C. Hecht wrote:
Well what is true and what not?
General Whitehead seems correct with his statement:
KWhitehead wrote:
But in the cases mentioned he was probably right and it is a good generals responsibility to identify why a failure occurred and hopefully taking steps to fix it. Lee tented to accept responsibility almost to a fault.
What does one want more, a general who gallantly takes the blame for everything trouble that his subordinates, his troops or even the weather caused, or a general who identifies the source of trouble and tries to remove it?
Interesting question. In hindsight we can commend Grant, perhaps, for identifying the source of problems and trying to rectify it. But we also have a list of commanders who, justly or not, really used a subordinate or two as clear scapegoats for their own failures. Just those that spring to mind: Longstreet with McLaws, McClellan with Burnside, Bragg with everyone, Hooker with Stoneman, and Pope with Porter. I am sure we could name many more.
Maybe Shleby Foote would answer the proposed question that he would prefer an officer who accepts all the blame for his subordinates and takes responsibility and so he natually took a dimmer view of Grant's actions.