This is pretty ahistorical. Grant was not widely called a “butcher” until he took command of the Army of the Potomac (and engaged Lee in a war of attrition). Also, Grant had numerous victories in the west, and Lincoln was fully aware that he was an aggressive general who won battles.
from my readings, a conversation like this is pure Hollywood, Grant was no self promoter , and accepted position only as it came to him, these strategies to zap strength from the South developed over a course of time, finding out what was successful in fighting the South. at this time, Grant was committed only to using all armies and troops available, and fighting a broad front war to engage the southern armies in all locations at once. A read of Gen Grants auto-biography is a must before watching these shows.
Lincoln immediately warmed up to Grant, both of them being Midwesterner's from Illinois. An aide saw Lincoln stretched out on a couch one afternoon after Grant took command. Having never seen Lincoln do this, the aide was concerned. Lincoln replied that he finally felt the weight of military matters had been lifted from his shoulders as he had complete confidence in Grant and wouldn't interfere anymore.
Grant was from Ohio and Lincoln was technically born in Kentucky and grew up in Illinois, but yes, both were mid westerners. Midwesterners were tough as nails. There is no comparison to the Union Army in the East to the one in the West. Even the Confederate Army, the soldiers in the West were shot to pieces, but kept coming back and fighting despite their crappy commanders.
“What Grant had, and what almost any great general needs, was a deep, natural, and impossible-to-quantify instinct for war.” 💀 -from “How To Fight Presidents”, by Daniel O’Brien
Grant could have executed thousands of confederate soldiers yet he gave them safe passage telling them to go home to their wives and children and work on their farm without any consequences because he know that after the war ended it was time for uniting the North and the South, and he understood how much that would benefit the country. He truly was a great man
And Grant was no glory hound. When the press insisted on an interview in the field, he let Burnside, a tall, spit and polish general be Grant. The press got their crowded interview, with the real Grant hovering around the crowd, listening. Amusing, from his memoirs.
Grant rose from literally nothing, from selling firewood in the Nowhere of the West to the Commander of all Union Armies. In 1861 he had scarcely any friends at all - certainly none in high places, he had no money and he had no reputation for anything except being a drunk. So how could he have risen so high if he were incompetent? Or a butcher? Or an unpleasant fellow? Let alone all those things at once...
Grant was a graduate of West Point where he excelled in math, 3rd in his class. He was the best equestrian ever to graduate from that college. He was in the Mexican War, where he excelled, with three high commendations. He was totally cool in battle. He saw his best friend from the Point , Robert Hazlitt, suffer an horrific and mortal wound while they were on horseback together. Gen. James Longstreet, who was Grant's best man when he married Julia Dent in St. Louis in 1848, was Lee's top Line Officer. One of Lee's greatest fears was that Grant would hang him for treason. Longstreet told him not to worry, Grant would never do such a thing. Afterwards, Grant said that after the signing he felt only depression, not elation, for seeing an enemy who had fought for so long and so valiantly have such an ignominious end. The terms he gave were from a tender heart. When he came out onto the porch with Lee, the Union troops started to celebrate, singing, rejoicing, firing. He told them to stop. "They are our brothers again." He left this last good deed of his out of his military memoirs.
History shows Grant was a better leader, a better general and perhaps even a better man than Lee. While Grant did everything he could to reunite the country Lee pushed the view that the Confederacy was in the right even if they lost the war. Lee created the false line that the loss was outside of his powers. Lee refused to say that the south was wrong, he promoted the southern culture that gave us Jim Crow laws. Someday history will catch up to Grant and Lee. The people will know who was the better man.
As we are about to celebrate the Fourth of July, I would like to thank so many of you who have shared your great knowledge of Gen/President Grant. Or for appreciating him. As in life, there will always have those around us who tend to be too cynical, but that's OK. I want to share with you a quote from President Reagan which must jar our thoughts about our country . They are profound. " Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same." Thank you, all of you warriors from the Battle of Bunker Hill who have slaked the thirst for freedom. We are losing our freedom today. Be part of the solution....
First off. Grant was a butcher. But only in the sense that he made a lot of tactical mistakes that cost many union soldier's lives when it didn't have to. Grant carried the guilt of those mistakes his entire life. Many Northern sonless mothers called Grant a butcher and he accepted that guilt as legitimate. Second, regardless of his civil rights record, in the White House he had one of the most corrupt administrations in American history. Party affiliation was worthless as he was a complete and total tool of Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall. His term as President was only remarkable in it's corruption and drunkenness.. Third, You are no less free today than you were under Obama and Bush before him. Nothing can get through Congress and the President isn't a king. It is hyperbolic claims like that, that people are somehow "less free" under a Republicans that are causing so much strife in our nation and could lead to more bloodshed.
@@patrickturner6878 Sir, you are almost totally ignorant of Grant , both in his private life, his actions during the Civil War, and as president.His childhood was immensely important. He refused to read a biography or autob., unless it also told the story of the childhood of the person. Grant, for example, was a strong believer that Slavery was a "stain in the Union", and a Republican. The Republican was founded to abolish slavery. Tammy Hall was Democrat. A grandfather, whom i never knew was an engineer who was part of the great team which brought water down from the Catskill Mtns. down to NYC. He died of a staph infection at the age of 39. He was very involved in politics, trying to take down the graft machine of Tammany Hall. Please, sir, do yourself a favor and find the real Grant . You will be amazed at his intelligence and integrity. He was one of our greatest generals; Dwight David Eisenhower Commander of all Allied troops in Europe, and he should know, said that Grant was our greatest generals. He achieved at least 20 wonderful entities during his tenure as president. And, by the way, he never ran for president. You are, sad to say, totally ignorant about this. Grant won his first two victories with speed, and ordered "unconditional surrender" Grant. There were banner headlines all over the newspapers about those two battles. The Cincinnati newspapers blasted him on the front page of same when he lost a battle for a first time. They yelled "Lincoln's Butcher." It was totally false, but unfortunately was used. Had he been discovered by Lincoln only in March, 1864. Had his integrity and brilliance been known sooner, I believe that the Civil War would ended long before 4/65. And no, he was not an alcoholic.
According some confederate politicians war if won in time they would of rejoin union if they got there rights back and voice in Congress. Jefferson Davis said him self he was hoping rejoin the union and didn't hate his brothers from the north.
Nobody was calling Grant a butcher in March of 1864. The Vicksburg campaign was the strategic masterpiece of the war and Grant was commissioned Major General in the regular army for it, not something that happens to a butcher. Beginning in May of that year, Grant earned the butcher sobriquet during the 30 days of the Overland campaign in which Grant lost 60,000 troops in continuous combat.
General Grant knew his exact lineage on his father's side. Priscilla and Matthew Grant sailed on the " John and Mary" into the Plymouth Bay Colony. They might well have been Puritans. Matthew Grant became a surveyor in the area of what is now Windsor, CT. Many writings of the time said he was more than honest and well-admired. However, when I started looking into this I discovered something quite fascinating. The Grants originally came from Scotland. They were well-known to be warriors !
General Grant won some important victories at Forts Henry and Donelson. Grant worked closely Admiral Foot. The War Department had constructed gunboats for riverine operations. The resulting battle of Shiloh was in many ways a major Union logistical triumph moving 40,000 plus soldiers on a 170 some odd transports with gunboat support. Grant adopted quickly to using riverboats and railroads to supply or transport his troops. The Battle of Shiloh quickly showed Grant for being a tenacious fighter. Despite being taken by surprise, Grant organized his defenses, concentrated all his forces for a counterattack the next day driving the Confederates from the field the next day. Grant was always thinking about hitting the enemy back as hard as he could the next time giving them no quarter. We saw this in Vicksburg, Chattanooga and Lookout Mountain and in Grant's Overland campaign. Grant was a little like a 19th century Rocky Marciano. Rocky Marciano hit his opponents always coming forward throwing punch after hard punch always advancing carefully but ruthlessly battering often better opponents to defeat. Grant was much the same way never quitting until the enemy was beaten.
The distinctive character of Grant's generalcy was that, if experiencing a setback one day, he did not retreat, but came back the next day to win. Shelby Foote said that, the first time they met, Lee beat Grant worse than he beat any other Union general. McClellan withdrew with his tail between his legs, but Grant stayed on the battlefield to continue the fight. After one of these 'defeats', Lincoln, looking at the casualty reports for both sides, said that if we lost a battle like this every day for a week, we would have won the war.
Grant was no butcher, although he was also very aggressive and didn't see losses as an impediment to victory. He was arguably the least conservative commanding general in the Union
I could not help but think of Vietnam a hundred years later and Korea a short time before that. From the US standpoint, these wars were not fought with generals, but with politicians and victory was never achieved. When we place soldiers in harms way, we should fight to win. If we can't do that we should not make war in first place.
I love how malevolent they portray Grant. A heartless Yankee dead set on wiping the South off the map, no matter the man cost. But what can you expect from a movie that portrays *Southern cadets* as anti-slavery.
They portrayed him like that because that's exactly how he was. He believed in total absolute war because that was the fastest way to end it. The same way some people thought Curtis Lemay was a monster. The more terrible you can make war the faster it will be over. He agreed with the dropping of the atomic bombs for that reason it would end the war and avoid having to invade Japan. And just like most people that believe what they were fed instead of actually teaching yourself you think all southerners were racist slaveholders. Less than 5% of southerners owned any slaves at all according to the 1860 Census that's one of those things you'll never learn about it in a classroom
+TJS974 The problem is they _way_ he says them. He says the lines with such an air of malevolence, and near sociopathy, as to make him look monstrous. Rather than a man with morals who also knew the tough decisions he had to make to end the war, he is monotone and quasi-villainous, which I believe is just how the film makers wanted it. Also, no one, with any merit, teaches that "all southerners were racist slave owners." That argument, I've found, is usually a straw man put up by Confederate apologists in an attempt to sway the conversation. What the 5-6% slave owning statistic doesn't show you is the fact that only men (except in extraneous circumstances) could own slaves, and thus were only counted as "slave owners." If you factor in the number of _households_ that owned slaves, thus counting the women, children, and other family members that profited from it, the number jumps up to 30%. But even if the total number was still 5-6%, that doesn't change the fact that southern "culture" was largely based around slavery, and most of the rhetoric leading up to the war was centered around keeping it. Even if a poor white didn't own a slave, it was still a goal to get one and they could at least know that, no matter how bad it got, they were at least higher up on the totem than blacks. This isn't to say that every single southerner fought directly for slavery, as most of the grunts' causes were personal, but the ultimate cause they were fighting for was one that would uphold slavery.
To be fair, towards the end of the war, the Union took to the strategy of "END the war ASAP" as it had dragged on for 5 years. Which meant more and more violent tactics, which possibly ended up saving more lives in the long run (much like the US and Hiroshima.... end the war at all costs).
+Nick Sambides Jr. Yes, I see that, but there is no nuance to the portrayal, in my opinion. We must also be cognizant of the wider context of the movie it is in. The movie is clearly one of Confederate apologetics, trying to sugarcoat and idolize the South with such lines as "we shouldn't be fightin' to keep other people in chains," a preposterous thing to hear a Southern cadet say. Or a Union soldier, upon realizing that it was young cadets they were fighting eagerly say, "kill em'!" to show his ruthlessness. I have no problems with a film that tries to portray the southern side of the war, but I wish people would be honest about it rather than try to drag the other side down. This is why Gettysburg remains one of, if not THE best Civil War movie to date. Very evenhanded.
DearTomas, Tragic to say, but many who are wrong win the wars. Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, etc. They all won. Pretending to be capitalists, the Communists are still going strong. I think that Mikael Gorbachov is responsible for the giddy taste of freedom Russia experienced but, alas, for only a short time. They have reintroduced their indoctrination camps, and Putin rules with an iron fist. China is going at full speed spreading its power, and I mention Panama for one.Were these two evil powers to unite as an axis, I truly fear for our beloved country. Anyone have any thoughts on this ?
Leonardo's Truth They were heroes who did what was required. They saved the union and ended the vile, contemptible atrocity of slavery. Their names should be celebrated by all people of conscience for all time
He remarked "War Is Hell" in 1879 or 1880. By then the (First) Civil War has been over for 15 years. He also served as General of the Army from 1869-1883, managing and conducting the Indian Wars.
Roswell Crash Survivor what he wrote, during the war, was to the mayor of Atlanta. He said ”war IS cruelty and you can not refine it. " And that the only mercy in war is to prosecute it with such fury as to end it as soon as possible and prevent those who started it from ever entertaining another.
The army was already full of "School boys", by 1864.....15,16,17 year olds. Some had become "old men", already. Hell, the first shots of the war were fired by "School boys"......Cadets from The Citadel, in Charleston. In fact, those same Charleston "School boys" defeated a Union Army and Marines at Tulifanny Creek in Dec 1864.
Even with the sparatic victories the "school boys" had, it's clear that fighting a war where you have to fight using child soldiers as your army's backbone shows you're on the wrong side and you were never going to win, Confederacy fought for the wrong cause and was foolish, wrong and cocky to think they could win so easily.
@@ulyssgrant3178 that's right Lincoln proved he can do anything like ending slavery n the Civil war. But in a way the South shouldn't blame the Union or the president for the war in which they started by firing on Fort Sumner.
@@darkprinzedarthvarder I think you have an excellent case for what you say. SC vis-a-vis slavery had been a thorn in the side of our founding fathers when they issued the Declaration of Independence and the drafting of the Constitution. Many of the signers realized the issue of slavery was not going to go away on its own, and the fistfights on the floor of the House of Rep. as more new states were being formed were quite inevitable.
There should be a movie about The Citadel Cadets firing on the Star of the West,off Morris Island, SC on 9 January 1861.....and the Januray 1864 Battle of Tullifany, SC, where the Citadel Cadets defeated a unit of US Marines. The Citadel carries 8 Battle Streamers on its Colors, from the Civil War. I am an 1984 Alumnus.
The Citadel is in Charleston, seat of government of South Carolina. Those Students of war were capable of reading momentous declarations issued by that government. It passed the Ordinance of Secession was on December 20, 1860 and the Declaration of Causes on December 24, 1860. The firing on the Star of the West was less than 4 weeks after. Lincoln called for volunteers 3 months later on April 16, 1861. A free people have a right to alter and abolish their government when it becomes destructive to the proper ends of government. Rights come with responsibilities and this right comes with the weight of deciding if the cause of taking up arms is Just. Those students of war in Charleston were fully capable of reading the Declaration of Causes. They exercised their free will in firing on the fort. They bear moral responsibility, right or wrong. You *should* be proud of the heritage of your university. That pride should come with a willingness to look honestly and unflinchingly at the history of its actions and reasons. As Orson Scott Card says, to be a Speaker for the Dead. Here is that Declaration of Causes: www.atlantahistorycenter.com/assets/documents/SCarolina-Secession-p1-13.pdf
Grant was a decent battlefield general who used scorched earth tactics in the Shenandoah valley along with Sherman burning Atlanta with his march to the sea. Grant never used any real original battlefield tactics but he understood attrition was necessary along with constant pressure on the Confederacy. Grant understood logistics but he also was able to deal well with adversity. I think Grant's best battle was Shiloh where although he was surprised on the first day, he rallied his soldiers, used his available artillery and river gunboats to stop the Confederate attack. Grant concentrated all his available forces, reorganized the stragglers into new makeshift regiments, then struck back hard at the Confederates on the second day forcing them back. How a general deals with unforseen adversity and surprise enemy attacks is the ultimate test of any leader. Grant did NOT quit or give up at Shiloh but rallied his forces, organized a defense, and stopped his enemy. The next day he counterattacked driving the Confederates from the field inflicting heavy losses upon the enemy despite his own heavy losses. Shiloh was the bloody model for every remaining large scale Civil War battle until Appomattax. The difference was when the struggle grew desperate with prolonged slaughter, Grant rallied and concentrated his forces for the next attack. Grant never let go of his enemy until he ground him up after repeated bloody attacks, flanking maneuvers, and more bloody attacks. The railroad ensured that armies could be concentrated and maintained in the field through constant resupply and reinforcements of men. The defender had a big advantage over the attacker in the Civil War. The attacker had to have at least a three to one manpower advantage over the defender to ensure success. The attacker also had to have superiority in cannons in order to blast the defender out of his entrenchments or to soften up the defender prior to an infantry assault. Massed produced smoothbore cannon allowed for double canister to be fired on advancing enemy infantry columns decimating them at close range under 400 meters. Other artillery shells loaded with timed fuses and musket balls were used for longer ranges. Solid shot was used against fortifications and entrenchments. These smoothbore cannon were ubiquitous on both sides but the North usually had more artillery with plentiful ammunition and powder. The Minie ball rifled musket allowed for a skilled soldier to shoot a mansized target at 500 meters. However, an average soldier could consistently shoot down another enemy soldier at 300 meters then reload two or three shots per minute thereafter. The percussion cap allowed for consistent faster firing of rifled muskets too even in wet conditions. These longer ranges with consistent rate of accurate firing made the Civil War rifle an unparallelled killing machine. The smoothbore muskets used in Napoleonic times had a range of about 50 meters. The use of rifled artillery also was becoming common place but the 12 pounder Napoleon smoothbore cannon made of brass was the ultimare killing machine in the Civil War. We have to think about the industrial process of mass produced high quality weapons, consistent resupply and reinforcement allowed by the railroad to understand the terrible casualties of the Civil War. The 30,000 miles of railroad ensured higher concentrations of manpower, weapons, equipment, and horses in one area. This logistical supply ability with the railroad allowed for a steady stream of battles and endless skirmishing each week and month without let up. The railroad also allowed for battles on widespread theaters a thousand miles apart simultaneously too. The railroad system turned warfare in the industrial age into a gigantic highly lethal battle of attrition. So many historians need to read more about Herman Haupt the Union railroad general to understand why the Civil War was so bloody, so long, with so many large scale battles. The railroad explains everything the historian really needs to know about the Civil War and both World Wars. As long as the trains ran on time with adequate supplies, manpower, weapons to reinforce battlefield losses, industrial warfare was essentially a prolonged battle of attrition with death and maiming on an unprecedented scale of absolute horror.
Gen./President Dwight David Eisenhower said that Grant was the best general we ever had. He certainly knew the job, as he was the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during WWII. Read Grant's battle stratagies, and you see a man of genius.
Lincoln and grant, if only Allah allowed more presidents like them to be the leaders of U.S. There would be no more wars of imperialism and wealth would belong to the people rather than corporations.
This was more of my favorite commander General Sherman not General Grant he was lets say more calm then violent the battle of Shilo was where he got the name Butcher not as a leader he was respectful
They called General Grant a butcher. What about general Sherman? He was a true butcher. More than Grant could ever be. What he did to the great state of Georgia. May he burn in hell!!!
This is pretty ahistorical. Grant was not widely called a “butcher” until he took command of the Army of the Potomac (and engaged Lee in a war of attrition). Also, Grant had numerous victories in the west, and Lincoln was fully aware that he was an aggressive general who won battles.
from my readings, a conversation like this is pure Hollywood, Grant was no self promoter , and accepted position only as it came to him, these strategies to zap strength from the South developed over a course of time, finding out what was successful in fighting the South. at this time, Grant was committed only to using all armies and troops available, and fighting a broad front war to engage the southern armies in all locations at once. A read of Gen Grants auto-biography is a must before watching these shows.
Lincoln immediately warmed up to Grant, both of them being Midwesterner's from Illinois. An aide saw Lincoln stretched out on a couch one afternoon after Grant took command. Having never seen Lincoln do this, the aide was concerned. Lincoln replied that he finally felt the weight of military matters had been lifted from his shoulders as he had complete confidence in Grant and wouldn't interfere anymore.
But, you know, have to make the Confederacy look great, so he's gotta be Hannibal Lectre pretty much XP
Grant was from Ohio and Lincoln was technically born in Kentucky and grew up in Illinois, but yes, both were mid westerners. Midwesterners were tough as nails. There is no comparison to the Union Army in the East to the one in the West. Even the Confederate Army, the soldiers in the West were shot to pieces, but kept coming back and fighting despite their crappy commanders.
Grant was originally from Ohio , and must have settled around St Louis to b close to wife's family since I think he is buried there.
@@vejustice6091 Grant is buried in Manhattan.
ve justice Grant is buried in New York.
"I can't spare this man, he fights".
"War is cruelty, there is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is the sooner it will be over"
“What Grant had, and what almost any great general needs, was a deep, natural, and impossible-to-quantify instinct for war.” 💀
-from “How To Fight Presidents”, by Daniel O’Brien
your greatest president and your greatest General together in the worst war your nation has ever been in. [ American V American]
Civil Wars are always the worst ones.
It was a hellish war.
Grant could have executed thousands of confederate soldiers yet he gave them safe passage telling them to go home to their wives and children and work on their farm without any consequences because he know that after the war ended it was time for uniting the North and the South, and he understood how much that would benefit the country.
He truly was a great man
Grant was beaten by 1876 by Southern guerrilla warfare he said enough uprising in the South and in 1877 South was free.
This is definitely more like Sherman than Grant...
The actor even looks more like Sherman than Grant.
And Grant was no glory hound. When the press insisted on an interview in the field, he let Burnside, a tall, spit and polish general be Grant. The press got their crowded interview, with the real Grant hovering around the crowd, listening. Amusing, from his memoirs.
Grant rose from literally nothing, from selling firewood in the Nowhere of the West to the Commander of all Union Armies. In 1861 he had scarcely any friends at all - certainly none in high places, he had no money and he had no reputation for anything except being a drunk.
So how could he have risen so high if he were incompetent? Or a butcher? Or an unpleasant fellow? Let alone all those things at once...
Grant was a graduate of West Point where he excelled in math, 3rd in his class. He was the best equestrian ever to graduate from that college. He was in the Mexican War, where he excelled, with three high commendations. He was totally cool in battle. He saw his best friend from the Point , Robert Hazlitt, suffer an horrific and mortal wound while they were on horseback together. Gen. James Longstreet, who was Grant's best man when he married Julia Dent in St. Louis in 1848, was Lee's top Line Officer. One of Lee's greatest fears was that Grant would hang him for treason. Longstreet told him not to worry, Grant would never do such a thing. Afterwards, Grant said that after the signing he felt only depression, not elation, for seeing an enemy who had fought for so long and so valiantly have such an ignominious end. The terms he gave were from a tender heart. When he came out onto the porch with Lee, the Union troops started to celebrate, singing, rejoicing, firing. He told them to stop. "They are our brothers again." He left this last good deed of his out of his military memoirs.
History shows Grant was a better leader, a better general and perhaps even a better man than Lee. While Grant did everything he could to reunite the country Lee pushed the view that the Confederacy was in the right even if they lost the war. Lee created the false line that the loss was outside of his powers. Lee refused to say that the south was wrong, he promoted the southern culture that gave us Jim Crow laws. Someday history will catch up to Grant and Lee. The people will know who was the better man.
You are correct. And General Lee was famously respectful of Grant after the war
As we are about to celebrate the Fourth of July, I would like to thank so many of you who have shared your great knowledge of Gen/President Grant. Or for appreciating him. As in life, there will always have those around us who tend to be too cynical, but that's OK. I want to share with you a quote from President Reagan which must jar our thoughts about our country . They are profound. " Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
Thank you, all of you warriors from the Battle of Bunker Hill who have slaked the thirst for freedom. We are losing our freedom today. Be part of the solution....
First off. Grant was a butcher. But only in the sense that he made a lot of tactical mistakes that cost many union soldier's lives when it didn't have to. Grant carried the guilt of those mistakes his entire life. Many Northern sonless mothers called Grant a butcher and he accepted that guilt as legitimate.
Second, regardless of his civil rights record, in the White House he had one of the most corrupt administrations in American history. Party affiliation was worthless as he was a complete and total tool of Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall. His term as President was only remarkable in it's corruption and drunkenness..
Third, You are no less free today than you were under Obama and Bush before him. Nothing can get through Congress and the President isn't a king. It is hyperbolic claims like that, that people are somehow "less free" under a Republicans that are causing so much strife in our nation and could lead to more bloodshed.
@@patrickturner6878 Sir, you are almost totally ignorant of Grant , both in his private life, his actions during the Civil War, and as president.His childhood was immensely important. He refused to read a biography or autob., unless it also told the story of the childhood of the person. Grant, for example, was a strong believer that Slavery was a "stain in the Union", and a Republican. The Republican was founded to abolish slavery. Tammy Hall was Democrat. A grandfather, whom i never knew was an engineer who was part of the great team which brought water down from the Catskill Mtns. down to NYC. He died of a staph infection at the age of 39. He was very involved in politics, trying to take down the graft machine of Tammany Hall. Please, sir, do yourself a favor and find the real Grant . You will be amazed at his intelligence and integrity. He was one of our greatest generals; Dwight David Eisenhower Commander of all Allied troops in Europe, and he should know, said that Grant was our greatest generals. He achieved at least 20 wonderful entities during his tenure as president. And, by the way, he never ran for president.
You are, sad to say, totally ignorant about this. Grant won his first two victories with speed, and ordered "unconditional surrender" Grant. There were banner headlines all over the newspapers about those two battles. The Cincinnati newspapers blasted him on the front page of same when he lost a battle for a first time. They yelled
"Lincoln's Butcher." It was totally false, but unfortunately was used. Had he been discovered by Lincoln only in March, 1864. Had his integrity and brilliance been known sooner, I believe that the Civil War would ended long before 4/65. And no, he was not an alcoholic.
Grant was a great man indeed professionally and personally, I wonder if south won they would have showed the same respect , leniency towards union
According some confederate politicians war if won in time they would of rejoin union if they got there rights back and voice in Congress. Jefferson Davis said him self he was hoping rejoin the union and didn't hate his brothers from the north.
It seems like Grant is getting a second look. I think it is high time. He was a fascinating man.
Personally, I'm hoping more people take a look at The Rock of Chickamauga, General George Henry Thomas.
Wars are not for honor. It is for brutality, courage and initiative and if Honor is destroyed so be it.
Nobody was calling Grant a butcher in March of 1864. The Vicksburg campaign was the strategic masterpiece of the war and Grant was commissioned Major General in the regular army for it, not something that happens to a butcher. Beginning in May of that year, Grant earned the butcher sobriquet during the 30 days of the Overland campaign in which Grant lost 60,000 troops in continuous combat.
Its called Total War...you fight to win...throw your strength at the heart of your enemy and never let go...thats what Grant did.
General Grant knew his exact lineage on his father's side. Priscilla and Matthew Grant sailed on the " John and Mary" into the Plymouth Bay Colony. They might well have been Puritans. Matthew Grant became a surveyor in the area of what is now Windsor, CT. Many writings of the time said he was more than honest and well-admired.
However, when I started looking into this I discovered something quite fascinating. The Grants originally came from Scotland. They were well-known to be warriors !
General Grant won some important victories at Forts Henry and Donelson. Grant worked closely Admiral Foot. The War Department had constructed gunboats for riverine operations. The resulting battle of Shiloh was in many ways a major Union logistical triumph moving 40,000 plus soldiers on a 170 some odd transports with gunboat support. Grant adopted quickly to using riverboats and railroads to supply or transport his troops. The Battle of Shiloh quickly showed Grant for being a tenacious fighter. Despite being taken by surprise, Grant organized his defenses, concentrated all his forces for a counterattack the next day driving the Confederates from the field the next day.
Grant was always thinking about hitting the enemy back as hard as he could the next time giving them no quarter. We saw this in Vicksburg, Chattanooga and Lookout Mountain and in Grant's Overland campaign. Grant was a little like a 19th century Rocky Marciano. Rocky Marciano hit his opponents always coming forward throwing punch after hard punch always advancing carefully but ruthlessly battering often better opponents to defeat. Grant was much the same way never quitting until the enemy was beaten.
limited info www.imdb.com/title/tt0428099/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_6
The distinctive character of Grant's generalcy was that, if experiencing a setback one day, he did not retreat, but came back the next day to win.
Shelby Foote said that, the first time they met, Lee beat Grant worse than he beat any other Union general. McClellan withdrew with his tail between his legs, but Grant stayed on the battlefield to continue the fight.
After one of these 'defeats', Lincoln, looking at the casualty reports for both sides, said that if we lost a battle like this every day for a week, we would have won the war.
Grant was no butcher, although he was also very aggressive and didn't see losses as an impediment to victory. He was arguably the least conservative commanding general in the Union
Yep, Cold Harbor is an example of what you describe.
I could not help but think of Vietnam a hundred years later and Korea a short time before that. From the US standpoint, these wars were not fought with generals, but with politicians and victory was never achieved. When we place soldiers in harms way, we should fight to win. If we can't do that we should not make war in first place.
I love how malevolent they portray Grant. A heartless Yankee dead set on wiping the South off the map, no matter the man cost. But what can you expect from a movie that portrays *Southern cadets* as anti-slavery.
They portrayed him like that because that's exactly how he was. He believed in total absolute war because that was the fastest way to end it. The same way some people thought Curtis Lemay was a monster. The more terrible you can make war the faster it will be over.
He agreed with the dropping of the atomic bombs for that reason it would end the war and avoid having to invade Japan. And just like most people that believe what they were fed instead of actually teaching yourself you think all southerners were racist slaveholders. Less than 5% of southerners owned any slaves at all according to the 1860 Census that's one of those things you'll never learn about it in a classroom
+TJS974 The problem is they _way_ he says them. He says the lines with such an air of malevolence, and near sociopathy, as to make him look monstrous. Rather than a man with morals who also knew the tough decisions he had to make to end the war, he is monotone and quasi-villainous, which I believe is just how the film makers wanted it.
Also, no one, with any merit, teaches that "all southerners were racist slave owners." That argument, I've found, is usually a straw man put up by Confederate apologists in an attempt to sway the conversation. What the 5-6% slave owning statistic doesn't show you is the fact that only men (except in extraneous circumstances) could own slaves, and thus were only counted as "slave owners." If you factor in the number of _households_ that owned slaves, thus counting the women, children, and other family members that profited from it, the number jumps up to 30%.
But even if the total number was still 5-6%, that doesn't change the fact that southern "culture" was largely based around slavery, and most of the rhetoric leading up to the war was centered around keeping it. Even if a poor white didn't own a slave, it was still a goal to get one and they could at least know that, no matter how bad it got, they were at least higher up on the totem than blacks. This isn't to say that every single southerner fought directly for slavery, as most of the grunts' causes were personal, but the ultimate cause they were fighting for was one that would uphold slavery.
To be fair, towards the end of the war, the Union took to the strategy of "END the war ASAP" as it had dragged on for 5 years. Which meant more and more violent tactics, which possibly ended up saving more lives in the long run (much like the US and Hiroshima.... end the war at all costs).
+Leonardo's Truth... God does not agree with you.
+Nick Sambides Jr. Yes, I see that, but there is no nuance to the portrayal, in my opinion. We must also be cognizant of the wider context of the movie it is in. The movie is clearly one of Confederate apologetics, trying to sugarcoat and idolize the South with such lines as "we shouldn't be fightin' to keep other people in chains," a preposterous thing to hear a Southern cadet say. Or a Union soldier, upon realizing that it was young cadets they were fighting eagerly say, "kill em'!" to show his ruthlessness. I have no problems with a film that tries to portray the southern side of the war, but I wish people would be honest about it rather than try to drag the other side down. This is why Gettysburg remains one of, if not THE best Civil War movie to date. Very evenhanded.
Is Grant possessed by general Sherman and Sheridan
Even though General Grant was not like this at all, I honestly like how super malevolent they portrayed him here. lol
Grant had not one ounce of malevolence in him. He was never bombastic, but was always a quiet listener.This film is pure fiction.
that intepretation of Grant, more reminded me of Sherman, not Grant...
Yes, Sherman was the most ruthless general of the Union forces.
Grant was a very good general not a politician and honest man is not suited for the lies, deceit, greed and power of corruption inherent in politic's.
Grant was not known as a butcher til he fought Lee. That said, look at Grants loses in 62-63 and then look at Lee's. Then tell me who is the butcher
Grant and Sherman were right and therefore they won ....
DearTomas,
Tragic to say, but many who are wrong win the wars. Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, etc. They all won. Pretending to be capitalists, the Communists are still going strong.
I think that Mikael Gorbachov is responsible for the giddy taste of freedom Russia experienced but, alas, for only a short time. They have reintroduced their indoctrination camps, and Putin rules with an iron fist. China is going at full speed spreading its power, and I mention Panama for one.Were these two evil powers to unite as an axis, I truly fear for our beloved country. Anyone have any thoughts on this ?
@Leonardo's Truth you talk bull
Leonardo's Truth They were heroes who did what was required. They saved the union and ended the vile, contemptible atrocity of slavery. Their names should be celebrated by all people of conscience for all time
Tom Skerrit would have been better as Sherman.
Sherman declared war to being hell. Then he went on to prove what he had stated was correct.
He remarked "War Is Hell" in 1879 or 1880. By then the (First) Civil War has been over for 15 years. He also served as General of the Army from 1869-1883, managing and conducting the Indian Wars.
Roswell Crash Survivor what he wrote, during the war, was to the mayor of Atlanta. He said ”war IS cruelty and you can not refine it. "
And that the only mercy in war is to prosecute it with such fury as to end it as soon as possible and prevent those who started it from ever entertaining another.
The army was already full of "School boys", by 1864.....15,16,17 year olds. Some had become "old men", already. Hell, the first shots of the war were fired by "School boys"......Cadets from The Citadel, in Charleston. In fact, those same Charleston "School boys" defeated a Union Army and Marines at Tulifanny Creek in Dec 1864.
Even with the sparatic victories the "school boys" had, it's clear that fighting a war where you have to fight using child soldiers as your army's backbone shows you're on the wrong side and you were never going to win, Confederacy fought for the wrong cause and was foolish, wrong and cocky to think they could win so easily.
President Lincoln was a good person
He was a wonderful and charitable person, in every way. Grant said that Lincoln was the greatest man whom he had ever known.
@@ulyssgrant3178 that's right Lincoln proved he can do anything like ending slavery n the Civil war. But in a way the South shouldn't blame the Union or the president for the war in which they started by firing on Fort Sumner.
@@darkprinzedarthvarder I think you have an excellent case for what you say. SC vis-a-vis slavery had been a thorn in the side of our founding fathers when they issued the Declaration of Independence and the drafting of the Constitution. Many of the signers realized the issue of slavery was not going to go away on its own, and the fistfights on the floor of the House of Rep. as more new states were being formed were quite inevitable.
That’s a weird way to paint Grant in a film.
And the School Boys won the day.
But lost the war.
THIS IS MORE LIKE SHERMAN NOT GRANT..
This is Sherman
There should be a movie about The Citadel Cadets firing on the Star of the West,off Morris Island, SC on 9 January 1861.....and the Januray 1864 Battle of Tullifany, SC, where the Citadel Cadets defeated a unit of US Marines. The Citadel carries 8 Battle Streamers on its Colors, from the Civil War. I am an 1984 Alumnus.
The Citadel is in Charleston, seat of government of South Carolina. Those Students of war were capable of reading momentous declarations issued by that government. It passed the Ordinance of Secession was on December 20, 1860 and the Declaration of Causes on December 24, 1860. The firing on the Star of the West was less than 4 weeks after.
Lincoln called for volunteers 3 months later on April 16, 1861.
A free people have a right to alter and abolish their government when it becomes destructive to the proper ends of government. Rights come with responsibilities and this right comes with the weight of deciding if the cause of taking up arms is Just. Those students of war in Charleston were fully capable of reading the Declaration of Causes. They exercised their free will in firing on the fort. They bear moral responsibility, right or wrong.
You *should* be proud of the heritage of your university. That pride should come with a willingness to look honestly and unflinchingly at the history of its actions and reasons. As Orson Scott Card says, to be a Speaker for the Dead. Here is that Declaration of Causes:
www.atlantahistorycenter.com/assets/documents/SCarolina-Secession-p1-13.pdf
Grant was a decent battlefield general who used scorched earth tactics in the Shenandoah valley along with Sherman burning Atlanta with his march to the sea. Grant never used any real original battlefield tactics but he understood attrition was necessary along with constant pressure on the Confederacy. Grant understood logistics but he also was able to deal well with adversity. I think Grant's best battle was Shiloh where although he was surprised on the first day, he rallied his soldiers, used his available artillery and river gunboats to stop the Confederate attack. Grant concentrated all his available forces, reorganized the stragglers into new makeshift regiments, then struck back hard at the Confederates on the second day forcing them back. How a general deals with unforseen adversity and surprise enemy attacks is the ultimate test of any leader. Grant did NOT quit or give up at Shiloh but rallied his forces, organized a defense, and stopped his enemy. The next day he counterattacked driving the Confederates from the field inflicting heavy losses upon the enemy despite his own heavy losses. Shiloh was the bloody model for every remaining large scale Civil War battle until Appomattax. The difference was when the struggle grew desperate with prolonged slaughter, Grant rallied and concentrated his forces for the next attack. Grant never let go of his enemy until he ground him up after repeated bloody attacks, flanking maneuvers, and more bloody attacks.
The railroad ensured that armies could be concentrated and maintained in the field through constant resupply and reinforcements of men. The defender had a big advantage over the attacker in the Civil War. The attacker had to have at least a three to one manpower advantage over the defender to ensure success. The attacker also had to have superiority in cannons in order to blast the defender out of his entrenchments or to soften up the defender prior to an infantry assault. Massed produced smoothbore cannon allowed for double canister to be fired on advancing enemy infantry columns decimating them at close range under 400 meters. Other artillery shells loaded with timed fuses and musket balls were used for longer ranges. Solid shot was used against fortifications and entrenchments. These smoothbore cannon were ubiquitous on both sides but the North usually had more artillery with plentiful ammunition and powder. The Minie ball rifled musket allowed for a skilled soldier to shoot a mansized target at 500 meters. However, an average soldier could consistently shoot down another enemy soldier at 300 meters then reload two or three shots per minute thereafter. The percussion cap allowed for consistent faster firing of rifled muskets too even in wet conditions. These longer ranges with consistent rate of accurate firing made the Civil War rifle an unparallelled killing machine. The smoothbore muskets used in Napoleonic times had a range of about 50 meters. The use of rifled artillery also was becoming common place but the 12 pounder Napoleon smoothbore cannon made of brass was the ultimare killing machine in the Civil War.
We have to think about the industrial process of mass produced high quality weapons, consistent resupply and reinforcement allowed by the railroad to understand the terrible casualties of the Civil War. The 30,000 miles of railroad ensured higher concentrations of manpower, weapons, equipment, and horses in one area. This logistical supply ability with the railroad allowed for a steady stream of battles and endless skirmishing each week and month without let up. The railroad also allowed for battles on widespread theaters a thousand miles apart simultaneously too. The railroad system turned warfare in the industrial age into a gigantic highly lethal battle of attrition. So many historians need to read more about Herman Haupt the Union railroad general to understand why the Civil War was so bloody, so long, with so many large scale battles. The railroad explains everything the historian really needs to know about the Civil War and both World Wars. As long as the trains ran on time with adequate supplies, manpower, weapons to reinforce battlefield losses, industrial warfare was essentially a prolonged battle of attrition with death and maiming on an unprecedented scale of absolute horror.
Gen./President Dwight David Eisenhower said that Grant was the best general we ever had. He certainly
knew the job, as he was the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during WWII. Read Grant's battle stratagies, and you see a man of genius.
lincoln met grant in a ball
Lincoln and grant, if only Allah allowed more presidents like them to be the leaders of U.S. There would be no more wars of imperialism and wealth would belong to the people rather than corporations.
The birth of an empire and the death of a republic.
This was more of my favorite commander General Sherman not General Grant he was lets say more calm then violent the battle of Shilo was where he got the name Butcher not as a leader he was respectful
"Butcher" came straight from banner headlines in newspapers. One day they cheered you, a week later they went for your throat.
The term came from a banner headline in the Cincinnati newspaper.Grant, in proportion, lost far fewer men than Lee did.
Drumlin!!!!!!
What a shame
They called General Grant a butcher. What about general Sherman? He was a true butcher. More than Grant could ever be. What he did to the great state of Georgia. May he burn in hell!!!
Most of those angry names come from the banner headlines in the newspapers. Newspapers and magazines were kings then.
Grant the war criminal admits his guilt.
What a pathetic comment.