The Armies of U.S. Grant

This is a niche book. If you want a sense of U. S. Grant's generalship, many other books have more meat to them. However, this volume does have its uses. To me, it is interesting to see the author judge--with respect to most of Grant's most important campaigns--his assessment of Grant's leadership, Grant's staff, his top lieutenants, the infantry, the cavalry, artillery, and medical corps. I'm not sure that I agree with all of the assessments, but this approach does get one to thinking critically about Grant's campaigns and his armies. The author notes that (Page 8): ". . .this book is a story of the development of a great fighting force, the Army of the Tennessee, and the story of how the commander of that army adapts to an entirely different army and a wholly new style of war when he comes East to grapple with his greatest foe." On to the war itself. One of the more important formative experiences for Grant was his first combat expedition when he moved against a rebel camp, commanded by Colonel Thomas Harris. Grant describes how his heart was in his throat. And then he discovered that the camp had been abandoned. He reasoned as follows (Page 13): "'From that event to the close of the war, I never experienced trepidation upon confronting the enemy. . . I never forgot that he had as much reason to fear my forces as I had of his." Then, campaign by campaign. . . . Belmont. A botched affair, but retrieved by Grant's coolness under fire. Forts Henry and Donelson. Not a great performance by Grant and his forces, but his coolness ended up sealing a victory at Donelson after his bizarre absence, meeting with Admiral Foote. Shiloh, the first great horrific battle of the Civil War. Grant's forces were poorly deployed and inadequately prepared. But, again (is there a theme here?), his coolness and appreciation of the situation led to victory on the second day. Then, Vicksburg. This was a masterpiece of campaigning, perhaps Grant's greatest generaling in the Civil War (after his little experiments went by the boards and he moved with firmness). And so on. I am not always convinced that the author's judgments of Grant and his lieutenants and so on is what I would conclude. But it is a useful way of organizing Grant's and his Armies' performance. It does get one to thinking. So, hardly a major work. But one that outlines matters in a way to reflect on his generalship and the work of his subordinates and the various elements of his forces.