THE FALL OF ATLANTA 2 SEPTEMBER 1864 – PART FOUR Lincoln had not been fortunate in his generals-in-chief (commanders-in-chief). Winfield Scott, while a sound strategist, was too old and too infirm to command in war. McClellan, ‘the Young Napoleon’ appointed with much flourish and hope, turned out to be incompetent; his successor, Halleck, had a reputation as a great intellect and as the author of military texts, although in fact he had done little but translate French and German works. He was far too cautious as a field commander and early on lost the confidence of his subordinate generals. At last, Lincoln in 1864 settled on Ulysses S Grant as general-in-chief, partly because of Vicksburg but also largely because, unlike the other field commanders, Grant carried on campaigning without constantly asking for reinforcements. Born in 1822, Grant graduated from West Point in 1843 and did well in the Mexican American War (1846-48) but as a captain in 1854 resigned rather than be cashiered for drunkenness. A period of extreme poverty as an unsuccessful businessman followed, but at the outbreak of war in 1861 he re-joined and was promoted colonel (against McClellan’s advice). A brigadier general from February 1862 and a major general from April, after his success as an army commander at Vicksburg in July 1862 he was placed in command of all forces in the Western Theatre. On appointment as general-in-chief in 1864 he was promoted to lieutenant general, the only one in the Union forces. Accusations of drunkenness pursued him throughout his career but while he did drink heavily there is no evidence that he was ever incapable of performing his duty. Halleck was re-assigned as chief of staff, for which he was far more suited, and he did a competent job in managing recruitment and supply.
THE FALL OF ATLANTA 2 SEPTEMBER 1864 - PART FOUR
THE FALL OF ATLANTA 2 SEPTEMBER 1864 - PART…
THE FALL OF ATLANTA 2 SEPTEMBER 1864 - PART FOUR
THE FALL OF ATLANTA 2 SEPTEMBER 1864 – PART FOUR Lincoln had not been fortunate in his generals-in-chief (commanders-in-chief). Winfield Scott, while a sound strategist, was too old and too infirm to command in war. McClellan, ‘the Young Napoleon’ appointed with much flourish and hope, turned out to be incompetent; his successor, Halleck, had a reputation as a great intellect and as the author of military texts, although in fact he had done little but translate French and German works. He was far too cautious as a field commander and early on lost the confidence of his subordinate generals. At last, Lincoln in 1864 settled on Ulysses S Grant as general-in-chief, partly because of Vicksburg but also largely because, unlike the other field commanders, Grant carried on campaigning without constantly asking for reinforcements. Born in 1822, Grant graduated from West Point in 1843 and did well in the Mexican American War (1846-48) but as a captain in 1854 resigned rather than be cashiered for drunkenness. A period of extreme poverty as an unsuccessful businessman followed, but at the outbreak of war in 1861 he re-joined and was promoted colonel (against McClellan’s advice). A brigadier general from February 1862 and a major general from April, after his success as an army commander at Vicksburg in July 1862 he was placed in command of all forces in the Western Theatre. On appointment as general-in-chief in 1864 he was promoted to lieutenant general, the only one in the Union forces. Accusations of drunkenness pursued him throughout his career but while he did drink heavily there is no evidence that he was ever incapable of performing his duty. Halleck was re-assigned as chief of staff, for which he was far more suited, and he did a competent job in managing recruitment and supply.