A lot of commentary about Grant the Strategist overlooks another aspect of his generalship: he was one of the first generals to truly understand the concept of combined arms operations. In his three most significant campaigns he uses the Navy effectively in order to achieve his objectives. For the Cumberland Valley campaign (Forts Henry and Donelson, Shiloh) he relied on river transport to facilitate the mobility of his army as well as gunboats to provide artillery support. For Vicksburg, he employed Admiral Porter's fleet to complete the encirclement of the city and cut off any riverine pathway of resupply or escape, and for the Overland Valley campaign and siege of Petersburg, the Navy provided the backbone of his logistics. He understood the value of naval operations to the success of the army and coordinated with naval commanders as part of his overall strategy.
Or as a later US General said "Amateurs talk tactics. Professionals talk logistics". Grant was a pro - he understood that local tactical defeats did not matter much as long as he kept better logistics than the enemy..
He had a wonderful working relationship with Admiral Andrew Foote, a salty old sea dog that quickly grasped Grant's combined arms strategy and fully supported the army with his river flotilla. Totally fearless and an unsung hero of Grant's early campaigns.
I'm learning more and more about Grant. The most surprising thing is he was a prodigy with horses 🐎 from a very young age. 😮😮😮 I have two books on Grant that ivee been meaning to get to.
If by this you mean he used everything at his disposal, that is quite true... However he was not the first to do so. Hell, McClellan was doing the same during the Peninsula Campaign, (but Little Mac had a steep learning curve to over come...), with the advantage of hindsight he did manage to do such things much better than did his predecessors. Yours is a good take. I find it amazing how fast the Armies had adjusted to operating with their advantages and disadvantages. I have seen it recorded during Grant's tenure as the Head of The Union Armies the attacks started each day promptly at 5:00 or 6:00 AM. Can you imagine that?
Grant was one of the first generals in history to think of wars not as a series of battles, but campaigns that reached towards a far goal. Truly one of the first modern generals.
I think how the allies won against Napoleon in 1813-1814 was almost similar strategy campaign. However every military academia dealt with Napoleon instead of studying 1813-1814! It may be Grant and Sherman were not a Napolon epigonist to learn in the mistakes.
Think so? I do think he was aware his advantages were in men and material and he had come to learn how to use those very well. While it certainly was that result, the idea of Campaigning was known well on back and was taught at West Point.
Him and General Longstreet seem like the only one's who fully understood the kind of war they were fighting. No idea why General Lee didn't listen to him at Gettysburg.
Well yes and no, the idea of not just destroying an enemy on the battlefield but their ability to wage war ever again goes back to ancient time like Rome. After Rome defeated Carthage for the last time they salted all the ground so no crops could grow thus destroying their economy for decades to come and thus their ability to ever threaten Rome again. BUT as far as those "modern times" yes, Grant AND Sherman both recognized that destroying an enemy's ability to wage war was just as effective as destroying armies on the field. Also, in all fairness at the very start of the war the Unions blockade of the south was also a step in that direction, deprive the south of equipment from Europe.
Grant actually surprised Lee a couple of times by stealing a march on him-Grant did some pretty fancy maneuvering but the problem was this sort of sloggishness on the part of corps and division commanders who repeatedly failed to seize golden opportunities Grant had opened for them. Spotsylvania and the first Petersburg advance being prime examples. Because of this paralysis that always affected this army (which saved Lee's bacon numerous times) this lead to the war of attrition. One big thing people tend to overlook was that the moment Grant moved that spring, he took the initiative out of Lee's hands and forced him into a slug-fest with only one end result. It was also the first time the Union brought to bear it's power on all fronts simultaneously-something Lincoln saw needed to be done early on. Hit them on all fronts and something WILL eventually crack.
In my mind, and apparently what many historians have tried to say for a long time, Grant is one of if not the greatest general America have ever had. He never lost a campaign, he was the main architect behind those campaigns that destroyed the South, and he lost surprisingly few men (overall). He created the American way of war, and when the war was over, he was one of the main reasons the South didn't try again later.
bandholm 'Old Rough and Ready' Zachary Taylor influenced the young Grant immensely during the Mexican War. His rather sloppy dress, disregard for formalities, and being kind to a defeated foe were all traits Grant picked up. Lee and many of his brethren could have very well been hanged in the firestorm led by Stanton after Lincoln was gone. Grant made sure this didn't happen by pointing out to Stanton that Lee and his officers had not violated their paroles and were protected under his surrender terms. A little story that I always liked was during the Overland Campaign a regiment was marching by a railroad embankment. Sitting on one of the flat-cars was a dust covered Grant munching on a ham bone. The regiment cheered and instead of a McClellan style salute Grant simply waved the ham bone and smiled back. As one veteran proudly stated, "Grant wants fighters not yauppers!"
James Robert Cool story! The only one I know, that is not quoted often, is when he went to Washington with his son to be promoted to Lieutenant General (first one in the US after Washington), he went to a hotel to get a room, and refresh before meting Lincoln and the Staff. When he got there and asked for a room, the owner thought that he held some junior rank because of his lax uniform. So he was assigned a small room (at the time there was a bunch of generals so the good rooms where hard to get). But when the owner saw whom the man was that was signing in, he immediately made sure that Grant was given the best room :)
Did not hear this story before. It sounds so Grant-like, it must be true. Also like the story of the Lincoln quip about Grant's drinking where he said that if he knew what brand Grant drank, he would send a case to every Union general. Now, that's a sense of humor.
@@MrBandholm I didn't quite appreciate this fact-in just 2 months of fighting the Army of the Potomac went from 115,000 men when they first started out that spring to down to 55,000 from combat losses. General Hancock later stated that his old II Corps didn't exist anymore by the time of Cold Harbor. He said most of it went under the sod during that terrible spring. The officer corps was cut to ribbons also but Lee was also losing men-a surprising number of them prisoners from a few times an attack caught them completely by surprise. At Spotsylvania, Upton's attack was so quick that 2,000 of Lee's veterans instantly became prisoners.
All in all, Lee lost more men in his battles than Grant did in his. And for all of his brilliant tactical victories, Lee never managed to make a true strategic impact on the war. Grant, although tactically not as superb as Lee, strategically made an impact several times. Grant's battle plan was sound: although it would be difficult to defeat a tactician like Lee, who was fighting defensively, they could pin him down and batter him. Strategy against tactics. And in the end, Grant won.
I think it is wrong to say that Lee never had a strategic impact on the war. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia, by achieving early victories, became the heart and soul of the Confederacy, a 'strategic center of gravity.' Grant understood this, which is why he focused on destroying Lee's army instead marching on Richmond.
How do you arrive at Lee losing more men than Grant? The ANV lost more men to desertion than to battle casualties after Cold Harbor... Before that Grant was cultivating the "Butcher" moniker...
Grant had an industrial and logistical advantage over Lee. By this point of the war Grant has already taken over rail and all logistical nodes. Grant used the rail system to project military might by pushing men and fire power forward by train with logistical support right behind it.
@@trashman5710 Author and historian Shelby Foote said, “Grant, after that first night in the Wilderness, went to his tent, broke down, and cried very hard. Some of the staff members said they’d never seen a man so unstrung. Well, he didn’t cry until the battle was over, and he wasn’t crying when it began again the next day.”
@@kimberlyhenshaw8368 Ok, so I provided a quote from a famous Civil War author and historian to support my claim. Show me some evidence that supports your belief.
My father had the very best statement about Grant that I have ever heard - "Grant was simply the one who realized, that if victory were going to be achieved, then the price for it, was just going to have to be paid". And to the point of the "tactical comparison", I don't agree that he was "tactically inferior" to Lee - Grant devised the tactic of "Feed the battle", namely, punch a hole into the enemy lines, and then systematically pour in the vanguard and drive the enemy either apart or back, whichever came first. Furthermore, the sizes of the armies, for most of the actions of the war, were far more equal than the "southern revisionists" would like to have believed. Grant, unlike everyone else before him, and absolutely alike with Lincoln, singularly recognized that it was the Confederate Army, and NOT the capital, the was in fact, the only actually viable target of attack. Geoff Rohde
There is some truth to this but it must be tempered with the reality. You say the forces were far more equal. Based on what? Southern roles were far more porous with Teamsters often doing time dragging wagons to the battle and Arty during the battle... The lack of resources the South dealt with got to the point it did no good to amass horses for use because they couldn't feed them.... Without retaining control of the battlefield a lot of simple necessities could not be maintained, from needle and thread to harness leather and metal rigging there was no comparison. In man power the disparity was actually quite large. It was quite common for Confederates on the roles to be absent from the Army even when they were maintained on the muster... There was simply too much a shortage of able manpower for putting in, and taking in, crops back home for it to be otherwise...
"Southern revisionists " made up the numbers of men in armies? Not the actual records of the war???? You are saying that these "southern revisionists" had and have control of the records in Washington DC? What would be the advantage of making up the numbers of men involved? Didn't the north have many times the number of people living there, did not the north also feed the war meat grinder with immigrants just as soon as they touched American soil? No, no sir..... you are mistaken. At least show your source of information.
Okay I could go along with what you commented on all the way up to the point of armies being relatively equal despite southern revisionist.......huh??? For his Overland Campaign Grant had an estimated 110K vs Lee's 60K, when Grant broke through at Petersburg it was even worse. Has nothing to do with "southern revisionist", being the bad guy or whatever, just math............and yes, what your father said was very true.
You don’t know squat about history or reality. The South outnumbered the North in less than 1% of all the Civil War battles fought, big or small. Grant knew what was needed to win the war, but he was not a gifted tactical commander. With his resources he should’ve crushed Lee, but it was Lee who kept defeating Grant during 1864 contrary to the “Northern revisionist” history that attempts to say now that the battles were stalemates. Had the ANV not dissolved through desertion and attrition they’d still be fighting in those trenches outside of Petersburg. Grant used human wave assaults to try and break the Confederate lines wherever possible. His frontal assaults at Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, and North Anna were foolish and did nothing more than cost tens of thousands of lives. Had Lee had the resources, or even half, of what Grant and every other Union commander was privileged to, the war would’ve ended very differently.
Someone here answered me saying that Grant was well aware that some of his officers had more experience than he did. Grant was quite prominent in the Mexican War, soon after his graduation from West Point.He received three well-deserved commendations for his bravery in battle and for his other accomplishments. He was totally fearless in battle and was an excellent quartermaster. So, when the Civil War came along, he enlisted quickly, saying that he owed the government much because it had paid for his college education.
It's said amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics. Grant cut his teeth in the Mexican War being quartermaster for his idol Zachary Taylor. Grant learned that logistics is what wins battles and he also took to adopting Taylor's shabby dress and being very kind to enemies that had surrendered honorably.
That is true but another motive for him taking a commission was he had terrible luck trying to start a business in the private sector and was almost broke.
When my ancestors were trying to get out of Atlanta with a wagon and what meager belongings they had, they ran headlong into a Union Force. They were asked where they were going and why. An officer of obvious rank back in the rear of the cavalry had words with some of the men up front after he called them over. On the officer’s orders the cav handed the small civilian family some provisions, including sugar, flour and bacon, and let them on their way. In honor of the kindness of the commanding officer present who had ordered this fair treatment of civilians, my many times removed grandfather was named Sherman. You get the sense these men on both sides were just done with the war and ready for it to be over.
@@Annie-rw2ecjust because a soldier follows orders doesn’t mean he’s heartless. But a job be a job, and his was to put the hurt on the Confederate war effort
One of history’s greatest, and sadly most unsung, commanders. He blended the vision and audacious creativity of Bonaparte with the cool reason and steel nerve of Washington. He was also master of the map and understood the ground he was fighting on and the disposition of his forces at every turn.
There has always been a tendency to raise Napoleon to hero status and yet Kutuzov in Russia beat him by NOT offering battle but let the weather and the Cossacks wear him down And don't forget Napoleon lost 550000 in the Russian Campaign No Military Academy can just study a Generals Victories and not study his defeats Grant used similar tactics to defeat the South Sherman Marching through Georgia destroying every thing and Sheridan the same.
Unlike many Union generals Grant wouldn't back down. Even with minor setbacks he kept launching attack after attack until Richmond was in Union hands and Lee cornered.
LOL! Minor setbacks? Comments like that explains why this war was so bloody. Both side showed incredibly poor judgement resulting in horrific casualties. Those casualties were never "Minor" matters for anyone not residing in a armchair.
One problem with shows like this is they tend to give distorted impressions. Most historians overlook the absolute critical importance of the railroad and the North's superior management of their railroad resources. The Civil War saw the massing and the continuous concentration of a many tens of thousands of men, animals, and large amounts of equipment in one area. This continuous concentration of such large armies was impossible during the Napoleonic wars except for brief periods prior to a major battle. The armies in Napoleonic times had to disperse to forage or else risk starvation to men and horses. The Civil War railroad on both sides always ensured the abundance of supplies and fresh reinforcements arrived to stave off such disaster of running out of supplies. Hence, the railroad allowed the concentration of armies for battle after battle. We can read about armies in Civil War times fighting continuous skirmishes and one or more battles per week or several large battles each month. In Napoleonic times, a couple large battles per campaign season were all that was possible. The resupply of armies by the railroad with replacement manpower and continuous resupply allowed the carnage to continue on a scale unheard off prior to the Civil War. Herman Haupt, a Union railroad officer who managed the United States Army Military Railroad, pioneered many modern management techniques used by American corporations in the post-Civil War era. General Haupt was a genius of an engineer who could organize unskilled men into building excellent bridges and other railroad infrastructure in record time. General Haupt also was a highly efficient administrator who instilled strict discipline for keeping the trains running on schedule. General Haupt used his power to keep the Union railroad operational regardless of the circumstances. The efficient management of the railroad together with steam riverboats allowed the supply of large Union Armies spread out over thousands of miles. The railroad took fresh reinforcements, water, food, cannons, ammunition, fodder for animals, and a huge supply of other material to the battefront. This logistcal efficiency was achieved by the railroad men in the War Department and General Haupt. This logistical magic meant the Union could always fight battle after battle causing a widespread attrition that ground up Confederate manpower. Lincoln saw the need for centralizing all military related traffic through the War Department upon arrival in Washington DC. Lincoln also saw the need for transcontinental railroad. The Homestead Act worked in tandom with the transcontinental railroad to lead to the settlement of the west and Great plains. The North created an unstoppable government-industrial-military complex that not only ground up Confederate manpower in far flung battles of attrition but it also turned the United States into the foremost industrial power. City Point, Virginia became one of the largest and sophisticated supply systems anywhere in the world. Most modern corporations were modeled on the organization of the War Department's and Haupt's military railroads. Prussian generals took notice of Haupt's technical management of military railroads. The Prussians used their railroads to mobilize by railroad timetable using this in the Franco-Prussian War of 1871, again in1914, and in 1939.
Thank you so much for pointing out the unsung hero that Herman Haupt was to the Union cause. Showing more initiative than McClellan during the Peninsula Campaign (certain Union generals thought the trains should be for their own regiment's use) Haupt was sent to clean up the the huge mess the trains were in armed with a bristling dispatch from General Halleck giving Haupt complete control of the railroads and court-martial to anyone that hampered or gave him trouble. (A drunken major general did give Haupt trouble until a sober aide made the general read the dispatch from Halleck. The sodden general blinked a couple of times upon reading and let Haupt do his thing.) Getting zero support from McClellan when he asked for troops to escort a repair train to get the line opened up again he happened upon the best man he could have possibly found-General Hancock. Hancock immediately dispatched a regiment to escort Haupt and his repair train against Confederate raiders that had destroyed bridges. Haupt got the line repaired to provide supplies and return with wounded while also untangling the mess of trains and getting them all running on ingenious time tables within 24 hours-all while a lowly colonel mind you. (I guess Halleck could be effective when he wasn't annoying everyone around him-he even drove Lincoln mad sometimes.)
James Robert: Herman Haupt organized his often unskilled repair crews into teams or performed certain tasks broken down into simple steps. Haupt then organized this teams of men supervised by knowledgeable railroadmen into an assembly line process. Hence, the bridge that President Lincoln referred to being put together with beanpoles and cornstalks was constructed by assembly line methods developed by Haupt. The War Department, at the urging of Haupt or one of his superiors, developed armored trains to keep Confederate raiders at bay. Armored trains played a huge role in the Boer war, Kitchener's Sudan campaign, saw use in World War One, the Russian Civil War and World War Two on the Eastern Front. The Soviet Army developed around 200 antiaircraft trains often manned by Soviet sailors and other smaller antiaircraft trains to protect railway marshalling yards. The Soviet mangement of their railroads allowed them to move nearly two thousand factories to the Urals along with tens of millions of workers and their families. The efficient management of railroads by the Soviets, Americans, and British made victory possible in World War Two beyond any other important aspect. All important, air, naval, and land battles were dependent ultimately on the efficient industrial management of railroads in all theaters of war.
I do have one actor in mind to play Grant in my screenplay. I have to have my agent talk to his agent. These are requirements because when studios used to receive screenplays "over the transom," they would use the material and never acknowledge the writer. Lawsuits galore.
" I have searched the world over to find a general equal to U. S. Grant and have not found one." R.E Lee after the war was over. Grant ran 5 armies. Only one commander in the history of this nation did that and that army was largely foreign. Eisenhower. Lee was a tactician stuck in old style battle. Grant brought in a new type of war that to this day is studied by not only US military, but foreign militarys as well. That is the method of movement of men and materials. Position, strength, transportation and supply as well as communications. These methods of his were taken back to Prussia where the Prussians used them to defeat the French. Even Patton used these tactics-the movement of complete armies to get BEHIND the enemy to cut him off and destroy his army. Gaining territory does not defeat an enemy, the complete destruction of his army defeats him.
Well, given the "War' was virtually over by the time Grant received that command, and micromanaging as we do today was virtually nonexistent, that did not amount to so much.
@@ALMdawgfan Wrong!!! Much of the South was still unconquered when Grant assumed command in March 1864. And the 'War'- as you so contemptuously dismissed it- claimed 0ver 700,000 battle deaths with many times that number wounded.
@@nellpitts3285 How ya doing ms Pitts. In what aspects do I need to study more? It is singular that a guy that had all the advantages is touted for, basically, doing what he he did when his opponent was, in effect, fought out. Giving credit where it is due is not hard. Lauding a General for that when, it is comparison to some very poor Commanders that lends a lot of the luster. I am aware General Grant won a war that had gone on far too long in as short a period as he was apt to be able to do so. I just do not pretend there is some genius above the willingness to persevere when you hold all the big cards in play. Americans, even those trying to secede, tend to over laud out Leaders. Lee earned a lot of derision for many an error, he also is lauded for doing a lot with less. That is the difference that prevents the direct comparison. The situations were vastly different from day one.
@@davidblaskie8987 Sorry David, just saw this. The forces arrayed against Grant at the time of each of his postings were decidedly inferior to the forces he could apply even if one only considered the logistical sense. It is not a slur to point out the obvious. Grant had his back and pretty much his seat in the river at Shiloh. A whole new force under Buell arrives as well as two timberclad gunboats to haul his bacon from the fire. I am quite certain every General would like to have another Army to back stop his errors and Naval support to turn the tide? It isn't shameful that he had to learn in the harness. Sharpest lessons are learned best. Grant learned by his set backs and did far better going forward. IMO Grant's "Greatness" is being exaggerated, (As Lee's had been in the past.), and that is just so. In Grants early commands he had learned most importantly that it was a great benefit to be on the side with the most stuff. Had McClellan understood that the war would have been over at Sharpsburg and we would likely not have heard so much of Grant. Thanks for the exchange.
Lee was commander of the Army of Northern Virginia. Grant was commander in chief of union forces. Big difference. Lee was only concerned in fighting in Virginia and nowhere else. During the battle of Vicksburg, Jefferson Davis wanted a Corp from Lee's army transfer to Mississippi to help lift the siege of Vicksburg. Lee refused because he felt Vicksburg wasn't important in his way of thinking. Now when Grant came east to become commander in chief, he allow George Meade to remain commander of the Army of Potomac. He allow Meade to direct the army to fight the battles while he gave orders to other union commanders. Like Sherman's March through Georgia. Cutting into the supply of beef in Florida from the union fort, fort myers. He knew that lee would be hard pressed in getting troops, arms, and supplies if union armies were striking elsewhere.
The film should have pointed out that Grant maneuvered during the Overland Campaign to keep the Atlantic at his back so that he was never out of supply. Normally, an army with internal lines of communication has the advantage, but Grant used the Navy to maintain supply and mobility. Lee kept maneuvering to keep Grant from getting to Richmond, when he should have been trying to cut Grant's larger army off from his seaborne supply, if he had a hope of winning the war. Instead, he lost his ability to maneuver in order to defend Richmond and Petersburg, and Grant turned the James River into a route to bring almost unlimited supplies to his besieging army. By the summer of 1864, the fall of Richmond was a mere matter of time.
As Grant said in the ciip, an army (or a nation) is only defeated when it admits defeat. Symbology is important and one of the symbols of the defeat of a nation is the fall of its capitol. That is why Lincoln was so insistent that Washington be protected, and while the destruction of Lee's army was a primary objective, the failure to defend Richmond would be a broader symbol of defeat to the Confederacy itself. Earlier in the war this was not necessarily the case, but Lee's successes in 1862 and 1863 before Gerrysburg turned Richmond into a symbol of Confederate resiliency, making its capture a viable strategic objective which would only be made easier by the destruction of the army defending it.
@@jimhart4488 True, but Grant's actual strategy and deployments from start to end were all about Lee's army. He figured, rightly as it turned out, that if you bled Lee enough, Richmond would surrender without a significant fight. And, so it proved. I doubt if his predecessors thought that way. In fact, McClellan's big idea was taking Richmond, not the ANV.
@@curious968 Grant kept his HQ in the field with the Army of the Potomac but he was not an army commander or a theater commander, he was the overall commander of the Union armies. He set the strategy that all of the Union armies pursued. There wasn't just one southern symbol to destroy. Lee and the AoNVa was a symbol as well as Richmond. So was the Shenandoah Valley. So was Atlanta and South Carolina, the heart of the rebellion. Grant pursued total war and unlike his "predecessors" his strategies were not limited to a single front or a single target.
Grant did not want a war of attrition. If he did, he could've just stayed at Petersburg or Spotsylvania and fought it out on the spot. His goal was always strategic--he was going to cross the James and cutoff Richmond from its supply train. What Lee did be damned. It just so happened that the path to cross the James was a bloody slog (owing to Lee's defensive brilliance) that became a de facto war of attrition. But that was not Grant's aim.
people forget Lee Dug into fortified positions he was from the Army Corps of Engineers at the start of his career after west point his troops nicknamed him the king of spades for all the digging in they did
It wasn't just his soldiers who had to dig. Lee's fortifications around Richmond were 15 miles thick, and were mostly constructed using slave labor. He got the 'ace of spades' when he was commanding an army of slaves in that effort.
Digging in was the last thing General Lee wanted to do in that situation. Grant's simple powerful solution "move by the left flank" forced him to extend his army until all flexibility in his position was gone. The South's last mobile field army and its best field commander would be stuck in immobile trench warfare for the rest of the war. Shelby Foote, in the Ken Burns Civil War documentary, cited a story of Confederate generals mocking Grant's tactics after the ANV repulsed another of his assaults outside Petersburg and Lee silenced them. "I think General Grant has handled his affairs very well indeed" was basically what he said. Lee was a good enough general to realize what Grant had done to him and what it would mean for the defense of Richmond. The general whose main task in the war and the main cause for his success was to maintain the initiative at all cost, had had to concede the initiative at the outset to Grant, and because Grant wouldn't retreat, woiuldn't break contact and regroup, and could organize his men at all times to prevent a counterattack, Lee couldn't get it back.
During the Appomattox Campaign Grant wanted to make sure no opportunities were lost yet again by tardy corps and division commanders. He had Sheridan the energetic driver personally take charge and promised him 2 corps over Meade's head. He also authorized Sheridan to fire any general that was slow to move. For the first and only time in the Army of the Potomac's history Sheridan fired General G.K. Warren of the V Corps and replaced him with competent, tough and magnetic Charles Griffin. Knowing the end was near Grant kept his troops moving hard on forced marches to keep Lee engaged during his flight from Petersburg. Once regiment reported having marched 42 miles from one sunrise to the next without a halt. Had this army had real drivers like Sheridan on the front lines the war probably would have ended 2 years earlier.
Some posters here point out if better generals for the Union side had been appointed then perhaps the war would have been shortened. This premise ignores that fact that the superior firepower of the Minie ball from a rifled musket, mass produced artillery with canister rounds, usually gave the defender superior firepower over the attacker. The attacker had to have superiority in guns and manpower to drive off a dug in well entrenched defender from high ground. Even if an attacker with a superiority of guns and a three to one advantage of troops over the defender, if entrenched or behind obstacles, the defender still could drive off a numerical superior attacker. Flanking maneuvers are good moves but at least a good portion of the attacking force has to attack the defender frontally in order to tie down the defender's reserves. Otherwise the defender just reinforces his threatened flank, turning the battle into another costly frontal attack for the attacker. These Civil War battles always ended up being nasty brutal slogging matches where one side blasted and shot down more of his enemy before driving him from the field. The two sides exchanged artilllery fire while the attacker moved his troops into position to attack. The artillery fired solid cannon balls but sometimes the cannon balls were filled with timed burst fuses with shells filled with rifle balls for a bursting effect on attacking infantry at between 1,000 meters to within about 400 meters. The artillery used canister rounds to fire at enemy troop lines less than 400 meters apart. At point blank range of say less than 200 meters, the artillery guns used double canister shot. This essentially made each 12 pounder brass Napoleon smoothbore gun like a giant deadly shotgun that mowed down enemy troops like a scythe of death. The infantry of both sides then closed into two lines typically with two ranks, sometimes three ranks, to a battle line with one rank reloading while the other rank fired, thus keeping up a steady rate of fire on the enemy. The two forces often closed to about about 70 yards range of each other driving one side or the other off of the field of battle after many exchanges of rifle volleys. Frequently, charges were ordered with one side or both sides routinely used buck and ball or .69 caliber ball with three buckshot rounds for close quarters work. Such brutal tactics typically caused at a minimum enormous casualties of 30 to 40 percent but 50 percent losses frequently happened in desperate battles. The smoothbore musket was by no means obsolete when fighting at close quarters with buck and ball (buckshot) turning each rifled musket or smoothbore musket into a shotgun capable of killing or maiming multiple human targets. Some Union regiments and many Southern regiments primarily used smoothbore muskets assigning soldiers with rifled muskets as skirmishers or sharpshooters. But the smoothbore musket still had an increased rate of fire with the percussion cap. But we have to remember supplies of rifled Enfield and rifled Springfield muskets were limited in the first two years of the war. But once troops got within close range buck and ball rounds were probably more devastating than the Minie ball. Some regiments like the 1st Minnesota at Gettysurg sufferred 80 percent casualties as did some Confederate regiments in a bloody cornfield at Antietem. We should be mindful that black powder filled the battlefield with enormous amounts of smoke that helped obscure the troops shooting at each other to some degree. It gets hard to think of lines of Confederate and Union troops charging and shooting at each other at point blank range with buckshot or buck and ball rounds but this is what frequently happened creating horrible carnage. Archeologists find these buck and ball remains in the thickest parts of the battle where the dead and wounded of both sides were literally stacked on top of each other. Buckshot from smoothbore muskets and rifled muskets and canister rounds from smoothbore cannon were the dirty secrets of warfare causing a large percentage of casualties on both sides at close range all through the war. What really had to happen was the South had to be constantly attacked in Georgia and in Virginia in 1863-64. The manpower of the South had to be ground up until the Confederates had no more manpower to fight with. It was a bloody war of grinding attrition putting a premium on industrial mass production of armaments, munitions, and the logistical management of supplying far flung armies with the railroad. The railroad always ensured far flung Union Armies could get replacements, supplies, ammunition, fodder for animals, and more constant resupply of these items after a battle to get ready for the next battle. It is important to understand that the critical use of the railroad by the War Department. The reason Grant eventually turned Lee's flank at the many months long trench battle of Petersburg with his "bite and hold" tactics was that Grant had ground up all of Lee's available reserves of manpower. Grant's victory at Petersburg was a forerunner of the Western Front in the First World War. It is important that Grant's supplies and logistical centers at City Point,Virginia made his victory at Petersurg possible. Lee surrendered at Appomattax in large part because Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan had burned down Southern supplies, farms, and cities.However, at this point in the war, the South had ran out out of available reserves of manpower. The railroad won this war of attrition for the North. Assembly line industrial mass production with the railroad meant continuous assembly lines of battles producing carnage unheard of anywhere. This carnage was first seen in the Franco-Italian war in the late 1850's at the railroad reinforced battles of Magenta and Sarmiento but the American Civil War was on a much longer and larger scale.
By this point in the war they had very different goals. Grant had to corner and destroy Lee's army in an era when all the tactical advantages favored the defenders. Lee had to survive long enough to convince Northerners that the fight wasn't worth the sacrifice. In earlier battles, it was Lee who kept killing his men in headlong charges that did nothing to accomplish the overall goals of the Confederacy.
and Sherman had a 3rd. Instead of attacking armies knock out the supply lines and factories and railroads and decimate the southern economy so the north wouldn't have to fight Lee's army. That was the winning strategy.
Grant's brilliance was in recognizing that the South did indeed have better generals. Grant was the one commanding general that finally was able to effectively apply the enormous advantage the North had in men and resources. The Union generals that preceded Grant all tried to simply outmaneuver, outfight and out-general the South, and it never worked. Grant did not try to be a better general in terms of military tactics (and he even indicated in his memoirs that he did not consider himself superior to Southern generals), but simply smothered the South by going on the offensive and forcing the South into a state of weakness by attrition. He further applied choking strategies like siege (like Vicksburg) and Scorched Earth (like Sherman's March). He was able to replace men and supplies - the South could not replace men and supplies. And that was the difference. Some criticized it because it came at quite a price (for both sides), but in the end it achieved the desired result.
There was one other significant aspect of Grant and his generals. Not a few of them were political appointees, as crazy as it sounds. They knew next to nothing about warfare, horses or soldiers. I am sure that many did it for the good of the country, but it made for treacherous management techniques. That is one of the reasons why Grant always wrote out his orders in full. No direction by word of mouth.
nuan I quite agree that grant was NOT superior to southern generals and he did smother the south with greater resources but this had been going on from the beginning and it was the strategy of winfield scott to strangle the south and the river campaigns in tennessee that began this strategy. grant merely followed it thru to the conclusion that had been coming all the while. Lee knew from the beginning that a simple war of attrition would lead to southern defeat and the south's only real hope was to inflict enough casualties on the north to force a political settlement. other generals applied this strategy earlier in the war but with less obvious effect (though it was still working) because the south was much stronger then (the anaconda strategy would take its toll over a period of time). mac was utilizing this same smothering strategy and was in shouting distance of Richmond when Lee took command and began his first offensive. many dont realize that mac faced a much bigger army than grant or sherman had ever dreamed of. Lee utilized 88,000 men in the 7 Days campaign, seized the initiative, and shoved mac away from richmond. however, Lee suffered more casualties than the feds though his army was smaller, zero federal corps were destroyed in the fighting, the feds overall withdrew in very good order, a new fed supply hub was established that could supply a renewal of a push to richmond, and the CSA capital was still in jeopardy as the AOP was still alarmingly close to richmond. the big problem with grant is that he applied this smothering strategy without simple regard for casualties ....that is NOT only unconscionable but it was NOT necessary! I do feel sorry for grant because, while he was fighting Lee and trying to end the war, lincoln still pestered him every time the slightest threat to washington was perceived. when Early invaded maryland in 1864 with about 10,000 infantry, lincoln nagged grant to sent him another 30,000 or so men to protect the capital. grant knew this was not only foolish but it acted as a brake on his own strategy (Lee also knew this and had used this strategy thru the war). there was ZERO chance Early could take washington as it was already heavily garrisoned and VERY strongly fortified ...yet lincoln whined and nagged for more men anyway, and usually got them. only thing to recommend lincoln as a war time president is he was marginally better than jeff davis. both were fools ....lincoln just less a fool.
LtBrown1956 yeah I think people tend to forget when grant took command the confederacy was lower on about literally everything then they had ever been I think they could have went a bit longer even with the resources drying up but the blows they could not recover from was the loss of so so many of there best and veteran commanders damn shame it’s impossible to know what would have happened if he faced the odds of a more powerful south like the other union commanders personally I think he would have been whipped bad real bad
Necessity is said to be the mother of invention. Both Men fought their Armies based on the realities of their circumstances. Lee could not bludgeon the Union Army into submission (even if he wanted to) and chose maneuver to try and achieve local superiority and to fight and destroy them in detail. As the superior force the North was ALWAYS capable of choosing that option but various commanders shied away from that option. It was never, ever, anything but arithmetic and sheer will to face it. Grant was the man that could face the math and stick it out.
After having studied US Grant since 2012, the portrayal above causes me "agita." I am writing a screenplay about him, as a man, and I have one actor in mind who possess Grant's qualities and his slender stature, and 5'8" in height. Grant went about his duties with quiet strength. He never ranted, never. His management style during the war was quite interesting. He always was a quiet listener. He would gather around him as many generals and officers as could attend. He would go from man to man and listen to each with his total attention. In fact, there was an incidence where some wondered if he were asleep ! Each man could say anything he wished and for how long. At the end, Grant always would pen his orders so as to remove any ambiguity.
Not a bad take.... Just not as perfect a recital as all that.... It sounds almost as silly as Freeman's "Marble Man" portrayal of Lee in the South.... However I wish you well in the endeavor. Anything that happens to bring some things to light is welcome. Grant was in a precarious position being junior in service to many he commanded. He was shrewd enough to realize that....
It's a lot harder to attack with the types of weapons and tactics employed in this war than it is to defend. Grant had to march through enemy territory filled with spies against a fortified enemy over and over again. Of course Grant lost more men overall, his job was much harder IMO. Both times Lee went on the attack into northern territory he lost and had to retreat. That to me is very telling in regards to the situation.
Actually Grant had less over all losses than Lee. His percentage really took an upward turn when he was putting constant pressure on Lee and God Harbor didn't help. It would not have been so bad. Had the new commanders instructed their soldiers to go around the big hole they blew in the lines instead of going down into the hole where they were like shooting fish in a barrel.
Although General Grant was a terrific strategist, I'd say that General Sherman was the greatest strategic mind of the war. After capturing Atlanta and executing his revered "March to the Sea" (which also psychologically affected the rebels of the Georgia regiments in Lee's army in Virginia) Congress wanted to promote General Sherman to supreme command and replace Grant. A promotion that Uncle Billy Sherman vehemently and firmly refused. While General Grant was locked up against Lee in a brutal and costly siege, General Sherman had broken and "conquered" Georgia inflicting relatively minimal casualties. After capturing Savannah, General Grant wanted Uncle Billy to take a ship to Virginia and help him against Lee, instead General Sherman insisted that he march to Virginia on foot, and execute the same Hard War strategy he used in Georgia to "conquer" South Carolina. Lee's surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia to General Grant at Appomattox is widely regarded as being the end of the war, though I'd say that Joe Johnston's surrender of every rebel army in Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas (the largest mass surrender of the war, of almost 90,000 rebels) to General Sherman at Bennett Place could really take the credit for that. Plus, a big factor that played into Lee's surrender was that Grant had surrounded him and also that General Sherman was on his way north to Virginia, after decimating Georgia and South Carolina.
It was more than Grant and Sherman. One of Grant's predecessors General Scott came up with the plan called the Anaconda plan. This plan called a naval blockage of all confederate ports, capture of such ports and capturing the town and cities on the Mississippi River. There were union forts along the confederate shores. Forts Like Fort Pickens, Fort Myers in Florida, and Fort Monroe in Virginia, gave the confederate forces a lot of problems because they disrupted the trade with Europe. Fort Pickens was the launching point for the capture of New Orleans and the start of the drive to capture the Mississippi River. Fort Myers would raid cattle herds meant for the confederate army. And Fort Monroe sat on the James River which the confederate capital Richmond was on its shores.
@@erikdrum6934 Oh of course, General Scott was one of the greatest of all American Generals, and his campaign in Mexico City during that war was perhaps the greatest ever waged by the US Army. There was also General Sheridan, the Cavalry commander, who decimated the Shenandoah Valley and destroyed Early's army of the Valley at Cedar Creek.
@@jfdavis668 Sherman's activities were under the direction of Grant. Sherman adored Grant, who was a plebe (then called "things") when Sherman was in his last year. Sherman said that he really did not understand Grant--his quietness, his humility, his sense of quiet fortitude. And Sherman said that Grant did not even understand himself. Oh, I think that Grant understood himself very well.
@@briansheehan3430 Grant was in great distress over the Mexican War. He especially felt that the destruction of the beautiful city of Vera Cruz, via the artillery of Gen. Scott's. He, however, received, three high awards for his role in that war. He also fell in love with the Mexican people.
Not for lack of trying, but Grant was masterful at maintaining the initiative, blocking Lee's avenues for counterattacks and keeping the ANV on its heels at all times.
Grant faced a completely different ANV when he came east... It wouldn't have mattered if YOU were running the AotP by 1864 so long as you kept the pressure on. The ANV couldn't sustain it's forces in the field without prolonged breathers and that was where Grant knew he could, heck WOULD win, if Lincoln would have his back of which he could be certain Old Abe did.
McClellan was apparently the right choice after 1st Manassas, getting the broken Army back together again. But a fighter, he was not. He was scared to lose, and you can't lose if you don't fight. Eisenhower also was a great organizer and leader, but when it was time to go, he went with everything he had. Two generals. Two personalities. Two different results.
Yes, imagine what the American Civil War would have been like McClellan respected his weaknesses and was content to be Chief of Staff for the Union overseeing more competent battle commanders.
Spot on comment. I don't THINK (Who knows) McClellan was "afraid" as much as he couldn't stand seeing the thing of beauty he crafted wrecked as would be inevitable in it's use. The ANV was fought out at Sharpsburg with a General (Longstreet) aiding in a arty battery while Little Mac had half an Army at his back and wouldn't send them in. Lincoln had every reason to be pissed.
When some believe, with such passion, that it was a given that the North would have won the war, I say just look at Lincoln's face. He must have aged 20 years in 4. He kept getting bad news from the front. By the way I just found out today that Sherman and Grant had a general named Jefferson Davis ! They did have different middle initials. He and a general who had already lost an arm are in a photo with Sherman, who looks absolutely ravished.
A lot of people paint a terrible picture of General Grant. I think it comes mostly from Southern pride and arrogance (i'm from Oklahoma). Myself, I examined both generals. both were extraordinary. But I do believe that Grant was superior, if nothing else but by results and alliance. Lee betrayed his entire nation and supported an Army rebelling Lincoln, an army that historically made the first gun shot and when they found out they couldn't own slaves and blacks would be equals, wanted to secede from the Union, claiming their rights as slave owners were violated. Lee joined that army out of loyalty to his home state. In my eyes, he is a brilliant strategist and a gentlemen...and a traitor to his country. Had Lee chosen to stay at home or fight for the Union, the war would have been shorter, much shorter with far less lives. The extensive deaths lie on LEE'S shoulders more than anyone else's.
I am having trouble understanding why the US sees Lee as a great general... He fought mainly in his own state, but attacked the Union twice (both times losing men he couldn't replace), he lost a hugh number of men in futile attacks, often didn't wait until the hole army was ready for an attack, and most glaringly of all, he was terrible at giving commands/controlling the battles. Lee didn't fight a war in a strategic way, but for glory...
Some, very good, observations bandholm. However, there are other things to consider. Lee, constantly, did more with less. Less men. Less supplies. Less railroads and barges for transportation of troops. What Lee possessed was a genius for getting the big picture. The courage to divide his army when he felt the need. The best timing to know where and when to strike, and a great sense of character judgement to select the proper leaders to get the job done. Granted, mistakes, like Gettysburg, were made but I don't think that another general could have achieved the same success with the hand that Lee was dealt. If Lee was given the same resources that the North enjoyed, the war may, possibly, had a different outcome.I would love to hear any opinions on my thoughts
You say Lee did more with less... And that he might have won the war if he had resources more on par with the North. I can understand that point of view, but I believe that is to miss the hole war, just for trying to boost the ego of a general... Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you or anyone else is trying to boost Lees ego, but you are missing Lees really big flaws, and lack of accomplishments (that would support such a view that he was that great). Most problematic is your line "What Lee possessed was a genius for getting the big picture". That line is problematic because, Lee really didn't see the big picture. From what I have heard and read (you can quit easily find people with vastly more knowledge that me on the US civil war) Lee was very much a Virginian, and saw the war almost solely from that Stats point of view... Meaning he completely missed the importance of the West, refused to send troops or even commanders to help and believed that other stats should send their troops to boost his army. That is not "seeing the big picture". Lee also fought an offensive war, in a war where the South didn't need to win, they just had to "not lose" (meaning the war was defensive in nature for the South)... That is really missing the big picture, because it meant that battles like Antietam and Gettysburg (both battles, where he almost lost the army, had the North had generals willing to commit) were fought in spite of the actual needs of the South. Those battles helped undermining the South (thankfully) and to a large degree meant that Lee himself limited the Souths capabilities in men and material. Lee never destroyed an enemy army, and if we look at the casualties, Lee lost more men than Grant overall yet he didn't have any results to show for most of those sacrifices. Grant (by comparison) destroyed three armies in the war, he completed his objectives, and ended the war without defeat. Campaigns such as Vichsburg, to this day, are still relevant to study. Grant attacked with LESS men, than the South had, fought something like 5 battles in 6 days, had fewer casualties than the South, and ended that campaign, effectively cutting the South in two, and placing the North in a strategic position that meant, the outcome of the war in effect was decided. And he did that in a way that can justifiably be call an American blitzkrieg, some 75 years before the Germans coined the term. Lee was, for the time, a good field commander... But his succes mainly happened when he had commanders like Jackson. Lee made some brave choices, and he did well enough in defensive battles... However his claim to fame, more than anything really, was that he was liked by the South, that he was a gentleman and "American royalty". And that is what he is remembered for really, that he was a liked general, that commanded a losing army. Grant by comparison, effectively made the US military into what it is today... He effectively adopted and used the "staff". His view of what was important "destroying the enemy army" has effectively been the US doctrine for war ever since. And his view of war, was so thoroughly modern, than even present commanders can learn from looking at Grant (there are good arguments for claiming that Grant is the best general in all of US military history). Sorry for the long post, but your points, deserved an answer better than "I think you are wrong"
Even had Lincoln lost reelection (which he thought a distinct possibility) he was prepared to keep fighting until inauguration day. It seems pretty hard to believe that even McClellan would give away strategic advantages hard earned on the battlefield during any peace negotiations with the CSA.
@@TigerRifle1 I don't see emancipation being taken off the table completely during any peace negotiation especially since Lincoln would have continued fighting the war until inauguration day in March 1865 and likely would have eventually still taken Atlanta, still smashed through Georgia and the Carolinas and still have Lee cornered at Petersburg. A President McClellan would be under tremendous pressure by Republicans to not throw away a victory in his grasp made possible by Lincoln. He couldn't go back to an 1860 status quo no matter how much he may have wanted to. He may have returned the slaves to their masters, but it would have been politically impossible to return those who served in the Union Army, especially with the known likelihood those tens of thousands of men would be killed to prevent them from influencing other slaves. Hundreds of thousands of black Union Army veterans would be freed along with thousands of freed slaves who made it north and would be under the protection of the northern states. Slavery would still be banned from the western territories and when those western states joined the Union in the 1870s and '80s, they would have ended slavery by 1900.
THAT is something I’ve always disagreed with. The Union wouldn’t have been gone, it would just be smaller. Both Confederacy and Union would expand out west. HOWEVER you may well have ended up bringing the world wars to American Soil.
wcatholic1 you forgot to include Sherman but that was only true in the eastern front, the south were getting there ass' s handed to them by the north in the weastern front
because McClellan did nothing important besides train the army of the Potomac he is rightly remembered as a bad general. And Grant lost less men than Lee in every battle they fought by sizable margins except the Appomattox Campaign and even that is just marginal at best. This while having Less casualty rates than any other Union commander, Grant on objective numbers and events shows he was a brilliant commander. He never made the same mistake twice unlike Lee who repeated mistakes like holding onto ineffective commanders and performing costly maneuvers.
Lee was a great tactician (suitable for winning battles) and Grant a great strategist (suitable for winning wars), after this it's not a big surprise Who won the war.
Actually, Lee was a better strategist than tactician. His early victories came because he left most of the tactical work to Jackson. Grant was brilliant neither at tactics or strategy, but he was smart enough to know that while he couldn't out think Lee, he could out brawl him. So, he started a street brawl he know he could win. He compared the business to a couple of Kilkenney cats fighting, the winner would be the one with the longer tail.
Strategy is deciding where and when to fight. Tactics is actually fighting the battle. Grant won because he never assumed he was smarter than Lee, he was just smart enough to know that to win he simply had to bleed Lee dry. He was strong skinned enough to do it.
Lee was a skilled strategist? Lee did not even take advantage of his two greatest victories at Second Bull Run and Chancellorsville. He never took advantage of a victory, ever. Lee's grand strategy for the war was to destroy the Army of the Potomac and capture a single northern city, he went headstrong into Gettysburg believing that would be his final campaign, and instead he saw the slaughter and annihilation of 1/3rd of his entire army, and was mopped back down to Virginia. He accomplished absolutely nothing strategically significant. Grant was not skilled in strategy? Grant took the strategically important Fort Donelson, just days after capturing Fort Henry, not even one year into the war, which led to the capture of Nashville. While Lee had the early advantage of extremely short supply lines, and almost always had the advantage of home terrain as well as local intelligence and yet was never able to keep the only army he ever fought permanently out of Virginia (losing all 41 northwestern counties of his own home state instead) General Grant, with the disadvantages of being the attacker in relatively unknown land, and relying on extremely long lines of supply (relying on none at all through the Vicksburg Campaign) had cleared out Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and the northern parts of Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama and Georgia. He crossed the largest river on the continent to no opposition because of General Sherman's feints, won 6 battles in 20 days, captured Jackson MS and laid a successful siege on Vicksburg which captured the river and effectively bisected the so called "confederacy" in half, making Arkansas, Texas, and northern Louisiana completely irrelevant, and crippling their trade with the east. He accomplished all of this engaged by not one, but two rebel armies, both of which surrendered to him unconditionally after successfully executing Sun Tzu's "defeat-in-detail" strategy. Grant then marched east, ordering General Sheridan to burn down the agricultural Shenandoah Valley, while in just 8 weeks Grant had stealthily flanked Lee on the James River and pinned him down in Petersburg for the 9 month siege which resulted in Grant stripping Lee's lines of supply and means of reinforcement, until he had Lee completely surrounded with General Sherman's Army of the Tennessee which had just ripped its way through Georgia and the Carolinas on its way north to do the same to Virginia, resulting in Lee becoming the third rebel leader to surrender to him. Grant still reigns as the only American General to capture three enemy armies. Not only was Grant a master of tactics and strategy, but logistics as well. It didn't take Grant to defeat Lee in battle either, as prior to Lee's ultimate defeat, he had been bested by McClellan in the Peninsula Campaign, of which Lee had the numerical advantage at Glendale, yet suffered a horrible defeat (which rebel General Hill had commented saying "this isn't war, this is murder.) As well as the Battle of Malvern Hill, in which Lee had planned to integrate his forces with Jackson's, but was unable to because Jackson had been stopped by William B. Franklin at White Oak Swamp, and Lee sent his men up a frontal assault on high ground losing over 2,000 more men than Grant had lost in the final charge of Cold Harbor. And then, obviously, there was General Meade who out thought and out Generaled Lee at Gettysburg, in which Meade had predicted Lee would attack the center line on the third day, and where Henry J. Hunt, the greatest Artilleryman on either side, had used the cover of smoke from the massive yet ineffective rebel artillery to silence his own guns one by one, effectively deceiving Lee into believing the Union's cannons had been destroyed which led him to think it was then "safe" enough to initiate the infantry charge in which he sacrificed Pickett's entire division in vain.
Grant and Sherman were the Civil War version of Patton and MaCarthur. Brutal and without regard for cost, as long as the objectives were met and final victory in the field was achieved.
Jesus Patton and MacArthur ?????? Patton took 3 months to advance 60 miles at Lorraine /Metz MacArthur ran away and was hopeless, vindictive and egotistical .
Grant understood the south had no more men to give to the war, what they had in the field was it while he had entire regiments that had never seen action. In a way the Russians in WW2 followed the same tactic. The Germans could not replace the men or the equipment they were losing while the Russians had whole spare armies. The other thing Grant and the Russians understood was get on the attack and stay on it, push the enemy back at all times, a mobile war not a static one. Grant was a man ahead of his time.
Andrei Martyanov says that the claims about Soviet "human wave" attacks were rationalizations by defeated German generals after the war, which the U.S. and other allies accepted and still believe.
The railroad and steamboat were critical in all Civil War battles. General Howard Haupt is probably one of the most significant Northern commanders in utilizing the railroad to the maximum degree possible for logistics. Howard Haupt's trains made efficient movement of supplies, men, equipment, ammunition, guns, foddef for animals, and replacements or reinforcements. Wounded men were loaded up on trains for return trips to hospitals. Howard Haupt made the trains run on time on strict schedules. The corporate term "time is money" came from Haupt's emphasis on management for keeping the trains on schedule. Haupt demanded adequate loading and unloading crews be on standby and work until all the trains were unloaded on time with supplies kept in warehouses to protect them from weather. Supplies were number and prioritized so fodder, ammunition, food and other essentials were prioritized over other less important supplies. Everything was planned and managed scientifically by Howard Haupt. Howard Haupt figured out mass production methods to fix bridges, tracks, and railroad marshalling yards including maintenance of locomotives and railcars. The telegraph also was used to coordinate movements of urgently needed supplies or reinforcements to critical sectors a thousand miles away. The City Point, Virginia supply depot became a hub of logistical support keeping Grant's armies well supplied with food, ammunition, reinforcements, fodder and equipment. City Point, Virginia was the supply point that made Grant's Overland campaign possible leading to the eventual defeat of Lee at Petersburg in many months of costly trench warfare. www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2011/summer/usmrr.html
Had the South been successful in its secession, the peace between the two neighboring nations would have been short lived. The two sides would have squared off again and again and again... The success of the American story could only be realized with one nation on the Continent. Lincoln knew this. So did Grant. Both were willing to sacrifice an entire generation of young men to save the country for the future. It was a cold and rational assessment of reality. The South sacrificed, too. But its sacrifice was tied to ideology and passion.
@@tradtke101 Seems funny as all get out that has never actually played out in recorded history. The Sun never set on the British Empire and they were front and center in ending slavery. Everything is about economy to make money or control the making of money. In light of how things turned out please explain how becoming the worlds policeman (I.E. Control) came about without said slavers?
Funny side note... one of the Thin Man films, starring William Powell and Myrna Loy as Nick and Nora Charles. Nick is a private detective, and about to go find a bad guy. Nora wants to go along against his wishes. She follows him out to the busy NYC street. He tricks her by calling a cab. She gets in and he slams the door behind her, quickly telling the driver, "Grant's Tomb." The cab hurries off with Nora in it, alone. Later they meet at home. Nick says, "So, darling, how was Grant's Tomb?" She replies, "Wonderful. I'm thinking of having one made for you."
I've always thought of Lee as Hannibal (though obviously not half as gifted) and Grant as a mix of Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus and Scipio Africanus. Lee won some tactical victories, though none near as great as Cannae or Lake Trasimene. Grant didn't delay like the Cunctator and well, no one else was like Scipio, but like the two Roman commanders was ultimately victorious.
Grant and Sherman were not dashing figures Like Generals Lee,Jackson,Stuart, Longstreet and several others. But both of those guys understood modern warfare. And that is not meant as shade toward the expert Soldiers of the South.Those Guys were badasses My ancestors served 3:29 in the Union Army from Maryland but they had great respect for the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. And with good reason. What many Southerners today may not realize is that General R.E. Lee was admired and respected nationwide for his military skill which was produgious as was the skills of his other commanders When word got around that Lee was appointed as Dean of Washington College(Washington & Lee today),parents from as far away as the West coast and every Northern state wanted their Sons to go there for education. He still casts a long shodow.May he R.I.P.
Grant knew how to defeat Lee (and the South for that matter), Lee knew what Grant was trying to do. From the Wilderness to Cold Harbor was, in my opinion, some of the HARDEST DAYS the U.S. had to endure and so many Americans died. On the one hand, I'm glad I didn't have to be there, on the other, I can NOT afford to forget just what the Army of the Potomac had to do to preserve the U.S.........
Lee had a great opportunity to deal Grant a severe blow at North Anna River, the fight before Cold Harbor. But Lee was very sick, Longstreet wounded, Hill and Ewell out with various ailments; he had no one he could trust to execute complicated orders. If, a big IF, Lee's command structure had been intact, North Anna River would be remembered as Grant's biggest disaster. As it was, it's almost as if Grant decided to give Lee another chance and ordered those ill-fated frontal assaults at Cold Harbor. By 1864 both armies knew how to entrench. There is a trench at the Wilderness Battlefield, off in the woods, dug by the 10th Louisiana Regiment. You would think they spent weeks building it (digging it out), Nah! they did it overnight.
In his personal life, his actions were saintly. While being quartermaster in charge of army families traveling to California, they came down with a myriad of diseases. This happened as they were trying to cross the isthmus of Panama. Grant said at the time that "someone should build a canal here." Grant placed the most communicable people on a barge. All of the soldiers refused to go onto the barge, in fear for their lives. Do you know which person then performed all of the nursing duties himself ? Grant. There are SO many other instances when Grant did heroic actions. He always remained humble and self-effacing, from childhood to his death in 1885. Were he a Catholic, I have no doubt that Grant would have made it to sainthood, under John Paul II.
@@ulyssgrant3178 I would have loved to have met him.I just bought his autobiography.It looks really good.A shame a lot of people abused their position of power when he was president.
@@djj9988 His very soul was innocence embodied. He trusted people too much. However, what you are reading is his descriptions of his activities in the Civil War. He wrote it at Mark Twain's urging so as to save his wife from destitution. It was a tremendous feat. He was in great pain from cancer of the throat. Twain was amazed at Grant's prowess in writing and at how much he could produce in such a short time.He finished his work and died two days later. His funeral in NYC was seven miles long, even with some Confederate contingents. Grant had wanted to write his autobiography covering his entire life. He had come to say that he had come to see how hollow a biography was if it did not include the person's life as a child and an adolescent.He had a photographic mind, and was always a voracious reader. He would hide out in the library, reading, when he was supposed to be marching. He was also one of our 19th' centuries best artists, many done at West Point. Look them up, and you shall be amazed. Regarding him and his presidency. First, he was NOT an alcoholic and suffered from this ignominy . He fell into a deep depression while in what is now Oregon, in a fort in the middle of nowhere. There was an officer in charge, Buchanan, who was a martinet, under whom Grant served in St. Louis. One day as quartermaster, he was paying the soldiers. Buchanan heard him slurring his speech. Keep in mind that Grant was only 5'8" and slender. He could not hold his liquor. After one drink, his speech was slurred and after two, he had to hold onto the furniture. His fellow officers, who loved him, told him to fight this charge, because they felt he would win. He drank far less than any other officer. Instead, he resigned.On his way out of California, he came upon one poor army with no money. Grant gave him one of the two pieces of gold which Grant had. Then he found two others in great need, and gave them the last of his gold. He was absolutely fearless in battle, and a boastful word never left his lips. I actually believe that he was one of our best Presidents : He est. the first national park, Yellowstone. He fought for the amendment giving the slaves their due. He outlawed the KKK. He founded the Justice Dept. so as to prosecute those who violated the rights of the freedmen, as he called them, with great respect. He also had conferences with the Indians, who were rapidly losing their land in the upper Midwest and West. He told them he would do everything he could to help them, but when gold was discovered, he knew he could not help much, and told them so, with great sorrow. He was a superb family man. His marriage was one of romance from day one. He and Julia were always deeply in love. He said, "My two weaknesses are my children and my horses." A documentary could be done on this wonderful man regarding his relationship with horses. They were his friends. He could tame a wild mustang in three hours ! Before the Mexican War, the locals sold the army wild mustangs for c. $ 30.00. Once, the other soldiers saw him mount a mustang, scratching their heads. He returned three hours later atop a perfectly trained horse. They were incredulous.He explained, "Well, when we would come to a crossroads, he would want to go one way, and I another, so we came to an arrangement." He was the best horseman to ever graduate from West Point.
@@djj9988 I so appreciate your comments, D J J, but you will not find him as I describe. His only memoir is about his role in the Civil War, and he never boasts, never. And, even more to his character, he goes easy on some of his officers and generals who made some blunders. In fact, when Lincoln made him in charge of the entire army, thus sending him east, with more than a million men under his command, he had almost as much trouble with his eastern generals, as he did with Lee. They, the Army of the Protomic , still considered themselves Georgie's Boy (McClellan ) or Meade's. That soon ended, of course, when they saw his style and his wins. Please wish me Godspeed on the screenplay I am writing. I have heard that there is someone else writing one based on the recent book by Ron Chernow, mostly about the Civil War, I would surmise. Mine would be cheaper to film because it portray much of his years before and after the war. I want to tell you, using two stories of his life at West Point, which showed his mettle and his unruffled persona. One the second day at West Point his plebe class was lined up to go into the mess hall. There must have been a member of his class who was tasked with have them looking like soldiers, not a ragtag bunch from all over. When he got to Grant, he saw a puny guy of just 5' 2" in height. The guy chewed Grant out and took a swing at him, sending Grant backwards onto the floor. Grant got up and meekly told his classmate not to do that again, because the outcome might be different. What the classmate did not know was that Grant was known to have a powerful physique ; he had performed a wide range of tasks which required much strength. The next morning, his nemesis appeared again, and tried to get Grant. With that, Grant delivered a knockout punch. He was never bullied again. And he was 5'8" when he graduated. Then there was the story of the watch that emitted a gong. Although Grant had had only arithmetic in the subscription schools to which his father had sent him, he became a math genius at the Point. His class was waiting for the professor when one cadet pulled out a huge pocket watch which emitted ultra-loud gongs, and passed it around. As the prof arrived, Grant quickly put the watch into his coat. He was tasked by the prof to teach the class an intricate math problem. While he was at the board, the watch went off, twice. The cadets could hardly contain their hilarity. However, Grant never turned a hair and just proceeded. He was unflappable. He was known to have a very dry sense of humor. We all realize that to have a dry sense of humor is much more difficult than to have a "wet" one.
I would say that Grant at multiple times showed that he was at least as good on the tactical level as Lee (in my opinion actually better). But you are right, Grant was the General of the army, Lee really was "just" a general commander.
Lee's great attribute was his ability to handle his subordinates. Remember, these are state's rights supporters and southern gentlemen. They were apt to challenge each other to duals over slight insults. One of Lee's great abilities was to keep them all working together and not killing each other. But, he was also very dependent on them, he was blessed with outstanding subordinate leaders. His fighting efficiency went down as they were killed or wounded. Grant was much better at developing subordinate leaders. As time went on, he was supported by more and more able subordinates, and it showed each time he went into battle.
The piece being played near this clip’s end is the Civil War song “Tenting tonight on the old camp ground.” “Dying tonight, dying tonight, dying on the old camp ground.” A sad and poignant song.
Grant was the absolute opposite of this actor!!! Grant was always soft-spoken, humble and quiet. He had an interesting command style. As his generals and top officers gathered, each could say anything he wanted, about anything. Sometimes someone thought Grant had fallen asleep. He listened with great concentration, and then wrote his orders down. He wanted to make sure that there were no mistakes in his directions. This piece portraying "Grant"--it has layers of great misunderstanding woven throughout.
Grant understood you win by efficiently applying force on everything the other needs to fight. There are worse things than war: A long war and futile war are two. 'War is cruelty, there is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is the sooner it will be over"
Grant wasn't the most tactical general especially compared to Lee, but he did have tenacity and grit. Once he got a hold of Lee he didn't let him loose, even after tremendous losses. He used all the advantage the north had and wailed on the Army of Northern Virginia until it wore away and was incapable to continuing.
If Sherman hadn't taken Atlanta, Lee's defensive strategy might have worked. The North was getting tired of losing so many men. Lincoln himself thought he would lose against Meade in the general election.
It wouldn't have worked. Lee was on his last legs after Gettysburg manpower wise. The overland campaign utterly annihilated his remaining reserves as well
Grant was always very ambiguous on strategic intent in the 1864 campaign. Neither his memoirs or his account in Battles and Leaders are very satisfying. Buried away in the correspondence book for the Chattanooga Campaign in the Official Records is a very interesting exchange between Halleck and Grant regarding the 1864 Campaigning. Grant had been put up for Lieutenant General in Nov 64, but Washington leaders hesitated to pull the trigger. McClellan, Halleck and Pope were saviors from the west who fell on their swords. And Lincoln wanted to be persuaded that Grant wouldn't become a political rival for the White House. Consequently Grant wasn't given the General of the Armies task until March 65. Grant had 6 weeks to synchronize and direct the opening campaigns. There was very little he could do to realign forces. Read deeply and you may begin to realize that Grant was not the author of his own strategy. Lincoln and Stanton had already decided that a war of attrition to all but end hostilities before the election was a task levied on Grant. He didn't invent the method, he embraced his mission and sought to make it happen. The butcher nom de guerre started with Mary Lincoln and got press coverage from there. There was tension in the Army of the Potomac. The AoP entered the Campaign badly drained from attrition, reassignment of Corps to the West, and a perpetual slow and inadequate replacement system. Grant kept pushing the army into haphazard fights and fatigue and frustration for Meade and his Corps commanders ran high. The AoP carried the burden of engaging Lee until while Sherman and Sheridan reaped the benefits and got the glory for breaking Hood and Early. Meade and his army got the satisfaction of finally closing the chapter on the Army of North Virginia in the Appomattox Campaign.
Great post. When Grant found out the Republican Party was considering nominating him he slammed his hands on the arms of his chair and stood up shouting "They can't do that!" Grant realized the huge mess this would cause and made it very clear he wouldn't accept any nomination until the war was finished. Lincoln was sure he wouldn't be re-elected and speed was of the essence. He made this clear to Grant that victory must be pursued before the election might possibly mean a negotiated peace with the South. This was the only slim chance the South ever had as in the words of VP Alexander Stephens "The first real ray of light since the war began." Stephens is an interesting fellow that deserves more scholars to study him. For the first time, Richmond was of secondary importance to Grant. His prime objective was to make contact with Lee and the AoNV and not break contact until it ceased to exist as a fighting force.
It was in March of 1864 -not 1865-when Grant was awarded the rank of Lt. Gen., the only general who held it before was Washington.Grant made his own strategy. Lincoln trusted Grant in all things, and Lincoln was very grateful that he longer had to micromanage the movements of his generals.
With good reason, Grant did not much like "Old Brains" Halleck. This man had written exceptional books about the history of significant battles and stratagies. However, Halleck had never once been in a war or shot at. Also, Halleck would think that Grant was being insubordinate when he did not send enough messages to Halleck in St. Louis. Grant was obedient in general--when he must take a certain tack in a battle. Many of his messages were intercepted along the way. There were also Southern sympathizers who operated the telegraph lines. Another factor:both Halleck and Gen. George McClellan became quite Grant after his first two, so-called "easy" victories. On purpose, they once again slandered Grant by bringing forth the history of Grant's drinking while stationed in Oregon. Grant was 100% not an alcoholic. He endured this horrible slander for most of his life, and it was more than unjust.
Grant was often at odds with Henry Halleck , his boss in St. Louis. Halleck was called " Old Brains" because he was the author of books on wartime stratagy. However, Halleck had never once been in any battle whatsoever. Once, Grant said that he would resign at once if he was ordered to do something which he thought would end in disaster. He was ordered to do just administrative jobs in a tent somewhere. The next day he was returned to his former work. There were also the problems with telegraphs between Grant and Halleck. Along the line there were spies running the telegraph. There were sometimes days when Grant received orders from Halleck, but they never reached him. No, Grant was always in charge of his own decisions.
Grant was the author of his own strategies and no one else. Soon after Grant had control of the Army of the Potomic and of the entire army, with one million men under his command, Lincoln was found stretched out on a sofa, and relaxing. Someone asked him why he could be so free. Then Lincoln made it very clear that he no longer had to manage the war, because he had found a general who could handle it by himself.
That isn't winning by losing. Winning by losing means falling back in the face of the enemy trading space and lives for time, while waiting for the enemy to expose himself to a counter-attack. That sounds like Lee's situation in 1864, not Grant's.Think the Soviets before Kursk or even the US Navy at Midway. Grant stayed on the attack. When blocked, he flanked Lee out of his fortified position and continued South until Lee blocked him again. He lost more men because he was on the offensive while Lee was fighting behind fortifications. Funny, nobody says Lee lost the Seven Days Battle outside Richmond when he went on the attack and lost more men then Little Mac because he was achieving his objective of forcing the Union Army away from Richmond. Grant was achieving his objective in denying Lee the initiative and ability to divert his forces. He also was fighting towards the James River and shorter supply lines with US Navy gunboat support. Grant was constantly improving his military situation. That's not winning by losing.
You are 100% correct. Grant used the Army of the Potomac in ways that McClellan, Burnside, and Hooker could have done, but did not do. He won within a year of gaining command. I wonder what Meade would have done if left to his own devices. He seems to have been dancing around Northern Virginia for three months.
Pretty much the case. When you have a considerably larger well equipped force. You do as Patton suggested. Grab him by the nose and kick him in the pants.... Joe Johnson replied to a reporter who wished General Sherman would be consigned to the darker regions of Hades. Johnson replied it would be of no benefit as Sherman would have flanked the Devil and be back by lunch.... Grant was less graceful in doing so, but his designs moved his Army in force offering Lee no chance to hit any strung out units... At first the Southerners took these moves in force as redeploying for a continuation of hostilities on the same field which allowed Grant to get the jump on them... The thing about Lee's failings early in the war, The Seven Day Battle as an example, Lee was not able to coordinate his green forces to catch the disorganized enemy at Glendale, (T J Jackson took himself a day long nap...) and his men paid the price at Malvern hill... It was always, whenever the least bit possible, for Lee's to put himself in a solid defensive position by taking the field first... Gettysburg was a shining example of what happens when he let the enemy beat him to the high ground... Grant on the other hand started with a well oiled machine. Union attacks were always punctilious about starting right on time at 5:30AM.... Even at the Wilderness when Burnside was Burnside, they were able to move more than 100,000 men as agilely as the smaller Southern army could move 60,000. By the Battle of Spotsylvania Courthouse the AotP was battered and by Cold Harbor, a mere shadow of itself. This decline is in large part why the AotP began failing to close the jaws in times it very well could have ended the conflict... It is signal that the AotP suffered some 18,000 casualties at the Wilderness then actually fielded more men at Spotsylvainia Courthouse a couple weeks later.... (The ANV started with some 63,000 at the Wilderness and had roughly 50-53,000 at Spotsylvainia.)... It was this way for the remainder of the war....
@@headshotsongs9465 Even if that were true, Lee chose the wrong side of history. Time will keep Grant in high regard, and one day the bearers of the Lost Cause will leave a smaller stain in US history interpretations. The truth is that more people died in Lee's army than any other Confederate army, and more soldiers lived in Grant's army than in any other Union army, proportionally speaking. But Lee is the gentleman and Grant the butcher in the weird nation of the United States.
Through telegraph, Grant controlled five forces: Sherman, the western campaign, the Tennesse campaign, his own force in Virginia and the Navy to bottle up the south. It’s called Operational Art in the military. Has little to do with just Lee or any single battle. Multiple horns of a delema for the Confederacy. 1864 overland campaign used all five theaters, not just Lee in Northern Virginia.
Antietam was a more glorified stand-off thanks to McClellan's dithering for 18 critical hours when he had Lee's secret battle plans practically fall into his lap. Had he moved immediately, he could have crushed Lee. The silver lining was that perhaps without the motivation of a lengthy war, the chances for US Constitutional amendments 13 to 15 might have been very long.
It was a miniseries called North and South back in the 80's. It starred Patrick Swayze. Since you asked this five years ago you probably already know by now.
Don’t be ridiculous, there’s many better generals than Grant. He may be America’s best but world history nope. Just to name a few there’s Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal, Napoleon, Khalid, Subutai, Jan Zizka, Duke of Marlborough
@@fredbarker9201 that's my opinion based on his Vicksburg campaign! Most of the other generals you mentioned were superior in battles won and number of battles, not arguing there. But when it comes to grand strategy and historical impact that is felt to this day, Grant is on another level.
@@blaugranisto oh absolutely, his Vicksburg campaign is seriously impressive. IMO only eclipsed by Stonewalls valley campaign. Lees daring split of his smaller forces at Chancellorsville is pretty impressive too. Those have Got to be the 3 greatest military feats of the civil war.
Lee was not stupid. He knew better than anyone the numbers and odds that he was up against, that the entire Confederacy was up against. He knew and said after Gettysburg that if he was unable to bleed grants on me into incapacitation, but it would come down to a siege and then it would only be a matter of time. All of the armchair generals and second guessers, of any generation, give me a pain in my ass. Grant wasn't stupid either. He knew that by the time that he came on the scene to accompany the army of the Potomac that the North had vast numerical superiority and material superiority and it was just a matter of applying pressure on All points simultaneously so that the South could not shift forces from one sector to another.
False. Even in 1862-1863, when things were generally going Lee's way, Lee never actually looked beyond his own command, never attempted to work out plans with other generals. Lee was very tactically-based in his command style. Grant didn't have quite as much tactical gift, although if you study his past battles, you'll see he was actually pretty good at it. His strength was in reading not just his fight but whats going on outside of it, allowing him to lose tactically but at the same time win..
By the way, more men, more guns, more supplies... McClellan, Burnside, Hooker... they all once faced Lee with more men, more guns, more supplies... yet Lee beat those guys. Why is that? Because the three I just named saw the tactical plan never used their armies strategically. Are you crying foul that Lee faced a general who could use his forces intelligently?
For the record Lee lost some battles. In the Seven Days McClellan bled him white. Lee retreated at Antietam. Grant bled him on the road to Richmond while cutting his supply lines. Meade defeated him at Gettysburg. He was deified more for his stoic character and early successes, but in the end his cause caught up with him, as 200,000 black men bolstered the spirits of the Army of the Potomac.
@@vincentprincipato9234 Lees losses are when he has less men and the casualties are around the same on both sides, kinda reinforcing the point about the north having more resources
Grant was given zero choice Lincoln had tried again to recycle his military leaders but this time they turned him down refusing to take leadership. Lincoln finally turns to Grant who accepts but Grant is running out of time something dramatic must take place or Lincoln will be defeated. Grant and Sherman working in joint and Grant loosing troops made it happen. Perhaps if Grant had more time his losses would have been much less as a slower approach could have been taken. Also from what I have learned 150 years after the fact the Southerners were fanatical few owned slaves and fewer benefitted from the practice yet they went to war over it. You can also add European powers to the mix they were waiting for a chance to grab what they could and believe me speaking as a Canadian the less British influence the better.
They did indeed ! While visiting Antietam, the bloodiest of any of US battles in history, a great sorrow came over me as I stood at a very large trench, dug by all Irish soldiers. It is now carpeted in the greenest of grasses.I think that my great-grandfather may have fought in the Civil War. The Irish in general do not like to talk about the tragedies in their history, and, so, we know so little.
@dwone jones How dare you say that. My father lied about his age to get into WWI. I figured out that he was probably only 16 years old.His first cousin was buried at sea. Hundreds of thousands of Union Irish men fought with great bravery during the Civil War. My late husband's brother Mike dropped out of Princeton to enlist during WWII. He fought both in Europe and in the Pacific in the infantry. He was one of the soldiers on Okinawa, ready to move into Japan. I can only imagine what he had seen. He never talked about it. Talk about PTSD.
the scenes in the tv show are completely turned upside down. I mean their order is different. the journalist arrives before the quarrel between Grant and his colonel, that wants a new retreat after Wilderness ( that is portrayed here like a huge Union defeat, whereas maybe Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor could be considered like that). The information of the journalist is excellent he and the colonel summarize all the information every "lover" of the civil war should know; Union at the arrival of Grant was more in difficulties than everybody all around the world could ever think drawing from the books of history. The North or better the Union had undergone the defeats of Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg, Bull Run, Seven days battle etc, without reckoning Winchester 1863 before Gettysburg and Harper's ferry in end summer 1862 before Antietam . Also the generals, who were defeated, are here correctly quoted, but the winning party has influenced the cinema too. In the movie only Bull Run is shown and portrayed as a great and dramatic felt Union defeat. The other Union defeats are just hinted but not shown. And also some victories of the North are ignored Like Vicksburg. Anyway North and South remains a fantastic tv show
Spotsylvania could have been a smashing Union victory if Upton's attack that split Lee's line wide open had been properly supported. Cold Harbor was definitely a sharp, useless defeat that should have been avoided.
The Wilderness was by any measure, excepting no retreat was ordered, a loss... By not retreating and, in effect, continuing the same battle with breather was the difference in perception there. Many will look at that battle as "Inconclusive" in and of itself as it decided nothing. The thing is, as one of the clips portrayed, Grant simply viewed it as, (PP) "not being licked unless we say so...."
There was not even one iota of false pride in Grant. He was a humble, kind and brilliant man. And he was like that all throughout his life. Lincoln loved Grant. When Lincoln lay in state in the East Room, Grant stood at his head and sobbed. The Grants were supposed to be in the Lincoln's box that Good Friday in Ford's Theater. Grant came to regret this so much because he might have been able to save Lincoln's life.
maybe Grant's emotional ability to keep up a meat grinder "butcher" strategy was assisted by being emotionally deadened through whiskey... when any sober man, might have stopped the unrelenting gruesome attacks...
The meat grinder strategy was the last thing on Grant's mind. He spent the whole Richmond campaign trying to fight his way around Lee, not through him. Grant just knew that maintaining contact with the enemy was the way to ensure that he couldn't recover the initiative, and the initiative was critical.
I believe that Grant was not an alcoholic; he also got 3-day migraines, which can look like a hangover Even one drink made him slur his words. I have seen people who get absolutely nasty one just one drink. Grant never once humiliated any person in public during the war. The one exception was a soldier who was abusing a draft horse. In an interview with Walter Cronkite , Gen./Pres. Eisenhower said that no "drunkard" could have achieved such winning stratagies that Grant did. He had a labyrinthine mind. Eisenhower also said that Grant was one of our greatest generals. He quickly amended this and said, "No, he WAS our greatest generals."
John Boykin In that case, Davis and Lee (the real butchers) should have surrendered after Vicksburg. The war was over then, except for needless carnage and suffering. They brought the South nothing but pain and destruction, but Southerners only took it all lying down and asked for more.
Grant was no butcher. He hated violence, and never killed a living thing, when "hunting" with others boys, or with officers in Oregon. He would wince when he saw the sufferings of the war. He had a boyhood friend, Admiral Dan Ammen, whom he had known as a boy in Georgetown, Ohio. Dan had saved Grant from drowning, and when he would visit Grant while he was president, he would say to USG that he must be so happy to have been saved from drowning. Grant said, no, he would not have chosen his life, were he able to do so. He opened his memoirs with a line from St. Thomas a Kempis, "Man proposeth, God disposeth."
Genral grants ghost visited me and he said lots of stuff but the most importent thing was this ----men have beards and woman dont so this means woman stay in caves in the winter why the men leave .
The War was one of attrition. When you have more money, men and arms than your opponent, you can continue to lose the same number of men in battle, because your enemy will run out of men before you do.
Some military historians feel the Civil War might have ended in the summer of 1864 as Grant fooled Lee with his crossing of the James River with Petersburg (a railroad hub) as his objective while Lee thought Grant was aiming for Richmond. But Grant's subordinates moved too slowly upon Petersburg, giving Lee time enough to get to that city to fortify it.
Not a bad job by Zerbe as Grant. The first Union general, with the exception of Meade who wasn't awed by Lee. He was a practical commander who knew that by taking the fight to the Confederacy was the only way to win the war. He made mistakes, Cold Harbor comes to mind, but he was proven right in the end.
Whoever wrote the scripts for this film knew next to nothing about Grant .He was very quiet. A powerful quiet. He never got agitated, and was totally cool in battle and in just about everything. This is a lousy portrayal of Grant and of Sherman.
A lot of commentary about Grant the Strategist overlooks another aspect of his generalship: he was one of the first generals to truly understand the concept of combined arms operations. In his three most significant campaigns he uses the Navy effectively in order to achieve his objectives. For the Cumberland Valley campaign (Forts Henry and Donelson, Shiloh) he relied on river transport to facilitate the mobility of his army as well as gunboats to provide artillery support. For Vicksburg, he employed Admiral Porter's fleet to complete the encirclement of the city and cut off any riverine pathway of resupply or escape, and for the Overland Valley campaign and siege of Petersburg, the Navy provided the backbone of his logistics. He understood the value of naval operations to the success of the army and coordinated with naval commanders as part of his overall strategy.
Or as a later US General said "Amateurs talk tactics. Professionals talk logistics". Grant was a pro - he understood that local tactical defeats did not matter much as long as he kept better logistics than the enemy..
He had a wonderful working relationship with Admiral Andrew Foote, a salty old sea dog that quickly grasped Grant's combined arms strategy and fully supported the army with his river flotilla. Totally fearless and an unsung hero of Grant's early campaigns.
@@kenoliver8913 He was a quartermaster in the old army.
I'm learning more and more about Grant. The most surprising thing is he was a prodigy with horses 🐎 from a very young age. 😮😮😮
I have two books on Grant that ivee been meaning to get to.
If by this you mean he used everything at his disposal, that is quite true... However he was not the first to do so. Hell, McClellan was doing the same during the Peninsula Campaign, (but Little Mac had a steep learning curve to over come...), with the advantage of hindsight he did manage to do such things much better than did his predecessors.
Yours is a good take. I find it amazing how fast the Armies had adjusted to operating with their advantages and disadvantages.
I have seen it recorded during Grant's tenure as the Head of The Union Armies the attacks started each day promptly at 5:00 or 6:00 AM. Can you imagine that?
Grant was one of the first generals in history to think of wars not as a series of battles, but campaigns that reached towards a far goal. Truly one of the first modern generals.
I think how the allies won against Napoleon in 1813-1814 was almost similar strategy campaign. However every military academia dealt with Napoleon instead of studying 1813-1814! It may be Grant and Sherman were not a Napolon epigonist to learn in the mistakes.
Think so? I do think he was aware his advantages were in men and material and he had come to learn how to use those very well. While it certainly was that result, the idea of Campaigning was known well on back and was taught at West Point.
Him and General Longstreet seem like the only one's who fully understood the kind of war they were fighting. No idea why General Lee didn't listen to him at Gettysburg.
Not. Many others before practiced full campaigns. Julius Caesar. Hannibal.
Well yes and no, the idea of not just destroying an enemy on the battlefield but their ability to wage war ever again goes back to ancient time like Rome. After Rome defeated Carthage for the last time they salted all the ground so no crops could grow thus destroying their economy for decades to come and thus their ability to ever threaten Rome again. BUT as far as those "modern times" yes, Grant AND Sherman both recognized that destroying an enemy's ability to wage war was just as effective as destroying armies on the field. Also, in all fairness at the very start of the war the Unions blockade of the south was also a step in that direction, deprive the south of equipment from Europe.
When Lincoln was told grant was a drunk ,lincoln said, "Find out what brand of liquor he drinks and give it to all my other generals!" Grant fights! "
Grant actually surprised Lee a couple of times by stealing a march on him-Grant did some pretty fancy maneuvering but the problem was this sort of sloggishness on the part of corps and division commanders who repeatedly failed to seize golden opportunities Grant had opened for them. Spotsylvania and the first Petersburg advance being prime examples. Because of this paralysis that always affected this army (which saved Lee's bacon numerous times) this lead to the war of attrition.
One big thing people tend to overlook was that the moment Grant moved that spring, he took the initiative out of Lee's hands and forced him into a slug-fest with only one end result. It was also the first time the Union brought to bear it's power on all fronts simultaneously-something Lincoln saw needed to be done early on. Hit them on all fronts and something WILL eventually crack.
In my mind, and apparently what many historians have tried to say for a long time, Grant is one of if not the greatest general America have ever had. He never lost a campaign, he was the main architect behind those campaigns that destroyed the South, and he lost surprisingly few men (overall).
He created the American way of war, and when the war was over, he was one of the main reasons the South didn't try again later.
bandholm 'Old Rough and Ready' Zachary Taylor influenced the young Grant immensely during the Mexican War. His rather sloppy dress, disregard for formalities, and being kind to a defeated foe were all traits Grant picked up.
Lee and many of his brethren could have very well been hanged in the firestorm led by Stanton after Lincoln was gone. Grant made sure this didn't happen by pointing out to Stanton that Lee and his officers had not violated their paroles and were protected under his surrender terms.
A little story that I always liked was during the Overland Campaign a regiment was marching by a railroad embankment. Sitting on one of the flat-cars was a dust covered Grant munching on a ham bone. The regiment cheered and instead of a McClellan style salute Grant simply waved the ham bone and smiled back. As one veteran proudly stated, "Grant wants fighters not yauppers!"
James Robert Cool story!
The only one I know, that is not quoted often, is when he went to Washington with his son to be promoted to Lieutenant General (first one in the US after Washington), he went to a hotel to get a room, and refresh before meting Lincoln and the Staff. When he got there and asked for a room, the owner thought that he held some junior rank because of his lax uniform. So he was assigned a small room (at the time there was a bunch of generals so the good rooms where hard to get). But when the owner saw whom the man was that was signing in, he immediately made sure that Grant was given the best room :)
Did not hear this story before. It sounds so Grant-like, it must be true. Also like the story of the Lincoln quip about Grant's drinking where he said that if he knew what brand Grant drank, he would send a case to every Union general. Now, that's a sense of humor.
@@MrBandholm I didn't quite appreciate this fact-in just 2 months of fighting the Army of the Potomac went from 115,000 men when they first started out that spring to down to 55,000 from combat losses. General Hancock later stated that his old II Corps didn't exist anymore by the time of Cold Harbor. He said most of it went under the sod during that terrible spring. The officer corps was cut to ribbons also but Lee was also losing men-a surprising number of them prisoners from a few times an attack caught them completely by surprise. At Spotsylvania, Upton's attack was so quick that 2,000 of Lee's veterans instantly became prisoners.
All in all, Lee lost more men in his battles than Grant did in his. And for all of his brilliant tactical victories, Lee never managed to make a true strategic impact on the war. Grant, although tactically not as superb as Lee, strategically made an impact several times.
Grant's battle plan was sound: although it would be difficult to defeat a tactician like Lee, who was fighting defensively, they could pin him down and batter him. Strategy against tactics.
And in the end, Grant won.
I think it is wrong to say that Lee never had a strategic impact on the war. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia, by achieving early victories, became the heart and soul of the Confederacy, a 'strategic center of gravity.' Grant understood this, which is why he focused on destroying Lee's army instead marching on Richmond.
Grant lost about 17000 and Lee 11000 in the wilderness campaign if I am not mistaken.
How do you arrive at Lee losing more men than Grant? The ANV lost more men to desertion than to battle casualties after Cold Harbor... Before that Grant was cultivating the "Butcher" moniker...
And in the end the region void of commerce, factories, and unlimited resources almost prevailed at the weight of superior tactical generals
Grant had an industrial and logistical advantage over Lee. By this point of the war Grant has already taken over rail and all logistical nodes. Grant used the rail system to project military might by pushing men and fire power forward by train with logistical support right behind it.
After one battle that cost many lives Grant broke down an cried. However he was always calm and cool headed when out on the front lines.
I believe that was during cold harbor. Disaster. But he was able to hold Lee in place at Petersburg by the end of that campaign.
@@trashman5710 Author and historian Shelby Foote said, “Grant, after that first night in the Wilderness, went to his tent, broke down, and cried very hard. Some of the staff members said they’d never seen a man so unstrung. Well, he didn’t cry until the battle was over, and he wasn’t crying when it began again the next day.”
Henry Wolf I do believe you’re correct; Cold Harbor was a rough one.
@@kimberlyhenshaw8368 Ok, so I provided a quote from a famous Civil War author and historian to support my claim. Show me some evidence that supports your belief.
Cold Harbor, where the night before the attack the front line union troops pinned to the backs of their jackets their name and hometown.
My father had the very best statement about Grant that I have ever heard - "Grant was simply the one who realized, that if victory were going to be achieved, then the price for it, was just going to have to be paid". And to the point of the "tactical comparison", I don't agree that he was "tactically inferior" to Lee - Grant devised the tactic of "Feed the battle", namely, punch a hole into the enemy lines, and then systematically pour in the vanguard and drive the enemy either apart or back, whichever came first. Furthermore, the sizes of the armies, for most of the actions of the war, were far more equal than the "southern revisionists" would like to have believed. Grant, unlike everyone else before him, and absolutely alike with Lincoln, singularly recognized that it was the Confederate Army, and NOT the capital, the was in fact, the only actually viable target of attack. Geoff Rohde
There is some truth to this but it must be tempered with the reality. You say the forces were far more equal. Based on what? Southern roles were far more porous with Teamsters often doing time dragging wagons to the battle and Arty during the battle... The lack of resources the South dealt with got to the point it did no good to amass horses for use because they couldn't feed them.... Without retaining control of the battlefield a lot of simple necessities could not be maintained, from needle and thread to harness leather and metal rigging there was no comparison. In man power the disparity was actually quite large. It was quite common for Confederates on the roles to be absent from the Army even when they were maintained on the muster... There was simply too much a shortage of able manpower for putting in, and taking in, crops back home for it to be otherwise...
"Southern revisionists " made up the numbers of men in armies? Not the actual records of the war???? You are saying that these "southern revisionists" had and have control of the records in Washington DC?
What would be the advantage of making up the numbers of men involved? Didn't the north have many times the number of people living there, did not the north also feed the war meat grinder with immigrants just as soon as they touched American soil? No, no sir..... you are mistaken. At least show your source of information.
Okay I could go along with what you commented on all the way up to the point of armies being relatively equal despite southern revisionist.......huh??? For his Overland Campaign Grant had an estimated 110K vs Lee's 60K, when Grant broke through at Petersburg it was even worse. Has nothing to do with "southern revisionist", being the bad guy or whatever, just math............and yes, what your father said was very true.
You don’t know squat about history or reality. The South outnumbered the North in less than 1% of all the Civil War battles fought, big or small.
Grant knew what was needed to win the war, but he was not a gifted tactical commander. With his resources he should’ve crushed Lee, but it was Lee who kept defeating Grant during 1864 contrary to the “Northern revisionist” history that attempts to say now that the battles were stalemates. Had the ANV not dissolved through desertion and attrition they’d still be fighting in those trenches outside of Petersburg.
Grant used human wave assaults to try and break the Confederate lines wherever possible. His frontal assaults at Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, and North Anna were foolish and did nothing more than cost tens of thousands of lives. Had Lee had the resources, or even half, of what Grant and every other Union commander was privileged to, the war would’ve ended very differently.
We'll never really know because Grant never faced Lee with Jackson in command of a division or corps.
Someone here answered me saying that Grant was well aware that some of his officers had more experience than he did. Grant was quite prominent in the Mexican War, soon after his graduation from West Point.He received three well-deserved commendations for his bravery in battle and for his other accomplishments. He was totally fearless in battle and was an excellent quartermaster. So, when the Civil War came along, he enlisted quickly, saying that he owed the government much because it had paid for his college education.
It's said amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics. Grant cut his teeth in the Mexican War being quartermaster for his idol Zachary Taylor. Grant learned that logistics is what wins battles and he also took to adopting Taylor's shabby dress and being very kind to enemies that had surrendered honorably.
A lot of his fellow officers were better than him on paper but in practice he turned out to be the best.
That is true but another motive for him taking a commission was he had terrible luck trying to start a business in the private sector and was almost broke.
When my ancestors were trying to get out of Atlanta with a wagon and what meager belongings they had, they ran headlong into a Union Force. They were asked where they were going and why. An officer of obvious rank back in the rear of the cavalry had words with some of the men up front after he called them over. On the officer’s orders the cav handed the small civilian family some provisions, including sugar, flour and bacon, and let them on their way. In honor of the kindness of the commanding officer present who had ordered this fair treatment of civilians, my many times removed grandfather was named Sherman. You get the sense these men on both sides were just done with the war and ready for it to be over.
Wait, general Sherman?! That's such an encounter 😂
@@Annie-rw2ecjust because a soldier follows orders doesn’t mean he’s heartless. But a job be a job, and his was to put the hurt on the Confederate war effort
@@huydang5955 agree 👍
Grant is my kind of general.
grant is my no. 1 friend
@@the.abrahamlincoln I'll grant you that!
@@Bernie8330 lol, OverSimplified
He got the job done! President Lincoln said of Gen. Grant:"I can't spare this man. He fights"!
@@Bernie8330 But the American people has taken him for GRANTED.
No seriously, I don't trust anyone who has any animosity towards Grant or Lincoln.
One of history’s greatest, and sadly most unsung, commanders. He blended the vision and audacious creativity of Bonaparte with the cool reason and steel nerve of Washington. He was also master of the map and understood the ground he was fighting on and the disposition of his forces at every turn.
There has always been a tendency to raise Napoleon to hero status and yet Kutuzov in Russia beat him by NOT offering battle but let the weather and the Cossacks wear him down And don't forget Napoleon lost 550000 in the Russian Campaign
No Military Academy can just study a Generals Victories and not study his defeats
Grant used similar tactics to defeat the South Sherman Marching through Georgia destroying every thing and Sheridan the same.
Unlike many Union generals Grant wouldn't back down. Even with minor setbacks he kept launching attack after attack until Richmond was in Union hands and Lee cornered.
LOL! Minor setbacks? Comments like that explains why this war was so bloody. Both side showed incredibly poor judgement resulting in horrific casualties. Those casualties were never "Minor" matters for anyone not residing in a armchair.
One problem with shows like this is they tend to give distorted impressions. Most historians overlook the absolute critical importance of the railroad and the North's superior management of their railroad resources. The Civil War saw the massing and the continuous concentration of a many tens of thousands of men, animals, and large amounts of equipment in one area. This continuous concentration of such large armies was impossible during the Napoleonic wars except for brief periods prior to a major battle. The armies in Napoleonic times had to disperse to forage or else risk starvation to men and horses. The Civil War railroad on both sides always ensured the abundance of supplies and fresh reinforcements arrived to stave off such disaster of running out of supplies. Hence, the railroad allowed the concentration of armies for battle after battle. We can read about armies in Civil War times fighting continuous skirmishes and one or more battles per week or several large battles each month. In Napoleonic times, a couple large battles per campaign season were all that was possible. The resupply of armies by the railroad with replacement manpower and continuous resupply allowed the carnage to continue on a scale unheard off prior to the Civil War.
Herman Haupt, a Union railroad officer who managed the United States Army Military Railroad, pioneered many modern management techniques used by American corporations in the post-Civil War era. General Haupt was a genius of an engineer who could organize unskilled men into building excellent bridges and other railroad infrastructure in record time. General Haupt also was a highly efficient administrator who instilled strict discipline for keeping the trains running on schedule. General Haupt used his power to keep the Union railroad operational regardless of the circumstances. The efficient management of the railroad together with steam riverboats allowed the supply of large Union Armies spread out over thousands of miles. The railroad took fresh reinforcements, water, food, cannons, ammunition, fodder for animals, and a huge supply of other material to the battefront. This logistcal efficiency was achieved by the railroad men in the War Department and General Haupt. This logistical magic meant the Union could always fight battle after battle causing a widespread attrition that ground up Confederate manpower.
Lincoln saw the need for centralizing all military related traffic through the War Department upon arrival in Washington DC. Lincoln also saw the need for transcontinental railroad. The Homestead Act worked in tandom with the transcontinental railroad to lead to the settlement of the west and Great plains. The North created an unstoppable government-industrial-military complex that not only ground up Confederate manpower in far flung battles of attrition but it also turned the United States into the foremost industrial power. City Point, Virginia became one of the largest and sophisticated supply systems anywhere in the world. Most modern corporations were modeled on the organization of the War Department's and Haupt's military railroads. Prussian generals took notice of Haupt's technical management of military railroads. The Prussians used their railroads to mobilize by railroad timetable using this in the Franco-Prussian War of 1871, again in1914, and in 1939.
Thank you so much for pointing out the unsung hero that Herman Haupt was to the Union cause. Showing more initiative than McClellan during the Peninsula Campaign (certain Union generals thought the trains should be for their own regiment's use) Haupt was sent to clean up the the huge mess the trains were in armed with a bristling dispatch from General Halleck giving Haupt complete control of the railroads and court-martial to anyone that hampered or gave him trouble. (A drunken major general did give Haupt trouble until a sober aide made the general read the dispatch from Halleck. The sodden general blinked a couple of times upon reading and let Haupt do his thing.) Getting zero support from McClellan when he asked for troops to escort a repair train to get the line opened up again he happened upon the best man he could have possibly found-General Hancock. Hancock immediately dispatched a regiment to escort Haupt and his repair train against Confederate raiders that had destroyed bridges.
Haupt got the line repaired to provide supplies and return with wounded while also untangling the mess of trains and getting them all running on ingenious time tables within 24 hours-all while a lowly colonel mind you. (I guess Halleck could be effective when he wasn't annoying everyone around him-he even drove Lincoln mad sometimes.)
James Robert: Herman Haupt organized his often unskilled repair crews into teams or performed certain tasks broken down into simple steps. Haupt then organized this teams of men supervised by knowledgeable railroadmen into an assembly line process. Hence, the bridge that President Lincoln referred to being put together with beanpoles and cornstalks was constructed by assembly line methods developed by Haupt.
The War Department, at the urging of Haupt or one of his superiors, developed armored trains to keep Confederate raiders at bay. Armored trains played a huge role in the Boer war, Kitchener's Sudan campaign, saw use in World War One, the Russian Civil War and World War Two on the Eastern Front. The Soviet Army developed around 200 antiaircraft trains often manned by Soviet sailors and other smaller antiaircraft trains to protect railway marshalling yards. The Soviet mangement of their railroads allowed them to move nearly two thousand factories to the Urals along with tens of millions of workers and their families. The efficient management of railroads by the Soviets, Americans, and British made victory possible in World War Two beyond any other important aspect. All important, air, naval, and land battles were dependent ultimately on the efficient industrial management of railroads in all theaters of war.
I do have one actor in mind to play Grant in my screenplay. I have to have my agent talk to his agent. These are requirements because when studios used to receive screenplays "over the transom," they would use the material and never acknowledge the writer. Lawsuits galore.
Rex fromMN - Excellent analysis - you know your stuff. Military historian?
. Now you can write a story on how the telegraph affected things.
" I have searched the world over to find a general equal to U. S. Grant and have not found one." R.E Lee after the war was over.
Grant ran 5 armies.
Only one commander in the history of this nation did that and that army was largely foreign. Eisenhower.
Lee was a tactician stuck in old style battle. Grant brought in a new type of war that to this day is studied by not only US military, but foreign militarys as well. That is the method of movement of men and materials. Position, strength, transportation and supply as well as communications. These methods of his were taken back to Prussia where the Prussians used them to defeat the French.
Even Patton used these tactics-the movement of complete armies to get BEHIND the enemy to cut him off and destroy his army.
Gaining territory does not defeat an enemy, the complete destruction of his army defeats him.
Well, given the "War' was virtually over by the time Grant received that command, and micromanaging as we do today was virtually nonexistent, that did not amount to so much.
@@ALMdawgfan Wrong!!! Much of the South was still unconquered when Grant assumed command in March 1864. And the 'War'- as you so contemptuously dismissed it- claimed 0ver 700,000 battle deaths with many times that number wounded.
@@ALMdawgfan you need to study some history sir.
@@nellpitts3285 How ya doing ms Pitts. In what aspects do I need to study more? It is singular that a guy that had all the advantages is touted for, basically, doing what he he did when his opponent was, in effect, fought out.
Giving credit where it is due is not hard. Lauding a General for that when, it is comparison to some very poor Commanders that lends a lot of the luster.
I am aware General Grant won a war that had gone on far too long in as short a period as he was apt to be able to do so. I just do not pretend there is some genius above the willingness to persevere when you hold all the big cards in play.
Americans, even those trying to secede, tend to over laud out Leaders. Lee earned a lot of derision for many an error, he also is lauded for doing a lot with less. That is the difference that prevents the direct comparison. The situations were vastly different from day one.
@@davidblaskie8987 Sorry David, just saw this. The forces arrayed against Grant at the time of each of his postings were decidedly inferior to the forces he could apply even if one only considered the logistical sense. It is not a slur to point out the obvious.
Grant had his back and pretty much his seat in the river at Shiloh. A whole new force under Buell arrives as well as two timberclad gunboats to haul his bacon from the fire. I am quite certain every General would like to have another Army to back stop his errors and Naval support to turn the tide?
It isn't shameful that he had to learn in the harness. Sharpest lessons are learned best. Grant learned by his set backs and did far better going forward. IMO Grant's "Greatness" is being exaggerated, (As Lee's had been in the past.), and that is just so.
In Grants early commands he had learned most importantly that it was a great benefit to be on the side with the most stuff. Had McClellan understood that the war would have been over at Sharpsburg and we would likely not have heard so much of Grant.
Thanks for the exchange.
Lee was commander of the Army of Northern Virginia. Grant was commander in chief of union forces. Big difference. Lee was only concerned in fighting in Virginia and nowhere else. During the battle of Vicksburg, Jefferson Davis wanted a Corp from Lee's army transfer to Mississippi to help lift the siege of Vicksburg. Lee refused because he felt Vicksburg wasn't important in his way of thinking. Now when Grant came east to become commander in chief, he allow George Meade to remain commander of the Army of Potomac. He allow Meade to direct the army to fight the battles while he gave orders to other union commanders. Like Sherman's March through Georgia. Cutting into the supply of beef in Florida from the union fort, fort myers. He knew that lee would be hard pressed in getting troops, arms, and supplies if union armies were striking elsewhere.
Anthony Zerbe one of my all-time favorites !
Yes a good actor often forgotten
The film should have pointed out that Grant maneuvered during the Overland Campaign to keep the Atlantic at his back so that he was never out of supply. Normally, an army with internal lines of communication has the advantage, but Grant used the Navy to maintain supply and mobility.
Lee kept maneuvering to keep Grant from getting to Richmond, when he should have been trying to cut Grant's larger army off from his seaborne supply, if he had a hope of winning the war. Instead, he lost his ability to maneuver in order to defend Richmond and Petersburg, and Grant turned the James River into a route to bring almost unlimited supplies to his besieging army. By the summer of 1864, the fall of Richmond was a mere matter of time.
As Grant said in the ciip, an army (or a nation) is only defeated when it admits defeat. Symbology is important and one of the symbols of the defeat of a nation is the fall of its capitol. That is why Lincoln was so insistent that Washington be protected, and while the destruction of Lee's army was a primary objective, the failure to defend Richmond would be a broader symbol of defeat to the Confederacy itself. Earlier in the war this was not necessarily the case, but Lee's successes in 1862 and 1863 before Gerrysburg turned Richmond into a symbol of Confederate resiliency, making its capture a viable strategic objective which would only be made easier by the destruction of the army defending it.
@@jimhart4488 True, but Grant's actual strategy and deployments from start to end were all about Lee's army. He figured, rightly as it turned out, that if you bled Lee enough, Richmond would surrender without a significant fight. And, so it proved. I doubt if his predecessors thought that way. In fact, McClellan's big idea was taking Richmond, not the ANV.
@@curious968 Grant kept his HQ in the field with the Army of the Potomac but he was not an army commander or a theater commander, he was the overall commander of the Union armies. He set the strategy that all of the Union armies pursued. There wasn't just one southern symbol to destroy. Lee and the AoNVa was a symbol as well as Richmond. So was the Shenandoah Valley. So was Atlanta and South Carolina, the heart of the rebellion. Grant pursued total war and unlike his "predecessors" his strategies were not limited to a single front or a single target.
It might be added that Sherman's March to the sea was made possible by the Union Navy being at Savannah GA.
@johnfleet235 Lost Causers especially underestimate the significance of Union control of both sea and inland navigation.
Grant did not want a war of attrition. If he did, he could've just stayed at Petersburg or Spotsylvania and fought it out on the spot. His goal was always strategic--he was going to cross the James and cutoff Richmond from its supply train. What Lee did be damned. It just so happened that the path to cross the James was a bloody slog (owing to Lee's defensive brilliance) that became a de facto war of attrition. But that was not Grant's aim.
people forget Lee Dug into fortified positions he was from the Army Corps of Engineers at the start of his career after west point his troops nicknamed him the king of spades for all the digging in they did
It wasn't just his soldiers who had to dig. Lee's fortifications around Richmond were 15 miles thick, and were mostly constructed using slave labor. He got the 'ace of spades' when he was commanding an army of slaves in that effort.
Digging in was the last thing General Lee wanted to do in that situation. Grant's simple powerful solution "move by the left flank" forced him to extend his army until all flexibility in his position was gone. The South's last mobile field army and its best field commander would be stuck in immobile trench warfare for the rest of the war.
Shelby Foote, in the Ken Burns Civil War documentary, cited a story of Confederate generals mocking Grant's tactics after the ANV repulsed another of his assaults outside Petersburg and Lee silenced them. "I think General Grant has handled his affairs very well indeed" was basically what he said.
Lee was a good enough general to realize what Grant had done to him and what it would mean for the defense of Richmond. The general whose main task in the war and the main cause for his success was to maintain the initiative at all cost, had had to concede the initiative at the outset to Grant, and because Grant wouldn't retreat, woiuldn't break contact and regroup, and could organize his men at all times to prevent a counterattack, Lee couldn't get it back.
During the Appomattox Campaign Grant wanted to make sure no opportunities were lost yet again by tardy corps and division commanders. He had Sheridan the energetic driver personally take charge and promised him 2 corps over Meade's head. He also authorized Sheridan to fire any general that was slow to move. For the first and only time in the Army of the Potomac's history Sheridan fired General G.K. Warren of the V Corps and replaced him with competent, tough and magnetic Charles Griffin. Knowing the end was near Grant kept his troops moving hard on forced marches to keep Lee engaged during his flight from Petersburg. Once regiment reported having marched 42 miles from one sunrise to the next without a halt. Had this army had real drivers like Sheridan on the front lines the war probably would have ended 2 years earlier.
Some posters here point out if better generals for the Union side had been appointed then perhaps the war would have been shortened. This premise ignores that fact that the superior firepower of the Minie ball from a rifled musket, mass produced artillery with canister rounds, usually gave the defender superior firepower over the attacker. The attacker had to have superiority in guns and manpower to drive off a dug in well entrenched defender from high ground. Even if an attacker with a superiority of guns and a three to one advantage of troops over the defender, if entrenched or behind obstacles, the defender still could drive off a numerical superior attacker. Flanking maneuvers are good moves but at least a good portion of the attacking force has to attack the defender frontally in order to tie down the defender's reserves. Otherwise the defender just reinforces his threatened flank, turning the battle into another costly frontal attack for the attacker.
These Civil War battles always ended up being nasty brutal slogging matches where one side blasted and shot down more of his enemy before driving him from the field. The two sides exchanged artilllery fire while the attacker moved his troops into position to attack. The artillery fired solid cannon balls but sometimes the cannon balls were filled with timed burst fuses with shells filled with rifle balls for a bursting effect on attacking infantry at between 1,000 meters to within about 400 meters. The artillery used canister rounds to fire at enemy troop lines less than 400 meters apart. At point blank range of say less than 200 meters, the artillery guns used double canister shot. This essentially made each 12 pounder brass Napoleon smoothbore gun like a giant deadly shotgun that mowed down enemy troops like a scythe of death. The infantry of both sides then closed into two lines typically with two ranks, sometimes three ranks, to a battle line with one rank reloading while the other rank fired, thus keeping up a steady rate of fire on the enemy. The two forces often closed to about about 70 yards range of each other driving one side or the other off of the field of battle after many exchanges of rifle volleys.
Frequently, charges were ordered with one side or both sides routinely used buck and ball or .69 caliber ball with three buckshot rounds for close quarters work. Such brutal tactics typically caused at a minimum enormous casualties of 30 to 40 percent but 50 percent losses frequently happened in desperate battles. The smoothbore musket was by no means obsolete when fighting at close quarters with buck and ball (buckshot) turning each rifled musket or smoothbore musket into a shotgun capable of killing or maiming multiple human targets. Some Union regiments and many Southern regiments primarily used smoothbore muskets assigning soldiers with rifled muskets as skirmishers or sharpshooters. But the smoothbore musket still had an increased rate of fire with the percussion cap. But we have to remember supplies of rifled Enfield and rifled Springfield muskets were limited in the first two years of the war. But once troops got within close range buck and ball rounds were probably more devastating than the Minie ball. Some regiments like the 1st Minnesota at Gettysurg sufferred 80 percent casualties as did some Confederate regiments in a bloody cornfield at Antietem. We should be mindful that black powder filled the battlefield with enormous amounts of smoke that helped obscure the troops shooting at each other to some degree. It gets hard to think of lines of Confederate and Union troops charging and shooting at each other at point blank range with buckshot or buck and ball rounds but this is what frequently happened creating horrible carnage. Archeologists find these buck and ball remains in the thickest parts of the battle where the dead and wounded of both sides were literally stacked on top of each other. Buckshot from smoothbore muskets and rifled muskets and canister rounds from smoothbore cannon were the dirty secrets of warfare causing a large percentage of casualties on both sides at close range all through the war.
What really had to happen was the South had to be constantly attacked in Georgia and in Virginia in 1863-64. The manpower of the South had to be ground up until the Confederates had no more manpower to fight with. It was a bloody war of grinding attrition putting a premium on industrial mass production of armaments, munitions, and the logistical management of supplying far flung armies with the railroad. The railroad always ensured far flung Union Armies could get replacements, supplies, ammunition, fodder for animals, and more constant resupply of these items after a battle to get ready for the next battle. It is important to understand that the critical use of the railroad by the War Department.
The reason Grant eventually turned Lee's flank at the many months long trench battle of Petersburg with his "bite and hold" tactics was that Grant had ground up all of Lee's available reserves of manpower. Grant's victory at Petersburg was a forerunner of the Western Front in the First World War. It is important that Grant's supplies and logistical centers at City Point,Virginia made his victory at Petersurg possible. Lee surrendered at Appomattax in large part because Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan had burned down Southern supplies, farms, and cities.However, at this point in the war, the South had ran out out of available reserves of manpower. The railroad won this war of attrition for the North. Assembly line industrial mass production with the railroad meant continuous assembly lines of battles producing carnage unheard of anywhere. This carnage was first seen in the Franco-Italian war in the late 1850's at the railroad reinforced battles of Magenta and Sarmiento but the American Civil War was on a much longer and larger scale.
By this point in the war they had very different goals. Grant had to corner and destroy Lee's army in an era when all the tactical advantages favored the defenders. Lee had to survive long enough to convince Northerners that the fight wasn't worth the sacrifice.
In earlier battles, it was Lee who kept killing his men in headlong charges that did nothing to accomplish the overall goals of the Confederacy.
Lee almost always fought defensively, but in a way that allowed his forces to constantly repel union forces.
and Sherman had a 3rd. Instead of attacking armies knock out the supply lines and factories and railroads and decimate the southern economy so the north wouldn't have to fight Lee's army. That was the winning strategy.
Grant's brilliance was in recognizing that the South did indeed have better generals. Grant was the one commanding general that finally was able to effectively apply the enormous advantage the North had in men and resources. The Union generals that preceded Grant all tried to simply outmaneuver, outfight and out-general the South, and it never worked. Grant did not try to be a better general in terms of military tactics (and he even indicated in his memoirs that he did not consider himself superior to Southern generals), but simply smothered the South by going on the offensive and forcing the South into a state of weakness by attrition. He further applied choking strategies like siege (like Vicksburg) and Scorched Earth (like Sherman's March). He was able to replace men and supplies - the South could not replace men and supplies. And that was the difference. Some criticized it because it came at quite a price (for both sides), but in the end it achieved the desired result.
There was one other significant aspect of Grant and his generals. Not a few of them were political appointees, as crazy as it sounds. They knew next to nothing about warfare, horses or soldiers. I am sure that many did it for the good of the country, but it made for treacherous management techniques. That is one of the reasons why Grant always wrote out his orders in full. No direction by word of mouth.
Facing the arithmetic...
nuan
I quite agree that grant was NOT superior to southern generals and he did smother the south with greater resources
but this had been going on from the beginning and it was the strategy of winfield scott to strangle the south and the river campaigns in tennessee that began this strategy.
grant merely followed it thru to the conclusion that had been coming all the while. Lee knew from the beginning that a simple war of attrition would lead to southern defeat and the south's only real hope was to inflict enough casualties on the north to force a political settlement.
other generals applied this strategy earlier in the war but with less obvious effect (though it was still working) because the south was much stronger then (the anaconda strategy would take its toll over a period of time).
mac was utilizing this same smothering strategy and was in shouting distance of Richmond when Lee took command and began his first offensive.
many dont realize that mac faced a much bigger army than grant or sherman had ever dreamed of. Lee utilized 88,000 men in the 7 Days campaign, seized the initiative, and shoved mac away from richmond.
however, Lee suffered more casualties than the feds though his army was smaller, zero federal corps were destroyed in the fighting, the feds overall withdrew in very good order, a new fed supply hub was established that could supply a renewal of a push to richmond, and the CSA capital was still in jeopardy as the AOP was still alarmingly close to richmond.
the big problem with grant is that he applied this smothering strategy without simple regard for casualties ....that is NOT only unconscionable but it was NOT necessary!
I do feel sorry for grant because, while he was fighting Lee and trying to end the war, lincoln still pestered him every time the slightest threat to washington was perceived. when Early invaded maryland in 1864 with about 10,000 infantry, lincoln nagged grant to sent him another 30,000 or so men to protect the capital. grant knew this was not only foolish but it acted as a brake on his own strategy (Lee also knew this and had used this strategy thru the war). there was ZERO chance Early could take washington as it was already heavily garrisoned and VERY strongly fortified ...yet lincoln whined and nagged for more men anyway, and usually got them.
only thing to recommend lincoln as a war time president is he was marginally better than jeff davis. both were fools ....lincoln just less a fool.
LtBrown1956 yeah I think people tend to forget when grant took command the confederacy was lower on about literally everything then they had ever been I think they could have went a bit longer even with the resources drying up but the blows they could not recover from was the loss of so so many of there best and veteran commanders damn shame it’s impossible to know what would have happened if he faced the odds of a more powerful south like the other union commanders personally I think he would have been whipped bad real bad
Necessity is said to be the mother of invention. Both Men fought their Armies based on the realities of their circumstances. Lee could not bludgeon the Union Army into submission (even if he wanted to) and chose maneuver to try and achieve local superiority and to fight and destroy them in detail. As the superior force the North was ALWAYS capable of choosing that option but various commanders shied away from that option.
It was never, ever, anything but arithmetic and sheer will to face it. Grant was the man that could face the math and stick it out.
Thank you General Grant.
After having studied US Grant since 2012, the portrayal above causes me "agita." I am writing a screenplay about him, as a man, and I have one actor in mind who possess Grant's qualities and his slender stature, and 5'8" in height. Grant went about his duties with quiet strength. He never ranted, never. His management style during the war was quite interesting. He always was a quiet listener. He would gather around him as many generals and officers as could attend. He would go from man to man and listen to each with his total attention. In fact, there was an incidence where some wondered if he were asleep ! Each man could say anything he wished and for how long. At the end, Grant always would pen his orders so as to remove any ambiguity.
Not a bad take.... Just not as perfect a recital as all that.... It sounds almost as silly as Freeman's "Marble Man" portrayal of Lee in the South.... However I wish you well in the endeavor. Anything that happens to bring some things to light is welcome.
Grant was in a precarious position being junior in service to many he commanded. He was shrewd enough to realize that....
It's a lot harder to attack with the types of weapons and tactics
employed in this war than it is to defend. Grant had to march through
enemy territory filled with spies against a fortified enemy over and
over again. Of course Grant lost more men overall, his job was much
harder IMO.
Both times Lee went on the attack into northern territory he lost and
had to retreat. That to me is very telling in regards to the situation.
Actually Grant had less over all losses than Lee. His percentage really took an upward turn when he was putting constant pressure on Lee and God Harbor didn't help. It would not have been so bad. Had the new commanders instructed their soldiers to go around the big hole they blew in the lines instead of going down into the hole where they were like shooting fish in a barrel.
Grant was the right choice. Accomplished in 13 months what Halleck couldn't do in almost two years
And Lee turned Lincoln down when the job was offered to him.
Although General Grant was a terrific strategist, I'd say that General Sherman was the greatest strategic mind of the war. After capturing Atlanta and executing his revered "March to the Sea" (which also psychologically affected the rebels of the Georgia regiments in Lee's army in Virginia) Congress wanted to promote General Sherman to supreme command and replace Grant. A promotion that Uncle Billy Sherman vehemently and firmly refused.
While General Grant was locked up against Lee in a brutal and costly siege, General Sherman had broken and "conquered" Georgia inflicting relatively minimal casualties.
After capturing Savannah, General Grant wanted Uncle Billy to take a ship to Virginia and help him against Lee, instead General Sherman insisted that he march to Virginia on foot, and execute the same Hard War strategy he used in Georgia to "conquer" South Carolina.
Lee's surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia to General Grant at Appomattox is widely regarded as being the end of the war, though I'd say that Joe Johnston's surrender of every rebel army in Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas (the largest mass surrender of the war, of almost 90,000 rebels) to General Sherman at Bennett Place could really take the credit for that.
Plus, a big factor that played into Lee's surrender was that Grant had surrounded him and also that General Sherman was on his way north to Virginia, after decimating Georgia and South Carolina.
It was more than Grant and Sherman. One of Grant's predecessors General Scott came up with the plan called the Anaconda plan. This plan called a naval blockage of all confederate ports, capture of such ports and capturing the town and cities on the Mississippi River. There were union forts along the confederate shores. Forts Like Fort Pickens, Fort Myers in Florida, and Fort Monroe in Virginia, gave the confederate forces a lot of problems because they disrupted the trade with Europe. Fort Pickens was the launching point for the capture of New Orleans and the start of the drive to capture the Mississippi River. Fort Myers would raid cattle herds meant for the confederate army. And Fort Monroe sat on the James River which the confederate capital Richmond was on its shores.
@@erikdrum6934 Oh of course, General Scott was one of the greatest of all American Generals, and his campaign in Mexico City during that war was perhaps the greatest ever waged by the US Army.
There was also General Sheridan, the Cavalry commander, who decimated the Shenandoah Valley and destroyed Early's army of the Valley at Cedar Creek.
But, remember where Sherman learned to do this. Under Grant during the Vickburg campaign. Fought with far fewer troops in much more difficult terrain.
@@jfdavis668 Sherman's activities were under the direction of Grant. Sherman adored Grant, who was a plebe (then called "things") when Sherman was in his last year. Sherman said that he really did not understand Grant--his quietness, his humility, his sense of quiet fortitude. And Sherman said that Grant did not even understand himself. Oh, I think that Grant understood himself very well.
@@briansheehan3430 Grant was in great distress over the Mexican War. He especially felt that the destruction of the beautiful city of Vera Cruz, via the artillery of Gen. Scott's. He, however, received, three high awards for his role in that war. He also fell in love with the Mexican people.
Grant kept the pressure on...Lee never went on the offensive after he took over.
Not for lack of trying, but Grant was masterful at maintaining the initiative, blocking Lee's avenues for counterattacks and keeping the ANV on its heels at all times.
@@hagamapama Yup, no Union general had ever done that.
Grant faced a completely different ANV when he came east... It wouldn't have mattered if YOU were running the AotP by 1864 so long as you kept the pressure on. The ANV couldn't sustain it's forces in the field without prolonged breathers and that was where Grant knew he could, heck WOULD win, if Lincoln would have his back of which he could be certain Old Abe did.
Lee couldn't take to the offensive after his army was destroyed at Gettysburg anyways
McClellan was apparently the right choice after 1st Manassas, getting the broken Army back together again. But a fighter, he was not. He was scared to lose, and you can't lose if you don't fight. Eisenhower also was a great organizer and leader, but when it was time to go, he went with everything he had. Two generals. Two personalities. Two different results.
Yes, imagine what the American Civil War would have been like McClellan respected his weaknesses and was content to be Chief of Staff for the Union overseeing more competent battle commanders.
Spot on comment. I don't THINK (Who knows) McClellan was "afraid" as much as he couldn't stand seeing the thing of beauty he crafted wrecked as would be inevitable in it's use. The ANV was fought out at Sharpsburg with a General (Longstreet) aiding in a arty battery while Little Mac had half an Army at his back and wouldn't send them in. Lincoln had every reason to be pissed.
McClellan sounds like Captain Sobel
Actually he was after the presidency, so he never used the army to make Lincoln look like it was his fault. Thus he would win the presidency.
Eisenhower was made Commander only as he was able to pacify two different forces US and British He was not a Field Commander in any sense of the words
"North and South, Book II" (1986) - actor Anthony Zerbe plays Gen. Grant.
Have the DVD set. Great series.
And portrays him rather well!!!!
Great actor
@@richardlahan7068 me too
When some believe, with such passion, that it was a given that the North would have won the war, I say just look at Lincoln's face. He must have aged 20 years in 4. He kept getting bad news from the front.
By the way I just found out today that Sherman and Grant had a general named Jefferson Davis ! They did have different middle initials. He and a general who had already lost an arm are in a photo with Sherman, who looks absolutely ravished.
Well if he didn’t have incompetent generals (before USG) then it would have been won quicker
A lot of people paint a terrible picture of General Grant. I think it comes mostly from Southern pride and arrogance (i'm from Oklahoma). Myself, I examined both generals. both were extraordinary. But I do believe that Grant was superior, if nothing else but by results and alliance. Lee betrayed his entire nation and supported an Army rebelling Lincoln, an army that historically made the first gun shot and when they found out they couldn't own slaves and blacks would be equals, wanted to secede from the Union, claiming their rights as slave owners were violated. Lee joined that army out of loyalty to his home state. In my eyes, he is a brilliant strategist and a gentlemen...and a traitor to his country. Had Lee chosen to stay at home or fight for the Union, the war would have been shorter, much shorter with far less lives. The extensive deaths lie on LEE'S shoulders more than anyone else's.
+azraelangelofred Well said!
I am having trouble understanding why the US sees Lee as a great general... He fought mainly in his own state, but attacked the Union twice (both times losing men he couldn't replace), he lost a hugh number of men in futile attacks, often didn't wait until the hole army was ready for an attack, and most glaringly of all, he was terrible at giving commands/controlling the battles.
Lee didn't fight a war in a strategic way, but for glory...
Exceptionally well said...don't let anyone say otherwise.
Some, very good, observations bandholm. However, there are other things to consider. Lee, constantly, did more with less. Less men. Less supplies. Less railroads and barges for transportation of troops. What Lee possessed was a genius for getting the big picture. The courage to divide his army when he felt the need. The best timing to know where and when to strike, and a great sense of character judgement to select the proper leaders to get the job done. Granted, mistakes, like Gettysburg, were made but I don't think that another general could have achieved the same success with the hand that Lee was dealt. If Lee was given the same resources that the North enjoyed, the war may, possibly, had a different outcome.I would love to hear any opinions on my thoughts
You say Lee did more with less... And that he might have won the war if he had resources more on par with the North.
I can understand that point of view, but I believe that is to miss the hole war, just for trying to boost the ego of a general... Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you or anyone else is trying to boost Lees ego, but you are missing Lees really big flaws, and lack of accomplishments (that would support such a view that he was that great).
Most problematic is your line "What Lee possessed was a genius for getting the big picture". That line is problematic because, Lee really didn't see the big picture.
From what I have heard and read (you can quit easily find people with vastly more knowledge that me on the US civil war) Lee was very much a Virginian, and saw the war almost solely from that Stats point of view... Meaning he completely missed the importance of the West, refused to send troops or even commanders to help and believed that other stats should send their troops to boost his army. That is not "seeing the big picture".
Lee also fought an offensive war, in a war where the South didn't need to win, they just had to "not lose" (meaning the war was defensive in nature for the South)... That is really missing the big picture, because it meant that battles like Antietam and Gettysburg (both battles, where he almost lost the army, had the North had generals willing to commit) were fought in spite of the actual needs of the South. Those battles helped undermining the South (thankfully) and to a large degree meant that Lee himself limited the Souths capabilities in men and material. Lee never destroyed an enemy army, and if we look at the casualties, Lee lost more men than Grant overall yet he didn't have any results to show for most of those sacrifices.
Grant (by comparison) destroyed three armies in the war, he completed his objectives, and ended the war without defeat. Campaigns such as Vichsburg, to this day, are still relevant to study. Grant attacked with LESS men, than the South had, fought something like 5 battles in 6 days, had fewer casualties than the South, and ended that campaign, effectively cutting the South in two, and placing the North in a strategic position that meant, the outcome of the war in effect was decided. And he did that in a way that can justifiably be call an American blitzkrieg, some 75 years before the Germans coined the term.
Lee was, for the time, a good field commander... But his succes mainly happened when he had commanders like Jackson. Lee made some brave choices, and he did well enough in defensive battles... However his claim to fame, more than anything really, was that he was liked by the South, that he was a gentleman and "American royalty". And that is what he is remembered for really, that he was a liked general, that commanded a losing army.
Grant by comparison, effectively made the US military into what it is today... He effectively adopted and used the "staff". His view of what was important "destroying the enemy army" has effectively been the US doctrine for war ever since. And his view of war, was so thoroughly modern, than even present commanders can learn from looking at Grant (there are good arguments for claiming that Grant is the best general in all of US military history).
Sorry for the long post, but your points, deserved an answer better than "I think you are wrong"
If we don't destroy Lee's army Lincoln could be defeated in November and the Union... gone forever.
McClellan had rejected the peace plank of the Democrat party. The Union would still be restored only without emancipation.
McClellan rejected it but his running mate was of the peace plank.
Even had Lincoln lost reelection (which he thought a distinct possibility) he was prepared to keep fighting until inauguration day. It seems pretty hard to believe that even McClellan would give away strategic advantages hard earned on the battlefield during any peace negotiations with the CSA.
@@TigerRifle1
I don't see emancipation being taken off the table completely during any peace negotiation especially since Lincoln would
have continued fighting the war until inauguration day in March 1865 and likely would have eventually still taken Atlanta,
still smashed through Georgia and the Carolinas and still have Lee cornered at Petersburg. A President McClellan would be under tremendous pressure by Republicans to not throw away a victory in his grasp made possible by Lincoln.
He couldn't go back to an 1860 status quo no matter how much he may have wanted to.
He may have returned the slaves to their masters, but it would have been politically impossible to return those who served
in the Union Army, especially with the known likelihood those tens of thousands of men would be killed to prevent them
from influencing other slaves.
Hundreds of thousands of black Union Army veterans would be freed along with thousands of freed slaves who made it
north and would be under the protection of the northern states.
Slavery would still be banned from the western territories and when those western states joined the Union in the 1870s
and '80s, they would have ended slavery by 1900.
THAT is something I’ve always disagreed with. The Union wouldn’t have been gone, it would just be smaller. Both Confederacy and Union would expand out west. HOWEVER you may well have ended up bringing the world wars to American Soil.
I cannot spare this man. He fights. --Abraham Lincoln.
What film is this? It is excellent.
The Miniseries North and South
It's been said that the North had the men and material but the South had the Generals..until Grant.
In the East.
wcatholic1 Is that a good thing or a bad thing
wcatholic1 you forgot to include Sherman but that was only true in the eastern front, the south were getting there ass' s handed to them by the north in the weastern front
because McClellan did nothing important besides train the army of the Potomac he is rightly remembered as a bad general. And Grant lost less men than Lee in every battle they fought by sizable margins except the Appomattox Campaign and even that is just marginal at best. This while having Less casualty rates than any other Union commander, Grant on objective numbers and events shows he was a brilliant commander. He never made the same mistake twice unlike Lee who repeated mistakes like holding onto ineffective commanders and performing costly maneuvers.
Doctor Doom Yeah, but that was early in the war and he would lose to Lee a lot
Lee was a great tactician (suitable for winning battles) and Grant a great strategist (suitable for winning wars), after this it's not a big surprise Who won the war.
Actually, Lee was a better strategist than tactician. His early victories came because he left most of the tactical work to Jackson. Grant was brilliant neither at tactics or strategy, but he was smart enough to know that while he couldn't out think Lee, he could out brawl him. So, he started a street brawl he know he could win. He compared the business to a couple of Kilkenney cats fighting, the winner would be the one with the longer tail.
What's the difference between strategist and tactician? Are those basically the same thing?
Strategy is deciding where and when to fight. Tactics is actually fighting the battle. Grant won because he never assumed he was smarter than Lee, he was just smart enough to know that to win he simply had to bleed Lee dry. He was strong skinned enough to do it.
Lee was a skilled strategist? Lee did not even take advantage of his two greatest victories at Second Bull Run and Chancellorsville. He never took advantage of a victory, ever.
Lee's grand strategy for the war was to destroy the Army of the Potomac and capture a single northern city, he went headstrong into Gettysburg believing that would be his final campaign, and instead he saw the slaughter and annihilation of 1/3rd of his entire army, and was mopped back down to Virginia. He accomplished absolutely nothing strategically significant.
Grant was not skilled in strategy? Grant took the strategically important Fort Donelson, just days after capturing Fort Henry, not even one year into the war, which led to the capture of Nashville.
While Lee had the early advantage of extremely short supply lines, and almost always had the advantage of home terrain as well as local intelligence and yet was never able to keep the only army he ever fought permanently out of Virginia (losing all 41 northwestern counties of his own home state instead) General Grant, with the disadvantages of being the attacker in relatively unknown land, and relying on extremely long lines of supply (relying on none at all through the Vicksburg Campaign) had cleared out Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, and the northern parts of Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama and Georgia. He crossed the largest river on the continent to no opposition because of General Sherman's feints, won 6 battles in 20 days, captured Jackson MS and laid a successful siege on Vicksburg which captured the river and effectively bisected the so called "confederacy" in half, making Arkansas, Texas, and northern Louisiana completely irrelevant, and crippling their trade with the east. He accomplished all of this engaged by not one, but two rebel armies, both of which surrendered to him unconditionally after successfully executing Sun Tzu's "defeat-in-detail" strategy. Grant then marched east, ordering General Sheridan to burn down the agricultural Shenandoah Valley, while in just 8 weeks Grant had stealthily flanked Lee on the James River and pinned him down in Petersburg for the 9 month siege which resulted in Grant stripping Lee's lines of supply and means of reinforcement, until he had Lee completely surrounded with General Sherman's Army of the Tennessee which had just ripped its way through Georgia and the Carolinas on its way north to do the same to Virginia, resulting in Lee becoming the third rebel leader to surrender to him. Grant still reigns as the only American General to capture three enemy armies. Not only was Grant a master of tactics and strategy, but logistics as well.
It didn't take Grant to defeat Lee in battle either, as prior to Lee's ultimate defeat, he had been bested by McClellan in the Peninsula Campaign, of which Lee had the numerical advantage at Glendale, yet suffered a horrible defeat (which rebel General Hill had commented saying "this isn't war, this is murder.) As well as the Battle of Malvern Hill, in which Lee had planned to integrate his forces with Jackson's, but was unable to because Jackson had been stopped by William B. Franklin at White Oak Swamp, and Lee sent his men up a frontal assault on high ground losing over 2,000 more men than Grant had lost in the final charge of Cold Harbor. And then, obviously, there was General Meade who out thought and out Generaled Lee at Gettysburg, in which Meade had predicted Lee would attack the center line on the third day, and where Henry J. Hunt, the greatest Artilleryman on either side, had used the cover of smoke from the massive yet ineffective rebel artillery to silence his own guns one by one, effectively deceiving Lee into believing the Union's cannons had been destroyed which led him to think it was then "safe" enough to initiate the infantry charge in which he sacrificed Pickett's entire division in vain.
Tactics is how you win battles.
Strategy and logistics is how you win wars.
Grant KNEW it wasn't going to be easy and clean! He knew in the end, it would be nasty! He had to outlast Lee.
Grant and Sherman were the Civil War version of Patton and MaCarthur. Brutal and without regard for cost, as long as the objectives were met and final victory in the field was achieved.
Jesus Patton and MacArthur ?????? Patton took 3 months to advance 60 miles at Lorraine /Metz MacArthur ran away and was hopeless, vindictive and egotistical .
@@jacktattis Wow... just wow... I guess we can scratch you off the list of people who know anything about history! 😂😂
@@TheAngelOfDeath01 I know more about it than you. Brainwashed fool
Grant understood the south had no more men to give to the war, what they had in the field was it while he had entire regiments that had never seen action. In a way the Russians in WW2 followed the same tactic. The Germans could not replace the men or the equipment they were losing while the Russians had whole spare armies. The other thing Grant and the Russians understood was get on the attack and stay on it, push the enemy back at all times, a mobile war not a static one. Grant was a man ahead of his time.
Andrei Martyanov says that the claims about Soviet "human wave" attacks were rationalizations by defeated German generals after the war, which the U.S. and other allies accepted and still believe.
Grant was a heck of a good General
The railroad and steamboat were critical in all Civil War battles. General Howard Haupt is probably one of the most significant Northern commanders in utilizing the railroad to the maximum degree possible for logistics. Howard Haupt's trains made efficient movement of supplies, men, equipment, ammunition, guns, foddef for animals, and replacements or reinforcements. Wounded men were loaded up on trains for return trips to hospitals. Howard Haupt made the trains run on time on strict schedules. The corporate term "time is money" came from Haupt's emphasis on management for keeping the trains on schedule. Haupt demanded adequate loading and unloading crews be on standby and work until all the trains were unloaded on time with supplies kept in warehouses to protect them from weather. Supplies were number and prioritized so fodder, ammunition, food and other essentials were prioritized over other less important supplies. Everything was planned and managed scientifically by Howard Haupt.
Howard Haupt figured out mass production methods to fix bridges, tracks, and railroad marshalling yards including maintenance of locomotives and railcars. The telegraph also was used to coordinate movements of urgently needed supplies or reinforcements to critical sectors a thousand miles away. The City Point, Virginia supply depot became a hub of logistical support keeping Grant's armies well supplied with food, ammunition, reinforcements, fodder and equipment. City Point, Virginia was the supply point that made Grant's Overland campaign possible leading to the eventual defeat of Lee at Petersburg in many months of costly trench warfare.
www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2011/summer/usmrr.html
Thanks for your post. Something new for me to check out about the Civil War. Philly Boy, too, like Meade and Hancock.
Had the South been successful in its secession, the peace between the two neighboring nations would have been short lived. The two sides would have squared off again and again and again... The success of the American story could only be realized with one nation on the Continent.
Lincoln knew this. So did Grant. Both were willing to sacrifice an entire generation of young men to save the country for the future. It was a cold and rational assessment of reality.
The South sacrificed, too. But its sacrifice was tied to ideology and passion.
How do you that peace would've been short lived? I figured that the two sides would've been reunited eventually.
@@robertisham5279 Because slavers who rule one man will not stop in their.ambition until they rule all men.
@@tradtke101
Seems funny as all get out that has never actually played out in recorded history. The Sun never set on the British Empire and they were front and center in ending slavery.
Everything is about economy to make money or control the making of money. In light of how things turned out please explain how becoming the worlds policeman (I.E. Control) came about without said slavers?
Funny side note... one of the Thin Man films, starring William Powell and Myrna Loy as Nick and Nora Charles. Nick is a private detective, and about to go find a bad guy. Nora wants to go along against his wishes. She follows him out to the busy NYC street. He tricks her by calling a cab. She gets in and he slams the door behind her, quickly telling the driver, "Grant's Tomb." The cab hurries off with Nora in it, alone. Later they meet at home. Nick says, "So, darling, how was Grant's Tomb?" She replies, "Wonderful. I'm thinking of having one made for you."
I've always thought of Lee as Hannibal (though obviously not half as gifted) and Grant as a mix of Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus and Scipio Africanus. Lee won some tactical victories, though none near as great as Cannae or Lake Trasimene. Grant didn't delay like the Cunctator and well, no one else was like Scipio, but like the two Roman commanders was ultimately victorious.
But the thing is, Hannibal won his best victories in enemy territory, whereas Lee lost every offensive battle he ever waged.
Grant and Sherman were not dashing figures Like Generals Lee,Jackson,Stuart, Longstreet and several others.
But both of those guys understood modern warfare.
And that is not meant as shade toward the expert Soldiers of the South.Those Guys were badasses
My ancestors served 3:29 in the Union
Army from Maryland but they had great respect for the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.
And with good reason.
What many Southerners today may not realize is that General R.E. Lee was admired and respected nationwide for his military skill which was produgious as was the skills of his other commanders
When word got around that Lee was appointed as Dean of Washington College(Washington & Lee today),parents from as far away as the West coast and every Northern state wanted their Sons to go there for education.
He still casts a long shodow.May he R.I.P.
Grant knew how to defeat Lee (and the South for that matter), Lee knew what Grant was trying to do. From the Wilderness to Cold Harbor was, in my opinion, some of the HARDEST DAYS the U.S. had to endure and so many Americans died. On the one hand, I'm glad I didn't have to be there, on the other, I can NOT afford to forget just what the Army of the Potomac had to do to preserve the U.S.........
Lee had a great opportunity to deal Grant a severe blow at North Anna River, the fight before Cold Harbor. But Lee was very sick, Longstreet wounded, Hill and Ewell out with various ailments; he had no one he could trust to execute complicated orders. If, a big IF, Lee's command structure had been intact, North Anna River would be remembered as Grant's biggest disaster. As it was, it's almost as if Grant decided to give Lee another chance and ordered those ill-fated frontal assaults at Cold Harbor. By 1864 both armies knew how to entrench. There is a trench at the Wilderness Battlefield, off in the woods, dug by the 10th Louisiana Regiment. You would think they spent weeks building it (digging it out), Nah! they did it overnight.
@@jimkilcoyne7904 Grant didn't even fall for Lee's bait he went around his planned defenses to avoid that engagement completely
General Grant:What a guy!:)
That's a great general,and a great commander.:)
Rest in Peace,sir.
In his personal life, his actions were saintly. While being quartermaster in charge of army families traveling to California, they came down with a myriad of diseases. This happened as they were trying to cross the isthmus of Panama. Grant said at the time that "someone should build a canal here." Grant placed the most communicable people on a barge. All of the soldiers refused to go onto the barge, in fear for their lives. Do you know which person then performed all of the nursing duties himself ? Grant. There are SO many other instances when Grant did heroic actions.
He always remained humble and self-effacing, from childhood to his death in 1885. Were he a Catholic, I have no doubt that Grant would have made it to sainthood, under John Paul II.
@@ulyssgrant3178 I would have loved to have met him.I just bought his autobiography.It looks really good.A shame a lot of people abused their position of power when he was president.
@@djj9988 His very soul was innocence embodied. He trusted people too much. However, what you are reading is his descriptions of his activities in the Civil War. He wrote it at Mark Twain's urging so as to save his wife from destitution. It was a tremendous feat. He was in great pain from cancer of the throat. Twain was amazed at Grant's prowess in writing and at how much he could produce in such a short time.He finished his work and died two days later. His funeral in NYC was seven miles long, even with some Confederate contingents. Grant had wanted to write his autobiography covering his entire life. He had come to say that he had come to see how hollow a biography was if it did not include the person's life as a child and an adolescent.He had a photographic mind, and was always a voracious reader. He would hide out in the library, reading, when he was supposed to be marching. He was also one of our 19th' centuries best artists, many done at West Point. Look them up, and you shall be amazed.
Regarding him and his presidency. First, he was NOT an alcoholic and suffered from this ignominy .
He fell into a deep depression while in what is now Oregon, in a fort in the middle of nowhere. There was an officer in charge, Buchanan, who was a martinet, under whom Grant served in St. Louis.
One day as quartermaster, he was paying the soldiers. Buchanan heard him slurring his speech.
Keep in mind that Grant was only 5'8" and slender. He could not hold his liquor. After one drink, his speech was slurred and after two, he had to hold onto the furniture. His fellow officers, who loved him, told him to fight this charge, because they felt he would win. He drank far less than any other officer. Instead, he resigned.On his way out of California, he came upon one poor army with no money. Grant gave him one of the two pieces of gold which Grant had. Then he found two others in great need, and gave them the last of his gold.
He was absolutely fearless in battle, and a boastful word never left his lips.
I actually believe that he was one of our best Presidents : He est. the first national park, Yellowstone.
He fought for the amendment giving the slaves their due. He outlawed the KKK. He founded the Justice Dept. so as to prosecute those who violated the rights of the freedmen, as he called them, with great respect.
He also had conferences with the Indians, who were rapidly losing their land in the upper Midwest and West.
He told them he would do everything he could to help them, but when gold was discovered, he knew he could not help much, and told them so, with great sorrow.
He was a superb family man. His marriage was one of romance from day one. He and Julia were always deeply in love. He said, "My two weaknesses are my children and my horses." A documentary could be done on this wonderful man regarding his relationship with horses. They were his friends. He could tame a wild mustang in three hours ! Before the Mexican War, the locals sold the army wild mustangs for c. $ 30.00.
Once, the other soldiers saw him mount a mustang, scratching their heads. He returned three hours later
atop a perfectly trained horse. They were incredulous.He explained, "Well, when we would come to a crossroads, he would want to go one way, and I another, so we came to an arrangement."
He was the best horseman to ever graduate from West Point.
@@ulyssgrant3178 Many thanks.I'm really looking forward to reading his memoirs.
@@djj9988 I so appreciate your comments, D J J, but you will not find him as I describe. His only memoir is about his role in the Civil War, and he never boasts, never. And, even more to his character, he goes easy on some of his officers and generals who made some blunders. In fact, when Lincoln made him in charge of the entire army, thus sending him east, with more than a million men under his command, he had almost as much trouble with his eastern generals, as he did with Lee.
They, the Army of the Protomic , still considered themselves Georgie's Boy (McClellan ) or Meade's. That soon ended, of course, when they saw his style and his wins.
Please wish me Godspeed on the screenplay I am writing. I have heard that there is someone else writing one based on the recent book by Ron Chernow, mostly about the Civil War, I would surmise.
Mine would be cheaper to film because it portray much of his years before and after the war.
I want to tell you, using two stories of his life at West Point, which showed his mettle and his unruffled persona.
One the second day at West Point his plebe class was lined up to go into the mess hall. There must have been a member of his class who was tasked with have them looking like soldiers, not a ragtag bunch from all over. When he got to Grant, he saw a puny guy of just 5' 2" in height. The guy chewed Grant out and took a swing at him, sending Grant backwards onto the floor. Grant got up and meekly told his classmate not to do that again, because the outcome might be different. What the classmate did not know was that Grant was known to have a powerful physique ; he had performed a wide range of tasks which required much strength.
The next morning, his nemesis appeared again, and tried to get Grant. With that, Grant delivered a knockout
punch. He was never bullied again. And he was 5'8" when he graduated.
Then there was the story of the watch that emitted a gong. Although Grant had had only arithmetic in the subscription schools to which his father had sent him, he became a math genius at the Point. His class was waiting for the professor when one cadet pulled out a huge pocket watch which emitted ultra-loud gongs, and passed it around. As the prof arrived, Grant quickly put the watch into his coat. He was tasked by the prof to teach the class an intricate math problem. While he was at the board, the watch went off, twice. The cadets could hardly contain their hilarity. However, Grant never turned a hair and just proceeded. He was unflappable. He was known to have a very dry sense of humor. We all realize that to have a dry sense of humor is much more difficult than to have a "wet" one.
..on the strategic scale.
Lee was the superior tactician. Grant was the superior strategist. It was strategy against tactics, and strategy won.
I would say that Grant at multiple times showed that he was at least as good on the tactical level as Lee (in my opinion actually better).
But you are right, Grant was the General of the army, Lee really was "just" a general commander.
Lee's great attribute was his ability to handle his subordinates. Remember, these are state's rights supporters and southern gentlemen. They were apt to challenge each other to duals over slight insults. One of Lee's great abilities was to keep them all working together and not killing each other. But, he was also very dependent on them, he was blessed with outstanding subordinate leaders. His fighting efficiency went down as they were killed or wounded. Grant was much better at developing subordinate leaders. As time went on, he was supported by more and more able subordinates, and it showed each time he went into battle.
The piece being played near this clip’s end is the Civil War song “Tenting tonight on the old camp ground.” “Dying tonight, dying tonight, dying on the old camp ground.” A sad and poignant song.
All is going well until you see Sherman or Grant
Grant was such a fucking Chad everyone talked about Lee like he was a God Grant was like he can bleed
The North would never have won that war without Grant's strategic vision.
Or never ending supply lines. Study history before you post.
I'm not sure I agree with that. Never seems too strong of a word.
@@headshotsongs9465 Oh? Maybe if the South had focused a bit more on industry and a bit less on slavery none of this would have happened.
@@headshotsongs9465 Grant knew very well the need for good logistics in war, and he was the proverbial professional keeping that necessity in mind.
"I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back."
- Shelby Foote, famous civil war historian Feb 21, 2014
Would be a good movie if they made one about grant and Lee
I wish they would have made a movie based off the book. The Last Full Measure. That would have been perfect, but I guess it is a no,unfortunately.
Great acting from Grant, he's the guy who won the war!
Grant was the absolute opposite of this actor!!! Grant was always soft-spoken, humble and quiet.
He had an interesting command style. As his generals and top officers gathered, each could say anything he wanted, about anything. Sometimes someone thought Grant had fallen asleep. He listened with great concentration, and then wrote his orders down. He wanted to make sure that there were no mistakes in his directions. This piece portraying "Grant"--it has layers of great
misunderstanding woven throughout.
Grant understood you win by efficiently applying force on everything the other needs to fight. There are worse things than war: A long war and futile war are two. 'War is cruelty, there is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is the sooner it will be over"
I KNEW that was Anthony Zerbe as Grant! Damn good actor, too bad he was overlooked...
The true strength of an army is its willingness to take casualties and keep fighting.
Grant wasn't the most tactical general especially compared to Lee, but he did have tenacity and grit. Once he got a hold of Lee he didn't let him loose, even after tremendous losses. He used all the advantage the north had and wailed on the Army of Northern Virginia until it wore away and was incapable to continuing.
If Sherman hadn't taken Atlanta, Lee's defensive strategy might have worked. The North was getting tired of losing so many men. Lincoln himself thought he would lose against Meade in the general election.
McClellan, not Meade.
The truth is the North foughr the war with one arm tied behind their back, and statistically, Lee lost more men in combat than Grant.
It wouldn't have worked. Lee was on his last legs after Gettysburg manpower wise. The overland campaign utterly annihilated his remaining reserves as well
Grant was always very ambiguous on strategic intent in the 1864 campaign. Neither his memoirs or his account in Battles and Leaders are very satisfying. Buried away in the correspondence book for the Chattanooga Campaign in the Official Records is a very interesting exchange between Halleck and Grant regarding the 1864 Campaigning. Grant had been put up for Lieutenant General in Nov 64, but Washington leaders hesitated to pull the trigger. McClellan, Halleck and Pope were saviors from the west who fell on their swords. And Lincoln wanted to be persuaded that Grant wouldn't become a political rival for the White House. Consequently Grant wasn't given the General of the Armies task until March 65. Grant had 6 weeks to synchronize and direct the opening campaigns. There was very little he could do to realign forces.
Read deeply and you may begin to realize that Grant was not the author of his own strategy. Lincoln and Stanton had already decided that a war of attrition to all but end hostilities before the election was a task levied on Grant. He didn't invent the method, he embraced his mission and sought to make it happen.
The butcher nom de guerre started with Mary Lincoln and got press coverage from there. There was tension in the Army of the Potomac. The AoP entered the Campaign badly drained from attrition, reassignment of Corps to the West, and a perpetual slow and inadequate replacement system. Grant kept pushing the army into haphazard fights and fatigue and frustration for Meade and his Corps commanders ran high. The AoP carried the burden of engaging Lee until while Sherman and Sheridan reaped the benefits and got the glory for breaking Hood and Early. Meade and his army got the satisfaction of finally closing the chapter on the Army of North Virginia in the Appomattox Campaign.
Great post. When Grant found out the Republican Party was considering nominating him he slammed his hands on the arms of his chair and stood up shouting "They can't do that!" Grant realized the huge mess this would cause and made it very clear he wouldn't accept any nomination until the war was finished. Lincoln was sure he wouldn't be re-elected and speed was of the essence. He made this clear to Grant that victory must be pursued before the election might possibly mean a negotiated peace with the South. This was the only slim chance the South ever had as in the words of VP Alexander Stephens "The first real ray of light since the war began." Stephens is an interesting fellow that deserves more scholars to study him.
For the first time, Richmond was of secondary importance to Grant. His prime objective was to make contact with Lee and the AoNV and not break contact until it ceased to exist as a fighting force.
It was in March of 1864 -not 1865-when
Grant was awarded the rank of Lt. Gen., the only general who held it before was Washington.Grant made his own strategy. Lincoln trusted Grant in all things, and Lincoln was very grateful that he longer had to micromanage the movements of his generals.
With good reason, Grant did not much like "Old Brains" Halleck. This man had written exceptional books about the history of significant battles and stratagies. However, Halleck had never once been in a war or shot at. Also, Halleck would think that Grant was being insubordinate when he did not send enough messages to Halleck in St. Louis. Grant was obedient in general--when he must take a certain tack in a battle. Many of his messages were intercepted along the way. There were also Southern sympathizers who operated the telegraph
lines. Another factor:both Halleck and Gen. George McClellan became quite Grant after his first two, so-called "easy" victories. On purpose, they once again slandered Grant by bringing forth the history of Grant's drinking while stationed in Oregon. Grant was 100% not an alcoholic. He endured this horrible slander for most of his life, and it was more than unjust.
Grant was often at odds with Henry Halleck , his boss in St. Louis. Halleck was called " Old Brains" because he was the author of books on wartime stratagy. However, Halleck had never once been in any battle whatsoever. Once, Grant said that he would resign at once if he was ordered to do something which he thought would end in disaster. He was ordered to do just administrative jobs in a tent somewhere. The next day he was returned to his former work. There were also the problems with telegraphs between Grant and Halleck. Along the line there were spies running the telegraph. There were sometimes days when Grant received orders from Halleck, but they never reached him. No, Grant was always in charge of his own decisions.
Grant was the author of his own strategies and no one else. Soon after Grant had control of the Army of the Potomic and of the entire army, with one million men under his command, Lincoln was found stretched out on a sofa, and relaxing. Someone asked him why he could be so free. Then Lincoln made it very clear that he no longer had to manage the war, because he had found a general who could handle it by himself.
That isn't winning by losing. Winning by losing means falling back in the face of the enemy trading space and lives for time, while waiting
for the enemy to expose himself to a counter-attack. That sounds like Lee's situation in 1864, not Grant's.Think the Soviets before Kursk or even the US Navy at Midway. Grant stayed on the attack. When blocked, he flanked Lee out of his fortified position and continued South
until Lee blocked him again.
He lost more men because he was on the offensive while Lee was fighting behind fortifications. Funny, nobody says Lee lost the
Seven Days Battle outside Richmond when he went on the attack and lost more men then Little Mac because he was achieving his objective
of forcing the Union Army away from Richmond. Grant was achieving his objective in denying Lee the initiative and ability
to divert his forces. He also was fighting towards the James River and shorter supply lines with US Navy gunboat support.
Grant was constantly improving his military situation. That's not winning by losing.
You are 100% correct. Grant used the Army of the Potomac in ways that McClellan, Burnside, and Hooker could have done, but did not do. He won within a year of gaining command. I wonder what Meade would have done if left to his own devices. He seems to have been dancing around Northern Virginia for three months.
Pretty much the case. When you have a considerably larger well equipped force. You do as Patton suggested. Grab him by the nose and kick him in the pants.... Joe Johnson replied to a reporter who wished General Sherman would be consigned to the darker regions of Hades. Johnson replied it would be of no benefit as Sherman would have flanked the Devil and be back by lunch.... Grant was less graceful in doing so, but his designs moved his Army in force offering Lee no chance to hit any strung out units... At first the Southerners took these moves in force as redeploying for a continuation of hostilities on the same field which allowed Grant to get the jump on them...
The thing about Lee's failings early in the war, The Seven Day Battle as an example, Lee was not able to coordinate his green forces to catch the disorganized enemy at Glendale, (T J Jackson took himself a day long nap...) and his men paid the price at Malvern hill... It was always, whenever the least bit possible, for Lee's to put himself in a solid defensive position by taking the field first... Gettysburg was a shining example of what happens when he let the enemy beat him to the high ground... Grant on the other hand started with a well oiled machine. Union attacks were always punctilious about starting right on time at 5:30AM.... Even at the Wilderness when Burnside was Burnside, they were able to move more than 100,000 men as agilely as the smaller Southern army could move 60,000. By the Battle of Spotsylvania Courthouse the AotP was battered and by Cold Harbor, a mere shadow of itself. This decline is in large part why the AotP began failing to close the jaws in times it very well could have ended the conflict...
It is signal that the AotP suffered some 18,000 casualties at the Wilderness then actually fielded more men at Spotsylvainia Courthouse a couple weeks later.... (The ANV started with some 63,000 at the Wilderness and had roughly 50-53,000 at Spotsylvainia.)... It was this way for the remainder of the war....
@@ALMdawgfanpm
@@arthurcrary8000 Que?
I see the media hasn't changed in 150 + years
Indeed!!
WHAT FILM IS THIS FROM
Shelby said Grant knew how to whip him and he did...
If both sides had equal numbers and supplies, Grant would be Lee's stable boy.
@@headshotsongs9465 Even if that were true, Lee chose the wrong side of history. Time will keep Grant in high regard, and one day the bearers of the Lost Cause will leave a smaller stain in US history interpretations. The truth is that more people died in Lee's army than any other Confederate army, and more soldiers lived in Grant's army than in any other Union army, proportionally speaking. But Lee is the gentleman and Grant the butcher in the weird nation of the United States.
@@Raison_d-etre Lee lost over half his army between Overland and Petersburg and he was never called a butcher.
I think if you swap the two, Grant can’t do any better than Lee with the confederacy
What series/movie is this?
Through telegraph, Grant controlled five forces: Sherman, the western campaign, the Tennesse campaign, his own force in Virginia and the Navy to bottle up the south. It’s called Operational Art in the military. Has little to do with just Lee or any single battle. Multiple horns of a delema for the Confederacy. 1864 overland campaign used all five theaters, not just Lee in Northern Virginia.
Spongebob: "What would Lee do?"
Grant: "What would Lee do? I'll show you what would Lee do come here! I said come here!"
yes newspaper guy, you are leaving out Lee's defeat to Meade at Gettysburg and at Antietam.
Antietam was a more glorified stand-off thanks to McClellan's dithering for 18 critical hours when he had Lee's secret battle plans practically fall into his lap. Had he moved immediately, he could have crushed Lee. The silver lining was that perhaps without the motivation of a lengthy war, the chances for US Constitutional amendments 13 to 15 might have been very long.
Anthony Zerbe as Ulysses S Grant is a BOLD casting decision.
please, some attribution as to the production's title without making me research Anthony Zerbe's filmography.
Probably insanely late (or just not getting it) but North and South.
@@parkersheahan5471 yes, just Gagged it, confirmed. Thanks so much. If I die tomorrow it would have been in time.
Who's the actor portraying Grant? Who are the other actors in this scene?
The war was always the North's to lose, not the South's to win.
Who is the actor that is playing General Grant?
great general grant
A southern battle flag on that table?
scene from "North and South, Book II" (1986)
Grant a great man
what movie is this?
It was a miniseries called North and South back in the 80's. It starred Patrick Swayze. Since you asked this five years ago you probably already know by now.
@@jonmills6927 Thanks :D
This makes me appreciate how brilliant Daniel Day Lewis was
The greatest military commander of all time, and yeah I'm not a a yankee.
Don’t be ridiculous, there’s many better generals than Grant. He may be America’s best but world history nope.
Just to name a few there’s
Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal, Napoleon, Khalid, Subutai, Jan Zizka, Duke of Marlborough
@@fredbarker9201 that's my opinion based on his Vicksburg campaign! Most of the other generals you mentioned were superior in battles won and number of battles, not arguing there. But when it comes to grand strategy and historical impact that is felt to this day, Grant is on another level.
@@blaugranisto oh absolutely, his Vicksburg campaign is seriously impressive. IMO only eclipsed by Stonewalls valley campaign.
Lees daring split of his smaller forces at Chancellorsville is pretty impressive too.
Those have Got to be the 3 greatest military feats of the civil war.
Lee was not stupid. He knew better than anyone the numbers and odds that he was up against, that the entire Confederacy was up against. He knew and said after Gettysburg that if he was unable to bleed grants on me into incapacitation, but it would come down to a siege and then it would only be a matter of time. All of the armchair generals and second guessers, of any generation, give me a pain in my ass. Grant wasn't stupid either. He knew that by the time that he came on the scene to accompany the army of the Potomac that the North had vast numerical superiority and material superiority and it was just a matter of applying pressure on All points simultaneously so that the South could not shift forces from one sector to another.
False. Even in 1862-1863, when things were generally going Lee's way, Lee never actually looked beyond his own command, never attempted to work out plans with other generals. Lee was very tactically-based in his command style.
Grant didn't have quite as much tactical gift, although if you study his past battles, you'll see he was actually pretty good at it. His strength was in reading not just his fight but whats going on outside of it, allowing him to lose tactically but at the same time win..
Ares99999 No, Grant was more tactical too
Ares99999 Look up Grant vs Lee who was the better General on UA-cam and click on the first video that pops up, your mind will be shook.
You should at least give the name of the movie.
By the way, more men, more guns, more supplies... McClellan, Burnside, Hooker... they all once faced Lee with more men, more guns, more supplies... yet Lee beat those guys.
Why is that? Because the three I just named saw the tactical plan never used their armies strategically.
Are you crying foul that Lee faced a general who could use his forces intelligently?
For the record Lee lost some battles. In the Seven Days McClellan bled him white. Lee retreated at Antietam. Grant bled him on the road to Richmond while cutting his supply lines. Meade defeated him at Gettysburg. He was deified more for his stoic character and early successes, but in the end his cause caught up with him, as 200,000 black men bolstered the spirits of the Army of the Potomac.
@@vincentprincipato9234 Lees losses are when he has less men and the casualties are around the same on both sides, kinda reinforcing the point about the north having more resources
Keeping moving south
Grant was given zero choice Lincoln had tried again to recycle his military leaders but this time they turned him down refusing to take leadership. Lincoln finally turns to Grant who accepts but Grant is running out of time something dramatic must take place or Lincoln will be defeated. Grant and Sherman working in joint and Grant loosing troops made it happen. Perhaps if Grant had more time his losses would have been much less as a slower approach could have been taken. Also from what I have learned 150 years after the fact the Southerners were fanatical few owned slaves and fewer benefitted from the practice yet they went to war over it. You can also add European powers to the mix they were waiting for a chance to grab what they could and believe me speaking as a Canadian the less British influence the better.
"Well, first I'm going to get the makeup folks to get me a decent fake beard."
The North had more Irish...thats why they won
They did indeed ! While visiting Antietam, the bloodiest of any of US battles in history, a great sorrow came over me as I stood at a very large trench, dug by all Irish soldiers. It is now carpeted in the greenest of grasses.I think that my great-grandfather may have fought in the Civil War. The Irish in general do not like to talk about the tragedies in their history, and, so, we know so little.
@dwone jones How dare you say that. My father lied about his age to get into WWI. I figured out that he was probably only 16 years old.His first cousin was buried at sea. Hundreds of thousands of Union Irish men fought with great bravery during the Civil War. My late husband's brother Mike dropped out of Princeton to enlist during WWII. He fought both in Europe and in the Pacific in the infantry. He was one of the soldiers on Okinawa, ready to move into Japan.
I can only imagine what he had seen. He never talked about it. Talk about PTSD.
The North also had more Germans combined with the Irish made for some tough soliders who didn't back down.
General Grand reminds me of General George S. Patton! and his tactics.
Other way around
This dialog is so badly written it's a joke.
the scenes in the tv show are completely turned upside down. I mean their order is different. the journalist arrives before the quarrel between Grant and his colonel, that wants a new retreat after Wilderness ( that is portrayed here like a huge Union defeat, whereas maybe Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor could be considered like that). The information of the journalist is excellent he and the colonel summarize all the information every "lover" of the civil war should know; Union at the arrival of Grant was more in difficulties than everybody all around the world could ever think drawing from the books of history. The North or better the Union had undergone the defeats of Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg, Bull Run, Seven days battle etc, without reckoning Winchester 1863 before Gettysburg and Harper's ferry in end summer 1862 before Antietam . Also the generals, who were defeated, are here correctly quoted, but the winning party has influenced the cinema too. In the movie only Bull Run is shown and portrayed as a great and dramatic felt Union defeat. The other Union defeats are just hinted but not shown. And also some victories of the North are ignored Like Vicksburg. Anyway North and South remains a fantastic tv show
Spotsylvania could have been a smashing Union victory if Upton's attack that split Lee's line wide open had been properly supported. Cold Harbor was definitely a sharp, useless defeat that should have been avoided.
The Wilderness was by any measure, excepting no retreat was ordered, a loss... By not retreating and, in effect, continuing the same battle with breather was the difference in perception there. Many will look at that battle as "Inconclusive" in and of itself as it decided nothing. The thing is, as one of the clips portrayed, Grant simply viewed it as, (PP) "not being licked unless we say so...."
Not the right actor to play Grant. Grant didn't look that snobbish.
Thai Hung Pham right actor wrong mannerisms
The old colonel by Grant looks like he's trying to push his skull through his face...
Anthony Zerbe.
There was not even one iota of false pride in Grant. He was a humble, kind and brilliant man. And he was like that all throughout his life. Lincoln loved Grant. When Lincoln lay in state in the East Room, Grant stood at his
head and sobbed. The Grants were supposed to be in the Lincoln's box that Good Friday in Ford's Theater. Grant came to regret this so much because he might have been able to save Lincoln's life.
Probably due to the terrible fake beard
maybe Grant's emotional ability to keep up a meat grinder "butcher" strategy was assisted by being emotionally deadened through whiskey... when any sober man, might have stopped the unrelenting gruesome attacks...
Yea because stopping the attack worked so well for all those other union commanders!
The meat grinder strategy was the last thing on Grant's mind. He spent the whole Richmond campaign trying to fight his way around Lee, not through him. Grant just knew that maintaining contact with the enemy was the way to ensure that he couldn't recover the initiative, and the initiative was critical.
I believe that Grant was not an alcoholic; he also got 3-day migraines, which can look like a hangover Even one drink made him slur his words. I have seen people who get absolutely nasty one just one drink. Grant never once humiliated any person in public during the war. The one exception was a soldier who was abusing a draft horse. In an interview with Walter Cronkite , Gen./Pres. Eisenhower said that no "drunkard" could have achieved such winning stratagies that Grant did. He had a labyrinthine mind. Eisenhower also said that Grant was one of our greatest generals. He quickly amended this and said, "No, he WAS our greatest generals."
John Boykin In that case, Davis and Lee (the real butchers) should have surrendered after Vicksburg. The war was over then, except for needless carnage and suffering. They brought the South nothing but pain and destruction, but Southerners only took it all lying down and asked for more.
Grant was no butcher. He hated violence, and never killed a living thing, when "hunting" with others boys, or with officers in Oregon. He would wince when he saw the sufferings of the war. He had a boyhood friend, Admiral Dan Ammen, whom he had known as a boy in Georgetown, Ohio. Dan had saved Grant from drowning, and when he would visit Grant while he was president, he would say to USG that he must be so happy to have been saved from drowning. Grant said, no, he would not have chosen his life, were he able to do so. He opened his memoirs with a line from St. Thomas a Kempis, "Man proposeth, God disposeth."
I heard that Grant has become general of the Army he truly deserve it
Genral grants ghost visited me and he said lots of stuff but the most importent thing was this ----men have beards and woman dont so this means woman stay in caves in the winter why the men leave .
LUCID DREAMER What?!
LUCID DREAMER
Funny stuff...
Is there a loony bin hereabouts ? You must be from Colorado which is now reaping the problems caused by marijuana.
What was General Grant doing on the thermostate?!
That gray haired officer with whiskers standing next to Grant at 0:08 - does any one have an idea who is he supposed to be?
Imma apply his mindset in overwatch 2 as Junkrat
The War was one of attrition. When you have more money, men and arms than your opponent, you can continue to lose the same number of men in battle, because your enemy will run out of men before you do.
Some military historians feel the Civil War might have ended in the summer of 1864 as Grant fooled Lee with his crossing of the James River with Petersburg (a railroad hub) as his objective while Lee thought Grant was aiming for Richmond. But Grant's subordinates moved too slowly upon Petersburg, giving Lee time enough to get to that city to fortify it.
Not a bad job by Zerbe as Grant. The first Union general, with the exception of Meade who wasn't awed by Lee. He was a practical commander who knew that by taking the fight to the Confederacy was the only way to win the war. He made mistakes, Cold Harbor comes to mind, but he was proven right in the end.
Whoever wrote the scripts for this film knew next to nothing about Grant .He was very quiet. A powerful quiet. He never got agitated, and was totally cool in battle and in just about everything. This is a lousy portrayal of Grant and of Sherman.
The vantage of hindsight is a heck uva advantage isn't it?...
@@ALMdawgfan That' s for sure. Just like Monday morning quarterbacks.
Ironically, Lee did turn both of Grant's flanks in the Wilderness.