I agree !

I can hear a little accent slip when he said "defensive" but the costume and beard is fantastic.

Still his ohio is pretty good

He did an amazing job embodying Grants mannerisms, From the way, he talked to how he held cigars when he smoked him. And just knew nothing about Grant and only had two weeks to prepare. Outstanding job

@@CivilwarSarah And he's British!

Don't ask what your country can do for you , but what you can do for your country. Kinda crazy a Democrat said that, just shows how times changed

@@BoleDaPoledifferent times

I would’ve said I haven’t lost 12,000 lives

@@cashchicscarshonestly; it’s not the gotcha that the History Channel writers like to think it is.

@@cashchicscarsin other words YOU did nothing…nada

Great response from a small boy with a fragile ego because he was an ineffective general and guilty with blood on his hands

​@@fahid3342Either you're unpatriotic and hate the United States and love the Confederacy, or you don't understand history. Grant is responsible for the deaths of many men, both his allies, and enemies. However, he ended the civil war ASAP, faster than any other general could have. If it wasn't for Grant, the war likely would've lasted for months or maybe years longer. During this longer war scenario, we probably would've lost more men in the long run than we did with Grant just ripping the bandage off and getting it over with. Grant was right, more deaths up front in a shorter war is far better than a longer war with a greater total of deaths spread out. Any modern tactician will tell you this, you don't need to take my word for it.

⁠​⁠@@fahid3342 and you made it personal, why? It seems like you don’t know the history well enough, so you have to settle for personal insults.

@@colinevans8619 read into it then

​@@fahid3342whether you have gone to war or not, by living in a society built by others you also have blood on your hands. All of Islam was built on blood, as example. At least a soldier is honest in his attire, not costumed by gentle clothing. Also, Grant was highly effective. No one, no general, ever wins all his battles and it's the burden of command that you send men into peril and that some may not return.

Well stated.

And Grant could replenish his losses because of a larger population in the north, while the south couldn't afford any more losses. Attrition favored the Union.

Respectfully (and I am not a Grant hater), the percentage of loss isn't relevant. If an army of 100,000 fights an army of 10,000 and loses 25,000 vs 3000, it has a lower loss rate but was a terrible outcome. Grant was a solid general and a terrific strategic thinker. He knew he could trade lives 2:1 against Lee and win thanks to huge flow of replacement soldiers. And did. At the beginning of the Overland campaign, Grant's Army of the Potomac had 120,000 men versus Lee's 60,000. Grant took 60,000 casualties during those battles in forcing Lee back to Richmond (Lee suffered 35,000). When they settled in to Petersburg, Grant had an army of... 125,000 men. Lee was down to 45,000 effectives, and that only by stripping other commands of troops. At the same time, the Union fielded several other armies of 50,000+ (Sherman's was 110,000 in the West) which stretched and finally broke smaller Confederate armies. It was the application of pressure across multiple fronts which the South couldn't withstand. That was really Grant's genius - understanding the manpower and production math and applying them relentlessly.

@@WhizzingFish12 I had a professor say Grant was the first American general that understood the mechanics and mechanical nature of war

@@JohnBeebe That's correct. Grant was our first truly modern general. He understood the math of war.

Their type usually praises them

Who says he’s a draft dodger? Everyone has a job to do, including journalists, dumba**

Refusing to participate in a war to fill the pockets of greedy politicians that have no interests to the American people is NOT cowardly, the only justifiable war in the last 100 years was World War 2. War is a terrible thing and we should stop meddling in the affairs of other countries and help our own instead.

Trump I believe is one of them yellow belly draft dodgers

@@psimonsen123 I can't wait until he wins again lmao

Lile otherwise

Chancellorsville was Lee's greatest victory

Chancellorsville was Lee's best masterpiece.

​@@vojtechotava1417 Chancellorsville was a pyrrhic victory Lee lost a quarter of his men that he couldn't replaced

@@shanewoody4232 including his best general, Jackson. Lee was never really Lee again after that.

Nothing like some fair criticism and questions in an open and free democracy.

Cold Harbor was Grant's worst mistake. It shouldnt have happened and it was foreseen that the first day's attack was going to be a disaster.

​​@@fahid3342this issue isn't one of free speech or journalism and your mistake is that you equate the behavior of this journalist with so. He could have easily put the question in a more professional manner and received a productive answer. Free speech does not mean free rein or open limits.

It’s a fair question, was something of value gained for that many dead northern boys. Grant was normally very scrupulous about casualties and picking objectives that contributed towards winning the War rather than just winning battles, but Cold Harbor was an inexcusable mistake.

@@JD-tn5lz You sound like a Trump supporter ngl

Tbf Bastogne drained the Germans of the last of their offensive capabilities in the Western front. Form there on out they would be on the defensive.

You do know that "fighting for freedom and liberation" came a lot later in the war cuz the Brits were getting nervous since the blockade of trade and when they pressed the Union on what is going on and how long will this Civil War go on he knew that since Britain has already long ago abolished slavery and YES US wasnt the first to do it so there goes ur freedom speech and all that propaganda. So the Union said that one of the reasons for the war is the liberation of blacks so the Brits never interupted that. If that wasnt the case there is a big chance the Brits would of joined on the side of the Confederation and the war would of ended very differently. Real history aint that pretty like the movies.

I think it's misleading to talk about the Union as if it was fighting to end slavery from the get-go. All the while you had states like Minnesota where Burnside was sent to quell unrest, given that such states preferred to trade with the confederacy than to destroy them.

He is your 5th great grandfather in law.

I'm sorry you have to live with that burden...😢

Many Journalists weren't exempt from the Civil War Draft, hell, many of their receipts show they paid someone else to serve in their spot They essentially paid someone to potentially die, so that they can continue yellow journalism(some went as far as to slander the union, in which case, saying you can morally slander your country while paying someone to die in your place may be free of repercussions, but not from scrutiny, very public scrutiny)

I think hed be happy were still a union...

@@patrickasplund - So far.

People like McClellan and Jefferson Davis running the show now

@@SantomPh - That might be a bit unfair to McClellan and Davis. obiden and austin are much more caustic and divisive.

Yeah. If he could see us now he and Lee would’ve consolidated their armies as one in hopes to fend off this dark present we live in.

God doesn't bless war criminals

Bless Sherman? Never

Cough cough* McClellans men*cough cough

Interior lines of maneuver as opposed to exterior lines of maneuver. The Army of Northern Virginia had interior lines of maneuver, defensive positions, more familiarity of terrain and roads, and the support from the local population while defending Richmond for most of the war. The opposite was true during the Gettysburg Campaign. General Lee forgot those facts, became overconfident, and lost the Battle of Gettysburg.

@@oscargrouch7962 -- Indeed. And a general skilled enough to make use of all those advantages. One can only wonder what might have happened if Grant had taken direct control of the Army of the Potomac and dared to put some of his hand-picked western generals in at corps command.

@@eddiemoran8044 -- Skilled, brave, intelligent men, for the most part, who always seemed to show on a battlefield a few hours later then their Confederate counterparts and then lose track of their flanks. Or, as one historian wrote: "None of whom owned a watch."

The Union Army of the Patomic actually had a lot of very skilled and very talented officers. The problem was they didn’t have a real “Overlord” if you will. When Grant took command, he was able to reorganize the generals so they could actually do what they did best.

I know which photo you're referring to, his right arm is propped up against a tree and he's slightly looking to the left and the point of view was basically straight on, I didn't see the series but it would have been cool if they had juxtaposed the film to a still of the actual photo,

The real butchers were the racist anti-American traitors who started a war to end the Republic in pursuit of wanting to own other humans as property.

What? Grant has THE lowest casualty rates of ANY general in all of history. He is considered damn near as good as Napoleon if you look at the stats.

@@Johnnybravo40 I didn't say Grant had high casualty rates. I just said some people called him a butcher. I wasn't agreeing with it.

Not true, Gen Grant answered the journalist. Gen Grant told him the battle kept the union together.

​@@Ralstonvideobut later on Grant would admit the final assault on Cold Harbor was a mistake. Little to no gain for the lives lost.

@@28Hazefur I was about to note that, you beat me to it

Vietnam is a valid example, but Afghanistan? I’m pretty sure we lose more service members to accidents than we did to combat casualties during that entire conflict. The problem with the Journalist’s question in this specific instance is that the losses did mean something, they meant taking another great stride towards the end of the war, but the Journalist specifically wanted Grant to speak on whether or not the victory was worth the twelve thousand men Grant lost in the campaign. Which is the equivalent, I’d say, of walking up to a doctor after they just finished a successful surgical trial that will save a lot of lives in the long run and asking them if all the patients they lost in the process of perfecting the surgery were worth it. Only a psychopath/sociopath would be able say “yes” to that question when they are the ones personally responsible for those people’s deaths regardless if it was for the greater good or not.

I agree with Americans who refuse to fight in foreign wars of Imperial ambition (such as Vietnam or Afghanistan). But questioning whether American lives were wasted in a domestic war to rid the US of Slavery's stain is a bit insulting to everyone tasked w that particular job, I would think.

To compare the civil war to Vietnam or Afghanistan is frankly not only stupid but insulting.

Try Grant miniseries on Amazon Prime Video or History Channel's website

we should all protest wars

Yes, Grant miniseries

Considering it brought with it freedom for over 4 million people, yes, it was. What’s democratic about slavery? You can’t claim to be a Christian and then say that freeing slaves isn’t worth it. Christ died for all of us. We are all equal. I suggest you do some inward looking.

@baneofbanes I thank you for your point. I did reflect further which brought me back to Exodus 20. No where in all of the 1st and 2nd table law or any Commandment of Christ does He, The Father, The Holy Spirit say: "Thou shalt not own slaves" Inherently slavery is not immortal. How you treat them is a moral point. Another was to say "Servant". But murder is and unrighteous war can be immoral. The 6th Commandment makes it very clear on taking an innocent life. The South was right to leave. War was not the answer. Fort Sumpter actually belonged to the State. There was no Federal system of forts like today. Think and read. Pax Christi

@@KeiPyn24you have forgotten the most important commandment Christ has given us. Love the Lord with all your heart,mind, and soul. And to love your neighbor as yourself. Think on that fellow brother and repent. We are all made in the image of God including those you’ve deemed not too important to free.

@billybayaraa The Union came to destroy and steal. There is no honor in Lincoln's endeavor. He definitely did not honor his neighbors.

But it was the union did not start the war the south did

I agree, that was harsh. However, there are levels of sacrifice. I think Grant was pointing this concept out to a reporter who didn't appear to understand, or respect, that fact. I think Grant was justified to do so.

​@@pierrechildress8875Though Grant himself would effectively go on to agree with the reporter, the last assault on Cold Harbor would be his biggest regret.

Actually, journalists were grouped in with "Those who directly serve the public" alongside teachers, priests and such for exemption from the draft. For him, there was no draft to be dodged. He is doing preciesly what he is expected to be doing. Grant himself would later admit that he was in the wrong here, that the last assault on Cold Harbor was a mistake and got too many killed for too little gain.

Guess In his mind a reporter/journalists has less impact on a war then most people he said it as to show any action is better then none or that the battles while gruesome were weakening the Confederates bit by bit and that war has its victims and victors wins and losses

Right, but the correct actions can minimize that. Grant himself would later acknowlegde that this battle was a mistake, that he traded too many lives for too little gain.

Islam ☪️ *

@@fahid3342 the us isn't a Islamic country

​@@obt-cinderIts an American country, Commie.

Except Grant would eventually end up agreeing with him. The battle wqs a mistake, too many lost for too little gain.

Grant miniseries on Amazon Prime Video

Grant miniseries

I fully expect journalists to ask these questions. They are questions that need to be asked. Were the lives spent in this action worth the gain? Grant himself would later admit he was wrong here and that the Battle for Cold Harbor was his greatest mistake. That the number of lives lost wasnt worth the gain. We are trusting these generals with the lives of our fathers, sons and brothers. The least they can do is justify themselves for the ones lost. That this hill or that port was worth it.

Grant miniseries

Grant miniseries

Grant miniseries

Grant miniseries

Grant miniseries

Grant miniseries on Amazon

You sound like a Russian.

Ok Commie

@@28Hazefur "Ok Commie" is a weak retort and doesn't see what I'm conveying. Also the fact that I am a Traditionalist or what some call "far right" is lost on you. Defense and perpetuation of ones people above all others is inherently a right-wing position

@@darthkillhoon Yeah sure, whatever commie-nationalist mumbo jumbo you need to get yourself to sleep at night. Im sure you and the rest of the lefties you are too afraid to recognize as lefties are the pinnacle of civilization. I know what you are and who you serve. You'll get yours Baalite.

To be fair to the reporter, this battle is the one action that grant would go on to admit he was cpmpletely wrong in doing. He even stated that the final assault at cold harbor gained little to no advantage compared to the losses sustained. Reporter was doing his job, making a general atleast answer for the decisions he made that sent men to their deaths. I say this all with the utmost respect for Grant and the Union army.