@@clintonstephens273Historians have also been reassessing his presidency. The modern consensus is that Grant had some achievements, especially in protecting the freed people, and that overly negative assessments of his presidency, like those of his generalship, were often driven by those hostile to civil rights.
Long before King Leonidas of Sparta made his stand at Thermopylae, Senior Military Officers saw battlefields and even entire campaigns as they Wanted them to be; not as they actually were. It takes immense moral courage to coldly look the truth in the face and even more moral courage to accept them. Ulysses S. Grant had that kind of courage. So did William T. Sherman, George “Pap” Thomas, David Farragut, Robert E. Lee, “Pete” Longstreet, and “Stonewall” Jackson. Too many others were guilty of “making pictures in their minds” (Napoleon Bonaparte’ quotation).
A common characteristic of depressives. Neuro divergence creates opportunity to see the world as it is. Most people, particularly charismatic leaders, hold the three standard positive illusions: ability- they think they are better than they are; control- they think they have a greater hold on variables and potential outcomes than is possible; and optimism- that tomorrow will be better or offer more opportunity than today, whether or not there is a change in input or effort. During- depressive episodes (which in Grant's case might be expressed by binge drinking) depressives are particularly unproductive. But outside of those episodes there can be a laser like understanding of reality: expressed as knowing exactly how many soldiers it will require to take the hill, and how many will be lost or knowing exactly how long it will take to move your forces. Others form plans based on inspiration and optimism. Leaders like Grant build on understanding reality. Lincoln shared the quality. I think in some ways it explains the relationship between Lincoln and Grant as well. Depressives have a superpower that they bring to a community of minds. Some feel it is why the disorder never died out in humans. Same thing with anxiety- in threatening environments the anxious see the Tiger in the tall grass and alert the rest of the village. But if you've evolved with that power, but you live in relative safety, your excessive sensitivity becomes a disorder. Its a theory anyway. And it explains why a mind formed in a particular manner can be particularly effective at a specific point and time in history.
@@ThomasSnort Really? Then please explain to me the wonders of the attack into the crater, or most of the Overland Campaign and the wholesale slaughter of "Once more into the breech" Frontal attacks repeated by those great Generals of WW1 The Somme and Passchendaele. I am sure if any other U.S. General had made those attacks he would have been sacked.
His memoir is one of the finest works in the English language. His chapters dedicated to each of the branches of the Army (medical, signal, quartermaster -- and yes I know they are called corps) are golden insights.
The leadership lessons from Grant are many. But, just a few will get the average person through life easily. Avoid pretense, maximize pragmatism, understand logistics, honestly assess your workforce, know what you want to achieve, and keep your personal life private.
@@nmefdappl Lincoln stood by Grant because he used what he was given, and didn't constantly beg for more men. Grant respected Lee, but never was overawed by him. In fact, when he took overall command of the armies, and posted himself with the Army of the Potomac, Grant chided its officers by accusing them of fearing that Lee could magically do a somersault and land in their rear. To Grant, Lee was just the next opponent, and, as Lincoln noted, Grant understood the "terrible arithmetic" of war, and was prepared to exploit it until the confederate army was destroyed.
I once read a description of Grant by, I believe, a contemporary. “He had the look of a man that has determined to put his head through a brick wall and is about to carry it out.”
Obviously very astute and observant. Would very much like to hear what he had to say about Meade, a true American patrician and a personal hero who I could not be more unlike. I admire the amount of research you must need to do for this, a true calling. Thanks again
If you read of the western campaigns you can't help coming away with the thought "this was Blitzkrieg." Grant understood, invented, combined arms using the navy gunboats he built as armor was used 80 years later by the Germans. The west, because of the Mississippi and its many tributaries was all about the rivers. All commerce was dependent on the rivers more than railroads, and if you controlled those rivers you denied the enemy supply throughout the entire west. Those gunboats sported 32 and 42 pound Dahlgren guns that could level the earthen forts the Confederates had built to defend the river network, yet were impervious to the field guns those forts used for defense. Once you penetrated up those rivers cavalry could be unleashed inland as air was used in Blitzkreig, to destroy infrastructure like rail, factories, bridges, telegraph. Infantry went ashore to occupy key sites. Deny the enemy supply and he is half defeated before your armies ever meet in the field.
It's referred to as war of manouever doctrine and he and Sherman were good at it. He also knew the logistics of the situation. This entry also emphasises he was an adopter of technology when other officers relied on dispatch riders.
Grant didn't build the gunboats. You have to give credit for the gunboats being available to people like, Eads, Fremont, McClellan, commander john Rogers, etc etc...
@@craigplatel813He didn’t manufacture the muskets, sew the uniforms, or breed the horses either, whats your point? Grant is the one who actually effectively used the gunboats in operations, thats what’s being discussed here.
@@craigplatel813 It isn't the building of the boats that is significant, it is having the imagination to invent the entire style of combined arms warfare that makes Grant such a standout. Prior to this armies just faced each other in the field to fight set-piece battles. Grant realized that it was infrastructure; factories, rail, telegraph, bridges, cotton (which was currency) that kept the Confederate armies in the field and fought to remove those assets. Even when he went east, it was really Sherman's army far behind Lee cutting his supply that led to victory. Lee's army was starving in the spring of 65.
Writing his memoirs in a race against his fast approaching demise sicly and racked with pain to provide for his family. A man for his time and courageous to the end.
I listened to about five minutes to this video, went to the internet archive, and DL Ruslings book and read three chapters before returning to the video. Rusling can write well and has excellent powers of description.
An excellent video Ron. This description of Grant is very informative. Clearly Grant was a very modern general. Making use of the technology of the day to hasten communication is very illuminating.
There is a very pertinent example of that use of technology between Grant and Lincoln, who formed a strong bond and mutual trust. When Grant ordered Sheridan, in the Valley, to make contact with the confederate force there, and "follow it to the death," he sent the order by telegraph. Lincoln, who spent most of his days at the telegraph office in the War Department, monitoring the traffic, spotted the order and immediately sent a telegram to Grant. Lincoln, who had been bedeviled and frustrated throughout the war by meddling micromanagers at the War Department, said in the message to Grant words to this effect: Please review correspondence from this place [Washington] and ask yourself whether there is any notion of following the enemy anywhere. I am telling you now, that it will not happen, unless you go there, and force it." Grant, upon receipt of the telegram, immediately took a train straight to Sheridan, and delivered his orders personally. It reveals not only the effective use of new technology by Grant and Lincoln, but it reinforces the point that they trusted each other implicitly.
Little mac was almost great, great at logistics, at training, at organizing, great concept strategist - look at the Jame River campaign when he surprised Lee. But he had one great failing - too great an imagination, always thinking the worst in battle. He should not have been the commander, he would have been excellent staff. He ,like many Union commanders, was an example of the Peter Principle, promoted too far.
As a lifelong practitioner of electric/electronic communications, including military communications involving Morse Code telegraphy (in my case, radiotelegraphy), I admire and I'm impressed with how both Lincoln and Grant used the best communications technology of the day to extend the effectiveness of their respective positions. Lincoln spent hours at the telegraph office and Grant had telegraph stations set up at his residences. Both men received vital updates and issue orders at the speed of light or at least as fast as alphabetic letters could be tapped out to make words. Both were, at heart, humble men who did not let their positions of authority go to their heads, men who were not too proud to adopt the best technology of the day and who never put "form over function" or "fashion over substance."
I am a huge fan of both Grant and Sherman, despite being a descendant of numerous Confederate soldiers. Both were excellent soldiers and possibly, even better humans. Thank you for this account of Grant. It is as I have always imagined him to have been.
Well said. He was good to the bone. He was the essence of a very good man. Were he a Catholic, he would be a canonized saint. Am writing a screenplay about him, more as a man, than a warrior. He is almost as interesting sans the Civil War.
Grant was not without his flaws. As a commanding general, it's true Grant had three confederate armies surrender to him, but Grant also lost battles. And some of his "wins" came at a terrible price in the lives of Union soldiers. Sherman was a maneuver specialist who had success with fewer union lives. And General Thomas both never lost a battle and annihilated the combat effectiveness of Hood's army. Respectfully, W.S.
Great video. I just ordered Rusling's book! Rusling's is a great, and prescient description. Also on point, is Horace Porter's book, "Campaigning with Grant." He describes Grant's actions upon taking command at Chattanooga -- sitting at a small desk, writing order after order after order, dropping each one to the floor when finished, for aides to gather up, and starting immediately on the next one, imposing order on confusion, and restoring confidence that the man at the top was clearly in charge, and knew what to do. Thank you for your contribution.
Great generals have two common qualities. They never panic and they are persistent. Shiloh is the best example for Grant. He kept calm when others thought they could only retreat and turned what could have been a defeat into a Union victory. In every battle Grant took minor reverses in stride and looked for a way to turn the situation to his advantage. Lee had these same tactical qualities, but lacked the strategic vision of Grant. Fowler's observations are very astute.
Grant's persistence was Lee's undoing. He recognized he had the advantage in men and material so he grabbed hold of Lee's army and never let go until he overpowered him.
@@williamosgood3565by all accounts, Lee was quite aware of the South's shortfalls of men, material, and any ability to remedy that reality. It forced his hand to make many assaults that could only change the tactical situation briefly. The strategic outlook was lost when Lincoln was re elected.
At one of the Civil War Roundtable meetings they said that what Grant did, that no general before had done, was to have to have simultaneous attacks on multiple Confederate armies. What had happened before was they would fight one army, then the Confderates could move to assist with the next battle. This was one thing that ground the Confederate army down.
I don't think it's fair to say Lee lacked Grant's strategic vision. What he lacked were, of course, Grant's strategic resources but, more importantly, Grant's command authority, at least from 1864 on. Many people have the mistaken idea that Lee was General in Chief of the Confederate armies, but he wasn't, at least not until March of 1865 when it no longer made any difference. He was commander of the Department of Northern Virginia and his strategic concerns were, perforce, limited to that theater. I don't know what Lee would have done with broader command but I have read scholarly papers blaming him for Confederate failures in the west based on the completely false assertion that he had command of those armies.
Thank you for reading Rustling's description, which I found very interesting. "More like Wellington and Cromwell than Napoleon". Speaking as an Englishman, I found that comparison interesting. I am totally in awe of Grant. I have a copy of Chernow's excellent bio and Grant's memoirs by my bed and am plowing through them. For me, Grant is the American I most admire. I always have this feeling that he seems a melancholic man. I sense it in his face, and his business failures and drinking problems add to that impression. I am also in awe of his calm demeanor and decency. As they said of Churchill "Comes the hour, comes the man."
You were right about those staff officers being educated. At 7:06 you quote Rusling saying, "He hated ... prolix reports." I haven't heard that word 'prolix' in quite a while; I don't think anybody would use it today, but Rusling used it because it conveys the meaning better than "verbose." Thanks for a most entertaining and educational post!
I read a very interesting book about Grant's horses and horsemanship. Apparently he was a real horse whisperer. He started working for money with horses as a young boy. At West Point, he made a point of riding horses no one else could ride. During the war, he rode all over the battlefield with his staff struggling to keep up, which helped give him superior situational awareness.
Very interesting video and I will have to read Rusling's book, as someone who has been interested in the Civil War all my life. However, there is a major thing missing in Rusling's account here, and that is the emotional/psychological effect of the terrible death, carnage, and immense suffering of the wounded that Grant witnessed on almost a daily basis. You can see it in his eyes and face. He experienced things that none of us can comprehend today. I think it's in the great Ron Chernow biography where there's a story about Grant on horseback during a battle, with several of his officers around him, also on horseback. Suddenly a cannonball comes flying through the air and takes the head off one of the men beside him, spattering brains and gore everywhere and onto Grant. Despite such shock and horror, Grant remains emotionally under control, readjusting himself to the situation and reacting like a truly great commander and setting an example for his men. This was long before the days of "post-traumatic syndrome" where men get treatment for their war experiences, and in Grant's day just kept such horrors to themselves.
My gg grandmother would not agree with you. Her husband, my gg grandfather, returned from the war a broken man. He had been injured during the battle of Mobile Bay and spent several months recuperating in Washington. For the next 30 years he was unable to work in the family lumber business, was a drunk and an abusive spouse and parent. Of course he had PTSD and didn't "just keep such horrors to himself." .
@@cht2162 Agreed. I think one reason for the gunfire, violence and mayhem in the postwar "wild west" was the number of men who had witnessed and endured that during the war.
Grant's life from the Mexican War to the start of the Civil War shows that he suffered from PTSD: drunk, unable to hold a job but not abusive to his wife and family.
@@samuelsullivan9546Unlike many military & national leaders, Grant's mind seems to have been as (self) reflective as it was penetrating, & maybe uniquely, for an effective; & so, decisive general, as collaborative as it was commanding. Evidence of his unusual mental balance can be inferred in the fact & output of his collaboration with Twain, while that of his kindness in what was (& still is) his remarkable self-restraint from personally aggressive conduct for a (male) military drunk toward family, particularly its women; evidence of which seemed notable, even then...
Thank you for this video. It's wonderfully refreshing to hear a take on Grant from someone like Rusling, who could also compare him to other prominent officers. Rusling humanizes Grant in a way that most Grant biographers do not, and gives us a glimpse of the personal qualities that helped him succeed.
So, if I understood that correctly, Grant's two secret weapons were his superior appreciation of the telegraph as a means of gaining instantaneous information about the dispositions of his own and enemy forces over a very broad area, and to dispense orders over that same area, and a decisive personality. Yeah, I can see that. I knew about his decisiveness. That has been obvious to students of his campaigns ever since Fort Donelson. I did not know about the telegraph. The telegraph was, of course, very important in the war, but the fact that Grant had one set up in his office so that he could, in essence, hold conversations with his subordinates all over the country and, I suppose, higher authority as well, is very interesting indeed.
I'm so sad it took me till now to find your channel. This was the quickest 9 minutes I've experienced in many years. I'll be delving deep on your further videos. Very well done sir!
All of the personal accounts of people who were actually associated with him (as opposed to southern journalists and less than loyal northern journalists?) had nothing but praise for the man.
I read a book some time ago titled something like "Abraham Lincoln's T-Mails" that discussed Lincoln's incorporation of the telegraph on his wartime management. I was struck by in this video by the comparison of Grant in this regard to other commanders. It would be an interesting topic to explore. I would say that Grant having been so much less steeped in the older paradigms of how officers behaved was more free to try new things. Another book I read long ago coined the term "paradigm paralysis". It was used to describe the tendency of people to do things in ways they were used to such that they couldn't even see the benefits of a different paradigm.
The staff officers give you a front row seat to the commanders and their commands. They lived in the commanders' presence and could describe their daily routines and work habits.
Very interesting and informative. Grant WAS that Midwestern storekeeper in Galena, Illinois before the war -but rose to great heights, more than he or any of his contemporaries in Galena ever dreamed possible.
That depiction of him with his telegraph is something I'd like to hear more of. The logistics of maintaining enough wires to keep in touch with his entire army would be fascinating
The writer mentioned Grant's use of the telegraph. So he was not only sensitive to time, and decisive, but he used the newest technology to communicate to his organization.
The United States as we know it was birthed by Washington, and preserved by Lincoln and Grant. Grant is the figure in our history who is least appreciated, but without Grant the United States might well have been split into a police state of slave plantations, in competition with a democracy with half its present territory. The greatness of Grant and his importance in U.S history cannot be overestimated. People should read his memoirs, not only as a critical piece of our history, but as masterpiece of clear, concise prose.
Excellent video! That second glance is what separated General Grant from the litany of Army of the Potomac commanders. He knew what he was about and did not dither. He kept moving forward, attacking. His use of the telegraph speaks volumes about him as a commander. Could the recent AoP commanders, e.g., Meade and Hooker, have also used the telegraph as effectively or was the infrastructure not ready until 1864?
Why was McClellon so willing to essentially act in full blown insubordination of orders from the president while he was in charge of the army of the potomac ?
@@Mr4autigerThe book by William Styple called “McClellan’s Other Story” presents fascinating insights into McClellan’s and his motives. Excellent book.
@@karlking4980 Was it because he viewed the "original baboon" (his words, not mine) as a potential despot, waging a potentially unjust war? Maybe George didn't want to be known as the guy who "raised" virginia at the behest of ol' Honest Abe. Just maybe that's why he was biding his time.
Grant was a friend of Virginia city Nevada. The boomtown that had Samuel Clemens working at his brothers newspaper. There is a plaque in front of the house where Grant gave a speech. P.s. The Ward school has the printing equipment Samuel Clemens used.
Grant, unlike many other Union generals, understood the necessity of (well planned) offense. Lincoln was extremely frustrated by his earlier commanders endlessly preparing and defending, but not taking the fight to the enemy. Grant, like Patton (but with less ego), was able to understand war, putting aside convention. Near the end of the war, Grant understood that he had the superior forces, and that he only needed to keep constantly engaging with Lee and attriting Lee's forces to end the war. If each engagement resulted in the loss of equal resources (in numbers, not percentages), the odds in favor of the Union would continuously improve until Lee would be unable to continue. And that's exactly what happened.
Very interesting observation on a man (Grant) often misrepresented for leadership qualities, in part because he didn't stand on perceived perceptions of leadership, all because he didn't look the part!
After, what almost 160 years(!) the wartime propaganda still dominates people's views about Grant. I have read many original sources written by close associates, I'll take the opinions of people who actually knew him, which were 100% supportive. I can only aspire to his apparent integrity.
If you looked at how western military officers dressed for many different armies or navies, across different countries at the time, they were... Flamboyant. Just look at the uniforms, particularly generals and field marshals. Especially the Napoleonic Wars, which was only a few decades prior to the American Civil War. You're an officer *and* a gentleman. The Americans still took a lot of their cues from Europe.
@@Warmaker01 The full dress uniforms were nothing if not flamboyant. I believe the point was that a few senior officers avoided any ostentation, in particular, Grant. I believe Lee was known for wearing all the uniform regulations allowed.
General Grant understood the importance of COMBINED ARMS WARFARE with close coordination of naval and army units. This riverine combined arms riverine warfare implemented the best technology of the steam age to create a war of maneuver. The steam riverboat, steam gunboat, railroad and telegraph all ensured a business management system of moving men, supplies, draft animals, and weaponry in a coordinated manner to a place of concentrated attack. Grant understood that as long as his the steam riverboat, the naval gunboats, railroad and telegraph kept on schedule his forces had superiority over the Confederates. A battered Union force could quickly be reinforced, resupplied with replacements to be reset quickly to fght again the next day. Wounded men were evacuated to hospitals by steamriverboat and railroad to hospitals. Grant became the one of the first generals to think in terms of the business management of war keeping a tight schedule of river steamboats and railroads. Grant used gunboats as mobile artillery platforms to put overwhelming mobile artillery firepower to bombard Confederate river fortifications. The Union infantry was moved quickly down the river by steam transport to surround and besiege the enemy fortificartions concentrating more force at his point of attack than the enemy could to defend that same pòsition. The western theater with the Ohio and Mississippi river tributory systems, the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers became logistical arteries. These river highways allowed the movement of men, guns, supplies anywhere to a point of attack. Grant used gunboats to bombard Forts Henry and Donaldson while infantry besieged these forts. The battle of Shiloh saw Grant reinforced the first night of the battle with General Buell's forces allowing for a reinforced counterattack against the Confederates. At Vicksburg, a year later, Grant got his Union forces behind Vicksburg slipping transports and gunboats passed the Confederate defenders to cut off Vicksburg in a land campaign. The entire Mississippi river fell to the Union quickly after Vicksburg fell on July 4th, 1863. Grant also used riverine forces to move men deep into northern Alabama towards Chattanooga for a shorter land march. So the lessons hetre are many for military history students to learn.
I have heard this discription before I can understand this type of person even in ww2 the us had entire platoons of misfits so to speak but when it came time to get to buisness courage,grit and loyalty to there last breath these men went on to acomplished great things most men dont dare.
After reading much both about and by Grant, I would add 3 other "secret weapons" (actually, there was nothing particularly secret about them). 1) Grants' knowledge of Logistics and appreciation of their importance (at least partly explained by his having served in the Quartermaster Corps) . 2) Grants great skill at horsemanship. 3)Grants' ability to write clearly, concisely and unambiguously. His memoir reads more like prose of today than of the times he lived in.
Excellent episode. My favorite description of Grant was from Lincoln himself. When ask why he had chosen Grant, Lincoln replied simply. “He fights!” FDR would have a similar view of George S Patton in WWII.
Patton is overrated. Some people seem to think he won the war in Europe on the western front. He didn't, although he had his part. Andy Rooney's memoir "My War" is a good source for a critical review of Patton's role.
Permit me to give another context. telegraph technology. 1. He had already been to West Point. His classmates were not introduced to modern communications. 2. The first limited, federal funding did not take place until 1844 and it was just a short line from like Washington DC to Baltimore. 3. He sped up communications and decision making. Training. 1. He was given a command of a small local volunteer unit. The options were to take the train from where the unit was raised to the training rounds in a day or to walk for 5 days. He chose to walk, gave a time for departure the next morning and took off on time. This went on day after day, some people falling out, but by the 5th day, everyone remaining was in sych.
They say “clothes make the man”! Not so with General Grant! What mattered most in his case was his thought processes and planning. That is what allowed him to win the Civil War! Bravo General!
Grant had a telegraph in his office. He had better electronic communication than the French High Command had at the start of WW II. Over 70 years after Grant the French commanding General was using runners and messengers.
I believe Grant had a powerful intellect by which he was able to hold in his mind what the enemy situation was, what his force could be expected to do and what his logistical condition was. His mother, Hannah, was a quiet woman but very capable and I believe the General was like his mother in this respect.
7:10 - 7:30 The flowery language early in this video is easily and rightly described as "fawning memoir", but this is the real thing. 7:45 The other secret weapon.
@@timsharkey1993 Such a difference in self-regard. Grant was by all accounts modest and unassuming, McClellan, by today’s standards, was almost comically egotistical. McClellan impressed the right people early in his career and rose quickly. No doubt he had something to back up his early success, but from it he took the lesson that he was more capable than he was and, therefore, should not be questioned by anyone, including the President. I’ve always wondered how things would’ve turned out had McClellan won the election of 1864.
*Inexplicably, RUclips's "Algorithmic Gods" delivered this to my feed. And thank goodness they did: Rusling's keeness revealed more compelling insight into Gen. Grant in a few sentences than a whole semester's worth of study.* 🙌
One of Grant's staff that has often fascinated me is John A Rawlins. He could often check Grant's occasional times of a bit to much to drink. Which I have heard were exaggerated by his enemies and were not as often as they claimed. But most accounts of Rawlins don't explain HOW he became 'Grant's conscience'. Have you done any research on how this relationship developed?
John Aaron Rawlins is my great uncle, and one of my heroes. John lifted himself out of life as a "charcoal boy" in Galena to reading for the law. He attended seminary for a few years, but was mostly self taught. Grant came to know Rawlins when he conducted legal work for the Grant family's tannery, and as Rawlins led pro-Union rallies at the outbreak of the Civil War. Grant & Rawlins became close friends & Rawlins supported Grant in his struggle with alcoholism by issuing orders to the General Staff to keep strong drink out of Grant's reach. Rawlins' father, James Dawson Rawlins was a drunk, leaving John Aaron & the family for long stretches of time, so John Aaron led a very temperate life. His only vice seems to be his progious use of swear words. Rawlins is only mentioned a few ties in Grant's memoirs: some historians believe this was due to a resurgence of stories about Grant's drunkenness spread by his political enemies, using Rawlins' letters to Grant as proof. Grant apparently went on short benders occasionally, but for the most part, was successful in fighting his urge to drink. An excellent biography of Rawlins was written several years ago by Dr. Allen J. Ottens "General John A. Rawlins - No Ordinary Man." It dispels the silly notions that Rawlins was the military genius behind Grant's success or that Rawlins was the man that kept Grant sober. Grant's regard for Rawlins included his guardianship and financial support of John Aaron's children after they were orphaned.
Excellent presentation. Thank you. An enjoyable insight into a great general where their characters and qualities take on new meaning during this time of war (2024) for people seeking to understand "What makes a great general?" I think the revelation is clear from the words you've read: It's not the presentation of the man, but the quality and character of their mind, that makes a great general. I think (knowing a little of UHG), that the key ingredient in shaping the quality of character is....adversity. And UHG responded to his adversity with clearly great positivity. Probably explains the old expression that I've just remembered: "Adversity is character building".
It would add greatly to this if you had referenced Gen. Rusling’s section on Lincoln discussing Grant during Lincoln’s visit to a recuperating Sickles at a private residence on F street, Washington DC on July 5th 1863,. This was 3 days after Sickles wound at Gettysburg but before the news of the surrender of Vicksburg. Pgs 12-16.
Grant understood the reality of "Total War" , more than anyone, including Lee. While others fought a war in a fashion they had read about, Grant had moved on to a new reality.
That opening note about Grant's appearance seems to indicate a split that was always in the American army. Gen. Winfield Scott was called "Old Fuss and Feathers" for his insistence on professional appearance, while Zachary Taylor was called "Old Rough and Ready" for being the opposite. It is known that Grant idolized Taylor and modeled himself on him.
Unlike his predecessors in command of the Union Army of the Potomac,when General Lee gave General Grant a bloody nose at the Wilderness,,Grant didn't turn tail and head North. He headed South and that's when the troops knew that Grant was there to win.Morale among the ranks soared.
Love Grant. The anti hero. Great video from the writings of one who experienced his leadership. He was also an underappreciated president for many of the same reasons I would not doubt. Even then leaders were too conscious of form over substance.
It's enough to point out that Grant is only on three to be granted the rank of General of the Armies (The only one higher than the Five-Star General of the Army) alongside George Washington and John J. Pershing.
Nice photo of US Grant. When Grant was dying while writing his memoirs, he stopped taking his opiates, preferring to bear the pain, rather than leave his historical records unwritten. He hoped to provide for his family by the publication of his memoirs. IIRR, the work was unsuccessful.
@@nickdanger4795 The memoir is still in print, so that's pretty successful. The failure mentioned in conjunction with the memoir apparently referred to US Grant's previous investment in "Grant & Ward," which turned out to be a Ponzi scheme, and Grant lost his investment. But if it hadn't been for "Grant & Ward," he wouldn't have had to write his memoir.
Very interesting description. I didn't know he had used the telegraph so frequently. How hard was it to keep the telegraph lines working (between weather and sabotage)? Also, about the slow of speech, could be Grant's speech pattern is different than the officers from the northeast. I'm from the northeast and sometimes we speak quickly.
@@kimberlycorliss9616 The U.S. Army’s Signal Corps had just been formed in 1860. Fortunately, it was led by a someone who understood the importance of fast and effective communications and how to exploit the technologies of the day to accomplish it. No doubt the Signal Corps was primarily responsible for keeping the telegraph lines up and running in the midst of the later conflict.
@@pjmlegrande Thank you for the information! There are so many aspects about the civil war I don't know about. I find these details make it even more interesting and give more depth to it than just dates and events.
"Temperatures down to 0", Wow, having grown up in Greenland (Denmark), I remember summer temperatures like that in June! Mostly, in June we had minus 20 C degrees though...
Those staff officers! My great-great grandfather A.D. Rockwell, by family tradition was the youngest surgeon of the Union Army wrote his own 'Rambling Recollections', copies of which still exist for instance in the Cornell Medical School Library, in which you can read his experiences bumping along with Sheridan on his famous ride, and his impressions of U.S. Grant and other well known Union officers over Thanksgiving Dinner. The end of his book concludes with a series of character sketches of famous persons who he knew: Madam Astor for instance who upon discovering the apparent quackery of A.D. deposited all of his delicate electro-medical equipment out into the hallway being unsatisfied with his treatment of her son, and also a sickly, young Theodore Roosevelt for whom A.D. was his personal physician. There still exist gold mines for historians, moldering away on library shelves - if only they knew.
Visit the Grant Presidential Library at Mississippi State University... A ten million dollar addition to Mitchell Memorial Library some few years ago. Visit also the John Gresham wing in the same building.
It’s interesting the differences between Grant and Hancock. Grant was soft spoken, while Hancock had a very foul mouth that some thought distasteful, but both were brilliant officers.
I was previously married to a great great granddaughter of Elihu B. Washburne, the man responsible for literally bringing Grant back into the army after the war began and his Grant's political benefactor in D.C., with Lincoln. All three men were from Illinois.
In the last few decades, nothing has been better in popular history than Grant finally getting his due.
Grants presidency, right, wrong or otherwise left a stain on his whole career
@@peterblum613 Agree 👍 Until recently, Lee was doing double backflips, surrounding from all angles and Grant was a butcher with all the numbers.
@@clintonstephens273Historians have also been reassessing his presidency. The modern consensus is that Grant had some achievements, especially in protecting the freed people, and that overly negative assessments of his presidency, like those of his generalship, were often driven by those hostile to civil rights.
@@clintonstephens273 He did get two terms.
If more presidents could be added to Mt Rushmore, I’d add FDR and Grant. Both had absolutely monumental and epic achievements.
My favorite thing I've read about Grant was that he was a man who saw things as they were and not as he wished they were. A simple but rare talent.
Long before King Leonidas of Sparta made his stand at Thermopylae, Senior Military Officers saw battlefields and even entire campaigns as they Wanted them to be; not as they actually were. It takes immense moral courage to coldly look the truth in the face and even more moral courage to accept them. Ulysses S. Grant had that kind of courage. So did William T. Sherman, George “Pap” Thomas, David Farragut, Robert E. Lee, “Pete” Longstreet, and “Stonewall” Jackson. Too many others were guilty of “making pictures in their minds” (Napoleon Bonaparte’ quotation).
A common characteristic of depressives. Neuro divergence creates opportunity to see the world as it is. Most people, particularly charismatic leaders, hold the three standard positive illusions: ability- they think they are better than they are; control- they think they have a greater hold on variables and potential outcomes than is possible; and optimism- that tomorrow will be better or offer more opportunity than today, whether or not there is a change in input or effort. During- depressive episodes (which in Grant's case might be expressed by binge drinking) depressives are particularly unproductive. But outside of those episodes there can be a laser like understanding of reality: expressed as knowing exactly how many soldiers it will require to take the hill, and how many will be lost or knowing exactly how long it will take to move your forces. Others form plans based on inspiration and optimism. Leaders like Grant build on understanding reality. Lincoln shared the quality. I think in some ways it explains the relationship between Lincoln and Grant as well. Depressives have a superpower that they bring to a community of minds. Some feel it is why the disorder never died out in humans. Same thing with anxiety- in threatening environments the anxious see the Tiger in the tall grass and alert the rest of the village. But if you've evolved with that power, but you live in relative safety, your excessive sensitivity becomes a disorder. Its a theory anyway. And it explains why a mind formed in a particular manner can be particularly effective at a specific point and time in history.
@@ThomasSnort Really? Then please explain to me the wonders of the attack into the crater, or most of the Overland Campaign and the wholesale slaughter of "Once more into the breech" Frontal attacks repeated by those great Generals of WW1 The Somme and Passchendaele. I am sure if any other U.S. General had made those attacks he would have been sacked.
His memoir is one of the finest works in the English language. His chapters dedicated to each of the branches of the Army (medical, signal, quartermaster -- and yes I know they are called corps) are golden insights.
The leadership lessons from Grant are many. But, just a few will get the average person through life easily. Avoid pretense, maximize pragmatism, understand logistics, honestly assess your workforce, know what you want to achieve, and keep your personal life private.
Ask Ferdinand Ward.
And find a John Rawlins.
Grant knew how to get shit done. That's how worlds are won, not by fancy titles & ostentatious show
@@nmefdappl Lincoln stood by Grant because he used what he was given, and didn't constantly beg for more men. Grant respected Lee, but never was overawed by him. In fact, when he took overall command of the armies, and posted himself with the Army of the Potomac, Grant chided its officers by accusing them of fearing that Lee could magically do a somersault and land in their rear. To Grant, Lee was just the next opponent, and, as Lincoln noted, Grant understood the "terrible arithmetic" of war, and was prepared to exploit it until the confederate army was destroyed.
That was a good little break down. I definitely wanna learn more about about his tactics
I once read a description of Grant by, I believe, a contemporary. “He had the look of a man that has determined to put his head through a brick wall and is about to carry it out.”
Obviously very astute and observant. Would very much like to hear what he had to say about Meade, a true American patrician and a personal hero who I could not be more unlike. I admire the amount of research you must need to do for this, a true calling. Thanks again
@@jonrettich-ff4gjk
If you read of the western campaigns you can't help coming away with the thought "this was Blitzkrieg." Grant understood, invented, combined arms using the navy gunboats he built as armor was used 80 years later by the Germans. The west, because of the Mississippi and its many tributaries was all about the rivers. All commerce was dependent on the rivers more than railroads, and if you controlled those rivers you denied the enemy supply throughout the entire west. Those gunboats sported 32 and 42 pound Dahlgren guns that could level the earthen forts the Confederates had built to defend the river network, yet were impervious to the field guns those forts used for defense. Once you penetrated up those rivers cavalry could be unleashed inland as air was used in Blitzkreig, to destroy infrastructure like rail, factories, bridges, telegraph. Infantry went ashore to occupy key sites. Deny the enemy supply and he is half defeated before your armies ever meet in the field.
It's referred to as war of manouever doctrine and he and Sherman were good at it. He also knew the logistics of the situation. This entry also emphasises he was an adopter of technology when other officers relied on dispatch riders.
Grant didn't build the gunboats. You have to give credit for the gunboats being available to people like, Eads, Fremont, McClellan, commander john Rogers, etc etc...
@@craigplatel813He didn’t manufacture the muskets, sew the uniforms, or breed the horses either, whats your point? Grant is the one who actually effectively used the gunboats in operations, thats what’s being discussed here.
@@craigplatel813 It isn't the building of the boats that is significant, it is having the imagination to invent the entire style of combined arms warfare that makes Grant such a standout. Prior to this armies just faced each other in the field to fight set-piece battles. Grant realized that it was infrastructure; factories, rail, telegraph, bridges, cotton (which was currency) that kept the Confederate armies in the field and fought to remove those assets. Even when he went east, it was really Sherman's army far behind Lee cutting his supply that led to victory. Lee's army was starving in the spring of 65.
@@kodiakkeith not true. You need to do some serious study on the history of warfare.
Grant's memoirs, helped by Mark Twain, is an outstanding and accessible read
The man could write.
@@WilliamThompson-b1j the language in it is plain and simple and easily appreciated by 21st c “ears”
Thanks for the tip!
Twain was his publisher, IIRR.
Writing his memoirs in a race against his fast approaching demise sicly and racked with pain to provide for his family. A man for his time and courageous to the end.
I listened to about five minutes to this video, went to the internet archive, and DL Ruslings book and read three chapters before returning to the video. Rusling can write well and has excellent powers of description.
Thanks for that endorsement. I'm on my way.
An excellent video Ron. This description of Grant is very informative. Clearly Grant was a very modern general. Making use of the technology of the day to hasten communication is very illuminating.
There is a very pertinent example of that use of technology between Grant and Lincoln, who formed a strong bond and mutual trust. When Grant ordered Sheridan, in the Valley, to make contact with the confederate force there, and "follow it to the death," he sent the order by telegraph. Lincoln, who spent most of his days at the telegraph office in the War Department, monitoring the traffic, spotted the order and immediately sent a telegram to Grant. Lincoln, who had been bedeviled and frustrated throughout the war by meddling micromanagers at the War Department, said in the message to Grant words to this effect: Please review correspondence from this place [Washington] and ask yourself whether there is any notion of following the enemy anywhere. I am telling you now, that it will not happen, unless you go there, and force it." Grant, upon receipt of the telegram, immediately took a train straight to Sheridan, and delivered his orders personally. It reveals not only the effective use of new technology by Grant and Lincoln, but it reinforces the point that they trusted each other implicitly.
As you said, the staff officers are not examined enough for their work and insight. Really liked this episode. Thank you!!
Unlike Little Mac Grant was a work horse not a show horse.
Brilliant comment!
Little mac was almost great, great at logistics, at training, at organizing, great concept strategist - look at the Jame River campaign when he surprised Lee.
But he had one great failing - too great an imagination, always thinking the worst in battle.
He should not have been the commander, he would have been excellent staff. He ,like many Union commanders, was an example of the Peter Principle, promoted too far.
Little Mac was very good at getting an army ready for battle and preparing men to fight in a war. He was shit at leading an army though.
As a lifelong practitioner of electric/electronic communications, including military communications involving Morse Code telegraphy (in my case, radiotelegraphy), I admire and I'm impressed with how both Lincoln and Grant used the best communications technology of the day to extend the effectiveness of their respective positions. Lincoln spent hours at the telegraph office and Grant had telegraph stations set up at his residences. Both men received vital updates and issue orders at the speed of light or at least as fast as alphabetic letters could be tapped out to make words. Both were, at heart, humble men who did not let their positions of authority go to their heads, men who were not too proud to adopt the best technology of the day and who never put "form over function" or "fashion over substance."
I am a huge fan of both Grant and Sherman, despite being a descendant of numerous Confederate soldiers. Both were excellent soldiers and possibly, even better humans.
Thank you for this account of Grant. It is as I have always imagined him to have been.
Grant was the u.s.'s greatest general and the most moral of all the presidents. Enough good things cannot be said.
Well said. He was good to the bone. He was the essence of a very good man.
Were he a Catholic, he would be a canonized saint.
Am writing a screenplay about him, more as a man, than a warrior. He is almost as interesting sans the Civil War.
Thank goodness he wasn't Catholic@@maryshanley329
@@maryshanley329 Some of his own generals would have to disagree with your take there, pal.
Grant was not without his flaws. As a commanding general, it's true Grant had three confederate armies surrender to him, but Grant also lost battles. And some of his "wins" came at a terrible price in the lives of Union soldiers. Sherman was a maneuver specialist who had success with fewer union lives. And General Thomas both never lost a battle and annihilated the combat effectiveness of Hood's army. Respectfully, W.S.
@@wmschooley1234 I am not talking about Grants prowess as a battlefield commander
Great video. I just ordered Rusling's book! Rusling's is a great, and prescient description. Also on point, is Horace Porter's book, "Campaigning with Grant." He describes Grant's actions upon taking command at Chattanooga -- sitting at a small desk, writing order after order after order, dropping each one to the floor when finished, for aides to gather up, and starting immediately on the next one, imposing order on confusion, and restoring confidence that the man at the top was clearly in charge, and knew what to do. Thank you for your contribution.
Thank you for providing these videos. Very different from most other historical videos in tone and content. I appreciate your work very much.
Grant didn’t give up
When got a bloody nose he kept coming when others fell back
Gave his opponent no breaks
"..Whip em.tomorrow though"..
Excellent Shiloh reference to General Grant!
Grant was one helluva Soldier.My great-great grandfather served under General Grant.He said that the men believed in Grant 100%.
My grandfather was too young to serve in the CW!
@@jguenther3049I said my great-great grandfather.What do you mean?
Great generals have two common qualities. They never panic and they are persistent. Shiloh is the best example for Grant. He kept calm when others thought they could only retreat and turned what could have been a defeat into a Union victory. In every battle Grant took minor reverses in stride and looked for a way to turn the situation to his advantage. Lee had these same tactical qualities, but lacked the strategic vision of Grant. Fowler's observations are very astute.
Grant's persistence was Lee's undoing. He recognized he had the advantage in men and material so he grabbed hold of Lee's army and never let go until he overpowered him.
@@williamosgood3565by all accounts, Lee was quite aware of the South's shortfalls of men, material, and any ability to remedy that reality. It forced his hand to make many assaults that could only change the tactical situation briefly. The strategic outlook was lost when Lincoln was re elected.
Thanks for your opinion on great generals.
At one of the Civil War Roundtable meetings they said that what Grant did, that no general before had done, was to have to have simultaneous attacks on multiple Confederate armies. What had happened before was they would fight one army, then the Confderates could move to assist with the next battle. This was one thing that ground the Confederate army down.
I don't think it's fair to say Lee lacked Grant's strategic vision. What he lacked were, of course, Grant's strategic resources but, more importantly, Grant's command authority, at least from 1864 on. Many people have the mistaken idea that Lee was General in Chief of the Confederate armies, but he wasn't, at least not until March of 1865 when it no longer made any difference. He was commander of the Department of Northern Virginia and his strategic concerns were, perforce, limited to that theater. I don't know what Lee would have done with broader command but I have read scholarly papers blaming him for Confederate failures in the west based on the completely false assertion that he had command of those armies.
Thank you for reading Rustling's description, which I found very interesting. "More like Wellington and Cromwell than Napoleon". Speaking as an Englishman, I found that comparison interesting. I am totally in awe of Grant. I have a copy of Chernow's excellent bio and Grant's memoirs by my bed and am plowing through them. For me, Grant is the American I most admire.
I always have this feeling that he seems a melancholic man. I sense it in his face, and his business failures and drinking problems add to that impression. I am also in awe of his calm demeanor and decency. As they said of Churchill "Comes the hour, comes the man."
You were right about those staff officers being educated. At 7:06 you quote Rusling saying, "He hated ... prolix reports." I haven't heard that word 'prolix' in quite a while; I don't think anybody would use it today, but Rusling used it because it conveys the meaning better than "verbose." Thanks for a most entertaining and educational post!
I read a very interesting book about Grant's horses and horsemanship. Apparently he was a real horse whisperer. He started working for money with horses as a young boy. At West Point, he made a point of riding horses no one else could ride. During the war, he rode all over the battlefield with his staff struggling to keep up, which helped give him superior situational awareness.
Very interesting video and I will have to read Rusling's book, as someone who has been interested in the Civil War all my life. However, there is a major thing missing in Rusling's account here, and that is the emotional/psychological effect of the terrible death, carnage, and immense suffering of the wounded that Grant witnessed on almost a daily basis. You can see it in his eyes and face. He experienced things that none of us can comprehend today. I think it's in the great Ron Chernow biography where there's a story about Grant on horseback during a battle, with several of his officers around him, also on horseback. Suddenly a cannonball comes flying through the air and takes the head off one of the men beside him, spattering brains and gore everywhere and onto Grant. Despite such shock and horror, Grant remains emotionally under control, readjusting himself to the situation and reacting like a truly great commander and setting an example for his men. This was long before the days of "post-traumatic syndrome" where men get treatment for their war experiences, and in Grant's day just kept such horrors to themselves.
My gg grandmother would not agree with you. Her husband, my gg grandfather, returned from the war a broken man. He had been injured during the battle of Mobile Bay and spent several months recuperating in Washington. For the next 30 years he was unable to work in the family lumber business, was a drunk and an abusive spouse and parent. Of course he had PTSD and didn't "just keep such horrors to himself." .
@@cht2162 Agreed. I think one reason for the gunfire, violence and mayhem in the postwar "wild west" was the number of men who had witnessed and endured that during the war.
Grant's life from the Mexican War to the start of the Civil War shows that he suffered from PTSD: drunk, unable to hold a job but not abusive to his wife and family.
@@samuelsullivan9546Unlike many military & national leaders, Grant's mind seems to have been as (self) reflective as it was penetrating, & maybe uniquely, for an effective; & so, decisive general, as collaborative as it was commanding. Evidence of his unusual mental balance can be inferred in the fact & output of his collaboration with Twain, while that of his kindness in what was (& still is) his remarkable self-restraint from personally aggressive conduct for a (male) military drunk toward family, particularly its women; evidence of which seemed notable, even then...
Thanks!
Nice one Ron. Thanx mate.
Thank you for this video. It's wonderfully refreshing to hear a take on Grant from someone like Rusling, who could also compare him to other prominent officers. Rusling humanizes Grant in a way that most Grant biographers do not, and gives us a glimpse of the personal qualities that helped him succeed.
So, if I understood that correctly, Grant's two secret weapons were his superior appreciation of the telegraph as a means of gaining instantaneous information about the dispositions of his own and enemy forces over a very broad area, and to dispense orders over that same area, and a decisive personality. Yeah, I can see that. I knew about his decisiveness. That has been obvious to students of his campaigns ever since Fort Donelson. I did not know about the telegraph. The telegraph was, of course, very important in the war, but the fact that Grant had one set up in his office so that he could, in essence, hold conversations with his subordinates all over the country and, I suppose, higher authority as well, is very interesting indeed.
He was an engineer, after all.
West Point at that time was solely an engineering school.
@@odysseusrex5908 I’ve read that his written dispatches to subordinates were models of clarity. Concise, short and avoided equivocation
Excellent. Loved this. Gives great insight.
Great anecdotes from an eyewitness to history. Thanks!
Having a telegraph in your HQ had to be a big help as well.
Grant was in daily communication with Lincoln. Science Fiction stuff of the time.
Glad your highlighting this. Both Grant and Lincoln used technology to an advantage.
I'm so sad it took me till now to find your channel. This was the quickest 9 minutes I've experienced in many years. I'll be delving deep on your further videos. Very well done sir!
Grant got the job done, his style. Good post.
As President Lincoln said: "He Fights"
All of the personal accounts of people who were actually associated with him (as opposed to southern journalists and less than loyal northern journalists?) had nothing but praise for the man.
Thank you for a most instructive, helpful and inspiring video.
That's a fantastic description!
Really cool to get to hear these letters and correspondences of such historical moments.
I read a book some time ago titled something like "Abraham Lincoln's T-Mails" that discussed Lincoln's incorporation of the telegraph on his wartime management. I was struck by in this video by the comparison of Grant in this regard to other commanders. It would be an interesting topic to explore. I would say that Grant having been so much less steeped in the older paradigms of how officers behaved was more free to try new things. Another book I read long ago coined the term "paradigm paralysis". It was used to describe the tendency of people to do things in ways they were used to such that they couldn't even see the benefits of a different paradigm.
The staff officers give you a front row seat to the commanders and their commands. They lived in the commanders' presence and could describe their daily routines and work habits.
I get a lot out of post period analyses,m but there's no substitute for reading originalk materials. Nice presentations, good analysis, thanks mate.
Very interesting and informative. Grant WAS that Midwestern storekeeper in Galena, Illinois before the war -but rose to great heights, more than he or any of his contemporaries in Galena ever dreamed possible.
That depiction of him with his telegraph is something I'd like to hear more of.
The logistics of maintaining enough wires to keep in touch with his entire army would be fascinating
Great video on Grant! ❤
Great narration, thanks Ron
Grant is my hero. I've read and reread bios and never tire of Ulysses stories.
Ron Woods biography is a favorite. Chernow has too much author opinion.
what a great description! But the telegraph story was most revealing.
THAT WAS GREAT THANK YOU
The writer mentioned Grant's use of the telegraph. So he was not only sensitive to time, and decisive, but he used the newest technology to communicate to his organization.
Thks for This video, a Great general indeed!!!
The United States as we know it was birthed by Washington, and preserved by Lincoln and Grant. Grant is the figure in our history who is least appreciated, but without Grant the United States might well have been split into a police state of slave plantations, in competition with a democracy with half its present territory. The greatness of Grant and his importance in U.S history cannot be overestimated. People should read his memoirs, not only as a critical piece of our history, but as masterpiece of clear, concise prose.
Excellent video! That second glance is what separated General Grant from the litany of Army of the Potomac commanders. He knew what he was about and did not dither. He kept moving forward, attacking. His use of the telegraph speaks volumes about him as a commander. Could the recent AoP commanders, e.g., Meade and Hooker, have also used the telegraph as effectively or was the infrastructure not ready until 1864?
Why was McClellon so willing to essentially act in full blown insubordination of orders from the president while he was in charge of the army of the potomac ?
@@Mr4autigerThe book by William Styple called “McClellan’s Other Story” presents fascinating insights into McClellan’s and his motives. Excellent book.
@@karlking4980 Was it because he viewed the "original baboon" (his words, not mine) as a potential despot, waging a potentially unjust war? Maybe George didn't want to be known as the guy who "raised" virginia at the behest of ol' Honest Abe. Just maybe that's why he was biding his time.
@@Mr4autiger One wonders. I have read (sadly cannot readily provide citations) that he was emotionally a southern supporter.
@@karlking4980 Always looking to learn more about that American tragedy. Thanks.
One of the quotes from Grant I've always tried to live by is "any decision is better than no decision".
What a great idea to get these insights through staff officers rather than biographers. Thanks
Sickles' leg is preserved and was on display at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology Museum (AFIP) at Walter Reed Army Hosiptal in Washington DC
Grant was a friend of Virginia city Nevada. The boomtown that had Samuel Clemens working at his brothers newspaper. There is a plaque in front of the house where Grant gave a speech. P.s. The Ward school has the printing equipment Samuel Clemens used.
@@brp5497 Thanks for this detail. Adds to my knowledge of Grant.
Grant, unlike many other Union generals, understood the necessity of (well planned) offense. Lincoln was extremely frustrated by his earlier commanders endlessly preparing and defending, but not taking the fight to the enemy. Grant, like Patton (but with less ego), was able to understand war, putting aside convention.
Near the end of the war, Grant understood that he had the superior forces, and that he only needed to keep constantly engaging with Lee and attriting Lee's forces to end the war. If each engagement resulted in the loss of equal resources (in numbers, not percentages), the odds in favor of the Union would continuously improve until Lee would be unable to continue. And that's exactly what happened.
Don't forget he had Sheridan and Sherman wrecking having upon Virginia and Georgia respectively.
@@PeteOtton parts of a planned strategy, another reason to appreciate Grant
Very interesting observation on a man (Grant) often misrepresented for leadership qualities, in part because he didn't stand on perceived perceptions of leadership, all because he didn't look the part!
After, what almost 160 years(!) the wartime propaganda still dominates people's views about Grant. I have read many original sources written by close associates, I'll take the opinions of people who actually knew him, which were 100% supportive. I can only aspire to his apparent integrity.
If you looked at how western military officers dressed for many different armies or navies, across different countries at the time, they were... Flamboyant. Just look at the uniforms, particularly generals and field marshals. Especially the Napoleonic Wars, which was only a few decades prior to the American Civil War. You're an officer *and* a gentleman. The Americans still took a lot of their cues from Europe.
@@Warmaker01 The full dress uniforms were nothing if not flamboyant. I believe the point was that a few senior officers avoided any ostentation, in particular, Grant. I believe Lee was known for wearing all the uniform regulations allowed.
The first and second glances by Rusling were probably echoed by Lee at Appomattox in his thoughts.
General Grant understood the importance of COMBINED ARMS WARFARE with close coordination of naval and army units. This riverine combined arms riverine warfare implemented the best technology of the steam age to create a war of maneuver. The steam riverboat, steam gunboat, railroad and telegraph all ensured a business management system of moving men, supplies, draft animals, and weaponry in a coordinated manner to a place of concentrated attack. Grant understood that as long as his the steam riverboat, the naval gunboats, railroad and telegraph kept on schedule his forces had superiority over the Confederates. A battered Union force could quickly be reinforced, resupplied with replacements to be reset quickly to fght again the next day. Wounded men were evacuated to hospitals by steamriverboat and railroad to hospitals. Grant became the one of the first generals to think in terms of the business management of war keeping a tight schedule of river steamboats and railroads. Grant used gunboats as mobile artillery platforms to put overwhelming mobile artillery firepower to bombard Confederate river fortifications. The Union infantry was moved quickly down the river by steam transport to surround and besiege the enemy fortificartions concentrating more force at his point of attack than the enemy could to defend that same pòsition.
The western theater with the Ohio and Mississippi river tributory systems, the Cumberland and Tennessee rivers became logistical arteries. These river highways allowed the movement of men, guns, supplies anywhere to a point of attack. Grant used gunboats to bombard Forts Henry and Donaldson while infantry besieged these forts. The battle of Shiloh saw Grant reinforced the first night of the battle with General Buell's forces allowing for a reinforced counterattack against the Confederates. At Vicksburg, a year later, Grant got his Union forces behind Vicksburg slipping transports and gunboats passed the Confederate defenders to cut off Vicksburg in a land campaign. The entire Mississippi river fell to the Union quickly after Vicksburg fell on July 4th, 1863. Grant also used riverine forces to move men deep into northern Alabama towards Chattanooga for a shorter land march. So the lessons hetre are many for military history students to learn.
I have heard this discription before I can understand this type of person even in ww2 the us had entire platoons of misfits so to speak but when it came time to get to buisness courage,grit and loyalty to there last breath these men went on to acomplished great things most men dont dare.
After reading much both about and by Grant, I would add 3 other "secret weapons" (actually, there was nothing particularly secret about them). 1) Grants' knowledge of Logistics and appreciation of their importance (at least partly explained by his having served in the Quartermaster Corps) . 2) Grants great skill at horsemanship. 3)Grants' ability to write clearly, concisely and unambiguously. His memoir reads more like prose of today than of the times he lived in.
Well done, thank you.
Very interesting. Excellent commentary. Thank you.
Excellent Episode 👍
Thank you for the insite you found.
I have to read Grant's Memoirs.
You should also read "Rebel Yell" by S.C. Gwynne. An awesome biography of Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson.
I like Grant's arrival at the Willard Hotel in Washington DC.
That was really interesting thank you!
Love this Thank you!
Excellent episode.
My favorite description of Grant was from Lincoln himself. When ask why he had chosen Grant, Lincoln replied simply. “He fights!”
FDR would have a similar view of George S Patton in WWII.
Patton is overrated. Some people seem to think he won the war in Europe on the western front. He didn't, although he had his part. Andy Rooney's memoir "My War" is a good source for a critical review of Patton's role.
Permit me to give another context.
telegraph technology.
1. He had already been to West Point. His classmates were not introduced to modern communications.
2. The first limited, federal funding did not take place until 1844 and it was just a short line from like Washington DC to Baltimore.
3. He sped up communications and decision making.
Training.
1. He was given a command of a small local volunteer unit. The options were to take the train from where the unit was raised to the training rounds in a day or to walk for 5 days. He chose to walk, gave a time for departure the next morning and took off on time. This went on day after day, some people falling out, but by the 5th day, everyone remaining was in sych.
They say “clothes make the man”! Not so with General Grant! What mattered most in his case was his thought processes and planning. That is what allowed him to win the Civil War! Bravo General!
very interesting to learn of his innovative use of the telegraph. perhaphs use of technology should be added to the list of his abilities.
Grant had a telegraph in his office. He had better electronic communication than the French High Command had at the start of WW II. Over 70 years after Grant the French commanding General was using runners and messengers.
I believe Grant had a powerful intellect by which he was able to hold in his mind what the enemy situation was, what his force could be expected to do and what his logistical condition was. His mother, Hannah, was a quiet woman but very capable and I believe the General was like his mother in this respect.
7:10 - 7:30 The flowery language early in this video is easily and rightly described as "fawning memoir", but this is the real thing.
7:45 The other secret weapon.
Unconditional Surrender Grant. ❤❤❤
Excellent short biography. Most inspiring.
Great episode; thanks for sharing information on this work. I’ll have t check it out.
The contrast could not be more clear: McClellan all for show, Grant all on the go!
@@timsharkey1993 Such a difference in self-regard. Grant was by all accounts modest and unassuming, McClellan, by today’s standards, was almost comically egotistical. McClellan impressed the right people early in his career and rose quickly. No doubt he had something to back up his early success, but from it he took the lesson that he was more capable than he was and, therefore, should not be questioned by anyone, including the President. I’ve always wondered how things would’ve turned out had McClellan won the election of 1864.
*Inexplicably, RUclips's "Algorithmic Gods" delivered this to my feed. And thank goodness they did: Rusling's keeness revealed more compelling insight into Gen. Grant in a few sentences than a whole semester's worth of study.* 🙌
One of Grant's staff that has often fascinated me is John A Rawlins. He could often check Grant's occasional times of a bit to much to drink. Which I have heard were exaggerated by his enemies and were not as often as they claimed. But most accounts of Rawlins don't explain HOW he became 'Grant's conscience'. Have you done any research on how this relationship developed?
John Aaron Rawlins is my great uncle, and one of my heroes. John lifted himself out of life as a "charcoal boy" in Galena to reading for the law. He attended seminary for a few years, but was mostly self taught. Grant came to know Rawlins when he conducted legal work for the Grant family's tannery, and as Rawlins led pro-Union rallies at the outbreak of the Civil War. Grant & Rawlins became close friends & Rawlins supported Grant in his struggle with alcoholism by issuing orders to the General Staff to keep strong drink out of Grant's reach. Rawlins' father, James Dawson Rawlins was a drunk, leaving John Aaron & the family for long stretches of time, so John Aaron led a very temperate life. His only vice seems to be his progious use of swear words. Rawlins is only mentioned a few ties in Grant's memoirs: some historians believe this was due to a resurgence of stories about Grant's drunkenness spread by his political enemies, using Rawlins' letters to Grant as proof. Grant apparently went on short benders occasionally, but for the most part, was successful in fighting his urge to drink. An excellent biography of Rawlins was written several years ago by Dr. Allen J. Ottens "General John A. Rawlins - No Ordinary Man." It dispels the silly notions that Rawlins was the military genius behind Grant's success or that Rawlins was the man that kept Grant sober. Grant's regard for Rawlins included his guardianship and financial support of John Aaron's children after they were orphaned.
Excellent presentation. Thank you.
An enjoyable insight into a great general where their characters and qualities take on new meaning during this time of war (2024) for people seeking to understand "What makes a great general?"
I think the revelation is clear from the words you've read: It's not the presentation of the man, but the quality and character of their mind, that makes a great general.
I think (knowing a little of UHG), that the key ingredient in shaping the quality of character is....adversity.
And UHG responded to his adversity with clearly great positivity.
Probably explains the old expression that I've just remembered:
"Adversity is character building".
Southerners: “we will win through galant use of arms!”
Grant: “ hold my whiskey “
Grant did not drink his way through the war.
It would add greatly to this if you had referenced Gen. Rusling’s section on Lincoln discussing Grant during Lincoln’s visit to a recuperating Sickles at a private residence on F street, Washington DC on July 5th 1863,. This was 3 days after Sickles wound at Gettysburg but before the news of the surrender of Vicksburg. Pgs 12-16.
“He knew how to decide”……. AND, he knew what to do, AND was never afraid to DO IT!!!
Grant understood the reality of "Total War" , more than anyone, including Lee.
While others fought a war in a fashion they had read about, Grant had moved on to a new reality.
That opening note about Grant's appearance seems to indicate a split that was always in the American army. Gen. Winfield Scott was called "Old Fuss and Feathers" for his insistence on professional appearance, while Zachary Taylor was called "Old Rough and Ready" for being the opposite. It is known that Grant idolized Taylor and modeled himself on him.
One guesses that you have read Grant's Memoirs. A fascinating glimpse into a time long past.
@@inyobill Close. I had read Ron Chernow's "Grant."
Unlike his predecessors in command of the Union Army of the Potomac,when General Lee gave General Grant a bloody nose at the Wilderness,,Grant didn't turn tail and head North.
He headed South and that's when the troops knew that Grant was there to win.Morale among the ranks soared.
Love Grant. The anti hero. Great video from the writings of one who experienced his leadership. He was also an underappreciated president for many of the same reasons I would not doubt. Even then leaders were too conscious of form over substance.
It's enough to point out that Grant is only on three to be granted the rank of General of the Armies (The only one higher than the Five-Star General of the Army) alongside George Washington and John J. Pershing.
Nice photo of US Grant. When Grant was dying while writing his memoirs, he stopped taking his opiates, preferring to bear the pain, rather than leave his historical records unwritten. He hoped to provide for his family by the publication of his memoirs. IIRR, the work was unsuccessful.
No it wasn't. His memoir was a bestseller then and is still widely acclaimed. And by me.
@@nickdanger4795 The memoir is still in print, so that's pretty successful. The failure mentioned in conjunction with the memoir apparently referred to US Grant's previous investment in "Grant & Ward," which turned out to be a Ponzi scheme, and Grant lost his investment. But if it hadn't been for "Grant & Ward," he wouldn't have had to write his memoir.
Very interesting description. I didn't know he had used the telegraph so frequently. How hard was it to keep the telegraph lines working (between weather and sabotage)? Also, about the slow of speech, could be Grant's speech pattern is different than the officers from the northeast. I'm from the northeast and sometimes we speak quickly.
The telegraph wasn't new technology. The hard part was probably restringing the lines as he moved into newly won territory.
@@PeteOtton I don't know much about the telegraph during that time period, but it's interesting.
@@kimberlycorliss9616 Telegraphy was at or slightly more advanced than the adoption of radio in WW1.
@@kimberlycorliss9616 The U.S. Army’s Signal Corps had just been formed in 1860. Fortunately, it was led by a someone who understood the importance of fast and effective communications and how to exploit the technologies of the day to accomplish it. No doubt the Signal Corps was primarily responsible for keeping the telegraph lines up and running in the midst of the later conflict.
@@pjmlegrande Thank you for the information! There are so many aspects about the civil war I don't know about. I find these details make it even more interesting and give more depth to it than just dates and events.
superb
"Temperatures down to 0", Wow, having grown up in Greenland (Denmark), I remember summer temperatures like that in June! Mostly, in June we had minus 20 C degrees though...
It was zero Fahrenheit, surely.
Those staff officers! My great-great grandfather A.D. Rockwell, by family tradition was the youngest surgeon of the Union Army wrote his own 'Rambling Recollections', copies of which still exist for instance in the Cornell Medical School Library, in which you can read his experiences bumping along with Sheridan on his famous ride, and his impressions of U.S. Grant and other well known Union officers over Thanksgiving Dinner. The end of his book concludes with a series of character sketches of famous persons who he knew: Madam Astor for instance who upon discovering the apparent quackery of A.D. deposited all of his delicate electro-medical equipment out into the hallway being unsatisfied with his treatment of her son, and also a sickly, young Theodore Roosevelt for whom A.D. was his personal physician. There still exist gold mines for historians, moldering away on library shelves - if only they knew.
Visit the Grant Presidential Library at Mississippi State University... A ten million dollar addition to Mitchell Memorial Library some few years ago. Visit also the John Gresham wing in the same building.
It’s interesting the differences between Grant and Hancock. Grant was soft spoken, while Hancock had a very foul mouth that some thought distasteful, but both were brilliant officers.
What seem like such common characteristics are the undoing of many leaders. Understanding the importance of time and making decisions.
I think it was David McCullough who said of Grant, "He was distinctly unglamorous."
Wonderful description of Grant. Recommend Grant’s biography.
Chernow's is the best.
I was previously married to a great great granddaughter of Elihu B. Washburne, the man responsible for literally bringing Grant back into the army after the war began and his Grant's political benefactor in D.C., with Lincoln. All three men were from Illinois.
Find out what kind of whiskey he drinks... And send a case to all my Generals!
I cannot spare this man. He fights.