GRANT History Channel 3-part miniseries

[Nische]

Anyone else watching Grant, the History Channel's 3-part miniseries?

I watched the first episode last night and thought it was very well done. Looking forward to watching the second and third.

[Waffenreich]

Just watched it as well and also thought it was good. Makes me want to grab my metal detector and go out for a swing or two.

[Nische]

Along with military and historical commentary, I think the thing I like most about the miniseries is the animated battle movements between the CSA and Union forces. The animation brings the battle to life in an easy red/blue kind of way.

Looking forward to watching the conclusion this evening.

On a side note, that’s quite a collection you’ve posted above. Are those items yours, or was that picture taken at a museum?

[Waffenreich]

On a side note, that’s quite a collection you’ve posted above. Are those items yours, or was that picture taken at a museum?

Thanks Ray. I collect Civil War material as well. Much of this I found in fields in Northern Virginia. This is the room where I spend my days locked-up in teleworking.

I just watched the last episode. An exceptionally well done mini-series. I'd like to see some of these on other commanders from different wars.

Best regards!

Bob

[Reichsword]

Bob, beautiful office and collection.
Regards, Fletcher

[dogface44]

Thank you for the tip.
I just finished watching Ep 1.
It is excellent! Thank you.

[Nische]

I also want to echo what a beautiful office and testament to history you have. Thank you for sharing.

I do have a final thought regarding the miniseries, actually it happened while brushing my teeth just this morning.

But consider this:

As the miniseries had alluded to, Grant was somewhat unconventional with his aggressiveness and risk taking. And true, Lee also. But think about what "might" have happened to America if those aggressive and unpopular battles did not happen, or, if General McClellan had remained in control of Union forces late in the war.

Not one of those "what if" kind of historians, (not meant in a negative way), but certainly makes you wonder just how important Grant was in the reunification of the states.

[phild]

I also want to echo what a beautiful office and testament to history you have. Thank you for sharing.

I do have a final thought regarding the miniseries, actually it happened while brushing my teeth just this morning.

But consider this:

As the miniseries had alluded to, Grant was somewhat unconventional with his aggressiveness and risk taking. And true, Lee also. But think about what "might" have happened to America if those aggressive and unpopular battles did not happen, or, if General McClellan had remained in control of Union forces late in the war.

Not one of those "what if" kind of historians, (not meant in a negative way), but certainly makes you wonder just how important Grant was in the reunification of the states.

America may have been just fine if the outcome had been different. I’m not at all sure that preserving the union at all costs was that lofty of a goal. Slavery would have almost certainly have ended within a few years had the war not been fought at all or even if the south had won or a draw had been reached. There is a mound of reasons to state that. I did think that the series was well done but it was very selective in what was presented and how many key facts were down played or simply omitted but what else is new?

[celtic]

Slavery would have almost certainly have ended within a few years had the war not been fought at all or even if the south had won or a draw had been reached.

No , the South had no intention of ending slavery. their economy could not function without it. The southern planter aristocracy were making millions of dollars profit from the use of slave labor.

They went to war to maintain the institution of slavery. It was all about slavery. The Confederacy didn't stand for American values. it stood for might makes right.

[phild]

"No , the South had no intention of ending slavery. their economy could not function without it. The southern planter aristocracy were making millions of dollars profit from the use of slave labor.

They went to war to maintain the institution of slavery. It was all about slavery. The Confederacy didn't stand for American values. it stood for might makes right."


The above comment does not merit a serious response as it reflects such a degree of ignorance and arrogance that facts and understanding will never conquer.

[celtic]

The above comment does not merit a serious response as it reflects such a degree of ignorance and arrogance that facts and understanding will never conquer


.

It is ironic that you talk of facts and ignorance




Now maybe we should take a look at the facts by looking at what they the Confederates had to say about the slavery in their own words


This is what Alexander H. Stephens , vice-president of CSA had to say in his '' corner-stone '' speech on march 21 - 1861

''' The prevailing ideas entertained by him ( Jefferson ) and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially , morally, and politically...... Our new ( Confederate ) government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man ; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and moral condition. This, our new government, is the first , in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. '''





The Confederate Constitution

Article (I) section 9

'' No bill of attainder , ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed..''


The Confederate Constitution

Article (IV) section 2

'' The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any state of the confederacy ,
with their slaves and other property and the right of property in such slaves shall not be impaired . '''


The Confederate Constitution

Article (IV) section 3

'' The confederate states may acquire new territory; and congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the confederate states; ..............In all such territory the institution of negro slavery , as it now exists in the confederate states, shall be recognized and protected by congress and the territories shall have the right to take to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the confederate states. '''


The south had no intention of ending chattel slavery , Their plantation economy could not function without the use of slave labor . they wanted to expand it to conquered territories. The south had 4 million slaves in 1860. your statement (phild) that slavery was just going to disappear and go away, is flat out wrong. it has the riff of '' lost cause '' revisionism about it.


''' By the late 1850s, the South seemed stronger then ever. Its cotton exports were more valuable then all other U.S exports combined. The worth of slaves increased correspondingly, so that on the eve of the Civil War it was greater then the total dollar value of all the nations banks, railroads, and manufacturing '''

James O. Horton - Slavery and the making of America - (page 159)

[phild]

This is very true but is only part of the larger picture. It would require many years of study to really understand all of the complexities involved and even then no one of today’s world could truly understand them, but perhaps we could get close. Today most want only the sound bites, google search results or wiki page to become an authority and I’m not directing that at Celtic.
You write of “American values”. What values would those be? In New York City they killed hundreds of blacks shortly after the issue of the emancipation proclamation and hung many from lamp posts. Southerners were shocked! The pro union states would have never gone to war simply to abolish slavery, they meant little to most of them. Delaware as just one Union example did not free its slaves until the very end of 1865, fully 6 months after the last slave was freed in every confederate state. Over 3000 free blacks in the south owned nearly 14000 slaves and it was not uncommon for free men to contract themselves into slave status as a means to “make a living” more secure than living “on their own”, I have studied hundreds of such contracts form official state records.

it is unfortunate that the confederacy did not embrace a policy and plan to free all slaves from the outset because it would have been the morally right thing to do and would have also removed that future arrow from Lincoln’s quiver. It is a fact that many southern leaders called on the confederate government to free large populations slaves for the war efforts and they knew this would lead to total freedom. These men included Lee, Cleburne and many others and in fact part of this act was approved near the end of the war but too little too late.
If the confederates had not acted on their own accord, it is now clear that world Economic pressure would have forced their hand by the mid 1870s or early 1880s latest.

the one minor detail that NO ONE today seems to want to touch is this: How exactly would the slaves been freed in a way that would have supported their survival and hopefully prosper? Please don’t give me any reparations crap! Also please take a few weeks to study many of the credible studies and contemporary documents that discusses the educational and developmental level of the slaves in general. I will tell you for a fact that they died by the tens of thousands in the hands of their union liberators both willfully and through neglect. You see, there may be a “Lost Cause” saga in the South but there is also a “noble cause” myth that was sold in the north. Both are flawed but one is no more accurate than the other.

As one who was largely raised by descendants who were personally raised by former slaves I have a different insight on a lot of personal albeit anecdotal accounts. I’ll just end by saying it is far too simplistic to paint all “confederates” as evil pro slavery misguided rubes who were saved by a moral enlightened northern ethos, as it is too paint all or even most Germans of the 1933-45 era as “NAZIS”.

[celtic]

This is very true but is only part of the larger picture. It would require many years of study to really understand all of the complexities involved and even then no one of today’s world could truly understand them, but perhaps we could get close. Today most want only the sound bites, google search results or wiki page to become an authority and I’m not directing that at Celtic.
You write of “American values”. What values would those be? In New York City they killed hundreds of blacks shortly after the issue of the emancipation proclamation and hung many from lamp posts. Southerners were shocked! The pro union states would have never gone to war simply to abolish slavery, they meant little to most of them. Delaware as just one Union example did not free its slaves until the very end of 1865, fully 6 months after the last slave was freed in every confederate state. Over 3000 free blacks in the south owned nearly 14000 slaves and it was not uncommon for free men to contract themselves into slave status as a means to “make a living” more secure than living “on their own”, I have studied hundreds of such contracts form official state records.

it is unfortunate that the confederacy did not embrace a policy and plan to free all slaves from the outset because it would have been the morally right thing to do and would have also removed that future arrow from Lincoln’s quiver. It is a fact that many southern leaders called on the confederate government to free large populations slaves for the war efforts and they knew this would lead to total freedom. These men included Lee, Cleburne and many others and in fact part of this act was approved near the end of the war but too little too late.
If the confederates had not acted on their own accord, it is now clear that world Economic pressure would have forced their hand by the mid 1870s or early 1880s latest.

the one minor detail that NO ONE today seems to want to touch is this: How exactly would the slaves been freed in a way that would have supported their survival and hopefully prosper? Please don’t give me any reparations crap! Also please take a few weeks to study many of the credible studies and contemporary documents that discusses the educational and developmental level of the slaves in general. I will tell you for a fact that they died by the tens of thousands in the hands of their union liberators both willfully and through neglect. You see, there may be a “Lost Cause” saga in the South but there is also a “noble cause” myth that was sold in the north. Both are flawed but one is no more accurate than the other.

As one who was largely raised by descendants who were personally raised by former slaves I have a different insight on a lot of personal albeit anecdotal accounts. I’ll just end by saying it is far too simplistic to paint all “confederates” as evil pro slavery misguided rubes who were saved by a moral enlightened northern ethos, as it is too paint all or even most Germans of the 1933-45 era as “NAZIS”.

Seems like its American history month on WAF. interesting you mention , that southerners were deeply shocked by the violence of the New York draft riots in 1863 , did they suffer from post traumatic stress?

Yes indeed those ''American values'' of life, liberty , freedom , equality and the right to vote without your house been burnt to the ground. But those values didn't apply in the southern states



'' Slavery rested on force: the lash, chains and shackles, hounds and pistols to chase runaways, and mutilations and brandings ( reflected on runaway slave advertisement ). It was brutalizing to white men - releasing sadism and cruelty in masters and breeding in the '' common whites '' a savage hate for blacks in response to the '' white trash '' epithets they endured ''' W.J. Cash - The mind of the south . page 94


'' And in his loyalty to slavery the common white participated as fully as any other southerner. If he had no worthwhile interest at stake in slavery, if his real interest ran the other way about, he did nevertheless have that, to him, dear treasure of his superiority as a white man, which had been conferred to him by slavery; and so was determined to keep the black man in chains , saw in the offensive of the Yankee ( abolitionism ) as the great danger to himself, as the angriest planter elite ''' W.J. Cash - The mind of the south


'' In some areas, violence against blacks reached staggering proportions in the aftermath of the war. In Louisiana, reported a visitor from North Carolina in 1865, '' they govern.....by the pistol and the rifle.'' I saw white men whipping colored men just the same as they did before the war, '' testified ex-slave Henry Adams, who claimed that '' over two thousand colored people '' were murdered in 1865 in the area around Shreveport , Louisiana. In Texas, where the army and Freedmen's Bureau proved entirely unable to establish order, blacks , according to the Bureau official , ''are frequently beaten unmercifully , and shot down like wild beasts, without any provocation.........In some cases, whites wreaked horrible vengeance for offences real or imagined. In 1866, after '' some kind of dispute with some freedmen, '' a group near Pine Bluff, Arkansas, set fire to a black settlement and rounded up the inhabitants. A man who visited the scene the following morning found '' a sight that appalled me 24 Negro men women and children were hanging to trees all round the Cabbens '''

Eric Foner - Reconstruction , Americas unfinished revolution 1863-1877 page 119


I know European history has , had plenty of blood and carnage , but when I read books about American postbellum history, all that toxic racism and violence which is still alive and active in the U.S in 2020. I can understand the public mood , the people wanting these old '' Jim Crow '' Confederate statues removed from public places.

[phild]

I assume by your last comments and your location that you are European. If so, I laude your taking the time to have some interest in this period of American history as that effort is more than perhaps 95% of Americans have bothered with. I would only caution you to be circumspect in the accounts and histories that you rely on. Many “historians” have an agenda and I would say most all do these last 40-50 years. I realize this was also true by southern (and northern) historians in the years after the war as well.

I realize that nothing has been settled in 150 years and will not be in this thread so I won’t even try, but I will leave you with a few things to consider:
1. Make an effort to study the other side or sides of every conflict and from their point of view and experience. I have done this for nearly 50 years from the side of Germany and most of the other belligerents in both world wars. It is a very worthwhile exercise.
2. The reconstruction period that you touched on (1865-1877) is probably the most neglected study 12 year period in American history. Gross abuse and violence was dealt out by and to both blacks and white southerners. By all accounts the south had not recovered 50 years after the war and even 100 years later many I knew had personal feelings and connections to that period, some speaking of it like it had occurred a month earlier.
3. Lastly since the original thread was about Grants miniseries, I recall they paid only passing mention to his infamous order no 11 which was the forced expulsion of all Jews in the 3 state area of his authority. Many were forcibly expelled before Lincoln found out about the order and cancelled it. In fairness to Grant he had a basis to issue such an order (I told you that I try to see both sides) and later he much regretted issuing it. The fact is thousands of southern civilians were forcibly expelled by union orders and actions and many were never returned or even heard from again.

The victors certainly write the history, but I think that serious students of history have a responsibility to dig much deeper than the propaganda that particularly during these days make up university history courses and public education fodder.

[Nische]

What difference does it make that Celtic is from Europe? If I remember correctly, you stated earlier that, “The above comment does not merit a serious response as it reflects such a degree of ignorance and arrogance that facts and understanding will never conquer.” A bit pretentious, don’t you think?

And to patronize that Celtic hasn’t made an effort to understand the other side. I believe he has; and has quite well.

I’ll end here with few historical facts. EVERY confederate soldier committed treason and each were deemed traitors to the Union. And it was those very traitors that fought to preserve their “right” to own men, women, and children as property, and to do with those slaves as they would, up to and including rape and murder. Believe what you may, but MY history books weren’t written by the victors. And they certainly weren’t written by the united daughters of the confederacy!