in all sorts of ways. Grierson’s Cavalry raid into Mississippi (The most successful Cavalry Raid during the Civil War), Sending Sherman to attack Vicksburg from the North to building a canal to divert the Mississippi River, to mention a few, all of which were diversions, as Grant had planned all along. Grants coordination with Admiral Farragut was an excellent use of combined operations which are highly to the credit of both Grant and Farragut. The real significance of Farragut’s run past Vicksburg was that the Conferates had no idea that Grants Army was already south of Vicksburg and they would be unable to prevent Grant from crossing the Mississippi as Grant had neatly deceived them.

Then after Grant crossed the Mississippi with an Army of 25,000 men, cut his lines of communication and transport then, living off the land and in less than a month, and being outnumbered by two Confederate Armies by more than two to one, Grant’s Army fought and defeated those two Armies, in detail no less, in five battles and locked Pemberton’s Army up inside of Vicksburg and laid siege until Pemberton surrendered to Grant. Here’s the absolutely amazing thing about Vicksburg. Grant’s army lost 10,000 casualties while inflicting nearly 40,000 casualties on Pemberton’s and Jackson’s Armies. Not to mention the huge strategic advantage Grant gained for the Union by gaining complete control of the Mississippi River and cutting the Confederacy in half.

Only a few U.Generals have ever taken the surrender of an entire field Army while in the Field. Doing that once is clear evidence of Grants competence as a General but Grant didn’t do it just once during the Civil War he did it three times (Ft. Donaldson, Vicksburg and Appomattox) all three of which had huge strategic impacts on the war. No other U.S. General has done that twice let alone three times. This fact alone demonstrates Grant was a truly great General.

Now I could go on in even greater detail about the Peninsula Campaign but just to summarize the notion that the Peninsula Campaign was a battle of attrition is another mythology. It was not. Petersburg was the only battle of attrition.

This is where Grant elevated himself to the highest level of Generalship. Grants grand strategy was a door and hinge strategy. He created what is now called combined operations. Grant, as commanding general was going to direct five armies in the field all within the same central strategy. His strategy was simple. He was going to pin the ANV in place as he knew Lee was a myopic Virginian who would risk all and lose all, even the war, to protect Richmond. He then had four other armies sweep the field of the remaining Confederate Armies. Which they did. No other General in history had accomplished what General Grant did by using multiple armies in combination to achieve the same strategic goals. So in the Military they don’t call Grant the Father of Combined Operations for no reason. A pretty central to modern militaries today, thanks to Grant.

I’ll give your book a checkout. Some further reading I would suggest on the topic would be, Chernow’s biography “Grant”. Interestingly though goes well into his military career it spends more time on his Presidency. He can only be described as being brutally honest.

Bonekemper has a good read about Grant focusing mainly on discrediting Lost Cause Mythology.

Grants Memoir is a must. Love him or hate him he was an incredible communicator.

The book I recommend reading, though I don’t particularly admire the writer on a personal level I can’t say his works are biased or propaganda) is a book by British Major General J.F.C. Fuller. “Grant and Lee: A study on personality and generalship.

Sorry for the wall of text. I adore Civil War history.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Hey number one I like Grant and it was YOUR side that was trying to destroy his bust not the Right. Many small time slave owners worked side by side with their slave or slaves so that does not give him credibility. Plus Grant didn’t refuse the gift of another human being. The left calls Trump a racist because his company didn’t want poor people driving his real estate slur down. There is no evidence that Trump himself made that decision. In the remaining decades Trump has placed people of color and women in high positions in his companies but you guys still call him a racist.

You’re assuming I’m on a side.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Have you read Sherman's memoirs?

No…I do have it on my reading list. Down Loaded it for free. The same with Grants Memoir.

BTW, I have read several books on Sherman but not his Memoir. I also live about 45 minutes from Sherman’s hometown of Lancaster, OH.

In Columbus our NHL Team is named after a Civil War Union Company “Blue Jackets” from Ohio. So every time Atlanta comes up to play the Blue Jackets the fans all wear Gen. Sherman masks. It’s a hoot even if it does work against us. Atlanta hate the Blue Jackets. LOL

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Meh probably. Historically they would have. I think Lincoln and Grant made the right decision to be lenient.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

We should have known that we were in trouble when Penn St football games were removed from history for WOKE Religion reasons, though we did not call this WOKE at the time, WOKE is a new brand.

Now you’re babbling.

 

[Noking]

Considering you think HCQ is the best treatment for COVID, it doesn't surprise me how many fucked up things you think.

well put.

 

[Mason Michaels]

I would have to strongly disagree. Other Union Generals had the same advantages as Grant but failed to capitalize on them.

The Union did have serious material advantages but what is not mentioned is that the Confederacy had the advantage of only needing to gain a stalemate to win their political objectives of Independence as a separate nation. The Union had the disadvantage of having to invade a vast region and conquer its Armies. The Confederacy had the geographical advantage of superior interior lines, knowledge of the geography, better communications, did not have to fight on the offensive as they had a far greater advantage on defense when defensive advantages due to the advent of the rifle and the defensive reigned supreme. One of the reasons Grant is credited with being the first Modern General is that he was the first and only Civil War General to realize, at very high cost, that the rifle had unalterably changed warfare and was the only General who adapted to it though, at times, like at Cold Harbor, though Grant never made that mistake again. Which was another excellent attribute of Grants Generalship. He learned from his mistakes when others didn’t.

So in all the Confederacy had some serious advantages too and I can also cite quite a few times where countries that had defeated opponents that had far greater disadvantages against far more powerful opponents yet still won. To cite just two, the U.S. during the American Revolutionary War by General Washington and the Vietnam War by General Giáp (probably the most underrated General of the 20th Century.).

So defeating the Confederacy by sheer numbers alone was a pipe dream (and still is). An example I can give you comes from his Memoirs on the Peninsula Campaign he stated that it was a great misconception that in battle during the Peninsula Campaign that the Union had overwhelming man power in battle. Granted stated that this numerical advantage was lost because of the large amount manpower he needed for communications, logistics and transportation and protecting his lines of communication and transport, that on the battlefield the numbers of combatants on both sides were more or less equal.

I would suggest looking at Vicksburg a little closer. There are reasons why it is considered the greatest military campaign, on the North American Continent, in history.

Over a nine month period Grant completely bamboozled the Confederacy. He distracted and deceived the Confederacy in all sorts of ways. Grierson’s Cavalry raid into Mississippi (The most successful Cavalry Raid during the Civil War), Sending Sherman to attack Vicksburg from the North to building a canal to divert the Mississippi River, to mention a few, all of which were diversions, as Grant had planned all along. Grants coordination with Admiral Farragut was an excellent use of combined operations which are highly to the credit of both Grant and Farragut. The real significance of Farragut’s run past Vicksburg was that the Conferates had no idea that Grants Army was already south of Vicksburg and they would be unable to prevent Grant from crossing the Mississippi as Grant had neatly deceived them.

Then after Grant crossed the Mississippi with an Army of 25,000 men, cut his lines of communication and transport then, living off the land and in less than a month, and being outnumbered by two Confederate Armies by more than two to one, Grant’s Army fought and defeated those two Armies, in detail no less, in five battles and locked Pemberton’s Army up inside of Vicksburg and laid siege until Pemberton surrendered to Grant. Here’s the absolutely amazing thing about Vicksburg. Grant’s army lost 10,000 casualties while inflicting nearly 40,000 casualties on Pemberton’s and Jackson’s Armies. Not to mention the huge strategic advantage Grant gained for the Union by gaining complete control of the Mississippi River and cutting the Confederacy in half.

Only a few U.Generals have ever taken the surrender of an entire field Army while in the Field. Doing that once is clear evidence of Grants competence as a General but Grant didn’t do it just once during the Civil War he did it three times (Ft. Donaldson, Vicksburg and Appomattox) all three of which had huge strategic impacts on the war. No other U.S. General has done that twice let alone three times. This fact alone demonstrates Grant was a truly great General.

Now I could go on in even greater detail about the Peninsula Campaign but just to summarize the notion that the Peninsula Campaign was a battle of attrition is another mythology. It was not. Petersburg was the only battle of attrition.

This is where Grant elevated himself to the highest level of Generalship. Grants grand strategy was a door and hinge strategy. He created what is now called combined operations. Grant, as commanding general was going to direct five armies in the field all within the same central strategy. His strategy was simple. He was going to pin the ANV in place as he knew Lee was a myopic Virginian who would risk all and lose all, even the war, to protect Richmond. He then had four other armies sweep the field of the remaining Confederate Armies. Which they did. No other General in history had accomplished what General Grant did by using multiple armies in combination to achieve the same strategic goals. So in the Military they don’t call Grant the Father of Combined Operations for no reason. A pretty central to modern militaries today, thanks to Grant.

I’ll give your book a checkout. Some further reading I would suggest on the topic would be, Chernow’s biography “Grant”. Interestingly though goes well into his military career it spends more time on his Presidency. He can only be described as being brutally honest.

Bonekemper has a good read about Grant focusing mainly on discrediting Lost Cause Mythology.

Grants Memoir is a must. Love him or hate him he was an incredible communicator.

The book I recommend reading, though I don’t particularly admire the writer on a personal level I can’t say his works are biased or propaganda) is a book by British Major General J.F.C. Fuller. “Grant and Lee: A study on personality and generalship.

Sorry for the wall of text. I adore Civil War history.

Have you read Sherman's memoirs?
The Library of Congress editions are best by far, lots of extras

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It would have been for a short time only as Great Britain would have forced to them to modernise.

Then how comes the price for slaves continued to rise? Do you think slaves can’t be taught to work as a slave?

The British wouldn’t have modernized the Confederacy. They would have encouraged them to further base their economy on one or two commercial agricultural crops.

 

[Mason Michaels]

No…I do have it on my reading list. Down Loaded it for free. The same with Grants Memoir.

BTW, I have read several books on Sherman but not his Memoir. I also live about 45 minutes from Sherman’s hometown of Lancaster, OH.

In Columbus our NHL Team is named after a Civil War Union Company “Blue Jackets” from Ohio. So every time Atlanta comes up to play the Blue Jackets the fans all wear Gen. Sherman masks. It’s a hoot even if it does work against us. Atlanta hate the Blue Jackets. LOL

I visited the Sherman house in Lancaster!
The Library of Congress editions are best,Sherman added a chapter at the beginning after the first edition.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Sherman ripped them up and wrapped around trees

Well Sherman did to but what he is saying is historically correct. A lot of the so called man power advantage Grant had was locked on building and defending his lines of communication and transportation.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Have you read Sherman's memoirs?
The Library of Congress editions are best by far, lots of extras

No but as I said to another poster it’s on my reading list.

 

[Nordberg]

No but as I said to another poster it’s on my reading list.

It is thick and the copy I read was written on very thin paper that I was afraid of ripping. I got it from the local library. They had to have it sent in from the main branch.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It is thick and the copy I read was written on very thin paper that I was afraid of ripping. I got it from the local library. They had to have it sent in from the main branch.

You can download it for free you know.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I visited the Sherman house in Lancaster!
The Library of Congress editions are best,Sherman added a chapter at the beginning after the first edition.

I should do that too. I live only a 45 minute drive from Lancaster.

 

[Mason Michaels]

I should do that too. I live only a 45 minute drive from Lancaster.

You really should!

 

[martin]

Personally I like Grant but that does not forgive the fact that he was a slave owner for more than two years.. And remember those plantation slave owners were Democrats.

https://apnews.com/article/violence...olina-police-9a01ee49102df70f10ce54ae04a46fa6

They were Red Staters.

Since you evidently don’t know history you must be puzzled how it happened that around and long after the Civil War the South was full of Democrats and today it’s full of Republicans. What do you think happened?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You really should!

A couple of years ago there were protesters at the Statue to Sherman who were arguing it should be torn down because Sherman was a racist. They were primarily a bunch of kids on a trolling mission. It worked. Not surprisingly they pissed off a whole lot of people.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

They were Red Staters.

Since you evidently don’t know history you must be puzzled how it happened that around and long after the Civil War the South was full of Democrats and today it’s full of Republicans. What do you think happened?

Yea I know right? It’s like the Solid South Democrats of the past must have completely disappeared from history after 1970.