Why must you insult people? But you do show what I suspected is the source of the recent animosity....trying to place all blame for the war on the south. You do realize that their would have been no war if Northerners had stayed up north right?
OT: History Channel Miniseries "Grant"
- Thread starter ao5884
- Start date
I will stand by the view (shared by many reputable historians) that a “drunk” could not have achieved all that he did. Churchill faced some of the same criticisms. Both men sometimes drank to excess. But not to the point of being alcoholic.
Depends on which time period.....after Mexico there was no exager
I think his alcoholism was actually before the war, because for a time after he resigned from the army he was Mr. Sobriety....it reared its head during the war just not to the same extent.
https://www.historynet.com/ulysses-s-grants-lifelong-struggle-with-alcohol.htm
I’m not sold the south had better soldiers, but they did have better officers overall, and the benefit of fighting a defensive war. There were plenty t of examples of valor from northern soldiers throughout the war.
The US had many good officers too, but not at the top in the East until the war was well underway- Hancock and Buford are two examples. Sherman and Sheridan are two more.
The problem in the East was that Lincoln didn't find the right guy for overall command until Meade for the Army of the Potomac and Grant for overall commander. By then, he had run through a number of inept commanders.
I’m sure you know the story of McClellan finding a copy of Lee’s plans prior to what turned out to be Antietam and sitting indecisively for (in Bruce Catton’s words) “sixteen mortal hours.” The war should have ended at Antietam.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Never been a big Civil War buff but read the thread and thought it would be a good 'learnin' opportunity. Grant is a really interesting story and a remarkable soldier. I don't get those saying he was lucky and average - the strategy and tactics deployed for the siege of Vicksburg is a stunning example of what can happen when you plan well and execute. Defeating the army at Jackson en route makes it more impressive. Grant appeared to learn from his mistakes and unlike a lot of the highborn dopes around him (even at West Point) knew how to fight.
Great series - will have to watch some more of these. Any recommendations? Is there a Lee version of this?
Great series - will have to watch some more of these. Any recommendations? Is there a Lee version of this?
Fun Fact on Documentary:
One of the speakers is retired Col. Doug Douds, now a professor at Army War College. The bald guy w/ the red tie.
I have known Doug since we were 1 year olds. He is the son of recently retired, long time East Stroudsburg U FB coach Denny Douds. Doug is a great guy and leading authority on all things related to the Civil War, esp. the Battle of Gettysburg. I think he lives in one of the only private homes that is still on Gettysburg battleground land. HIs passion for the topic really comes through in the documentary.
One of the speakers is retired Col. Doug Douds, now a professor at Army War College. The bald guy w/ the red tie.
I have known Doug since we were 1 year olds. He is the son of recently retired, long time East Stroudsburg U FB coach Denny Douds. Doug is a great guy and leading authority on all things related to the Civil War, esp. the Battle of Gettysburg. I think he lives in one of the only private homes that is still on Gettysburg battleground land. HIs passion for the topic really comes through in the documentary.
recognizing that the North had a huge advantage in manpower, weapons, and ammunition and devising a strategy that was essentially constant pressure and attack and winning the war of attrition is what Grant did. I think there were 5 or 6 generals before him that didn't recognize it or couldn't execute it. was he a genius, probably not. but he was a very good general in that he recognized the big picture, developed a plan, and executed it without hesitation.
History channel does a lot. The Food the Built America, I thought, was well done. It is on Amazon now. I really had no idea how companies like hershey, birdseye, Post and Kelloggs shaped US and world history.
But I always take these things with a grain of salt. For example, as the ships were passing by the fort in Vicksburg, the admiral realized that they couldn't shoot down so instructed the boats to hug the shore close to the battery. This was interesting and had to be unnerving to sail as close to the enemy as you can when you were trying to slip by. My point is that this was a little luck and a lot of cunning by the admiral. If not, the army gets hammered and Grant end up looking bad. It is a combination of good luck, surrounding yourself with good people, being able to adjust, and just plain being smart. History, especially in war, is replete with these kinds of fated outcomes.
Agreed. I didn't see a battle that Grant won decisively. Most were statistical 'draws'. Last night, reviewing the wilderness campaign, they drew attention to the fact that Grant just kept on coming no matter how horrible the results. It just ground down the South. I often wonder, given the nature of civil wars and americans fighting americans, if previous northern generals just either a) so underestimated the South they thought it would crumble with minimum damage to be done or b) didn't have the stomach to attack and kill, with little remorse, other americans. Grant, to his credit historically, showed no such hesitation. In fact, in Sherman's March, took war to a new level of devastation (as it was known at that time)
Even after squandering that precious opportunity, if McClellan committed his reserves after the Confederate center had finally been broken following a series of bloody assaults in the middle of the day, Lee's army could have been cut in two and quite possibly destroyed.
Going back to the question of the alleged superiority of southern troops, I don't think so. In the Western theater, Union forces proved every bit as tough and tenacious as the Confederate armies opposing them.
In the East, leadership was lacking until Grant took over. It's a very demoralizing and demotivating thing to be a soldier in the ranks and know that your commanders suck. Beyond that, Southern soldiers had a significant psychological advantage in the conviction they were fighting for their homes.
All that said, no question, the Army of Northern Virginia was a special and extraordinary collection of fighting men blessed with outstanding leadership. There was a toughness and elan about those guys that bonded them. It's hard to describe, but that psychology becomes a source of confidence and force multiplier in combat.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Sure, but Grant didn’t have a book to read like Patton did
. But, his familiarity with the Southern generals ended up being a massive strength and strategic advantage. As for the ships, there is definitely luck - but making the decision in the first place is what makes a great leader. You have to take risks.
Not giving Grant enough credit:
- His victory at Vicksburg was remarkable; did you not hear General Petraeus refer to it as one of the most brilliant military campaigns every conducted by an American general?
- When Grant moved to the East, you indicate there was nothing remarkable about his strategy -- well, it was remarkable for the time because LIncoln could find no other general who used that strategy
- The documentary (which is well sourced, IMO) notes Grant's coolness in battle, his adaptability, his knowledge of terrain and tactics, and his steadfast determination -- those are not everyday qualities
- After a very bloody 1864, Grant again showed his adaptability and strategy with his seige of Petersburg, leading to the capture of Richmond, and his successful chase of Lee's Army, resulting in surrender at Appamatox
I’m not a historian by any means so I am asking this question from a position of ignorance. If you are taking a defensive position and lose were your officers really better? Could the South have had a better chance at success if the had taken the offensive?
Great thread, really is. For the most part, this is a very good mini series. I appreciate almost anything done regarding history. A few notes on the series. None of this is so easily black and white like many want it to be. History doesn't fit in a box and it turns on a dime.
That said, you cannot tell the Civil War, or understand each side unless you go back 30 to 40 years prior. One must study what took place to lead up to the war. One must also understand the economic, social, and demographic differences between the North and South. From numbers to railroads, or manufacturing and historical aristocracy of both areas. Then you have political factors that may have been the biggest influence, particularly in the first two years of the war, and particularly for Lincoln.
Let's talk about the differences in the armies. The Southern army had huge leadership and cultural advantages. They also had numerous Cavalry advantages early on. The Union started with basically no Cavalry and that was a huge factor. The South had a history and aristocracy of military education and Cavalry, the North, not so much.
I don't get into the judgement of either side. I simply look to both causes, statements of leadership, and most importantly, letters from the boots on the ground. Call Grant a drunk all you want. Put Lee on a pedestal. Neither really match historical facts based on memoirs, letters, or personal accounts. I'm from PA, but my favorite General has always been Longstreet. I have 1st editions of Longstreet's as well as Grant's memoirs. Neither hated each other, quite the opposite.
As far as the series, the only real complaint I have is the lack of good topographical illustrations. In today's age it would have been so easy to do better maps of troop movements and provide drone footage of the battlefields. It makes a huge difference to show just how well Grant saw what was occurring during battles, while on the ground. This would have been particularly good regarding the Wilderness Campaign.
Cannot wait for tonight. Cold Harbor #2, Petersburg, and Richmond.
That said, you cannot tell the Civil War, or understand each side unless you go back 30 to 40 years prior. One must study what took place to lead up to the war. One must also understand the economic, social, and demographic differences between the North and South. From numbers to railroads, or manufacturing and historical aristocracy of both areas. Then you have political factors that may have been the biggest influence, particularly in the first two years of the war, and particularly for Lincoln.
Let's talk about the differences in the armies. The Southern army had huge leadership and cultural advantages. They also had numerous Cavalry advantages early on. The Union started with basically no Cavalry and that was a huge factor. The South had a history and aristocracy of military education and Cavalry, the North, not so much.
I don't get into the judgement of either side. I simply look to both causes, statements of leadership, and most importantly, letters from the boots on the ground. Call Grant a drunk all you want. Put Lee on a pedestal. Neither really match historical facts based on memoirs, letters, or personal accounts. I'm from PA, but my favorite General has always been Longstreet. I have 1st editions of Longstreet's as well as Grant's memoirs. Neither hated each other, quite the opposite.
As far as the series, the only real complaint I have is the lack of good topographical illustrations. In today's age it would have been so easy to do better maps of troop movements and provide drone footage of the battlefields. It makes a huge difference to show just how well Grant saw what was occurring during battles, while on the ground. This would have been particularly good regarding the Wilderness Campaign.
Cannot wait for tonight. Cold Harbor #2, Petersburg, and Richmond.
This is precisely why my go-to book on the Civil War is James McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom. He is excellent on the antebellum era.
Not an ice cube's chance in hell. The South was toast after Gettysburg. They were hoping for England to step up and that never came to fruition. The Union blocked the Gulf of Mexico, New Orleans fell in April of 1862, and the Union controlled the entire East Coast shoreline. Many speak of Vicksburg as a huge victory, and it was. The loss of New Orleans so early shut a huge port and supply line down permanently. The Union also controlled the entire Mississippi River. They didn't have enough railroads or manufacturing capabilities to provide food, clothing, or munitions, and few ways to get them to troops.
Lol. Too funny. The very best book on the War, bar none, for an overall view. Former Penn State professor as well. If anyone wants to learn about the least talked about True Western Campaigns, not the Mississippi, read this book by my Civil War professor, Thomas Cutrer. It's an awesome read. He's the first to really delve into the entire Western front of the Civil War. He's also the man who taught me to emphasize honest research and letters. "Letters never lie, even if the words are lies." "Letters are factual documentation of the writer."
https://uncpress.org/book/9781469631561/theater-of-a-separate-war/
This just underscores the value and brilliance of McPherson’s book.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
And let's not forget - AN EXCELLENT HORSEMAN!!!
Seriously though, let's get a movie of Grant made - here's your man:
Well the South turned-tail and ran after fighting their first, and only, engagement on Northern soil, so there's that... Lee suffered a decisive defeat in his first, and only, attack on Northern soil (was only lucky that his retreat was not cut off and his Army completely defeated - if Grant was Commander at Gettysburg, the war likely would have been over years earlier.).
Then my follow up question is this: Did the South change their strategy to a defensive strategy after losing New Orleans or was losing New Orleans a result of starting from a defensive stance?
Does this make sense? Were they aggressive early, then forced into a defensive position after losing some key battles or is it possible they lost a few key battles because they were strategically prepared to fight from a defensive stance?
I want to believe...but this what the media does. I believe
I agree. some context that helped me is that the notion of land ownership was quite different. In the South, you could own any land you maintained. If you couldn't "squatters" could come and use the land to, eventually, claim ownership to it. Lots of western books and movies are taken from the point of view of the owner (think Ponderosa, who often kicked squatters off their property) to the squatter (open range movie). How do you tend the land? You buy slaves to to expand your land until you have a plantation. And by having those slaves tend the land, it couldn't be squatted (open-ranged, as the movie calls them). So the South had this business model that worked for them, regardless of the awful institution of slavery. The abolishment of slavery meant the end of the model and the notion that the south would be irreparably damaged by northerners who simply did not understand and had no downside to ending slavery. And to your point railroads, manufacturing, and aristocracy were all built around this model.
The South had the advantage of defending their homes, a great motivation. They also knew the land, the water sources, food sources, and had the support of the people. The North had none of that...no food or shelter, no locals giving them information on enemy movements or strengths.....and many of the people in the North were strongly against the war, affecting moral.
If the South had gone on the offensive and invaded the North, it would have lost much those advantages plus it would have angered the Northern populace and given them more motivation. Such an invasion may have worked if they could have had some quick decisive victories to turn the populace against it. Failing any quick victory would have been disastrous.
As for the weak kneed Northern generals....that may have been because most people though the North would win a short, quick war. Why risk having major losses if the war would short? Especially in war against fellow country men.
I believe this is very disingenuous. Lee's men would have attacked again if ordered. I don't understand the logic of this post.
New Orleans was lost to an offensive strategy further north up the Mississippi. They had no one to defend New Orleans, around 3000. It's simple attrition. The South only had so many folks to fight. They made the choice to go north and defend those areas first. They also had no Navy to speak of.
Will, did it cover the time as President he was”arrested” for fishing without a license in Elk County, PA near Wilcox?? lol!
You also must take into account the political influences and political appointments of Lincoln. Both Republican and Democrat.
Did you follow along on what Grant did at Vicksburg? Just brilliant! And this documentary spent quite a bit of time on it.
If you want to seriously learn about the Civil War, you must check your biases at the door. It's that simple. The right vs wrong, the Lost Cause, the war wasn't about slavery but state's rights does not help one learn. I'm a Yankee taught by a Southerner. My father, born in 1912 was a Southerner. Never a word of prejudice in my house. Never a word of right vs wrong. Simply what happened, what led up to it, why, and strategy. It was never about blame or righteousness.
No, it was on Antietam Creek, part of Maryland, a very Southern state with Federal troops for good reason. My family is from Hagerstown and Williamsport, MD. Full Southern bore.
If your family is from over that way they should know there’s a plaque on a building in Fredrick that marks where legislature was moved for the succession vote because it was very pro-union (maybe not so much today) It was like Virginia/West Virginia just didn’t actually turn into two states.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
FB Recruiting Update on top target set to announce soon (5:30)
- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley
-
-
FB Recruiting Potentially good news on three 2025 prospects.....
- Latest: Dylan Callaghan-Croley