Over 150 years later and Grant is still too often portrayed in pop culture as a general who spent his men's lives too freely while Lee is lionized as a tactical genius. Lee was a good general. Grant was a great general.

@porcudracului

9 ай бұрын

Read more. Anyone can be great with the resources he had.

@-VOR

8 ай бұрын

Lol no one now says Lee is a tactical genius. Actually, everyone says he lost the war and that the South would've done better without him. Lol but ok guy

@bobhunt4402

8 ай бұрын

@@-VOR If by "no one" you mean no one who has ever seriously looked at Lee's battles then I agree but I was referring to Grant's and Lee's reputations in "pop culture".

@therandomnessnetwork1658

7 ай бұрын

​@@porcudraculuii think Hallek and a few others would disagree with you

@elizabethelliott8725

7 ай бұрын

McClellan?@@porcudracului

Grant was Quartermaster Corps. Lee, Corps of Engineering. Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics. Grant was all about logistics. Plenty of men, beans and bullets.

@grantsmythe8625

Жыл бұрын

Love and respect General Grant. What a brain, what a strategist, what a man.

@gib59er56

Жыл бұрын

Well said. In fact you just gave me more on Grant that I knew about thru 40 years of Civil War reading/watching buffery??lol But seriously, I was not aware of Amateurs study tactics. I never felt Grant was a master tactician, but yes logistically sound and as Lincoln told his detractors " I cannot lose this man. He fights"

@jamesmason2228

Жыл бұрын

Well, Lee wasn't in the West. And you can't blame Lee for the inadequate supply and infrastructure of the Confederacy. The real difference is that Grant understood his strategic advantages and used them systematically.

@grantsmythe8625

Жыл бұрын

@@jamesmason2228 Those who lose wars always find some "something" to blame it on. "We didn't have enough officers, men, horses, guns, powder, shot, food, trains, etc., etc., etc......" The problem is, wars are a total event fought with totally everything. If you don't have what it takes to win, you're bound to lose before the first shot is fired. As Civil War historian said, "The North fought that war with one hand behind its back", meaning that the South never had a chance.

@rockytoptom

Жыл бұрын

Well it sounds like you have a really low opinion of Lee and a high opinion of Grant. To call Lee and amateur is pretty moronic. We all know he never should have ordered Pickett's charge but his command of outnumbered and undersupplied armies for 3 years, winning decisive victories along the way which are still studied at the academies today for their brilliance, is pretty impressive. Grant had an advantage on every single front; numbers, supplies, quality of equipment etc. and only by those means did he beat his opponents. Anyone can lay siege to Donelson or Vicksburg, Petersburg or Richmond. it takes genius to be outnumbered constantly and still force your opponents, for the most part, to react to how you are maneuvering like Lee did on countless occasions. You have a lot to learn

Patton, Sherman and grant understood war. The more violent and vicious in the short run the sooner there is peace.

@enshk79

10 ай бұрын

Oh great thanks now I have to go listen to the Parton speech.

@scottgoens7575

19 күн бұрын

@@enshk79 Dolly?

I'm almost done reading the biography I got about U.S. Grant! He was not perfect, but I find it's hard not to love the man! Even his initials are very patriotic! Grant was arguably one of, if not, the most genius strategist we've ever had and he deserves every part of his mausoleum in New York! Everywhere he went, Grant found himself as many just trying to do the right thing, even as president. It's so unfortunate that so many people tried to tear him down, even when he was a general in the Civil War. And since then, the Lost Cause has done so much damage to his reputation. I'm glad to see him finally getting at least a little more recognition in the modern day. Most Americans don't even know him, except maybe as a vague name they heard once. Good video! Thank you so much for sharing more insight about him! He's definitely one of our best generals ever!

@davidlee-ln9vh

Жыл бұрын

Agreed

@randywarren7101

Жыл бұрын

Actually his name was Hiram Ulysses Grant. The person registering Grant for West Point listed his name wrong!

@ziggystardust1122

Жыл бұрын

"the lost cause"...you enjoying believing in fantasies I see.

@chaosXP3RT

Жыл бұрын

@@ziggystardust1122 I don't believe in fantasies. That's for the Lost Causers

@ziggystardust1122

Жыл бұрын

@@chaosXP3RT What is lost cause? You believe in gay?

During the Mexican War, Grant noticed that soldiers who ate onions often were healthier than those who didn't. Since disease was problem during wartime, Grant refused to send his troops out on campaigns if they didn't have an ample supply of onions. Grant's main problem with alcohol was that it didn't take much to get him drunk. Grant was known to get "tipsy" while visiting his troops in camp where they offered him a swig from their jug. Lincoln assigned a big Indian to be his orderly aide that stayed by his side 24/7 to moderate his consumption of alcohol. He was present at Appomattox and is the big tall guy with dark hair in the painting of Lee's surrender.

@CookieMendoza

11 ай бұрын

When R.E. Lee saw that Indian at Appomatox, he said, "At least one of us here is an American." The Indian said, "We're all Americans here."

@asuperstraightpureblood

10 ай бұрын

Ely Parker, he actually ended up writing up the terms of surrender that day.

@bullettube9863

5 ай бұрын

Lincoln did not assign him to watch over Grant! Ely Parker was am excellent civil engineer in Illinois where he and Grant became friends. When Grant was promoted to general he was allowed to choose his staff and HE CHOSE Ely Parker as an aide. Ely Parker wrote the final draft of the surrender terms at Appomattox! When Grant became president he made Parker head of native American affairs, who then went on to reform the bureau.

@scottgoens7575

2 ай бұрын

Grant was not an alcoholic. He bore no signs of this throughout his entire life. Did he drink? Yes. Was it sometimes too much? Yes. But the bottom line is he controlled it himself. Thus that's why he was a lightweight when it came to drinking. Never on the field of battle did alcohol play into any decision making. Evidence of Grant as an alcoholic is all spotty at best. It was John Rawlins that supposedly monitored Grant. Not Ely Parker.

Grant ended the war that had lasted so long. In the long run, saving lives and firmly united the Union with a clear defeat of the South. His strategy was sound. The war had become largely a matter of bloody trench warfare which tied down Lee in the East. Putting Lee into a no-win situation. Once Richmond fell, a war of maneuver quickly defeated. Lee. Despite the accusations of brutality of Sherman in the South, he suffered and inflicted far fewer casualties but inflicted damage to vital Southern infrastructure and resources. Grant was given full command of Union Army and not just the East. Making it difficult to micromanage the armies.

@jamesorenthal-bm4sp

11 ай бұрын

Clear and concise.

@porcudracului

9 ай бұрын

Read more. He also approved of genocide of civilians in Sherman's March to the sea. Not a hero. Average at best, very lucky to be there

@avenaoat

2 ай бұрын

Banks was alone who micromanaged in Louisiana instead of occupying Mobile in Alabama!

Just finishing Grant's personal memoirs for the second time. Truly a great man in every way. Hallock and Stanton made achieving northern war goals more difficult. Countermanding orders and simply not forwarding orders issued by Grant. But to be fair, the contributions of both Hallock and Stanton were crucial to putting down the rebellion. The southern culture was doomed even without war due to the perversion of slavery.

Grant also looked after the people,not only confederate, or union armies but also after the civilan populations . His doing started with his operation at Paducah KY. His operation against forts Henry and Donelson right through Shiloh and the siege at Vicksburg. This led to his being promoted to Lt. General and becoming CinC of all Union forces. This led to his being the Union officer at the surrender at Appamotox. He was elected Predident in 1868.

Mathematics at the Point. He loved horseback riding and math. He was also superb at cartography.

@marknewton6984

8 ай бұрын

A Lousy President

@reneaguilar3471

8 ай бұрын

@@marknewton6984 not really he was good

I have to disagree about Grant being an alcoholic and he certainly was not discharged from the army because of his drinking. Faced with being assigned to another frontier post in Colorado he resigned his commission. Compared to most of the officers in the US army at the time he was a teetotaler! He rejoined that army as a Captain not a corporal, and was quickly promoted to major and given the command of a battalion in the Ohio militia. Despite his best efforts, Grant was plagued by incompetent officers from the various state militias, and at Cold Harbor Grant wanted the lead elements of his army to attack at 6:30 am but they didn't until late in the afternoon, because one officer got lost and another had overslept! In the mean time Lee had reinforced his lines and the rebels inflicted large casualties on the union force. The Union army tried again and almost broke the line but were beaten off. Grant thought that one more attack would succeed but again the attack began late and Lee once again reinforced the line and beat off the third attack. Grant later admitted that ordering a third attack was a mistake. It was at Cold Harbor that Grant got the moniker of "butcher" something that was not warranted compared to Picket's charge ordered by General Lee.

@jackson4404

5 ай бұрын

Grant never drank while commanding troops.

@jodiweller1802

2 ай бұрын

I find it interesting that Pickett's charge is almost always viewed as "glorious." Watch any movie depicting the charge and listen to the music! But we don't ever get the same treatment when it comes to the charges made by the National troops. Consider the charges at Fredericksburg or the Mule Shoe crescent at Spottsylvania Courthouse.

@scottgoens7575

2 ай бұрын

Agreed!

@scottgoens7575

2 ай бұрын

@@jodiweller1802 Lee attempted and killed more men by frontal assaults than any other General in the war period.

Agreed... this narrative lost a good deal of credibility when focusing on Grant's alleged alcoholism. Anyone with scant knowledge of alcoholism, knows they don't achieve as Grant did.

@jackson4404

5 ай бұрын

Yes, the nonsense about Lt. Gen. U.S. Grant's alcoholism put me off immediately as did the adolescent voice of narrator.

@jodiweller1802

2 ай бұрын

My understanding is that Grant only drank when he had little to do and away from his wife. There's much to be said of the support of a good woman. I don't believe this type of consumption to be alcoholism.

@tjschakow

2 күн бұрын

But make no mistake about it Grant clearly had the gene for alcoholism which is not a defect in character but he seems to have gotten it under control

Lee was the Butcher. Grant was the first northern general to realize that to defeat a butcher would be costly in lives.

@gib59er56

Жыл бұрын

I am no fan of ANY Confederate officer. The young and poor kids who knew NOTHING about a nice home or what was even going on. The average kid was just nodding his head and going along to "kill the yankees that want to tell us what to do!" I know that has been the case in most every war ever fought. The poor are cannon fodder. I would not call Lee a butcher, but a man who fought like a Marine. Attack, attack, attack at all times in any place. Very narrow minded imo. And no disrespect to a Marine. Lee knew he had to move quick and keep the Union off balance to have any shot at winning the war. Reminds me very much like the Japanese in WWII. If goddamn McClennan had a spine and a brain the war would have lasted a few months. Instead we killed an entire generation of young men. Irish immigrants, poor people trying to find freedom from fucking England and landed here only to be drafted into war and died here before they even found work or a roof over their heads. I apologize for being so long winded, and crying about "the poor". Many well off men went to war for sure. My great great great fought in the war in a N.Y. Regiment that is still up for debate. the 44th or the 169th.

@movieklump

Жыл бұрын

@@gib59er56 To say McClennan had no spine is unfair. He knew fighting Lee meant carnage. Grant was the only Northern general willing to fight the south on their own terms. The south's plan was to kill enough young men until the North lost stomach to fight. Any other northern general would have lost Shiloh yet Grant was admonished for the bloodshed. That is why Lincoln defended him saying I need this man he fights.

@gib59er56

Жыл бұрын

@@movieklump Well said man, I know Lee tried to do just that. The men liked McClellan a lot. And he was really good as a General in training and drilling his men. A great teacher and he got those men in fine shape and ready to fight. But he was just too slow to engage, probably cuz he loved his boys!!

@marknewton6984

5 ай бұрын

Not according to Northern newspapers.

General Grant learned while fighting in Mexico how The Army and Navy can work together. He used that knowledge later in The Civil War.

Ok,ok, I'll subscribe! Anything to not serve under Bragg! I'm with U & Grant!

Grant and Sherman both understood that when it comes to war, there's victory for the winners, and total devastation for the losers.

@julianmarsh8384

Жыл бұрын

That is an interesting way to look at the Civil War since if the North had lost--given up fighting the South--I don't think anyone would be saying the North suffered total devastation.

@tomsurber2293

Жыл бұрын

@Julian Marsh That's not what happened, though, is it? The South was soundly defeated, and much of it left in ruin.

@julianmarsh8384

Жыл бұрын

@@tomsurber2293 You said they understood the loser suffered great loss; I suggested, not in all cases and certainly it would not have pertained to our Civil War if the North had admitted defeat.

@tomsurber2293

Жыл бұрын

@@julianmarsh8384 I wasn't aware that the Union was defeated. Thanks for the knowledge!

@julianmarsh8384

Жыл бұрын

@@tomsurber2293 Can you not read? I said "if they were defeated..."

Julius Caesar built a bridge over the Rhine in 10 days.

Grant had a way with words. He once said of Winfield Scott, "General Scott wears all the uniform the law allows".

Just subscribed to your channel I do not want Bragg to be my commander. I have to keep my healthy demeanor Thanks for the wonderful channel. I love how you narrate. I’m learning a lot. Really appreciate it. Keep up the good work and hopefully now….. I can serve with you and General Grant.

Grant knew that the object of war is to kill and completely destroy the enemy. He succeeded. He was a better tactician than Lee ever was. Longstreet knew Grant was a first class threat to the Confederacy. Look at Grant's victories but also his defeats. Look at his genius at Vicksburg.

@marknewton6984

5 ай бұрын

Cold Harbor? Crater?

Grant didn't just launch frontal assaults, irregardless of casualties. Grant attempted to out maneuver Lee wherever possible. But bad luck, lackluster performance by certain officers at key points didn't help. Even at Cold Harbor, Lee had committed everything. If those attacks succeeded. The war may've ended sooner. Grant's objective was the destruction of Lee's army. And that was basically accomplished by the end of that summer. As Lee surrendered in April that following spring.

@jackson4404

5 ай бұрын

Thank you! In his memoirs, Grant writes that he truly regretted the last assault on Cold Harbor since it was a waste of lives.

@scottgoens7575

2 ай бұрын

@@jackson4404 A general is only as good as the information provided to him. At Cold Harbor Grant did not have all the facts due to poor or nonexistent information.

Excellent and concise.

Yours are the best reasons I have heard for subscribing to a channel. I subscribed out of fear 😃

Thank YOU SIR❗

Geez… good thing I am already subscribed.

When discussing losses using only percentages it’s called making the number say what you want them to say. If you don’t include the size of the armies statistics or meaningless. Grant understood he had more men and more guns than Lee. All he had to do was keep fighting and he couldn’t lose. Lee understood that. He put up a fight for a while and then accepted defeat. It’s really not that complicated. Both men completely understood it and both men knew with the outcome was going to be. A war of attrition may sound terrible. But the most humane thing you can do is end the war as soon as possible. Grant and Lee without conspiracy did that.

@pauldourlet

Жыл бұрын

Grant did not have heavy casualties ,Shiloh is the exception until he fought Lee . Lee fought a brilliant defensive war.Lee would have inflicted even more casualties if his best defensive General had not been severely wounded in the Battle of the Wilderness. That was Longstreet.

@marknewton6984

5 ай бұрын

Lee was in a hurry. Grant was not. Lee won more with less.

@scottgoens7575

19 күн бұрын

What many refuse to see when speaking on Lee's behalf is that Lee had advantages that equalized the numbers disparity. 1) Interior lines. 2) Geography. 3) Friendly territory with built in civilian intelligence. The numbers were the actual fighting occurred wasn't as lopsided as we would be led to believe. Gordon Rhea covers this nicely.

"known of as one at the time" and hence a major motivating factor for his successful run to become President "US" Grant on or about 1868 and successful run for re-election 1872.

Why did you skip the establishment of the supply depot City Point, the siege of Petersburg and the connection of both by the construction of the railway that brought supplies up near the siege lines of the Union troops. This is a great item that provided the break of Five Forks and Petersburg that led to the end of the The Army of Northern Virginia. Other than this you did a great presentation on Grant's Civil War history.

@unbreakable7633

Жыл бұрын

By this point in the war, a 6th grader with all the men and supplies Grant had could have beaten the Army of Northern Virginia (probably not more than 27000 strong against more than 100000 Yanks) but it did take the Yanks 4 long years to do it and that Southern army was never well-supplied and almost always outnumbered.

Wow. I didn’t know Grant opposed and called out the blatant imperialist expansion that was the Mexican-American War. Few people of the time had the moral clarity to do so.

Look at you throwing shade on Braxton Bragg...LOL

Dude, I love the case you present on SUBCRIBING. Good stuff. Yes, I would rather serve with Grant than Braxton Bragg. I enjoy the facts you present and you have a great listening voice. Onward and Upward !!

I subscribed after your lil rant cus I thought it was funny so that’s a winning strategy

I ain't serven under Brag; new Sub.

A major fault of the video is harping on "alcoholism", which was in great part being out west without family and bored. A bout or period of over indulgence in spirits certainly led to his resignation ( rather than a court martial), but in the materials I have read and studied this was dragged into the politics and used to de-fame Grant...IF, if Grant drank during command I have never seen it in print...your sources for reference...please!

@billwilson-es5yn

Жыл бұрын

Grant's problem with alcohol was that it didn't take much to get him drunk. He was in the habit of walking thru his troops camps visiting with the soldiers so would take a nip from an offered jug along the way. Lincoln assigned a big Indian to be Grant's orderly at all times to monitor his consumption and discourage it once Grant reached his limit. His orderly was present at Appomattox and is shown in the paintings of Lee and Grant sitting at a table discussing terms.

@jackson4404

5 ай бұрын

The video is worth watching nevertheless. Grant could not hold his liquor but only strayed when Julia was not around.

@NiteMoves2010

5 ай бұрын

@@jackson4404 Grant has gotten a lot of unwarrented "bad press" while the traitor Lee has been glorified...the rise of the Daughters of the Confederacy that is a source of many of today's problems. The monuments should never have been allowed. The Banners and flags should have been restricted to museums and text books.

I disagree with you saying Taylor did not write down orders . Grant in his memoir says that what he learned from Taylor was to clearly write down orders on paper which he did .

Good

I’m only following under the threat of serving under General Bragg! 🤣🤣🤣

how does this only have 1600 views?

God bless Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.

I’ve subscribed to your excellent work. Thank you for concise insightful narration. One thing…to my ears I hear “ calvary” instead of “cavalry.” It’s picky, but sounds like nails on a chalk board to this OCD subscriber.

@longnamenocansayy

5 ай бұрын

calvary is easier to say than cavalry. unfortunately, the school system nowadays has no goal other than to perpetuate itself. education is a goal that suffers far down on the totem pole of necessities. i learned per centages in the 6th grade. we learned about history and grammar all the way through hi school, and english taught us about novels that had stood the test of time, and the why of why they were great. today they learn about what is politically correct, how to identify as a sexual pervert. i don't know what else they learn as they can't even reduce an item by 50% if their job is something difficult like cashier.

"Bue ll." Davis orderred Pemberton to hold Vicksburg, sealing the fate of his army. He was not given the option of joining Johnston.

@thomaslinton5765

10 ай бұрын

Famously, Davis gave such an order, but Is ignoring an insane order not an "option"?

Yes, Forrest was a psychopath. He was a great leader, a very courageous man, an excellent horseman and, according to General Sherman, the most unique man in that war on either side, but he was a psychopath.

@marknewton6984

8 ай бұрын

So was Sherman.

@grantsmythe8625

8 ай бұрын

@@marknewton6984 Sherman may have been a psychopath. He certainly had mental health issues before the war and some during it. His willingness to torment and terrorize the civilian population of the South may be an indication of his mental health issues. Logistically however, he was right to destroy as much war-making potential of the South as possible. The guy I didn't like much was Phil Sheridan owing to his behavior vis-a-vis Native Americans after the war and yet he was quite instrumental in the maintaining of Yellowstone National Park. That's the trouble with bad guys: they aren't all bad.....but some definitely were.

@marknewton6984

8 ай бұрын

@@grantsmythe8625 Bragg may have been the worst general in the war but Sherman was the worst human. That guy was scary even to Unionists. Sheridan got better in the war... then headed west.

@grantsmythe8625

8 ай бұрын

@@marknewton6984 I read somewhere that Grant was talking to someone and that someone mentioned to Grant that Sheridan said that he could find Jeb Stuart and kill him or something to that effect to which Grant replied that Sheridan usually knew what he was talking about so let him go and get Stuart. He did just that. That's the thing about war. It's a magnet that attracts good, patriotic people as well every kind of criminal type imaginable: career thieves, violent, sexual deviants, psychopathic killers, egotistical maniacs.

@marknewton6984

8 ай бұрын

@@grantsmythe8625 Lee was still better than Grant... in every way.

damn... I've never been strong armed that hard to subscribe to a channel before. not bragg! 😂

Don't make me serve with Gen. Bragg!

@marknewton6984

8 ай бұрын

You sound like Forrest!

تحيه للرئيس ابراهام لينكولن محرر العبيد

Grant is good! Keep him in my wallet all the time!

@marknewton6984

8 ай бұрын

Inflation.

mary todd lincoln called grant a butcher. he certainly was not.

@jamesorenthal-bm4sp

11 ай бұрын

Mary Lincoln was also mentally unstable and her opinion should be completely dismissed, then and now. It was only her husbands opinion and directives that mattered.

@marknewton6984

8 ай бұрын

Yes, he was.

@jackson4404

5 ай бұрын

Mary Todd Lincoln was a hysteric, mentally unstable. She was raised a southern belle, a poor choice for the President who emancipated the slaves.

Grant and Lee won the war Tecumseh said so

Old Brains really hated Grant.

@sebastianmelmoth9100

Жыл бұрын

Halleck was a rat fink

Class I,III,V

Instead of being labeled a Butcher, a better description is a Strategic Planner.

The man on the 50 dollar bill.

Grant could learn from his mistake. His mistake at Shiloh was not made at Vicksburg. Julius Ceasar was be proud for Grant at Vicksburg, because Grant built double depends for his troops! So he could avoid any surprise! Funny Sherman was against Admiral Porter idea at Vicksburg, which brought Grant's success! I think Sherman was good army leader only from 1864, Sherman's learning time was loger than Grant's and this why the Northern general list is this first Grant, second Sherman, third Thomas. Big mistake was from the Northern leaders not to bring up Thomas earlier to be leader, for example instead of Rosecrans!

@julianmarsh8384

Жыл бұрын

People forget Grant's first effort to reach Vicksburg and how Confederate cavalry sliced and diced through his lines of supply and communication, forcing the several Northern forces to retreat...

@ziggystardust1122

Жыл бұрын

Man, y'all can't speak for one minute without throwing Thomas in there can you. Thomas wasn't a half-bad soldier but he was also a genocidal murderer of Native Americans. Truth.

@avenaoat

Жыл бұрын

In Florida?

I joined ..NO WAY I WANT TO SERVE UNDER BBRAGG!!!

2:08 “The only thing he dented to be good at was was.” I call BS He was also very good with horses

Cairo, IL is pronounced “KAY-ro”

5:50 lol dude EVERY war is about supply.

Hiram Ulysses Grant. The answer, in part, to who is buried in Grant's Tomb.

@user-uf1ib5ol4u

10 ай бұрын

No-one is buried in Grant's Tomb.

@thomaslinton5765

10 ай бұрын

@@user-uf1ib5ol4u Wrong again. Also known as "Grant's Tomb" by locals, the mausoleum at General Grant National Memorial is the final resting place for American Civil War Union General and 18th U.S. President Hiram Ulysses Grant and his wife Julia Dent Grant.

@jackson4404

5 ай бұрын

Grant was bestowed the moniker U.S. Grant at West Point by the enrolling officer and his fellow cadets.

@thomaslinton5765

5 ай бұрын

@@jackson4404 Jesse Grant wrote to Representative Thomas L. Hamer requesting that he nominate Hiram to the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. Hamer nominated 17-year-old Hiram to West Point in spring 1839. Grant was accepted on July 1.[Unfamiliar with Grant, however, Hamer submitted an incorrect name. As a result, Grant was enlisted at West Point under the name "U. S. Grant". The Registrar assumed that the "S" stood for Simpson, his mother's maiden name, hence "Ulysses Simpson Grant." Hating "Hiram," Grant did nothing to correct the error. As the initials "U. S." also stood for "Uncle Sam", he became known amongst army colleagues as "Sam."

quoting percentages is a little bit on the deceiving side of telling the whole truth. by the end of the war grant had a approximate 3 to 1 superiority . much more so with artillery. i believe grant played to his strengths, kept calm under pressure, and won more so by over powering lee with more men and guns, and over stretching lee's lines... In short he beat lee through attrition, more so than any brilliant tactics. Grant was good at logistics but so was McClellan. Grant had much stronger resolve than Lil Mac, by far. He did out class his western counterparts, except for johnston at the first day of shiloh, but again won through mainly having numeric superiority in men and cannon. With credit due for his vicksburg campaign, swiftness in pushing inland, Once landed, then back out again ensnaring his foe in the city. His win at donnelson would be ranked higher had the general in command that he went against shown any competence. Having said that, he was Imo, the best the North had to beat Lee, as all others before him, blinked under pressure. His sheer numeric advantages, had let him sale threw the horrendous mistake of cold harbor, and the mishap at the crater. Lee could not afford such mistakes at that point of the war, And Early while a fine general, was no stonewall, and could do very little to secure the shenandoa. In Grants defense, Lee was on the defense the whole trip. Having said all this, I am not one of those that believes Lee might had beat him had he still had Jackson. I have no doubt Jackson would have inflicted a few more terrible wounds, but grant had many more reserves he could have called upon had that happened, and with jackson the southern army may have surrendered sooner because of that, though at a much higher cost in lives incurred by both sides. IMO Grant's greatest strength was his will with dogged purpose. Which is not a common thing found in field officers. Only common in the top tier.

...ok... I subscribed, but under protest!

"ka' row"

Grant identified that trophies cities were meaningless conquests. But that the destruction of the enemy army was paramount. 80 years later Clark threw away the chance to end the Italian campaign by parading through Rome instead of trapping the German army retreating to the north.

@billwilson-es5yn

11 ай бұрын

So said the US Press who also portrayed the worthless shit Douglas Macarthur as the Second Coming of Christ. Clark took orders from British General Alexander. Alex told Clark to enter the mountains to cut off the retreating Germans. Clark planned the invasion of Italy so knew their road network better than Alexander. Clark pointed out two roads the Germans could take to the east to avoid his advancing forces while leaving tanks with their long range cannons to pick off his tanks and trucks on the mountain roads coming after them. Clark suggested racing north to Rome instead since the Germans were in the process of removing their troops and stores of supplies while leaving the roads to the south unguarded. Clark pointed out that Rome was a transportation hub so would be wise to get there before the Germans blew up the railroad yards and bridges outside of town. Alexander thought that was more prudent to do so gave Clark permission to do that. Clark has his troops on the road to Rome before talking to Alexander in case he wanted a few days to think about it.

Monster

Hey. It's CAV- al Rey, not CAL ver ry.

This would have been an outstanding documentary; however, the speed of the presentation took a lot away from its effectiveness. Sorry, just being honest! BTW, Sherman said it the best: War is the remedy that my enemy has chosen for his ills.

That Bragg comment was mean , why would you do that to someone😮

If he and Lee switched armies, Grant would not have been as successful as he was during the CW

@brenttaylor7856

Жыл бұрын

No question about that... Give Lee the resources of the army of the Potomac, let Grant try to feed, clothe, and equip the army of Northern Virginia as Lee had to juggle everyday,.. I see Grant and company chased off the continent

@CognizantCheddar

Жыл бұрын

Lee's successes in the war ended at the same moment Thomas Jackson was mortally wounded. Goes to show which general is truly owed the most credit for the Confederate victories in the Eastern Theater. Jackson's actions were creating victories for the CSA before Lee even took command, and nearly every major Confederate victory from Bull Run to Chancellorsville came down to some initiative taken by Jackson's brigade, division, or corps. Then as soon as Lee lost Jackson, Lee blundered at Gettysburg, on two different days in two different ways that would've likely been prevented by Jackson had he been in command of the Second Corps. Unpopular opinion to the point of sacrilege, but Robert E. Lee is overrated by history. Thomas Jackson was the actual genius. As for Grant, he outclassed Lee as an organizer and offensive campaigner.

@spacehonky6315

Жыл бұрын

I think you have a good point here. Jackson was without a doubt the most daring genius on either side. I find Lee's defense of Richmond during the Peninsula Campaign pretty damn superb. Granted, he did call Jackson from Shenandoah to get it done, and defeating McClellan on the field is always a joke.

@marknewton6984

8 ай бұрын

You got that right!

There is no "W" in Chickamauga.

The Germans were NEVER better equipped than the Soviets. EVER. Not even on the 22nd of June 1941. Do better research before making comparisons. Zhukov WAS the best of the best of Soviet Generals, maybe there was one better, but Grant was by a long margin THE Best General that Lincoln had to choose from. Lee was at best an opportunist, had to be considering what he had to deal with.

Comparing generals based on percentages of troops lost with no other context is sleazy AF.

I was listening until you called Forrest a psychopath because he wanted to break out of Fort. Doneldson. You were wrong on that.

@marknewton6984

5 ай бұрын

Forrest was tough. 😮

@inthedarkwoods2022

Ай бұрын

@@marknewton6984 But not a psychopath

Well, Grant's men did call him a butcher. He even said he regretted the last charge at Cold Harbor, when he lost about 14000 men inside an hour. Grant wasn't a genius; he was a stubborn plodder who wouldn't give up. Longstreet said this about him when he assumed command of Northern forces: "He will fight it out on this line if it takes all summer." Grant was the right man for the job but Lee, Jackson, Forrest, Cleburne, all Southern generals and all far superior to Grant. What I like about Grant isn't his military ability but his personality and personal integrity and decency.

@marknewton6984

8 ай бұрын

Grant was a mediocre general and lousy President. No matter what you revisionists say...

@jackson4404

5 ай бұрын

His men did not call him that, proponents of the Lost Cause did.

@unbreakable7633

3 ай бұрын

@@marknewton6984 I'm not a revisionist. Go peddle that line elsewhere.

@unbreakable7633

3 ай бұрын

@@jackson4404 Wrong.

@marknewton6984

3 ай бұрын

I am not a Lost Causer. Go peddle that line elsewhere.

Dear History Reviver...hear yourself....fighting men on horses are called CAVALRY, NOT CALVARY!!!! Calvary is where Christ was crucified!!!!

@RevivingHistory.

Жыл бұрын

You seem like a nasty person. I hope you find the help you need.

@RevivingHistory.

Жыл бұрын

​@@rascalferret I am not sponsored by them but you should consider Better Help.

The Vicksburg Campaign is probably the strangest success story in military history. As often as I've studied it, I've never understood how Grant ultimately succeeded. It defies logic. Sherman and the other generals who opposed the plan should have been right; on paper, Grant should never have attempted the campaign which ultimately succeeded. Even after Champion's Hill and the beginning of the siege, what if Longstreet had been sent west? The Gettysburg Campaign would have been delayed, but Grant might have lost his entire force! How could he defend his supply line while maintaining the siege? It just doesn't make sense. A child could defend against this Union offensive. Play that strategy again a hundred times and it fails 99 of them. It seems as desperate as Pickett's Charge. To be fair, the Union could have replaced both the army and the brown water naval units engaged. But if you're Grant? No. Your career is over. Just don't do it! Was he drunk? Crazy? Maddened by failure after failure until he tried something so far fetched and complex it simply had almost zero chance of success? Or... was there something supernatural going on that we cannot see? This is one of those situations where it almost seems like the Hand of God is revealed. Slavery was America's "Original Sin" and the fall of Vicksburg was part of the cure. It could not be accomplished in 1862, but in the 1863 campaign season the Emancipation Proclamation had changed the spiritual balance of power. The enemies of God were thrown into confusion and a kind of mental blindness befuddled them. They had six weeks to sort it out, but the Confederates simply could not SEE! Cut Grant's grotesquely overextended supply line and you flip the script on him. His whole army is forfeit! But no. Lincoln has made a covenant with the Creator of Heaven and Earth and the outcome is no longer in doubt.

@neilzientek

Жыл бұрын

This is horseshit. Lincoln wasn't even a Christian.

Historical generals faced challenges most armchair critics can't even imagine. I relieve stress by getting drunk too & I'm just a normal civilian...

@RevivingHistory.

2 жыл бұрын

I bet you do.

My great-grandfather served and was wounded 3 times. In family stories, it was always “ Grant the Butcher” like it was one word.

@neilzientek

Жыл бұрын

Lost Causers?

@NiteMoves2010

Жыл бұрын

Mr. Kreider, you must be at least 100 if your Great Grandfather served for either the Union or the Traitors...my Great Grand parents were born in the 1880's, I am in my 70's..."Grant the Butcher" was either a southern label or the work of northerners trying to harm Grant.

@longnamenocansayy

5 ай бұрын

@@NiteMoves2010 no reason to use the word traitor. the prime document creating this country is the articles of confederation. the articles/confed. still exists. it was signed in perpetuity with an oath before god, by duly elected reps. by contrast, the constitution was not signed in perpetuity, was not signed by an oath, does not acknowledge a supreme being, was not signed by reps elected to draw up a binding agreement. so this country is a confederacy. note: jeff davis was not charged with treason. he was free. the reason being, the federalists did not want to lose in court what they had won on the battlefield. so jeff davis was free to write and say and do anything just as he always did. and he did say and write plenty, and he did try to start another war. it is a very simple thing to read the articles of confederation and compare it with the constitution to see if i'm bull s ting. you will especially notice the manumission errors listed on the last page of the constitution. those errors render the document completely void for lack of meaning in a court of law.

@jackson4404

5 ай бұрын

Your great grandfather probably served at Cold Harbor.

Facts are sketchy.

You definitely need to read Ron Chernow's excellent biography of Grant. He does a FAR better job of explaining Grant's problem with alcohol than YOU do.

You falsely state that Yellow Tavern was the first clear cut Union Cavalry victory in two years for the army of the potomac. Actually a mere 13 months before, Custer had completely pasted Stuarts' cavalry at East Cavalry Battlefield during the battle of Gettysburg.. I find even though you claim to be reporting on Grants career you are biased toward the confederate army. Are you a lost Cause proponent? best Bruce Peek

Power of numbers, that is GRANT.

@marknewton6984

5 ай бұрын

You must like lawyers too.

@user-ql4zu1ph3f

5 ай бұрын

@@marknewton6984 what?

@brownell947

5 ай бұрын

Having more troops and soldiers doesn’t really mean anything there’s just too many battles and wars were lower numbers have been superior forces that’s why the north was literally losing majority of the earlier battles in the Civil War, and if they kept thinking like that, they would’ve lost in total war in general

Not Bragg Plz for the Love of God man! Not Bragg...

I'm gonna have to disagree here, Grant was just lucky he was in the North where all the factories were. If Lee had the supplies Grant had it might be a split nation to this day. I don't think that would have been good for the country, so I'm glad for the outcome, but war really comes down to who can produce the most supplies needed for war, and at the time the south was mostly farms while the north had all the factories.

@billwilson-es5yn

Жыл бұрын

The South lost due to being unable to feed their troops and horses. Their farmers were gone fighting and the cotton growers failed to grow crops and fodder to supply them since they were making more money off cotton. The CSA armies had a major problem with soldiers going AWOL or deserting to find something to eat or to return home to help their starving families. There were food riots in the Southern cities where the residents couldn't afford the escalating prices for basic foodstuffs. In Texas, the Federal and Confederate Army commanders made a gentleman's agreement to stop fighting each other to focus their efforts on bands of tribes raiding settlements. The Federals allowed the Confederates to transport cotton to Mexico in exchange for foodstuffs, textiles and other consumer goods that were in short supply.

@jackson4404

5 ай бұрын

Oh, that was just luck when he followed Lee though the Wilderness, confronted him at Spotsylvania, and forced his surrender at Appomattox Courthouse?

@Barnswaggle

5 ай бұрын

No the confederates were starving, but if you wanna call it luck go ahead. It doesn't take much skill to defeat a starving army.@@jackson4404

Yeah, he's right up there with Zap Branigan. Lay waste to the land. How original.

@jackson4404

5 ай бұрын

It's obvious that you have not watched the video.

It is not a question of whether or not his men were well fed! In the West, he did indeed try and conduct operations in a manner that minimized casualties...in the East, just the opposite. If Sherman had not taken Atlanta when he did, Lincoln might well have been defeated when running for a second term, mostly due to the horrific battle loses the North was suffering due to the strategy of this "genius".

😂😂😂 just send in as many men as you can until the job gets done ,real strategic genius.

@marknewton6984

5 ай бұрын

3 to 1 odds. Big deal. Grant was mediocre.

Grant did not have an alcohol addiction, ever. He was a binge drinker, not an alcoholic. They have nothing but alcohol in common. This is well known. And he drank when nothing aaa happening, it did not impact any of his campaigns. This isn’t the only inaccuracy in this video, but it’s the most egregious. Stop pushing Lost Cause Narratives.

@ziggystardust1122

Жыл бұрын

Ok...then you stop believing in fantasies and pushing false narratives.

@davidbracken6529

Жыл бұрын

Splitting historical hairs? He was, on multiple occasions, compromised by alcohol. “…a binge drinker!” Well now, that’s like guys at my fraternity!

I like the video but you're method of trying to get people to subscribe is going to have the opposite effect. Just before I heard that I was like, "Hey this is a pretty good video! Maybe I should subscribe!" Then I heard that tirade. I was like "nope, not anymore!". I know you're just joking but it comes off bad.

Grant is a butcher, at least when it comes to Robert E. Lee, because that's the only way you can beat Lee.

@CognizantCheddar

Жыл бұрын

Lee's AoNV was fighting a defensive campaign the entire time it faced Grant. That provides advantages.

Grant was a butcher. The only way he could beat his opponents was to throw endless amounts of men at their positions or besiege them. It took him months and thousands of casualties to figure out that he should besiege Vicksburg and not assault it. His insane assault at Cold Harbor is a perfect example. And to try to use statistics about inflicted casualty percentages vs casualties taken at the 1 min mark in this video is dumb. You do realize that the Southern armies were outnumbered at literally every single major campaign and that's not going to lead to a good KD ratio and it has absolutely nothing to do with the skill of Grant as a tactician? He might have been a good person outside the uniform and cared about the conditions for his men but that has no bearing on his being anything but a butcher. Boil it down to this - Grant had at least 20% to 30% more men than his opponents in every campaign. He had better equipment across the board. He had access to river boats, fleets and endless supplies. And he barely beat his opponents, except for Hood. Hood was a hothead who had not one tactical bone in his body. Grant's best attributes as a commander were his logistical skills and that he didn't care how many men he lost, which is a good characteristic TO A DEGREE. Also, his ability to force his opponents to react to his actions and it was only because of how well manned and equipped his armies were that he was able to do this so really that's a wash. Your video wasn't all bad. But you have a lot to read to realize a more accurate characterization of Grant. Best commander the Union had in the war was Sherman. May my great great grandfather forgive me for saying that.

@spacehonky6315

Жыл бұрын

I can't agree that Sherman was the best. He was forced to take leave earlier in the war when he was crazier than McClellan at estimating enemy numbers. He was woefully unprepared at Shiloh Church, skipping basic camp operations by not posting scouts or pickets. When his forward regimental commander told him there's lots of Confederates in the woods nearby, Sherman told him to stop being a scared old woman, and there ain't no rebel troops closer than Corinth. He was surprise attacked the very next morning and got his ass kicked for two whole days. His Atlanta and march to the sea campaigns went really well, but he was fighting in rear areas against vastly inferior numbered rebel troops under piss poor leadership. I always found Sherman to be very likable. His working relationship and loyal friendship with Grant was commendable when every other Union General in the army hated each other and regularly blamed everyone else for their own failure. I am glad that citizens of St.Louis honored Sherman by building and gifting him a beautiful home. Post-war he lost my admiration by publishing letters denigrating Grant, and participates in the disgusting habit of Civil War Generals to write spurious newspaper articles and personal memoirs attempting to rewrite history. Gross.

@rockytoptom

Жыл бұрын

@@spacehonky6315 I'll be honest, I din't read all of this because I just didn't. I'd have to counter that Sherman was melancholic but he wasn't known for overestimating enemy strength like McClellan. Plus, just to play devil's advocate, McClellan was fooled during his "Peninsula Campaign" in the same fashion the Germans were for D-Day. General John MaGruder put on basically the best effort of the entire war as far as deception is concerned and he made a very good deception case for Johnston's army being about 3 times it's actual size. It was truly incredible what he did. And McClellan would have been a fool NOT to believe it

@longnamenocansayy

5 ай бұрын

the civil war was not fought the way we think war should be fought today. mostly, it consisted of trying to outflank the enemy. it mainly depended on getting more men and material into position and blasting each other. last man standing wins. you see that real clear in gettysburg. the only logical reason for picketts charge is that lee actually thought god would prevail on the side of right. which was the prevailing attitude of most people at that time. even down to the individual soldier. you see that also real clear with little mac in the wilderness. you might not think he was such a good general. but i think he was good. he didn't waste his men. he knew all he had to do was avoid direct confrontation, and over time the south would naturally attrit. the north had the men and material to play the waiting game. and there is the matter of all out war. the south was directly supplied by northern suppliers at the beginning. it was not against the law to supply the south. that's because we were not fighting an all out war. in such a case, the contest could have been contained to an economic struggle, which the north could have easily won with time. the scope of the war, grant's negro slave, and slavery in kentucky and the border states and new york's exemption from the draft is not generally taught in our public schools today. but it all goes to point to the fact that the civil war was not fought in the way we think war should be fought today.

Grant only struggled with alcohol when he was posted at Ft. Humboldt, California, separated from his family. He was not a lifelong alcoholic and should be remembered for winning and ending the Civil War. Whoever made this video is poorly and negatively informed and has substituted myth for fact.

@RevivingHistory.

5 ай бұрын

Grant's struggles with alcohol are a part of his life story, and ignoring or dismissing them provides an incomplete picture.

Who ever thinks Grant knew strategy has not read history. He was not responsible for any victory assigned to him. The only thing he had going for him is a really large army. When he came against Lee, he used no strategy other than attrition. The gun boats won his first battle without Grant's infantry. The second the Confederate officer surrendered after pushing Grants men back. HE won no battle at Vicksburg and mistakes by the Confederates led to them being starved out. At Shiloh, he was beaten and it was the fresh army that came up which won that battle. At Chattanooga, his plans failed and Thomas won the battle.. Lee out maneuvered Grant all the way and was finally beaten because some of Lee's generals gathered to eat fish and did not let their officers know where they were.

@sebastianmelmoth9100

Жыл бұрын

Clearly you have read zero history since Grant's victories at Vicksburg and Chattanooga are sill studied today at US war colleges for their masterly tactics. Grant was the one who summoned the gunboats; he didn't just take Vicksburg he took the whole state of tennessee in one campaign with a dozen separate battles; at Shiloh he held a salient so his troops could rally at the landing because Lew Wallace wasted a day in arriving. There are still some lost cause losers out there who want us to think Grant had no role in his victories, conveniently ignoring the memoirs of his contemporaries, both military and civilian, who credit him with the strategic and tactical skills that forced Lee to surrender on his own soil. Grant conquered a nation.

@lynntalafuse9935

Жыл бұрын

@@sebastianmelmoth9100 I've consumed much history. Yes Grant did keep his army busy at Vicksburg digging a channel for the gun boats to get past Vicksburg but point to any actual combat initiated by Grant that produced any results. It was lack of food that caused Vicksburg to fall. And at Chattanooga, Grant himself admitted all his plans failed and it was Thomas who had been ordered to not to heavily engage who beat Bragg. And against Lee, he used no strategy at all claiming Lee was too smart. At Spotsylvania he listened to a LT who told him to amass his troops on one spot back to back which led only to hand to hand fighting. At Cold Harbor he tried the same tactic and lost 3000 men in 15 minutes. You can not point to any battle he fought where he had superior tactics.The only thing to his claim is that unlike the other commanders in the East, he did not withdraw after he was defeated, he simple moved to the next confrontation knowing he had more men than Lee and could still get replacements. Had the numbers been reversed, Lee would have eaten him alive.

@marknewton6984

8 ай бұрын

Grant had the odds and replacements. He was mediocre. He also had a barn built in Ohio with slave labor. Look it up.

@lynntalafuse9935

8 ай бұрын

His wife owned two slaves and he did not release them until the 13th amendment was ratified. @@marknewton6984

@jackson4404

5 ай бұрын

Yes, seige warfare initiated by U.S. Grant since Vicksburg was positioned such that direct attack was next to impossible. I don't get why Lee is so venerated other than he looked good on a horse.

it's really unfair to call grant a butcher. as if he was somehow different than other generals of the time or as if the conduct of the war was different than war generally, as late as ww 1. remember they had no way to communicate past the sound of a man's voice. so if you wanted any cohesion you had to stay up close so you could hear the commands. and remember the rifles that were being used had a killing range of a mile. a lot of the cannons were rifled too. and compare the civil war with ww1 battles. they marched across open ground into machine gun fire time and time again. if anyone was to blame it was abraham lincoln. he's the one that wanted and called for all the blood. if he had wanted anything different, he would have allowed maclellan to conduct a war of attrition, and he would have declared a state of all out war against the south. but as we all know he recalled maclellan, and he didn't declare all out war until the emanciapation proclamation. until then the south was getting refitted by the north free and clear, and northern suppliers were getting rich coming and going. it was lincolns war and he should be held accountable 100 %. he's the one that forced the conflict from the beginning by stationing his troops at fort sumter in order to enforce unfair taxes on the south. we see the same damn power plays today on the mexican border. biden says let everyone in. let the chinese walk in and take what they want. let drug cartels control the border. let terrorists blow up americans whenever they want. it's the same game, different players and a different year. but it's the same power play that they had in 1861.

Reader unfortunately rambles without pause, became boring.

@jackson4404

5 ай бұрын

The content is good; overlook the narrator who does an adequate if not stellar job.

While I like the attention paid to detail in this biography, the sing-song nature of the narrator's voice drives me a bit crazy. It sounds very much like an AI generated voice. And the constant mispronunciation of the word "Cavalry"... as "calvary" was a distraction. You should seek the services of an editor and a professional voice actor.

@jackson4404

5 ай бұрын

Geez, you guys, pay attention to the content.

Grant was a decent man, Sherman was a rabid animal.

@marknewton6984

8 ай бұрын

Grant was mediocre. Sherman was nuts.

Too many errors and misrepresentations.

@jackson4404

5 ай бұрын

Like what? Without examples, you're just blowing hot air.

Grant only won because he had more men and recurces!!

@krockone1475

Жыл бұрын

And all the previous Union Generals didn’t…really. McClellan, Burnside, Meade, Hooker and on and on had all the resources and numbers on the battlefield and still managed to lose. Grant won battles because he fights, day in and day out.

@jessewright2319

Жыл бұрын

Lee is only considered a "genius" because he fought incompetent commanders. If Grant had been commander of the AOP at Antietam, the ANV would have been destroyed in September of 1862.

@marknewton6984

8 ай бұрын

Grant had 3 to 1 odds. Heck, we could win in Las Vegas with those odds!

@jackson4404

5 ай бұрын

You have not watched the video obviously. So you really are not a legitimate part of any discussion related to it.

Drunk

@marknewton6984

8 ай бұрын

Cheers!

Grant was no genius. Neither was Lee. In fact there were no great generals in the US Civil War. Grant simply did the obvious against an enemy he vastly outnumbered, out-supplied, out-gunned etc. At the ruthless sacrifice of his men's lives he engaged in a war of attrition the Confederates just couldn't win.... Lee was worse... He only succeeded because he was fighting a defensive war on home ground against incompetent generals. As soon as he went on the offensive he was a catastrophic failure and should have surrendered his army at Gettysburg and ended the war.

@ziggystardust1122

Жыл бұрын

One single portrait hung over Ike's head in the oval office during every one of his 8 yrs. in the Whitehouse. Supreme Commander over all Allied Forces during WWII and he chooses one single portrait to watch over him day in and day out.

@jys76

Жыл бұрын

@@ziggystardust1122 that tells everything

@marknewton6984

8 ай бұрын

Lee ,Forrest and Lincoln were geniuses. Chamberlain was damn good.