A short while ago, I finished reading "Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era" written by James M. McPherson. Of everything in the book, one of the things that struck me most was the value of quality leadership.
Both sides of the war had their fair share of solid leaders and their inept ones. Abraham Lincoln stood out clearly as someone cool under pressure, charismatic, diplomatic, and able to make the decisions necessary to preserve the Union. In my opinion, he stands in contrast to Jefferson Davis, who often let his pride get in the way of diplomacy, preventing him from rallying his opposition in the South to his side. Lincoln barely won his re-election, and did so on the heels of a remarkable Union victory in Atlanta, but throughout the Civil War, he somehow managed to keep even those in the North that were against him still in line and fighting together.
But it wasn't even the President that stood out most to me. No, it was Ulysses S. Grant, General-in-Chief of the Union army. Grant started off a lower-grade officer, and a marginally successful one at that, and he loved the drink, but he earned his way up to the top of the hill. In his career, Grant had his share of defeats, some more critical than others. But what impressed me most about Grant was his willingness to learn from those defeats and his resolve to allow them to make him into a better leader. Long before he was appointed to general-in-chief, Grant proved the kind of man he was in numerous battles, and showed the Union how to win.
In the Battle of Shiloh on April 6, 1862, the Union forces under Grant took a serious beating with heavy casualties. The next day, after receiving reinforcements, Grant planned a counter-attack. All his fellow officers saw the reinforcements as the means to make a withdrawal with a rear guard, so their weary, battle-torn men could get out alive. But, to quote McPherson: "Grant never wavered in his determination to counterattack on April 7. When some of his officers advised retreat before the rebels could renew their assault in the morning, Grant replied: 'Retreat? No. I propose to attack at daylight and whip them.'" Here was a man with confidence in his men, a realistic appraisal of his enemies' own strength, and a conviction to do what he knew must be done to win the battle. And he did it, he whipped them.
Some of the other commanders in the Union, particularly Henry W. Halleck, criticized him for being hasty or too aggressive. The irony there is that Halleck was nicknamed "Old Brains" because he spent so much time planning, preparing, and maneuvering for battle that he more often than not found reasons to avoid meeting his enemy on the field. His was a game of chess where he moved his pieces around the board, but never taking any of his opponents pieces. He stood a stark contrast to Grant, which was never more evident than how he handled the battle at Confederate-held Corinth.
Halleck, with superior numbers, advanced so slowly on the Confederates at Corinth, digging in trenches every step of the way, that the Confederates started taking so many casualties from disease due to lack of clean water, that they decided to pull out. Of course, Halleck saw this as a victory since he "took" the city and managed to "maneuver Beauregard out of Corinth without a fight."
And what did Grant have to say about this? Grant could not see "how the mere occupation of places was to close the war while large and effective rebel armies existed." Grant's view was that Halleck had missed an opportunity to bring the fight to their enemy with superiority and destroy them. In a time when local politics as well as international politics with England and France were dictated by the performance of the armies, Grant looked to be the man to bring the Union military and political success.
Grant proved himself and he proved his concept of warfare up until he was finally shown to be correct. After huge victories in Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee, the Union army chased the last of the Confederate army north, turning South Carolina into a wasteland behind it. And even though the Confederacy seemed like should be barely hanging on, they had confidence in their Army of Virginia. It wasn't until this army was surrounded and its effectiveness neutralized, that Robert E. Lee finally surrendered to Grant. It wasn't because they occupied places, but because he had smashed the Confederate army into submission.
Grant was not perfect, but he was effective, and in the words of Abraham Lincoln, "He fights." He was not prideful, instead humbly learning from his mistakes and rising above them. He wasn't one to wear an officer's dress uniform, but instead wore a standard Union soldier uniform that was said to typically be muddy from Grant being out in the field with his troops. He understood that effective leaders lead from in front, as an example. They inspire men to follow not by words, but by action. He may not have won the war by himself, but Grant certainly contributed a large part in preserving the Union, and in so doing provided an excellent leadership example that we can still learn from today.
No comments:
Post a Comment