The Battle of Cold Harbor

Mission command belongs to the Army’s list of seven war fighting functions. While the other six of the Army’s war fighting functions specifically align to the application of combat power, mission command applies to leadership and its application. Mission command redefines the old construct of C2, command and control, by morphing the ideology into two distinct thoughts, the art of command and the science of control. Although mission command is a relatively new concept, it’s principles and application transcend time. This paper examines General Robert E. Lee’s application of the mission command principles at the Battle of Gettysburg.

"When New Orleans fell in the spring of 1862, the triumvirate Vicksburg, Grand Gulf and Port Hudson was destined to become the last obstacle to the total Federal control of the Mississippi." Abraham Lincoln thought Vicksburg was 'the key,' so Vicksburg was the focal point of Union strategy. Obviously, Vicksburg was one of the most important objectives of the Union army. General Ulysses S. Grant was placed in charge of the Vicksburg campaign. He was an exceptional strategist and arguably one of the best generals this country has ever seen.

Lee and Grant would both serve under General Winfield Scott, a man whom they both admired, during his campaign to Mexico City. General Scott saw greatness in Lee and stated his “…success in Mexico was largely due to the skill, valor, and undaunted energy of Robert E. Lee.”15 Scott was also heard commenting a few years later that; “Lee is the greatest military genius in America.”16 Grant, only a first lieutenant, did not get an opportunity to show much leadership. Grant did however serve with valor. At the Battle of Monterey, Grant would gain some respect among his peers by successfully carrying much needed ammunition to his regiment while under fire.17 During the Civil War, Lee and Grant would implement skills learned while under the command of General Winfield Scott.

Cold Harbor was considered General Lees last major field victory of the war. This battle is lasting to us today because of the devastation that happened over only 12 days of battle.

Grants skilled and well planned military success in the West boosted his proud reputation, leading ultimately to his appointment as the new and better General - In - Chief of the Union. When Grant’s army captured the mighty Mississippi we were able to cut the supply lines,

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

It was General Bragg’s lack of confidence, previous performances, and relationships with his subordinate commanders that ultimately caused the battle plan to not be executed correctly. Bragg was unable to successfully implement the first principle of mission command: build cohesive teams through mutual trust. He also had a history of not utilizing the sixth principle of mission command: take prudent risk. Bragg’s lack of competence regarding these two mission command principles ultimately set conditions for a poor mission command climate within General Bragg’s unit. Bragg’s sub-commanders, Generals Hindman, Buckner, Polk, Longstreet, and Hill were all skeptical of Bragg’s leadership and battle plans from his previous campaign at Chattanooga, where he retreated from the city. Bragg was well known for retreating at the first Battle of Chattanooga, and also for predictably employing frontal assault offensive tactics. His history of predictable plans, retreats, and inability to take prudent risk, caused his subordinate leaders to lose trust in his ability to plan and lead his army. One of Bragg’s sub-commanders, General Hill, stated

commander, Grant, had to take a lot of criticism. Grant wanted to withdraw from the army, but Sherman persuaded him to stay.

Civil War historians view the Battle of Chancellorsville as General Robert E. Lee’s “greatest and most remarkable” victory (Sears 1). Lee, facing an army twice his size, defies all military doctrine and divides his army multiple times in order to out-maneuver and surprise the Union forces. The daring maneuver succeeds and ultimately forces the Union’s Army of the Potomac to retreat. The victory was another major blow to Union troops, but it came at a huge cost to the Confederacy: the loss of General Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson. By evaluating the battle through the lens of the mission command activities, one can see how Lee’s daring maneuver was actually very calculated and his only option for victory. Throughout the rest of this paper, I will describe the timeline of the battle and how General Lee used the mission command activities of understand, visualize, assess, and lead to ultimately achieve victory at Chancellorsville.

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.

General Washington 's adherence to mission command principles promoted the environment needed to win. Senior allied partners deferred decision making to Washington based on trust and collaborative input. Effective communications encouraged subordinate commanders to propose constructive alternatives aimed at streamlining action. The Siege of Yorktown embodied the approach effectiveness. Admiral Lafayette’s decision to avoid a major naval battle in Chesapeake Bay demonstrated this. Lafayette’s understood Washington’s intent, and the established trust ensured vital Colonial waterway supremacy. This decisive act ensured Lord Cornwallis’ entrapment throughout the siege. (COL Jerry A. Turner, 2015)

As commanders understand the operational environment and the problem, they can begin visualizing the desired end state and solutions to solving the problem.6 After noticing that Confederate artillery fire had slackened, COL Chamberlain’s experience told him that Confederate troops were coming and quickly began to envision an operational approach that would achieve his desired end state to hold his position on the far left of Little Round Top. Through his critical and creative thinking, COL Chamberlain showed a skill common within good tactical leaders. He mentally visualized possible countermoves against imagined threats to his unit. While analyzing the terrain he could see that the 83rd Pennsylvania was forming on his right but there was nothing at all on his left. COL Chamberlain could see a dark bulk of a larger hill to the left of his men and determined that if the Confederates got an artillery battery on its crest the Confederates could take Little Round Top and subsequently drive off the Union Army. Visualizing how this could affect his desired end state, COL Chamberlain decided that he would send a company to the 20th Maine’s

As for Ulysses Grant he was in charge of the Union army during the Civil War. He would lead the war from

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