As the United States became divided through civil war in 1861, the Union was in need of a military leader who could carry their Army to victory over the resolute troops of the Confederacy. These demands were met with the unmatched leadership tactics of Commanding Union Army General, Ulysses S. Grant. Grant consistently displayed the values and image of a true military leader. These leadership qualities were displayed both on the battlefield, as Grant commanded Union troops to victory in the American Civil War, and while he served as the 18th President of the United States. Grant was a knowledgeable and skilled military leader, graduating from West Point in 1843 and continuing on to serve in the military until 1854. However, Grant’s military leadership is most clearly characterized through three distinct leadership traits other than his military competence: Firstly, Ulysses S. Grant was determined. Despite how diverse or intimidating the battle or political allegations during his Presidential scandals, Grant did not back down; secondly, Grant was inspirational, and was able to both inspire his men during battle and increase morale of the northern citizens through decisive Union victories; Lastly, Ulysses S. Grant was morally courageous both on and off the battlefield as he made ethical decisions in dealing with the terms of surrender and reconstruction of the South as well as openly supporting and focusing his efforts on emancipation. By possessing these leadership traits, Ulysses S. Grant served as one of the most influential and important military leaders in U.S. history.
The first leadership trait that made Ulysses S. Grant such an outstanding leader was his determination. Grant once said, “The art of war is simple en...
... middle of paper ...
...ficult goals, Grant was able to inspire his troops. Although Grant signed the terms of surrender for Robert E. Lee, he did not take advantage of or humiliate Confederate troops through anger. Through professionalism and ethical standards, the Confederate troops surrendered and kept their dignity as they were granted American citizenship. Lastly, Grant made his vision clear to the American people during his presidency, and did not change his intentions to appeal to one specific group. This vision did bring about opposition from southern states. However, Grant continued to support the rights of minority groups and did what he felt was right for the American people, and not his personal gain. Overall, Ulysses S. Grant served as a military leader concerned with achieving high goals through his excellent inspiration techniques and dedication to achieve the task at hand.
General Lee said, to be a good soldier you must love the army, to be a good general you must be prepared to order the death of the thing you love, and therein lies the great trap of soldiering. When you attack you must hold nothing back." Thomas J. Jackson was both a good soldier and a good general. In the Mexican War he fought with all his heart for his country. When the Civil War came, he was a general. He never hesitated to send his men forward. He held nothing back. George McClellan also fought with all his heart for his country in the Mexican War. When the time came to send his men forward in the Civil War, he couldn’t do it. He loved the army to much to order its death.
...didn’t over step his authority or attempt to subvert the army for his own purposes. Instead, George Washington sets the example of the military commander who was subservient to civilian political leadership. He also showed patience and coolness in the face of adversity. On many occasions in the book, the author cites Washington’s expressions of doubt and fears of failure, yet Washington never showed fear or doubt in action in front of his troops.
Lee had supreme confidence in his army, and believed that it could accomplish whatever he asked of it. This confidence sometimes led him to ask too much, such as in the case of Picket’s charge during the battle of Gettysburg. In Lee’s mind he was first and foremost a Christian, and a gentleman. These facts, although not bad, certainly caused Lee to be less aggressive, and to fight the war in a very old-fashioned manner. This was not so with Grant, who seemed to believe in a more modern type of total warfare. Perhaps because this war, as many contend, was the first modern war, it was impossible for the South, and it’s leaders to adapt to the situation.
Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America, showed weaknesses within his leadership which may have contributed to the confederacy’s loss and the unions win . Davis failed in three vital ways. These ways were: his relations with other confederate authorities and with the people, as well as in his fundamental concept of his job as president and in his organization and specific handling of his role as commander in chief . Davis failed in maintaining communication with leaders and with his people, often unable to admit when he is wrong which led to lack organization in his role . In addition, Davis was a conservative leader, not a revolutionary one which meant that his strength was often in protocol and convention rather than in innovation . Studying each of these aspects that represented a weakness in Jefferson Davis’s leadership, Lincoln in comparison provided more admirable and outstanding qualities within his leadership which in many ways affected the outcome of the war
Union officer William Tecumseh Sherman observed to a Southern friend that, "In all history, no nation of mere agriculturists ever made successful war against a nation of mechanics. . . .You are bound to fail." While Sherman's statement proved to be correct, its flaw is in its assumption of a decided victory for the North and failure to account for the long years of difficult fighting it took the Union to secure victory. Unquestionably, the war was won and lost on the battlefield, but there were many factors that swayed the war effort in favor of the North and impeded the South's ability to stage a successful campaign.
The Union Army was able to match the intensity of the Confederacy, with the similar practice of dedication until death and patriotism, but for different reasons. The Union soldiers’s lifestyles and families did not surround the war to the extent of the Confederates; yet, their heritage and prosperity relied heavily on it. Union soldiers had to save what their ancestors fought for, democracy. “Our (Union soldiers) Fathers made this country, we, their children are to save it” (McPherson, 29). These soldiers understood that a depleted group of countries rather than one unified one could not flourish; “it is essential that but one Government shall exercise authority from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific” (Ledger, 1861).
A military genius, Grant possessed the vision to see that modern warfare requires total application of military and economic strength and was thus able to lead the Union to victory. In civilian life, however, he was unable to provide the leadership necessary for a growing industrial nation, even though he always retained the affection of the American public.
A successful army requires discipline, but Confederate soldiers refused to concede authority to anyone they did not vote for, at least in the beginning. Confederate soldiers were also prone to shirking duties they deemed menial, and some even left the army without dismissal if they believed they had served long enough. In the uppermost chain of political command, Jefferson Davis proved deficient in quelling the media outlets which railed against his decisions at nearly every turn. Davis gave deference to the right of free speech no matter how damaging it was. Donald then uses these points to highlight the Union Army and Lincoln administration’s successes. The North had the advantage of numerous immigrant conscripts who were used to being ordered around, so the pecking order was easily established from the beginning. In the political realm, Abraham Lincoln did not let Constitutional rights obstruct his goals; Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and threw defamatory journalists into prison. The Union thus had the unity it needed to achieve victory in the face of the South’s
Grant has an illustrious past. People talked about his being a drunkard but Catton says “He was simply a man infinitely more complex then most people could realize.” Grant, even though he was a West Point graduate, never wanted to be a soldier or to have a life in the military. He wanted to be a teacher. What Grant did bring to the Army of the Potomac was his ability to relate to the soldiers and made them his army. He completely retrained and re-organized the armies, and re-enlisted troops that were going to go home. They all realized that under Grant the Army of the Potomac changed which meant now that the entire war would change.
After the second Battle of Manassas, the Army of the Potomac was demoralized and President Lincoln needed someone that could reorganize it. President Lincoln liked General McClellan personally and admired his strengths as an administrator, organizer, and drillmaster. Lincoln was aware that the soldiers loved General McClellan and had nicknamed him “Little Mac.” Knowing this, President Lincoln ordered General McClellan to “assume command of Washington, its defenses and all forces in the immediate vicinity.”1 This was not a field command but intended for General McClellan to take the returning demoralized Army and the new soldiers coming into Washington and make them a fighting force, nothing more. Lincoln knew as well that although Ge...
Jefferson Davis struggled to lead the Confederacy to independence in the U.S. Civil War. Lincoln was treasured by the African Americans and was considered an earthly incarnation of the Savior of mankind (DeGregorio 20-25). On the other hand, Davis was both admired and hated. Lincoln had a different view of how the The U.S. should be abolishing slavery. Davis was a politician, president of the Confederate States of America, and also a successful planter.
nation of mechanics…You are bound to fail.” Union officer William Tecumseh Sherman to a Southern friend.
...rned the essential plans that a leader would need to lead him troops. He also had the morale and spirits to keep the troops ready to fight for the freedom they wanted, as well as his ability to command such troops in placement and tactics.
It is widely known that Abraham Lincoln, since his childhood, was never a fan of the south. Additionally, his father was a devout Christian, which played a major role in the development of Lincoln’s moral and ethical beliefs, which manifested themselves more so later on his life and would play a major part in Lincoln’s agenda during the Civil War. The idea that Lincoln may or may not have overstepped his powers during the process of preserving the unity of the United States will be looked at closely in the following paragraphs. This critical analysis will look at various sources with differing views in order to establish a solid conclusion as to why Lincoln was justified in the actions he took as President during the Civil War.
Grant remained a child at heart throughout his life, and seems never to have realized that he was one. His faith in the goodness of humanity was unbounded, and he was taken advantage of. His simplicity of nature was remarkable, yet this simplicity was the mainspring of his success; certainly it was the first asset of his generalship. While McClellan could see nothing beyond his own operations and Halleck nothing outside of his textbooks, Grant saw things as they were, uncontaminated by his ideas or anyone elses. He saw that the entire problem of winning the civil war was nothing more than an equation between pressure and resistance. The side which pressed the hardest along the lines of least resistance was going to win.