The Great Captains in American History - Grant 

or would like to be

Ferdinand Ward thought so. Ponzi. Greed $$$$😮

Tell me about it! I never got into the civil war and was more into the revolutionary war era. When Chernow’s book on Grant came out I got it and was shocked at how under appreciated and rumor ruined his historical reputation. I just actually watched the Gore Vidal’s Lincoln miniseries from the 80s and couldn’t believe how bad it was. Lincoln visits Grant at Petersburg and he’s in his tent and he’s sitting there with an old fashion glass with whiskey on the rocks. 🙄👌 like the way portrayed him was a “drunk butcher “ never thinking how yes he drank but the officer corps was like junior high and 95% was rumor but certainly never in battle. Then he’s portrayed as not caring about any of his men just a means to an end. I actually read an article that Grant had among the lowest casualty rate during the war vs Lee who was the highest but Lee is a godly aristocrat and Grant was a nobody. Lost causers say he only won because of “manpower and supplies “ then how did the previous generals lose with the same resources ? Or were they so bad Lee was no genius at all? They can’t seem to pick.

@@marquisdelafayette1929 I am reading it now. Grant was so under appreciated .

Well said!

I am just finishing the Chernow biography of Grant. I highly recommend it. The picture at the beginning is on the dust jacket of Chernow’s book.

You mean Lincoln.

Hi Teresa! Do you really think that it ever ended? This time, the Jacobins (the Democrats) who started the first civil war, are trying again. It's now just how many Americans know the truth! Maybe a man or two could fight back/

Grant is my favorite American as well Teresa. A true hero who saved the Union and moved our civilization forward by a lot. Unfortunately have we forgotten the truth about what he did.

@@alec2726 stop watching Fox News.

I really wasn't expecting this video to make me cry, but here we are

Agree! I am rereading the Lloyd Lewis/Bruce Catton biography. Will work my way thru succeeding bios.

And this shit is available to us for free lol..its sad but at least some of us are smart enough to view them

GE That would have been, at a minimum, insubordination, and perhaps mutiny and war crime, given Lincoln’s policies, which are clear in his second inaugural address. In the military at war, one does as he is ordered, or pays a very high price. Emotion has no place in a military officer at war. Presumably, you have no military training. If you do, you did not learn the basics.

@Andy G Traitors and mass murderers should have been hanged. Still paying for the mistake of letting them live.

Lincoln wouldn't have wanted that. He wanted a reconciliation of the country, and that would have deepened the divide.

grant did own a slave, given to him by his father in law. his manumission of him is on record. his wife kept her slaves during the early part of their marriage.

Consumer Strike! Lincoln never said that. In fact he said the opposite. Stop with your lies

@@christiansoldier77 He certainly did, you would have to know some history to know. Slavery was legal in the south, the federal government had no jurisdiction over slavery were it existed. It would have been an illegal war of Lincoln made it about slavery.

@@fraudsarentfriends4717 I forgot more about history than you will ever know. The war was always about slavery only a fool doesn't understand this. The Confederates seceded because the Republicans were threatening to end slavery. This is just historical fact whether you are too ignorant to understand this or not

41 out of 56 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were slave owners. They were not all from the South.

Then get your ass up there and do a better job!!....you have provided useless commentary so what's your next party trick?...We're all paying attention so would all love to see it.

@@tomdouglassicks4748 Silly me, I forgot. No one is ever allowed to make comments on anything they're not doing themselves. Tool.

@@pcbacklash_3261 your reply was in bad taste and moreover indicated lack of understanding of the topic at hand...

@@billhammett174 I can accept that it may have been in bad taste, but how in the world does it indicate a "lack of understanding of the topic at hand?" I merely commented that it was very informative.

Huh?....Who?

Yeah what are you talking about?

No more like destroying the rebels ability to make war by taking food and farm equipment such as horses and slaves.

For that matter how about US policy of fire bombing entire German and Japan cities.

Ryan Otteros War is hell. Countries that start wars, with the support of their citizens have no rights to cry about atrocities.

Lee was good but not better than Grant. An invading army is always at a disadvantage fighting on the enemy's turf. Basic military axiom. Lee's soldiers and might have been better than Grant's but many Union soldiers were fresh off the boat from Europe and had practically never held a gun before their first battle. Despite that, Grant lost fewer soldiers than conventional wisdom dictated. If their roles were reversed, Grant would probably still have won because the Union would have sued for peace at any price without Grant and his key victories despite the Union advantages in numbers and equipment. Just saying.

You’re mistaken. Lee was good at winning battles but he never understood the overall strategy of the Confederacy. They where fighting for independence and time was on their side as it would’ve put political pressure in the divided Union. Therefor they could’ve just chosen a defensive strategy with the benefits of better positioning which would’ve given them a 3 -1 favorable casualty rate. Lee only knew to attack though, which he did well, but that cost him way to many casualties which he couldn’t make up for.

@@brittbooth7616 💯

Lee had advantage of not actually having to win the war, was fighting a defensive war to get Europe nations to recognize the confederacy. Lee went on the offensive one time and got crushed at Gettysburg

Grant had a total of 1 slave, given to him by his father in law. He freed him even though he could have sold him for $1000 (over $10000 today) and even though he was totally broke and had a family. Lee “freed” his many slaves when they were confiscated by the government when he became a traitor. Learn your history.

Robert E. Lee and Slavery Contributed by Allen C. Guelzo Robert E. Lee was the most successful Confederate military leader during the American Civil War (1861-1865). This also made him, by virtue of the Confederacy's defense of chattel slavery, the most successful defender of the enslavement of African Americans. Yet his own personal record on both slavery and race is mottled with contradictions and ambivalence, all which were in plain view during his long career. Born into two of Virginia's most prominent families, Lee spent his early years surrounded by enslaved African Americans, although that changed once he joined the Army. His wife, Mary Randolph Custis Lee, freed her own personal slaves, but her father, George Washington Parke Custis, still owned many people, and when he died, Robert E. Lee, as executor of his estate, was responsible for manumitting them within five years. He was widely criticized for taking the full five years. Lee and his wife supported the American Colonization Society before the war but resisted the abolitionist movement. Lee later insisted that his decision to support the Confederacy was not founded on a defense of slavery. During both the Maryland (1862) and Gettysburg (1863) campaigns, Lee's officers kidnapped free blacks and sold them into slavery. By 1865, Lee supported the enlistment of African Americans into the Confederate army, but he surrendered before a plan could be implemented. After the war, he generally opposed racial and political equality for African Americans. MORE...

Read more.