General Sheridan Leadership Analysis

Jefferson Davis was undoubtedly an important figure in the Confederacy. Davis was placed in charge of nation that had very few soldiers, little industrialization, and a lack of unity. Many historians blame the defeat of the South on Davis for being a “hot-tempered micromanager”. After the war, Davis was made into a scapegoat; a symbol of treason and racism. Who was Jefferson Davis as a person, solider, statesmen, and leader? A focus on Davis’ life, leadership skills, speeches, and actions before, during, and after the war may offer evidence to show who Jefferson Davis truly was. Also, it is crucial to take into account circumstances that affected Davis and his decision making before, during, and after the

During the American Civil War, leadership within the Union’s army was constantly an issue. Within the Union, various generals were found at times to be at odds with the political leaders in Washington. This was especially evident in the relationship between General George McClellan and President Lincoln. This tension was the result of McClellan’s approach to waging war. By examining the differing approaches to waging war of U.S. Grant and George B. McClellan one can gain a better appreciation for the decision making that was necessary by leaders like Lincoln, in selecting military

Williams shows that Lincoln's patience does wear thin when there are no early victories and the lack of aggressiveness on the Union side. Williams shows a gradual transformation on Lincoln's selection process. Initially each general was selected on characteristics such as battle experience and political backing. As the enemy holds out and there is inaction, Lincoln starts to doubt the ability of his generals and starts to seek generals who can win without excuses.

Williams shows an interesting side of Lincoln’s patience that wears thin when there are no early victories and from the lack of aggressiveness on the Union side. Williams shows a gradual transformation on Lincoln’s selection process. Initially each general was selected on characteristics such as battle experience and political backing. As the enemy holds out and there is inaction, Lincoln starts to doubt the ability of his generals and starts to seek generals who can win without excuses.

When we compare the military leaders of both North and South during the Civil War, it is not hard to see what the differences are. One of the first things that stand out is the numerous number of Northern generals that led the “Army of the Potomac.” Whereas the Confederate generals, at least in the “Army of Northern Virginia” were much more stable in their position. Personalities, ambitions and emotions also played a big part in effective they were in the field, as well as their interactions with other officers.

Although his military reputation has declined as well, it nevertheless continues to win him a steady following. Even his most faithful admirers, however, tend to end their studies conveniently at Appomattox, and one senses a wide regret that Grant's public career extended beyond the Civil War. Taking note of this trend, John Y. Simon observes that some biographers

Perhaps the most important factor that led to the Union’s victory at Fort Donelson was the lack of effective leadership on the Confederate side. Of the four general officers present at the fort, only General Buckner had any military experience; a West Point graduate and friend of General Grant. The overall commander, General Floyd, was a political appointee. Prior to the war, he was the Secretary of War under President James Buchanan. The Union, on the other hand, had General Grant. Grant was known for his uncanny approach to war

The Battle of Antietam could have been a devastating and fatal blow to the Confederate Army if Gen. McClellan acted decisively, took calculated risks, and veered away from his cautious approach to war. There are many instances leading up to the battle and during the battle in which he lacks the necessary offensive initiative to effectively cripple and ultimately win the war. This paper is intended to articulate the failure of Mission Command by GEN McClellan by pointing out how he failed to understand, visualize, describe and direct the battlefield to his benefit.

Many times the failures of a nation during war and peace time can be blamed on its leaders, and their failings in their duties. When looking back at history we can see no better example of this than the leader of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, even though he was promising before in military and politics. One example of his military excellence was during the Mexican-American War, where, “Davis became a hero at the battle of Buena Vista… Although seriously wounded, Davis stayed on the field until victory and was complimented…by Zachary Taylor for ‘coolness and gallantry under fire,’" ("Jefferson Davis."). This shows why he would be considered to lead the armies as the President, since he had already shown his excellence in military affairs

In many historian’s eyes, James Ewell Brown Stuart holds the blame for the South’s lack of reconnaissance at the battles in Gettysburg. He did show up two days late to the event, with news that was no longer as pertinent as it was before. But, what if I told you that the fault did not rest with him? I feel that the blame is more widely dispersed. J.E.B. Stuart was a scapegoat for the blame that may have, nay, rightly should have been placed on the infallible General E. Lee or Longstreet. He was the scapegoat because he wasn’t alive to defend himself. The chain of command wasn’t designed in a manner by which all the blame rest on J.E.B Stuart. J.E.B Stuart received conflicting information from both Longstreet and Lee, having to make

In Bruce Catton’s historical essay of “Grant and Lee: A Study in Contrasts”, he focuses on the two generals who led opposing armies during the Civil War. Bruce was a respected journalist and his ascendancy influenced the American Civil War. The backbone of the Confederate forces, better known as Robert E. Lee, led the Army of Northern Virginia. Ulysses S. Grant, who became the commander in chief of the Union troops in 1864, would be the commander who finally ended the war. Despite the differences amongst Grant and Lee, they were both exceptional generals of their own armies.

“It is comparatively simple to select the generals after a display of their military qualities on the battlefield. The difficulty is when we must choose them prior to employment in active operations. . . . The most important factor of all is character, which involves integrity, unselfish and devoted purpose, a sturdiness of bearing when everything goes wrong and all are critical, and a willingness to sacrifice self in the interest of the common good.” – General George C. Marshall, 1944

If a general can be trusted and is part of the team, Soldiers will have more confidence in challenging moments. As all troops believes on a leader’s intent, the collective trust will be stronger within the Soldiers. This was reflected when BG Gavin’s Soldiers did not like the idea of withdrawing from the

The reason for writing this book from McPherson’s point of view was because out of all the material out there about President Lincoln the vast majority of it is about other topics besides his role as Commander in Chief. McPherson believes that this is surely unthinkable due to the sheer amount of time and energy Lincoln had to put into being the commander of our army throughout the four long years the Civil War reigned. This book, in the eyes of James McPherson, is a long overdue explanation of Lincoln in his main role as Commander in Chief. He tells of numerous occasions when Lincoln must make important decisions that could make or break the union army. These

During the times of Civil War, there were many Commanding Generals that came along. But two stand out amongst all, Ulysses S. Grant of United States of America and Robert E. Lee of Confederate States of America. Both men had formally fought, not along side of each other, in the Mexican-American War. At one point Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant worked together in the Mexican-American War. They both gained a war time experience, Grant as a quartermaster and Lee as an engineer who positioned troops and artillery during their participation in the Scott’s march from the coastal town of Vera Cruz to Mexico City. Both men were vastly different with different styles and background who not only won the affection of their men but respect of