Commanders who serve on the losing side of a battle, campaign, or war are often harshly viewed by posterity. Labeled as mere "losers," they go unrecognized for their very real abilities and achievements in other engagements. The writers in this volume challenge such simplistic notions.
By looking more closely at Civil War generals who have borne the stigma of failure, these authors reject the reductionist view that significant defeats were due simply to poor generalship. Analyzing men who might be considered "capable failures"—officers of high pre-war reputation, some with distinguished records in the Civil War—they examine the various reasons these men suffered defeat, whether flaws of character, errors of judgment, lack of preparation, or circumstance beyond their control.
These seven case studies consider Confederate and Union generals evenhandedly. They show how Albert Sidney Johnston failed in the face of extreme conditions and inadequate support; how Joe Hooker and John C. Pemberton were outmatched in confrontations with Lee and Grant; how George B. McClellan in the Peninsula Campaign and Don Carlos Buell at Chattanooga faced political as well as military complications; and how Joseph E. Johnston failed to adapt to challenges in Virginia. An additional chapter looks at generals from both sides at the Battle of Gettysburg, showing how failure to adjust to circumstances can thwart even the most seasoned leader's expectations.
"There is far more to be learned in trying to understand how and why a general fell short," observes Steven Woodworth, "than there is in multiplying denunciations of his alleged stupidity." Civil War Generals in Defeat successfully addresses that need. It is a provocative book that seeks not to rehabilitate reputations but to enlarge our understanding of the nature and limitations of military command.
Inaugurated for a second term on March 4, 1873, Ulysses S. Grant gave an address that was both inspiring and curiously bitter.
This is my ground, and I am sitting on it.” In May, Sioux leaders traveled to the capital, where Grant renewed efforts to persuade them to relocate to Indian Territory, “south of where you now live, where the climate is very much better ...
After whites massacred black militia in South Carolina, Grant warned that unchecked persecution would lead to "bloody revolution." As violence spread, Grant struggled to position limited forces where they could do the most good.
During the winter of 1864–65, the end of the Civil War neared as Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant maintained pressure against the dying Confederacy.
In his third annual message to the nation, Ulysses S. Grant stated the obvious: "The condition of the Southern States is, unhappily, not such as all true patriotic citizens would like to see.
Initial enthusiasm soon gave way to rancor, as factions split over where to place the fair. Grant favored Central Park, but public sentiment intervened, and funding evaporated. By March, Grant resigned.
In spite of his public silence, Grant was caught in the dispute between Congress and President Andrew Johnson. His position became intolerable after Johnson publicly accused Grant of dishonesty.
Notified of his nomination for a second term in June 1872, Ulysses S. Grant accepted, promising "the same zeal and devotion to the good of the whole people for the future of my official life, as shown in the past.
January 1-May 31, 1864 Ulysses S. Grant John Y. Simon. ( Continued from front flap ) Major General William T. Sherman . He established an effective partnership with Abraham Lincoln , most notably through a letter of May 1 thanking the ...
LINCOLN , MARY TODD War ( 1995 ) ; and Wilkes Booth Came to Washington by Larry Starkey ( 1976 ) . According to this theory , Lincoln was considered a war target and fair game for assassination . Papers found on the body of Ulric ...