THE LOGISTICAL
FOUNDATIONS OF GRANT’S OVERLAND CAMPAIGN OF 1864
©2016 Jim Werbaneth
When Ulysses S. Grant commenced the
Overland Campaign in May 1864, his strategy was based upon a sound
logistical foundation.
The Army of the Potomac consisted
of upwards of 125,000 fighting soldiers;[1]
with an army this size, there was no room for logistical
improvisation.
Furthermore, Grant’s logistical
choices had to be made in the context of his mission, which was to
engage and defeat the Army of Northern Virginia.
Grant’s orders to George Gordon
Meade and the Army of the Potomac were summed up in two simple
sentences: “Lee's Army will be your objective point. Wherever Lee
goes there you will go also."
Then Grant accompanied Meade and
his army to make sure that Robert E. Lee’s host remained the center
of gravity,[2]
and also to stay away from the distractions of Washington.[3]
The Army of the Potomac had to be fed and
sustained in this mission, and Grant could not do this through
foraging, as he did in the Vicksburg Campaign the year before.
Further, one of the early lessons
of that campaign, especially when the Confederate commander Earl Van
Dorn derailed Grant’s army by destroying his supply base at Holly
Springs,[4]
was that the danger to supply lines increased with their length.
Therefore it was in the interest of the
Army of the Potomac, heading into the Overland Campaign, to shorten
its supply lines as much as possible.
Further, Grant had to maintain a
more conventional approach than he had in the final drive on
Vicksburg.
While he was dedicated to the
strategic offensive, he had to plan the campaign restrained by
logistical considerations.
It is indicative of his
flexibility was well as determination to stay on the attack that he
made the decisions that he did.
Grant had two options for the campaign.
The first was to make a more
easterly advance, which would take the Army of the Potomac through
the Wilderness, on a more direct advance toward Richmond.
The second was a more westerly
move, avoiding the Wilderness, but extending the Union supply lines.
Further, the eastern option had
the attraction of being closer to Chesapeake Bay, and had the
potential of drawing upon seaborne supply rather than the vulnerable
railroads.
Thus the Army of the Potomac would
be able to drawn upon the prodigious Union sealift capability and
even shorter and more secure supply lines. In the end, Grant chose the eastern option. This entailed tactical risk through movement into the Wilderness, a hazard that Lee exploited by attacking the Army of the Potomac there. However, this route carried fewer risks to the Union supply lines. Therefore Grant accepted greater risks on the battlefield in exchange for reducing those to his logistics. Furthermore, by adopting this option, Grant raised the probability that the Army of the Potomac would attempt to flank the Confederate army, and Richmond, from the east in 1864. Thus logistical considerations, more than the purely strategic and operational, dictated the course of the Overland Campaign and the advance to Petersburg in 1864.
PREQUEL IN THE WEST
The Overland Campaign was the culmination
of Grant’s career to date, and the deciding episode of the Civil War
in the East.
When it ended Richmond remained in
Confederate hands and the Army of Northern Virginia was in the
field, but besieged south of Petersburg.
With its mobility negated and
without the ability to take the initiative against the Army of the
Potomac, Lee’s force was backed into a nearly hopeless corner;
sooner or later, the Union would be able to force Lee into
overextending his units, and deliver a death blow that would force
his army to retreat, and yield both the critical rail junction of
Petersburg and the rebel capital at Richmond.
Reflecting both is essential
aggressiveness and anticipating that a stalemate would doom his
army, Lee told Jubal Early in July, before Grant left his positions
at Cold Harbor: “We must destroy this army of Grant’s before he gets
to the James River.
If he gets there, it will become a
siege, and then it will be a mere question of time.”[5]
Indeed it was, and though it took
months of trench warfare punctuated by hard fighting around
Petersburg.
But April 1 1865, that “mere
question of time” ran out, and troops under Philip Sheridan turned
the Confederate flank at Five Forks.[6]
Thus both armies set off on the
road to Appomattox.
Grant’s path to the Overland Campaign,
the eventual final victory over the Army of Northern Virginia the
next year, starts with his earlier campaigns in the West.
There, Union logistics were
dependent on two types of communications lines, railroads and
rivers.
Further, distances between
opposing armies, and territorial objectives, tended to be longer
than in the east, with more room to maneuver.
With longer supply lines, there
was more opportunity to interdict them, as demonstrated by Van
Dorn’s attack on Holly Springs.
However, when supplies and
transport went by river rather than rail or wagon, the lines of
communications were more secure; it really took a fort and emplaced
artillery to denial passage to riverine units, and the most
impressive posts could be passed, as eventually happened at
Vicksburg on the night of 16 April 1863.[7]
Further, ships on the rivers could
not just exercise control of them for friendly forces, but interdict
enemy land lines of communication and supply, where they intersected
with rivers.
For example, before Grant’s move
against Fort Donelson, on 7 February 1862, the gunboat USS
Carondelet
and a company of troops steamed up the Tennessee River to destroy a
bridge bearing the Memphis and Bowling Green Railroad.[8]
Rivers, especially the Tennessee and
Mississippi, were critical to the war in the West, as objectives and
avenues of movement.
As a result, there was a need for
combined operations and amphibious warfare.
In the West, this was geared
toward penetrating the Confederacy along river lines, while in the
East, George B. McClellan tapped the North’s naval and sealift
capabilities to launch is Peninsular Campaign, all in accordance
with Winfield Scott’s Anaconda Plan.[9]
Therefore the integration of
ground and naval power was far from a surprising development, and
was actually essential to Union strategy from the very beginning.
All of Ulysses S. Grant’s campaigns in
the West were dictated in large part by logistical considerations.
It was not enough to bring a Union
army to bear on an objective or defeat the Confederates; his forces
had to be supplied, and that could not be taken for granted.
Most of the time too, river
transport was essential, at least as important as that over
railroads, or by wagon via the road network.
This started with the campaign for
Forts Henry and Donelson, in which the objectives were control of
the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers to facilitate an invasion of
Tennessee and, secondarily, make the Confederate positions at
Bowling Green, Kentucky untenable.[10]
Therefore the objectives were not
simply a pair of forts, control of the supply lines into the
Confederacy.
In the Union drive that led to the Battle
of Shiloh, the Tennessee River was the axis of advance.
When it became clear to Grant that
Albert Sydney Johnston was indeed attacking at Pittsburg Landing,
one of his first decisions was to strip the troops defending Crump’s
Landing, where his supplies and transports were sited, to reinforce
the battle five miles to the west.
Accordingly he called the division
of Lew Wallace from Crump’s to move to Pittsburg, an order that was
unfortunately misunderstood, delaying Wallace’s arrival.[11]
This time, Grant made a calculated
logistical risk in order to address a compelling tactical crisis.
The apotheosis of Grant’s logistical
reasoning in the West was in the Vicksburg Campaign.
The city of Vicksburg, Mississippi
was the last obstacle to Union control of the Mississippi River, and
that river was also crucial to supplying his army.
Further, Grant demonstrated a high
level of imagination to do the impossible, which was to supply his
troops through foraging, in effect a return to Napoleonic practices,
while cutting himself off from both the advantages and
vulnerabilities of supply depots and lines of communication.
It was a supremely bold move, and
yet one that was extremely effective.
Grant’s plan was to move two corps of
about 17,000[12]
men to the west bank of the Mississippi, and march it down below
Vicksburg.
To support them, the Navy’s
riverine fleet and transports under David Dixon Porter would run
past the city and its batteries at night, and meet Grant, in order
to transfer his army back to the eastern side of the river, and
support it as it drove north, and then back west toward the
objective.[13]
A third corps, under Sherman,
would follow.[14]
Grant counted on the ability of
Mississippi to feed his army, while other supplies were borne on
Porter’s transports.
If it worked, then Grant’s Army of
the Tennessee would be able to move without the hindrance of
extensive supply trains, or vulnerable lines of communication that
enemy cavalry could cut.
Grant was not prone to soliciting advice
or trying to win others to his views, but he did consult two
officers whom he trusted most, his corps commanders Sherman and
James B. McPherson, objected to the risk.[15]
In his memoirs, Sherman states
that he never lodged an actual protest to Grant’s plan, but rather
his objections were the culmination of informal talks.
Furthermore, Sherman relates that
after the war, Grant told him that if the latter had experience at
operating without the benefit of a regular logistical base, he would
not have turned back from Vicksburg upon the destruction of his
depot at Holly Springs.[16]
As it was, in April 1863 Sherman
recommended a more conventional approach of withdrawing to Memphis,
capturing Granada, Mississippi, and starting over with an overland
march.[17]
Grant’s judgment, and his calculated
risk, was vindicated by his success in forcing the surrender of
Vicksburg on 4 July 1863.
Not only was the victory Grant’s,
according to Sherman, but so were the details.
According to Sherman:
The campaign of Vicksburg, in its
conception and execution, belonged exclusively to General Grant, not
only in the great whole, but in the thousands of details.
I still retain many of his letters
and notes, all in his own handwriting, prescribing the routes of
march for divisions and detachments, specifying even the amount of
food and tools be to carried along.[18]
This is not simply the frank allocation
of general credit by a friend and devoted subordinate.
It sheds light on Grant’s
attention to detail the Vicksburg Campaign, including the finer
points of logistics.
DECISIONS IN THE EAST
When Grant came east, he found an
entirely different situation facing the Army of the Potomac than he
had out west.
Geographically, the theater was
much more constricted, bounded by the Blue Ridge in the West and the
Potomac estuary and Chesapeake Bay in the East.
There simply was not the room for
lateral movement as in the West.
For example, the final stage of
the Vicksburg Campaign involved a deep penetration along the
Mississippi, and then a wide march eastward, as far as Jackson,
before rebounding toward Vicksburg.
There was no room for such
sweeping movement in the East.
Any flanking move would be a
“small solution,” rather than the “large solutions” possible to the
west.
Secondly, there was a virtual absence of
navigable rivers that could bear supplies or armies.
Any movement inland from
Chesapeake Bay or the lower Potomac had to be along roads.
What rivers passed through the
area tended to run from west to east, and were more likely to be
obstacles than avenues for an invading army.
Thus there was little opportunity
to use riverine gunboats and transports, let alone to the degree
that Grant had at Henry and Donelson, and especially Vicksburg.
In the West, Grant’s campaigns at
Forts Donelson and Henry, Shiloh had been defined in large part by
rivers.
Moreover, he had forged a close
partnership with the Navy, and especially David Dixon Porter.
Despite an inauspicious beginning,[19]
Grant and Porter formed a productive partnership, and at Vicksburg
especially, made combined operations a key Union strength.
It is hard to imagine Vicksburg
ever falling without effective use of the Navy, despite Sherman’s
advocacy of an overland approach.
In the East, there was simply no
chance to employ riverine forces in any way resembling those in the
West.
The correlation of forces in the East was
far different too.
In the first battle of the
Overland Campaign, the Wilderness, the Army of the Potomac had
101,895 men, exclusive of cavalry, engaged.[20]
When Grant concentrated his Army
of Tennessee for his first assaults on Vicksburg in on 22 and 23 May
1862, he had about 45,000 infantry engaged.[21]
He had more soldiers available in
the November 1863 battle at Chattanooga, with 56,359 in action.[22]
Therefore he could muster about
twice as many soldiers to fight Lee than he had against John
Pemberton, Joseph Johnston, or Braxton Bragg.
Regardless of whether Grant attacked Lee
via an easterly or western approach, at least the first phases of
his 1864 campaign would have to rely on road supply by wagons.
Additionally, war in the East
would be sure to take on a more attritional nature than that in the
West.
There would be more troops
attacking in a narrower theater, with less opportunity for defeating
the Confederates by sweeping movement.
At the same time, the Army of the
Potomac’s mission to engage the Army of Northern Virginia ― “Lee's
Army will be your objective point. Wherever Lee goes there you will
go also”― severely reduced the value of going where the Confederates
were not.
Grant was aided by a two logistical
factors.
First, the railroads in the area
had been dramatically improved since the start of the war.
In November 1862, for example, the
Orange and Alexandria Railroad could supply about 40,000 men.
Then when Meade and Lee were
maneuvering in the area after Gettysburg, Union estimates were that
it could have supplied upwards of 300,000.[23]
Additionally, while Virginia
lacked the deeply penetrating, navigable rivers of the West, there
was a coastline with plenty of creeks and estuaries where cargo
could be landed.
Most important of them was City
Point on the James River, the chief supply nexus for the siege of
Petersburg.
Initially it could be supplied
only from the sea, and then rail transport joined it to the North.[24]
Finally, the Army of the Potomac’s
logistical capacity and its mobility too were assisted by a series
of reforms and expansions of its own assets since the start of
hostilities.
It began the 1864 campaign with
more than enough draft animals and wagons; there were counted 3,500
wagons and 29,650 horses and 53,343 mules[25],
a standard that Grant had ordained for the Army of the Tennessee
before he was promoted and moved east.[26]
The wagons were marked and
organized according to unit and cargo too, leading Grant to comment
that “There never was a corps better organized than was the
quartermaster’s corps of the Army of the Potomac in 1864.”[27]
Ultimately, a combination of rail
infrastructure, army-level transport, and the proximity of the coast
combined to sustain the Army of the Potomac in 1864.
However, had Grant elected to take
a more westerly route toward engaging the Army of Northern Virginia,
those coastal landing spots would have been largely out of reach,
and the railroads and wagon trains more vulnerable to enemy cavalry.
As formidable as the Army of the
Potomac’s logistical system was under the command of Rufus Ingalls,
Grant was still reluctant to trust the Army of the Potomac’s supply
mission to wagons alone, saying that this was “nearly impossible.”[28]
Fortunately for him, the Union had
uncontestable control of Virginia’s coastal waters, and thus the
ability to land supplies at will.
Therefore there were strong
reasons for Grant to take the eastern route, where the Navy provided
the option of either augmenting landbound supply, or largely
replacing it.
Grant might not be able to replace
completely the long lines of wagons that sustained his and Meade’s
army, but he could shorten and secure them.
As for forage, this was not much of an
option.
Both the Army of the Potomac and
the Army of Northern Virginia had been operating in the area since
1862, and Virginia’s resources were taxed to the utmost.
The year earlier, in fact, the
need to move the war out of war-ravaged Virginia into the North had
been one of the reasons for Lee’s invasion of Pennsylvania, ending
at Gettysburg.[29]
There is no reason to believe that
Virginia was in any better shape with Grant crossing the
Rappahannock the next spring.
CONCLUSIONS
One can view Grant’s approach to
logistics as following two primary models.
The Vicksburg model was one
relying on long navigable rivers for transportation of both troops
and supplies.
At least equally important, it
involved a casting off of the ties of traditional lines of
communication, foraging for food, if not for other supplies;
ammunition and medicine do not grow on even the best of farms.
But Grant, and albeit reluctantly
Sherman, found that Mississippi could feed the Union army.
The Overland Campaign model was one that
relied more on traditional depots and lines of communication.
The army that it sustained was
more than twice as large at its peak, in a much different, more
confined area, lacking really useful rivers.
However, Virginia lent itself to
supply from the sea.
As practiced by Grant, it ended up
as a hybrid between reliance on a wagon trains connecting the army
to depots, much unlike the Vicksburg Campaign, and naval supply.
It required structure and
organization, which Rufus Ingalls provided ably, and a commitment to
cooperation and reliance upon the Navy.
There was a measure of
improvisation with the Vicksburg model, but none whatsoever with
that of the Overland Campaign.
Grant’s decision to take the eastern
route, and the availability of seaborne supply, were factors in the
drift of the action eastward.
When Grant tried to flank the
Confederates, it was on the whole to south and the east, first from
the Wilderness to Spotsylvania, and then to Cold Harbor.
Then the Army of the Potomac
skirted Richmond and move east of it, crossing the lower James River
and assaulting Petersburg unsuccessfully from 15 to 18 June.[30]
Significantly, this all followed
an easterly path, as the Army of the Potomac passed between Richmond
and Chesapeake Bay, before marching southeast of the city to attack
Petersburg.[31]
From a logistical point of view, this
made sense, and took advantage of a critical Union advantage.
In most campaigns, as an army
advances, its supply lines extend and become more tenuous, not just
from possible enemy action, but the need to devote resources to
maintaining them.
In the Overland Campaign,
especially after Cold Harbor, the Union advance actually carried the
potential of shortening those supply lines, as the Army of the
Potomac closed the distance between it and the coast.
Grant was in the rare position of
actually securing his logistics as he penetrated deeper into enemy
territory.
Thus Grant was able to maintain
the initiative and his advantages in manpower over Lee, without a
diminishing overall logistical situation.
When the armies settled in for
attritional trench warfare at Petersburg, the Army of the Potomac
was well-sited to be supplied by sea, and then by rail, to City
Point.
In the end, the Union effort in the
Overland Campaign was largely decided by, and sustained by, Grant’s
logistical vision.
He had an impressive, even
excessive, capacity for rail and wagon-borne supply, and he took
full advantage of it.
Moreover, Grant saw the
possibility cooperating with the fleet, not exactly as he had in
Vicksburg, but in a new way, with supplies coming from the sea
rather than the rivers.
Finally, he showed that he was not
bound by previous experience; the lessons of Vicksburg could not,
and were not, overextended to dictate the campaign against Lee a
year later.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boatner, Mark M., III.
The Civil War Dictionary.
New York: David McKay, 1983.
“Bruinsburg Crossing (April 30-May 1).
Vicksburg National Military Park,
Mississippi.
http://www.nps.gov/vick/learn/historyculture/bruincross.htm.
accessed 22 December 2015.
Dowdey, Clifford.
Lee’s Last Campaign: The Story of Lee and His
Men Against Grant
―1864.
New York: Barnes and Noble, 1988.
Esposito, Brigadier General Vincent J.
(ed.).
The West Point Atlas of War: The Civil
War.
New York: Tess Press, 1995.
Glatthaar, Joseph T.
Partners in Command: The Relationships
Between Leaders in the
Civil War.
New York: The Free Press, 1994.
Grant, Ulysses S.
Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant and Selected
Letters.
New York: Library of America,
1990.
Hagerman, Edward.
The American Civil War and the Origins of
Modern Warfare: Ideas,
Organization, and Field Command.
Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1988.
“Lee and Grant ―The Civil War.”
The Virginia Historical Society.
McPherson, James M.
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era.
Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1988.
Perrett, Geoffrey.
Ulysses S. Grant: Soldier & President.
New York: Modern Library, 1997.
Sherman, William Tecumseh.
Memoirs of General Sherman.
New York: Library of
America, 1990.
Underwood, Robert Johnson and Clough,
Clarence (ed.).
Battles and Leaders of the Civil
War, Volume I.
New York: The Century Company,
1887.
https://ehistory.osu.edu/books/battles.
accessed 20 December 2015.
The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of
the Union and
Confederate Armies, Series I, Volume 36,
Part II.
Washington: GovernmentPrinting
Office, 1891.
Woodworth, Steven.
Jefferson Davis and His Generals: The Failure
of Confederate
Command in the West
(Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1990).
[1]
Clifford Dowdey, Lee’s
Last Campaign: The Story of Lee and His Men Against Grant ―
1864 (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1988), 54.
[2]
“Lee and Grant ― The Civil War,” The Virginia Historical
Society,
http://www.vahistorical.org/collections-and-resources/virginia-history-explorer/lee-and-grant/civil-war.
accessed 20 December 2015.
[3]
Joseph T. Glatthaar,
Partners in Command: The Relationships Between Leaders in
the Civil War (New York: The Free Press, 1994), 207.
[4]
Steven Woodworth,
Jefferson Davis and His Generals: The Failure of Confederate
Command in the West (Lawrence: University Press of
Kansas, 1990), 184.
[5]
Dowdey, 355.
[6]
Mark M. Boatner III,
The Civil War Dictionary (New York: David McKay, 1988),
282-284.
[7]
James M. McPherson,
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1988), 627.
[8]
Rear Admiral Henry Walke, USN, “The Western Flotilla at Fort
Donelson, Island Number 10, Fort Pillow and Memphis,” in
Robert Johnson Underwood and Clarence Clough (ed.),
Battles and Leaders of
the Civil War, Volume I (New York: The Century Company,
1887), 430. The
Ohio State University Online Books Section,
https://ehistory.osu.edu/books/battles/vol1/430.
accessed 20 December
2015.
[9]
Edward Hagerman, The
American Civil War and the Origins of Modern Warfare: Ideas,
Organization, and Field Command (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1988),
67-68.
[10]
Boatner, 394.
[11]
Ulysses S. Grant,
Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant and Selected Letters,
Volume I (New York: Library of America, 1990), 266.
[12]
“Bruinsburg Crossing (April 30-May 1),” Vicksburg National
Military Park, Mississippi,
http://www.nps.gov/vick/learn/historyculture/bruincross.htm.
accessed 22 December 2015.
[13]
McPherson, 626-627.
[14]
William Tecumseh Sherman,
Memoirs of General
Sherman (New York: Library of America, 1990), 343.
[15]
McPherson, 627.
[16]
Sherman, 343.
[17]
Geoffrey Perret,
Ulysses S. Grant: Soldier & President (New York: Modern
Library, 1997), 251.
[18]
Sherman, 359.
[19]
Glatthaar, 163-164.
[20]
Boatner, 925.
[21]
Ibid.,
876.
[22]
Ibid.,
147.
[23]
Hagerman, 77.
[24]
Ibid.,
247.
[25]
The War of the Rebellion: A
Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and
Confederate Armies,
Series I, Volume 36, Part II (Washington: Government
Printing Office, 1891), 355,
http://ebooks.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=moawar;cc=moawar;idno=waro0068;node=waro0068%3A2;view=image;seq=357;size=100;page=root.
accessed 23 December 2015.
[26]
Hagerman, 248.
[27]
Grant, Volume II, 523.
[28]
Ibid.,
476.
[29]
McPherson, 647.
[30]
Boatner, 644-646. [31] Brigadier General Vincent J. Esposito (ed.), The West Point Atlas of War: The Civil War (New York: Tess Press, 1995), 133.
|