Al Mackey
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
- Messages
- 596
- Reaction score
- 533
The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant
- Thread starter Al Mackey
- Start date
- Joined
- May 12, 2019
- Messages
- 7,157
- Reaction score
- 4,171
Great detail!
This is an older book by the British military historian J. F. C. Fuller. You can download it for free here.(free
)He starts by telling us, “The greatest event in European history was the discovery of the New World : to-day [sic] it could only be rivalled [sic] by landing on a habitable planet. The greatest event in American history was the Civil War; greater than the Rebellion, because separation from England was sooner or later inevitable. The man who most greatly influenced this war was Ulysses S. Grant; not because he was so clear-sighted a statesman as Lincoln, or so clever a tactician as Lee, but because he was the greatest strategist of his age, of the war, and, consequently, its greatest general.” [p. xi] I think there’s a lot of truth to this.
He won for sure. I agree that Grant had the best strategic vision with the resources available. Anything else is a what-if.
In another cogent observation, he talks about how the great Union generals of the war developed. “Youth is a tremendous asset to generalship. When in war old men command armies, republics rock and kingdoms totter, for war demands the audacity and energy of youth. In the Civil War, the ablest generals were men who had been educated at West Point, and who had breathed the atmosphere of war in Mexico. Men of no formal school, no fixed doctrine, and of no set ideas. Men who in many cases, notably Grant and Sherman, had left the army years before the war, and m place of being asphyxiated by mess life had gained independence in the struggle for existence. The cramping military discipline of European armies, fettered by worn-out traditions, was unknown to them. The war found these men ignorant and unprepared, but seldom lacking in courage. They plunged Into errors in place of avoiding them, and were sufficiently young in mind to learn and profit by their mistakes, Grant is a wonderful example of this: of how a man of forty could begin with a Belmont and end with an Appomattox campaign. He was for ever learning, although not endowed with outstanding genius, through sheer industry, perseverance, and self-education he accomplished his end far more thoroughly than many a more brilliant but less determined general would have done.” [p. 8]
Good observation that out of the box thinking often wins. The stifling of the Antebellum US army drove many ambitious men from it because the old guard held the good jobs.
Fuller gives us a discussion of tactical development from Frederick the Great to the Civil War, including the effect of rifle muskets loaded with the minie ball. Theoretically his evaluation of the latter is correct, though in practice, as Professor Earl Hess’s book tells us, it wasn’t as much of an innovation. He then gets into the Civil War itself and discusses the actions in it. Regarding the conquest of Fort Henry, he writes, ” ‘There was one general always ready to move on receipt of orders’ — this was Grant. For the battle of Belmont he started within twenty-four hours of receiving orders; on his recent demonstration he had done likewise, in spite of the rain; for as he himself says: it “will operate worse upon the enemy, if he should come out to meet us, than upon us.” Now he did so again, and within twenty-four hours the embarkation of his troops began.” [p. 83]
It seems to me that Union Army commanders were slow to take action in general, perhaps as a result of the antebellum army culture and environment.