Grant

I am an amateur student of history but have always found any discussion of Grant and the western campaigns to be lacking. This has filled in so many gaps for me. I do agree with too many commercials but I record and fast forward so I can rewatch and learn. As for the rest of the reviews. I find most viewers to suffer from a terrible lack of imagination. I don't care to have exact likenesses if they are close enough to invoke the period. The visuals if the battles were excellent. The comments on uniforms were interesting since by this time most soldiers were battleworn. The point to this was to educate on US Grant and it did that. Bravo!! Grant's views on slavery and the value of men were refreshing. I think I would have liked him except for the smell of cigars!!

The six hour miniseries is best taped, so one can zip past all of the commercials, and learn about Ulysses S. Grant and his role in American history and how he won the Civil War and presided over Reconstruction, an experiment in democracy that went badly wrong. It is not hard to imagine that had Lincoln not been assassinated, history might have turned out much differently with Grant playing a more winning hand than he was dealt. The series pulls no punches in dramatizing just what a horror the Civil War was and the tremendous losses on both sides. When Grant successfully participates in the Mexican American War of 1848, alongside other officers who would soon work for him and against hime, his career seems on an upward trajectory, but he get sidelined into an obscure post in Fort Humboldt California with nothing to do, and he becomes melancholy, and turns to drinking, which forces his commanding officer to force Grant to resign. He returns to civilian life and does poorly, until the Civil War breaks out and he is given a commission once again to lead a regiment as a brigadier general. From there it is mostly one successful battle at a time, until he is promoted to major general and given command of all of the western army. From there he successfully launched a successful attack in the heart of the south at Vicksburg, with some of the most brilliant strategic maneuvers in the history of armed warfare. For that he gets promoted to three star general and put in command of the entire Union Army. Aside from a couple of notable failures, one a major defeat at Cold Water Virginia, Grant eventually corner's Lee's Army of Northern Virginia while General Sherman takes Atlanta, thus forcing a surrender at Appomatic. A major triumph is followed one week later by the assassination of Lincoln and history makes a major course correction. Andrew Johnson is a southern sympathizer and thwarts every attempt by Grant to take control over southern whites who are slaughtering freed slaves. Not until Grant becomes president, can he put a stop to this and put down the KKK. Grant as president though, because of his lack of guile, is undermined by subordinates who are corrupt, and America is by now tired of the reconstruction efforts in the south. When Grant leaves office, the KKK is on the rise again and reconstruction is basically a failure which has lasting repercussions to this day. Grant's image is later tarnished by southern historians who attempt to rewrite the history of the Civil War by painting it as a states rights issue and not about slavery. Grant comes accross as a villain. This miniseries tries to put this story right and to a large extent it succeeds. Grant is one of those great leaders who is about as straightforward as they come. His only apparent weakness is in sticking with subordinates who didn't deserve his trust, and he made some political moves as president that were regretful like not stamping down the KKK once and for all. The comments from historians throughout the series were very helpful and insightful. The acting was accomplished and the war scenes were realistic. This was a very worthwhile effort to try and put the record straight about Grant.

I felt a need to review Grant because so many reviews focused on the HULU presentation, with apparently many commercials, and not actually on the series. That's like reviewing a car and complaining about the number of traffic lights on the road test. This is based on seeing Grant on the History Channel.

The series is excellent, on a par with Ken Burns' Civil War, but with about 50% reenactment plus interviews and old photos and illustrations.

The reenactment appears to be educated conjecture for the most part, with a few actual quotations and without sensationalism. The acting is solid, but the only moderate depth of character is Grant himself, as well-done as possible when limited to brief vignettes.

I'd recommend this to anyone who wants an overview of Grant's life. TV is great for giving you a few inches below the surface. For more depth, read a book.

A slightly homorous aside: among the historians interviewed, there are a number who have the appearance of Southern grandees, with closely manicured mustaches and goatees.

(Based on episode 1)

The Union won.

Released in 2020, "Grant" is a three-part miniseries based on historian Ron Chernow's 2017 book of the same name. Without commercials, this is a 4-hour film that's part dramatic reenactment featuring Justin Salinger in the lead role and part documentary with a diverse cast of erudite and interesting commentators.

Ulysses S. Grant has been descibed as "an inspired commander, an adequate president, a dull companion and a roaring drunk." I take issue with that last description. Grant might've had an issue with alcohol, but that doesn't make him a "roaring drunk." I know real-life drunkards and they waste their lives sitting around looking for their next drink, accomplishing very little. Drunks don't lead the biggest military force on Earth and win battle-after-battle, as well as the great war itself. Nor are they able to lead a country the size of the USA for eight years and have a successful marriage & family that overcome great challenges over & over.

This might be my favorite Civil War movie of all time, as good or better than the best you can cite, like "Ride with the Devil" (1999), "Glory" (1989), "Cold Mountain" (2003), "The Horse Soldiers" (1959) and "Gods and Generals" (2002). "Grant" is the best cinematic source to understand the big picture of The Civil War, especially as far as the Union's strategy to victory. For instance, what was the purpose of the Battle of Shiloh? If it was a Union victory, why did reporters lambaste Grant as an incompetent drunk and why was he demoted? After crossing the Mississippi, why did Grant go east to fight two battles and capture Jackson, Mississippi, BEFORE going to Vicksburg? What was the strategic value of the Battle of the Wilderness? Petersburg and Cold Harbor?

The reanactments are realistic with utterly savage battle scenes. This is what it was like, folks. War is hell. Thankfully, the film doesn't end with Lee's surrender at Appomattax, but goes on to address Grant's final 22 years of life as President during Reconstruction, his wide travels, tragedies and finishing his memoir 3 days before passing away.

GRADE: A

This is what the History Channel needs more of. These deep dives into small but important figures and parts of history. This is also an excellent part of history that is not overly covered.