Grant A Two-part article in the National Review on Grant's presidency

Canadian

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 24, 2017
This two-part article by Dan McLaughlin summarizes Grant's presidency and depicts it as more successful than unsuccessful. The reasons for Grant's poor reputation in the 20th century are neatly outlined. Grant's efforts on behalf of African Americans are given a highly positive account, while his record on foreign relations and economics are seen as better than those of many others. He is given a more mixed review on his policies regarding other minorities, including Native Americans, although those are put in the context of the times and the policies of the Republican Party.

McLaughlin mentions H.W. Brands, Ron Chernow and Ronald C. White. Notable omissions are Brooks Simpson and Charles Calhoun.

Part 1:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/rethinking-president-ulysses-grant-stature-rising/

Part 2:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/ulysses-grant-presidency-economy-corruption-foreign-policy/
 
Last edited:
This two-part article by Dan McLaughlin summarizes Grant's presidency and depicts it as more successful than unsuccessful. The reasons for Grant's poor reputation in the 20th century are neatly outlined. Grant's efforts on behalf of African Americans are given a highly positive account, while his record on foreign relations and economics are seen as better than those of many others. He is given a more mixed review on his policies regarding other minorities, including Native Americans, although those are put in the context of the times and the policies of the Republican Party.

McLaughlin mentions H.W. Brands, Ton Chernow and Ronald C. White. Notable omissions are Brooks Simpson and Charles Calhoun.

Part 1:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/rethinking-president-ulysses-grant-stature-rising/

Part 2:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/02/rethinking-president-ulysses-grant-stature-rising/
Thanks for posting this @Canadian . Looking forward to reading :nerd:
 
Great article @Canadian and I found the second part particularly interesting in the description of Grant's Presidency. Certainly isn't hagiographical even though it points to the need for further reflection on Grant's successes as well as his failures. Nice even handed account and 'Rethinking President Grant', as an indicator of the article's intentions, is a perfect title.

Thanks again for sharing.
 
Excellent article, well written and fair in its assessment.
The only question that came to mind- a small one- was would it really have made any difference if an officer other than Custer was involved in the Campaign of June 1876? After all, Grant favored the campaign although he was loathe to see Custer get the credit for its expected success.
Perhaps the only change would have been the name of the event....
 
Custer went into the attack with bad information and with a need to escape a dressing down. A different commander wouldn't have had the need to gain a victory yesterday. A different commander would have had better intelligence. Using both meanings of the word intelligence.
 
Back
Top