He literally used men like a meat grinder. He was aggressive, but that was because he didn’t give a shit about costs while he had numbers and great supply train. That was the biggest advantage of the north and he and Sherman seemed to be the only generals ready to truly utilize it. Does that make him a great general? Idk, kinda common sense, like the first basketball coach to have an all black line up.
Grant knew you had to destroy the south's will to fight. That was done by destroying their Armies. It was only going to be done by attacking. No other way to victory.
@@SadieMeadors I would suggest reading "Ulysses S. Grant: A Victor, Not a Butcher: The Military Genius of the Man Who Won the Civil War (2010)" Edward Bonekemper. The book reports that Lee suffered 209,000 casualties in the Civil War. Grant suffered 154,000. McClellan and the other commanders of the Army of the Potomac fought for three years and suffered huge casualties, but the war no closer to end. Grants six-week Overland Campaign took Lee's Army out of the war and bottled under siege. Yes, Grant suffered casualties, but Lee surrendered to Grant less than a year after the Overland Campaign.
You were statistically more likely to survive the war under Grant's command than Lee's. He may have lost more men than Lee but a smaller percentage of his total army.
When his advisers complained to Lincoln that Grant was a drunk, Lincoln told them to find out what he drinks and send a case to all his generals. “He fights!”
Grant wasn't actually a drunk. In fact he hardly ever drank. He had a condition that made him seem intoxicated after 1 or 2 drinks, almost like an allergy.
@@TommyBombadillio He did drink, by his own admission. But not heavily, and usually when he missed the company of his family. He was likely hungover when Shiloh commenced, but it made no difference in the battle. After that, his family made sure that his oldest son was always with him. The boy was under fire at least twice during the Vicksburg campaign, being nearly captured at Port Gibson and wounded at Black River. Grant never drank again on military duty.
Sherman said this about Grant: "I am a damned sight smarter man than Grant. I know more about military history, strategy, and grand tactics than he does. I know more about supply, administration, and everything else than he does. I’ll tell you where he beats me though and where he beats the world. He doesn’t give a damn about what the enemy does out of his sight, but it scares me like hell."
@@patrickasplund Sherman said it to Union Brigadier James H. Wilson in October 1864, during the campaign to lift the siege on Chattanooga. When Grant became the first Lieutenant General since George Washington, he publicly thanked Sherman as well as General McPherson. Sherman wrote back to Grant, saying "You do yourself injustice and us too much honor ... at Donelson [Grant's victory at Fort Donelson, Tenn. in February 1862, the first major Union victory of the war].... You illustrated your whole character. I was not near, and General McPherson in too subordinate a capacity to influence you. Until you won Donelson, I confess I was almost cowed by ... anarchical elements.... I believe you are as brave, patriotic, and just as the great prototype [George] Washington; but the chief characteristic is the simple faith in success you have always manifested.... This faith gave you victory at Shiloh and Vicksburg ... and at Chattanooga--no doubts, no reserves.... My only points of doubt were in your knowledge of grand strategy and of books of science and history, but I confess your common-sense seems to have supplied all this.''
That seems crazy. I mean, of course at some point you have to make a decision/gamble based on what you think you know, but ignoring the unknown completely? Seems not only extremely risky but predictable! I wish I knew more about what Sherman was thinking.
“Some of you think he’s gonna turn a double somersault and land at our rear of both flanks at the same time. Go back to your commands and think about what we’re gonna do!” This also shows that Grant isn’t a General who’s afraid of Lee unlike his subordinates
Lee did turn both of Grants flanks but they recovered and after the Wilderness went to Spotsyllvania and Lee won another battle but lost so many... If South Anna River plan of Lee's had worked......but that's too many ifs.
A historical quote. Reflects the fact that the Lee had been dancing circles around the Army of the Potomac for two years. Grant, after Shiloh, was better at intel and always knew where his opponents were. These Eastern generals baffled him. They were always being outmarched and outmaneuvered.
Considering they were practically bunk mates in West Point and the Mexican American War, I wouldn't be surprised if Grant knew more about Lee down to which hand he uses to wipe.
A lot of people called Grant a butcher. I've always wondered if the generals that came before Grant in the east were the real butchers. Through indecisiveness, incompetence, missed opportunities they wasted so many lives. Grant had a job to do and he did it.
That’s exactly the way I see it. In just two examples, MacClelland’s creep & crawl up the James Peninsula, March - July, 1862 & Burnside’s lollygagging on the East bank of the Rappahannock prior the December 11-16, 1862 battle alone wasted millions in material and almost 36,000 casualties….with little or no gain. And after both actions there was a general retreat.
Lee lost 20-25% of his men in every battle but only a few of his own people like Pickett ever accused him of being a butcher. Lee could not afford to lose battles because of the propaganda value for the Confederacy and morale of his troops. He had to be in possession of the battlefield at the end to claim victory. His problem was after the first two years of the war his troops were irreplaceable while the Union had divisions which which never smelled a battle. And Grant knew it. Lee's Texans were his best troops but few were left at the end of the war. They were squandered in the Cornfield at Antietam. Grant's legacy as a drunken butcher was part of the Jim Crow era where southerners needed to blame the loss of the war on someone and it couldn't be Lee. Hard to believe a drunken butcher beat Bobby Lee.
Grant was of the idea that he would prefer a few bloody engagements; then letting the war drag out by letting Lee retreat like the other Union Generals had. By continually chasing down Lee he bled his men and resources dry and forced him to stay on the retreat instead of being able to maneuver for a different campaign.
Richard Ewell tried to warn the Confederate command about Grant in 1861. He wrote that he hoped the people of the north never found out about "Sam" Grant: "There is one West Pointer, I think in Missouri, little known, and whom I hope the northern people will not find out. I mean Sam Grant. I knew him well at the Academy and in Mexico. I should fear him more than any of their officers I have yet heard of. He is not a man of genius, but he is clear-headed, quick, and daring."
GIL: Well, Grant had problems as President...He was re-elected, but, by March of 1876, the scandals within his administration revealed lots of corruption... Nonetheless, thanks for your comment...
@tboushier, subjectively, Grant won twice by big margins in the electoral College and both times the popular vote (Did not even campaign in the second run) He followed the disagreeable hiccup that was the Andrew Johnson Administration. Grant implemented his best version of Abraham Lincoln's plan for the south and bringing the southern states back into the union. Which happened under his administration. He also ensured the newly freed African Americans did not have to endure lawless violence. He used the Federal power to execute consequences. Newly freed blacks wanted to participate in our democratic system,❤ 0:48 by 1870 a black man was elected Senator of "Mississippi!!!" Pretty extraordinary, considering what will happen for the next 100 years. Til 1972; wallace get shot. And so does Jim Crow Grant was a flawed man. One major flaw, he was gullible; that lead to numerous scandals, cronyism, stocks fraud.etc. Grant, was there to transition back to the USA. After a ghastly Civil war. The biggest challenge the country ever faced.. , another perspective. Grant is atop Five president in my book.
@@GregorSass-Ranitz The key to @jeep146 comment is the phrase "lost cause". I wont go into here but you can look that up pretty fast here on RUclips. One particular place that search will likely take you is to the "Daughters of the Confederacy" who coined the phrase long ago in their drive to re-write US history books, erect statues all across the south and elsewhere while their fathers, brothers and husbands took care of business under white hoods. An attempt to put a noble, glossy spin on the effort to maintain the practice of chattel slavery and continuing segregation, share cropping and chain gang / prison labor for sundown law infractions. An attempt to put a noble and publicly acceptable face on the jim crow south while the same time making sure their dark neighbors never forgot their place.
What’s great about this moment is that it can apply to your life in times of doubt. We worried that, “Oh no, this is going to happen or that will happen.” But if you do what Grant said, “Stop thinking about what your problem is going to do to you and start thinking what you are going to do to your problem.”
@ShannonFrengI doubt mindlessly criticizing someone for saying something that actually fits the video required very much brain power either, super genius
@@selen18126 what about the Grant and Lee tanks? But I'm just wondering if it's a coincidence because Sherman came many decades later and tanks are normally named after recent personalities
@@selen18126 the USA's first medium tank. It was called Lee or Grant depending on what variation it had. I think the Brits would put a different gun into it. And both names were given by the British. Even that for Sherman. But I'm really wondering if Lee and Grant are after these two generals. Because normally tanks, ships etc were named after the previous generation of military men (Sherman, Churchill, Iosif Stalin, destroyer Fletcher Class). The civil war had been a long time before
Powerful Masculine General Every failure in civilian life Molded His Character, for the One Thing He Excelled In. LEADERSHIP Determined, Decisive, Direct, and To The Point
Grant and Lee were both brilliant in their own right. Both are unfairly maligned and misunderstood. This series was good but they portrayed Lee as being arrogant when he surrendered to Grant which just wasn’t the case in reality. Lee remembered meeting Grant during the Mexican War and they talked about their time in Mexico for 30 minutes before Grant asked to discuss terms. Please take the time to learn about these men and to learn their stories, the true stories.
In the first battle in which Grant had the command, he learned a very important lesson. He had agonized as the moment of battle approached, afraid about his abilities and those of the enemy. When his troops had crested a hill in battle order, ready to attack, they came upon a recently deserted camp. Grant said he learned that day that the enemy had the same fears and doubts that he did, and after that he never let such thoughts bother him again. Read/listen to Grant's Memoirs ! They're a fascinating look into the man and the way he thought. When you're done, I think you'll see why so many people underestimated him, and why they were so wrong to do so.
At this point in the battle every union commander before Grant would have lost their nerve and turned and ran only to prolong the war Grant’s tactics caused more casualties in the short term but he won the war quicker meaning their were less battles to be fought and less casualties in the long term.
You're 100% correct He finished the battles were others had disengaged after a number of casualties only to jeep re-engaging and refighting the unfinished battles over and over
Absolutely. Grant had to overcome a leadership deficit in his military command that had gone to the South. Grant knew you don’t let a man like Lee catch his footing. You keep punching even if that means you get hit a lot yourself
I think when people call Grant a butcher, not only is it misinformed and purely based on the 1864 eastern theatre campaign, but also as Sherman said “War is hell. You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it. “ his correct belief was that the bloodier a war was the quicker it would end
And they also completely ignore that this period of warfare lots of casualties were expected to achieve success. Every successful General From Napoleon to Grant knew this. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a pawn to win the battle. Its not nice, its not ideal but it is war.
@@ernesthill4017 the Somme which German staff officer Captain Von Hentig referred to as ‘the muddy grove of the German army’. It was disastrously bloody for the German army, and it gave the British army massive experience and allowed for major tactical changes which led to victories like that at Amiens in 1918
I'm not from the USA. Just curious: is the Union considered the good guy in this war, or are people objective and open-minded about this issue nowadays?
Grant lost 13,000 men in the two days of Shiloh. McClellan lost the same amount in just the one day of Antietam the same year. Grant lost 12,000 men in the 12 days of Cold Harbor. Burnside lost the same amount in just the 5 days of Fredericksburg. And yet a lot of people, I presume Lost Causers, call him a butcher.
@@thearnorianruby4681 well I'm not an American, as for your question well the lost cousers are the south who to this day whine about their defeat and believe the lost cause myth hence lost cousers
First time I heard tell of Grant's "double somersault" line was in Ken Burns' classic documentary, _The Civil War,_ and Shelby Foote was the one that said it. And, the clip ended with Foote commenting on Grant, "He was wonderful."
Grant set the tone after the near disastrous Wilderness battle when everyone expected another retreat. Early that morning veterans were astonished to find they were advancing. They began cheering when they saw Grant in the lead who tried stopping them afraid the noise would tip off Lee.
I like seeing Grant tell his generals to stop fretting over what Lee is going to do, they need to focus on what they are going to do to Lee. Grant understood that if you worry too much about what your enemy will do than you become indecisive , you become too over cautious. The reason that the previous commanders McClellan, Burnside, and Hooker failed is because they allowed Lee to dictate the battle, they continually yielded the initiative to Lee. Whereas Grant doesn’t allow Lee to dictate the battle, he deprives him of any space to maneuver.
Grant caught a tiger by the tail and just wouldn't let go...Lee never dealt with someone so persistent and smothering..put Lee on a protracted defensive posture...interesting how it all turned out...😊
THAT is what made Grant great. Lee managed to intimidate his opponents because after thrashing them they would retreat across the river. Grant didn't, even if he got whipped. He would stubbornly go forward. Considering the fact he outnumbered Lee close to 2-1 with unlimited resources, sooner r later its just a matter of time.
Exactly right. Grant was a solid tactician but more importantly knew strategic math. He knew that his massive advantages of men and materiel would eventually break the South and applied then relentlessly. Unlike earlier commanders he was willing to trade lives 2:1 to gain the ultimate victory. And did both.
To the extent the North had a logistical advantage, it was almost impossible to ever bring it fully to bear. They were the invading party with supply lines to protect and actual dissensions allowed in their population. In any case, the Union’s advantages obviously hadn’t won any significant victories in northern Virginia until Grant assumed command. Grant was a world-historical talent as a general. He won the war.
@@NickGutenson In his memoir, Grant addresses the "you only won because you had more men" line. He notes that operating in western Tennessee and northern Mississippi, he often had to use as much as a third of his troops to guard supply lines and communications. I was astonished to learn that even after Memphis fell to the Union, he had to bring his supplies down from Columbus, Kentucky. The roads from Memphis were poor since most everything was done by river. Grant was continually harassed by Confederate raiders, including Nathan Bedford Forrest. He often had a numerical advantage only on paper. In his campaign to take Vicksburg, he decided to live off the land, as he could not be resupplied when he was south of that city. This inspired the March to the Sea by Sherman 18 months later.
If anyone’s curious ’Grant’ is available on History Vault along with Washington and Teddy Roosevelt. They’re 3 part documentary/miniseries and every one of them is great. They normally come out with a new one around Presidents Day
I heard from a George Pickett impersonator who was at the Gettysburg reunion event every year that several things went in motion for the South to lose. Stonewall just being killed at Chancellorsville,not having his artillery there,not taking the high ground,and Lee was old and ill. He had shit his pants and wanted to hurry up so he could change… There’s a little more to this story but it’s a factor that most don’t know… Me personally,I think Gen.Longstreet should’ve been respected more than he was given credit for because he insisted that charging the hill was suicidal,and nobody really respected him after the war because it was protocol to think Gen.Lee was above all criticizing. He didn’t even get a monument at Gettysburg until 1994!
Yes, Lee was suffering from disentary or something during the battle. But it wasn't just Longstreet that questioned Lee's moves. Even Hood requested permission to flank the Union lines. Picket despised Lee for destroying his division.
The Army of Northern Virginia had interior lines of maneuver, defensive positions, support from the local population, and shorter supply lines while defending Richmond. Despite General Longstreet's warnings, General Lee was overconfident and insisted on attacking at Gettysburg where the Army of the Potomac had interior lines of maneuver, defensive positions, support from the local population, and shorter supply lines.
@@oscargrouch7962 Where did you get this information? My understanding is that Lee did not want a general engagement, and I believe he had issued orders to saw such. He was concentrating his army around Cashtown, and he only wanted a general engagement after his army was concentrated. I believe some Confederate soldiers were searching for supplies, especially shoes, and just happened to bring about the general engagement Lee didn't want.
@@joshdavis3743 Where did I get this information? From any book about the battle Gettysburg. The Army of the Potomac retreated through Gettysburg on July 1, 1863 to occupy defensive positions on Culp's Hill, Spangler's Hill, Little Round Top, and the Angle at the foot of Cemetery Ridge. For the next two days the Army of Northern Virginia unsuccessfully assault those defensive positions (and others). The Battle of Gettysburg culminated when Pickett's Charge failed to take Union defensive positions on July 3, 1863 at The Angle. (FYI, an infantry charge, such as Pickett's Charge, is an offensive maneuver not a defensive maneuver.) The Army of the Potomac was not assaulting the Army of Northern Virginia in defensive positions on top of Seminary Ridge; the Army of Northern Virginia, on the other hand, was assaulting the Army of the Potomac in defensive positions. General Lee lost the Battle of Gettysburg because he became engaged in a battle in which the Army of the Potomac had the advantages (defensive positions on higher ground, interior lines of maneuver, support from the local population, and shorter supply lines). General Lee did not say on the evening of July 1, 1863, "Well, Gee, the Army of the Potomac has all of the advantages so we better bypass it and move on Harrisburg, Baltimore, or Washington DC." No, he wasted the Army of Northern Virginia attacking the Army of the Potomac for the next two days before retreating back to Richmond after being defeated. From my understand you never read a book about the Battle of Gettysburg. Do you have any more stupid questions about the Battle of Gettysburg you would like me to answer?
@@oscargrouch7962 You said he insisted on attacking at Gettysburg, that is incorrect. he didn't want an engagement before his army was concentrated at Cashtown. He gave orders not to being on a general engagement before his army was concentrated, and part of Heth's division did a reconnaissance in force which resulted in a general engagement. Neither side originally intended for Gettysburg to be where the battle would take place.
Grant is even better he's like Patton and ike rolled into one. If grant was a ww2 general he would have been supreme commander of allied expeditionary force's in Europe
SOME MEN WERE BORN TO LEAD GREAT ARMIES INTO BATTLE. HE WAS LIKE PATTON. A STRATEGIST, A WEST POINTER. A BRIALLANT TACTICIAN,. BUT HE WAS A BATTLE HARDEN AND FIERCE WARRIOR ON THE BATTLEFIELD AND WAS DECISIVE AND EXECUTED HIS PLANS AND WAS NOT AFRAID TO COMMIT EQUIPMENT AND THOUSANDS OF MEN TO WIN AND WIN HE DID!!!
From a Brit the south had no chance all the industry and population were north the south were like Germans outnumbered on eastern front better soldiers but simply overwhelmed that the war lasted four years is a testimony to the souths courage and north having one hand behind their back that said slavery ended but war is such a waste
Nah, the South had more experienced commanders, for the most part the Civil War was fought on the Southern turf, and they had a chance to win till 1863-64.
Who’s the historical consultant for the “extras” / confederate soldiers?? Nothing is accurate and it appears they based civil war combat on the NBC North South mini series.
I don’t think Lee’s greatness is overestimated. He was a phenomenal General, despite the defeat at Gettysburg which ultimately cost him the war. Grant has also received a great reputation. I don’t think we should disrespect either man, as they had much respect for one another.
Lee earned his accolades, as did Grant. They both did the best with what they had, Grant was blessed with much more and knew how to use it. Go find another statue to knock over.
@@castercamber Lee is propped up to be a tactical mastermind whose only claim to fame is being able to fight well when he had the ability to maneuver freely. He often wasted men he could not afford to lose when Grant took the initiative from him and forced him to react to his movements.
Lee could have taken Washington after the first battle of Bullrun. But he did not want to destroy the union. Had officers did what Sherman did in the south they would have been called criminals.
Admiral Kondo lead the Japanese war college before ww2. Yamamoto thought he was and by all accounts a great teacher of strategy so he put Kondo in charge of the surface fleet. Early in the war kondo was timid and should have been replaced but because of Yamamotos admiration he was not
People don’t realize this but damn near ever battle Lee fought the odds were against him. Every single one, even at Gettysburg they were almost outnumbered 2-1. In the final days before Appomattox Lee would inflict 2-1 casualties against grant.
Lee was a great tactical commander, but lacked in the strategy department. Whereas, Grant was the polar opposite, not a good tactician, but a great strategic thinker.
Uh he was not outnumbered 2-1 at Gettysburg, I think Lee had about 75k men engaged and Meade had about 90k men engaged. Outnumbered yes but lot that severely. By 1864 he Lee had gotten so many of his men killed in these offensives he launched that at that point he was regularly outnumbered 2-1 so he was forced to finally fight on the defensive.
If wars were about points scored then Lee would have won...but wars aren't sports. Lee was a poor strategist. Seeing the writing on the wall and continuing to fight despite his inevitable defeat was just wasting the lives of men on both sides.
@@redwolfgamevideo the union had over 100k men and the south most realistically didn’t have 75k. It was closer to 60-120k of frontline infantry troops.
@@rikk319 I’m not saying Lee wasn’t a poor strategist, his objective was to hold on and take the fight to the north to sway public opinion against electing Lincoln and to get them tired of the war to elect a president who wanted to negotiate peace.
The 1st Texas Infantry Regiment was well known by this point in the war, which is why Lee committed them to attack the rocky escarpment of what became known as the Battle of Devil's Den on July the 2nd, 1863. They succeeded in taking the position in what would be known as such against Birney's 1st Division. It wasn't the only forces they'd face, but it was the main one that they defeated after suffering heavy casualties in the day's fighting, and I think that the psychological reality that they were facing a brigade of such battlefield renown of which my ancestors were apart made them withdraw in the end.
Lee has an old man who had suffered from multiple medical conditions by the time of meeting grant in battle and surrender, this is just a material fact not for the cause. The actor portraying Lee is pretty in shape and healthy looking, that part is my opinion
Lee knew the manufacturing capacity of the North. He knew on population alone they could bury the south eventually. His attacks were based on the idea of forcing a negotiated peace. The South at same time would got stuck in siege warfare in the west that eventually led to the collapse and splitting of the confederacy in half. Lee's movements should have targeted capitals of Northern states and a forced surrender of state as a means to force a negotiated and exert political pressure on Lincoln for a forced settlement fighting in open terrain only gave the union chance to bleed but also learn how to fight the south..
They could hardly even siege DC right across the river, let alone try to leapfrog other state capitals deeper in the Union. The Union was always going to have more opportunities to attack strategically than them.
Sometimes I wonder what the 400,000 men that died to rid the south of slavery would think if they saw how some people thought of them today like was it worth it…
Honestly I'm getting tired of loss causers slandering Grant, he lost less men than Lee, and yet Lee is praised. He kicked multiple different battalion's into not existing in the west and taught some other Union generals like Sherman on how to do the same, yet confederate generals were the best And most of all He did actually care about his troops it was said that he cried after some battles because of the loss, and yet he's apparently a butcher He broke Virginia and Bob E Lee and won the war for the union through stubbornness, tactics and shear force of will And yet some continue to say that it was only sheer force of numbers that won against there precious state rights loving South.
Robert E. Lee lowkey feels like Count Dooku from Star Wars. He fought for the good guys (Jedi and Republic) and was respected for his skills, but ended up siding with the enemy (Confederacy) later on, causing a civil war. Also the white beard.
Soldiers from both sides rushed into the fires to pull out any of the wounded screaming. It is one thing to die in battle it is another to be burned alive.
Yep,, that's the point, grant doesn't stop. Turn his flanks, flank him, enfilade him, the bulldog won't stop, he will keep coming at you till appomatox.
@srimadhav5090 Too bad he wasn't around for Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Running away from a handful of farmers, such as 2 times at Bull Run, doesn't look good. ✌️
@@MichaelDeutschman yeah,,it was too bad he wasn't around. But he did save the nation by making lee surrender and the nation he saved has endured and lived inspite of Vietnam, somalia, or iraq, while Lee's nation perished with him.
@srimadhav5090 Good to know there is an expiring nation that worships George Floyd ilk, supports gender transitions for children, doesn't mind when its own children are slaughtered in school, has the highest obesity and highest incarceration rate in the world. - The world laughs at you for more reasons than your tall running from a few farmers in Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. ✌️
Although U.S. Grant held the position of “Commanding General of the Army” with 4 stars during the Civil War, very few know that he was in fact promoted to the “6-star” grade, skipping the 5-star rank of General of the Army. In December 2022 Congress authorized the President to promote Grant to the 6-star rank of “General of the Armies of the United States” or the more commonly shortened version of “General of the Armies”. He is one of only three men to be promoted to this rank, George Washington and John J. Pershing. Pershing being the only one to hold the rank while living. The Navy equivalent being their 6-star rank of “Admiral of the Navy of the United States” or again the more commonly title of “Admiral of the Navy” which only George Dewey has held.
@larry811 Not officially, but there is a very rarely used US military rank "General of the Armies" which is above a 5 star, the only person to be awarded it while alive (and first person to be granted it at all) was John Pershing in WW1. George Washington is always posthumously promoted whenever a new rank is made so that no one ever outranks his highest rank and Grant was Poshumously awared the rank in 2022 when Congress gave Biden permission to grant him the rank.
Can someone confirm if the north fought this war with one arm tied behind their backs? They were too powerful and had the great advantage in numbers and supplies.
Grant was a fighter and great general because he knew how, and was unafraid, to use men and material resouces to win battles.
He literally used men like a meat grinder. He was aggressive, but that was because he didn’t give a shit about costs while he had numbers and great supply train. That was the biggest advantage of the north and he and Sherman seemed to be the only generals ready to truly utilize it. Does that make him a great general? Idk, kinda common sense, like the first basketball coach to have an all black line up.
Grant knew you had to destroy the south's will to fight. That was done by destroying their Armies. It was only going to be done by attacking. No other way to victory.
@@SadieMeadors I would suggest reading "Ulysses S. Grant: A Victor, Not a Butcher: The Military Genius of the Man Who Won the Civil War (2010)" Edward Bonekemper. The book reports that Lee suffered 209,000 casualties in the Civil War. Grant suffered 154,000. McClellan and the other commanders of the Army of the Potomac fought for three years and suffered huge casualties, but the war no closer to end. Grants six-week Overland Campaign took Lee's Army out of the war and bottled under siege. Yes, Grant suffered casualties, but Lee surrendered to Grant less than a year after the Overland Campaign.
You were statistically more likely to survive the war under Grant's command than Lee's. He may have lost more men than Lee but a smaller percentage of his total army.
Yes but his casulties were stupidity high also he had more of everything if both sides were equal Bobby Lee hands down
When his advisers complained to Lincoln that Grant was a drunk, Lincoln told them to find out what he drinks and send a case to all his generals. “He fights!”
Grant wasn't actually a drunk. In fact he hardly ever drank. He had a condition that made him seem intoxicated after 1 or 2 drinks, almost like an allergy.
@@TommyBombadillio He did drink, by his own admission. But not heavily, and usually when he missed the company of his family. He was likely hungover when Shiloh commenced, but it made no difference in the battle. After that, his family made sure that his oldest son was always with him. The boy was under fire at least twice during the Vicksburg campaign, being nearly captured at Port Gibson and wounded at Black River. Grant never drank again on military duty.
I believe the actual quote was “I can’t spare that man. He fights.”
@@TommyBombadillio It's called chronic alcoholic syndrome. Liver's gone, can't filter out the alcohol.
The part about giving the whiskey to the other generals is funny. But he didn't say it.
Sherman said this about Grant: "I am a damned sight smarter man than Grant. I know more about military history, strategy, and grand tactics than he does. I know more about supply, administration, and everything else than he does. I’ll tell you where he beats me though and where he beats the world. He doesn’t give a damn about what the enemy does out of his sight, but it scares me like hell."
Never heard that quote.
@@patrickasplund Sherman said it to Union Brigadier James H. Wilson in October 1864, during the campaign to lift the siege on Chattanooga.
When Grant became the first Lieutenant General since George Washington, he publicly thanked Sherman as well as General McPherson. Sherman wrote back to Grant, saying "You do yourself injustice and us too much honor ... at Donelson [Grant's victory at Fort Donelson, Tenn. in February 1862, the first major Union victory of the war].... You illustrated your whole character. I was not near, and General McPherson in too subordinate a capacity to influence you. Until you won Donelson, I confess I was almost cowed by ... anarchical elements.... I believe you are as brave, patriotic, and just as the great prototype [George] Washington; but the chief characteristic is the simple faith in success you have always manifested.... This faith gave you victory at Shiloh and Vicksburg ... and at Chattanooga--no doubts, no reserves.... My only points of doubt were in your knowledge of grand strategy and of books of science and history, but I confess your common-sense seems to have supplied all this.''
Beat me to it, dammit!
That seems crazy. I mean, of course at some point you have to make a decision/gamble based on what you think you know, but ignoring the unknown completely? Seems not only extremely risky but predictable! I wish I knew more about what Sherman was thinking.
Where can I watch this?
“I’m tired of hearing about what Lee’s gonna do!” Im sure 100% Grant probably said this alot actually
“Some of you think he’s gonna turn a double somersault and land at our rear of both flanks at the same time. Go back to your commands and think about what we’re gonna do!”
This also shows that Grant isn’t a General who’s afraid of Lee unlike his subordinates
Lee did turn both of Grants flanks but they recovered and after the Wilderness went to Spotsyllvania and Lee won another battle but lost so many... If South Anna River plan of Lee's had worked......but that's too many ifs.
A historical quote. Reflects the fact that the Lee had been dancing circles around the Army of the Potomac for two years. Grant, after Shiloh, was better at intel and always knew where his opponents were. These Eastern generals baffled him. They were always being outmarched and outmaneuvered.
@@2045Kell-ri5tmspotsylvania was a strategic victory for the Union the Confederacy lost too many officers and ncos in the mule shoe
Considering they were practically bunk mates in West Point and the Mexican American War, I wouldn't be surprised if Grant knew more about Lee down to which hand he uses to wipe.
A lot of people called Grant a butcher. I've always wondered if the generals that came before Grant in the east were the real butchers. Through indecisiveness, incompetence, missed opportunities they wasted so many lives. Grant had a job to do and he did it.
Correct. Spending lives to win is war. Spending lives and losing is butchery!!!
Grant actually had a lower casualty rate than other generals in nearly every campaign. The wilderness was a very bloody time though.
That’s exactly the way I see it. In just two examples, MacClelland’s creep & crawl up the James Peninsula, March - July, 1862 & Burnside’s lollygagging on the East bank of the Rappahannock prior the December 11-16, 1862 battle alone wasted millions in material and almost 36,000 casualties….with little or no gain. And after both actions there was a general retreat.
Lee lost 20-25% of his men in every battle but only a few of his own people like Pickett ever accused him of being a butcher. Lee could not afford to lose battles because of the propaganda value for the Confederacy and morale of his troops. He had to be in possession of the battlefield at the end to claim victory. His problem was after the first two years of the war his troops were irreplaceable while the Union had divisions which which never smelled a battle. And Grant knew it.
Lee's Texans were his best troops but few were left at the end of the war. They were squandered in the Cornfield at Antietam.
Grant's legacy as a drunken butcher was part of the Jim Crow era where southerners needed to blame the loss of the war on someone and it couldn't be Lee. Hard to believe a drunken butcher beat Bobby Lee.
It's better to lose a lot of lives up front than many more lives dragging it out.
The enemy gets a vote on the outcome, but so do you. Grant was a brilliant commander.
I wonder if Grant was far, far more relentless than he was brilliant, though he was both
@mikelight2008 Aggression is a quality not all generals possess, and it is what frequently separates good generals from great ones.
Grant was of the idea that he would prefer a few bloody engagements; then letting the war drag out by letting Lee retreat like the other Union Generals had.
By continually chasing down Lee he bled his men and resources dry and forced him to stay on the retreat instead of being able to maneuver for a different campaign.
The Battle the Wilderness was an inconclusive battle. Neither had a real victory.
@@preppychrisbou not for the physical battle, but it was an overall strategic victory for Grant
Buckner TOLD Lee not to underestimate Grant.
Richard Ewell tried to warn the Confederate command about Grant in 1861. He wrote that he hoped the people of the north never found out about "Sam" Grant:
"There is one West Pointer, I think in Missouri, little known, and whom I hope the northern people will not find out. I mean Sam Grant. I knew him well at the Academy and in Mexico. I should fear him more than any of their officers I have yet heard of. He is not a man of genius, but he is clear-headed, quick, and daring."
@@marksnyder8022 Longstreet knew him well, and also cautioned against underestimating Grant.
That man who said it was Longstreet..
US Grant underrated American Hero!! Great military leader and great President!
GIL: Well, Grant had problems as President...He was re-elected, but, by March of 1876, the scandals within his administration revealed lots of corruption...
Nonetheless, thanks for your comment...
@tboushier, subjectively, Grant won twice by big margins in the electoral College and both times the popular vote (Did not even campaign in the second run)
He followed the disagreeable hiccup that was the Andrew Johnson Administration.
Grant implemented his best version of Abraham Lincoln's plan for the south and bringing the southern states back into the union. Which happened under his administration.
He also ensured the newly freed African Americans did not have to endure lawless violence. He used the Federal power to execute consequences. Newly freed blacks wanted to participate in our democratic system,❤ 0:48 by 1870 a black man was elected Senator of "Mississippi!!!" Pretty extraordinary, considering what will happen for the next 100 years. Til 1972; wallace get shot. And so does Jim Crow
Grant was a flawed man. One major flaw, he was gullible; that lead to numerous scandals, cronyism, stocks fraud.etc.
Grant, was there to transition back to the USA. After a ghastly Civil war. The biggest challenge the country ever faced.. , another perspective.
Grant is atop Five president in my book.
Grant was a highly underrated President.
Absolutely
Wish somebody did a JW Booth on Grant.
As a black American I love the civil war history
Most Americans are fascinated by the history. The South lost but it took a hundred years until the victory was realized. The nation still has issues.
Likewise" history in general but especially the Civil War.
@@mattmurphy24more Americans were killed during the civil war than WWI, WWII, and Vietnam combined. Both sides lost that war…
Well 400,000 Northerners died for you so you probably should. Try and thank them once in a while as well.
I feel obligated to study it as a US citizen because of all of the pro-Confederate lies built up for more than a century
Many of those Texas soldiers were from central Texas. Many of them never returned from the war. It was a lost cause.
The "lost cause" narrative white supremacists hug onto so desperately.
Much of the Texans in the Confederate Army deserted to return home because of the sudden war with the Comanches.
Many of the enemy also never returned from the war. What's the point you're trying to make?
@@GregorSass-Ranitz The key to @jeep146 comment is the phrase "lost cause". I wont go into here but you can look that up pretty fast here on RUclips. One particular place that search will likely take you is to the "Daughters of the Confederacy" who coined the phrase long ago in their drive to re-write US history books, erect statues all across the south and elsewhere while their fathers, brothers and husbands took care of business under white hoods. An attempt to put a noble, glossy spin on the effort to maintain the practice of chattel slavery and continuing segregation, share cropping and chain gang / prison labor for sundown law infractions. An attempt to put a noble and publicly acceptable face on the jim crow south while the same time making sure their dark neighbors never forgot their place.
Alot of blood spilt for a bad cause.
What’s great about this moment is that it can apply to your life in times of doubt. We worried that, “Oh no, this is going to happen or that will happen.” But if you do what Grant said, “Stop thinking about what your problem is going to do to you and start thinking what you are going to do to your problem.”
Amen.
Wow. Great point!
"But Lee is coming!"
Grant: And we have bullets.
The victor is the party who retains his initiative. Think hardest about what you're going to do.
@ShannonFrengI doubt mindlessly criticizing someone for saying something that actually fits the video required very much brain power either, super genius
U.S Grant. One of the greatest strategists and tacticians West Point has ever produced and one of the greatest Generals in US history
Is that the guy the tank was named after?
@@jankutac9753 nope, that's Sherman
@@selen18126 what about the Grant and Lee tanks? But I'm just wondering if it's a coincidence because Sherman came many decades later and tanks are normally named after recent personalities
@@jankutac9753 Oh my bad sorry, to me they were always refered as "Lee" tanks ! But if it were the Lee/grant now I understand !
@@selen18126 the USA's first medium tank. It was called Lee or Grant depending on what variation it had. I think the Brits would put a different gun into it. And both names were given by the British. Even that for Sherman.
But I'm really wondering if Lee and Grant are after these two generals. Because normally tanks, ships etc were named after the previous generation of military men (Sherman, Churchill, Iosif Stalin, destroyer Fletcher Class). The civil war had been a long time before
Powerful Masculine General
Every failure in civilian life Molded His Character, for the One Thing He Excelled In. LEADERSHIP
Determined, Decisive, Direct, and
To The Point
Darn good approach.
Grant and Lee were both brilliant in their own right. Both are unfairly maligned and misunderstood. This series was good but they portrayed Lee as being arrogant when he surrendered to Grant which just wasn’t the case in reality. Lee remembered meeting Grant during the Mexican War and they talked about their time in Mexico for 30 minutes before Grant asked to discuss terms. Please take the time to learn about these men and to learn their stories, the true stories.
I thank you for pointing this out.
In the first battle in which Grant had the command, he learned a very important lesson. He had agonized as the moment of battle approached, afraid about his abilities and those of the enemy. When his troops had crested a hill in battle order, ready to attack, they came upon a recently deserted camp. Grant said he learned that day that the enemy had the same fears and doubts that he did, and after that he never let such thoughts bother him again.
Read/listen to Grant's Memoirs ! They're a fascinating look into the man and the way he thought. When you're done, I think you'll see why so many people underestimated him, and why they were so wrong to do so.
At this point in the battle every union commander before Grant would have lost their nerve and turned and ran only to prolong the war
Grant’s tactics caused more casualties in the short term but he won the war quicker meaning their were less battles to be fought and less casualties in the long term.
Grant understood he had the advantage in men and material. He used this to grab hold if Lee's army and not let go until he ground it down to nothing.
Given that disease was a bigger killer than bullets, getting the war over with was desirable regardless of casualties in battle.
You're 100% correct
He finished the battles were others had disengaged after a number of casualties only to jeep re-engaging and refighting the unfinished battles over and over
Absolutely. Grant had to overcome a leadership deficit in his military command that had gone to the South. Grant knew you don’t let a man like Lee catch his footing. You keep punching even if that means you get hit a lot yourself
@@mconnors17332 to 1 for disease
I think when people call Grant a butcher, not only is it misinformed and purely based on the 1864 eastern theatre campaign, but also as Sherman said “War is hell. You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it. “ his correct belief was that the bloodier a war was the quicker it would end
And they also completely ignore that this period of warfare lots of casualties were expected to achieve success. Every successful General From Napoleon to Grant knew this. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a pawn to win the battle. Its not nice, its not ideal but it is war.
@@Greebo-ne1sc
Perhaps the Dead of the Somme campaign would disagree with that view 🤔
@@ernesthill4017 the Somme which German staff officer Captain Von Hentig referred to as ‘the muddy grove of the German army’. It was disastrously bloody for the German army, and it gave the British army massive experience and allowed for major tactical changes which led to victories like that at Amiens in 1918
@@Greebo-ne1sc
source please?
@@thodan467 for what the main comment or second part
Officers: But what if Lee will……..
Grant: Let him. I look forward to it
GRANT ! He saved the Union!
Unfortunately...
@@vojtechotava1417 boohoo muffin, we won you lost, end of story, if you EVER want a repeat.... BRING IT!!
@@vojtechotava1417what a way to show your true colours, you slaver sympathiser.
@@vojtechotava1417 Says the democrat.
I'm not from the USA. Just curious: is the Union considered the good guy in this war, or are people objective and open-minded about this issue nowadays?
Grant lost 13,000 men in the two days of Shiloh. McClellan lost the same amount in just the one day of Antietam the same year.
Grant lost 12,000 men in the 12 days of Cold Harbor. Burnside lost the same amount in just the 5 days of Fredericksburg.
And yet a lot of people, I presume Lost Causers, call him a butcher.
What's a Lost Causer?
@@thearnorianruby4681 I assume your not American?
@@ronanchristiana.belleza9270 Oh, I am. I just don't know what a lost causer is in this context. My bad.
@@thearnorianruby4681 well I'm not an American, as for your question well the lost cousers are the south who to this day whine about their defeat and believe the lost cause myth hence lost cousers
@@ronanchristiana.belleza9270 Oh...I see. Why don't they just get over it?
First time I heard tell of Grant's "double somersault" line was in Ken Burns' classic documentary, _The Civil War,_ and Shelby Foote was the one that said it.
And, the clip ended with Foote commenting on Grant,
"He was wonderful."
According to his secretary, Porter, Grant reportedly said: “I am heartily sorry of hearing..” I believe he used much stronger language.
Grant set the tone after the near disastrous Wilderness battle when everyone expected another retreat. Early that morning veterans were astonished to find they were advancing. They began cheering when they saw Grant in the lead who tried stopping them afraid the noise would tip off Lee.
I like seeing Grant tell his generals to stop fretting over what Lee is going to do, they need to focus on what they are going to do to Lee. Grant understood that if you worry too much about what your enemy will do than you become indecisive , you become too over cautious. The reason that the previous commanders McClellan, Burnside, and Hooker failed is because they allowed Lee to dictate the battle, they continually yielded the initiative to Lee. Whereas Grant doesn’t allow Lee to dictate the battle, he deprives him of any space to maneuver.
Grant caught a tiger by the tail and just wouldn't let go...Lee never dealt with someone so persistent and smothering..put Lee on a protracted defensive posture...interesting how it all turned out...😊
THAT is what made Grant great. Lee managed to intimidate his opponents because after thrashing them they would retreat across the river. Grant didn't, even if he got whipped. He would stubbornly go forward. Considering the fact he outnumbered Lee close to 2-1 with unlimited resources, sooner r later its just a matter of time.
Exactly right. Grant was a solid tactician but more importantly knew strategic math. He knew that his massive advantages of men and materiel would eventually break the South and applied then relentlessly. Unlike earlier commanders he was willing to trade lives 2:1 to gain the ultimate victory. And did both.
To the extent the North had a logistical advantage, it was almost impossible to ever bring it fully to bear. They were the invading party with supply lines to protect and actual dissensions allowed in their population.
In any case, the Union’s advantages obviously hadn’t won any significant victories in northern Virginia until Grant assumed command. Grant was a world-historical talent as a general. He won the war.
Grant didn't look at war like a video game, as too many people do today. He was always about the final results, not the details.
@@NickGutenson In his memoir, Grant addresses the "you only won because you had more men" line. He notes that operating in western Tennessee and northern Mississippi, he often had to use as much as a third of his troops to guard supply lines and communications. I was astonished to learn that even after Memphis fell to the Union, he had to bring his supplies down from Columbus, Kentucky. The roads from Memphis were poor since most everything was done by river. Grant was continually harassed by Confederate raiders, including Nathan Bedford Forrest. He often had a numerical advantage only on paper. In his campaign to take Vicksburg, he decided to live off the land, as he could not be resupplied when he was south of that city. This inspired the March to the Sea by Sherman 18 months later.
If anyone’s curious ’Grant’ is available on History Vault along with Washington and Teddy Roosevelt. They’re 3 part documentary/miniseries and every one of them is great. They normally come out with a new one around Presidents Day
Great video again Daniel. I saw a lot of this stuff on your website earlier today and now I know where it came from. 😊
Lee only won battles because Grant was on the other side of the war defeating Lee's other armies.
Lee wasn’t appointed General in Chief of all Confederate Armies until February 1865.
Excellent line.
I heard from a George Pickett impersonator who was at the Gettysburg reunion event every year that several things went in motion for the South to lose. Stonewall just being killed at Chancellorsville,not having his artillery there,not taking the high ground,and Lee was old and ill. He had shit his pants and wanted to hurry up so he could change…
There’s a little more to this story but it’s a factor that most don’t know…
Me personally,I think Gen.Longstreet should’ve been respected more than he was given credit for because he insisted that charging the hill was suicidal,and nobody really respected him after the war because it was protocol to think Gen.Lee was above all criticizing. He didn’t even get a monument at Gettysburg until 1994!
Yes, Lee was suffering from disentary or something during the battle. But it wasn't just Longstreet that questioned Lee's moves. Even Hood requested permission to flank the Union lines. Picket despised Lee for destroying his division.
The Army of Northern Virginia had interior lines of maneuver, defensive positions, support from the local population, and shorter supply lines while defending Richmond. Despite General Longstreet's warnings, General Lee was overconfident and insisted on attacking at Gettysburg where the Army of the Potomac had interior lines of maneuver, defensive positions, support from the local population, and shorter supply lines.
@@oscargrouch7962 Where did you get this information? My understanding is that Lee did not want a general engagement, and I believe he had issued orders to saw such. He was concentrating his army around Cashtown, and he only wanted a general engagement after his army was concentrated. I believe some Confederate soldiers were searching for supplies, especially shoes, and just happened to bring about the general engagement Lee didn't want.
@@joshdavis3743 Where did I get this information? From any book about the battle Gettysburg. The Army of the Potomac retreated through Gettysburg on July 1, 1863 to occupy defensive positions on Culp's Hill, Spangler's Hill, Little Round Top, and the Angle at the foot of Cemetery Ridge. For the next two days the Army of Northern Virginia unsuccessfully assault those defensive positions (and others). The Battle of Gettysburg culminated when Pickett's Charge failed to take Union defensive positions on July 3, 1863 at The Angle. (FYI, an infantry charge, such as Pickett's Charge, is an offensive maneuver not a defensive maneuver.) The Army of the Potomac was not assaulting the Army of Northern Virginia in defensive positions on top of Seminary Ridge; the Army of Northern Virginia, on the other hand, was assaulting the Army of the Potomac in defensive positions. General Lee lost the Battle of Gettysburg because he became engaged in a battle in which the Army of the Potomac had the advantages (defensive positions on higher ground, interior lines of maneuver, support from the local population, and shorter supply lines). General Lee did not say on the evening of July 1, 1863, "Well, Gee, the Army of the Potomac has all of the advantages so we better bypass it and move on Harrisburg, Baltimore, or Washington DC." No, he wasted the Army of Northern Virginia attacking the Army of the Potomac for the next two days before retreating back to Richmond after being defeated. From my understand you never read a book about the Battle of Gettysburg. Do you have any more stupid questions about the Battle of Gettysburg you would like me to answer?
@@oscargrouch7962 You said he insisted on attacking at Gettysburg, that is incorrect. he didn't want an engagement before his army was concentrated at Cashtown. He gave orders not to being on a general engagement before his army was concentrated, and part of Heth's division did a reconnaissance in force which resulted in a general engagement. Neither side originally intended for Gettysburg to be where the battle would take place.
i did bus tours in nyc we went by his tomb each day😮
Grant is one of the greatest Americans. Came from nothing and worked himself to the president of United States 🇺🇸
True story!! Grant was--at a time when wars were fought at walking speed--real fast. Also ruthless and steady as a rock.
Nice wrenches. The Overdrive models look really good, but I can’t really justify another set of wrenches, haha.
Grant was not in favor of retreating, although he did on a few occasions. He was a brilliant strategist and knew how to bring the War to an end.
This is where my great great grandfather was grievously wounded fighting for the Vermont Vols.
He had just turned 15.
The clip is from the docudrama miniseries "Grant"
I’m a Brit and US Grant is up there with Patton, Ike and Monty … what a table that would be
Grant is even better he's like Patton and ike rolled into one. If grant was a ww2 general he would have been supreme commander of allied expeditionary force's in Europe
SOME MEN WERE BORN TO LEAD GREAT ARMIES INTO BATTLE. HE WAS LIKE PATTON. A STRATEGIST, A WEST POINTER. A BRIALLANT TACTICIAN,. BUT HE WAS A BATTLE HARDEN AND FIERCE WARRIOR ON THE BATTLEFIELD AND WAS DECISIVE AND EXECUTED HIS PLANS AND WAS NOT AFRAID TO COMMIT EQUIPMENT AND THOUSANDS OF MEN TO WIN AND WIN HE DID!!!
I disagree, I see Grant as more of an Eisenhower than a Patton. I actually see Lee as more akin to Patton than Grant is.
Great series
Whats this called? I've seen so many clips
What's it called
@@sadcre "Grant" is the name of the series
It appears Lee, and many of the southern officers, disliked Grant and considered him an inferior officer, yet they lost to him.
Grant was by far the best general. His Vicksburg campaign sealed the north’s win in the war and his eastern campaign ended it.
Oh cool 🤩🤩🤩...where can I watch this series?
Id love to watch this but cant find it anywhere.
Ill happily pay but nothing available in UK i can see
From a Brit the south had no chance all the industry and population were north the south were like Germans outnumbered on eastern front better soldiers but simply overwhelmed that the war lasted four years is a testimony to the souths courage and north having one hand behind their back that said slavery ended but war is such a waste
Nah, the South had more experienced commanders, for the most part the Civil War was fought on the Southern turf, and they had a chance to win till 1863-64.
The situation on the eastern front is complete reversal of the US Civil War. The Russians had on paper all the advantages and used them poorly.
Who’s the historical consultant for the “extras” / confederate soldiers?? Nothing is accurate and it appears they based civil war combat on the NBC North South mini series.
I'm Australian.
LEE, you're not going to win.
Brillantes generales fueron Grant y Lee.
El mas despiadado,....Sherman.
Yep, be concerned about what 👉🏼YOU👈🏼 are going to do.
Leadership.
My great great grandfather Hubbard was wounded in the battle of May 5 while serving the volunteer Indiana seventh infantry
To this day im tired of hearing how great Lee was, he wasn't and after the wat the way he was propt up over Grant was just southern bitterness
I don’t think Lee’s greatness is overestimated. He was a phenomenal General, despite the defeat at Gettysburg which ultimately cost him the war.
Grant has also received a great reputation. I don’t think we should disrespect either man, as they had much respect for one another.
Lee earned his accolades, as did Grant. They both did the best with what they had, Grant was blessed with much more and knew how to use it. Go find another statue to knock over.
@@castercamber Lee is propped up to be a tactical mastermind whose only claim to fame is being able to fight well when he had the ability to maneuver freely.
He often wasted men he could not afford to lose when Grant took the initiative from him and forced him to react to his movements.
So what does that make you? Northern arrogance, because that side was lucky to win?
Lee could have taken Washington after the first battle of Bullrun. But he did not want to destroy the union. Had officers did what Sherman did in the south they would have been called criminals.
From what series this from just asking. Im interested to watch it. Can anyone tell me please.
Admiral Kondo lead the Japanese war college before ww2. Yamamoto thought he was and by all accounts a great teacher of strategy so he put Kondo in charge of the surface fleet. Early in the war kondo was timid and should have been replaced but because of Yamamotos admiration he was not
The difference between grant and Lee was that Lee was a teacher and Grant hated school
Loved it!
I wish that war was never fought. Imagine what the United States could have done with all these heroes and honorable men.
I love about Grant the only one that just doesn’t believe in the myth that Lee was the immortal general that everyone claimed he was
Grant was the first general to advance on Lee, receive a counter-attack, get beaten on the field, and advance the next day.
People don’t realize this but damn near ever battle Lee fought the odds were against him. Every single one, even at Gettysburg they were almost outnumbered 2-1. In the final days before Appomattox Lee would inflict 2-1 casualties against grant.
Lee was a great tactical commander, but lacked in the strategy department. Whereas, Grant was the polar opposite, not a good tactician, but a great strategic thinker.
Uh he was not outnumbered 2-1 at Gettysburg, I think Lee had about 75k men engaged and Meade had about 90k men engaged. Outnumbered yes but lot that severely.
By 1864 he Lee had gotten so many of his men killed in these offensives he launched that at that point he was regularly outnumbered 2-1 so he was forced to finally fight on the defensive.
If wars were about points scored then Lee would have won...but wars aren't sports. Lee was a poor strategist. Seeing the writing on the wall and continuing to fight despite his inevitable defeat was just wasting the lives of men on both sides.
@@redwolfgamevideo the union had over 100k men and the south most realistically didn’t have 75k. It was closer to 60-120k of frontline infantry troops.
@@rikk319 I’m not saying Lee wasn’t a poor strategist, his objective was to hold on and take the fight to the north to sway public opinion against electing Lincoln and to get them tired of the war to elect a president who wanted to negotiate peace.
I recall that Longstreet and Grant were lifelong friends from the Academy... neither were particularly schollastically inclined, either.
That’s great life advice
Ulysses S. Grant the only thing that has ever stopped Texas (besides the winter)
The 1st Texas Infantry Regiment was well known by this point in the war, which is why Lee committed them to attack the rocky escarpment of what became known as the Battle of Devil's Den on July the 2nd, 1863. They succeeded in taking the position in what would be known as such against Birney's 1st Division. It wasn't the only forces they'd face, but it was the main one that they defeated after suffering heavy casualties in the day's fighting, and I think that the psychological reality that they were facing a brigade of such battlefield renown of which my ancestors were apart made them withdraw in the end.
Lee was the best general in American history
Lee has an old man who had suffered from multiple medical conditions by the time of meeting grant in battle and surrender, this is just a material fact not for the cause. The actor portraying Lee is pretty in shape and healthy looking, that part is my opinion
Grant was the perfect man at the perfect time
Lee knew the manufacturing capacity of the North. He knew on population alone they could bury the south eventually. His attacks were based on the idea of forcing a negotiated peace. The South at same time would got stuck in siege warfare in the west that eventually led to the collapse and splitting of the confederacy in half. Lee's movements should have targeted capitals of Northern states and a forced surrender of state as a means to force a negotiated and exert political pressure on Lincoln for a forced settlement fighting in open terrain only gave the union chance to bleed but also learn how to fight the south..
They could hardly even siege DC right across the river, let alone try to leapfrog other state capitals deeper in the Union. The Union was always going to have more opportunities to attack strategically than them.
Longstreet made the war longer than it needed to be by saving Lee's force in wilderness
Grant got clear orders, not open for interpretation from President Lincoln, END THIS WAR, Period
Hello! What is the name of the film?
Which movie is this from..?
Wonder what a general like Grant would have done in WW2 ?that be interesting to speculate
I suspect that Grant would've been similar to Patton.
Sometimes I wonder what the 400,000 men that died to rid the south of slavery would think if they saw how some people thought of them today like was it worth it…
What movie is this ?? Thx
What movie is this?
From a three part mini series from 2020 titled "Grant."
Praise God, I've been thinking today on how the devil has worked in this world , and this reminds me that victory has already been won.
I was on an infantry unit and Texas still produces the best soldiers and I draw my own conclusions that California might be the worst 😂
Plenty of Brave California boys in all our national cemeteries.
I thank God for them and their families.
The best US soldier of WW2, Audie Murphy was a Texas boy
“The Texans always move them! Hurrah for Texas!”-Robert E.Lee
Honestly I'm getting tired of loss causers slandering Grant,
he lost less men than Lee, and yet Lee is praised.
He kicked multiple different battalion's into not existing in the west and taught some other Union generals like Sherman on how to do the same, yet confederate generals were the best
And most of all
He did actually care about his troops it was said that he cried after some battles because of the loss, and yet he's apparently a butcher
He broke Virginia and Bob E Lee and won the war for the union through stubbornness, tactics and shear force of will
And yet some continue to say that it was only sheer force of numbers that won against there precious state rights loving South.
General Grant appears to be a little too sober in this video hahaha. Drunk generals are the best!
What is this from?
Robert E. Lee lowkey feels like Count Dooku from Star Wars. He fought for the good guys (Jedi and Republic) and was respected for his skills, but ended up siding with the enemy (Confederacy) later on, causing a civil war. Also the white beard.
Justin Salinger seems to have a wee hint of an (Northern) Irish accent. His birthplace hasn't been revealed but I wouldn't be amazed...
"Texans always move them!" - Robert E lee at the Wilderness.
Lee was tactically brilliant, but Grant was a strategic master.
Was this a movie????? What's the name of it
Soldiers from both sides rushed into the fires to pull out any of the wounded screaming. It is one thing to die in battle it is another to be burned alive.
What show is this?
The best general's know when to ignore advise from other generals.
What show is this
Grant miniseries
Imagine we were fighting someone else with these generals. Good lord. I see messages from grant to lee saying "i'm winning how are you doin' "😂
What series is this?
Grant series
What is this movie
He did turn both your flanks. ✌️
Yep,, that's the point, grant doesn't stop. Turn his flanks, flank him, enfilade him, the bulldog won't stop, he will keep coming at you till appomatox.
@srimadhav5090 Too bad he wasn't around for Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Running away from a handful of farmers, such as 2 times at Bull Run, doesn't look good. ✌️
@@MichaelDeutschman yeah,,it was too bad he wasn't around. But he did save the nation by making lee surrender and the nation he saved has endured and lived inspite of Vietnam, somalia, or iraq, while Lee's nation perished with him.
@srimadhav5090 Good to know there is an expiring nation that worships George Floyd ilk, supports gender transitions for children, doesn't mind when its own children are slaughtered in school, has the highest obesity and highest incarceration rate in the world. - The world laughs at you for more reasons than your tall running from a few farmers in Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. ✌️
Although U.S. Grant held the position of “Commanding General of the Army” with 4 stars during the Civil War, very few know that he was in fact promoted to the “6-star” grade, skipping the 5-star rank of General of the Army.
In December 2022 Congress authorized the President to promote Grant to the 6-star rank of “General of the Armies of the United States” or the more commonly shortened version of “General of the Armies”. He is one of only three men to be promoted to this rank, George Washington and John J. Pershing. Pershing being the only one to hold the rank while living. The Navy equivalent being their 6-star rank of “Admiral of the Navy of the United States” or again the more commonly title of “Admiral of the Navy” which only George Dewey has held.
I'll have to check but I do believe it was 5 star and that the USA has never had a 6 star
@larry811 Not officially, but there is a very rarely used US military rank "General of the Armies" which is above a 5 star, the only person to be awarded it while alive (and first person to be granted it at all) was John Pershing in WW1. George Washington is always posthumously promoted whenever a new rank is made so that no one ever outranks his highest rank and Grant was Poshumously awared the rank in 2022 when Congress gave Biden permission to grant him the rank.
@@LiteralCrimeRave Thank you. I haven't any knowledge of it and so shall research and learn a little more
It’s hard to watch this as a hardcore Civil War buff
Was somersault a fommon term at this time?
Can someone confirm if the north fought this war with one arm tied behind their backs? They were too powerful and had the great advantage in numbers and supplies.