Customer Reviews

The Generalship Of Ulysses S. Grant (Da Capo Paperback)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The paucity of source material utilized by General Fuller is more than offset by the lucidity of his commentary, and his keen insight into the military mind and psyche. Grant, the man, appears to have been a hobby of Fuller's, and while there are better analyses of the details of Grant's campaigns and battles, the reader leaves this book with a sense of knowing and understanding Grant, and believing that Grant's personality was the critical factor in the Union's 1864-1865 Virginia compaigns. The assessment of U.S. Grant is Fuller's personal assessment, nevertheless, when this reader finished the book he hoped Fuller was right. Essential Civil War reading. There's also some interesting commentary on the theory of military strategy and tactics.

I find this book to be the best detailed analysis of the generalship of U. S. Grant available. Written by one of the most outstanding military writers in the world, it presents a thought provoking and convincing picture of one of our greatest generals. It pictures General Grant as one of the greatest strategists of all times and gives many convincing arguments to back up the claim.

The book covers other aspects of his csreer and comments on his capabilities and shortcomings. It is not completely lauditory, as it points out his many failures as a tactician as well as other shotcomings. Substantiation and analysis of his actions make for a very convincing account. It is especially effective when read in conjunction with his memoirs.

I highly recommend it.

An earlier reviewer commented on the paucity of General Fuller's source material. In May of 1929, Fuller wrote this passage (in all the orotund glory of its semi-colons) in his preface: "Here, then, is the gist of this book--to write living history as well as truthful history--a difficult task; for in my opinion all history has been diluted with about seventy-five per cent. of falsehood; and more especially official history, which is normally meticulously accurate in fact and utterly false in spirit.... In order to decipher [Grant's] generalship I have relied on three sources: the official records--the bones of my subject; the personal memoirs and various historical works--the muscles; and my own intuitions and deductions which I may liken to the nerves. This latter source may be very defective; yet I feel not more so than the other two."

This famous book was written by one of the relatively few critics with real (as opposed to armchair) high-level military knowledge and experience. Both were gained, moreover, on battlefields bearing closer resemblance to those of Grant than anything seen since. For what it's worth, General Fuller remains the highest ranking non-participant military man ever to write at length on the American Civil War (which in Fuller's day was still officially and legally designated by Damnyankees, at least, as "The War of the Rebellion." My unreconstructed Confederate ancestors, naturally, had other ideas.)

Fuller's book had a profound effect in Europe. Until its publication, accepted European military opinion held that the U.S. Civil War was no more than a series of military riots conducted by armed mobs. After this book and its analysis of the brilliant campaign that led to the capture of Vicksburg and of the multi-pronged assault that withered and then destroyed the Confederate States of America, the unassuming, unimpressive-looking Grant emerged as one of the great captains of history.

A few--a very few--new details have been unearthed in the seventy-six years since General Fuller handed his manuscript over to his publishers, but no large-scale analysis of Grant as a soldier and commander has surpassed this one.

J.F.C. Fuller, the author of "The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant", rose to the rank of Major General in the British Army as a veteran of the Boer War and First World War. He was best known as a prolific writer on military theory and history. He brought to the study of General Grant a rare combination of both military and historical expertise.

"The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant" has two thematic arcs. One is Fuller's retelling of the Civil War, with obvious emphasis on U.S. Grant. Fuller published the first edition of this book in 1929; his perspective on the American Civil War was heavily influenced by his experiences in the First World War. His narrative is certainly adequate but not especially compelling.

His second theme is the steadily improving generalship of Grant himself over the course of the war. Fuller, like many historians, wrestles mightily with the idea of Grant's dramatic rise from 1861 leather tanner to 1864 General of the Union armies. In so doing, he comes as close as anyone to explaining the enigma of U.S. Grant, a man who was a failure in civilian life but undoubtedly a master of war. Grant is revealed by Fuller as a man of outstanding common sense, with the ability to see his circumstances without illusion, to act with the tools at hand, and to learn from his own mistakes. The portions of the book in which Fuller examines Grant's generalship are easily worth the reading of the whole.

"The Generalship of Ulysses S. Grant" is very highly recommended as a still very insightful study of Grant as commander.