NF Best biography of Ulysses S. Grant?

Non-Fiction
There is a Grant narrative that involves political influence and favoritism, indiffference and absence from the battlefield ( read the A. Wilson Greene essay in the spring issue of CW Monitor for yet more instances of this), drunkenness while in command, favoritism over competence in Grant’s choice of subordinates, and perhaps most tragic an appalling loss of lives and limbs that shocked the nation and even members of Grant’s armies.
This opinion of Grant is not as some on this site would have one believe a new or “ revisionist” view. It is as old as the War itself. Indeed it was perhaps even predominant in the decades after the War.
One doesn’t have to accept this view but intellectually honest students of Grant need to know it exists. They shouldn’t disuade people from reading about it. They surely shouldn’t insult the professional and personal integrity of those who draw attention to it.
Yes, there is an anti-Grant "narrative." It not only goes back to the post-war period, but also during the war itself, when scheming Grant rivals would whisper rumors to the press or to Washington.

Everyone here acknowledges the anti-Grant narrative existed then and exists now. But to get to the truth about Grant, you have to do more than just accept or deny the anti-Grant narrative. You have to maintain some healthy skepticism, examine the motives of the anti-Granters, and look at the historical evidence.

Both the old anti-Granters, like Boynton and Piatt and Rosecrans, and the new anti-Granters, like Varney and Rose, have had problems handling the evidence and being truthful.

Also, it's very doubtful that the anti-Grant view was "perhaps even predominant" after the war. Grant was popular enough to be elected president twice.
 
Last edited:
Grant had critics. I wonder if in the 19th century they were as humorless and dogmatic as the people who write the negative biographies about Grant in the 20th and 21st centuries?
Read McFeely's biography if you wish. But then read W.F.C. Fuller's treatment of Grant, too.
Which treatment of war is correct?
Since McFeely's time the United States has fought two Middle Eastern wars. It has been involved in several incursions, covert and overt, in Latin America and South America.
Is war really unusual, or is it typical?
Ethan Rafuse wrote that he thought McFeely was influenced by the mood of the period he was writing the Grant book, the post-Vietnam years. That may explain the dark way McFeely tried to portray Grant.
 
Although there might be a critical evaluation of General and President Grant, there is also a history of the Ku Klux Klan marching up Pennsylvania Avenue. There is a history of US soldiers massacring indigenous people. A lot of things happened in the past that we no longer accept as justified. So when McFeely subconsciously conflates killing Vietnamese nationalists with fighting to sustain the United States government, one has to make their own judgement about whether that comparison is valid.
So if one wants the history of selfish, disappointed people who found their aptitude to succeed in civilian life was less than they expected, and I am writing now of the Danas and Wilsons of the late 19th century, go for it.
However I see no indication that New York is likely to demolish Grant's tomb any time in the foreseeable future. Nor is the United States likely to repeal the 14th and 15th amendments.
 
A two-way street; 'intellectually honest' people need to remember to look both ways before crossing.
I was at one time a “Grantist.” It’s what I was taught and that was reinforced in what I read. I had really done no deep studying of the events. I had no reason to. By chance I got interested in an aspect of the War I had little knowledge of, investigated it and what I read changed my thoughts on the War. I was once on the same side of the street you’re on. I crossed to the other side - safely.
 
Last edited:
Grant had critics. I wonder if in the 19th century they were as humorless and dogmatic as the people who write the negative biographies about Grant in the 20th and 21st centuries?
Read McFeely's biography if you wish. But then read W.F.C. Fuller's treatment of Grant, too.
Which treatment of war is correct?
Since McFeely's time the United States has fought two Middle Eastern wars. It has been involved in several incursions, covert and overt, in Latin America and South America.
Is war really unusual, or is it typical?
They were worse perhaps because they were writing about things they had witnessed or lived through. Donn Piatt - soldier, diplomat, author is particularly critical. I know you don’t agree with Piatt and War Hero Boynton but I don’t think you should disuade others from reading them.
Cadwallader Washburn’s and Joseph Medill’s comments about Grant are less easily dismissed.
We’ve discussed this in the past. No need to go down that road again.
 
I was at one time a “Grantist.” It’s what I was taught and that was reinforced in what I read. I had really done no deep studying of the events. I had no reason to. By chance I got interested in an aspect of the War I had little knowledge of, investigated it and what I read changed my thoughts on the War. I was once on the same side of the street you’re on. I crossed to the other side - safely.
As a matter of course, I tend to be cautious of material that is written for the express reasons to tear down its subject matter. You seem to feel that because I have not recommended the McFeely book, it is because that I am in some state of bliss denial. The truth is simply that the aforementioned work has been analyzed by several experts and proven to be factually incorrect. I do not have time to suss out sloppy research, prejudice, and errors, nor would I foist that on a new reader. However, where you go very wrong is in assuming that I have not read Grant's critics. Rather than trusting second hand bias (we are all biased, however, a biased person interpreting a potentially biased source is a bad recipe for accuracy) I much prefer to go to the original source and interpret it, myself. Please be more cautious and knowledgeable before you characterize and label someone.
Edited.
 
You seem to feel that because I have not recommended the McFeely book, it is because that I am in some state of bliss denial. The truth is simply that the aforementioned work has been analyzed by several experts and proven to be factually incorrect.

This is a variant of a fallacy of composition (or colloquially "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"). Even if an error is found in a published work (and there always are some), the whole has not been disproven. McFeely has not been proven to be factually incorrect, as you put it. Some researchers were able to find additional information to challenge some minor ephemeral points in McFeely's biography, but the basic work stands prettymuch intact.
 
As a matter of course, I tend to be cautious of material that is written for the express reasons to tear down its subject matter. You seem to feel that because I have not recommended the McFeely book, it is because that I am in some state of bliss denial. The truth is simply that the aforementioned work has been analyzed by several experts and proven to be factually incorrect. I do not have time to suss out sloppy research, prejudice, and errors, nor would I foist that on a new reader. However, where you go very wrong is in assuming that I have not read Grant's critics. Rather than trusting second hand bias (we are all biased, however, a biased person interpreting a potentially biased source is a bad recipe for accuracy) I much prefer to go to the original source and interpret it, myself. Please be more cautious and knowledgeable before you characterize and label someone.
Edited.
I once thought that Grant was a simple, no-nonsense man with the correct idea of what it would take to win the War. I knew nothing of his actions and issues with people in the Western Theater. I knew nothing of the Cracker Line, nothing about Iuka and Corinth and nothing about Rosecrans except a vague sense of him as an unsuccessful general who was a Catholic. Needless to say I knew nothing of Elihu Washburne.
I did have a sense of Grant being president during times of corruption but frankly I had little interest in his presidential career. I knew there were rumors of his being someone who took a drink now and then but I didn’t believe it impacted his military achievements.
Basically I believed the standard Grant bio of the 20th century. My knowledge wasn’t very deep but I probably would have aced a college course on Grant.
Then everything began to change as a result of a stroll in an old cemetery in DC. I got curious, made use of the Library of Congress ;among others) and to use your metaphor “crossed the street.”
That’s all I intended to say in my recent post. I don’t think there’s anything controversial or insulting in it. Btw Id tell people not to read McFeely but Joe Rose.
But that’s just a recommendation not an assignment.
 
When terms like "Grantist" and hagiography are employed, there is an obvious attempt to degrade an opposing view.
It is comparable to continue to use the terms such as "scalawag" and "carpet bagger" and "Radical Republican".
"Grantist" really ends the discussion. :unsure:
 
This is a variant of a fallacy of composition (or colloquially "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"). Even if an error is found in a published work (and there always are some), the whole has not been disproven. McFeely has not been proven to be factually incorrect, as you put it. Some researchers were able to find additional information to challenge some minor ephemeral points in McFeely's biography, but the basic work stands prettymuch intact.

This remains a minority opinion, one not supported by recent scholarship.
 
This remains a minority opinion, one not supported by recent scholarship.

Indeed. The arguments put forward are dangerous and must be suppressed. Which is why true believers must discourage others from being exposed to them.

Of course, it's only because the arguments are strong that suppression is necessary. If McFeely was really so obviously problematic suppression would be unnecessary. ..
 
In terms of military analysis, JFC Fuller is an eye opener. Fuller wanted a book that would sell in the US, but post WW I he could see that Grant was slow to adjust tactics in 1864 but did adjust in 1865.
Simpson's book on the political education of US Grant, Let Us Have Peace, is very dense and compelling.
Chernow's treatment of Grant is cinematic. The treatment of Grant's drinking can get annoying. With respect to the drinking, he stay married, the President did not fire him, and William H. Seward, a hardy partier himself, saw nothing exceptional to report. So with respect to the drinking, those wanting to build a file against Grant to use against to protect themselves in case Grant is ruined, had an issue to work with. But the decision makers did not think that Grant's drinking was exceptional for that century. Which leads to head scratching among those who read Chernow's treatment and wonder why so much time is spent on a secondary issue.
 
One of the issues that what is categorized as hagiography compares Grant to say, Cromwell, Napoleon, Aaron Burr, Napoleon III, and Bismark, to say nothing of 20th century dictators. Those types of writers are a little more impressed that the Republicans of the nineteenth century did not jettison the whole constitutional structure.
 
***Posted as Moderator***
A reminder: this thread is intended to recommend the "best biography of Ulysses S. Grant".
Please stay on-topic and respect the opinions of your fellow members.
 
Indeed. The arguments put forward are dangerous and must be suppressed. Which is why true believers must discourage others from being exposed to them.

Of course, it's only because the arguments are strong that suppression is necessary. If McFeely was really so obviously problematic suppression would be unnecessary. ..

And others disagree. Note Simpson's article did not call for the suppression of McFeely's book. He just demonstrated McFeely's poor handling of evidence. Hard to argue that the arguments are strong when the support for them is so weak.

There's no need to entertain fantasies about suppression of anything, but it's interesting that some people think that way.

Again, to the OP's point: some people contributing to this thread recommend McFeely. Most don't. Time to move on, eh?
 
Btw Id tell people not to read McFeely but Joe Rose.

I have the self-published Joseph Rose book and it's hugely flawed. At some point, I'd like to start a thread and do an extensive review of the book to point out some of the falsehoods.

Besides the author Joe Rose, David Moore recommends Frank Varney as a Grant author. Our own Ned Baldwin wrote some very good blog posts some years back exposing the falsehoods in Varneys anti-Grant book. This was valuable to those who read Civil War history and trust the authors to be honest. It showed how some writers of history books are less concerned with historical accuracy than they are with pushing their own odd biases.

The Joseph Rose book suffers from the same type of bias. It is a long strange obsessive hit job on Grant. Rose once claimed to be a "Thomas partisan," presumably George Henry Thomas. Apparently his "partisan" bias for a long-dead historical figure fuels his anti-Grant obsession. And even Rose describes his anti-Grant book as an expose rather than a biography.

And this thread is about Grant biographies. Neither Varney, nor Rose, nor Moore, have published one.
 
Last edited:
I have the self-published Joseph Rose book and it's hugely flawed. At some point, I'd like to start a thread and do an extensive review of the book to point out some of the falsehoods.

Besides the author Joe Rose, David Moore recommends Frank Varney as a Grant author. Our own Ned Baldwin wrote some very good blog posts some years back exposing the falsehoods in Varneys anti-Grant book. This was valuable to those who read Civil War history and trust the authors to be honest. It showed how some writers of history books are less concerned with historical accuracy than they are with pushing their own odd biases.

The Joseph Rose book suffers from the same type of bias. It is a long strange obsessive hit job on Grant. Rose once claimed to be a "Thomas partisan," presumably George Henry Thomas. Apparently his "partisan" bias for a long-dead historical figure fuels his anti-Grant obsession. And even Rose describes his anti-Grant book as an expose rather than a biography.

And this thread is about Grant biographies. Neither Varney, nor Rose, nor Moore, have published one.

Frank Varney and the Mangling of History
 

Sort of the point. This is the "baby with the bathwater" fallacy. The question should be did Maury write that? If so then what the critic has found is a typo. It is and it is. To declare there is nothing of value over a typo is showing ones bias. One is seeking any reason to dismiss the work, and typos will do.

However, Varney's thesis that Grant systematically manipulated the records to paint himself in a better light is widely accepted, if not usually called into focus.
 
Back
Top