Thomas F. (hardtack) -
Helpful Score: 1
As a student of the Civil War for over 60 years, I am an admirer of Ulysses Grant, despite some of his faults. I looked forward to reading this book, as I've read both volumes of the "Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant" this book was based on, as well as numerous other books about Grant. But I was disappointed. Numerous Civil War historians regard those memoirs as the finest to emerge from the Civil War. However, this book on business leadership principles falls way short of that standard.
I felt the author wanted to write a book on business principles and---because there are already so many books written on that topic---decided to tie it together with some book about a famous person to help its sales. As such, he made Grant's writing support whatever business principle he thought would fit. And he did this without real knowledge of Grant's personality or the Civil War. Like so many other authors writing about a subject they know little of, he didn't have a knowledgeable historian review it.
Here are just a few examples from the book....
Page 112: The author writes, "During the Winter of 1863, Grant's Vicksburg campaign was at a standstill." Well, it was. And that's because Vicksburg surrendered to Union forces on July 4, 1863, about six months before the Winter of 1863.
Page 230: The author states Grant promoted gravely wounded Colonel Chamberlain to "brigadier-generalcy" in June 1864. Well, by that time Chamberlain was already a brigadier general. Grant actually promoted him to major general because he was convinced Chamberlain was dying. And, quite frankly, I've never read the word "generalcy" in any military book I've ever read, and I've read hundreds.
Page 254: On this page the author claims Grant probably deserves "...some, maybe all, of the credit..." for Sherman's "March to the Sea" campaign. The truth is Sherman deserves all the credit, as once he told Grant what he wanted to do, he had to argue against Grant's concerns it would be a mistake.
Page 258: The author argues Grant accepted criticism. Well, not always. Grant held grudges and often ignored the achievements of people who he felt had harmed him in some way, even if they later helped him win battles, if only by not mentioning them in his memoirs. Another example is when a very good friend of his, General Wilson, later told Grant that many of Grant's political appointees during Grant's presidency were corrupt, Grant never spoke to Wilson again.
Page 262: The author says Grant was disappointed General Thomas didn't vigorously pursue a Confederate army after its defeat at Nashville. And so Grant took many of Thomas's troops away from him. The true story is Thomas's Army of the Cumberland so crippled The Confederate Army of Tennessee that it had no offensive ability left. It actually withdrew to an area where it was isolated from the war. So why pursue it? Plus, the winter weather was such that offensive operations at that time would be crippled. Thomas actually held off his attack on the Confederate army for almost a week as the ground was covered with ice and horses and men couldn't even walk in it. Once Thomas essentially destroyed the Confederate Army of Tennessee, Grant used that opportunity to take some of Thomas' troops and move them to other areas beyond Thomas' authority, but where they were needed. That's what good senior commanders do, and Thomas, because he was also a good commander, understood why some units under his command were sent elsewhere. But Grant didn't do this because he was annoyed with Thomas.
Page 272: The author states Grant supported General Sheridan's decision to remove General Warren from command. This is a good indication of Grant "covering his ass." Sheridan removed Warren from command due to Sheridan's own egotism. He wanted Warren's troops someplace and they weren't there when he wanted them. Sheridan didn't take the time to discover that Warren was in the middle of a battle when Sheridan ordered him elsewhere. Withdrawing from an active fight in good order is the most difficult military operation there is. To ensure its success, General Warren stayed at the rear of the withdrawal, as that was where the fighting was. Sheridan accused Warren of being in the rear for reason of cowardice. This all came out later, and proved Warren was in the right. But because Grant was president for eight years after President Johnson, Grant held up the military board reviewing Warren's case. It was only after Grant was no longer president that the review board met and exonerated Warren. This was definitely not one of Grant's best "business" decisions.
Finally, on many pages, the author's quotes from Grant's Memoirs don't seem to really have any relation to the "leadership points" the author is trying to make. He's just stretching it. There are better leadership books out there to read.
I felt the author wanted to write a book on business principles and---because there are already so many books written on that topic---decided to tie it together with some book about a famous person to help its sales. As such, he made Grant's writing support whatever business principle he thought would fit. And he did this without real knowledge of Grant's personality or the Civil War. Like so many other authors writing about a subject they know little of, he didn't have a knowledgeable historian review it.
Here are just a few examples from the book....
Page 112: The author writes, "During the Winter of 1863, Grant's Vicksburg campaign was at a standstill." Well, it was. And that's because Vicksburg surrendered to Union forces on July 4, 1863, about six months before the Winter of 1863.
Page 230: The author states Grant promoted gravely wounded Colonel Chamberlain to "brigadier-generalcy" in June 1864. Well, by that time Chamberlain was already a brigadier general. Grant actually promoted him to major general because he was convinced Chamberlain was dying. And, quite frankly, I've never read the word "generalcy" in any military book I've ever read, and I've read hundreds.
Page 254: On this page the author claims Grant probably deserves "...some, maybe all, of the credit..." for Sherman's "March to the Sea" campaign. The truth is Sherman deserves all the credit, as once he told Grant what he wanted to do, he had to argue against Grant's concerns it would be a mistake.
Page 258: The author argues Grant accepted criticism. Well, not always. Grant held grudges and often ignored the achievements of people who he felt had harmed him in some way, even if they later helped him win battles, if only by not mentioning them in his memoirs. Another example is when a very good friend of his, General Wilson, later told Grant that many of Grant's political appointees during Grant's presidency were corrupt, Grant never spoke to Wilson again.
Page 262: The author says Grant was disappointed General Thomas didn't vigorously pursue a Confederate army after its defeat at Nashville. And so Grant took many of Thomas's troops away from him. The true story is Thomas's Army of the Cumberland so crippled The Confederate Army of Tennessee that it had no offensive ability left. It actually withdrew to an area where it was isolated from the war. So why pursue it? Plus, the winter weather was such that offensive operations at that time would be crippled. Thomas actually held off his attack on the Confederate army for almost a week as the ground was covered with ice and horses and men couldn't even walk in it. Once Thomas essentially destroyed the Confederate Army of Tennessee, Grant used that opportunity to take some of Thomas' troops and move them to other areas beyond Thomas' authority, but where they were needed. That's what good senior commanders do, and Thomas, because he was also a good commander, understood why some units under his command were sent elsewhere. But Grant didn't do this because he was annoyed with Thomas.
Page 272: The author states Grant supported General Sheridan's decision to remove General Warren from command. This is a good indication of Grant "covering his ass." Sheridan removed Warren from command due to Sheridan's own egotism. He wanted Warren's troops someplace and they weren't there when he wanted them. Sheridan didn't take the time to discover that Warren was in the middle of a battle when Sheridan ordered him elsewhere. Withdrawing from an active fight in good order is the most difficult military operation there is. To ensure its success, General Warren stayed at the rear of the withdrawal, as that was where the fighting was. Sheridan accused Warren of being in the rear for reason of cowardice. This all came out later, and proved Warren was in the right. But because Grant was president for eight years after President Johnson, Grant held up the military board reviewing Warren's case. It was only after Grant was no longer president that the review board met and exonerated Warren. This was definitely not one of Grant's best "business" decisions.
Finally, on many pages, the author's quotes from Grant's Memoirs don't seem to really have any relation to the "leadership points" the author is trying to make. He's just stretching it. There are better leadership books out there to read.
