Baylor Expert Shares Four Keys to Leadership from Ulysses S. Grant’s Reflections on Civil War

May 25, 2021

5 min

Peter Campbell, Ph.D.

Near the end of his life, as he battled spiraling health and an empty bank account, former United States President – and iconic Civil War General – Ulysses S. Grant penned his memoirs and gave the world a glimpse into the mind of one of the nation’s most celebrated figures.


The book, “Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant,” was published in 1885 and has been pored over for more than 135 years.


Peter Campbell, Ph.D., author, associate professor of political science at Baylor University and a nationally recognized scholar on military strategy and international security, recently wrote an essay about Grant and his memoirs for Classics of Strategy and Diplomacy. He said Grant’s personal reflections provide valuable insights into his view and practice of leadership, specifically as he led Union forces in the Civil War.


Below, Campbell offers four keys to leadership that he found in Grant’s writings.


1. Know Yourself.


Grant was a careful observer of himself. He was able to reflect on his experience, see where he had made errors and learn from them. In July 1861, moments before what Grant thought would be his first engagement as a commander in the Civil War, he was terrified. His heart was in his throat. When he and his forces crested a rise that they thought would reveal the enemy force, they saw that the enemy had fled.


“My heart resumed its place,” Grant wrote. “It occurred to me at once that [the enemy] had been as much afraid of me as I had been of him. This was a view of the question I had never taken before; but it was one I never forgot afterwards.”


Grant absorbed this lesson and it transformed him as a leader and planner.


2. Know Your Enemy.


The great Chinese strategists counseled that commanders must know their enemies. Grant shows us what this looks like in practice. Rather than dwelling on his fears, those things that his opponent might do that would spell disaster, Grant put himself in the shoes of his adversary and asked himself: What would my gravest fears be, were I in his position? He then designed his plan of campaign to raise the specter of his enemy’s fears, knowing that this would compel the enemy to be blinded by fear and compel them to react.


To be fair, this was easier for Grant because in the Civil War he was fighting against fellow graduates of West Point and veterans of the Mexican War, including Robert E. Lee.


Grant was not in awe of Lee.


“I had known [Lee] personally,” Grant wrote, “and knew that he was mortal; and it was just as well that I felt this.”


This does not diminish, but rather reinforces, the importance on studying one’s adversary carefully in any kind of competition.


3. Know Your People.


As Grant rose in the ranks of the Union Army, he was pulled away from the sound of the guns and the command of troops in battle. This is true in any organization – the higher one rises the further one gets from the ground truth, whether in an army or a Fortune 500 company.


Grant recognized that to influence the battles he could no longer superintend, he had to select the right subordinates for the job and then give them the authority to exercise the initiative in their area of responsibility. This meant that Grant also had to be a careful observer of the strengths and weaknesses of his subordinates.


Even a hero of the Battle of Gettysburg like Major General Gouverneur Warren was not spared Grant’s penetrating character assessments. Warren’s weakness, Grant wrote, was that he could not trust his subordinates to carry out his orders, which meant that he could not be give a large command.


“[Warren’s] difficulty was constitutional and beyond his control,” Grant wrote. “He was an officer of superior ability, quick perception, and personal courage to accomplish anything that could be done with a small command.”


When you know your people, you know where to place them where their strengths will reinforce success and their weaknesses will be least disastrous.


4. Unleash the Power of Humility.


The most decisive virtue that Grant practiced was humility. As a leader he did not allow pride in his own designs to blind him to the wisdom of his subordinates.


Late in the war, Grant wrote up a campaign plan for attacking the Shenandoah Valley, the key source of supply to the Confederacy. He brought the plan to General Philip Sheridan for execution. However, when he met with Sheridan, the cavalry officer presented Grant with his own plan.


Grant wrote that Sheridan “was so clear and so positive in his views and so confident of success, I said nothing about [my campaign plan] and did not take it out of my pocket.”


When you lead, don’t let pride get in the way of the best ideas bubbling up from your subordinates.



ABOUT PETER CAMPBELL, PH.D.


Peter Campbell, Ph.D., is an associate professor of political science in Baylor University’s College of Arts & Sciences. He is the author of two books: “Military Realism: The Logic and Limits of Force and Innovation in the U.S. Army” and “Farewell to the Marshal Statesman: The Decline of Military Experience Among Politicians and its Consequences.” Campbell studies international security, civil-military relations, strategy and national security decision-making, international relations scholarship and policy relevance, insurgency and counterinsurgency, the just war tradition, unconventional warfare and advanced military technology, military culture, and the effects of cyber capabilities on conflict escalation.


ABOUT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY


Baylor University is a private Christian University and a nationally ranked research institution. The University provides a vibrant campus community for more than 19,000 students by blending interdisciplinary research with an international reputation for educational excellence and a faculty commitment to teaching and scholarship. Chartered in 1845 by the Republic of Texas through the efforts of Baptist pioneers, Baylor is the oldest continually operating University in Texas. Located in Waco, Baylor welcomes students from all 50 states and more than 90 countries to study a broad range of degrees among its 12 nationally recognized academic divisions.


ABOUT THE COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES AT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY


The College of Arts & Sciences is Baylor University’s largest academic division, consisting of 25 academic departments and eight academic centers and institutes. The more than 5,000 courses taught in the College span topics from art and theatre to religion, philosophy, sociology and the natural sciences. Faculty conduct research around the world, and research on the undergraduate and graduate level is prevalent throughout all disciplines. Visit baylor.edu/artsandsciences.

Connect with:
Peter Campbell, Ph.D.

Peter Campbell, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Political Science

Expert on international security, civil-military relations, strategy, insurgency & counterinsurgency & cyberwarfare

Just War TheoryInternational RelationsInternational SecurityCounterinsurgency

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Baylor University

2 min

Daylight Saving Time: Baylor Sleep Expert Offers Suggestions to Help Adjust to the Change

Daylight saving time, with its one-hour spring forward at 2 a.m. Sunday, March 12, may seem like a small shift of just a single hour, but on a societal level, it has startling effects, says Baylor University sleep researcher Michael Scullin, Ph.D., associate professor of psychology and neuroscience and director of the Sleep Neuroscience and Cognition Laboratory at Baylor. So what are the consequences of this one-hour time shift on our sleep quality and how can we quickly adjust when springing our clocks forward? "Many people not only lose that single hour of sleep," Scullin said, "but also have difficulty over several subsequent nights adjusting their circadian rhythms to the new bed-wake time schedules." For example, parents who have routine bedtimes for their children experience difficulty for the whole family because children will not want to (or be able to) go to bed one hour earlier than their body is used to. "When you couple this bedtime difficulty with the fact that most people have morning school and work schedules that require them to wake up at a set time," Scullin said, "it becomes clear that ‘springing forward’ has a larger consequence than skipping a single hour." The consequences of the spring daylight saving time shift are well documented. Researchers have observed changes in cognitive functioning, increased driving accidents, moodiness and willingness to punish others for mistakes. "Researchers have also documented that acute sleep loss and circadian dysregulation lead to an increase in cardiovascular events," Scullin said. "If someone's cardiovascular health is ‘borderline’ then the springtime shift can be the factor that precipitates a stroke or a myocardial infarction (heart attack)." Scullin offers some simple suggestions to anticipate and adapt to the spring forward shift: Adjust in advance. About a week before the "spring forward," go to bed 15 or 20 minutes earlier each day. Avoid long naps during the day. If you need a nap, take it earlier in the day and for no more than 20 minutes. Bring on the sunlight. Getting more natural sunlight in the morning hours is very beneficial in resetting our biological clock. In some cases, evening melatonin also can help people to adapt to the time change. Scullin has published numerous studies focusing on sleep and brain function, including the connection between sleep and creativity, musical “earworms” and their effect on sleep and how writing a to-do list before you turn in for the night can help you get better sleep. In fact, Scullin was named Baylor’s inaugural Newsmaker of the Year in 2018, after his “to-do list” research was widely covered by media outlets, including ABC’s Good Morning America, TODAY.com, USA TODAY, Discover, LiveScience, HealthDay, BBC Radio and many more, reaching an international circulation and viewership of nearly 1 billion people. Looking to interview or chat with Michael Scullin? Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

4 min

Defining Oligarchy: The Fusion of Wealth and Power in American Democracy

Oligarchy is being thrown around a lot these days. But what does the term mean? Is America an oligarchy? And how does oligarchy help explain American democracy today? Political rhetoric scholar Luke Winslow, Ph.D., associate professor of communication at Baylor University and author of  “Oligarchy in America: Power, Justice, and the Rule of the Few,” has traced the evolution of oligarchy in the United States to shed light on how modern oligarchy is reshaping America through the increasing fusion of economic power and political influence. Winslow’s research focuses on how the influence of oligarchy has impacted American political rhetoric, as well as how it is showing up in modern politics and political communications. Defining Oligarchy Oligarchy is a term that most people associate with other countries, but it “is not something that just happens in Russia. It's something that happens everywhere, and it always has,” Winslow said. In the simplest of terms, oligarchy attempts to explain the convergence of economic and political power. Winslow offered four key distinctions on oligarchy: Oligarchy is exclusive. It represents a form of governance focused on preserving the political and economic influence of the wealthy by securing the approval of the rest of the population. “It assumes not everyone is qualified to deliberate, participate and legislate,” Winslow said. When it comes to oligarchy, there is a belief that extreme wealth is equated to intellectual fitness across all domains, including governance. Wealth vs. income. It is important to distinguish between wealth and income. Income covers daily expenses, whereas wealth is more easily used to exert political power. “What truly sets an oligarch apart is the political power their wealth can command,” Winslow said. Understated and subtle. Modern oligarchy operates through persuasion by “enticing rather than commanding citizens and maintaining what seems like an absence from political authority,” Winslow said. It is in this absence that oligarchs can influence indirect political actions, especially since they are not (typically) elected officials and cannot be removed from office. Legal Immunity. Oligarchs have no fear of legal consequences because oligarchy itself is not against the law, Winslow said. The First Amendment protects the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” legitimizing lobbying and campaign donations. A robust system of campaign contributions and political lobbying – both of which are perfectly legal – can shape media narratives and put pressure on state and local governments. While wealth and politics have always coexisted, oligarchy is about how these forces merge to create a system where the ultra-rich exert undue influence over democratic institutions, Winslow said. “This convergence has long existed in history but is now unfolding in the U.S. more visibly – and perhaps more accepted – than ever before,” he said. Communication of Oligarchy Winslow’s research shows that American society has come to view billionaires as transcendent figures – individuals whose success in business qualifies them to lead in politics – a mindset that is not new. The Gilded Age of the late 19th century saw figures like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller wield enormous economic and political power, shaping legislation to favor their interests. Winslow’s research traces this historical precedent, suggesting that today’s tech titans are the latest iteration of a long-standing trend. Perhaps the most intriguing question Winslow raises is not just how oligarchy and its fusion of wealth and governance has taken root, but why the American public has been so willing to accept it as natural – perhaps even beneficial. “The arguments being made in public discourse encourage us to go along with it,” he said. “We’re being told, implicitly, that this is just how things work now.” Yet, these practices also reveal how the government serves the narrow interests of the ultra-wealthy, diverting resources from productive economic opportunities for the majority toward political wins that benefit a small, affluent minority, Winslow said. “What's so interesting about oligarchy now is that the cover has been ripped off, the veil has been thrown open and we’re not even hiding the fact that money gets you more influence,” he said. Ultimately, Winslow hopes his work will get people to be curious as to why Americans are now accepting oligarchy in the U.S. “The ways that the extremely wealthy are yielded political power is seemingly acceptable now, and that is a question that we all should be asking,” Winslow said. Looking to know more? Then let us help. To connect with Luke Winslow, simply contact Shelby Cefaratti-Bertin, M.A, Assistant Director of Media and Public Relations now to arrange an interview today.

2 min

Expert Research: Social Media's Double-Edged Sword: Study Links Both Active and Passive Use to Rising Loneliness

In an age where social media promises to connect us, a new Baylor University study reveals a sobering paradox – the more time we spend interacting online, the lonelier we may feel. Researchers James A. Roberts, Ph.D., The Ben H. Williams Professor of Marketing in Baylor's Hankamer School of Business, and co-authors Philip Young, Ph.D., and Meredith David, Ph.D., analyzed a study that followed nearly 7,000 Dutch adults for nine years to understand how our digital habits shape well-being. Published in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, the Baylor study – The Epidemic of Loneliness: A Nine-Year Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Passive and Active Social Media Use on Loneliness – investigated how social media use impacts loneliness over time. This eye-opening research suggests that the very platforms designed to bring people together contribute to an "epidemic of loneliness." The findings showed that both passive and active social media use were associated with increased feelings of loneliness over time. While passive social media use – like browsing without interaction – predictably led to heightened loneliness, active use – which involved posting and engaging with others – also was linked to increased feelings of loneliness. These results suggest that the quality of digital interactions may not fulfill the social needs that are met in face-to-face communication. “This research underscores the complexity of social media’s impact on mental health,” Roberts said. “While social media offers unprecedented access to online communities, it appears that extensive use – whether active or passive – does not alleviate feelings of loneliness and may, in fact, intensify them.” The study also found a two-way relationship between loneliness and social media use. "It appears that a continuous feedback loop exists between the two,” Roberts said. “Lonely people turn to social media to address their feelings, but it is possible that such social media use merely fans the flames of loneliness."​ The findings emphasize an urgent need for further research into the effects of digital interaction, underlining the essential role of in-person connections in supporting well-being. This study also adds a valuable perspective to the conversation on how digital habits influence mental health, offering insights to shape future mental health initiatives, policies and guidelines for healthier social media use. Are you covering social media and its impact on people?  Then let us help. These experts are available to speak with media, simply click or contact Shelby Cefaratti-Bertin, M.A, Assistant Director of Media and Public Relations now to arrange an interview today.

View all posts