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.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.
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: