US Grant Mini-Series

[Salty Dog]

The past three nights there was a Mini-Series about U.S. Grant, the General and President on the History Channel. Did anyone else watch it? I thought it was one of the best TV shows of all time. Incredibly well presented with good acting, good lines and a wonderful condensation of the history of this amazing man's life.

Twenty years ago, historians thought Robert E Lee was the top General of all time and Grant was just a Butcher. I am happy to see their opinions have changed and Grant is now seen as the best General of the Civil War and probably the best in US History.

If you have not seen this mini-series, it will probably be repeated many times in the future. It is amazing!

[Pirate]

The South by far had the best Generals otherwise the war would not have lasted as long as it did. Grant took over the Army of the Potomac late in the war due to the other Generals not panning out. Yes he did a good job because for one thing he had all the resources and manpower he needed. He could afford heavy losses and still push on. Sherman the same he pushed on even at the cost of his countrymen. Lee surrendered because he knew only a matter of time before the South will be defeated because of lack of everything. He had a good army but lost to many good men and supplies were thin. TV and news now wants to make the Confederacy like the Nazis but like it or not it’s part of a heritage and just for the record the war didn’t happen because of slavery to start with. That’s something they want people to believe now and using it as propaganda.

[corsair91]

Robert E. Lee
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee


Ulysses S. Grant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant

...
In the final year of his life, facing severe financial reversals and dying of throat cancer, he wrote his memoirs, which proved to be a major critical and financial success.
...

Historians have recognized Grant's military genius, and his modern strategies of warfare are featured in military history textbooks.


Books by Grant, Ulysses S. (Ulysses Simpson)
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/author/527

Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant, Complete by Ulysses S. Grant
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4367



First Couple of answers from this thread
since there is something like 42 Answers, not going to list them all


Who was the better general, Ulysses S. Grant or Robert E. Lee?
https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-better-general-Ulysses-S-Grant-or-Robert-E-Lee


Jeremy Fridy, History Major, minor in Political Science.

General Lee is considered a near Demigod in Civil War circles, ever since the Lost Cause decided that the CSA couldn’t have lost the war except for the North cheating with sheer numbers. Grant on the other hand was derided as a “butcher” and a drunk. As you would expect, these are both inadequate, but to those with little expertise in the subject, they are the stereotypes.

After decades of reading on the subject, I would say they are both great generals, but in different parts of command.

Lee was a fantastic battlefield commander, and was able to get the most out of his men through solid knowledge of his men and his ability to inspire them. Lee also was famous for his ability to read opposing generals and counter their actions. Lee was also blessed with excellent Corps commanders, almost all experienced veterans who could be trusted to take the initiative when opportunities appeared and to operate independently (many feel many of Lee’s problems at Gettysburg came from him not knowing (EDIT, Ewell ), Stonewall Jackson’s recent replacement as well as a Corps commander, and of his orders not being as direct as needed.)

Lee seems to be an excellent tactical commander, capable of using his forces for maximum efficiency, especially on defense in his beloved Virginia.


Grant was a completely different commander. His forces were not as well led, and political generals were almost as common as veterans in his forces. Grant’s major positive trait at the tactical level seemed to be an unwillingness to retreat, while constantly probing for enemy weaknesses. But Grant seems to have been better at looking at the big picture, fighting at the campaign level rather than the battle. Grant realized that Lee’s army was not capable of sustaining combat for long periods, even victories would regularly cost the winner 20% of their army, and Lee was low on supplies and reinforcements. Grant was the first Eastern Commander to try to force Lee to fight battle after battle, pinning forces while using his larger numbers to try to flank the Army of Northern Virginia rather than simply attack it. Realize that after each previous campaign by the Army of the Potomac before Grant, they would usually fall back to near the Potomac River, giving up much of Northern Virginia each campaign. He also realized that Lee was hobbled by having to defend Richmond, that by threatening Richmond, he could get Lee to fight battles more on his terms. This was vital, even if Lee won most of the smaller engagements, because it drained Lee’s forces until they were forced to abandon the siege lines at Petersburg, to abandon defending Richmond, and finally be trapped as he tried to flee south at Appomattox.

I admit Sherman is my favorite Civil War General though.




Uriel Moore, I read books about the Civil War starting at age 7. Yeah, its that serious...

I'm rather surprised this remains a discussion. This is like asking who was the better team in superbowl 52? Um, the team that won.

Let's break this down…

Grant won. Not only did Grant win, but prior to that he beat two other opponents and annihilated their armies into unconditional surrender. You'd think this would be enough, end of discussion. Right? But for some reason, some folks want to cherry pick factual data or ignore it altogether to come up with this myth that Lee was as good as or better than Grant. There is no hypothetical scenario here. These two men threw down on the battlefields head to head, one won, the other got the “L".

Lee was overrated. He had only two objectives: Keep the Yanks away from Richmond and hold out long enough until the union got tired of fighting. Well, he failed in both objectives. When he wasn't defending Richmond, he went on the offensive. Surely he'd get that right? Wrong. He marched north into Maryland against the universally agreed upon useless general by the name of George McClellan. Tactically, it can be argued that Lee was a victor having outmaneuvered his enemy in quite a few battles. However strategically, his Maryland campaign was an unmitigated disaster, losing scores of men and materiel with no territory or even resources gained. His second offensive in Pennsylvania was an even bigger disaster, both tactically and strategically, putting the army of Virginia effectively on life support. On top of that, on this second northern adventure, his questionable and often vague command style shattered the myth of superior southern cavalry when JEB Stuart was embarrassed at Brandy Station and Custer again checked Stuart on day 3 of Gettysburg. Which brings me to number 3…

Lee's command style of not being direct and leaving too much to interpretation by his subordinates was a fatal disadvantage compared to Grant's more direct, no bullshit “get er done" style of leadership. Grant took a bumbling general like Hooker and actually made him into a somewhat capable commander by war’s end. Grant wasn't a counterpuncher, he was a slugger that beat you senseless until you said: “ok dude, I'm done, please stop kicking my ass". That's how he annihilated 2 other armies BEFORE he got to Lee.

I wouldn't put Lee ahead of Grant, Schofield, or Thomas, much less other rebel commanders like Cleburne, Albert Johnston, Jackson, or even Mosby.

Bottom line here. There is really no logical debate on who was the better general when you look objectively at the historical evidence. Lee’s record benefited from rosy hindsight and great PR.

Grant's record speaks for itself:

Invented modern joint operations some 70 years before the D-Day Invasions. (Vicksburg).
Forced 3 armies into surrendering. A record that still stands today among American commanders.
The tactical ability to be damn near unbeatable in battles and the strategic know-how to win the damn war.

So please, tell me how Lee comes close to that. Spoiler alert: He doesn't. Not even close. He lost scores of men against inferior commanders. His leadership style was at best, questionable. His strategic vision bordered on non-existent. Grant was the better general, period.

[corsair91]

7 Reasons Ulysses S. Grant Was One of America’s Most Brilliant Military Leaders
https://www.history.com/news/ulysses-s-grant-civil-war-general-strengths


What he lacked in knowledge of military art and science, he made up for with tenacity and grit.

Elizabeth D. Samet


In March 1864, Ulysses S. Grant went to Washington, D.C., to receive his commission from Abraham Lincoln as lieutenant general in command of all the Union armies. After several years of frustration with a parade of unsuitable commanders, the president had finally found the man who would defeat Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia and thus effectively end the Civil War. The choice was surprising to many who had known Grant in former days. Ten years before, in April 1854, Captain Grant had submitted his resignation under a cloud.

In one of history’s unexpected developments, the military profession Grant “had always disliked,” in the words of his biographer Bruce Catton, ultimately “turned out to be the calling made for him.” How did an ambivalent soldier who had been away from the army for several years—and who had drifted during that interval from one civilian occupation to another in search of elusive success—end up leading a vast force to victory and saving the Union?

Grant’s predecessors in command of the Union Army were far more accomplished in military art and science. Winfield Scott, whose experience dated back to the War of 1812, had led the army since 1841. George B. McClellan, who replaced the aging Scott early in the Civil War, was an able administrator who organized the Army of the Potomac. In the 1850s, McClellan had studied the Crimean War at first hand as a member of an official delegation of American observers. Henry W. Halleck, the author of Elements of Military Art & Science, was regarded as a master theoretician.


Yet McClellan and Halleck both proved reluctant to take decisive action in the field. After the Battle of Shiloh, it took the latter almost a month to advance 20 miles south to attack the vital Confederate railroad junction at Corinth, Mississippi. Lincoln grew so frustrated with McClellan’s inaction that he responded to the general’s October 1862 request for more horses with an exasperated telegram: “I have just read your despatch about sore tongued and fatiegued [sic] horses. Will you pardon me for asking what the horses of your army have done since the battle of Antietam that fatigue anything?”

By contrast, Grant had never been an enthusiastic student of military art and science. Even his fiercely loyal lieutenant William T. Sherman doubted Grant’s “knowledge of grand strategy, and of books of science and history.” He told his friend precisely that in a March 1864 letter, in which he also concluded that Grant’s triumph owed in large measure to his fundamental “common-sense” and to his “chief characteristic,” an unshakeable “faith” in victory. That faith was justified by a serendipitous combination of qualities that enabled Grant to become one of the most extraordinary military leaders in American history.


He didn’t let up.

Grant didn’t go in much for doctrine, but he brought a relentlessly aggressive approach to warfare. He always favored activity and forward movement to standing still. Even in victory, he would be frustrated by subordinates’ failure to pursue the retreating enemy.


In his memoirs, he records an incident that reveals his philosophy. In 1863, Union General William Rosecrans refused an order to advance to meet an enemy force while Grant was laying siege to Vicksburg, the key to controlling the Mississippi River, because Rosecrans claimed that doing so would violate the “military maxim ‘not to fight two decisive battles at the same time.’” Grant was singularly unimpressed: “If true,” he observes, “the maxim was not applicable in this case. It would be bad to be defeated in two decisive battles fought the same day, but it would not be bad to win them.”

When, in the summer of 1864, Grant informed the cautious Halleck, back in Washington, of his refusal to disengage Lee and withdraw troops to quell draft resistance in the North, Lincoln responded in language that encapsulated Grant’s tenacious approach: “I have seen your despatch expressing your unwillingness to break your hold where you are. Neither am I willing. Hold on with a bull-dog gripe [sic], and chew & choke, as much as possible.”


He was fearless.

Sherman told his fellow officer James Harrison Wilson, “I am a damned sight smarter man than Grant; I know a great deal more about war, military history, strategy, and grand tactics than he does; I know more about organization, supply, and administration and about everything else than he does; but I’ll tell you where he beats me and where he beats the world. He don’t care a damn for what the enemy does out of his sight, but it scares me like hell!”

Grant’s refusal to be paralyzed by imagining what the enemy was doing owed to an epiphany early in the war when he was leading a regiment for the first time, in pursuit of Confederate Colonel Thomas Harris in Missouri. “As we approached the brow of the hill from which it was expected we could see Harris’ camp, and possibly find his men ready formed to meet us, my heart kept getting higher and higher until it felt to me as though it was in my throat,” Grant recalls in his memoirs. But when he had the good fortune to find the camp abandoned, Grant’s “heart resumed its place.” He learned the vital lesson that his adversary “had been as much afraid of me as I had been of him... From that event to the close of the war, I never experienced trepidation upon confronting an enemy, though I always felt more or less anxiety.”


He brushed off setbacks.

In April 1862, during the bloody two-day Battle of Shiloh, Grant did not share his colleagues’ bleak view. Sherman was demoralized by the first day’s fighting, while Don Carlos Buell, who arrived with reinforcements in the midst of the battle, advised retreat. Grant refused: “The distant rear of an army engaged in battle is not the best place from which to judge correctly what is going on in front,” he asserts in his memoirs. By the next day, he continues, “we had now become the attacking party. The enemy was driven back all day, as we had been the day before, until finally he beat a precipitate retreat.” In May 1864, after fighting to a costly stalemate in his first battle with Robert E. Lee, at the Wilderness, in Virginia, Grant surprised and delighted the Union Army of the Potomac by not retreating, as they had done so many times before under different commanders. “Most of us thought…that the next day we should recross the river,” a captain in a Massachusetts regiment remembered, “but when the order came, ‘By the left flank, march!’ we found that Grant was not made that way, and we must continue the fight.” Sherman likewise celebrated Grant’s decision: “When Grant cried ‘Forward!’ after the battle of the Wilderness, I said: ‘This is the grandest act of his life; now I feel that the rebellion will be crushed.’ I wrote him, saying it was a bold order to give, and...it showed the mettle of which he was made.”


He believed in success—but didn’t romanticize the means to achieving it.

What Sherman called Grant’s “simple faith in success” proved infectious. His confidence and determination made others believe in themselves as well: “when you have completed your best preparations, you go into battle without hesitation...no doubts, no reserve,” Sherman wrote to Grant. “I tell you that it was this that made us act with confidence. I knew wherever I was that you thought of me, and if I got in a tight place you would come—if alive.”

But Grant was no mystic, nor was he reckless. His confidence was rooted in an unswerving sense of purpose, an unflappable nature, an ability to delegate responsibility as opposed to micromanaging, and knowledge gained by cool and careful observation over the years. In the Mexican War, he studied two commanders in action: Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor, whose nicknames—“Old Fuss and Feathers” and “Old Rough and Ready”—encapsulate their antithetical styles. From Taylor, who always “put his meaning so plainly there could be no mistaking it,” Grant learned the importance of clear and direct communication.

It was in Mexico, while serving as regimental quartermaster and involving himself in as many battles as he could, that Grant had learned the decidedly unromantic aspects of war: the ingenuity required to feed and supply an army, the hazards of poor camp sanitation, the value of different kinds of expertise and the unequivocal brutality of combat. In the last year of the Civil War, as casualties mounted and the horrors of trench warfare accumulated in the Battles of Cold Harbor and Petersburg, Grant remained fixed in his purpose to destroy Lee’s army.


He synthesized information quickly.

In addition to being a gifted writer, Grant was an expert listener—“at his best,” one staff officer suggested, in “sudden emergencies.” Faced with a new situation, as he was on arriving in the besieged city of Chattanooga in late 1863, Grant sat “as silent as the sphinx” while officers delivered their reports, according to an eyewitness. Then, after firing “whole volleys of questions,” he proceeded to write out a series of dispatches. The biographer William McFeely explains the significance of this episode: Grant’s “orders and telegrams...demonstrated a grasp of the whole of the Western Theater of the war. From the disjointed reports he had been given, he put together a coherent picture of the terrain of an area new to him, and of the vast confused array of men who contended for it.”


He had a gift for seeing the 'lay of the land.'

Grant’s memory for terrain was photographic. One staff officer observed that after one hard look at a map, “he could follow its features without referring to it again. Besides, he possessed an almost intuitive knowledge of topography, and never became confused as to the points of the compass.” This gift was complemented by superb horsemanship, which allowed Grant to see for himself as much of the battlefield as possible.

In the Eastern Theater, which he studied for only eight weeks, Grant revealed a thorough grasp of the strategic situation. He decided to leave executive command of the Army of the Potomac to George G. Meade in order to give himself time to manage an extensive area of operations stretching from New England to New Mexico, from Minnesota to Mississippi. “Wherever Lee goes,” he ordered Meade, “there you will go also.” Keeping Lee’s army engaged, Grant unleashed Philip Sheridan’s cavalry on the Shenandoah Valley, the breadbasket of the Confederacy, and freed Sherman to march through the South destroying railroads, supplies—and morale.


He never lost sight of the bigger picture.

Yet none of this would have been possible had Grant not also comprehended the war’s larger political context and harmonized his efforts on the battlefield with the aims of the Lincoln administration. As the latter enlarged from preservation of the Union to the freeing of enslaved persons in the Confederacy with the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, Grant’s policies and vision likewise evolved. His way of prosecuting the war and securing the peace revealed a sure understanding of the war’s political stakes—and of the fact that the South’s best hope of victory was to sap the political will of the North by prolonging the war.

For Grant, who as a young man had fought in the Mexican War, a conflict in which he did not believe, the Civil War was a war of principle. At the conclusion of his memoirs, he sums it up with his customary lucidity when he describes the Confederate cause as “one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.”


Elizabeth D. Samet is the editor of The Annotated Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant. Her books include No Man’s Land: Preparing for War and Peace in Post-9/11 America. She is professor of English at West Point. This essay does not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.

[corsair91]

Miniseries offers deep dive into misconceptions and complexities of Ulysses S. Grant

Claire Barrett

https://www.militarytimes.com/off-duty/military-culture/2020/05/22/miniseries-offers-deep-dive-into-misconceptions-and-complexities-of-ulysses-s-grant/


Butcher. Alcoholic. Anti-Semite. For more than a century the misconceptions and tainted legacy of Ulysses S. Grant centered either on that of a tactician inferior to Gen. Robert E. Lee or a rube politician presiding over a presidency plagued by scandal.

But in recent years, historians — in particular Pulitzer Prize-winning author and eminent Grant biographer, Ron Chernow — have challenged that one-dimensional narrative.

Now, an upcoming three-night miniseries from the History Channel, aptly titled “Grant,” seeks to delve into the general’s myriad complexities and chronicle the full breadth of the “life of one of the most complex and underappreciated generals and presidents in U.S. history.”

The six-hour miniseries, executively produced by Leonardo DiCaprio and Chernow, premieres this Memorial Day, May 25.

“We come from a nation of citizen soldiers and that differentiates us from other nations in certain ways,” Garry Adelman, a Grant expert featured in the miniseries and chief historian of the American Battlefield Trust, told HistoryNet.

“On Memorial Day, if we are to recognize those who have fallen in military service on behalf of the United States, I can’t think of a better person to recognize than U.S. Grant, who helped these citizen and professional soldiers to victory to achieve what America is today — with all of its bumps and flaws.”

Among the many falsehoods at which the miniseries takes aim is Grant’s label of “drunkard,” which so permeated his life and career that it remains one of the more persistent myths.

“Grant clearly had a drinking problem,” Adelman remarked, but “people have a way of treating drinking like they treat most things in history: Somebody did something once. Therefore, he or she must have been doing it all of the time.”

President Abraham Lincoln was aware of Grant’s imbibing tendencies, but famously defended his general by declaring, “He fights!” In 1863, when someone in Lincoln’s vicinity commented about Grant’s drinking, the president reportedly asked what brand of whisky Grant preferred so he could have barrels of it sent to all the other Union commanders.

The myths of Grant’s alcohol consumption and his soaring body counts as a military strategist are largely entwined. However, if Lee is heralded as a master tactician, then it must be acknowledged that Grant surpassed him in grand strategy. It was his military genius that defeated the Confederacy.

“To paraphrase Lee, ‘that man Grant will fight us every day. And if he reaches the James River, it’s just a matter of time,’” Adelman recounted. “[Lee] had figured Grant out, but there was nothing he could really do about it.”

“He has been derided as a plodding, dim-witted commander who enjoyed superior manpower and matérial and whose crude idea of strategy was to launch large, brutal assaults upon the enemy” with little care for his men, writes Chernow.

But the bloody fighting took its toll on the general. Grant once remarked that war was “at all times a sad and cruel business. I hate war with all my heart, and nothing but imperative duty could induce me to engage in its work or witness its horrors.”

There was little romanticizing of the brutal task at hand, and although Grant never shrank from sending men into battle the analysis of being a “butcher” of men remains flawed and shortsighted.

In fact, a careful reexamination of casualty percentages in Grant’s armies have confirmed that his battle losses were often lower than that of his Confederate counterparts.

Grant’s presidency, meanwhile, only further shrouds his legacy, with many biographers “quickly skipping over his presidency as an embarrassing coda to wartime heroism,” Chernow writes.

President Grant dressed as a trapeze performer, holds up corrupt members of his administration in this political cartoon from Puck magazine, 1880. (Getty Images)

Undoubtedly naïve in business and politics, Grant was taken advantage of by two speculators, Jay Gould and James Fisk, who schemed to corner the market in gold.

Grant famously worked on his memoirs — almost up until his dying breath — just to try to recoup some of his losses from a pyramid scheme and provide for his family.

“During his presidency, there are people on the inside working against his agenda,” said Adelman. “That just didn’t happen with his close circle during the Civil War.”

The intrigant men surrounding Grant admittedly befuddled the scrupulously honest president, deceitful actions that largely eclipsed any of Grant’s notable presidential achievements.

As the General-in-Chief of the Army of the Potomac Grant helped to liberate more than four million slaves, an effort commended by famed abolitionist Frederick Douglass.

“May we not justly say…that the liberty which Mr. Lincoln declared with his pen General Grant made effectual with his sword — by his skill in leading the Union armies to final victory?” Douglass wrote.

And it was Grant who helped bridge the emergent wartime ideals of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments during the tumultuous post-war period of Reconstruction.

Grant championed the Fifteenth Amendment, giving blacks the right to vote, and presided over and signed into law the 1875 Civil Rights Act outlawing racial discrimination in public accommodations.

In 1870 he would oversee the creation of the Justice Department, whose first duty was to bring indictments against members of the Ku Klux Klan who had previously escaped prosecution.

While Grant’s presidential legacy and pursuit of justice is not without blemish, “he fought with the same passion to protect people that he did in a way to vanquish people during the Civil War,” Adelman said.


Watch the official trailer below.

Grant: Official Trailer | 3-Night Miniseries Event Premieres Memorial Day, May 25 at 9/8c | History
https://youtu.be/lhzBYakZZW0

runtime 2:07

HISTORY’s three-night miniseries event, “Grant,” will premiere over three consecutive nights beginning on Monday, May 25 at 9PM ET/PT on HISTORY. The television event will chronicle the life of one of the most complex and underappreciated generals and presidents in U.S. history – Ulysses S. Grant. “Grant,” tells the remarkable and quintessentially American story of a humble man who overcomes incredible obstacles, rises to the highest ranks of power and saves the nation not once, but twice. With a seamless blend of dramatic scenes, expert commentary and beautifully enhanced archival imagery, this series uncovers the true legacy of the unlikely hero who led the nation during its greatest test: The Civil War and Reconstruction – the herculean task to reconcile the North and the South. One of the most courageous and unexpected initiatives of Grant’s presidency was protecting the right to vote for the four million freed slaves in the face of violent and widespread resistance.

“Grant” features on-camera interviews with top experts in the field including Ron Chernow, retired United States Army General and former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director David Petraeus, acclaimed author and journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates, professor of English at West Point Elizabeth Samet and CEO of the American Civil War Museum in Richmond, VA Christy Coleman to name a few.



This article originally appeared on HistoryNet.

Observation Post articles reflect author observations or attempts at humor. Any resemblance to news may be purely coincidental.

About Claire Barrett

Claire Barrett is associate editor for Military History Quarterly and a World War II researcher with an unparalleled affinity for Sir Winston Churchill and Michigan football.

[Salty Dog]

Here is an analysis from David Ward, the Senior Historian of the Smithsonian Institute as to which General was better - Lee or Grant:


The question has intrigued historians and armchair strategists since the Civil War itself. Lee is usually accounted the superior commander. He scored outrageous victories against the Army of the Potomac up until Gettysburg 1863, fighting against superior numbers and better supplied troops. His victory at Chancellorsville, where he divided his army three times in the face of the enemy while being outnumbered three to one, is a master class in the use of speed and maneuver as a force multiplier. Lee also had the difficult task of implementing a strategy to win the war that required him to invade the northern states, which he did twice. He knew the South couldn’t just sit back and hold what it had: the North was too strong and some sort of early end to the war had to be found, probably a negotiated peace after a shock Union defeat in Pennsylvania or Maryland. Lee also benefits from the cult of the “Marble Man” that arose after the War. With the southern ideology of the “Lost Cause” Lee, the heroic, self-sacrificing soldier, was romanticized as the exemplar of southern civilization. As such, Lee increasingly was seen as blameless or beyond reproach, which caused his mistakes or errors on the battlefield.

Conversely, Grant’s military reputation suffers from his reputation as president, which historically is regarded as one of the worst administrations of all. Grant’s haplessness as president has redounded to color his performance during the War. Grant’s personal charisma was never as high as Lee’s anyway; and he has been dogged by questions about his drinking. But taken on its own terms, Grant was an exceptional general of both theater commands, as in his seige of Vicksburg, and in command of all the Union armies when he came east. There was nothing romantic about Grant’s battles: he committed to a plan and then followed it through with an almost uncanny stubborness. He saved the Battle of Shiloh after the Union line was shattered on the first day, reorganizing his forces and counterattacking. “Whip ‘em tomorrow, though” he remarked to Sherman at the end of an awful first day’s fighting; and he did. His seige of Vicksburg was a remarkable campaign of combined operations with the “brown water” navy. And he was implacable in the final year of the war when he engaged Lee continuously from the Battle of the Wilderness to Appomatox.

I think that Grant slightly shades Lee as a commander because in the last year of the War he managed all of the Union armies, including Sherman in the South and Sheridan in the Shenendoah Valley. Grant served in the field, supervising Meade, who was still commander of the Army of the Potomac, but he had his eye on the entirety of the Union campaign. Moreover, Grant recognize the new reality of warfare: that the firepower commanded by each side was making a battle of maneuver, like Chancellorsville, impossible. Lee didn’t think much of Grant as a general, saying that McClellan was the superior foe. On the other hand, Lee beat McClellan. He didn’t beat Grant.

[Salty Dog]

I really hope you all get a chance to watch the mini series. It is exceptional. Very well done, very entertaining!

[Salty Dog]

Excellent Interactive Map about Grant's battles:
[url]
https://www.history.com/shows/grant/interactives/ulysses-s-grant-battle-map[/url]

[Roland]

[Roland]

I see the problem now. The concluding tag is part of the URL. The same thing happened with your D.B. Cooper link.

[corsair91]

Grant Vs Lee Who Was The Better General?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTEbnj4v0U

Grant And Lee: A Study In Personality And Generalship By J.F.C Fuller

Here's a quick break down of the two personalities

Grant: common sense, logical, simple plans with incredible precise execution, the ability to bring a whole lot of moving pieces into focus, and finally the ability to think clearly under stress.

Lee: The ability to motivate his men to an incredible degree, an extremely kind man, very good at doling out troops to his commanders when in a defensive situation.

[corsair91]

Civil War Talk: Grant or Lee?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPIkqcJ1UtI

In this episode of Civil War Talk, I address the issue of Grant vs. Lee. Which general would I choose to lead my army? I'm still experiencing lighting and camera issues, but I've been trying to get this video shot and posted for weeks, so I've just decided to get it posted and move on to the next.





Ron Chernow on Ulysses S. Grant with General (Ret.) David H. Petraeus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jeNRrNf7Us

Ron Chernow on Ulysses S. Grant with General (Ret.) David H. Petraeus. A conversation with Pulitzer Prize winner and biographer of Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and John D. Rockefeller, about the subject of his new book: Ulysses S. Grant, one of our most compelling generals and presidents. Recorded Nov 10, 2017 at 92nd Street Y.




Talks at GS – Ron Chernow: Lessons in Leadership – The Unlikely Rise of Ulysses S. Grant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnVPLtx6sJs

Lloyd Blankfein, chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, sits down with the Pulitzer-Prize winning historian Ron Chernow to discuss his best-selling biography of former President Ulysses S. Grant. Chernow, whose previous work inspired the hit Broadway musical Hamilton, tells Blankfein why he chose to write about Grant and why Grant’s successes as a Civil War general and two-term president should give hope to any “late bloomers” in life. Finally, they talk about how Grant’s legacy impacts current events, particularly around race relations in the United States.



Ron Chernow's "Grant"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JCDwh_krQ4

Ron Chernow, the Pulitzer Prize winning author of “Washington: A Life” and “Alexander Hamilton,” sets his literary sites on Ulysses S. Grant. His latest book “Grant,” paints a portrait of one of America’s most compelling generals and presidents. Chernow joins us to expound on his book and the widely misunderstood 18th president.




This author is challenging what we know about Ulysses Grant and the Civil War

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlIZHWcd4zM

Ulysses S. Grant led the Union’s victory in the civil war before serving two terms as president. Was he a brutal general and incompetent president -- or a brilliant strategist who should be praised for his foresight? Ron Chernow, who authored the book that inspired the musical “Hamilton,” talks to correspondent Jeffrey Brown about taking on that complicated legacy in his new book, “Grant.”

[corsair91]

Civil War Biography: General Ulysses S Grant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnwwXTnKBrg

Ulysses Simpson Grant (born Hiram Ulysses Grant; April 27, 1822 – July 23, 1885) was an American soldier and statesman who served as Commanding General of the Army and President of the United States, the highest positions in the military and the government of the United States. A prominent United States Army general during the American Civil War, Grant led the Union Army to victory over the Confederacy with the supervision of Abraham Lincoln. As the 18th President of the United States (1869–77) Grant led the Republicans in their efforts to remove the vestiges of Confederate nationalism and slavery during Reconstruction.



Exploring Ulysses S. Grant and The Civil War with Bill Boggs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH2GqhtDFs0

Ulysses S. Grant (born Hiram Ulysses Grant; April 27, 1822 – July 23, 1885) was the 18th President of the United States (1869–77). As Commanding General of the United States Army (1864–69), Grant worked closely with President Abraham Lincoln to lead the Union Army to victory over the Confederacy in the American Civil War. He implemented Congressional Reconstruction, often at odds with Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson. Twice elected president, Grant led the Republicans in their effort to remove the vestiges of Confederate nationalism and slavery, protect African-American citizenship, and support economic prosperity nationwide. His presidency has often come under criticism for protecting corrupt associates and in his second term leading the nation into a severe economic depression.
. - Wikipedia



Ulysses S. Grant: The Man Who Saved the Union

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldLMw-SFE6E

Ulysses Grant rose from obscurity to discover he had a genius for battle, and he propelled the Union to victory in the Civil War. After Abraham Lincoln’s assassination and the disastrous brief presidency of Andrew Johnson, America turned to Grant again to unite the country, this time as president.




Understanding the Lost Cause Myth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EOhXF5lNgQ

The Lost Cause Myth has changed American history. Though it is a hateful ideology today, to ignore it is to give it power. We must understand the myth in order to defeat it.




Confederate "General" Julius Howell Recalls the 1860s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHDfC-z9YaE

Julius Howell enlisted at 16 to fight for the Confederacy in 1862. In this 1947 recording in DC, Howell at age 101, recalls his Civil War exploits as a cavalryman at Petersburg and Richmond and his memory of the assassination of President Lincoln from a Union POW camp. The title of general is in ironic quotes because his was an honorary moniker bestowed on him years later by a Confederacy society.




Abraham Lincoln delivers the Gettysburg Address on its Anniversary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQnNbuJ81sY&list=RDCMUCcVnq0_u0RRIFUIndbS3rng&index=15

At midnight on the morning of November 19, 2013, Abraham Lincoln emerged from the White House in the plaza of the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Museum to become the first person to deliver the Address on the 150th Anniversary.

Abraham Lincoln is portrayed by Fritz Klein.

[corsair91]

Shiloh: Animated Battle Map
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlhlk3bp-f4

We at the American Battlefield Trust are re-releasing our Animated Battle Maps with newly branded openings. Enjoy learning about the Battle of Shiloh, a colossal fight between Ulysses S. Grant and Albert Sydney Johnston which resulted in the door to the South being opened for the Union Army.




Vicksburg: Animated Battle Map
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eSgimZ8GKQ

We at the American Battlefield Trust are re-releasing our Animated Battle Maps with newly branded openings. Learn about the 48 day siege during the summer of 1863 that gave the Union Army, commanded by Ulysses S. Grant, control of the Mississippi River - thus cutting the Confederate supply line to the South.




Crossroads of Destiny: The Battle of the Wilderness
In the forbidding countryside of Virginia’s Wilderness, Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee stumbled blindly toward their first wartime encounter.

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2016/06/10/crossroads-of-destiny/




The Overland Campaign: Animated Battle Map
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxJTfwQjixE

Experience Union General Ulysses S. Grant’s campaign to capture the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia during the summer of 1864.




North Anna: Richmond Animated Battle Map
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3qktW2h0oA&list=PLZrhqv_T1O1sdxRNm5SNc6cGSWr7xiWZs&index=21

The Battle of North Anna raged on from May 23-26, 1864 as Ulysses S. Grant continued his Overland Campaign vs. Robert E. Lee’s Confederates. The battle consisted of bloody fighting for both sides as well as stalemates among armies entrenched in earthworks. The inconclusive battle ended as Grant moved his forces southeast towards Cold Harbor.




Cold Harbor: Richmond Animated Battle Map
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj103Ctdk2M&list=PLZrhqv_T1O1sdxRNm5SNc6cGSWr7xiWZs&index=22

The Battle of Cold Harbor marked the end of the Overland Campaign as Ulysses S. Grant launched numerous assaults against Confederate lines protecting Richmond under Robert E. Lee. The battle saw its heaviest fighting on June 3, 1864. Cold Harbor became one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War and forced Grant to move his forces south to Petersburg for a long siege.




Fort Harrison (New Market Heights): Richmond Animated Battle Map
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTbL9Lp7cbU&list=PLZrhqv_T1O1sdxRNm5SNc6cGSWr7xiWZs&index=23

The Battle of Fort Harrison (Chaffin’s Farm and New Market Heights) saw Union forces move back north towards Richmond during Ulysses S. Grant’s Siege of Petersburg. On September 29-30, 1864, USCT forces under Benjamin Butler took Fort Harrison from the Confederates and anchored a new and permanent Union line outside of Richmond.




The Civil War: Animated Battle Map playlist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LObskCXyHK0&list=PLZrhqv_T1O1sdxRNm5SNc6cGSWr7xiWZs

[corsair91]

The Civil War Battle Series: Vicksburg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyTVOPTTa6k

Dr. Mark DePue discusses the siege of Vicksburg in this continuing series on battles of the American Civil War.



The Civil War Battle Series: From Wilderness to Cold Harbor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr7CCG8488M

Dr. Mark DePue discusses the Civil War Battles from the Wilderness to Cold Harbor - including Spotsylvania - using maps, illustrations and the words of the men who fought there.



The Civil War Battle Series: The Road to Appomattox
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX40yEWb07Y&list=RDCMUCcVnq0_u0RRIFUIndbS3rng&index=5

Dr. Mark DePue discusses the end of the American Civil War and the final battles. Christian McWhirter joins Mark to discuss music of the Civil War and Mark Flotow joins to discuss letters and poetry of the War. Special guest appearance by The Four Sopranos.