DOCSLIB.ORG

Ulysses S. Grant Born April 27, 1822 Point Pleasant, Ohio Died July 23, 1885 Mount Mcgregor, New York

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ulysses S. Grant Born April 27, 1822 Point Pleasant, Ohio Died July 23, 1885 Mount Mcgregor, New York Civil War Bios- Vol. 1 10/7/03 4:17 PM Page 159 Ulysses S. Grant Born April 27, 1822 Point Pleasant, Ohio Died July 23, 1885 Mount McGregor, New York Union general who captured Vicksburg and defeated Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, ending the Civil War Eighteenth president of the United States lysses S. Grant was one of the greatest—and most un- “I have but one Ulikely—military commanders in American history. Prior sentiment now. We have to the Civil War, he struggled to provide for his family, first a government and laws as a soldier and then as a businessman. But when the war and a flag and they must began, he quickly showed that he was one of the North’s be sustained. There are top military leaders. During the first two years of the con- flict, his victories at Fort Donelson, Vicksburg, and Chat- but two parties now: tanooga helped the Union seize control of the Confedera- traitors and patriots.” cy’s western states. Grant then moved to the war’s eastern theater (a large geographic area in which military operations take place), where he was given command of all the Union armies. Begin- ning in the spring of 1864, he brought the full power of the Union forces against the South. Grant’s merciless use of sus- tained pressure against the weary armies and citizens of the Confederacy eventually forced the South to surrender in 1865. Four years later, Grant became president of the United States. But the North’s greatest military hero never really learned how to be a good political leader, and his two terms Ulysses S. Grant. (Courtesy of in the White House were marked by scandal. Colonial Press.) 159 Civil War Bios- Vol. 1 10/7/03 4:17 PM Page 160 Humble beginnings Ulysses S. Grant was born on April 27, 1822, in Point Pleasant, Ohio. His parents were Hannah Simpson Grant and Jesse Root Grant, who supported his family as a tanner (a converter of animal hides into leather) and farmer. Named Hiram Ulysses by his parents, Grant was a quiet and sensitive child. As a youngster he labored in his father’s tannery for a time, but he disliked the tedious work of tanning hides and his father’s constant criticism. He later received permission to work on the family’s small farm, where he developed a deep love for horses. When Grant was seventeen, his father pushed him to apply for admittance into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, America’s leading military academy. Grant dutifully took the school’s entrance exam and was surprised when he learned that he had passed. He entered the academy a few months later, only to discover that the school had erroneous- ly listed his name as Ulysses Simpson Grant rather than Hiram Ulysses Grant. He tried to have his name corrected, but when his initial efforts failed, he simply accepted his new name and used it for the rest of his life. Early life in the military Grant’s years at West Point passed quietly. Nicknamed “Sam” by his friends, Grant posted grades that were accept- able but unremarkable. In fact, the only subjects for which he showed any enthusiasm at all were watercolor painting and horsemanship. “A military life held no charms for me,” he later admitted. Despite his lack of enthusiasm for the military, Grant became a soldier after graduating from West Point in 1843. He requested assignment to a federal cavalry unit so that he could work with horses, but was instead placed in the infantry. Grant’s first exposure to war came in 1846, when the United States and neighboring Mexico went to war. The Mex- ican War (1846–48) came about when the United States be- came interested in acquiring significant sections of Mexican territory in order to expand its own land holdings. In 1845, America annexed (added) Texas to the Union and tried to buy California and New Mexico from Mexico. But Mexico regard- 160 American Civil War: Biographies Civil War Bios- Vol. 1 10/7/03 4:17 PM Page 161 ed Texas as part of its own territory, and it refused to give up California and New Mexico. America’s determination to take possession of these lands did not diminish, however, and the two countries ended up going to war over the territories. Grant worked as a regimental quartermaster (a mili- tary officer responsible for providing food, clothing, ammu- nition, and other equipment to troops) during the war, serv- ing under both General Zachary Taylor (1784–1850) and Gen- eral Winfield Scott (1786–1866; see entry). As the war un- folded, Grant became an admirer of the decisive military style favored by these two military leaders. In fact, their example has often been credited as an influence in Grant’s own gener- alship during the Civil War. But while Grant learned some valuable lessons about leading men into combat during the Mexican War, he regard- ed the war itself as a “wicked” one. Grant took part in the war because “I considered my supreme duty was to my flag.” But he and many others believed that America had basically picked a fight with Mexico so that when Mexico struck back against its bullying behavior, the United States could go to war and take the land that it wanted without feeling guilty about it. This conflict ended in 1848, when American military victories forced Mexico to cede (give up its claims on) Texas, California, New Mexico, and other lands in the West in ex- change for $15 million. Everyone knew that the land was worth far more than $15 million, but the Mexican govern- ment had no choice but to accept the deal. Years later, Grant called the Mexican War “one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation.” A long period of struggle In 1848, Grant married Julia Dent, the daughter of a slave-owning Missouri planter. They started a family, and eventually had three sons and a daughter. But military assign- ments along the Pacific coast placed Grant far away from his wife and children for long periods of time, and he proved un- able to raise enough funds so that his family could join him. In the summer of 1854, Grant—a captain at the time—abrupt- Ulysses S. Grant 161 Civil War Bios- Vol. 1 10/7/03 4:17 PM Page 162 ly resigned from the army under somewhat mysterious cir- cumstances. Many historians believe that he left the military because of charges of alcoholism, but unhappiness over his long separation from his family might have been a factor, too. After returning to civilian life in the eastern United States, Grant worked hard to provide for his family. But every career and business scheme that he attempted failed, from bill collecting to real estate. One Christmas, he sold his watch so that he would have a little money to buy presents for his wife and children. As one business venture after another failed, Grant was finally forced to accept a clerk position at an Illinois tannery owned by his father in order to feed his family. The Civil War begins Grant left his father’s tannery in the spring of 1861, when the American Civil War began. The Civil War came about because of long-standing and bitter disagreements be- tween America’s Northern and Southern states over several is- sues. One of these issues was slavery. Many Northerners be- lieved that slavery was wrong and wanted to abolish (com- pletely do away with) it. But the economy of the South had been built on slavery, and Southerners resented Northern ef- forts to halt or contain the practice. The two regions also disagreed about the appropriate balance between state and federal authority. The Northern states favored a strong central government and argued that the Union—the entire country—was more important than any individual state. Southern states, though, supported the concept of states’ rights, which held that people in each state could make their own decisions about slavery and other is- sues. America’s westward expansion during this time made these disputes even worse, since both sides wanted to spread their way of life—and their political ideas—into the new ter- ritories and states. By early 1861, hostilities between the two regions had become so strong that several Southern states voted to secede from (leave) the United States and form a new country that allowed slavery, called the Confederate States of America (eleven Southern states eventually seceded).The U.S. govern- 162 American Civil War: Biographies Civil War Bios- Vol. 1 10/7/03 4:17 PM Page 163 ment declared that the formation of the Confederacy was treasonous (an illegal betrayal of the country) and warned that it was willing to use force to make the Southern states re- turn to the Union. But the South refused to back down, and in the spring of 1861, the two sides finally went to war. Return to military service The Civil War gave Grant a second opportunity to prove himself in the Federal army. But although his choice to rejoin the army was based partly on his desire to revive his military career, he also had a genuine desire to see the Confed- eracy destroyed and the Union restored. “I have but one senti- ment now,” Grant stated at the beginning of the war. “We have a government and laws and a flag and they must be sus- tained.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lincoln and Mcclellan: a Marriage of Convenience Turned Sour
    TCNJ JOURNAL OF STUDENT SCHOLARSHIP VOLUME XVI APRIL, 2014 LINCOLN AND MCCLELLAN: A MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE TURNED SOUR Author: Kevin Caprice Faculty Sponsor: Daniel Crofts, Department of History ABSTRACT AND INTRODUCTION When observing the relationship between President Abraham Lincoln and General George B. McClellan, it is tempting to approach the story as a common one of hero versus villain. As Joseph Harsh explains in his essay on McClellan, the General’s “role in the Unionist scenario is all but predetermined. He is the first and sorriest of the candidates to try the patience of Lincoln.”1 While these anti-McClellan histories were not without basis, they failed to realize that Lincoln was not without fault in this relationship. The relationship between Lincoln and McClellan was indeed a marriage, but it was a marriage of convenience, and sadly for both men they married too young and inexperienced. McClellan was certainly a thorn in Lincoln’s side, but Lincoln did not yet know how properly to handle a general, so rather than walk around the sticker bush, Lincoln dove in headfirst. McClellan and Lincoln were both ill equipped to handle their new positions and both did things to one another that, had they encountered each other later in the war, they may not have done. Sadly for them, their relationship became a casualty of their inexperience. I. AS BACHELORS Abraham Lincoln’s story before meeting McClellan is well documented; briefly, he was born on February 12, 1809, in Kentucky. Lincoln came from poverty, received only one year of formal education, and worked hard for everything he accomplished.
    [Show full text]
  • Eric Frederick Goldman Papers
    Eric Frederick Goldman Papers A Finding Aid to the Collection in the Library of Congress Prepared by Donna Ellis with the assistance of Patricia Craig, Patrick Kerwin, Margaret Martin, and Greg Van Vranken Manuscript Division, Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 2009 Contact information: http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/mss/address.html Finding aid encoded by Library of Congress Manuscript Division, 2009 Finding aid URL: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms009038 Collection Summary Title: Eric Frederick Goldman Papers Span Dates: 1886-1988 Bulk Dates: (bulk 1940-1970) ID No.: MSS80597 Creator: Goldman, Eric Frederick, 1915-1989 Extent: 27,600 items; 91 containers plus 13 oversize; 43 linear feet Language: Collection material in English Repository: Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Abstract: Author, educator, and historian. Correspondence, diaries, newspaper clippings, research materials, scrapbooks, speeches, and writings pertaining to Goldman's career as a historian and consultant to President Lyndon B. Johnson on intellectual matters. Selected Search Terms The following terms have been used to index the description of this collection in the Library's online catalog. They are grouped by name of person or organization, by subject or location, and by occupation and listed alphabetically therein. Personal Names Aaron, Hank, 1934---Correspondence. Acheson, Dean, 1893-1971--Correspondence. Bacall, Lauren, 1924---Correspondence. Beard, Charles Austin, 1874-1948--Correspondence. Black, Hugo LaFayette, 1886-1971--Correspondence. Bonaparte, Charles J. (Charles Joseph), 1851-1921. Buckley, William F. (William Frank), 1925-2008--Correspondence. Busby, Horace W.--Correspondence. Carpenter, Liz--Correspondence. Catton, Bruce, 1899-1978--Correspondence. Commager, Henry Steele, 1902-1998--Correspondence. Curti, Merle Eugene, 1897---Correspondence.
    [Show full text]
  • American Ulysses 166 & 167 by Ronald C
    American Ulysses 166 & 167 By Ronald C. White Reviewed by Robert Schmidt About the Author Ronald C. White is the author of American Ulysses: A Life of Ulysses S. Grant (2016). It won the William Henry Seward Award for Excellence in Civil War Biography awarded by the Civil War Forum of Metropolitan New York. General David H. Petraeus (Ret.) wrote, “Certain to be recognized as the classic work on Ulysses S. Grant.” White is also the author of three books on Abraham Lincoln. A. Lincoln: A Biography [2009], was a New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times bestseller, Lincoln’s Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural and The Eloquent President: A Portrait of Lincoln Through His Words. About the Book So, who is buried in Grant’s tomb, anyway? That’s an old and insipid joke, of course, but considering what we think we know about the 18th President of the United States, a question worth asking might be hiding in there. With American Ulysses: A Life of Ulysses S. Grant, Ronald C. White endeavors over 800 pages (over 100 them being notes referencing primary and secondary sources) to shed light on one of our most influential yet enigmatic figures. This isn’t a revisionist biography; Grant already got that treatment in the early 20th century, when he transformed from a respected Civil War general and public servant into a craven opportunist and failed president, drunk and penniless at his death (just try imagining a destitute former POTUS in this era). White first redresses criticisms of his martial prowess—primarily that he exploited a huge numbers advantage by needlessly sacrificing troops in exchange for victory—with detailed accounts, maps, and illustrations of his conflicts, showing a battlefield acumen previously diminished through ad hominem barbs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Meaning of Victory
    THE MEANING OF VICTORY Beatrice Heuser Strategic Studies University of Reading (currently Paris) “Victories“? • Gulf War I • Afghanistan • Gulf War II • (and the many defeats in the Cold War) Debate about victory • General Petraeus: “This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home with a victory parade … It’s not war with a simple slogan. (11 Sept. 2008) • Robert Mandel • William Martel • Colin Gray • Angstrom & Duyvesteyn • Boone Bartholomees • Pres. Obama: “Let’s not talk about victory” (June 2011) The Age of the Napoleonic- Clausewitzian Paradigm • 19th century until 1945 (or even later, especially US armed forces – Col Harry Summers) • Obsession with victory for its own sake • Defined as: “imposing one’s will upon the enemy” (Clausewitz), negation of any give- and-take. • And… Pursuit of Victory at all cost • Brian Bond: The Pursuit of Victory from Napoleon to Saddam Hussein • American Civil War: unconditional surrender. • Franco-Prussian War: Peace “Diktat”, unaffordable Reparations, extensive humiliation of defeated party. Perceived injustice. • World War I: Versailles “Diktat”, unaffordable Reparations, extensive humiliation of defeated party. Perceived injustice. • World War II: unconditional surrender. By contrast: earlier thinkers… ARISTOTLE • The end of the medical art is health, that of shipbuilding a vessel, that of strategy victory, that of economics wealth. (Nicomachean Ethics I.1) • We are busy that we may have leisure, and make war that we may live in peace. … no-one chooses to be at war, or provokes war, for the sake of being at war. (Nicomachean Ethics X.7) Just War • Goes back to pre-Christian ROMAN concepts • Preconditions for Just War: – Just cause (self-defence or defence of another) – Just aim: the pursuit of peace – Was is the last resort – Carried out with moderation (proportionality), – And balance of consequences, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil War Generals Buried in Spring Grove Cemetery by James Barnett
    Spring Grove Cemetery, once characterized as blending "the elegance of a park with the pensive beauty of a burial-place," is the final resting- place of forty Cincinnatians who were generals during the Civil War. Forty For the Union: Civil War Generals Buried in Spring Grove Cemetery by James Barnett f the forty Civil War generals who are buried in Spring Grove Cemetery, twenty-three had advanced from no military experience whatsoever to attain the highest rank in the Union Army. This remarkable feat underscores the nature of the Northern army that suppressed the rebellion of the Confed- erate states during the years 1861 to 1865. Initially, it was a force of "inspired volunteers" rather than a standing army in the European tradition. Only seven of these forty leaders were graduates of West Point: Jacob Ammen, Joshua H. Bates, Sidney Burbank, Kenner Garrard, Joseph Hooker, Alexander McCook, and Godfrey Weitzel. Four of these seven —Burbank, Garrard, Mc- Cook, and Weitzel —were in the regular army at the outbreak of the war; the other three volunteered when the war started. Only four of the forty generals had ever been in combat before: William H. Lytle, August Moor, and Joseph Hooker served in the Mexican War, and William H. Baldwin fought under Giuseppe Garibaldi in the Italian civil war. This lack of professional soldiers did not come about by chance. When the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, its delegates, who possessed a vast knowledge of European history, were determined not to create a legal basis for a standing army. The founding fathers believed that the stand- ing armies belonging to royalty were responsible for the endless bloody wars that plagued Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Cold Harbor Syndrome: Balanced, Compelling Study' Examines Grant's Overland Miscalculations
    Civil War Book Review Summer 2000 Article 8 Cold Harbor Syndrome: Balanced, Compelling Study' Examines Grant's Overland Miscalculations Gary W. Gallagher Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cwbr Recommended Citation Gallagher, Gary W. (2000) "Cold Harbor Syndrome: Balanced, Compelling Study' Examines Grant's Overland Miscalculations," Civil War Book Review: Vol. 2 : Iss. 3 . Available at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cwbr/vol2/iss3/8 Gallagher: Cold Harbor Syndrome: Balanced, Compelling Study' Examines Grant' Review COLD HARBOR SYNDROME 'Balanced, compelling study' examines Grant's Overland miscalculations Gallagher, Gary W. Summer 2000 Furgurson, Ernest B. Not War But Murder: Cold Harbor, 1864. Alfred A. Knopf, 2000-06-01. $27.50 ISBN 679455175 Ulysses S. Grant's offensive against Robert E. Lee's entrenched Army of Northern Virginia at Cold Harbor on June 3, 1864, summons powerful images. Northern assaults that day stand alongside Ambrose E. Burnside's attacks at Fredericksburg and John Bell Hood's at Franklin as examples of seemingly pointless slaughter of brave but doomed soldiers. Even casual students of the conflict know that Grant admitted as much in his memoirs when he confessed that he "always regretted that the last assault at Cold Harbor was ever made." Despite the well-known drama and gruesome butcher's bill on June 3, historians have devoted relatively little attention to Cold Harbor. It served as the last major battle of the Overland campaign, greatly influenced morale behind the lines in the North, and set the stage for Grant's brilliant crossing of the James River - all attributes that invite scrutiny.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shadow of Napoleon Upon Lee at Gettysburg
    Papers of the 2017 Gettysburg National Military Park Seminar The Shadow of Napoleon upon Lee at Gettysburg Charles Teague Every general commanding an army hopes to win the next battle. Some will dream that they might accomplish a decisive victory, and in this Robert E. Lee was no different. By the late spring of 1863 he already had notable successes in battlefield trials. But now, over two years into a devastating war, he was looking to destroy the military force that would again oppose him, thereby assuring an end to the war to the benefit of the Confederate States of America. In the late spring of 1863 he embarked upon an audacious plan that necessitated a huge vulnerability: uncovering the capital city of Richmond. His speculation, which proved prescient, was that the Union army that lay between the two capitals would be directed to pursue and block him as he advanced north Robert E. Lee, 1865 (LOC) of the Potomac River. He would thereby draw it out of entrenched defensive positions held along the Rappahannock River and into the open, stretched out by marching. He expected that force to risk a battle against his Army of Northern Virginia, one that could bring a Federal defeat such that the cities of Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Washington might succumb, morale in the North to continue the war would plummet, and the South could achieve its true independence. One of Lee’s major generals would later explain that Lee told him in the march to battle of his goal to destroy the Union army.
    [Show full text]
  • “Never Was I So Depressed”
    The Army of Northern Virginia in the Gettysburg Campaign “Never Was I So Depressed” James Longstreet and Pickett’s Charge Karlton D. Smith On July 24, 1863, Lt. Gen. James Longstreet wrote a private letter to his uncle, Augusts Baldwin Longstreet. In discussing his role in the Gettysburg Campaign, the general stated: General Lee chose the plan adopted, and he is the person appointed to chose and to order. I consider it a part of my duty to express my views to the commanding general. If he approves and adopts them it is well; if he does not, it is my duty to adopt his views, and to execute his orders as faithfully as if they were my own. While clearly not approving Lee’s plan of attack on July 3, Longstreet did everything he could, both before and during the attack, to ensure its success.1 Born in 1821, James Longstreet was an 1842 graduate of West Point. An “Old Army” regular, Longstreet saw extensive front line combat service in the Mexican War in both the northern and southern theaters of operations. Longstreet led detachments that helped to capture two of the Mexican forts guarding Monterey and was involved in the street fighting in the city. At Churubusco, Longstreet planted the regimental colors on the walls of the fort and saw action at Casa Marta, near Molino del Ray. On August 13, 1847, Longstreet was wounded during the assault on Chapaltepec while “in the act of discharging the piece of a wounded man." The same report noted that during the action, "He was always in front with the colors.
    [Show full text]
  • Reviewing the Civil War and Reconstruction Center for Legislative Archives
    Reviewing the Civil War and Reconstruction Center for Legislative Archives Address of the Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society NAID 306639 From 1830 on, women organized politically to reform American society. The leading moral cause was abolishing slavery. “Sisters and Friends: As immortal souls, created by God to know and love him with all our hearts, and our neighbor as ourselves, we owe immediate obedience to his commands respecting the sinful system of Slavery, beneath which 2,500,000 of our Fellow-Immortals, children of the same country, are crushed, soul and body, in the extremity of degradation and agony.” July 13, 1836 The Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society was founded in 1832 as a female auxiliary to male abolition societies. The society created elaborate networks to print, distribute, and mail petitions against slavery. In conjunction with other female societies in major northern cities, they brought women to the forefront of politics. In 1836, an estimated 33,000 New England women signed petitions against the slave trade in the District of Columbia. The society declared this campaign an enormous success and vowed to leave, “no energy unemployed, no righteous means untried” in their ongoing fight to abolish slavery. www.archives.gov/legislative/resources Reviewing the Civil War and Reconstruction Center for Legislative Archives Judgment in the U.S. Supreme Court Case Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sanford NAID 301674 In 1857 the Supreme Court ruled that Americans of African ancestry had no constitutional rights. “The question is simply this: Can a Negro whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such, become entitled to all the rights and privileges and immunities guaranteed to the citizen?..
    [Show full text]
  • Ulysses S. Grant and Julia Dent Grant Papers Finding Aid
    Mississippi State University Scholars Junction USGPL Finding Aids Ulysses S. Grant Presidential Library 12-1-2020 Ulysses S. Grant and Julia Dent Grant papers Finding Aid Ulysses S. Grant Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/usgpl-findingaids Recommended Citation Ulysses S. Grant and Julia Dent Grant papers, Ulysses S. Grant Presidential Library, Mississippi State University This Text is brought to you for free and open access by the Ulysses S. Grant Presidential Library at Scholars Junction. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGPL Finding Aids by an authorized administrator of Scholars Junction. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Ulysses S. Grant and Julia Dent Grant papers USGPL.USGJDG This finding aid was produced using ArchivesSpace on December 01, 2020. Mississippi State University Libraries P.O. Box 5408 Mississippi State 39762 [email protected] URL: http://library.msstate.edu/specialcollections Ulysses S. Grant and Julia Dent Grant papers USGPL.USGJDG Table of Contents Summary Information ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Biographical Note: Ulysses S. Grant ................................................................................................................. 3 Scope and Content Note ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Administrative
    [Show full text]
  • Using the 5Ps Leadership Analysis to Examine the Battle of Antietam: an Explanation and Case Study
    Journal of Leadership Education Volume 11, Issue 1 – Winter 2012 Using the 5Ps Leadership Analysis to Examine the Battle of Antietam: An Explanation and Case Study Bradley Z. Hull, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Logistics Department of Management, Marketing, and Logistics John Carroll University University Heights, OH [email protected] Scott J. Allen, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Management Department of Management, Marketing, and Logistics John Carroll University University Heights, OH [email protected] Abstract The authors describe an exploratory analytical tool called The 5Ps Leadership Analysis (Personal Attributes, Position, Purpose, Practices/Processes, and Product) as a heuristic for better understanding the complexities of leadership. Using The 5Ps Leadership Analysis , the authors explore the leadership of General Robert E. Lee of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia and General George B. McClellan of the Union Army of the Potomac—more specifically, the leadership of the two generals on September 17, 1862 during the Battle of Antietam. The paper concludes with suggestions for application in the classroom. Introduction This case study examines how two organizations compete and how two leaders can influence change and success given their resources. One organization is small and underfinanced with antiquated equipment. The other is large, well financed, and organized along traditional lines where each part of the organization operates autonomously and is coordinated by top levels of management. This type of confrontation between a small organization and a large competitor occurs often in American business. Two relevant examples might be Dell (in its early days) versus Compaq and Amazon.com (in its early days) versus Barnes and Noble or the now bankrupt Borders.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter One: the Campaign for Chattanooga, June to November 1863
    CHAPTER ONE: THE CAMPAIGN FOR CHATTANOOGA, JUNE TO NOVEMBER 1863 Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park commemorates and preserves the sites of important and bloody contests fought in the fall of 1863. A key prize in the fighting was Chattanooga, Tennessee, an important transportation hub and the gateway to Georgia and Alabama. In the Battle of Chickamauga (September 18-20, 1863), the Confederate Army of Tennessee soundly beat the Federal Army of the Cumberland and sent it in full retreat back to Chattanooga. After a brief siege, the reinforced Federals broke the Confeder- ate grip on the city in a series of engagements, known collectively as the Battles for Chatta- nooga. In action at Brown’s Ferry, Wauhatchie, and Lookout Mountain, Union forces eased the pressure on the city. Then, on November 25, 1863, Federal troops achieved an unex- pected breakthrough at Missionary Ridge just southeast of Chattanooga, forcing the Con- federates to fall back on Dalton, Georgia, and paving the way for General William T. Sherman’s advance into Georgia in the spring of 1864. These battles having been the sub- ject of exhaustive study, this context contains only the information needed to evaluate sur- viving historic structures in the park. Following the Battle of Stones River (December 31, 1862-January 2, 1863), the Federal Army of the Cumberland, commanded by Major General William S. Rosecrans, spent five and one-half months at Murfreesboro, Tennessee, reorganizing and resupplying in preparation for a further advance into Tennessee (Figure 2). General Braxton Bragg’s Confederate Army of Tennessee was concentrated in the Tullahoma, Tennessee, area.
    [Show full text]