Dr. Sommers is one of the rare historian/speakers who can translate research into plain English, so more people can appreciate history. He is an engaging speaker I've had the good fortune to hear in person. TY for posting.
One of the things I find so compelling about Grant as a military commander is that I can see him being a successful army or even a theater commander in a later conflict like WW2. I don't know if I can say the same for any of his contemporaries North or South.
@@johngeverettgrant himself held the opinion that stonewalls attacks and frequent pushes beyond what other corps commanders “enough” led him to speculate that had he survived deeper into the war “his raiding and quick riding style would surely fail in the face of a seasoned and courage’s veteran”
Yeah Grant suffered a lot of casualties during the overland campaign. But he was on the offensive in hostile territory. Yet in just two months he bottled Lee up in Petersburg and basically ended the war in just 8 weeks. Something no other Union commanding general could accomplish in 3 years if fighting.
The losses of Lee were higher and the fighting style of Lee never fit to the lack of men and resources. Lee would have name s better Union general as they could replace men and resources. Lee was surely the wrong general for to South limited men and resources
Shiloh It’s interesting though how history is rewritten. Like the civil war is called the civil war when it was really a war of secession. The revolutionary war was a true civil war as the traitor George Washington and others fought for control of the government of the land. They won so they could write history as they saw fit. Well I suppose the bureaucracy of today or decades prior rewrote history haha. I live in Utah and we have black history month and learn of black slavery. We never learned of Native American slavery and natives owning slaves and selling slaves to the Spaniards for mines. Yet we learn of black slavery while there were maybe 50 black slaves in all of Utah but tens of thousands of Native American slaves or hundreds of thousands over the several centuries. The Spanish were in Santa Fe before the pilgrims ever reached America. It’s shocking when I first heard that.
In army basic in 1971 we learned, 'Find 'em, Fix 'em, Fight 'em and Forget 'em'. The Marines used to say, 'Its a proposition of mind over matter-I don't mind and you don't matter'!
Excellent presentation. What a guy! I dissent. Grant was a genius. Indeed, the genius of the Civil War. He did not "earn" the opportunity to fight the champion Lee. Lee was not a great general. Lee never understood the war he fought. His was a war of maneuver, battle and places. Grant, on the other hand, understood the war he fought; one between "national" peoples that could only be won by exhausting the capacity and will of the civilians at home to support armies in the field. Lee could not have won the war, leading either side's military; while Grant, by his understanding of the task he faced, still dominates American-- if not world major power military thinking. Genius is an overused word, but if effect of one's understanding on the world is considered, Grant was a genius. Lee never won a strategically important battle. His victories were blocking attempts that delayed the enemy's offensive--never even forcing the enemy out of Lee's own state; which was the focus of Lee's military interest throughout the continental war. Lee fought the entire war in handful of counties in Virginia and adjacent states. His two attempts at offense were failures and aimed at objects that could not have won the war--occupation of northern cities. In the age of rail, Union concentrations would have either destroyed him, isolated as he would have been from his base, or he would have retreated home out of necessity, reducing his campaigns to strategically irrelevant raids. Lee ignored the strategic importance places beyond his immediate command--insisting, for example, that Vicksburg be lost in favor of his Gettysburg offensive. Lee dumped the worst generals in his army on the Confederate western armies, in contrast to Grant who left his three best Lieutenants in the west when he came east: Sherman, McPHerson and Thomas. The mismatch was fatal to the Confederacy. On the other hand, every victory by Grant had strategic importance. Forts Henry and Donelson opened the interior of Tennessee to Union invasion and isolated Kentucky from the Confederacy. Shiloh put the Confederacy in the west on the defensive and set the stage for Union control the Mississippi River once Vicksburg opened the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to Union domination, taking them out as a bread basket for the insurrection, as well as isolating the trans-Mississippi. Chattanooga opened the deep south to invasion. He took only Sheridan east with him. From the day he took the field against Lee, May 4, 1864, Lee never again exercised the tactical or strategic offensive for even a day. Every day until he surrendered, Lee was relegated to reacting to Grant, fighting repeated blocking battles until finally locked in a siege from which he could not retreat and from which he was finally overcome. Lee's victories, limited as they were to 6/1/62 to 5/30/63, were all against flawed opponents and not so much victories by Lee as losses by his opponents. McClelland retreated in the face of victories in the Seven Days,Polk ignored an eyewitness account by his own scout that Longstreet was on his flank. Burnside divided his army in the face of the enemy and marched half of it at a prepared position in a war that vastly favored the defense behind prepared positions. Hooker suffered an emotional collapse during battle and let Jackson march half Lee's army across the front to attack on the flank. Johnston was right to marvel at Lee's luck with opponents. From the first week in July 1863 until Grant took the field on May 4, 1864, Lee was locked in inert deadlock with Meade. That was the second period of Lee's command and, as described above, when Grant took the field, Lee never again exercised the offensive until he admitted defeat by Grant. Finally, Lee was a strictly local insurrectionary leader. His focus was on a few counties in Virginia and adjacent states to the total exclusion of any wider strategic concern He insisted Vicksburg be left to fall, so that he could invade Pennsylvania. He spent the whole dumping his inferior officers on the western armies. Grant on the other hand, actually fought a continental war and conceived a continental strategy. When he left the west, he left his best subordinates in there--Sherman, McPherson and Thomas. As a result of the difference between Lee and Grant as thinkers about the conflict, Hood faced Sherman, McPherson and Thomas, each pairing a mismatch that was disaster to the Confederacy. Lee was not great general. Great generals win battles with strategic or political results. Lee never did because he never understood the war he was fighting. Grant was the genius of the war.
Chuck U. Farley II I always marvel at the double standard applied to Lee and Grant. When an attack by Bobbie Lee proved foolhardy or wasteful his supporters have always rushed to indemnify him. This commander failed to do this or that Commander failed to do that. With Grant every reverse and failure is placed solely at his feet. IMHO, were Grant given the authority he should have been given post Chatanooga the war would have been decisively won by June of 64.
+Chuck U. Farley II Grant was no genius, he just use the north superior capacities in men, and in a rather uninspired and basic way at that. With such resources a man as Lee would have won with half death and time.
+CastelDawn When did Lee manage an offensive campaign on par with Grant's Big Black River Campaign? Bobby Lee launched plenty of his own hair brained fool hardy attacks including but not limited to Gaines Mill, Malvern Hill, his attacks on entrenched Union positions on day 3 of Chancellorsville and lets not forget Gettysburg. Bobby Lee had a knack for battlefield movement but at the end of the day he was a mediocre strategist and a stubborn disciple of Napoleonic tactics.
+rekke41 Don't forget Lee's boneheaded decision to position his army at Antietam with only one useable ford in his rear. Only McClellan's caution prevented the complete destruction of the ANV. Had Grant been in command at Antietam he would have wiped Lee's army out.
Lee was a general who knew how to take advantage of an enemy's mistakes.But against a bull-dog scrapper like Grant, there was no clever maneuver that could win more than a little more time-at a cost of casualties the South could not replace. The Union bled the CSA to deathwith overwhelming numbers and industrial capacity, plus the natural result of prolonged warmth rise of talented commanders through natural selection!
Quite amazing, the detail some can research, this is a man of extensive knowledge. Many people get overwhelmed by the detail and are unable to communicate a cohesive history to tell. But not this man, he keeps it all in sequence and understandable. I enjoyed this greatly, thanks.
Frontal attacks were what was taught in the post Napoleonic laws of land warfare. The latest 'war' was the Crimean war 1853-1856 where some American officers were observers.
Sure Grant had limitations. He was a human being. Was he a military genius? Who cares? That's just a word. The fact is, whether genius or not, he was the best commanding General in the history of the United States military and whipped every enemy he came to blows with. Some might call it genius. Others might call it leadership. Regardless of what word you use to describe him, US Grant was and remains the GOAT!
I so agree. Grant singlehandedly won that war and saved our country. If the south had won, the idea of secession would have become a trend and the whole thing would have come apart. Grant deserves the right to be called America's #1 citizen.
You have some Lincoln Wisdom. The bottom line is Grant won, the other guy lost. Personality, Great planning, or character flaws are meaningless once the shooting starts
I agree that Grant was a great general and the hero of the war. But let’s not go too far in the other direction of praise. He did lose battles in the west and of course he did not win the war single-handedly.
His real skill was as an administrator he had to coordinate the movement and the feeding of massive armies over a large territory. It eventually got to the point that troops around Petersburg were able to get bread that was still warm meanwhile Sherman had an invincible supply line from the sea/navy
Sherman also understood that the Union had to destroy the rebel armies and the infrastructure that allowed them to maintain rebellion against the United States of America. Sherman should have burned and killed more.
@@willoutlaw4971 Yes to both of you. “Total War” was the order of the day. I have family in Marietta,Ga and in the early 1970s when hunting with my uncle and a bunch of his friends down there, he “urged” me NOT to mention that my great grandfather x4 had fought in the Ohio 113th Volunteer Infantry-who was part of the battle of Kennesaw Mountain and the burning of Atlanta. Among many other battles. (Still have his uniform buttons held on with bailing wire)
@@gregusmc2868 Prideful thing Dude! 🇺🇸 My grandfather had relatives on both sides. He never talked about it though, and I only saw pictures just before he died. N.C. V.A. and N.Y.
Greg Ya there were war crimes committed on both sides but burning of the south was just shocking to read. The south would have ended slavery eventually just because of economics as technology and equipment was becoming much more efficient. It was a war of secession not an actual civil war as the south didn’t want to rule the north. That’s not taught in schools though which is weird. The Revolutionary war was a real civil war.
I believe Lee was focused on beating the enemy in front of him...winning the battle in the hopes of the North giving up. Grant was focused on winning the war...he had to break the South's will and ability to fight. He knew the casualties would be high to get a motivated enemy to quit fighting on their own ground. Winning battles does not unnecessarily win a war...just ask Hannibal and Westmoreland.
Which was what was needed. Lincoln was sick and tired of Generals who were "brilliant"on paper-and in their own opinions.When the inevitable Democrat back-biting began he exclaimed: "ICannot spare this man, he fights!"
I'm sorry that I can't provide you with the exact link but there is a British debating society that does exactly that. One of the debates I listened to was on the topic: it was an error for Britain to enter world war I. True historian spoke for and two spoke against and then took a lot of questions from the audience.
Your point does not hold water…Grant left Culpeper with 125,000 well supplies troops on May 4th and he worn them out and beat them up so bad they could not take Petersburg on June 15th. He got surprised at the Wilderness (like Shiloh). Another example of his foolishness and borderline recklessness is when he sail below Vicksburg. He had no supplies and Pemberton & Johnston could have gotten together and pinned him. He was lucky not good.
When Grant took over as General in chief, it was March of 1864. By that summer, 3 months later, he already bottled up Lee in a siege and took him out of commission. I don’t care what Lee did before that, but to take such a short time to render Lee’s army irreverent told me all I need to know about the difference between the two. Lee was impressive, but Grant was better.
Lee benefited greatly from a defensive strategy, e.g. shorter inner lines. But whenever Lee and his lieutenants went on the offensive and attacked the North, they were soundly defeated. E.g. Gettysburg, Franklyn, Nashville, Cedar Creek, etc.
Compared to most of his contemporaries Grant was a man of initiative ans determination. I can not recall a time when Grant was on defensive. His Vicksburg campaign lasted 8 months. Less determined generals would have given up but he kept going. Like in Overland campaign, going closer to Richmond day by day. Also he was able to clean up other people mess ans turn it into a victory. Just see Rosecrans' fiasco at Chickamauga turned later into victory of Chatanooga. And later on sending Sheridan to clean up Siegel's mess in the Shenandoah valley. Grant understood that for winning modern war you must move away from Napoleonic big battles between the armies and moving against political centres. Instead he understood modern wars are about hitting hard against industrial and transportation centres, destroying substinence for the oponent. Going after strategic goals making an enemy following his pace not vice versa.
Lee was a great battlefield commander, but Grant was the better strategist, better logistician, and looking at the Vicksburg campaign, probably the better field commander.
I really like this speaker. He is definitely a great speaker and researcher, but I am hearing a double audio in last 1/5 of this recording. Dr Sommers is obviously very well spoken on this war and subject.
Yes it's a problem some sound technicians don't know that it's easier to turn volume that is too loud down than it is to turn volume that is too low up. Whoever the technician was in the auditorium had the recording level set to low and would improve if he or she made some practice videos uploaded to RUclips and then listened to them.
People bickering over whether Grant or Lee was the better general. Grant was not in a Who's-The-Better-Military-Genius Contest. He was too busy dealing with a war he had to win. And he WON. In a struggle where all the best people, every highly recommended expert with all the right boxes checked on their resumes had *_already failed._* I always want to ask his critics "Who would *_you_* have put in command? Who was there, in 1864, who could have taken command of US forces and delivered the final victory?"
Meade’s criticism of Sheridan began when he blocked roads and didn’t support the army properly during the Wilderness campaign and then went off to beat the confederate cavalry and became famous for the death of Stuart while Meade felt he should have been scouting and screening the army.I also wonder as I believe Meade suffered from tuberculosis which might have killed him in’72that some physical difficulties might have manifested itself. After the war he was taken from a command position over the South to that of the north east nearer his home and whether that might have been health issues, certainly it was a kindness to bring him closer to home though his family could have moved with him. Meanwhile he stopped an Irish American attempt to invade Canada in’67.
I am always mystified when Grant's genius is somehow overshadowed by that of MacArthur, Patton, or Lee. First of all, what could possibly lead one to believe MacArthur was a military genius? His inexplicable lassitude in the eight-hour period between the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the destruction of his air force on the ground in Luzon? His complete willful ignorance of the pending Chinese offensive across the Yalu River in North Korea in late 1950 that nearly destroyed the US and United Nations forces? Similarly, how does Lee's failure to make any meaningful efforts to reverse Confederate setbacks outside of Virginia-at times when he had the men and opportunity to do so--mark him as a genius (e.g., Lee's failure to send Longstreet & two divisions to relieve Vicksburg after Chancellorsville, and his failure to send Early''s 15,000 men to Georgia after Cold Harbor when he could have saved Atlanta from Sherman)? Finally, Patton may have been a good field commander and certainly more advanced in his pre-war thinking about armored warfare than his colleagues, but he never faced a situation where his "genius" counted for more than his overwhelming advantages over the enemy. Case in point: his advance across France was well-orchestrated, but he assumed control of the 3rd Army AFTER the breakout from Normandy had been achieved and the Nazis' best divisions shattered. Patton missed his first opportunity for greatness when he failed to close the Falaise pocket on the reeling Nazis, allowing twenty of their best divisions to escape and live to fight again in the Battle of the Bulge. When the 3rd Army finally encountered an intact enemy defense in the Alsace, Patton's attacks were costly, unimaginative and less than successful. He did show flair in his relief of Bastogne, but even Patton recognized at the outset of the battle what a favor Hitler had done the Allies by marching his best forces out from behind the Siegfried line (which Patton failed to penetrate) and into the open where the Allies could surround and overwhelm. Patton, with a lot of help from Montgomery, failed to cut off over 200,000 of the best Nazi soldiers when they had the chance to do so. Instead, they pushed them back into Germany, where once again they were available to contest the Allied advance and prolong the war by weeks, if not months
Patrick Hickey The great English military historian - I'm drawing a blank but you probably know who I am talking about - was asked who he thought was the greatest general. The questioner no doubt had in mind generals of WWII, which this fellow writes a lot about, or perhaps the British/French wars of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. The eminent scholar replied without missing a beat: "Ulysses S. Grant." Further, the speaker says that Grant rose to command a field army of sixteen divisions. That may be accurate with respect to the Army of the Potomac although it seems low - surely he meant "sixteen corps." But this is beside the point. Here is the point and why comparisons of Grant and Lee do not work well. Lee commanded an Army of perhaps sixty to eighty or ninety thousand men. When Grant came East, he, as General in Chief, had command of a half a million troops in the field.
+CAROLVS That's an important and often overlooked point. Grant and Lee never truly met as equals on the field of battle because Lee commanded only one army until the war was essentially over while Grant had many separate armies under his command all across the continent by the time they actually "met" in battle, and even then the Army of the Potomac was still Meade's army. They didn't come to blows as one army commander against another, able to focus entirely on defeating one opponent, although if they did then Grant would have preferred to lead the Army of the Tennessee (which was vastly more accustomed to taking the offensive and achieving victory) into battle rather than the Army of the Potomac (which was more accustomed to stalemate and setbacks, specifically at Lee's hands). There are a lot of other reasons why it's so unrealistic to try to compare Grant with Lee, in spite of the fact that they fought the bloodiest campaign in the history of North America against each other. They each had achieved four major victories to that point against other generals but with very different outcomes, Lee's being against superior odds but strictly tactical successes against attacking armies to ward off defeat while Grant's victories were more decisive and complete with a greater impact on the course of the war. Even when they eventually faced each other in scores of battles they never fought what anyone could call a "fair fight" (and what general, in all honesty, would be foolish enough to seek such a thing?), and given the nature of the fighting during the Overland and Petersburg campaigns, superior numbers and firepower against an entrenched enemy on his own soil, simply relying on casualty lists to try to determine which of them was enjoying more success is ludicrous. Not to mention the fact that Grant originally didn't really favor the overland approach to Richmond because he knew that it had the most potential to lead to maximum casualties with minimal results, but that was what the public and the administration wanted because they wanted someone who would stand up to Lee and break his myth of invulnerability, not sneak up on him from behind. Had Grant's plan to secure North Carolina first before moving against Lee been implemented, in a movement similar to the one that he used at Vicksburg but on a much larger scale, the same ultimate outcome might have been achieved without such a massive butcher's bill.
I should not have done shrooms before watching this. At 1:14:20 I started experiencing MAJOR auditory deja vu. Wait a minute, I didn't do shrooms today.
I suggest reading, "General Grant and the Rewriting of History" by Dr. Frank Varney for a more accurate perspective on Grant. "Grant Under Fire" by Joseph Rose is also an useful alternative view.
Clem C., did you consider that the Southern leaders considered it sufficient to prevent the North from invading the South to maintain their independence as a sovereign nation? Am sure that the Southern leaders were bright individuals and knew that the South could never invade and conquer the North nor why would they want to when they simply wanted independence from the Union. When the war began, there was not much of a Northern Navy and they probably thought that the South could get all of its military supplies from Europe. Lee's campaigns were fought to prevent the Northern invasion of the South and to make the war unpopular in the North to end the war by killing men. Remember the New York draft riots and that many areas of the North had lucrative trade with the South which made them anti-war. Am sure that there was a point when the Southern leaders knew what the Northern goal was and that the South did not have the resources to stand successfully against the North. The question is why there was no suing for peace with better terms upon returning to the Union. It appears at this point that personalities and psychological attitudes come into play. While not a necromanicer and know that psychology can't be done from 200 years in the future, it must be remembered that those people were real, living people who had their own ideas and attitudes about life and their places in it. Would need a YT channel to continue because some of the comments which you make are abstract and make assumptions that you knew the tenor of the times and the attitudes of the people. You are imposing your ideas on past history and not realizing that you can read minds nor do surveys from 200 years away.
Giant had the great advantage of having Shermanas a subordinate. Even before Fort Sumter, Sherman analyzed the relative strengths of the North and Suith and predicted the likely course of the war if the Slavocracy were to revolt!MacClellan carried the heavy burden of crackpot belief in the great numerical superiority of the Southern armies, made possible by the slave labor force at home.He therefore campaigned as if he were seriously outnumbered, with the overall hope of maneuvering Lee into a spot where the Union's heavy artillery could blow the CSAinto the middle of next week!This looked like timidity and eventually cost Mac his command because he'd lost Lincoln's confidence!
Charles Chapman Sherman never would have been as influential had he not been a subordinate of Grant. That's what great leaders do, elevate subordinates to the highest level
@@smizdeazy I agree. He was confident because he knew that Grant always had his back. His emotional nature was mercurial, he tended to flights of high and low emotion. Sherman, when on a high, was also prone to grandiosity. Grant had to bail Sherman out with the Administration when Sherman and Johnston concluded a peace settlement contrary to the war aims of Lincoln. Grant always forgave Sherman his dis-loyalties. He was a very forgiving man.
@@manuelkong10 Lee could've won if he didn't fumble bugger the Gettysburg campaign. But by allowing his Cavalry commander to play tuck tuck games (edited for decorum) with his subordinates, and compounding failure by trying charging a well defended enemy for two days straight, he lost the whole war.
Lee: That 'gifted' kid that was valedictorian in high school but got complacent and didn't realize every other kid was gifted too. Grant: Went from a hopeless student to a self-disciplined one, took meds for his ADHD and eventually became president.
I’m so tired of people trying to discredit Grant. He was by far the best general of the war. Unlike Lee, he excelled at both tactics and strategy. Nothing Lee did came anywhere close to Grant’s Vicksburg campaign. The Overland campaign ended when Grant outfoxed Lee and crossed the James. That sealed the doom of the slaveholding rebels. Lee seemed content to sit in Petersburg, while Sherman eviscerated the nation Lee was supposed to be protecting. Grant oversaw all of this. After the war, the propaganda campaign started, and it continues to this day.
Grant was awesome as readily evidenced by his likeness gracing U.S. currency. But Lee might have had the same honor (for the South) except for Meade defeating him at Gettysburg. Before Meade replaced Hooker, Lincoln's despair had to hit rock bottom to make such a radical change while the North was being invaded.
as a general he is General Ulysses S. Grant; as a civil war winner he is General Unconditional Surrender Grant; as elected President he is President United States Grant; what a coincidence?????
My only qualm I have with Grant was when he visited Japan. When questioned by the Japanese leadership about to do about the burgeoning democracy movement in Japan at that time, Grant recommended they suppress it!!!!!
I’ll posit that appointing hometown boys, patrons and dying colleagues as secretaries of state, war etc is the opposite of probity, and the opposite of what Lincoln did for his cabinet
"Ulysses S. Grant was neither a magnetic leader of Soldiers (such as George McClellan or George Patton) nor a military genius (in the mold of Robert E. Lee or Douglas MacArthur)" Was Lee not also a magnetic leader of great proportions?
If so, why was it that when someone basically said just what you wrote to Lee at Cold Harbor, Lee responded with 'He hasn't done anything wrong yet so far as I can tell. "
Lee was referring to Grant''s generalship. This clearly indicate that Lee considered Grant to be a tactical and strategic equal to Lee. Obviously though, Grant was far superior to Lee as a strategist.
@@thomasjamison2050 I was confused because my original post was referring to Lee's charisma, I wasn't trying to imply Grant wasn't a great strategist in his own right. Guess I'm being autistic; it seems between the two attributes, magnetic would suit Lee more than military genius.
MacArthur a genius??!! MacArthur was a bragging arrogant show-off sob who needed enormous advantages to achieve something. Patton was not "magnetic", he was in some way like Grant, a "go and go and go directly and get it, no matter what". McClellan was very "magnetic", but ineffective and less than stellar directing battles. Grant, beside determination, was a great strategist in chipping off and demolishing a fanatic enemy.
Grant wasn't a butcher, but let us not overlook the facts while defending him. Until Lincoln's election in '64 was assured, Grant was not fighting a war of attrition; he was fighting a war of annihilation. He would hit Lee as soon and as hard as the creaking machine of the Army of the Potomac was capable of doing and then try and flank Lee, get between Lee and where Lee wanted to go. In the process he indeed ordered (through Meade) attacks on fortified positions, the first at his very second battle in the East (Spotsylvania) and sometimes all along the line. Grant's brief was to destroy Lee's army before the election. He came within a whisker of doing so at times but in my view was ill-served by the mostly new crowd of corps commanders, the good ones such as Meade, Hooker, Reynolds, etc. dead or no longer in corps command or in the case of Sedgwick, killed early on in the Campaign, or Hancock, rendered ineffective and perhaps even mostly useless at times because of a severe, recurring wound suffered at Gettysburg.
Yes of course he did. And since Lee got in command of the Army of Virginia, his army fought every battle with the aim to destroy the Army of the Potomac. War is cruel, understand that without getting used to it.
One of the biggest mistakes Lincoln mad during the Civil War was not putting Grant in charge sooner. Grant was a fighter as was Lee however that being said Grant was always on the offensive Lee until the end was always on the defensive. Both were grate Generals. The last year of the war the south was starving to death.
Your argument is irrelevant. "Magnetism" is not a quality necessary to be a great general. Only results gained when resources and knowledge are factored in. Lee was weak because his personal style of communication with his staff. This personal flaw partially lead to him loosing at Gettysburg. His "magnetism" counted for nothing Your mindset is outdated now and was outdated then. Nine times out of ten, in the real world, a shovel and a rifle is far more use then a bugle and sword. The greatest generals win battles and get their men home again. I'm Irish. And as such don't have a horse in this race. But I can see that southerners lost the war due to their mindset which still hasn't changed. And maybe this is why the United States still shows poor military leadership. Who is the better general?,, the one who says "yes mister president we can succeed by invasion and destruction",, or the braver general who says "no mister president. To defeat this enemy you need to transfer foreign policy into army command. Give me control of the enemy by attacking his supply lines. His finances and those who support him.". Use drones. Create a 21st century military doctrine. Make battalions of active thinking soldiers and give them the platform to destroy the enemies supply lines. Think,,,,,,"my enemy recruits by youtube",,, and then have the skills to stop it. etc etc etc.....". There is no glamour in this. No charging cavalry, no Apache helicopters. But in war laurels are gained by victory . Remember Vietnam,,, but what about the great wars in Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia who also had communist rebel guerrilla fighters in their jungles,,, no great wars there. No great wars because the British quickly realised that they were wrong about the Japanese, in that with proper training, elite forces can be better jungle fighters then the natives. That a farmer living in the jungle is still a farmer living in the jungle. Before WW2 , you would have thought war meant trenches. Before the cold war people thought hot war,, after the cold war mabye we might think?,,, information/financial war?,,,,,,, New battlefields,, yet still wars.
"But I can see that southerners lost the war due to their mindset which still hasn't changed. And maybe this is why the United States still shows poor military leadership.", care to elaborate please?
I would like to ask Dr. Summers how to respond to the fact that grant was generally a failure in everything he did except waging war. Also, that he took over a US army in ascendancy in terms of resources; and a confederate army depleted in most respects
Live life a little more. A lot more actually. Then you will understand that ventures can fail for many reasons. Also, you will be able to formulate an actual question instead of just talking shit about Grant and asking somebody to respond to it. You're a real douche.
Generals like Lee depleted the smaller amount if resources and man as he was to aggressive and lost to much. If anyone cared for the people the South would have seen that they are no longer able to fight a war with any chance of success and have given up. So it would never have been necessary fit a Grant and Sherman to destroy the leftovers.
The south should have used Forest more and allowed him to do as he did and win. Lee was great for the south but Forest was the best in strategy and the smartest of all Generals on both sides when it came to war. Grant stood behind the lines while Lee stood with his men, fought beside them. Grant may had been a good General but he didn't win the hearts of his own men and those on both sides of the war as Lee did.
A military genius yes, but a political moron. You would think that a West Point graduate would have learned from George McClellan what happens when a general fights the president.
There is no justification for calling Grant a master of logistics. If he had been such, he would have taken McClellen's route to Richmond, or at least implemented Hooker's strategy for using the disruption of Lee's logistics to force Lee back to Richmond. Of course, that depended on a reliable cavalry leader, which Hooker only discovered the hard way that he did not have.
@@georgelabe-assimo4365 Not really. The Russians are living off the land in Ukraine and no one is saying they are wizards of logistics. But in any case, having steamboats bring supplies up from New Orleans at that point was hardly much of a challenge.
It's tough when a huge portion of your population wants you to lose and helps your enemy. And... IF? Okay, I'll play. IF the Federals had an air force and the South had anti-aircraft weapons then Russia would have made it to the moon first. Also, if the queen had balls she'd be king.
I didn't even see yours before I spat out the same basic idea, although admittedly less cordial. (And I'm not a snarky commenter, but it was so ridiculous that it kind of begged for it.)
@@MrBandholm He did, hey you, have some respect. He did his best. Prob. better than what you or I could have done. Grant respected him and never too his eyes off him from May 3,1864 till April 10, 1865. He wasn't the General that Grant was but he was a handsome fella.
The most boring presentation I have watched is a long time. All because you are knowledgeable about a subject does not mean you can present on the subject.
1 Hour and 21 uninspiring, boring minutes about how Grant was the greatest thing since slice bread was invented. I mean he goes on and on and on and on...
1:10:00 As of January 2023, Grant now has the rank of General of the Armies, along with Washington and Pershing. 👏
Dr. Sommers is one of the rare historian/speakers who can translate research into plain English, so more people can appreciate history. He is an engaging speaker I've had the good fortune to hear in person. TY for posting.
One of the things I find so compelling about Grant as a military commander is that I can see him being a successful army or even a theater commander in a later conflict like WW2. I don't know if I can say the same for any of his contemporaries North or South.
I think Stonewall Jackson would have picked up pretty well on the mobile, fast-moving tactics Guderian was known for.
@@johngeverettgrant himself held the opinion that stonewalls attacks and frequent pushes beyond what other corps commanders “enough” led him to speculate that had he survived deeper into the war “his raiding and quick riding style would surely fail in the face of a seasoned and courage’s veteran”
Well said!
Montgomery Meigs has the most transferable skills but Grant is definitely close
My great grandfather was a childhood friend of Grant and a scout during the civil war
Yeah Grant suffered a lot of casualties during the overland campaign. But he was on the offensive in hostile territory. Yet in just two months he bottled Lee up in Petersburg and basically ended the war in just 8 weeks. Something no other Union commanding general could accomplish in 3 years if fighting.
The losses of Lee were higher and the fighting style of Lee never fit to the lack of men and resources. Lee would have name s better Union general as they could replace men and resources. Lee was surely the wrong general for to South limited men and resources
Shiloh
It’s interesting though how history is rewritten. Like the civil war is called the civil war when it was really a war of secession. The revolutionary war was a true civil war as the traitor George Washington and others fought for control of the government of the land. They won so they could write history as they saw fit. Well I suppose the bureaucracy of today or decades prior rewrote history haha.
I live in Utah and we have black history month and learn of black slavery. We never learned of Native American slavery and natives owning slaves and selling slaves to the Spaniards for mines. Yet we learn of black slavery while there were maybe 50 black slaves in all of Utah but tens of thousands of Native American slaves or hundreds of thousands over the several centuries.
The Spanish were in Santa Fe before the pilgrims ever reached America. It’s shocking when I first heard that.
good comment
In army basic in 1971 we learned, 'Find 'em, Fix 'em, Fight 'em and Forget 'em'. The Marines used to say, 'Its a proposition of mind over matter-I don't mind and you don't matter'!
Excellent presentation. What a guy!
I dissent. Grant was a genius. Indeed, the genius of the Civil War. He did not "earn" the opportunity to fight the champion Lee. Lee was not a great general. Lee never understood the war he fought. His was a war of maneuver, battle and places. Grant, on the other hand, understood the war he fought; one between "national" peoples that could only be won by exhausting the capacity and will of the civilians at home to support armies in the field. Lee could not have won the war, leading either side's military; while Grant, by his understanding of the task he faced, still dominates American-- if not world major power military thinking. Genius is an overused word, but if effect of one's understanding on the world is considered, Grant was a genius.
Lee never won a strategically important battle. His victories were blocking attempts that delayed the enemy's offensive--never even forcing the enemy out of Lee's own state; which was the focus of Lee's military interest throughout the continental war. Lee fought the entire war in handful of counties in Virginia and adjacent states. His two attempts at offense were failures and aimed at objects that could not have won the war--occupation of northern cities. In the age of rail, Union concentrations would have either destroyed him, isolated as he would have been from his base, or he would have retreated home out of necessity, reducing his campaigns to strategically irrelevant raids. Lee ignored the strategic importance places beyond his immediate command--insisting, for example, that Vicksburg be lost in favor of his Gettysburg offensive. Lee dumped the worst generals in his army on the Confederate western armies, in contrast to Grant who left his three best Lieutenants in the west when he came east: Sherman, McPHerson and Thomas. The mismatch was fatal to the Confederacy.
On the other hand, every victory by Grant had strategic importance. Forts Henry and Donelson opened the interior of Tennessee to Union invasion and isolated Kentucky from the Confederacy. Shiloh put the Confederacy in the west on the defensive and set the stage for Union control the Mississippi River once Vicksburg opened the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to Union domination, taking them out as a bread basket for the insurrection, as well as isolating the trans-Mississippi.
Chattanooga opened the deep south to invasion. He took only Sheridan east with him. From the day he took the field against Lee, May 4, 1864, Lee never again exercised the tactical or strategic offensive for even a day. Every day until he surrendered, Lee was relegated to reacting to Grant, fighting repeated blocking battles until finally locked in a siege from which he could not retreat and from which he was finally overcome.
Lee's victories, limited as they were to 6/1/62 to 5/30/63, were all against flawed opponents and not so much victories by Lee as losses by his opponents. McClelland retreated in the face of victories in the Seven Days,Polk ignored an eyewitness account by his own scout that Longstreet was on his flank. Burnside divided his army in the face of the enemy and marched half of it at a prepared position in a war that vastly favored the defense behind prepared positions. Hooker suffered an emotional collapse during battle and let Jackson march half Lee's army across the front to attack on the flank. Johnston was right to marvel at Lee's luck with opponents.
From the first week in July 1863 until Grant took the field on May 4, 1864, Lee was locked in inert deadlock with Meade. That was the second period of Lee's command and, as described above, when Grant took the field, Lee never again exercised the offensive until he admitted defeat by Grant.
Finally, Lee was a strictly local insurrectionary leader. His focus was on a few counties in Virginia and adjacent states to the total exclusion of any wider strategic concern He insisted Vicksburg be left to fall, so that he could invade Pennsylvania. He spent the whole dumping his inferior officers on the western armies. Grant on the other hand, actually fought a continental war and conceived a continental strategy. When he left the west, he left his best subordinates in there--Sherman, McPherson and Thomas. As a result of the difference between Lee and Grant as thinkers about the conflict, Hood faced Sherman, McPherson and Thomas, each pairing a mismatch that was disaster to the Confederacy.
Lee was not great general. Great generals win battles with strategic or political results. Lee never did because he never understood the war he was fighting. Grant was the genius of the war.
Chuck U. Farley II
I always marvel at the double standard applied to Lee and Grant. When an attack by Bobbie Lee proved foolhardy or wasteful his supporters have always rushed to indemnify him. This commander failed to do this or that Commander failed to do that. With Grant every reverse and failure is placed solely at his feet.
IMHO, were Grant given the authority he should have been given post Chatanooga the war would have been decisively won by June of 64.
+Chuck U. Farley II Grant was no genius, he just use the north superior capacities in men, and in a rather uninspired and basic way at that. With such resources a man as Lee would have won with half death and time.
+CastelDawn
When did Lee manage an offensive campaign on par with Grant's Big Black River Campaign?
Bobby Lee launched plenty of his own hair brained fool hardy attacks including but not limited to Gaines Mill, Malvern Hill, his attacks on entrenched Union positions on day 3 of Chancellorsville and lets not forget Gettysburg.
Bobby Lee had a knack for battlefield movement but at the end of the day he was a mediocre strategist and a stubborn disciple of Napoleonic tactics.
+rekke41 Don't forget Lee's boneheaded decision to position his army at Antietam with only one useable ford in his rear. Only McClellan's caution prevented the complete destruction of the ANV. Had Grant been in command at Antietam he would have wiped Lee's army out.
Lee was a general who knew how to take advantage of an enemy's mistakes.But against a bull-dog scrapper like Grant, there was no clever maneuver that could win more than a little more time-at a cost of casualties the South could not replace. The Union bled the CSA to deathwith overwhelming numbers and industrial capacity, plus the natural result of prolonged warmth rise of talented commanders through natural selection!
Quite amazing, the detail some can research, this is a man of extensive knowledge. Many people get overwhelmed by the detail and are unable to communicate a cohesive history to tell. But not this man, he keeps it all in sequence and understandable. I enjoyed this greatly, thanks.
Grant was a real ass kicker, as Lee soon found out. Kicking ass and taking names from the giddy up.
Longstreet knew Grant was the man!
He knew it was only a matter of time once Grant took command! 🇺🇸
Lee killed far more soldiers in useless frontal assaults than Grant ever did. Most people seem to prefer to ignore this fact.
I agree but Grant killed enough in useless frontal attacks
@@manuelkong10 Grant also learned and altered that behavior. Lee never really did
Frontal attacks were what was taught in the post Napoleonic laws of land warfare. The latest 'war' was the Crimean war 1853-1856 where some American officers were observers.
Lost Cause history
Both general officers, and all officers at that time, were taught Napoleonic tactics. The weapons were far in advance of the tactics.
Sure Grant had limitations. He was a human being. Was he a military genius? Who cares? That's just a word. The fact is, whether genius or not, he was the best commanding General in the history of the United States military and whipped every enemy he came to blows with. Some might call it genius. Others might call it leadership. Regardless of what word you use to describe him, US Grant was and remains the GOAT!
I so agree. Grant singlehandedly won that war and saved our country. If the south had won, the idea of secession would have become a trend and the whole thing would have come apart. Grant deserves the right to be called America's #1 citizen.
You have some Lincoln Wisdom.
The bottom line is Grant won, the other guy lost.
Personality, Great planning, or character flaws are meaningless once the shooting starts
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111qqqqqqa p. Po😊😊lol@@frankallen702
I agree that Grant was a great general and the hero of the war. But let’s not go too far in the other direction of praise. He did lose battles in the west and of course he did not win the war single-handedly.
His real skill was as an administrator he had to coordinate the movement and the feeding of massive armies over a large territory. It eventually got to the point that troops around Petersburg were able to get bread that was still warm meanwhile Sherman had an invincible supply line from the sea/navy
Grant understood he had to destroy the southern armies, not just take ground from them but grind them down until they couldn't resist anymore
Sherman also understood that the Union had to destroy the rebel armies and the infrastructure that allowed them to maintain rebellion against the United States of America.
Sherman should have burned and killed more.
@@willoutlaw4971 Yes to both of you. “Total War” was the order of the day. I have family in Marietta,Ga and in the early 1970s when hunting with my uncle and a bunch of his friends down there, he “urged” me NOT to mention that my great grandfather x4 had fought in the Ohio 113th Volunteer Infantry-who was part of the battle of Kennesaw Mountain and the burning of Atlanta. Among many other battles. (Still have his uniform buttons held on with bailing wire)
@@gregusmc2868 Prideful thing Dude! 🇺🇸
My grandfather had relatives on both sides.
He never talked about it though, and I only saw pictures just before he died.
N.C. V.A. and N.Y.
Greg
Ya there were war crimes committed on both sides but burning of the south was just shocking to read.
The south would have ended slavery eventually just because of economics as technology and equipment was becoming much more efficient.
It was a war of secession not an actual civil war as the south didn’t want to rule the north. That’s not taught in schools though which is weird. The Revolutionary war was a real civil war.
I believe Lee was focused on beating the enemy in front of him...winning the battle in the hopes of the North giving up. Grant was focused on winning the war...he had to break the South's will and ability to fight. He knew the casualties would be high to get a motivated enemy to quit fighting on their own ground. Winning battles does not unnecessarily win a war...just ask Hannibal and Westmoreland.
Grant was a tenacious bulldog!
Which was what was needed. Lincoln was sick and tired of Generals who were "brilliant"on paper-and in their own opinions.When the inevitable Democrat back-biting began he exclaimed: "ICannot spare this man, he fights!"
Dr. Sommers shines in Q&A. Would live to see a panel of Historians just do a Q&A
I'm sorry that I can't provide you with the exact link but there is a British debating society that does exactly that. One of the debates I listened to was on the topic: it was an error for Britain to enter world war I. True historian spoke for and two spoke against and then took a lot of questions from the audience.
The only people I listen to about history look like this guy
Audio problem beginning at about 1:14:00.
Grant captured three armies in their entirety and they say Lee was a military genius. Nonsense!
grant lost three armies in their entirety...
Your point does not hold water…Grant left Culpeper with 125,000 well supplies troops on May 4th and he worn them out and beat them up so bad they could not take Petersburg on June 15th.
He got surprised at the Wilderness (like Shiloh). Another example of his foolishness and borderline recklessness is when he sail below Vicksburg. He had no supplies and Pemberton & Johnston could have gotten together and pinned him. He was lucky not good.
Yes, and Lee used totally wrong strategy for the south. Grant used correct strategy and implemented it well.
@@austinlancaster5396 Oh? The North lost the war?
@@tomotto3197 whereas McClellan would have just sat on his ass and prolonged the war.
Fuller respected Grant. Good enough for me.
An absolutely superb talk. Having watched it once, I'm sure that I will return. Thank you.
Fantastic summation of the essence of US Grant. Thku
When Grant took over as General in chief, it was March of 1864. By that summer, 3 months later, he already bottled up Lee in a siege and took him out of commission. I don’t care what Lee did before that, but to take such a short time to render Lee’s army irreverent told me all I need to know about the difference between the two. Lee was impressive, but Grant was better.
Lee benefited greatly from a defensive strategy, e.g. shorter inner lines. But whenever Lee and his lieutenants went on the offensive and attacked the North, they were soundly defeated. E.g. Gettysburg, Franklyn, Nashville, Cedar Creek, etc.
Excellent speech. Thanks for posting to RUclips.
Compared to most of his contemporaries Grant was a man of initiative ans determination. I can not recall a time when Grant was on defensive. His Vicksburg campaign lasted 8 months. Less determined generals would have given up but he kept going. Like in Overland campaign, going closer to Richmond day by day. Also he was able to clean up other people mess ans turn it into a victory. Just see Rosecrans' fiasco at Chickamauga turned later into victory of Chatanooga. And later on sending Sheridan to clean up Siegel's mess in the Shenandoah valley.
Grant understood that for winning modern war you must move away from Napoleonic big battles between the armies and moving against political centres. Instead he understood modern wars are about hitting hard against industrial and transportation centres, destroying substinence for the oponent. Going after strategic goals making an enemy following his pace not vice versa.
Lee was a great general but look at his record with, and without Stonewall Jackson. If forced to choose I would take Grant.
Lee was a great battlefield commander, but Grant was the better strategist, better logistician, and looking at the Vicksburg campaign, probably the better field commander.
I really like this speaker. He is definitely a great speaker and researcher, but I am hearing a double audio in last 1/5 of this recording. Dr Sommers is obviously very well spoken on this war and subject.
These lectures are great. But on this one, eg, why is the volume so low? Even with a hearing aid. Thanks.
Yes it's a problem some sound technicians don't know that it's easier to turn volume that is too loud down than it is to turn volume that is too low up. Whoever the technician was in the auditorium had the recording level set to low and would improve if he or she made some practice videos uploaded to RUclips and then listened to them.
People bickering over whether Grant or Lee was the better general.
Grant was not in a Who's-The-Better-Military-Genius Contest. He was too busy dealing with a war he had to win. And he WON. In a struggle where all the best people, every highly recommended expert with all the right boxes checked on their resumes had *_already failed._*
I always want to ask his critics "Who would *_you_* have put in command? Who was there, in 1864, who could have taken command of US forces and delivered the final victory?"
Meade’s criticism of Sheridan began when he blocked roads and didn’t support the army properly during the Wilderness campaign and then went off to beat the confederate cavalry and became famous for the death of Stuart while Meade felt he should have been scouting and screening the army.I also wonder as I believe Meade suffered from tuberculosis which might have killed him in’72that some physical difficulties might have manifested itself. After the war he was taken from a command position over the South to that of the north east nearer his home and whether that might have been health issues, certainly it was a kindness to bring him closer to home though his family could have moved with him. Meanwhile he stopped an Irish American attempt to invade Canada in’67.
I am always mystified when Grant's genius is somehow overshadowed by that of MacArthur, Patton, or Lee.
First of all, what could possibly lead one to believe MacArthur was a military genius? His inexplicable lassitude in the eight-hour period between the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the destruction of his air force on the ground in Luzon? His complete willful ignorance of the pending Chinese offensive across the Yalu River in North Korea in late 1950 that nearly destroyed the US and United Nations forces?
Similarly, how does Lee's failure to make any meaningful efforts to reverse Confederate setbacks outside of Virginia-at times when he had the men and opportunity to do so--mark him as a genius (e.g., Lee's failure to send Longstreet & two divisions to relieve Vicksburg after Chancellorsville, and his failure to send Early''s 15,000 men to Georgia after Cold Harbor when he could have saved Atlanta from Sherman)?
Finally, Patton may have been a good field commander and certainly more advanced in his pre-war thinking about armored warfare than his colleagues, but he never faced a situation where his "genius" counted for more than his overwhelming advantages over the enemy. Case in point: his advance across France was well-orchestrated, but he assumed control of the 3rd Army AFTER the breakout from Normandy had been achieved and the Nazis' best divisions shattered. Patton missed his first opportunity for greatness when he failed to close the Falaise pocket on the reeling Nazis, allowing twenty of their best divisions to escape and live to fight again in the Battle of the Bulge. When the 3rd Army finally encountered an intact enemy defense in the Alsace, Patton's attacks were costly, unimaginative and less than successful. He did show flair in his relief of Bastogne, but even Patton recognized at the outset of the battle what a favor Hitler had done the Allies by marching his best forces out from behind the Siegfried line (which Patton failed to penetrate) and into the open where the Allies could surround and overwhelm. Patton, with a lot of help from Montgomery, failed to cut off over 200,000 of the best Nazi soldiers when they had the chance to do so. Instead, they pushed them back into Germany, where once again they were available to contest the Allied advance and prolong the war by weeks, if not months
Patrick Hickey The great English military historian - I'm drawing a blank but you probably know who I am talking about - was asked who he thought was the greatest general. The questioner no doubt had in mind generals of WWII, which this fellow writes a lot about, or perhaps the British/French wars of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. The eminent scholar replied without missing a beat: "Ulysses S. Grant."
Further, the speaker says that Grant rose to command a field army of sixteen divisions. That may be accurate with respect to the Army of the Potomac although it seems low - surely he meant "sixteen corps." But this is beside the point. Here is the point and why comparisons of Grant and Lee do not work well. Lee commanded an Army of perhaps sixty to eighty or ninety thousand men. When Grant came East, he, as General in Chief, had command of a half a million troops in the field.
+CAROLVS That's an important and often overlooked point. Grant and Lee never truly met as equals on the field of battle because Lee commanded only one army until the war was essentially over while Grant had many separate armies under his command all across the continent by the time they actually "met" in battle, and even then the Army of the Potomac was still Meade's army. They didn't come to blows as one army commander against another, able to focus entirely on defeating one opponent, although if they did then Grant would have preferred to lead the Army of the Tennessee (which was vastly more accustomed to taking the offensive and achieving victory) into battle rather than the Army of the Potomac (which was more accustomed to stalemate and setbacks, specifically at Lee's hands).
There are a lot of other reasons why it's so unrealistic to try to compare Grant with Lee, in spite of the fact that they fought the bloodiest campaign in the history of North America against each other. They each had achieved four major victories to that point against other generals but with very different outcomes, Lee's being against superior odds but strictly tactical successes against attacking armies to ward off defeat while Grant's victories were more decisive and complete with a greater impact on the course of the war.
Even when they eventually faced each other in scores of battles they never fought what anyone could call a "fair fight" (and what general, in all honesty, would be foolish enough to seek such a thing?), and given the nature of the fighting during the Overland and Petersburg campaigns, superior numbers and firepower against an entrenched enemy on his own soil, simply relying on casualty lists to try to determine which of them was enjoying more success is ludicrous. Not to mention the fact that Grant originally didn't really favor the overland approach to Richmond because he knew that it had the most potential to lead to maximum casualties with minimal results, but that was what the public and the administration wanted because they wanted someone who would stand up to Lee and break his myth of invulnerability, not sneak up on him from behind. Had Grant's plan to secure North Carolina first before moving against Lee been implemented, in a movement similar to the one that he used at Vicksburg but on a much larger scale, the same ultimate outcome might have been achieved without such a massive butcher's bill.
I'm mystified by any sentence with the word "genius" and Grant in the same sentence.
Read up on Grants campaign at Vicksburg, then you will know why he was a genius... It is the most impressive campaigns in the Western hemisphere.
Robby House so, you're mystified by your own sentence. Why am I not surprised?
Sound starts to duplicate during final answer. Excellent talk.
Grant has limitations? He captured 3 Confederate armies!!!!! Who can claim that as well.?
Also, he was a genuine horse whisperer.
Cincinnati‼️
I should not have done shrooms before watching this. At 1:14:20 I started experiencing MAJOR auditory deja vu.
Wait a minute, I didn't do shrooms today.
Same.
I suggest reading, "General Grant and the Rewriting of History" by Dr. Frank Varney for a more accurate perspective on Grant. "Grant Under Fire" by Joseph Rose is also an useful alternative view.
Clem C., did you consider that the Southern leaders considered it sufficient to prevent the North from invading the South to maintain their independence as a sovereign nation? Am sure that the Southern leaders were bright individuals and knew that the South could never invade and conquer the North nor why would they want to when they simply wanted independence from the Union. When the war began, there was not much of a Northern Navy and they probably thought that the South could get all of its military supplies from Europe. Lee's campaigns were fought to prevent the Northern invasion of the South and to make the war unpopular in the North to end the war by killing men. Remember the New York draft riots and that many areas of the North had lucrative trade with the South which made them anti-war. Am sure that there was a point when the Southern leaders knew what the Northern goal was and that the South did not have the resources to stand successfully against the North. The question is why there was no suing for peace with better terms upon returning to the Union. It appears at this point that personalities and psychological attitudes come into play. While not a necromanicer and know that psychology can't be done from 200 years in the future, it must be remembered that those people were real, living people who had their own ideas and attitudes about life and their places in it. Would need a YT channel to continue because some of the comments which you make are abstract and make assumptions that you knew the tenor of the times and the attitudes of the people. You are imposing your ideas on past history and not realizing that you can read minds nor do surveys from 200 years away.
Giant had the great advantage of having Shermanas a subordinate. Even before Fort Sumter, Sherman analyzed the relative strengths of the North and Suith and predicted the likely course of the war if the Slavocracy were to revolt!MacClellan carried the heavy burden of crackpot belief in the great numerical superiority of the Southern armies, made possible by the slave labor force at home.He therefore campaigned as if he were seriously outnumbered, with the overall hope of maneuvering Lee into a spot where the Union's heavy artillery could blow the CSAinto the middle of next week!This looked like timidity and eventually cost Mac his command because he'd lost Lincoln's confidence!
Charles Chapman Sherman never would have been as influential had he not been a subordinate of Grant. That's what great leaders do, elevate subordinates to the highest level
@@smizdeazy I agree. He was confident because he knew that Grant always had his back. His emotional nature was mercurial, he tended to flights of high and low emotion. Sherman, when on a high, was also prone to grandiosity. Grant had to bail Sherman out with the Administration when Sherman and Johnston concluded a peace settlement contrary to the war aims of Lincoln. Grant always forgave Sherman his dis-loyalties. He was a very forgiving man.
The bottom line is Grant won and Lee lost. End of discussion.
Ha Ha Lee got owned by General then President Grant
Yup indeed u got that right 💯 👍 Grant🤔 kick D butt of Lee D trader.👀🤨
Grant couldn't lose, Lee couldn't win
Period
@@manuelkong10 Lee could've won if he didn't fumble bugger the Gettysburg campaign. But by allowing his Cavalry commander to play tuck tuck games (edited for decorum) with his subordinates, and compounding failure by trying charging a well defended enemy for two days straight, he lost the whole war.
Lee: That 'gifted' kid that was valedictorian in high school but got complacent and didn't realize every other kid was gifted too.
Grant: Went from a hopeless student to a self-disciplined one, took meds for his ADHD and eventually became president.
I’m still trying to figure out the genius of Doug MacArthur description…
I love the way Dr. Sommers pronounces the word Missouri. Marks him as a true 'Murican.
excellent presentation
I’m so tired of people trying to discredit Grant. He was by far the best general of the war. Unlike Lee, he excelled at both tactics and strategy.
Nothing Lee did came anywhere close to Grant’s Vicksburg campaign.
The Overland campaign ended when Grant outfoxed Lee and crossed the James. That sealed the doom of the slaveholding rebels.
Lee seemed content to sit in Petersburg, while Sherman eviscerated the nation Lee was supposed to be protecting.
Grant oversaw all of this.
After the war, the propaganda campaign started, and it continues to this day.
what a great speaker...loves his subject
Excellent. Too bad about the overlap at the end.
Turn up the sound!
Grant was awesome as readily evidenced by his likeness gracing U.S. currency. But Lee might have had the same honor (for the South) except for Meade defeating him at Gettysburg. Before Meade replaced Hooker, Lincoln's despair had to hit rock bottom to make such a radical change while the North was being invaded.
audio problem starts at the 74th minute
as a general he is General Ulysses S. Grant; as a civil war winner he is General Unconditional Surrender Grant; as elected President he is President United States Grant; what a coincidence?????
fix the volume.. too low
If Lincoln had a general in the caliber of Grant at the onset of the Civil War, Bobby Lee would've be crushed in 1862.
My God, what did you shoot this clip with, a 1947 Kodak wind'em up? What a krappy out of focus flick! Sound is not so good either.
Several of the past General's reviewed General Grant's movements before there own actions.
From description "nor a military genius (in the mold of Robert E. Lee or Douglas MacArthur)" Yep You lost me.
Well said sir well said.
Dr Sommers passed in May 2019.
My only qualm I have with Grant was when he visited Japan. When questioned by the Japanese leadership about to do about the burgeoning democracy movement in Japan at that time, Grant recommended they suppress it!!!!!
there was a Missionary Ridge in the western theatre too... okay, that’s interesting
I’ll posit that appointing hometown boys, patrons and dying colleagues as secretaries of state, war etc is the opposite of probity, and the opposite of what Lincoln did for his cabinet
"Ulysses S. Grant was neither a magnetic leader of Soldiers (such as George McClellan or George Patton) nor a military genius (in the mold of Robert E. Lee or Douglas MacArthur)"
Was Lee not also a magnetic leader of great proportions?
If so, why was it that when someone basically said just what you wrote to Lee at Cold Harbor, Lee responded with 'He hasn't done anything wrong yet so far as I can tell. "
@@thomasjamison2050 ? Who was Lee referring to?
Lee was referring to Grant''s generalship. This clearly indicate that Lee considered Grant to be a tactical and strategic equal to Lee. Obviously though, Grant was far superior to Lee as a strategist.
@@thomasjamison2050 I was confused because my original post was referring to Lee's charisma, I wasn't trying to imply Grant wasn't a great strategist in his own right. Guess I'm being autistic; it seems between the two attributes, magnetic would suit Lee more than military genius.
MacArthur a genius??!! MacArthur was a bragging arrogant show-off sob who needed enormous advantages to achieve something. Patton was not "magnetic", he was in some way like Grant, a "go and go and go directly and get it, no matter what". McClellan was very "magnetic", but ineffective and less than stellar directing battles. Grant, beside determination, was a great strategist in chipping off and demolishing a fanatic enemy.
Grant wasn't a butcher, but let us not overlook the facts while defending him. Until Lincoln's election in '64 was assured, Grant was not fighting a war of attrition; he was fighting a war of annihilation. He would hit Lee as soon and as hard as the creaking machine of the Army of the Potomac was capable of doing and then try and flank Lee, get between Lee and where Lee wanted to go. In the process he indeed ordered (through Meade) attacks on fortified positions, the first at his very second battle in the East (Spotsylvania) and sometimes all along the line. Grant's brief was to destroy Lee's army before the election. He came within a whisker of doing so at times but in my view was ill-served by the mostly new crowd of corps commanders, the good ones such as Meade, Hooker, Reynolds, etc. dead or no longer in corps command or in the case of Sedgwick, killed early on in the Campaign, or Hancock, rendered ineffective and perhaps even mostly useless at times because of a severe, recurring wound suffered at Gettysburg.
Yes of course he did. And since Lee got in command of the Army of Virginia, his army fought every battle with the aim to destroy the Army of the Potomac. War is cruel, understand that without getting used to it.
One of the biggest mistakes Lincoln mad during the Civil War was not putting Grant in charge sooner. Grant was a fighter as was Lee however that being said Grant was always on the offensive Lee until the end was always on the defensive. Both were grate Generals. The last year of the war the south was starving to death.
Weird audio echoes at the end. Disappointed
RIP Dr. Sommers
Your argument is irrelevant. "Magnetism" is not a quality necessary to be a great general. Only results gained when resources and knowledge are factored in. Lee was weak because his personal style of communication with his staff. This personal flaw partially lead to him loosing at Gettysburg. His "magnetism" counted for nothing
Your mindset is outdated now and was outdated then. Nine times out of ten, in the real world, a shovel and a rifle is far more use then a bugle and sword.
The greatest generals win battles and get their men home again.
I'm Irish. And as such don't have a horse in this race. But I can see that southerners lost the war due to their mindset which still hasn't changed. And maybe this is why the United States still shows poor military leadership.
Who is the better general?,, the one who says "yes mister president we can succeed by invasion and destruction",, or the braver general who says "no mister president. To defeat this enemy you need to transfer foreign policy into army command. Give me control of the enemy by attacking his supply lines. His finances and those who support him.". Use drones. Create a 21st century military doctrine. Make battalions of active thinking soldiers and give them the platform to destroy the enemies supply lines.
Think,,,,,,"my enemy recruits by youtube",,, and then have the skills to stop it. etc etc etc.....".
There is no glamour in this. No charging cavalry, no Apache helicopters. But in war laurels are gained by victory .
Remember Vietnam,,, but what about the great wars in Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia who also had communist rebel guerrilla fighters in their jungles,,, no great wars there. No great wars because the British quickly realised that they were wrong about the Japanese, in that with proper training, elite forces can be better jungle fighters then the natives. That a farmer living in the jungle is still a farmer living in the jungle.
Before WW2 , you would have thought war meant trenches. Before the cold war people thought hot war,, after the cold war mabye we might think?,,, information/financial war?,,,,,,, New battlefields,, yet still wars.
"But I can see that southerners lost the war due to their mindset which still hasn't changed. And maybe this is why the United States still shows poor military leadership.", care to elaborate please?
I'm getting TWO voices over the Internet,
Inadequate volume.
Grant was brilliant. Lee was a romanticist.
@ 14:50
Throw the grenade already!
Oh, wait--this isn't the holy hand-grenade...sorry.
The last 6 minutes are garbled.
I would like to ask Dr. Summers how to respond to the fact that grant was generally a failure in everything he did except waging war. Also, that he took over a US army in ascendancy in terms of resources; and a confederate army depleted in most respects
Live life a little more. A lot more actually. Then you will understand that ventures can fail for many reasons. Also, you will be able to formulate an actual question instead of just talking shit about Grant and asking somebody to respond to it. You're a real douche.
Generals like Lee depleted the smaller amount if resources and man as he was to aggressive and lost to much. If anyone cared for the people the South would have seen that they are no longer able to fight a war with any chance of success and have given up. So it would never have been necessary fit a Grant and Sherman to destroy the leftovers.
The south should have used Forest more and allowed him to do as he did and win. Lee was great for the south but Forest was the best in strategy and the smartest of all Generals on both sides when it came to war. Grant stood behind the lines while Lee stood with his men, fought beside them. Grant may had been a good General but he didn't win the hearts of his own men and those on both sides of the war as Lee did.
Douglas Macarthur a military genius? Pahahahahaha
have to be careful defending Dug-out Doug. My dad was a sailor the SWPacific who still bristles at the idea that 7th fleet was "MacArthur's Navy."
A military genius yes, but a political moron. You would think that a West Point graduate would have learned from George McClellan what happens when a general fights the president.
Allen Lisa Martinez Elizabeth Hernandez Donna
Smith Christopher Hall Steven Taylor Melissa
Boring and I admire Grant
I agree. You're boring.
is this the conservative, white analog to Cornell West? he's too cool
Not very good
There is no justification for calling Grant a master of logistics. If he had been such, he would have taken McClellen's route to Richmond, or at least implemented Hooker's strategy for using the disruption of Lee's logistics to force Lee back to Richmond. Of course, that depended on a reliable cavalry leader, which Hooker only discovered the hard way that he did not have.
I think you need to read up on why Grant took the overland route. Its pretty well known that it was a political necessity to do so.
Grant didn't give a damn about Richmond. His sole objective in the Overland Campaign was to destroy Lee's army.
Vicksburg says otherwise.
@@georgelabe-assimo4365 Not really. The Russians are living off the land in Ukraine and no one is saying they are wizards of logistics. But in any case, having steamboats bring supplies up from New Orleans at that point was hardly much of a challenge.
@@davidh5101 Which is precisely why he abandoned the overland route when his logistics collapsed due to the distance.
Poor speaker
Joseph A Rose is a Grant expert. This guy is a clown.
If General Lee had the resources that Grant had the whole outcome would have been much different
If Lee had fought with the South in mind, he might have been worthy of the praise that he gets.
And if he'd had the modern U.S. AirForce, he'd have won in 1862!
It's tough when a huge portion of your population wants you to lose and helps your enemy. And... IF? Okay, I'll play. IF the Federals had an air force and the South had anti-aircraft weapons then Russia would have made it to the moon first. Also, if the queen had balls she'd be king.
I didn't even see yours before I spat out the same basic idea, although admittedly less cordial. (And I'm not a snarky commenter, but it was so ridiculous that it kind of begged for it.)
@@MrBandholm He did, hey you, have some respect. He did his best. Prob. better than what you or I could have done. Grant respected him and never too his eyes off him from May 3,1864 till April 10, 1865. He wasn't the General that Grant was but he was a handsome fella.
The most boring presentation I have watched is a long time. All because you are knowledgeable about a subject does not mean you can present on the subject.
1 Hour and 21 uninspiring, boring minutes about how Grant was the greatest thing since slice bread was invented. I mean he goes on and on and on and on...
Lol k bye
History most famous butcher
Compared to, say, Douglas Haig?!
And yet Lee's casualty rates were worse than Grant's - even in Lee's one good year, when he was up against cowards, incompetents, and buffoons.
You know what, he _won_ when nobody else could.
Read more.
You must be one of them secessh fellers.
Davis Edward Lee Sharon Johnson David
Young Brenda Hall Maria Rodriguez Matthew