Posted on 05/18/2018 9:39:06 AM PDT by Magnatron
Grant at his best. He transferred his army south of the James unbeknownst to Lee. The pontoon bridge was the longest ever built.
From the link below:
“The movement involved over 100,000 men, 5,000 vehicles, and 58,000 animals. Some moved by steamer and ferry, while two corps and the support elements of Grant’s forces crossed via a 2,200-foot pontoon bridge over the James, which is tidal at that point. This crossing was a triumph of logistics; the bridge over the James ranks as the longest pontoon bridge in military history.”
https://emergingcivilwar.com/2017/03/28/pontoon-bridges-the-great-crossings/
Grant was the very model of magnanimity.
Jean Edward Smith:
Grant’s funeral in 1885 was a testament to national unity. Major General Winfield Scott Hancock, accompanied by
former Confederate generals John B. Gordon and Fitzhugh Lee, led a parade of 60,000 men up Broadway to
Riverside Park. One-and-a-half million spectators lined the route as veterans of the Stonewall Brigade marched
alongside the Grand Army of the Republic. At Grant’s request, the pallbearers included an equal number of
Southern and Union generals. Sherman and Sheridan marched with Joseph E. Johnston and Simon Bolivar Buckner.
They were followed by President Cleveland, ex-presidents Hayes and Arthur, the Cabinet, and the justices of the
Supreme Court. Grant’s tomb was not complete, but his words would soon be emblazoned over the portal facing
south: “Let us have peace.”
From a previous post citing Grant’s magnanimity:
Grant wrote the following into the terms of surrender: “This done, each officer and man will be allowed to return to their homes, not to be disturbed by United States authority so long as they observe their paroles and the laws where they reside.”
Now strictly speaking, Lee and the rebels were guilty of treason. But Grant’s final sentence quoted above, in the words of biographer Jean Edward Smith, “written on his own initiative, effectively pardoned all who surrendered. It was a general amnesty, which, he hoped would free the country from reprisals and vengeance.” Just so. Smith: “With those words Grant pardoned the Army of Northern Virginia and undercut the vengeance festering in Union circles to hang the Confederate leaders for treason. In the bitter days of reprisal following Lincoln’s assassination it was Grant’s word alone that stood between Lee and the gallows. And if General Lee could not be hanged, no one could be.”
Interesting to note that in May of 1865 a federal grand jury in Norfolk indicted Lee for treason. Concerned, Lee contacted Grant. Grant immediately took the case to President Johnson who insisted that Lee be tried. Grant would have none of it and threatened to resign. Johnson: “When can these men be tried?” Grant: “Never, unless they violate their paroles.” Johnson relented knowing his administration would be helpless without Grant’s support. According to Jean Edward Smith, “On June 20, Attorney General James Speed instructed the United States attorney in Norfolk to drop the proceedings. Grant thereupon wrote Lee, assuring him there would be no prosecution.” *
* Grant to Lee, June 20, 1865, 15 The Papers of Ulysses S. Grant 210-211, John Y. Simon, ed. (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1967).
This was Grant at his magnanimous best. The man didn’t have a vindictive bone in his body. In this he was precisely like Lincoln. Smith: “Grant hated vindictiveness. He had known humiliation before the war and would not inflict it upon others.” And after Lee left the McLean house following the surrender Grant halted the firing of victory salutes by his army. He simply couldn’t abide what he viewed as a wanton humiliation of Lee and his army.
Grant wasn't a swaggering extrovert like Patton, so their command styles were very different. But their philosophies were not so different.
Both believed in thoroughly training their men.
' Both believed that a man who displayed cowardice in one battle could be motivated to fight well in a future battle (of course their methods of motivating differed).
Both understood that their opponent was as full of fret and worry as they were, and that by acting aggressively they could, in modern parlance, get inside the other fellow's observe, orient, decide, act loop.
Perhaps most importantly, both understood the benefit of pressing their men after a victory. When the opponent is beaten, and retreating, after a battle, from company to army level, commanders have a very human tendency to want to cut their men some slack. The have just fought a battle, and are tired, hungry, mentally stressed, some of them have been wounded, but not badly enough to be taken out of the fight in the heat of battle, there are wounded, and dead, to be tended to. A great many commanders do not have it within them to insist at that moment that their weary troops rise up and march forward, away from their wounded, and their packs, and the mess facilities, and press the foe relentlessly, until they are either physically unable to go on, or turned back by a counter attack.
But Grant and Patton both understood that the beaten foe was in even worse shape. However hard it was for their men to press forward in these circumstances, they would never inflict more damage upon the foe, at less cost to themselves, then at these moments.
Grant and Patton understood that a commander who allows troops to rest after battle, allows their foe's troops to rest. So the commander's rested troops have to attack troops who are also rested, and who had been reorganized, resupplied, and entrenched. Grant and Patton understood that the blood, and sweat, their troops were spared if they were not forced to press on immediately after a battle, would have to be repaid, at a usurious interest rate.
Wrong analogy. If one guy clobbers three others one by one then it's safe to say the one guy is the best.
Grant kept losing more men in indecisive battles. But he had more men to lose. He wore Lee down because he could. But that isn’t the mark of great leadership or spectacular tactics!
They were far from indecisive. The Wilderness Campaign forced Lee to react constantly and took the initiative away from him. Lee was forced to retreat and was eventually bottled up in Petersburg. While casualties were heavy the result was winning the war. Wasn't that the whole purpose?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.