View Full Version : General Grant On History Channel
The 3 part series from the History Channel started last night and it's quite good. I'm looking forward to part 2 tonight. Grant was an interesting character and this show does not white wash him, but attempts to give a very human and well rounded account of the man and the general and the terrible difficult mission he was given to save the Union.
https://www.military.com/off-duty/2020/05/20/history-channels-grant-timely-reminder-which-general-actually-won-civil-war.html
Averageman
05-26-20, 09:32
History Channel has picked up their game the last couple of days.
Can you rename this to make it clear which Grant? Like
'Grant' on History Channel
or
'Grant' about General Grant on History Channel
or something. When I saw this I thought that our Grant had somehow made it onto History Channel, maybe in an interview about some firearms related thing. LOL
.... When I saw this I thought that our Grant had somehow made it onto History Channel, maybe in an interview about some firearms related thing. LOL
Same with me. I fixed it for him.
SeriousStudent
05-26-20, 12:06
Dunno, I would not put it past him to have a horse and a sword or two stashed someplace. ;)
Diamondback
05-26-20, 14:48
History Channel has picked up their game the last couple of days.
Sadly, they'll be back to Gold Rush Pawn Aliens soon enough... :( this ain't the History Channel of back in Gunny Ermey's day, though they do occasionally do some good mini-series.
Sadly, they'll be back to Gold Rush Pawn Aliens soon enough... :( this ain't the History Channel of back in Gunny Ermey's day, though they do occasionally do some good mini-series.Wasn't that good back then either. His show included. I'd go back to the 90s
Averageman
05-27-20, 00:20
They have a lot of good programming coming up on Sunday's until after the 4th of July.
I liked History Channel back in the early 2000s when I used to watch "Black Sheep Squadron", "China Beach", etc on it for a couple hours. They had a morning block and an afternoon block (repeat). I think they also had a few other old "war" related programs they were re-running. Then after those blocks they started the special History stuff theat they produced (and it was not all Alien's Pawned my Grandma type stuff -- things like the History behind the stories in famous movies, or events in history deconstructed, etc.
I don't even have any sort of cable programming now and have not watched it in a few years but when I did, it was all stupid stuff a few years ago.
ThirdWatcher
05-27-20, 02:55
Satellite TV in general has really gone downhill. I have enjoyed the “Grant” miniseries but it will be over tomorrow. They should change the same to the “Reality TV Channel”. Another channel that has gone downhill is the “American Heroes Channel”. One of their favorite re-runs lately is “I (Almost) Got Away With It”. Idiots.
Satellite TV in general has really gone downhill. I have enjoyed the “Grant” miniseries but it will be over tomorrow. They should change the same to the “Reality TV Channel”. Another channel that has gone downhill is the “American Heroes Channel”. One of their favorite re-runs lately is “I (Almost) Got Away With It”. Idiots.
And their obsession with Nazi's and anything Hitler, like that was the only aspect of WWII.
Averageman
05-27-20, 06:44
And their obsession with Nazi's and anything Hitler, like that was the only aspect of WWII.
Blame the old Series of "World at War", there was so much stock archival footage and no one doing anything with it that it turned in to Nazi's 24/7.
I think a part of that was to get the channel off the ground and perhaps could have looked a bit harder and handled it a lot better.
I'll take Nazis 24/7 over this current crap like digging for gold, fishing, chopping down trees and living in the woods.
All of those things are actually pretty cool as specials. I'd be interested in watching all of them. But NOT when they make it into a reality show
Diamondback
05-27-20, 09:23
Satellite TV in general has really gone downhill. I have enjoyed the “Grant” miniseries but it will be over tomorrow. They should change the same to the “Reality TV Channel”. Another channel that has gone downhill is the “American Heroes Channel”. One of their favorite re-runs lately is “I (Almost) Got Away With It”. Idiots.
So much this. Ditto Travel's reformat of "All Paranormal All The Time" (ditto Destination America), Food Network's obsession with competition shows... the list goes on ad nauseum. Don't get me started about how Hallmark Channel turns people into addle-brained, drooling-moron cultists...
2 pages and still no discussion about the series? Part II was excellent. Lot of details I had not known. Civil war is not one of my stronger subjects I'm sad to admit, but this series is renewing my interests to study up some more. The fact that all the major players went to school together and knew each other is an aspect I hadn't known, but it makes sense considering the time and such.
Diamondback
05-27-20, 09:37
2 pages and still no discussion about the series? Part II was excellent. Lot of details I had not known. Civil war is not one of my stronger subjects I'm sad to admit, but this series is renewing my interests to study up some more. The fact that all the major players went to school together and knew each other is an aspect I hadn't known, but it makes sense considering the time and such.
It IS well done, surprisingly so with DiCrappio behind it. I dabbled in Civil War studies for a while in junior high, and I still occasionally come back to refresh on it.
MikhailBarracuda91
05-27-20, 09:43
2 pages and still no discussion about the series? Part II was excellent. Lot of details I had not known. Civil war is not one of my stronger subjects I'm sad to admit, but this series is renewing my interests to study up some more. The fact that all the major players went to school together and knew each other is an aspect I hadn't known, but it makes sense considering the time and such.My fiance loved! Her and I only watched part 1 so far but it was really great so far. It's a good docudrama, we compared the storytelling style to "The Last Czars" (another good show)
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Averageman
05-27-20, 10:06
2 pages and still no discussion about the series? Part II was excellent. Lot of details I had not known. Civil war is not one of my stronger subjects I'm sad to admit, but this series is renewing my interests to study up some more. The fact that all the major players went to school together and knew each other is an aspect I hadn't known, but it makes sense considering the time and such.
In the second show of the series did you notice Grant had some slight hesitation about fighting against a man who had loaned him money and that they were Cadets together?
Time and again they mentioned that Grant had a key sense of the lay of the land and timing the movements of troops for the greatest effect. He also was just a pit bull, once he made contact it was hell to shake him loose. Moving Grant to the East to parry with Lee was the only way to win.
I'm sure that the weight of those casualty lists weighed on him until he passed.
I DVR'd the series and watched the first part last night. I thought it was well done. Look forward to the rest.
Although I knew of it, I too was kind of interested how many of those opposing generals had gone to West Point together and knew each other.
I DVR'd the series and watched the first part last night. I thought it was well done. Look forward to the rest.
Although I knew of it, I too was kind of interested how many of those opposing generals had gone to West Point together and knew each other.
I hadn't known that but it made perfect sense. Things I didn't know, such as his parents were strict abolitionists and no one from his side of the family came to his wedding due to his father in law to be owning slaves. That while we was dirt poor, he set the one slave he had (given to him by his father in law) free which he could not afford, etc.
That really added some dimensions to the man I didn't know of, and while he was sort of viewed as neutral on the issue of slavery, his behaviors would suggest he really believed in the cause of ending slavery, and he expressed that those in the Confederacy were traitors to the nation for attempting to leave the Union.
Who gives a **** about Grant?
Who gives a **** about Grant?
Useful post, post was useful.
Who gives a **** about Grant?
Because, if for no other reason, he was a US president, which makes him historically noteworthy. Why the animus of a trolling post?
Diamondback
05-27-20, 16:17
Because, if for no other reason, he was a US president, which makes him historically noteworthy. Why the animus of a trolling post?
Not to mention that between himself, Lee and Sherman they marked some of the first steps of transition from Napoleonic warfare toward modern... actually, there are parallels between Grant's generalship and Trump's presidency, both were considered "vulgar" and "outsiders" by Capitol Establishments that hated their pugnacity and "try something different 'til I find something that works" thinking.
Because, if for no other reason, he was a US president, which makes him historically noteworthy. Why the animus of a trolling post?
His avatar should be a clue. The South will never get over that L. God forbid they find out many of us Westerners think Sherman was a hero. I suspect this thread will fall apart within a few pages like all of our other Civil War related posts.
US Grant was an interesting character in the war, especially considering he was basically a failure at everything else he tried in civilian life.
Stonewall Jackson: many think he was the best field commander the USA ever produced. Better than Washington, Winfield Scott, Lee, Pershing, Patton, Abrams.
Sherman gets his reputation from his scorched earth campaigns.
ThirdWatcher
05-28-20, 02:26
Stonewall Jackson: many think he was the best field commander the USA ever produced...
I have wondered for the longest time if the day Gen. Jackson died (by friendly fire, no less) was the day the cause (of the Confederacy) was lost...
Part III was best of the series and think I will read his memoirs. My grandmother had a first edition printing of that book. I had no idea of the value at the time. Part III suggests he was a much better POTUS than given credit for. The mini series based on this biography:
https://www.amazon.com/Grant-Ron-Chernow/dp/0143110632/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1590671003&sr=1-1
I have wondered for the longest time if the day Gen. Jackson died (by friendly fire, no less) was the day the cause (of the Confederacy) was lost...
On the eve of one of their greatest victories no less.
Excellent series, dvr'd it here. Interesting that the left's playbook has not changed in over 100 years.
The brilliance of many of the military leaders during the civil war on both sides is pretty remarkable. It will remain a stain on the country that they had to fight each other. Grant's worst years were between his resignation from the Army and when he recommissioned.
Diamondback
05-28-20, 10:04
Excellent series, dvr'd it here. Interesting that the left's playbook has not changed in over 100 years.
Nor the measures to defeat it...
Excellent series, dvr'd it here. Interesting that the left's playbook has not changed in over 100 years.
Indeed. People should watch that as it really brings home the fact how little things have actually changed.
Indeed. People really should watch that as it really brings home the fact how little things have really changed.
With regard to politics, NOTHING has changed. Washington was beloved, until he was president. People called him a traitor, said he needed to be hanged. Thomas Jefferson disliked Washington. The media vilified Washington. Then Adams was president, the public hated him because he didn't go to bat for the French in their war against England. They burned him in effigy. Political factions, dissent, back-stabbing...it's as old as Adam and Eve...
Averageman
05-28-20, 10:46
With regard to politics, NOTHING has changed. Washington was beloved, until he was president. People called him a traitor, said he needed to be hanged. Thomas Jefferson disliked Washington. The media vilified Washington. Then Adams was president, the public hated him because he didn't go to bat for the French in their war against England. They burned him in effigy. Political factions, dissent, back-stabbing...it's as old as Adam and Eve...
I think you can pin it down to Hamilton encouraging Washington to go after the Frontiersmen not paying taxes on their Whiskey.
That was the exact moment the Political Class lost touch with the Common Man.
SeriousStudent
05-28-20, 11:11
....... I suspect this thread will fall apart within a few pages like all of our other Civil War related posts.
....
Every single time the Civil War comes up here or on any forum, people lose their minds and the thread gets locked.
Let's not have a repeat of the conflict, shall we?
I think you can pin it down to Hamilton encouraging Washington to go after the Frontiersmen not paying taxes on their Whiskey.
That was the exact moment the Political Class lost touch with the Common Man.
Definitely. And Washington had the temerity to actually put on his general's uniform to lead the military. This stuff has happened to every president. People have lost their shit over Trump, or Obama, or Nixon, or FDR, or..... Grant was just the guy at that point in history where the left changed tactics.
With regard to politics, NOTHING has changed. Washington was beloved, until he was president. People called him a traitor, said he needed to be hanged. Thomas Jefferson disliked Washington. The media vilified Washington. Then Adams was president, the public hated him because he didn't go to bat for the French in their war against England. They burned him in effigy. Political factions, dissent, back-stabbing...it's as old as Adam and Eve...
I meant more the fact of who actually gave a damn about slavery and racial injustice and oppression, which really has not changed. As far as politics in general, "Twus ever thus" as Mr Natural would say. Interesting to note that people revered him far and wide however and his role very much downplayed by historians who wanted to change the narrative.
I meant more the fact of who actually gave a damn about slavery and racial injustice and oppression, which really has not changed. As far as politics in general, "Twus ever thus" as Mr Natural would say. Interesting to note that people revered him far and wide however and his role very much downplayed by historians who wanted to change the narrative.
Yes, I agree. To underscore your point which I highlighted, look how much historians have changed the narrative on many presidents. Lincoln is a good example: while he may have had good intentions and motives, he absolutely shredded the constitution to achieve his goals. Every text book has him practically walking on water.
Yes, I agree. To underscore your point which I highlighted, look how much historians have changed the narrative on many presidents. Lincoln is a good example: while he may have had good intentions and motives, he absolutely shredded the constitution to achieve his goals. Every text book has him practically walking on water.
He also was not an abolitionist where as it seemed like Grant really was. It seems like Lincoln did come to believe in the cause of ending slavery as time went on, but as far as the reasons for preventing the south from leaving the Union, that was not his motivation, at least at the start.
Per usual, now that time has passed, people are more willing and interested to look at the facts about historical figures vs white washed BS. I think Grant probably did as much, if not more so, for the cause of ending slavery than Lincoln did, who gets all the credit for it.
I didn't know Grants parents were strict abolitionists, or that he set the one slave given to him by his father in law free when he was dirt poor, etc, etc. I seemed like Grant really did believe in that cause in addition to his feelings those trying to leave the Union were traitors to the nation.
I'm not sure Lincoln would have worked as hard on the Reconstruction either.
I'm mildly ashamed to admit I didn't know as much about Grant as I should have.
His was a true American story and experience, ups and downs, and all.
I find the documentary very interesting. I am somewhat knowledgeable about the Civil War, though far from an expert on it. I know it enough to wonder how truly "brilliant" Grant was as a general. His biggest selling point was his tenacity and being pugnacious on the battlefield, something other big-name Union generals lacked up to that point. But could Grant have pulled it off without superior numbers on his side? I have my doubts. His "tenacity" was because he burned through quite a few soldiers at Shiloh, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, etc. Tactical stalemates in some of those battles didn't deter him as it had previous commanders. He pushed on, ever-trying to flank the Confederates once he was in Virginia after the Wilderness battle ground to a halt. He did have a reputation in the North as a "butcher" with some people.
I don't think he displayed the tactical prowess some of his adversaries had, but he had beaucoup more men and resources. The South couldn't replace losses nearly as readily as the North could. That played well into Grant's bull-headed strategy.
I guess a better question is if the North had a Lee or Stonewall Jackson in charge, could they have prevailed with fewer losses?
I admit I know little about him beyond the casual reading and textbook stuff. I have read his Wiki page to get the Reader's Digest version. I look forward to seeing it. I wish History Channel would do biopic mini-series like this on every president.
Diamondback
05-28-20, 13:55
I admit I know little about him beyond the casual reading and textbook stuff. I have read his Wiki page to get the Reader's Digest version. I look forward to seeing it. I wish History Channel would do biopic mini-series like this on every president.
"But this is BORING! Where's the Aliens Pawning Gold?" Let's face it, most of the populace are morons who can barely muster the competence to spell their own frickin' names right and can't even hang on long enough to match the attention span of a gnat, and so are most of the network execs who pander to them.
General Grant understood that logistics was the key to winning the war. He kept constant pressure on the Confederates while constantly feeding in more men and more supplies at a pace the South could not match. The Confederacy had brilliant generals (heck, General Rommel studied General Nathan B. Forrest’s calvary tactics and applied them to his tank corps) but could not keep up with the North logistically.
General Eisenhower understood the same thing about Europe in '44.
To meet the surprise of the Bulge he moved 240,000 men and 50,000 vehicles in a matter of days. No army anywhere has done that, before or since.
Averageman
05-28-20, 16:06
General Grant understood that logistics was the key to winning the war. He kept constant pressure on the Confederates while constantly feeding in more men and more supplies at a pace the South could not match. The Confederacy had brilliant generals (heck, General Rommel studied General Nathan B. Forrest’s calvary tactics and applied them to his tank corps) but could not keep up with the North logistically.
I would say a time or two he took some damned thin line risks with logistics in the Western Theater.
More than once had the Confederates decided to cut his supply line rather than meet him in battle or siege, they could have won the day with some cavalry action aka WB Forrest.
Diamondback
05-28-20, 18:31
General Grant understood that logistics was the key to winning the war. He kept constant pressure on the Confederates while constantly feeding in more men and more supplies at a pace the South could not match. The Confederacy had brilliant generals (heck, General Rommel studied General Nathan B. Forrest’s calvary tactics and applied them to his tank corps) but could not keep up with the North logistically.
In a way, Grant's embrace of railroads for mobility could be called the first baby step into Mechanized Warfare, just as USS Monitor and her progeny were the first baby step towards modern engine-powered and turret-gunned warships.
In a way, Grant's embrace of railroads for mobility could be called the first baby step into Mechanized Warfare, just as USS Monitor and her progeny were the first baby step towards modern engine-powered and turret-gunned warships.
The US civil war features a number of firsts:
Railroad-mobile soldiers
Instant comms via telegraph
Machine guns, (Gatling)
Wide use of rifles
Anaesthetic
Aerial reconnaissance (manned balloons!)
Iron ships powered by steam
Submarines (not true submersibles, but a start)
Camouflage uniforms
The US civil war features a number of firsts:
Railroad-mobile soldiers
Instant comms via telegraph
Machine guns, (Gatling)
Wide use of rifles
Anaesthetic
Aerial reconnaissance (manned balloons!)
Iron ships powered by steam
Submarines (not true submersibles, but a start)
Camouflage uniforms
And something very important in the medical field was improved upon and first used on a wide scale during the Civil War: triage.
And something very important in the medical field was improved upon and first used on a wide scale during the Civil War: triage.
We learned that from our colleagues in the Crimean War... (as well as use of anesthesia, antiseptic care, wound care, etc.)
MountainRaven
05-29-20, 09:16
On a related note:
This Tweet (https://twitter.com/dfedman/status/1266048518176641025) has information on a Meiji-era Japanese biography of Grant, which can be viewed as downloaded as a .pdf here (http://www.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kotenseki/html/bunko11/bunko11_a0470/index.html) (click on the thumbnail or where it says, "(click here)"). It is, of course, in Japanese, but it is also illustrated, so it should be interesting. One point: They didn't just transliterate Grant's name using katakana (Japanese alphabet mostly used for onomatopoeias and foreign words - and the names of foreigners - today), but also using kanji (Japanese alphabet directly borrowed from Chinese and used for Japanese names); a mark of how highly regarded the Japanese considered Grant: 格蘭氏.
On a related note:
This Tweet (https://twitter.com/dfedman/status/1266048518176641025) has information on a Meiji-era Japanese biography of Grant, which can be viewed as downloaded as a .pdf here (http://www.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kotenseki/html/bunko11/bunko11_a0470/index.html) (click on the thumbnail or where it says, "(click here)"). It is, of course, in Japanese, but it is also illustrated, so it should be interesting. One point: They didn't just transliterate Grant's name using katakana (Japanese alphabet mostly used for onomatopoeias and foreign words - and the names of foreigners - today), but also using kanji (Japanese alphabet directly borrowed from Chinese and used for Japanese names); a mark of how highly regarded the Japanese considered Grant: 格蘭氏.
What amazed me was even the southern soldiers had high regards for him due to the way they were treated.
What amazed me was even the southern soldiers had high regards for him due to the way they were treated.
There was a lot of professional respect going both ways across the Mason-Dixon Line. At the higher echelons, likely because if they did not know each other or serve with each other, they knew people who did, and the reputations got around.
ThirdWatcher
05-31-20, 03:32
... His "tenacity" was because he burned through quite a few soldiers at Shiloh, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, etc. Tactical stalemates in some of those battles didn't deter him as it had previous commanders. He pushed on, ever-trying to flank the Confederates once he was in Virginia after the Wilderness battle ground to a halt. He did have a reputation in the North as a "butcher" with some people.
I don't think he displayed the tactical prowess some of his adversaries had, but he had beaucoup more men and resources. The South couldn't replace losses nearly as readily as the North could. That played well into Grant's bull-headed strategy...
I think you bring up some very good points. I wonder, given the quality of Confederate leadership if there was any other way. I wonder if, in the long run he saved lives (by putting an end to the war ASAP). I would find it very hard to kill other Americans though...
ThirdWatcher
05-31-20, 03:37
BTW, I’d like to see a miniseries about General of the Army George C. Marshall. I know very little about the man but what little I do know is fascinating.
Voodoochild
06-02-20, 17:14
There was a lot of professional respect going both ways across the Mason-Dixon Line. At the higher echelons, likely because if they did not know each other or serve with each other, they knew people who did, and the reputations got around.
I believe Grant and Lee both served along side each other during the Mexican campaign.
HardToHandle
06-02-20, 18:50
I would say a time or two he took some damned thin line risks with logistics in the Western Theater.
More than once had the Confederates decided to cut his supply line rather than meet him in battle or siege, they could have won the day with some cavalry action aka WB Forrest.
Grant‘s campaigns around Vicksburg was a series of huge logistical gambles. That said, he learned from mistakes and learned to apply what he did have as resources. The entire war in the West gets way too little play, but Grant covered 10x the distance and won more modern battles of maneuver in months than the Army of Potomac did in years.
That said, Robert E Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia were different adversaries with extremely compact lines of maneuver. Grant managed to take the addled and political unreliable Army of the Potomac across the finish line. Much of the butcher legend comes from the McClellan Democrats in Northern Army, the same guys who never won a battle in three years.
There was a lot of professional respect going both ways across the Mason-Dixon Line. At the higher echelons, likely because if they did not know each other or serve with each other, they knew people who did, and the reputations got around.
While there was some professional respect say post WWII, many were still taken out and shot for their involvement. That Lincoln, and to an even greater degree Grant, made the decision to let them all go home and re start their lives, etc, was not lost on the soldiers of the south and apparently they help Grant in high esteem for it, and that was at the grunt level.
I believe Grant and Lee both served along side each other during the Mexican campaign.
If I understand, they were both there but had little interaction during the campaign. Apparently Grant remembered Lee there, but Lee did not recall Grant. No doubt there is at least some bind shared by men who were involved in any military campaign.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.