I am about half way through it and think it is very well done.
Seems good historical biography - haven’t seen it all just segments while I’m trying to sleep in a recliner after shoulder surgery. Most of what I learned about Grant was during a 2-semester Civil War class back in HS - 60 years ago, so a little hazy on details.
I do remember all the trouble AL had with McClellan and his constant dithering and retreating.
I’ve recommended it based on reviews but haven’t yet seen it myself.
If you’re in the Starkville MS area - drop in on the Grant Library.
http://www.usgrantlibrary.org
Hail State!
My biggest question is, why wasn’t Ta-Nehisi Coates more negative on Grant? I think the narrative of the producers is that he’s a good role model for how doggedly to go after “intolerance” (i.e. anyone opposed to socialism)
I wouldn’t watch it if you gave me $50
If you take out all of the advertisements the three part series distills down to a good hour history.
I’d like to read the Ron Chernow biography of him...came out about 2 years ago or so. I thought the depiction of him in the later seasons of Hell on Wheels was good.
Grant demonstrated a fundamental fact of war and militarism. War is said to be diplomacy by force and coercion. If you are engaged in such an endeavor and do not fight tenaciously and viciously, many of your own men will be killed and resources will be squandered needlessly. A successful general is audacious, engages the enemy and is willing to accept losses to achieve goals. Of course Grant had huge resources, could afford strategic mistakes, incur huge losses have a few drinks, then get up and fight again. Eventually and inevitably he won. Whether you are Finland or the Confederacy, overwhelming numbers and determination almost always wins.
Does this have anything to do with Ulysses Simpson Grant, also known to some as Unconditional Surrender Grant, the 18th president of the United States?
On my mom’s side of the family, on her mom’s side, the ancestors in southern Illinois were greatly affected by Grant.
He was pulled back into military service by Lincoln, and initially Lincoln tasked him with forming up a regiment in Illinois.
Grant initiated that with speeches promoting the effort. Relatives in southern Illinois went to Springfield to hear Grant speak. Back home they discussed Grant’s appeal. Overhearing his father and uncles discussing Grant’s appeal one night, one sixteen year old and a cousin of the same age stole away from home in the middle of the night and made their way to Springfield; lying about their ages and joining up in Grant’s regiment. That relative died in the infamous Confederate prison camp at Andersonville.
We watched all three episodes and I was especially impressed about how “level” the presentation was. Particularly since there were a couple left-leaning folks as narrators. Particularly surprising as Leonardo DiCaprio was the Producer.
I was largely unaware that U.S. Grant was in effect the leading General of Generals near the end of the war. Was aware of his closeness to Lincoln and of Lincoln’s “I cannot spare this man” statement, but Grant’s overall importance in the conduct of the war was surprising to me. At the end of the last episode they narrator(s) explained the reason that Grant contribution has been more or less forgotten in the 20th Century thru today because of the Southern recasting of the war as being a matter states rights, rather than slavery. The movement was called “The Lost Cause”. I for one was totally unaware of this.
I plan to buy Chernow’s biography and to try to find a copy of Grant’s autobiography if it is still available. Wouldn’t mind having the series on DVD/blueray if the History channel makes it available.
Highly recommend watching the series when/if it it is rebroadcast.
I really recommend the book Grant’s Final Victory by Charles Flood. It is about his last year of life.
Before this, most of what I read about Grant involved drinking, butchery and corruption. This series casts a new light upon him, especially at the end where it is said how popular he was.
I’m not aware that Grant has been in the public eye much lately.
Suspicious me wonders what is behind the sudden effort to elevate his reputation.
Fully agree with the consensus that the series was pretty well done and represented General Grant probably as close to character as possible.
I was a Civil War reenactor for 20 years. Found a lot of faults with weapons, troop handling, uniforms, battle scenarios, etc. But overall it was worth watching.
I read his memoirs so isn’t that -’hick’- enough?
Grant opposed slavery, so he received favorable treatment from all the commentators, historians, civil war experts. Properly so, but that’s likely why SJWs like deCaprio financed it. And they got a chance to vilify southerners, the KKK, etc.
Grant’s strategic genius was most fascinating. Sneaking thousands of troops down the Mississippi right in front of the confederate troops on the hilltops of Vicksburg was stunning. (under cover of darkness, hugging the shoreline in extreme proximity to friendly homes.)
Similarly, traversing troops and armaments over the James river by pontoon in hours. One sees why Lincoln depended on him.
Interesting that Lincoln’s wimpy General McClellan ran as a D against Grant after Lincoln’s assassination, probably showing why he failed executing the war against the confederates. Slavery sympathizer perhaps.
I was intrigued
I thought the series was pretty good. I think it understated just how daring Grant was in taking Vicksburg. It was definitely not by the book.
I was very disappointed. I thought the series was going to be about the singer Amy Grant.
I thought it was very good, especially the stuff on Grant in the west. Most presentations of the Civil War concentrate on Virginia. Most of what I know about the fighting certainly relates to Lee and Virginia, so it was good to see another side of the war on the screen.
Waiting for their three-part docu-drama on Robert E. Lee. Waiting.... still waiting....