Grant vs Mcclellan Comare and Contrast

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

When the civil war started George B. McClellan was in great demand to command state militia because of his experience of railroads and knowledge of big war science. The governors of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York pursued him to command their state militia but the governor that pursued him the most was Ohio governor William Dennison. He was then commissioned to major general of volunteers to lead the militia.

Leadership Essay There were many qualities for leaders in the American civil war for both the union and the confederacy, and they had both successes and failures during the course of the American civil war which had two amazing leaders being Ulysses S. Grant from the union and George McClellan from the confederacy who both showed successes and failures during the American civil war. Ulysses S. Grant had successes as a leader in the union during the course of the American civil war. One of the best and most important successes Ulysses S. Grant had in the American civil was having the union win the American civil war while he was one of the leaders in the union. “Vicksburg marked both Grant's greatest achievement thus far and a moral boost for

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.

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.

The bloodiest war in American history, led by Abraham Lincoln for the north, and Jefferson Davis for the south, both presidents, but two different sides. Both garner for peace, yet one is willing to start a war, while the other is willing to accept it. This essay will compare and contrast the political, economical, and social outlooks on Lincoln’s and Davis’ Inaugural addresses throughout the civil war between the North and South. Slavery, laws, and state rights drove the South to start a war, and Lincoln received the war with open arms. Both sides wanted peace, but their means of achieving it and their leaders’ choices and beliefs differed greatly while still holding similarities.

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

In his book written several years after the war, McClellan’s remarks on Burnside clearly depict his disdain for the subordinate General, “I think that his weak mind was turned; that he was confused in action; and that subsequently he did not know what had occurred, and was talked by his staff into any belief they chose” (McClellan, G. B. 1887). Instead of fostering mutual trust and respect, he provided unclear and biased guidance to his subordinate leaders resulting in confusion, angst, and eventually he lost control of the battle around mid-day.

The Civil War that took place in the United States from 1861 to 1865 could have easily swung either way at several points during the conflict. There is however several reasons that the North would emerge victorious from this bloody war that pit brother against brother. Some of the main contributing factors are superior industrial capabilities, more efficient logistical support, greater naval power, and a largely lopsided population in favor of the Union. Also one of the advantages the Union had was that of an experienced government, an advantage that very well might have been one of the greatest contributing factors to their success. There are many reasons factors that lead to the North's victory, and each of these elements in and

Hurrying was not a trait that McClellan was known for. McClellan took his time and began to draw out on paper how this battle would be won. He then began moving troops around, combining armies from all regions. As McClellan was doing this President Lincoln became inpatient and ordered McClellan to move.

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 James McPherson presents Lincoln as having numerous qualities that defined him as a brilliant leader, he wastes no time in revealing what he believes to be Lincoln’s greatest strength. In his Introduction, McPherson states regarding Lincoln’s political leadership: “In a civil war whose origins lay in a political conflict over the future of slavery and a political decision by certain states to secede, policy could never be separated from national strategy…. And neither policy nor national strategy could be separated from military strategy” (McPherson, p.6). Lincoln could not approach the war from a purely martial standpoint—instead, he needed to focus on the issues that caused it. For the catalyst of the war was also the tool for its solution; a war started by differing ideologies could only be resolved through the military application of ideology. This non-objective approach to the waging of the war almost resembles the inspired approach McPherson brings to his examination of Lincoln himself.

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

Ulysses Grant and Robert Lee were vital to the United States during the Civil War. Their meeting in a small parlor in Virginia, where they wrote out and signed the terms of the end of the war, brought the war to its near finish. In the article “Grant and Lee: A Study in Contrasts”, author Bruce Catton analyzes the similarities and differences between these leaders’ points of view and qualities. Thus, author, Bruce Catton compares Grant and Lee to demonstrate that all successful people have the same underlying qualities shown through their tenacity and fidelity, while also contrasting them to demonstrate that there are different paths of success, shown through their different backgrounds.

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