OT: History Channel Miniseries "Grant"
- Thread starter ao5884
- Start date
1st night is nearly over and so far I think its terrific.
Yes. Well done and balanced. Looking forward to the rest of the series.
Lee's losses at Chancellorsville were horrific and based on percentages even more so.
Churchill:
“Thus ended the great American Civil War, which must upon the whole be considered the noblest and least avoidable of all the great mass conflicts of which till then there was record.”
“Thus ended the great American Civil War, which must upon the whole be considered the noblest and least avoidable of all the great mass conflicts of which till then there was record.”
Grant, as did all of the north, had superior numbers, supplies and equipment. The South had superior generals and soldiers. What made Grant great? Just like at Shilo, he knew the best defense was a good offense. What made him greater was he was ruthless. He attacked, attacked and attacked. The generals beforehand were "too nice". If you follow war history in the western world, you'd know that it evolved. Today, war is almost all guerrilla and/or economic. Sherman's ruthless "march to the sea" was ruthless. For example, just a couple of years before, people packed lunches and watched battles on hillsides as entertainment. Killing civilians was simply not something gentlemen soldiers did.
So you use a quote from a crazy women as compared to Generals? What ever. It is obvious you do not understand warfare.
Unfortunately I missed the first installment. I read a review yesterday which said the series wasn't as sympathetic to the south as past series/documentaries have been. In the past it was "They were fighting for their state" or "They were fighting for what they believed in". The Confederacy had been depicted as some sort of noble cause. The review I read said "Grant" didn't sugar coat the inhumanity of slavery or the treason of the southern leaders. I'll need to watch it later.
Admittedly I do not know much about Grant the general, even less about Grant the president. And even less still about the western front of the civil war. Most of my schooling focused on the eastern theatre. Lee and Lincoln are the two big personalities that usually dominate most of the civil war discussions. Grant just shows up at the end, beats Lee (who already retreated from Gettysburg and now looks to be inevitably beatable), and eventually is the guy in charge who just so happens to get him to surrender.
Did not fully appreciate the "trenches" and defenses in this war. I had always assumed that was a WW I thing and that the civil war was fought more like the revolution with lines on a battle field and some "hit and run" type attacks to coincide. Also did not realize the amount of naval power some of the armies had on the rivers. Lastly, was surprised at how much of a chess game it really was. If you were in checkmate, the code seemed to dictate that you meet with your adversary and come to terms to concede. That does not happen today, hence Afghanistan for 20+ years and our endless political struggles within the US.
Back to Grant, I found it truly fascinating how a man can live with horrific death, pain, and suffering and not allow himself to be swallowed by it. He somehow remained focused and calculated on the little details despite it all. Easy to see how he got the "butcher" tag, fairly or not. Easy to see why you would turn to alcohol for an escape from time to time. Looking forward to the rest of the episodes.
Did not fully appreciate the "trenches" and defenses in this war. I had always assumed that was a WW I thing and that the civil war was fought more like the revolution with lines on a battle field and some "hit and run" type attacks to coincide. Also did not realize the amount of naval power some of the armies had on the rivers. Lastly, was surprised at how much of a chess game it really was. If you were in checkmate, the code seemed to dictate that you meet with your adversary and come to terms to concede. That does not happen today, hence Afghanistan for 20+ years and our endless political struggles within the US.
Back to Grant, I found it truly fascinating how a man can live with horrific death, pain, and suffering and not allow himself to be swallowed by it. He somehow remained focused and calculated on the little details despite it all. Easy to see how he got the "butcher" tag, fairly or not. Easy to see why you would turn to alcohol for an escape from time to time. Looking forward to the rest of the episodes.
For those who call Grant a butcher, we should keep in mind that for the Confederacy the war was irrevocably lost with Lincoln's re-election. Yet on March 25, 1865 (Appomattox was April 9), Lee ordered an assault on Fort Steadman, which ended with 5000 casualties, 4000 of whom were Confederate. Once the siege of Petersburg was lifted on April 2 the Confederates fought on and burned Richmond on their way out. So it’s easy to call Grant a butcher if you ignore the entirety of the war.
Last edited:
well, Grant was a huge alcoholic. That may just have been him or as a defense. There is a famous Lincoln quote, who was told of Grant's excessive drinking: "I wish some of you would tell me the brand of whiskey that Grant drinks. I would like to send a barrel of it to my other generals."
he drank "Old Crow" BTW
Great discussion. Hopefully not too late to cast a vote.
Grant was a great commander, no question. One of the greatest in American military history. He knew what had to be done, knew he had the resources to do it, and relentlessly, with great nerve and skill, pressed his advantages in men and materiel to final victory.
The Wilderness in May 1864 doesn't get as much attention as epic battles like Antietam and Gettysburg, but it's a critical illustration of the point. It was Grant's first encounter with Lee and in many ways, at the tactical level, could be counted a Confederate victory.
Grant's army was stopped and took heavy losses, significantly more than suffered by Lee's forces. It was at that point in previous years that Union generals would have withdrawn to regroup, lick their wounds, and wait to fight another day. Not Grant. He disengaged and moved...south, setting the stage for a horrifically bloody month that would see his army take 50,000 casualties but inflict damage on southern forces that ultimately broke their back.
All this said, and taking nothing away from Grant, I have to vote for Lee as the greatest general of all. I put him in my top-5 all-time ever anywhere list. It didn't hurt that for much of the war he had the benefit of arguably the most talented collection of general officers ever assembled in one American army -- not to mention the command of one of the toughest and most ornery forces in history.
Yeah, yeah...the third day at Gettysburg. An epic blunder, no doubt. But there's no commander in the history of warfare who never made a mistake. Besides, if Jackson had been around on the first day of the battle, as opposed to Ewell who replaced him after Chancellorsville, there might never have been a third day at Gettysburg. The Union army might have been driven off the field before then.
At the end of the day, this is like arguing about the greatest President or the greatest football team or the greatest whatever. There's lots of good ammunition for different points of view...but it's not ultimately something that can be scientifically proven or conclusively judged.
Still, it's fun.
Thank you, gentlemen, and carry on.
Grant was a great commander, no question. One of the greatest in American military history. He knew what had to be done, knew he had the resources to do it, and relentlessly, with great nerve and skill, pressed his advantages in men and materiel to final victory.
The Wilderness in May 1864 doesn't get as much attention as epic battles like Antietam and Gettysburg, but it's a critical illustration of the point. It was Grant's first encounter with Lee and in many ways, at the tactical level, could be counted a Confederate victory.
Grant's army was stopped and took heavy losses, significantly more than suffered by Lee's forces. It was at that point in previous years that Union generals would have withdrawn to regroup, lick their wounds, and wait to fight another day. Not Grant. He disengaged and moved...south, setting the stage for a horrifically bloody month that would see his army take 50,000 casualties but inflict damage on southern forces that ultimately broke their back.
All this said, and taking nothing away from Grant, I have to vote for Lee as the greatest general of all. I put him in my top-5 all-time ever anywhere list. It didn't hurt that for much of the war he had the benefit of arguably the most talented collection of general officers ever assembled in one American army -- not to mention the command of one of the toughest and most ornery forces in history.
Yeah, yeah...the third day at Gettysburg. An epic blunder, no doubt. But there's no commander in the history of warfare who never made a mistake. Besides, if Jackson had been around on the first day of the battle, as opposed to Ewell who replaced him after Chancellorsville, there might never have been a third day at Gettysburg. The Union army might have been driven off the field before then.
At the end of the day, this is like arguing about the greatest President or the greatest football team or the greatest whatever. There's lots of good ammunition for different points of view...but it's not ultimately something that can be scientifically proven or conclusively judged.
Still, it's fun.
Thank you, gentlemen, and carry on.
The line that stuck with me was that Grant and a lot of his northern colleagues felt strongly that the sacrifice and the cost of the revolution still meant something and that the resulting Union was necessary and had to be maintained. Grant seemed to think that anyone who rejected what the founders had done for them was guilty of treason. Hard to sugarcoat that and if it truly was how Grant felt, then it is just one man's opinion at the time and doesn't need to be balanced by a counter-point.
What was unsaid was that the northern military probably felt it was necessary to keep everyone together in order to prevent or deter foreign invasion/collusion and loss of liberty as a result. Having been relatively close to the end of the revolution and the recently ended Mexican-American war, that probably makes sense. But I am guessing.
The south's position really can't be sugarcoated. Most of the slavery discussions are done by modern African-American scholars. It's not hard to picture them and their families having to work in the field back in the antebellum south simply because of the color of their skin. Really nauseating stuff.
..to your point on the third day of Gettysburg....Lee knew that the south had to win the war fast. he knew that the north had vast resources and time was on the north's side. it was clear the south had to take the fight to the north. To this point, for the most part, the war was like vietnam; always being fought in the south. There is no way to win a war like that. Its like playing a football game and punting on first down every time you get possession. Pickett's Charge was desperation and damn near worked. Had it worked, Lee had a clear path into the heart of the north and it is possible there would have been a negotiated settlement. While that battle was a tactical mistake, strategically he was spot on. Fighting against the north, battle after battle in the south, lost the war.
totally agree...but lets make sure we put it into perspective. for example, slavery was finally abolished in France in 1848. Many countries allowed slavery in areas not on the mainland. For example, Spain allowed slavery in Cuba until 1886. China? 1910. Slavery in Africa persisted well past the US Civil war. Then there is indentured servitude which is a form of slavery.
Actually no he didn't grant lost roughly 55k lee 30k. Lee had a much smaller army. And yes grant was thought of as a butcher. He simply just kept trying to flank lee over and over again until lee ran out of men, while grant had almost unlimited supplies and man power. I get that Current PC culture can't stand that Lee is regarded as a better commander, think of it this way rever
Please don't presume to know what I do or do not know. Grant was considered a butcher because he lost 55k soldiers in what a month maybe two. Simple flanking maneuvers that lee anticipated and countered time after time leading to frontal assaults that turned into a bloody mess. His victory came only after lee ran out of soldiers and provisions. There was absolutely nothing remarkable about his strategy, he simply kept punching until his opponent could not fight back anymore.
He also routed a much larger army than his own by doing something that was thought to be impossible flanking hooker by going through the wikderness.
Agree for the most part, but I think they kind of downplayed his alcoholism almost eluding to it as a conspiracy to discredit him by his rivals or enemies when in reality it was a very real problem and well documented.
Hate to tell you but it is getting to the point that calling lee a0 great general, which he was and no reputable historian disputes that will get you fired or punished. Hell lee was an over achiever in everything he did he is still the number 2 graduate of West Point only surpassed by his classmate Charles Mason. And apparently he didn't even earn 1 demerit while there which I didn't bite until I actually looked it up.
That's a great point. The American Revolution was only four score and seven years prior and the ideals from that time were still alive during the Civil War. It would be a similar time frame for people today to think back on WWII and wanting to keep those ideals of freedom and liberation alive.
I’ve read the entire Grant biography recently, and there is no question that he was a great General.
Drinking: he did drink to excess on occasion and did have a problem stopping when he started. He did however go long stretches without touching a bottle. I think he certainly had an alcohol problem at times, but his reputation as a drunken mess is not true.
By all accounts Grant was a master strategist and field General. Yes, he took heavy losses but he knew that his job was to aggressively attack in battle and make use of his advantage of numbers and resources. Many others in his position failed to do this. He also made many unconventional decisions that turned out to be right.
One aspect of Grant that was mentioned often was his supernatural calm and level headed decision making on the battlefield. He would remain stoic and logical even a bullets whizzed by him and shells exploded near him. He was calm and collected at all times.
Drinking: he did drink to excess on occasion and did have a problem stopping when he started. He did however go long stretches without touching a bottle. I think he certainly had an alcohol problem at times, but his reputation as a drunken mess is not true.
By all accounts Grant was a master strategist and field General. Yes, he took heavy losses but he knew that his job was to aggressively attack in battle and make use of his advantage of numbers and resources. Many others in his position failed to do this. He also made many unconventional decisions that turned out to be right.
One aspect of Grant that was mentioned often was his supernatural calm and level headed decision making on the battlefield. He would remain stoic and logical even a bullets whizzed by him and shells exploded near him. He was calm and collected at all times.
Most sources say that Grant’s drinking was exaggerated.
Being a drinker and being occasionally drunk doesn’t make a person a alcoholic. If that were the case, the rolls would be filled. Doubtful that Grant could have achieved all that he did if he were an alcoholic.
wrong again
Was Ulysses S. Grant a butcher? Was Robert E. Lee the Civil War’s best general? The answer to both questions is a resounding no.
The respective casualty figures of these two generals contradict the myth about who, if either, was a butcher. For the entire war, Grant incurred about 154,000 casualties (killed, wounded, missing, captured) while imposing about 191,000 casualties on his foes. Lee suffered about 209,000 casualties while imposing about 240,000 casualties on his opponents.
Lee, who should have been fighting defensively and preserving his precious manpower, instead exceeded Grant’s understandable aggressiveness and incurred 55,000 more casualties than Grant.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/mar/29/is-grant-or-lee-greatest-general/
Interesting point and there's some merit to it, in my view.
Still, tactically the charge was a colossal mistake and strategically, there were other options available. In fact, Longstreet counseled one.
That said, big-picture wise, the South's position on July 3, 1863, was pretty desperate...more desperate even than it seemed at the time. Lee knew this, which I'm sure influenced his judgment.
Even so, I think the great general committed a cardinal sin, perhaps the most cardinal sin that a competitor can make, and that is disrespect for your opponent.
I dare say most second-year West Point cadets would have looked at that almost mile-long open field and judged that an assault across it into the face of entrenched infantry and artillery would be crazy.
Yet, Lee had won so many battles against long odds, and his men had performed so well so many times in such circumstances, that by July 1863 he was ascribing at least part of this success to what he considered, though was too gentlemanly to say, a lack of spirit and resolve on the part of Union troops -- not to mention their consistently piss-poor leadership.
I think this might have been a key psychological factor that led him to roll the dice on the 3rd day of the battle: the belief that his own men were simply better than the Yanks and could break through what on the face of it was an impregnable military position to win what he hoped could be a decisive battle.
As we know, Lee was wrong on all counts. Then again, everyone is wrong at times, even the greatest and most brilliant of men...and generals.
To my mind, Lee was perhaps the most tragic figure in American history.
But in an age such as our own, characterized by superficiality and not known for its depth of understanding of history, it's easier and a cheap signal of our superior (in our own heads) virtue to simply tear down the statues.
I watched today online. No commercials. If you can wait a day or if you have a dvr wait 20 minutes and start from the dvr.
th
Lol you do realize that lee
Did you stop to think that maybe that is because lee was in command for a greater number of major battles]? Before meeting grant lee had already fought the 7 days, 2nd manassas, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, and Gettysburg. Grant had shiloh Vicksburg and Chattanooga.
th
Lol you do realize that lee
Exactly....i wonder if those that advocate for the demonization of lee and the destruction of monuments have ever had to make a decision tougher than if they want fries with that. Lee had to choose between an army and nation he loved (which was the legacy of his father and which he had served for 32 years) and going to war with his own family.
"I can invision no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the union, and i.am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation"
- Robert E. Lee
The same could be said for grant at Cold Harbor....Grant admitted he screwed up just as lee admitted to Gettysburg.
He was given a choice resign or face court marshall...he was a drunk....he drank because of 2 reasons 1. Boredom 2. Separation from his wife. He went on a bender during the Vicksburg campaign because nothing was happening.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
FB Recruiting Update on top target set to announce soon (5:30)
- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
